The Democratic Piece

Australia is having federal elections in three days. STV for the Senate and IRV (AV) for the House of Representatives.

Here is an interactive demo of the ballot paper. Unlike the earlier two, it doesn’t demonstrate seat allocation. To see one way that’s done, look at the BC-STV demo.

The Nepalese Electoral Commission has an elegant PowerPoint demonstration of seat allocation under list PR with Sainte-laguë.

After that, you can check out this calculator with the Webster method of US House apportionment. It gives the same results with slightly different arithmetic.

Having pulled together a budget in Italy’s Senate, Romano Prodi again hints at changes to the country’s electoral law. Specifics are hard to find, but what’s out there indicates a move toward majoritarianism. Javno.com highlights increasing ‘governability’ and “reducing the number of parliamentarians.” AFP notes “electoral reforms aiming to alleviate the endemic fragmentation of Italian politics.” Similar signals from Australia’s The Age and La Repubblica.

The Democratic Party’s Veltroni wants to keep PR but eliminate the plurality bonus implemented by Berlusconi’s government last year. Under the current law, the pre-election coalition with most votes is automatically topped up to 55% of seats in the Chamber.

Reflecting on the possibility of another referendum, one senator claims most voters just want a “healthy democracy of alternation” with two parties and elections regularly held every five years. If only life were so simple.

Italy changes its electoral law the way one changes socks. These institutions are as much the object of politics as its framework. A fun case to follow, even if the electoral engineers aren’t likely to be vindicated.

Sorry we’ve been so quiet. The end of semester looms, and it’s been a week for catching up, especially after last weekend’s Claim Democracy conference. I attended some sessions, reconnected with old colleagues, met a reader and had dinner with one of Election Day’s IRV victors.

Russia meanwhile has refused visas to OSCE election monitors. Not that being able to announce fraud would matter much. The electoral system - from party registration to seat allocation - is basically rigged.

Denmark last week held an election combining list PR with SMD-style nominations.

Slightly dated but no less important, a report out of York University asks why Ontarians rejected MMP last month. The so-called “bads” (evil list tier, bigger legislature) outweighed the goods (especially the citizens’ assembly process). A model predicts MMP would have won with 63% (well above the mandated threshold) had information been more full.

The whole skinny is here. It’ll be Thursday, November 29 from 4 to 6:30 p.m. in the Mortara Center (corner 36th and N Sts. NW).

Come learn about Georgetown’s menu of MA programs including (but not limited to) Democracy and Governance Studies.

Today, Musharraf reached a new level of expertise in repression as he barricaded Benazir Bhutto in her house in Islamabad, thwarting scheduled protests with the aid of armored vehicles, dump trucks, barbed wire, tear gas, and thousands of policemen.   The sequencing of events, reports suggest, may point to a cooptation of the opposition by Musharraf; for example, though unable to organize the larger rally as planned, Bhutto was allowed to make an opposition speech later this afternoon, perhaps indicating that she was cooperating with Musharraf and his henchmen.  She was released late in the evening after being detained for hours.

Whether or not Bhutto is cooperating with Musharraf, it appears that he is clearly in complete control of the opposition.  In fact, all of these events are unfolding according not only to Musharraf’s plan but also according to the political science literature as well.  As multiple scholars have asserted, perhaps Daniel Brumberg in his work on “liberalized autocracy” most notably, Musharraf is employing a tactic which works in his favor:  giving the opposition some space to mobilize, thereby reducing its sense of urgency, muddying its objectives, stabilizing the situation, and keeping the power in his hands.  A fragmented opposition elite and a sense of helplessness and fear of repression on the part of ordinary Pakistanis are creating a situation in which most Pakistanis believe that the best choice for the future of democracy in the country–protest–is the worst choice individually and for their own families.  It will take a few brave (or foolhardy) individuals to raise the level of contention and bring the situation to a tipping point or critical mass at which repression for Musharraf becomes too costly.  Such a solution is not a policy prescription, it’s a test of human will and bravery.

It appears that President Musharraf is playing his cards exactly right in order for him to maintain his grip on power while still complying with demands (of varying intensity and credibility) from the US and other Western donor states, and the opposition movement.  In the last two days, Musharraf has announced that elections will be held in February, that restrictions on foreign media imposed on Saturday will be lifted, and that he will resign as army chief of staff very soon.  All of these promises have been made, however, without reference to specific dates.  The BBC has a good summary of events in the last few days here.

Musharraf’s promises have had two major effects:

1. They have drawn the wind from the sails of some opposition figures who claim that Musharraf is only interested in maintaining his own power at the expense of Pakistani democracy.  While they might be right (and I’m inclined to think that they are), it has suddenly become harder to rally their supporters in blatant defiance of the ban on demonstrations in place since saturday.
2. They have eased the pressure on the US and its allies to make good on their rhetorical support for democracy with genuine action.  Now that Musharraf has made vague moves toward fulfilling the conditions set out by President Bush and Secretary Rice this week for continued US support (don’t delay elections, lift emergency restrictions, and take off the uniform), there is less immediacy on the Bush administration (from Congress, the media, Europe, etc.) to withdraw aid or rhetorical solidarity from Musharraf.

While the president is walking his fine line, however, trouble is brewing in Rawalpindi.  The town, located about 30 miles from Islamabad, is scheduled to be the location of a major opposition rally (in defiance of the emergency order) tomorrow, led by former Prime Minister Bhutto.  The rally had been scheduled prior to Musharraf’s declaration of emergency rule, and was supposed to be a ‘historic welcome‘ for Bhutto as she returned from exile.  It may still be historic, but it will be far from welcoming.  Additionally, Bhutto has threatened to call out her supporters in a long march from Lahore to Ismalabad to protest the extra-constitutional rule of Musharraf. 

For now, we’ll have to wait and see what happens in Pakistan tomorrow.

Think again:

“… a considerable amount of the money the U.S. gives to Pakistan is administered not through U.S. agencies or joint U.S.-Pakistani programs. Instead, the U.S. gives Musharraf’s government about $200 million annually and his military $100 million monthly in the form of direct cash transfers. Once that money leaves the U.S. Treasury, Musharraf can do with it whatever he wants.”

Every day our tax dollars go directly to dictators to prop up their regimes. President George W. Bush speaks about freedom in bold terms, but acts with deafening silence when one of his “war on terror” buddies crack some heads. Tell me why the lawyers, journalists, judges, and civil society activists are the first to be rounded up when a state of emergency is declared because of the threat from Islamic extremists.

What a joke the president has become.

Georgian President Saakashvili, after facing days of protests, declares a state of emergency.

The country’s principal opposition news outlet, Imedi TV, went off the air at night amid reports that a special forces unit had entered the station’s offices. The phones of the television station did not answer calls, and government officials could not be immediately reached to answer questions about the station’s evident shutdown.

No word yet if Saakashvili instituted the state of emergency in order to prevent the country from coming under control of Islamic extremists located in the Northwest Province of Pakistan.

While some jurisdictions had off-year elections yesterday, four others voted on instant runoff voting (aka IRV, alternative vote, single transferable vote applied to a single-winner election). Three others used IRV for public elections, and one other used STV (aka choice voting), crème de la crème of candidate-based, multi-winner methods.

On implementation/retention

In Pierce County, WA, IRV survived a veritable repeal attempt 66% to 34% just one year after its passage. Charter Amendment 4 would have restored the closed primary and delayed implementation until 2010.

Sarasota, FL voters passed IRV 78% to 12%. Implementation is pending compatible equipment at the county level.

In Aspen, CO, 77% approved IRV for mayor and a “multi-seat” variant for two at-large council seats. This was an advisory referendum.

In Clallam County, WA, IRV failed 55% to 45%.

Overall good news for the reform movement, which passed IRV and/or STV in four jurisdictions last November.

In public elections

Hendersonville, NC used “multi-seat” IRV for the first time.

Takoma Park, MD used IRV city-wide for the first time. Some voters had a first exposure last January in a special vacancy election. Takoma Park passed IRV in November 2005.

Once again, San Francisco voters ranked up to three choices on optically scanned IRV ballots. It passed there in 2002.

Finally, Cambridge, MA used STV to elect nine city council members and six school committee members. The quota: Droop. The surplus transfer: Cincinnati method. The count: electronic. (Yes, electronic. And surplus transfer might be fractional if not for politics over voting equipment and the city’s grandfathering post-statewide repeal.)

Cambridge has used STV since 1941. It’s the lone survivor of 24 (some say 22 or 23) Progressive Era municipal implementations, the rest of which faced racially and politically charged repeals through the 1950s. (However the NYC school board lasted until 2002). Cambridge itself survived several repeal attempts.