A few comments about this article which appeared yesterday.
1. We have an excellent electoral system called the FPTP while the Sachs Commission's alphabet soup of electoral options are all PR-based. Which makes that part of the report quite narrow. It's not the fault of the Commission. They were given terms of reference that were not broad enough. Which is a pity. Never mind there are tweaks that can be made to our FPTP setup without changing its essence. I have proposed such a disinterested tweak in July 2014 and have kept improving it in a series of papers. These and the backgrounders are available here. I must confess that initially I didn't understand why the Labour Party of Seewoosagur (who turned 118 yesterday), Kher and Renga were dead against PR. I understand now. It's hard not to have even more respect for them and others who fought against PR when you go deep into the FPTP system and find out how extraordinary it is.
2. The simulations in the article are not realistic because they don't take into account that in three of the four elections with the most lopsided results – which is why we want to improve the FPTP system in the first place – the alliance collapsed before 21 months. These might have an effect on the stability of government in a PR system which is way too dramatic. Furthermore nothing says that the percentage of votes received in an FPTP setup would be the same that would prevail in an PR environment. There are several cases where PR has prevented the formation of government for several months. We don't want that to happen here.
3. We've seen what has happened when a toxic bean-counter messed up our progressive and sustainable taxation system – another gem of our society. This has caused our democracy to move closer to a plutocracy. And to sink Mauritius. Upsetting our FPTP system with a PR setup would transform Mauritius into an autocracy. History is replete with examples of how autocracies end. So this is your contribution to nation-building? Using a bazooka to treat a very mild headache? Wouldn't a vehicle quota system be a more appropriate contribution?
4. Here's what The Economist had to say about the PR experience in South Africa on October 20th 2012:
'That lack of accountability is partly down to the country’s system of party lists at general and provincial elections; individual MPs are not answerable directly to voters, but solely to the party managers who determine their ranking on the list. Only at the lowest level—the municipalities—is there a system of constituencies (or “wards”) and then only for half the seats. This means politicians have little incentive to provide for their voters.'
5. Do we need a PR system for lists of candidates of political parties to reflect the diversity of our country? What have the lists of many of the major parties looked like in the last 11 general elections? Did they look like they were created using criteria furnished by the Klu Klux Klan?
6. 'Al lor terin' and accountability are not exactly the same things. See Nando Bodha in a recent interview said that he had met 100 people in his constituency in a day. He also said that it's fine for a leader to pick MPs given that the latter already picks candidates and Ministers. Do you think he will blurt less rubbish if voters are deprived of the option of keeping him out of Parliament next year?
7. I agree that ridings should have about the same number of voters. But it's not as big a priority as recall elections and the ability for voters to reverse policy decisions as is the case in Switzerland.
1. We have an excellent electoral system called the FPTP while the Sachs Commission's alphabet soup of electoral options are all PR-based. Which makes that part of the report quite narrow. It's not the fault of the Commission. They were given terms of reference that were not broad enough. Which is a pity. Never mind there are tweaks that can be made to our FPTP setup without changing its essence. I have proposed such a disinterested tweak in July 2014 and have kept improving it in a series of papers. These and the backgrounders are available here. I must confess that initially I didn't understand why the Labour Party of Seewoosagur (who turned 118 yesterday), Kher and Renga were dead against PR. I understand now. It's hard not to have even more respect for them and others who fought against PR when you go deep into the FPTP system and find out how extraordinary it is.
2. The simulations in the article are not realistic because they don't take into account that in three of the four elections with the most lopsided results – which is why we want to improve the FPTP system in the first place – the alliance collapsed before 21 months. These might have an effect on the stability of government in a PR system which is way too dramatic. Furthermore nothing says that the percentage of votes received in an FPTP setup would be the same that would prevail in an PR environment. There are several cases where PR has prevented the formation of government for several months. We don't want that to happen here.
3. We've seen what has happened when a toxic bean-counter messed up our progressive and sustainable taxation system – another gem of our society. This has caused our democracy to move closer to a plutocracy. And to sink Mauritius. Upsetting our FPTP system with a PR setup would transform Mauritius into an autocracy. History is replete with examples of how autocracies end. So this is your contribution to nation-building? Using a bazooka to treat a very mild headache? Wouldn't a vehicle quota system be a more appropriate contribution?
4. Here's what The Economist had to say about the PR experience in South Africa on October 20th 2012:
'That lack of accountability is partly down to the country’s system of party lists at general and provincial elections; individual MPs are not answerable directly to voters, but solely to the party managers who determine their ranking on the list. Only at the lowest level—the municipalities—is there a system of constituencies (or “wards”) and then only for half the seats. This means politicians have little incentive to provide for their voters.'
5. Do we need a PR system for lists of candidates of political parties to reflect the diversity of our country? What have the lists of many of the major parties looked like in the last 11 general elections? Did they look like they were created using criteria furnished by the Klu Klux Klan?
6. 'Al lor terin' and accountability are not exactly the same things. See Nando Bodha in a recent interview said that he had met 100 people in his constituency in a day. He also said that it's fine for a leader to pick MPs given that the latter already picks candidates and Ministers. Do you think he will blurt less rubbish if voters are deprived of the option of keeping him out of Parliament next year?
7. I agree that ridings should have about the same number of voters. But it's not as big a priority as recall elections and the ability for voters to reverse policy decisions as is the case in Switzerland.
1 comment:
You might want to have a look at this exchange which highlights how PR-based solutions rest on weak foundations.
Post a Comment