Source
r/EndFPTP•
QuantumWalnut

Historically, how did countries transition from FPTP to more proportional voting systems?

Discussion

We know there are countries that used FPTP in the past, but later transitioned to PR (e.g. Denmark).

But historically speaking, what are the political conditions that facilitated these transitions?

In order to reform any electoral system, the incumbent politicians must agree to alter the very systems that produced them. Understandably, many would be resistant to the idea, as a new system might disadvantage them in the next election.

I'm asking because if people know how electoral reforms happened historically, we might have a better idea of how to replicate the same reforms in the future.

Posted May 19, 2023, 2:44 AM UTC

2718
jan_kasimiGermany•

Switzerland did it by popular vote. Sadly this option doesn't exist everywhere.

7
looptwice-imp•

Doubt you haven't seen it, but here's Wikipedia's history of IRV and STV: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_use_of_instant-runoff_voting

6
CPSolver•

Germany's election system was imposed on it (West Germany) at the end of world war two. A german told me that some of the people involved were from the United States and they wanted to solve the gerrymandering problem.

I read a book about what caused nations to adopt the metric system and (IIRC) in most cases the decision was either imposed by outsiders or chosen out of spite.

5
FlaminCat•

Not true. The electoral system of Germany is actually not laid out in the constitution specifically because there was fierce debate on whether the country should have PR or FPTP. In the end, PR but with thresholds was agreed on (through ordinary law so things could still be changed fairly easily). The idea was that it would still be fair system to smaller parties but without too many parties in parliament. The FPTP districts, would also add a local element, and party factions that would (theoretically) be with less yes-men.

At some point (1960s iirc), the CDU and SPD where close to adopting FPTP. Thank god it never happened.

Germany was not imposed a system of government, because the states could agree on a democratic system themselves, unlike Japan. It had to be approved by the Western occupiers but was not imposed. That's a common conspiracy spread by populists.

The historical context of Germany's constitution, then only meant as temporary until the country is re-unified, is fascinating. The German states already had their own constitutions and elected parliaments and were tasked to appoint representatives to write the constitution of the country. Many representatives were persecuted under the Nazi-regime and were imprisoned or fled. It's also one of the first (maybe first?) modern constitutions that included women as drafters.

8
jan_kasimiGermany•

In the Weimar Republic Germany had a pure proportional system. The introduction of MMP then moved it more towards FPTP.

7
QuantumWalnutOP•

Oof, that doesn't sound very encouraging. Was hoping there are examples of existing democracies voluntarily choosing to adopt new electoral system.

3
Alpha3031•

New Zealand adopted MMP in 1994 due to popular demand:

Spurred by public disillusionment in the political system, Labour campaigned in 1981 and 1984 on a promise to establish a Royal Commission into the electoral system. Following their election into government in 1984, Labour established the Royal Commission into the Electoral System, and the commission's 1986 report recommended the adoption of mixed-member proportional representation (MMP). After the government sidelining the issue for years, the Bolger National government responded to public pressure by holding an indicative referendum on the electoral system in 1992. After an overwhelming majority for change, a second, binding referendum was held in 1993 asking voters to choose between FPP and MMP.[23]

In 1994, New Zealand officially adopted MMP as its electoral system.

— Electoral system of New Zealand, Wikipedia § MMP in New Zealand

6
captain-burrito•

The lesson here is that it still took over a decade and both main parties to use it to get elected. That means even with sustained popular pressure it might not have happened if the 2 parties simply kept resisting.

3
CPSolver•

I'm an optimist about election-method reform. It's already happening in the US. It's just very slow.

The local level is where it's easiest to implement political reforms. When those places demonstrate benefits, especially increased economic prosperity, other places copy the reform.

In a sense this is how democracy spread to eastern Europe from western Europe, after starting in North America.

5
captain-burrito•

I'm an optimist about election-method reform. It's already happening in the US. It's just very slow.

The local level is where it's easiest to implement political reforms. When those places demonstrate benefits, especially increased economic prosperity, other places copy the reform.

Local level is generally the best place to start. Thing is they might need approval from higher tiers. Eg. in the UK, local elections need regional or national govt to mandate or permit the change. Scotland's parliament switched all local elections to STV in 2007. The Welsh parliament recently allowed local councils to adopt STV. English local councils are still FPTP and any change will have to come from the national parliament.

In the US, some states like FL and TN have totally banned RCV. ND tried to ban it and approval but the governor vetoed it and the vote to overcome his veto was defeated. They could easily try again with a new governor to roll it back.

During the progressive era, Canadian localities and US cities adopted STV but almost all got rolled back after some time.

In CA, the current and previous governor veto the bill to permit non charter cities from adopting RCV.

In NV the voters are using a ballot initiative to switch to RCV. Both party's lawmakers oppose it (even if it slightly helps republicans due to spoiler parties). It passed once and has to pass again in 2024 to become law. I think at least 20 states permit this. In the rest they are at the mercy of lawmakers.

We're not at a stage in US politics where benefits and even economic ones may not sway lawmakers to adopt reforms. They are comfortable breaking norms and conventions. Rigging stuff to entrench their power is the norm.

So while I think there is still room for more localities to adopt reform, I can also forsee more efforts to pre-empt and roll them back.

4
Uebeltank•

Denmark moved from FPTP to MMP essentially because the one party that massively benefitted from FPTP was in the minority and the governing coalition did not benefit from it. 5 years later in 1920 open-list PR was adopted essentially as a compromise to make the system more proportional.

5
QuantumWalnutOP•

So it's kind of a historical accident?

1
Uebeltank•

I wouldn't exactly call it an accident. The majority of politicians genuinely thought that proportional representation was a better electoral system that should be used.

4
captain-burrito•

In some countries it seemed to be due to self interest by a party that saw future demographic changes screwing them over so they decided to bite the bullet and at least secure themselves a fair level of representation going forward.

That's what the British Labour party need to grapple with. There's signs that they can't gamble on winning a working majority now and again under FPTP but it's a difficult pill for them to swallow. The party wants to rule alone rather than have more chances to rule in coalition. The party may split depending on the PR system. A chunk of the base want PR but leadership is fobbing them off and trying to redirect the energy to reform of the upper chamber.

The last Labour government gave us PR for the devolved assemblies, for former european parliament elections, RCV for the upper chamber when they chose the peers amongst them who would sit in the chamber, SV for mayoral elections (since reversed to FPTP by current conservative govt).

Scottish Parliament then switched local elections to STV in 2007. Welsh Parliament recenty allowed local councils to adopt STV (I'm guessing that just resetting the battle to proceed at the local level and single party councils will resist switching).

In the past, the UK did in fact get close to switching electoral system for the general election. At that time the upper chamber still had power. It was a great reform bill to also give everyone (men at least) one vote. Lower chamber wanted RCV, upper chamber wanted STV. They couldn't agree so they compromised with FPTP as they wanted to make sure at least some reform got thru. Over a century later we still haven't switched.

They did have STV for some university based constituencies which lasted around 8 cycles before they were abolished. New Labour in the 90s pledged to review the electoral system but the party couldn't agree on switching to PR. They thought they were invincible with their large majorities, only to lose in 2010.

I think it will generally take a section of the electorate who can sustain pressure plus amenable political parties to make it happen. Western Australia had multi member districts but no ranked voting. They are changing that to adopt RCV even though one party will lose power. That kind of high mindedness is rare now.

4
Isocratia•

Belgium was the first country that adopted PR, though Switzerland had it in some cantons before them. Before PR, Belgium had an awful system that I can only describe as "provincial winner-take-all party lists based on the two-round system." Modern voting theorists will immediately recognize that this system is extremely unstable. This is what I know about the lead-up to Belgium adopting PR:

- The Catholic Party had a massive supermajority in the parliament

- There were two other parties, the Liberals and the Socialists. The Socialists had more seats than the Liberals even though the Liberals had more votes nationwide.

- The Liberals were more enthusiastic about PR than the Socialists. The Socialists at the time were ambivalent about PR and were more focused on one-man-one-vote, because Belgium had a system where some people got extra votes if they met property qualifications.

- The Catholics initially proposed a semi-proportional system where PR would only be used in the large provinces, and the smaller rural provinces (4 seats or less) would use the old system. This outraged both the Liberals and the Socialists, who held mass protests. The Catholic Party didn't want to shed blood over this, so they adopted full PR (the D'Hondt method.)

- Some Catholics supported single-winner districts but most people saw it as so unfair that it didn't catch on.

3
QuantumWalnutOP•

Damn, what a cluster fuck.

It does give me optimism though, that Europeans also took a very long, and very jagged, path to PR. It's possible.

3
SexyDoorDasherDude•

A bit of history how FPTP originated, as far as I know, in the House of Commons some 800 years ago.

It was seen as a way the monarchy was 'giving up' their power - so long as they continued to keep it, which was very easy for them to do using first-past-the post. They simply had to tell/force their subjects to vote for them.

When the house of commons was formed, it gradually accumulated power while the monarchy slowly lost power. Eventually the Commons became the taxing authority and the monarchs had to go to the commons for money.

There were some attempts, some successful, to thwart the commons. It probably explains why there was no bloody revolt against the Kings in the UK.

Point being the House of Commons still uses first-past-the-post, we know as an extraordinarily flawed system that has benefited the conservatives and the royal family for a long time.

So any place that uses FPTP, like the founding of the USA, is using a system the monarchy thought up to save their own skin because they knew how easy it was to rig.

Fast forward to the Electoral College, which is basically an extremely anti-democratic form of FPTP that concentrates power in the hands of fewer people.

2
AutoModeratorMOD•

Compare alternatives to FPTP on Wikipedia, and check out ElectoWiki to better understand the idea of election methods. See the EndFPTP sidebar for other useful resources. Consider finding a good place for your contribution in the EndFPTP subreddit wiki.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1
Decronym•

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |FPTP|First Past the Post, a form of plurality voting| |IRV|Instant Runoff Voting| |MMP|Mixed Member Proportional| |PR|Proportional Representation| |RCV|Ranked Choice Voting; may be IRV, STV or any other ranked voting method| |STV|Single Transferable Vote|

NOTE: Decronym's continued operation may be affected by API pricing changes coming to Reddit in July 2023; comments will be blank June 12th-14th, in solidarity with the r/Save3rdPartyApps protest campaign.

^(6 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 7 acronyms.)
^([Thread #1180 for this sub, first seen 19th May 2023, 04:20]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])

1
SexyDoorDasherDude•

A bit of history how FPTP originated, as far as I know, in the House of Commons some 800 years ago.

It was seen as a way the monarchy was 'giving up' their power - so long as they continued to keep it, which was very easy for them to do using first-past-the post. They simply had to tell/force their subjects to vote for them.

When the house of commons was formed, it gradually accumulated power while the monarchy slowly lost power. Eventually the Commons became the taxing authority and the monarchs had to go to the commons for money.

There were some attempts, some successful, to thwart the commons. It probably explains why there was no bloody revolt against the Kings in the UK, because some subjects were allowed to 'vote'

Point being the House of Commons still uses first-past-the-post, we know as an extraordinarily flawed system that has benefited the conservatives and the royal family for a long time.

So any place that uses FPTP, like the founding of the USA, is using a system the monarchy thought up to save their own skin because they knew how easy it was to rig.

Fast forward to the Electoral College, which is basically an extremely anti-democratic form of FPTP that concentrates power in the hands of fewer people.

The 'minority rights' people aren't interested in anything but tyranny, protecting the rich and the status quo and now our society is finally waking up to the fact these systems are killing us and the planet.

Thats why leadership on voting reform and democracy is so critical to our collective future.

1