tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3136317901768500285.post6389901785254676065..comments2023-10-23T11:40:32.553-04:00Comments on The Skinny: The 3% ThresholdUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3136317901768500285.post-34040962734446353332007-09-01T10:00:00.000-04:002007-09-01T10:00:00.000-04:00I know we both support the current push for electo...I know we both support the current push for electoral reform in Ontario, but there are a couple of things about this particular post that I think are worth considering in a comparative context.<BR/><BR/>Namely, that the 3% threshold and pure proportionality are the two primary reasons why I believe we should be extremely sceptical of MMP.<BR/><BR/>First of all, if we take your axiom that we ought to hear from our opponents -- which I profoundly agree with -- then that should apply irrespective of whether they earn 2.9% of the vote or 3.1% of the vote. Either people like me who support 'fringe' parties don't have anything to contribute to public discourse as Robert White contends, or we do have something to contribute to public discourse as you and I contend. But placing any threshold speaks directly against the axiom of hearing opponents' voices, which both you and I support.<BR/><BR/>The 3% number is completely and totally arbitrary and inelegant. Who's to say it shouldn't be 2% or 5% or 1.5% as in Israel? The only thing that is certain is that MMP completely collapses without a threshold -- and, on the flip side, the existence of a threshold explicitly holds that some people's voices and votes aren't worth listening to.<BR/><BR/>STV does away with these arbitrary mechanisms by accounting for second vote choices and by completely eliminating arbitrary thresholds.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, there is a downside to PURE proportionality. Assume there are three parties: Party A is a social democratic party like the NDP who get 49% of the vote. Party B is a neo-liberal, capitalist party that gets 48% of the vote. Party C is a neo-fascist party that gets 3% of the vote exactly.<BR/><BR/>Under MMP, Party C gets to call the shots because it takes two parties to form a majority in that legislature irrespective of their size.<BR/><BR/>STV solves this problem by still generating results that follow along a more diluted form of a so-called 'cube law' (ie. one with a power closer to 1 than to 3) and thus by being proportional, but not purely proportional.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com