Disingenuous, I think. “Who does it benefit” is a net calculation question. You can argue it’s the wrong question, but this post seems to deliberately misunderstand it instead, which just isn’t helpful to your argument.

If you’re going to argue that a party would be benefited in those regions where they would have had a seat under MMP but did not, then conversely those parties (not voters, not platforms, but parties, whose advantage/benefit may be measured in raw power) who received seats which they would not have had under MMP, would be disadvantaged by MMP in those regions to the same tune. Which you don’t mention.

Technically your thesis does mention that it’s voters of all parties who are being benefited under MMP – but this is at odds with your title.

And many people are indeed asking, which parties would benefit – net gain in power – and which lose out, under MMP. It’s a short-term self-interested question which is given more relevance than it deserves by any means – but that’s the question that’s being asked, and this post skips past it in a rhetorical evasion.

C’mon, Greg. You can do better.

The post clearly states where each party would benefit — the Liberals in 7 regions where they were shut out/badly under-represented, the PCs in 17 regions, and the NDP in 20 regions. Surely you can deduce that, at least in 2003, the Greens would have benefited most overall (all 24 regions), then the NDP (20), followed by the PCs (17), then the Liberals (7).

I’ve already looked at the big picture, HERE. Historically, the Conservatives would lose their inherent seat advantage, so this surely benefits the Liberals. And the NDP still benefits (except in 1990). This post addresses the intra-party dynamic. Even if the Liberals lose a few seats in Toronto, they will gain some in other regions of the province. Do they lose net seats? In 2003, yes. But as the other post shows, not historically.

And yet even in your reply, you give a non-zero-sum answer to the “Who benefits” question, which is implicitly zero-sum as posed.

Yes, your big picture was a much clearer look at the issue. And a better answer to the question you claim to be addressing, than this post. This doesn’t exempt this post from the need to actually speak to the question, which it’s still pretty clearly not doing.

Maybe the problem is that the question you’re articulating is not actually the one you’re then answering. “How badly disenfranchised is each party?” might be legitimate – but even then, I would personally expect to see a discussion of where each one is overenfranchised, which is exactly what’s absent in this post.

Eric – let me repeat for you. MMP benefits voters in regions where their parties were shut out. So who benefits? In 2003, the following would have benefited under MMP:

- Liberal voters in Ottawa Valley, West-Central, Upper Grand, Kitchener-Waterloo, Halton Region, Durham Region, and Toronto-East York.
- Conservative voters in the 17 regions listed.
- NDP voters everywhere except the 4 regions listed.
- Green voters everywhere.

So who benefits most overall? In order:
1. Greens (all 24 regions) *in 2003 they didn’t meet 3% minimum threshold
2. NDP (20 of 24 regions)
3. PCs (17 of 24 regions)
4. Liberals (7 of 24 regions)

The point is, that even when a party loses overall seats (such as the Liberals), it would gain seats in places where it was shut out. So it’s not as simple as saying “the Liberals lose the most”. MMP makes parties more regionally balanced because it makes all votes count equally, regardless of where you live.

So, if you want a comparison of the overall seat totals, here they are (this of course doesn’t account for changes in voter behaviour — as you can see everyone but the Liberals wins in 2003, but I could do the same thing from 1995 and 1999 and the reverse would be true for the Conservatives):

Liberal – 46.5% – FPTP (107 total): 71 seats, MMP (129 total): 63 seats
PC – 34.6% – FPTP: 29 seats, MMP: 46 seats
NDP – 14.7% – FPTP: 7 seats, MMP: 20 seats
Green – 2.8% – FPTP: 0 seats, MMP: 0 seats (did not meet 3% min threshold)
Others – 1.4% – FPTP: 0 seats, MMP: 0 seats

I think I’m still not communicating, Greg. You pose a question, “Who benefits?”, which is implicitly a zero-sum question – the “net” is implicit anytime someone is motivated to present this question. As is the implication that it is being asked about parties, not about voters.

Then you answer a completely different question, “What is the count of regions where the voters of various parties benefit, without regard to which regions where they are disadvantaged?”

My point is that you’re answering a straw man of your own construction. That’s not the question which constitutes the title of the piece. It’s an interesting post – it just flies in the face of its own title and thesis.

One way to reconcile it would be to present the converse of what you present – what is the count of regions wherein a party, previously overenfranchised, becomes disadvantaged under MMP? If you’re going to tally regions where they gain, tally also the regions where they lose. To talk about total gains and losses still doesn’t address this lack, because as you point out they’re different arguments, each with substance.

Or you could amend your thesis. Change the title of the post, and its first paragraph, so that the post doesn’t pretend to be answering the question “Who benefits?” as it is typically being posed – implicitly, “which party” and “net”. Answer instead the question you’re really answering, or present it as a statement – “MMP benefits numerous members of every party, depending on where they live.”

Then if you wished you could extend it to a comparison with those members of various parties who would no longer be overenfranchised, and point out that the loss of overenfranchisement, although balanced with the loss of disenfranchisement, is a loss of something not very morally valuable, in return for a very valuable gain. Thus instead of pretending there is no converse to your argument, which is what the post and your last two responses do, you would instead be addressing the converse and pointing out the moral weights of the two sides (remedying overenfranchisement = small loss, remedying disenfranchisement = large gain).

I support your cause, dude! Thus when you argue a straw man, I flinch. I’m trying to suggest ways you could make the argument you make here, without leaving people wondering what it is you’re trying to hide under all that straw.

Eric – here’s your mistake; you say: ““Who benefits?”, which is implicitly a zero-sum question.” It is not a zero-sum question – that’s your own bias. If I asked “who wins and who loses?” then I would highlight both (although it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that where the Liberals are under-represented is where the Conservatives are over-represented and vice versa — it seems that you want that spelled out for you). If you want to see the overall differences, I’ve already done that, and I’ve given you that link.

This post is literally about which voters would benefit under MMP; that’s it. And quite literally voters of the given parties in the regions outlined above would benefit. And that’s because while their votes didn’t count under FPTP (since they live in areas where their party candidate didn’t get more votes than the next guy/gal), their votes would could under MMP. I think I’ve made my point quite clearly. You just want an answer to a different question (that you think is implicit to the simple question of who benefits).

The answer to “which party wins under MPP” is simple. Whichever parties that are in opposition. FPTP benifit’s governments, while MPP benifits the parties in second or worse position.