Principles electoral reformers can agree on
Opening post, place-holder. (Don't you hate the way the opening post can't be edited?)
Comments
You may want to look at a map for comparison Brian, that would be a good start.
I would like to see 100% line pro rep. What percentage a party gets on election night translates into seats. It is the only fair way.
Local representation? So what? I have lived in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Kamloops, Burnaby, Surrey etc and never ever had an mp give a dam about anyone except when it comes time to get your vote.
Should be easy to turf them then, a comfortable politician is an inneffective one. MMP has an element that other systems don't, list members often push hard to gain local seats creating real competition, any system that can make a politician look over their shoulder now and then is a good thing to me.
Can MMP work in a municipal election? Party names seem to change a lot.
You need pretty good rules on it before the election gets called.
What if a list member stops voting with his or her party?
Is it simply a matter of removing the whip and thus removing the member? And how is it decided to remove the whip?
(I am fine with it as long as the rules are known before the system is in place). It will be more rules than people realize so they should start making them now.
Maybe different mmp systems for different cities to see which work and which do not?
Parties at the municipal level is a hot button issue. MMP is a non starter for that reason.
I'd go STV.
Unfortunately Instant Runoff would address some of the problems municipally. Which means it is more likely to leak up to higher levels of government.
All voting systems have strengths and weaknesses. We could sit around and debate the relative merits of different forms of PR for the next 75 years.
Thanks to established interests and their useful idiots, we may find ourselves doing just that.
If you have closed lists, yes. Suppose a regional open list MMP system, with at least one-third regional MPs, the rest local MPs, and you have two votes: one for your local MP, one for the regional candidate you like best. Do you have concerns about the legitimacy and accountability of the regional MPs? If so, what?
In Canada STV is the only answer for almost all municipal elections, and I think four-seater wards would be fine, or for smaller cities, the entire council by STV with no wards. The London Assembly uses MMP, and it works fine, but they are elected on national party labels. The City of Montreal is the only Canadian municipality I know of that has a real party system with an executive committee from the governing party or coalition, and with their ward system, MMP might be a good answer for them. Few French-Canadians have ever heard of STV.
Thanks to established interests and their useful idiots, we may find ourselves doing just that.
While we are waiting for FPTP to screw up our federal House once again, which is practically a sure bet, we should take advantage of the time and get ready. When the Ontario Citizens' Assembly began sitting, reformers had a good consensus on "some" MMP model, and no useful consensus on the model, or even two or three well-thought-out models.
Thank you, Wilf. BUT, if you think of a mmp system that might suit, beleive it or not, I would be interested.
I think it a weakness of Canadian politics that the party structure and basic beliefs are not maintained at all levels.
It is too confusing, especially at municipal level for the voting public.
And if a mmp system could make the partys more solidly real and identifiable at all levels, then it would be worth it.
Force the conservatives to call themselves conservatives at all levels.No more bc libs. They are conservatives.
And keep the ndp left at all levels too. And that way the federal liberals will eventually be pinned down as something.
I know it is kinda lateral thinking but it might be right.
While we are waiting for FPTP to screw up our federal House once again, which is practically a sure bet, we should take advantage of the time and get ready. When the Ontario Citizens' Assembly began sitting, reformers had a good consensus on "some" MMP model, and no useful consensus on the model, or even two or three well-thought-out models.
I think a variation of the Baden-Wurttemberg model of MMP would be the most saleable. I don't think Canadians would allow some constituencies to have more MP's then others. So a Canadian version of Baden-Wurttemberg MMP would have to allot the same amount of seats to each constituency. A simple two-seat per constituency model would do the trick.
I just tried to run that on the 14 seats of Eastern Ontario.
The Greens get one of the "second MPs," the NDP two, the Liberals two after winning two of the seven double-size local seats, and the Conservatives two after winning five of the seven local seats. The Conservatives' losing candidates in the two seats they lost, Ottawa South-Centre and Ottawa Vanier-Orleans, must be their two "second MPs." Assuming you then start with the "near-winner" with largest number of votes as Baden-Wurttemberg does, the Liberal two are elected first: Ottawa West-Nepean-Carleton, and Kingston-Leeds-Grenville. The NDP's best four "near-winners" are excluded (including the NDP's best candidate, Paul Dewar in Ottawa South-Centre), and they end up with "second MPs" from Prince Edward-Hastings-Frontenac-Lanark-Lennox and Addington and from Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. The Greens are stuck with the one remaining seat available, which happens to be Carleton-Mississippi Mills-Renfrew, their fourth-best "near-winner."
A lot of voters are unhappy with this result. So are the NDP.
And what does your model do in Alberta, where the Conservatives deserve more than half the seats?
I just tried to run that on the 14 seats of Eastern Ontario.
I wouldn't use regions. I would allot additional members on a national basis from across Canada.
Assuming you then start with the "near-winner" with largest number of votes as Baden-Wurttemberg does,
I would not go with the greatest number of votes but rather with the highest percentage.
And what does your model do in Alberta, where the Conservatives deserve more than half the seats?
I would select additional members using the 38% the Conservatives received nationally.
And if a party receives more then 50% of the vote nationally, they can nominate two members in some ridings that they are very popular in.
And I would also use a preferential ballot. This would allow parties who think they may win more then 50% of the vote to easily run two members in some ridings.
And if a party wins more then 50% of the vote and does not have enough candidates, the remaining second place ridings that don't have 2 representatives would see their 2nd place member elected.
Either way, the major party gets first assignment, the NDP (mostly) gets the leftover seats, and the Greens get the dregs. Instead of the Greens "best-runners-up" being elected, we would find some token parachuted Green candidates in ridings where the Conservatives swept the riding (leaving too few Liberal and NDP votes to rank high) forming the Green Party caucus. Weird, sorry.
The more I learn about it the more complicated MMP seems. A possible STV scenario for Alberta could include an 8 member Edmonton riding, and an 8 member Calgary riding. Plenty of proportionality there with few complications and you still have "local" representation, which many people value. For the rest of the province you could have a 6 member northern and a 6 member southern riding.
You would have two votes, and more choice, with regional "open list" which means that voters can vote for whoever they like out of the regional candidates nominated by the party's regional nomination process. The party would win enough regional "top-up" seats to compensate for the disproportional local results we know all too well. Those regional seats would be filled by the party's regional candidates who got the highest vote on the regional ballot.
With 18 local MPs and 10 regional MPs, Liberal voters in Edmonton, Central and Northern Alberta would have elected two MPs, not none. Maybe Donna Lynn Smith and Jim Wachowich would have gotten the most regional votes? In Calgary and Southern Alberta Liberal voters would have elected two MPs, not none. Maybe Jennifer Pollock from Calgary and Michael Cormican from Lethbridge?
NDP voters in Edmonton, Central and Northern Alberta would have elected three MPs, not just one. Maybe Ray Martin and Mark Voyageur or Adele Boucher Rymhs? In Calgary and South Alberta one MP, not none. Maybe John Chan?
Green voters would have elected MPs from regions where those voters are unrepresented: One from Edmonton, Central and Northern Alberta: maybe Les Parsons from Wetaskiwin or Monika Schaefer from Yellowhead? One from Calgary and South Alberta: maybe Natalie Odd?
That might be fine for Edmonton and Calgary. But the four northern ridings of Fort McMurray--Athabasca, Westlock-St. Paul, Peace River and Yellowhead might not feel very "local" sharing a district with Wetaskiwin and Vegreville-Wainwright. On the other hand, a northern four-seater would (on the 2008 votes) have likely elected 3 Conservatives and 1 NDP, so the Liberals would prefer your six-seater. Similarly, Lethbridge and Red Deer don't fit well as one local area, but a four-seater there is also poorly proportional. STV doesn't work well federally in Canada's geography. A six-seater with four MPs from one party, and one MP from each of two others, has (in effect) four local MPs and two regional MPs but they are elected in one process, with no assurance that northern votes will elect northern MPs. That's what killed MMP in Ontario in the North: the province-wide lists.
The more I learn about it the more complicated MMP seems. A possible STV scenario for Alberta could include an 8 member Edmonton riding, and an 8 member Calgary riding. Plenty of proportionality there with few complications and you still have "local" representation, which many people value. For the rest of the province you could have a 6 member northern and a 6 member southern riding.
That's funny. During the BC-STV referendum, one of the constant complaints about STV was it's too complicated.
Winner-take-all is simple. And simply undemocratic.
Any pro-rep system is more complicated than FPTP. And whatever new system is chosen, the anti pro-rep forces are sure to play the "It's too complicated card". I think that the way a pro-rep campaign can work is to have a two stage process. The first stage would be to commit to changing to a pro-rep system. The second stage would choose the particular system. It is all too easy to find flaws and shoot down a particular system, leaving us with a seriously flawed system that is left unexamined.
Any pro-rep system is more complicated than FPTP. And whatever new system is chosen, the anti pro-rep forces are sure to play the "It's too complicated card". I think that the way a pro-rep campaign can work is to have a two stage process. The first stage would be to commit to changing to a pro-rep system. The second stage would choose the particular system. It is all too easy to find flaws and shoot down a particular system, leaving us with a seriously flawed system that is left unexamined.
The two-round approach would certainly solve some of the issues we had with the STV referendum. We had players (like the provincial NDP) who were able to pretend they were in favour of PR - just not this system. And then there were all the sore losers whose pet system wasn't chosen. They sat on their hands or, worse, joined the no campaign.
However, the approach would also introduce some brand new problems. Such as how do you convince people to vote for a system yet to be named? The anti-STVers had a field day misleading ignorant and apathetic voters about the intricacies of STV. What do you think they're going to do when they're able to construct a bogeyman from pieces of multiple systems?
There are two routes to PR. The first is to wait for a situation where it is in the best interests of the established interests to get PR. Such as what happened in many countries in the early 20th century. Traditional parties got together and implemented PR to stop socialist parties from getting majority governments. The second way is to somehow awaken the vast majority who know little and care less about politics. They need to care enough for long enough to educate themselves on the problems of FPTP and options for fixing them.
Nobody said it was going to be easy. 
The two-round approach would certainly solve some of the issues we had with the STV referendum. We had players (like the provincial NDP) who were able to pretend they were in favour of PR - just not this system.
So what percentage of NDP voters supported STV compared to the other parties?
And wasn't it same as here in Ontario that the majority ruling Liberals imposed a rule that no parties could campaign for or against PR? I think the BC NDP had something like two or three seats in legislature when those rules were laid out.
The NDP voters weren't the problem. They voted in favour of STV despite the way the party insiders behaved.
The no campaign was run by NDP insiders Bill Tieleman and David Schreck. Former NDP cabinet minister Anne Edwards denounced STV as "bad for women" despite lack of first hand experience with the system. Former NDP finance minister Elizabeth Cull, who features on a weekly CBC political panel, dismissed STV outright. NDP insider John Heaney debated for the no side. But probably the most damaging were the words and actions of Carole James. After publicly announcing that she voted against STV in 2005, in 2009 she said NDP candidates were "free to take a position" on STV (although she wouldn't). Then, during the election, she proceeded to talk about holding a referendum on MMP in the event STV lost. For a party whose official policy is in favour of PR, this is pathetic.
Late in the campaign, after BC-STV was endorsed by four federal NDP MP's from BC and the leader of the Ontario NDP party, endorsements trickled in from a couple of low profile NDP candidates. But it was too little, too late.
In other words, we had a lot more NDP support from outside the BC NDP than from inside.
I'm aware of no rule that said parties could not campaign for or against NDP. There were 2 NDP MLA's when the original rules were laid out but that was back in 2001. The NDP could have raised a stink about the rules for this referendum.
Nice try, though.
Winner-take-all is simple. And simply undemocratic.
Ah, democracy. That warm and fuzzy concept that everyone loves. Until it starts to actually give control of government to the people. Then it gets uncomfortable.
Any pro-rep system is more complicated than FPTP. And whatever new system is chosen, the anti pro-rep forces are sure to play the "It's too complicated card". I think that the way a pro-rep campaign can work is to have a two stage process. The first stage would be to commit to changing to a pro-rep system. The second stage would choose the particular system. It is all too easy to find flaws and shoot down a particular system, leaving us with a seriously flawed system that is left unexamined.
Oh, and BTW. This approach cuts both ways, apparently. Apparently, New Zealand is holding a referendum in 2011 on whether to dump MMP. And the result is far from a forgone conclusion.
A poll of 500 people done by Research New Zealand in September found that 45 per cent were in favour of retaining MMP, 42 per cent were against and 13 per cent were unsure.
Yikes. Wilf, apparently people aren't overly enamoured with systems that are democratic.
Well it was the same here in Ontario. Despite our phony-majority Liberal government insisting on a 60% supermajority and no campaigning for or against MMP, and despite the poorly funded and executed public information campaign sabotaged on purpose, NDP voters here supported Howard Hampton's endorsement of MMP more than other voters.
I don't think we'll have advanced democracy until the political will for it exists in all three main parties, or at least one of the two old line parties plus the NDP to make it close. And the fact that the NDP has stood alone among the top three parties in supporting electoral reform says a lot about the old party's intentions for maintaining electoral dysfunction.
At the federal level, the Tories have been in opposition more than they've been able to win phony majority power over the last century or so. Tories could put a stake through the heart of the big red machine by supporting electoral reform. I think the Tories' autocratic tendencies will continue to get the better of their democratic sensibilities for some time to come. They prefer playing second fiddle to the Liberals and now even relying on Liberal Party support over 79 confidence votes for a defacto majority than to actually decide to fix our broken-down electoral system.
There really must be an all party consensus if ER is to happen. And this is why the NDP can't afford to get bogged down with one issue among many however important an issue PR is. PR is in the NDP's election platform for everyone to see and decide on personally whether to support or not. As an NDPer, I will continue to support reform toward a PR system of voting and advocate openly for it myself. But I really can't get excited about the chances for it happening until one or both old line parties decide to do the right thing themselves by supporting advanced democracy in Canada. I'm afraid that the old party liners will be using the abysmal results of the two recent provincial referenda on PR to actually make a case against having another referendum at either level of government.
Or in cutting to the chase, Canadians can't be trusted with advanced democracy.
Yikes. Wilf, apparently people aren't overly enamoured with systems that are democratic.
Some New Zealanders think their MMP model isn't democratic enough. Polls showed the same thing in Scotland, where the Arbuthnott Commission reviewed the model and recommended a change to the open-list variation of MMP. There is one available for inspection in the German province of Bavaria, with seven regions, that might suit Scotland nicely.
In New Zealand the last review of MMP, by Parliament in 2001, noted:
But all parties except the small United Party liked it that way. Public opinion be damned. The original Royal Commission had considered the issue of open or closed lists at some length. Did experience with MMP in practice matter? Did public opinion matter? Apparently not.
The parties that supported the status quo agreed it was good for democracy when political parties had the ability and a strong electoral incentive to present a balanced list. These parties also saw the ability to control the party lists as an important means to encourage party discipline.
• a national list enables parties to ensure balanced representation among its candidates
• regional lists may lead MPs and electors to concentrate unduly on local or regional issues to the detriment of national issues
• since New Zealand does not have clearly defined regions and is not a federal state, it may be unnecessary and unwise to artificially create such divisions
• with regional lists and each party’s entitlement determined nationally, there is no obvious correlation between list position and the likelihood of election
• in order to make it clear that the party vote is a choice between parties and their leaders, all voters should have the same key names in front of them.
• parties should be able to retain those they regard as talented even if the public did not appreciate these talents to the same degree.
• open lists would undermine the effectiveness and legitimacy of political parties by providing for an outside influence that might rank candidates on a superficial basis.
Good arguments, but hardly democratic ones.
HI, Wilf, I enjoy reading your discriptions of the various versions of mmp in germany.
How did multiple versions of mmp come about in germany?
I think it is neat that they are willing to try different versions and to tweak the versions that they have.
But something must be in place that allows quite a lot of adjusting of the system.
Do they use electoral commissions? Or some kind of independent bodys? (If an independent body is set up in BC, it is made up of people appointed by a minister so not independent at all). I would describe the germans as old, rich, fairly conservative and very well educated in the technical sectors.
So not a whole lot different than Canadians. (I have to say that in my experience the "survival of the fittest, naked individualism" is a little less prevelent there than here or ireland.)
Why are they willing to tweak their system when we are not?
Same goes for Ireland (except in reverse). The political partys are always trying to tweak stv to render it meaningless. They try to turn 5 seat ridings into 3 seaters.
Ireland got their parliamentary system from England. As did Canada. Perhaps when Democracy was imposed on germany, they put in a few checks and balances that are not there in the British model?
Any Germans on the board? Are there checks and balances there that are not in the canadian system?
I don't think we'll have advanced democracy until the political will for it exists in all three main parties, or at least one of the two old line parties plus the NDP to make it close. And the fact that the NDP has stood alone among the top three parties in supporting electoral reform says a lot about the old party's intentions for maintaining electoral dysfunction.
Out here in Lotus Land, the NDP is part of the problem, not part of the solution. The NDP membership endorse PR and they vote for PR but somehow the party never gets around to acting on it. It's really not that hard to understand. Federally and in Ontario, the NDP would gain seats through PR so it's easy for them to endorse it. In BC, it's possible for the NDP to lose seats. At the very least, they would lose their shot at phony majorities. So, they do nothing.
At the federal level, the Tories have been in opposition more than they've been able to win phony majority power over the last century or so. Tories could put a stake through the heart of the big red machine by supporting electoral reform. I think the Tories' autocratic tendencies will continue to get the better of their democratic sensibilities for some time to come. They prefer playing second fiddle to the Liberals and now even relying on Liberal Party support over 79 confidence votes for a defacto majority than to actually decide to fix our broken-down electoral system.
The Tories were Progressive Conservatives who no longer exist. The Conservatives are on the brink of their own phony majority. It's crazy to think they're about to give that up.
Either way, the major party gets first assignment, the NDP (mostly) gets the leftover seats, and the Greens get the dregs. Instead of the Greens "best-runners-up" being elected, we would find some token parachuted Green candidates in ridings where the Conservatives swept the riding (leaving too few Liberal and NDP votes to rank high) forming the Green Party caucus. Weird, sorry.
It would lead to preverse results but it might be an easier sell then an MMP system with regional open lists. At this point, it would be best to pick a proportional system that could be easily sold to the public.
My first choice is a an MMP system with regional open lists but how can it be sold? The Citizens' Assemblies in BC and Ontario didn't buy it because of its complexity. They didn't have the time needed to construct a system with many variables.
What MMP system is most saleable? Bavaria's?
Lotus Land? I thought Bill Vanderscam dubbed the place Fantasy Gardens? Anyway, Howard Hampton was the only one of the three leaders to flout the Liberals' rule against campaigning for PR and publicly endorsed MMP on the ONDP's web site. The other two were closed mouthed about the whole thing referendum fiasco and chose instead to haggle over public school funding in the last days of the campaign. But the provincial NDP does endorse PR in Canada's largest province in addition to the federal party. May 2007 was a dark time for fair voting in Ottawa with the two old line parties voting down the NDP's proposal to restart the federal study on electoral reform.
Yes, after Brian Mulroney exited stage right, they were reduced to just two seats in Parliament Canadians were that angry over the FTA betrayal. So they voted Liberal and were taken in by Chretien's lies to reverse FTA. And Canada's voter turnouts dropped some more in the decade of the 90's as a result of the second betrayal.
And if they don't, the Liberals will be there to prop them up with a defacto Bay Street coalition majority. There is no incentive for Bay Street to back electoral reform via their hirelings in government and phony opposition. Even after re-inventing the party, Tories are still unable to shake Mulroney's legacy with garnering just 22% of the registered vote a little over a year ago, and with voter turnout still at all time lows. The struggle for democracy continues.
They started with one-ballot MMP in the British zone after 1946, and did the rest themselves. The Germans liked MMP and copied it in the American and French zones as they began to run their own provincial governments. By the time they got to a new national government (note that we've forgotten how to democratize -- in both Iraq and Afghanistan we should have started with democratic provincial governments) they easily chose MMP. They they switched to two-ballot MMP as requested by the FDP and other smaller parties. The FDP could bargain for some things, but failed to get the threshold lowered to 4%. But two provinces still have one-ballot MMP. Bavaria designed their own open-regional-list version early on. Baden-Wurttemberg was an early merger of two smaller provinces, and somehow they came up with a "best-runner-up" model with four regions. Then there's Rhineland-Pfalz, which has a unique model with four regional lists if parties wish, or one province-wide list if they prefer. Then there's the "balance seats" which all provinces have, added to the "overhangs" to maintain perfect proportionality. So since provinces don't need to worry about 50/50 being enough list seats, some of them use 60/40 or 65/35 or even 71/29, since they then add extra list MLAs as needed from time to time.
They're still at it. They just changed from "highest remainder" to "Ste.-Lague." And they're trying to come up with a "balance seat" system that works federally. But where they really have fun is municipally.
Do they use electoral commissions? Or some kind of independent bodys?
Mostly it's bargaining between coalition partners.
The city-state of Hamburg, which had a pure-list system, has a citizens initiative/referendum system which let a citizens' electoral reform group put a complex open-list model to a referendum -- and it passed. They are still fighting over implementing it.
Just their constitution. But the constitutional court has ruled raising the threshold (provincially or municipally) unconstitutional, and may order the federal government to bring in "balance seats" federally.
Can one of the posters pushing STV explain how this qulaifies as 'PR' at all? My understanding of STV is that in any riding, you just take the lowest vote-receiver off the list for the second round, and allocate the votes to the voters' second choices, and on up the list from the bottom until one of the top candidates gets a majority. I can see some situations where this might be ok, but not, for instance, for our national elections. It seems to me that with STV, somebody like, for instance, the Greens would probably still have no seats, even though 7% of Cdns voted for them.
I'm not a great STV fan, but it can be a good system. It all depends on the district magnitude.
Take the 2008 votes cast in BC. If Vancouver-North Shore is a seven-seater, the Greens have 11.14%, which gives them 0.89 of a quotient. With the Liberals having 2.65 of a quotient, a lower remainder than the NDP or the Conservatives, you would expect the third Liberal to drop before the Green, and the Green would get enough transfers from the Liberal to get in.
Similarly if Richmond - Burnaby - Maple Ridge was a seven-seater, the way the count would work I would expect a Green there even though they would start with only 7.1%.
In Okanagan - Kootenay the Greens' 13.04% would likely get them a seat even in a five-seater.
And on Vancouver Island, a six-seater, their 9.86% would most likely get them a seat.
MMP would give them 3.4 quotients, three or four MPs depending on rounding and whether you use regional lists. So large-district STV can be just as good for the Greens.
As a general statistical principle of STV, if a party gets two-thirds of a quotient on the first count, they have 50/50 odds of getting a quotient by the final count. But it's a gamble, because it all depends who drops first, and how the transfers go. In a race with a rich harvest of transfers, if the Greens tend to be everyone's second choice (this happens in Ireland), they can start with just under half a quotient and still win a seat -- if they're lucky.
Thanks Wllf - so then the STV is actually part of a larger MMP sort of arrangement? Kind of, the system is MMP, but the actual sorting involves STP?
No. MMP means a mixed system with, for example, 24 local MPs from BC, and 12 regional MPs elected to "top-up" the local results. BC could, for example, have two regions: the Lower Mainland with 21 MPs (14 local, 7 regional), and the rest with 15 (10 local, 5 regional).
STV has only one type of MP, all regional, elected from a district with four, five, six or seven MPs. BC might have as few as six districts, or perhaps seven or even eight.
- just heard Michael Byers on Enright last night, talking about his recent article in the Star, nobody has mentioned it, not sure if everyone saw it - http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/719037
Just heard the re-run on CBC 1 - with E. May and someone from Toronto who helped pilot the Reform-PC merger. E. May was very hostile because of how Jack scorned her "courtesy" deal with Dion. She also questioned Byers' premises, saying that swing Liberals stayed home in 2008, and a strategic voting alliance might lead to more cynicism, not less. Didn't catch the rest, had to quit listening. Must be on the internet somewhere.
The link is here.
Byers' idea is crazy. The Liberals would never go for it because it would cost them some of their supporters. The deal would also be regarded with suspicion by many NDPers. Voters were howling with outrage over the proposed coalition - what would they do with this deal?
But let's just suppose that it worked and amongst them, the Liberals, NDP and Greens managed to win enough seats to command a majority and force a referendum on PR. Then what? In case nobody's noticed, PR campaigners have been batting zero so far in Canada - not exactly a record that inspires confidence.
Elizabeth May sounds like the voice of reason in this conversation which is ironic, given that the Green Party has the most to gain and the least to lose.
I'm not a great STV fan, but it can be a good system. It all depends on the district magnitude.
Take the 2008 votes cast in BC. If Vancouver-North Shore is a seven-seater, the Greens have 11.14%, which gives them 0.89 of a quotient. With the Liberals having 2.65 of a quotient, a lower remainder than the NDP or the Conservatives, you would expect the third Liberal to drop before the Green, and the Green would get enough transfers from the Liberal to get in. Similarly if Richmond - Burnaby - Maple Ridge was a seven-seater, the way the count would work I would expect a Green there even though they would start with only 7.1%. In Okanagan - Kootenay the Greens' 13.04% would likely get them a seat even in a five-seater. And on Vancouver Island, a six-seater, their 9.86% would most likely get them a seat. MMP would give them 3.4 quotients, three or four MPs depending on rounding and whether you use regional lists. So large-district STV can be just as good for the Greens. As a general statistical principle of STV, if a party gets two-thirds of a quotient on the first count, they have 50/50 odds of getting a quotient by the final count. But it's a gamble, because it all depends who drops first, and how the transfers go. In a race with a rich harvest of transfers, if the Greens tend to be everyone's second choice (this happens in Ireland), they can start with just under half a quotient and still win a seat -- if they're lucky.
I find this diffucult to follow. Is there a Coles Notes version that could clear this up a bit?
What exactly is a quotient?
Selling STV is difficult when the average voter is expected to understand what 2.65 of a quotient is.
I think it is just a mistype. He means a quota. (valid vote /(number of seats in the riding+1))+1 is the quota in stv. (unless i effed up). If I got it right, from memory, it shows how simple it is. (People have invented many different rules for eliminating candidates and transferring surplusses and that can be a difficulty). In ireland the rules are simple enough so that votes are counted by hand. There they believe hand counting is the most effective method to minimize cheating. In BC they wanted a more accurate system but it probably removed easy hand counts as a safeguard.
The math is actually not that hard. It is just intimidating when you first look at it. Hand counting does take longer, but it helps people buy into the system. There used to be links to ireland elections that showed count by count results. (But it can be confusing because the names of partys is in irish and democrat and liberal and republican mean different things there than here). Partys in ireland do not do the one voice one leader thing as well as they do it here so you need a bit more background info to understand why transfers go the way they do.
Wilf does good blow by blow commentry of it.
I would not bother trying to sell stv to partys right now. If it can be used somewhere in municipal elections that would be fine.
We need to sell a mmp system to one of the partys somewhere in canada and get them to put it into their platform for implimentation when they win.
No more Citizens Assembly distractions unless their findings are binding. Referenda to misinformed voters are a waste of energy.
Brian
I find this diffucult to follow. Is there a Coles Notes version that could clear this up a bit?
What exactly is a quotient?
Selling STV is difficult when the average voter is expected to understand what 2.65 of a quotient is.
I think you're right, Brian. If they ram it through parliament like the Tories did changes to the Bank of Canada Act in 1991 without any parliamentary debate whatsoever, then Canadians won't know and won't care about it for the most part. Canadians have become so used to autocratic paternalism in Ottawa that they wouldn't complain.
And I'd bet Canadians would not be fumbling over how STV or MMP works if it was made law of the land. I think Canadians would catch on pdq. Canadians are some of the most well educated populations in the world. And ramming unpopular laws through parliament against the wishes of a majority of voters was never a problem in the recent past ie. FTA, NAFTA, GST etc Notice how our corporate stooges in Ottawa never-ever err on the side of democracy though.
Democracy should be all about providing voters with more choices and boosting voter participation in elections - that one day every four years when a person's political opinion is actually counted.
ONE Canadian ONE vote NOW!
I find this diffucult to follow. Is there a Coles Notes version that could clear this up a bit?
What exactly is a quotient?
Selling STV is difficult when the average voter is expected to understand what 2.65 of a quotient is.
I think this might be a bit clearer with an example. STV works with multi-member ridings - that is each riding has riding will have more than one MLA or MP. A quota is the minimum number of votes it takes to get elected in a multi-member riding.
Let's say we have a 7 member riding and 80,000 votes are cast. In this case, the quota is the minimum number of votes required to ensure that a candidate will finish in the top 7. Eight candidates could each get 10,000 (80,000/8) votes but they couldn't each get 10,001 votes. So the quota in this case would be 10,001. As Brian mentioned, the formula for a quota is the number of votes /(the number of seats +1) +1.
Then there are transfers. In the above example, if a candidate gets 15,001 first-choice votes, then there are 5,000 votes available to be transferred to the second choice candidates.
There are multiple rounds of counting. At the end of each round, if one or more candidates have a quota, the excess votes are transferred based on lower choices. If no remaining candidates have a quota, the candidate with the least amounts of votes is dropped and her/his votes are transferred based on second choices. In fact, the complexity of STV is in the transfers, not the calculation of quota. If you want to see how it might work in real life, you could look at trystv.ca.
If you only look at STV mechanistically, it can appear unnecessarily convoluted and bizarre. However, it has a number of advantages over other types of PR:
- You vote only for people, never for a party.
- There aren't two classes of representatives as there are in MMP.
- Chances are very high (especially in a riding with 7 representatives) that a person you voted for will be representing you.
- Second choices matter and candidates need to bear this in mind before they decide to slag their opponents.
- Independents have a reasonable chance of getting elected. Parties need to keep this in mind when enforcing party discipline.
- Proportionality is a natural outcome, not artificially forced by adding representatives.
We can all agree that ranger is not an electoral reformer.
He is a first past the post man. His link is about the glory of fptp.
No mention of mmp anywhere.
He fought twice for fptp agianst pro rep.
No need to hear the rooster crow a third time.
Divide and conquer is what he (and it) is all about.
So please ignore his taunts.
He is not here to help anyone.
From Ranger's link to the nostv propaganda web site:
Every voter gets one vote to elect one MLA.
LLLIES! With first-past-the-ghost, millions of votes elect no one and are effectively flushed down the pike! It's the most inefficient electoral system ever invented before electricity.
most votes wins.
...against the electoral wishes of the majority. Be truthful now.
Sure, if you've never taken a primary school level math course, it would make explaining the vote-distorting 19th century electoral system even easier!
India (the most used system in the world).
And forget about all those other advanced democracies! Becayse if we could just focus for a minute and think in more democratic terms of first-past-the-ghost, a four of spades trumps everything else in the deck! The struggle for democracy in our Northern Puerto Rico continues. And no soup to the nostv guys.
Hah, my chance to get in before it gets closed off.
I have been following this thread for quite a while, and while it is really long on practical models, it is really short on what I would consider principles.
Almost everyone seems to be taking it as a given that representation should be based (even proportionately) along status quo lines, haven't seen much being said about the principle of representation by population. You know, the value of one vote should be roughly equivalent to the value of a vote in another region. Yes, it is opening another can or worms, but the distortions under the present system are not all resolved by distributing the goodies amongst the parties differently. I would love to see a principled debate based on the premise of all votes being equal, coast to coast to coast. How about we express a little concern for fairness in more than the final seat count.
continued over here with bagkitty's post now becoming famous twice....
Continued from here.
Skeiseid wrote "The reason for insisting on candidate choice within party votes for every position is to provide a mechanism for choosing the best person for the job and to provide voters with a means of expressing their views on policy and issues. This also adresses the party-vrs-candidate dilemma."
Agreed, if only we had enough MPs to have candidates from the same party competing for several positions within a reasonably-sized district. However, with ridings of 120,000 people already being a bit too large for some communities, this is simply not an available option federally or in Ontario.
Skeiseid wrote "In short -- people make up parties and parliaments: every group is (perhaps subtlely) changed by each change in membership -- voters should be able to choose particular people with their particular takes on policy and issues and to do so without compromising expression of their party preference. The resultant parliament should be more connected to the intent and will of the people and therefore possess a stronger more articulate mandate. Responsibility and accountability to the constituency is made stronger as well -- each representative takes a constituent mandate both into the parliament and into the party. This is all good or voters and for parties."
Agreed. And STV would do that, if we had a whole lot more MPs (six per present riding would be 1,848). Meanwhile, open-regional-list MMP comes as close as reasonably achievable by allowing voters to choose (1) a particular local candidate with his or her particular take on policy and issues without compromising expression of their party preference, and (2) a particular regional candidate of their party with his or her particular take on policy and issues, while expressing their party preference. Which does all the good things you go on to cite. In one recent New Zealand election 20% of local MPs were elected from a riding where the party vote had been for a different party. They took into their party caucus a mandate from their constituents to address the local issues the favoured party's candidate had not done, and to widen their own party's net to appeal to supporters of other parties, which is also a feature of STV.
Skeiseid wrote "Voting needs to be a much more articulate activity. Perhaps the next yardstick components are a) to maximize the expression of voter intent and b) to maximize the bonds of responsibility and accountability between voter and representative."
Agreed.
Hmmmm...
I tried to take the partisan mickey out of the discussion on principles and you've brought it right back in.
But thanks for opening this.
Riding size means one thing for SMP elections and is quite another for DM>1 systems -- your figure of 1800 some odd is a gross exaggeration. An effective multimember riding can be larger and still provide better, more effective representation while also providing the other benefits of voter choice and articulation of voter intent and keep the size of the House reasonable.
And speaking of intent, if the intent of this thread is to build a set of principles and the yardstick as well a provide a forum for debate on what we mean by "representation" etc. then perhaps we should grab the beginnings of this discussion -- my expression of first principles -- and include it here.
Could you do that for me, please?? I'm not really adept with this editing system -- it messes up on me all the time.
Thanks.
I've been thinking about re-launching this discussion.
How about rolling it back.
In a democracy citizens have the right to vote. What, then, are our responsibilities?
What role does a voter have in a representative democracy? In our social contract, what commitments are ours?
What do we intend when we vote?
What do we owe in contribution to democractic process? What do our representatives need from us -- when we vote and at other times?
What should we expect from our respresentatives? They work for us. What's in their contract?
Before we look at electoral systems we should examine the answers to the above questions and see if we can arrive at a consensus. Our shared values will inform our requirements for an appropriate system and make that choice much easier than previous efforts have been.
So you two agree, thats great.
Wilf:
So I just got to Monday's Globe and Manning's discussion of open primaries.
You can guess my take on this -- in a DM>1 election using preferential ballots, the same advantage can be realized.
And it's a valuable advantage for voters to be able to choose between candidates from the same party and others. Just as effective and more efficient. As well, the resultant team of respresentatives will provide better more reponsible representation and walk into parliament with a more articulate mandate from their constituents...not to mention strengthening the parties -- you remember my arguments about this I trust.
It's vital for voters, like any employer, to be able to choose the best people for the job.
Thoughts?
Options being considered by Fair Vote Canada.
(Approximately 70 people attended the conference and more than 200 provided advance input through an online survey).
Options being considered by Fair Vote Canada.
(Approximately 70 people attended the conference and more than 200 provided advance input through an online survey).
I was there, Wilf.
I didn't see much hopefulness or strategizing in that forum nor did we hear the outcome of the Sunday meeting.
What's the plan?
I was never happy with fair vote canada because they are simply not radical enough. The 40% superminority veto was the politicians saying "bend over" and fair votes response was "its diffficult but not impossible to beat" could be better interpeted as "how far" or "how many times". Marten luther king got murdered for fighting for democracy. "Supermajority" requirements can now be used in africa, asia and across the world to prevent democracy. Thank you, Campbell, James and all the complicit quiet acceptors. You have killed off one person one vote in referenda. It should have been fought in the courts.
It should have been fought with marches on the ledge in victoria.
Because if 40 can beat 60 the superminority is very powerful indeed and the politicians have one more layer of insultaion from the plebes.
I think there were just two or three elected NDPers in BC when Campbell's government decided on a 60% supermajority for the referendum. It was the same thing here in Ontario with McGuinty's Liberals and their second phony majority in a row. They insisted that no parties would campaign for or against, but Howard Hampton did endorse the CA's decision for MMP with a statement on the ONDP's web site.
By the looks of things FVC has learned nothing at all, they still believe STV is the answer and seem convinced that if they push it for civic elections it will gather momentum provincially? federally? Have the funeral already! talk to Canadians when you get out of the bush leagues.
By the looks of things FVC has learned nothing at all, they still believe STV is the answer and seem convinced that if they push it for civic elections it will gather momentum provincially? federally? Have the funeral already! talk to Canadians when you get out of the bush leagues.
On the whole, it seems clear that FV members mostly believe in MMP with a public face of neutrality in the pursuit of PR.
Claude Carignan from Saint-Eustache shows what our voting system makes Prime Ministers do.
He was an excellent Conservative candidate in the 2008 election, although the new Bloc candidate in that riding was also outstanding: Luc Denoyers, Quebec CAW Director since 1995, who promptly became the Bloc's Labour spokesman.
With a fair voting system, Conservative voters would have elected eight more MPs from Quebec, from regions where they were unrepresented or under-represented. In the nine ridings north of Montreal (the Laurentides--Lanaudière region), Conservative voters cast 74,420 votes in 2008, more than 15% of the votes there. That was more than enough for one MP.
The Bloc elected all nine MPs from the region, although they got only 50.5% of the votes, enough for five MPs, not all nine. A fair voting system would have given Liberal voters two MPs there, and NDP voters one. Maybe Dr. Pierre Gfeller, general director of the Antoine-Labelle Centre of Health and Social Services, and Robert Frégeau, member of Boisbriand city council since 1982, Liberals. Maybe Réjean Bellemare, researcher with the Quebec Federation of Labour since 1999, previously with the United Steelworkers' Union, with a master’s degree in applied finance, resident in Le Gardeur (Repentigny), for the NDP.
Claude Carignan ran in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles riding, getting almost 20% of the vote there, better than any other Conservative candidate in the region. Well known as the Mayor of Saint-Eustache since the year 2000, vice-president of the Union of Quebec Municipalities, and a former law professor, he stood second to the Bloc. If Conservative voters had been able to elect one regional MP in an open-list system, he would likely have been the voters' choice to represent them.
Instead, we have Senator Claude Carignan, representing . . . Stephen Harper.
Fair vote wants to be relevent so they have switched tack. Fair voting federally and provincially is dead. That includes stv and mmp and everything else
Totally done, cannot be reserected for a generation or so. Well done to gordo and carole on that one. (And ranger too, of course)
The only thing they can do now is municipalitys, corparate boards, school boards, students and ngo's. You cannot get mmp to work in such situations because lots of times there are no defined partys. But stv works the same whether there are parties or not. so it is the ONLY system that they can back in the current situation. Most of them do prefer mmp. Pity for them. They will have to park it for a decade or more.
By the looks of things FVC has learned nothing at all, they still believe STV is the answer and seem convinced that if they push it for civic elections it will gather momentum provincially? federally? Have the funeral already! talk to Canadians when you get out of the bush leagues.
On the whole, it seems clear that FV members mostly believe in MMP with a public face of neutrality in the pursuit of PR.
Marten luther king got murdered for fighting for democracy. "Supermajority" requirements can now be used in africa, asia and across the world to prevent democracy. Thank you, Campbell, James and all the complicit quiet acceptors.
This is just ridiculous hyperbole, which also does not take into account that the most recent referendum would not have passed had the supermajority stipulation (which I disagree with, by the way) been reversed.
It is beyond ridiculous hyperbole actualluy coyote.
You using this to distract people, coyote? and you know what, you are still wrong. "Supermajority" requirements are always wrong in a democracy. No reason why a 40% minority should ever have a veto over a majority. If there are 2 options the greater of the 2 wins in a democracy.
Would black people have got the vote if 40% of white voters in the USA could block it? and same to remind. Would women have ever got the vote if 40% of men could block it in a ballot? You think some dictator would not use this great new tool to stop reform and then claim it was all kosher?
("The canadians did it so why not me?") and you will see harper sucking up to the rat within hours of his "democratic victory" and offer him free trade.
Well, enjoy your stay in cloud cuckoo land. Our shitty politicians and their shitty acts and our shitty compliance with the bastards has consiquences. Bad ones.
Thugs see politics as a game where the winning is everything.
Thugs see nothing wrong with 40 votes beating 60 as long as they are "our" 40 votes. It does not matter where the thug lives. They will look to our referendum laws as a breakthrough and they will be very happy to use them to keep the people down in the gutter.
In my eyes, if you think 40 votes beats 60 or 43 beats 57 you are a thug.
You have principles (but only when it suits you).
Marten luther king got murdered for fighting for democracy. "Supermajority" requirements can now be used in africa, asia and across the world to prevent democracy. Thank you, Campbell, James and all the complicit quiet acceptors.
This is just ridiculous hyperbole, which also does not take into account that the most recent referendum would not have passed had the supermajority stipulation (which I disagree with, by the way) been reversed.
And by the way, if 57 had beaten 43 the previous time like in any normal country, campbell would not have won the election because it would have been a pro rep election..
(Which supposedly you guys are in favour of).
<
And by the way, if 57 had beaten 43 the previous time like in any normal country, campbell would not have won the election because it would have been a pro rep election..
(Which supposedly you guys are in favour of).
STV was far more popular than Campbell's Liberal government. And yet the message the BC Liberals want Canadians to hear is that their last election was a referendum on carbon taxes, which don't actually work to reduce GHGs in fossil fuel exporting nations. The message I'm hearing is that Liberals and Tories hate democracy.
I'd like to pull this back to the original intent.
Canada is a representative democracy.
What do we expect of our representatives and the parliamentary governments they collectively form?
Do we expect anything particular from the individual we elect to represent us? Or could it be anyone so long as they belong to our party of choice?
What are the obligations those representatives have to us?
To act according to their conscience, and be ready to justify that publicly in case in doesn't accord with that of their constituents.
To so act, whether ordered to or not by their "party" (i.e. by some other individual).
To be true to their commitments.
If they won't, or can't, then to resign, with explanation.
That's good enough for me. I don't care what party they belong to.
Ok. These are good
But these are all pretty personal things. These are the kind of behaviours you can ask of a person you vote for as opposed to a party "stooge", no?
Particularly, the requirement to act according to their conscience. That strongly implies a necessary intent on the part of the voters to elect representatives who have critical thinking ability -- enough to know their own mind and take responsibility for their own actions.
I believe this is where our present electoral system fails us badly -- we cannot choose the best person for the job because their integrity is tied up with conflicting allegiances to a party which hampers responsiblr consciencious action and accountabilty to his/her constituency.
I think the party candidates have to sign a "suck it up and do what i get told" contract with the leader before they are allowed to be candidates. If it is the case, then they cannot act according to their conscience. And i sometimes think that candidates with scary bones in the cupboard are signed up because the party has to have something on them to keep them in line and easily get rid of them if the speak their mind. I mean, look at gordos crew. How is it that they are being quiet? They coud not all have been in on his scams and lies but they are keeping their mouths shut just the same. Back in ireland, there would be at least 3 prospective leaders with the knives out and into campbells back in a second after his turn abouts after the election. Thats how politics should be. The wolves should turn on their own when they themselves are lied to.
Brian
To act according to their conscience, and be ready to justify that publicly in case in doesn't accord with that of their constituents.
To so act, whether ordered to or not by their "party" (i.e. by some other individual).
To be true to their commitments.
If they won't, or can't, then to resign, with explanation.
That's good enough for me. I don't care what party they belong to.
Right, Brian.
So our electoral system needs to deal with that. But perhaps not alone. Other democratic reforms may be necessary.
However in any system where party and candidate choice are inextricably intertwined we can never have the power to pick representatives who are beholden first and foremost to us, the voters. Nor can we pick the people we believe are best for the job other things being equal.
Our elections must give us the head-to-head choice of candidates from the same party -- i.e. more than one candidate per party. The idea of running open nominations has been run up the flag. It might suffice. But it would be simpler and more direct to just hold the one election.
This capability is a prominent feature of one existing system at any rate. But every electoral system is a particular design. We just have to make this one of the design specifications.
The people have spoken
Of particular interest is the report written by Laura Stephenson and Brian Tanguay for the IRPP, which explores the factors at work in Ontario's 2007 referendum, which saw only 36.9 per cent of voters supporting a move to a mixed-member proportional (MMP) system.
In the wake of that failure, disappointed proponents of MMP settled on the explanation that the public was simply not adequately informed about the benefits of the proposed system -- even though the Liberal government allocated $6.8 million for public education.
According to the IRPP analysis, it is true that the more people were informed about MMP, the more likely they were to vote in favour of it. But even in the best-case scenario where everyone was highly informed, MMP would still have received the support of only 42.5 per cent of voters.
The problem for reformers is that while there is a crowd of disaffected voters that is very vocal, it just isn't that large. According to an IRPP poll, almost three-quarters of Ontarians said that they were satisfied with the way democracy works in Ontario, while even amongst those who aren't totally satisfied, there remains a serious wariness about what fresh problems a new system will bring. As Stephenson and Tanguay conclude, "Ontario's flirtation with electoral reform was largely elite driven and without general public support."
Well Krago, people generally do not vote for unfamiliar ideas. Especially the old farts who have a vested interest in working the system in the same old way. If you are a die hard liberal or conservative, why would you ever introduce a system that allows the ndp to get their fair share or the greens to get entry to parliament? You would weigh up the options and say "fuck the commy bastards" and vote for same ole same ole. Thats the voting public! They are a fairly large (but unrepresentative) subset of the general public. The general public contains some who are in favour of reform, but many are just led by whatever is put out in the news media. And the politicians cleverly put out both sides, so they general public felt the tug in both directions.
And when that happens, you are torn but unmoved.
Notice that there is no judge to say "withdraw that remark, because it is not supported by the evidence" for either side. So it was a dirty emotional fight that left most people clueless. Maybe a small elite supported it but the bulk of the elite fought against electoral reform.
Just like in BC.
The people have spoken
The problem for reformers is that while there is a crowd of disaffected voters that is very vocal, it just isn't that large. According to an IRPP poll, almost three-quarters of Ontarians said that they were satisfied with the way democracy works in Ontario, while even amongst those who aren't totally satisfied, there remains a serious wariness about what fresh problems a new system will bring. As Stephenson and Tanguay conclude, "Ontario's flirtation with electoral reform was largely elite driven and without general public support."
However in any system where party and candidate choice are inextricably intertwined we can never have the power to pick representatives who are beholden first and foremost to us, the voters. Nor can we pick the people we believe are best for the job other things being equal.
Our elections must give us the head-to-head choice of candidates from the same party -- i.e. more than one candidate per party. The idea of running open nominations has been run up the flag. It might suffice. But it would be simpler and more direct to just hold the one election.
We already have "the power to pick representatives who are beholden first and foremost to us, the voters." People are free to join a political party and recruit quality candidates. That's how our political system is supposed to work. A strong democracy requires that people participate actively within strong political parties. Participating only on election day once every four years is not a strong form of democracy.
If more people joined and participated within political parties, our democracy would be much healthier. A good electoral system should increase the incentive for people to participate actively within political parties. That's one of the principles of an electoral system I would endorse.
I am undecided. Can I join the top 3 or 4 partys? That would be ideal because I could listen to and influence them all. After all, rich people use "proxy votes" (The martin campaign in a recent liberal leader contest used "proxy votes" (Busloads of instant members) to unseat herb Daliwal a few years ago in BC.
If people like me could join a bunch of partys, it couldbe a "civilian defence" mechanism to repel invaders like that.
What are the rules in primarys in the usa? Can you have 2 or more memberships? Companys use their "money vote" to support 2 sets of partys all the time.
However in any system where party and candidate choice are inextricably intertwined we can never have the power to pick representatives who are beholden first and foremost to us, the voters. Nor can we pick the people we believe are best for the job other things being equal.
Our elections must give us the head-to-head choice of candidates from the same party -- i.e. more than one candidate per party. The idea of running open nominations has been run up the flag. It might suffice. But it would be simpler and more direct to just hold the one election.
We already have "the power to pick representatives who are beholden first and foremost to us, the voters." People are free to join a political party and recruit quality candidates. That's how our political system is supposed to work. A strong democracy requires that people participate actively within strong political parties. Participating only on election day once every four years is not a strong form of democracy.
If more people joined and participated within political parties, our democracy would be much healthier. A good electoral system should increase the incentive for people to participate actively within political parties. That's one of the principles of an electoral system I would endorse.
Yes, nothing a political party enjoys more then having a candidate take the message off the campaign and move it onto themselves. Its the perfectly selfless thing to do. Infact, the more baggage and skeletons the better. Nothing like resigning in the midst of a campaign in order to get your message out. Clearly political parties seek out nuts, goofballs and former Green Party Candidates who like to run around naked with teenage girls as a method of control.
Is this why no political party has approached you? Not enough skeletons in the closet?
I am undecided. Can I join the top 3 or 4 partys? That would be ideal because I could listen to and influence them all.
Why not just join the party you feel closest to and help to make it the best party it can be? Help it provide the best candidates for the people to choose from?
Even under STV, the most critical choices concerning candidates selection are made by party members, not by individual voters. In STV most candidates chosen by the major parties will win their seats because parties put up fewer candidates then there are seats available.Should parties in STV systems be forced to put up as many candidates as there are seats? That would provide voter choice but would likely be unconstitutional.
You still on about that guy? You guys chose him. Remember? Perhaps your strategists thought nobody else knew? Remember, he only quit when someone mentioned his past? Now imagine if he had won, who would have the power to make him do what he was told? The party leadership and its leak department perhaps?
Yes, nothing a political party enjoys more then having a candidate take the message off the campaign and move it onto themselves. Its the perfectly selfless thing to do. Infact, the more baggage and skeletons the better. Nothing like resigning in the midst of a campaign in order to get your message out. Clearly political parties seek out nuts, goofballs and former Green Party Candidates who like to run around naked with teenage girls as a method of control.
Is this why no political party has approached you? Not enough skeletons in the closet?
Why not join them all? Am I not allowed? And if not, why not?
Brian
I am undecided. Can I join the top 3 or 4 partys? That would be ideal because I could listen to and influence them all.
Why not just join the party you feel closest to and help to make it the best party it can be? Help it provide the best candidates for the people to choose from?
Even under STV, the most critical choices concerning candidates selection are made by party members, not by individual voters. In STV most candidates chosen by the major parties will win their seats because parties put up fewer candidates then there are seats available.Should parties in STV systems be forced to put up as many candidates as there are seats? That would provide voter choice but would likely be unconstitutional.
Why not join them all? Am I not allowed? And if not, why not?
Brian
I am undecided. Can I join the top 3 or 4 partys? That would be ideal because I could listen to and influence them all.
Why not just join the party you feel closest to and help to make it the best party it can be? Help it provide the best candidates for the people to choose from?
Even under STV, the most critical choices concerning candidates selection are made by party members, not by individual voters. In STV most candidates chosen by the major parties will win their seats because parties put up fewer candidates then there are seats available.Should parties in STV systems be forced to put up as many candidates as there are seats? That would provide voter choice but would likely be unconstitutional.
Why not join them all? Am I not allowed? And if not, why not?
The parties have rules against belonging to other parties but I'm sure they wouldn't notice if you joined all of them.
They seem to be concerned about loyalty. Maybe they don't want their secrets getting out?
You could write a book comparing them all.
I wonder which party has the best dressers?
I don't look good in either Orange or Green but few can carry that off. Good question though. I imagine Liberals are still the sharpest dressers on average but the average NDPer has progressed beyond baggy grey tones and Kaki.
Even under STV, the most critical choices concerning candidates selection are made by party members, not by individual voters. In STV most candidates chosen by the major parties will win their seats because parties put up fewer candidates then there are seats available.Should parties in STV systems be forced to put up as many candidates as there are seats? That would provide voter choice but would likely be unconstitutional.
I think usually they put up 1 more than they are likely to win. (In ireland).
In Malta, they put up many candidates. But there it is a 2 party system and maybe both partys include a very broad range of views.
STV has a few safety valves against the Campabalism of a party that has occured here. candidates who are aligned with the party but not with the leader can step outside party ranks and win a seat.
So being a candidate for the party is not the ultra ultra big thing that it is here in BC.
So the control by the wannabe faschist leader is not so easily achieved. Much more difficult to achieve in fact!
And there is a graduated choice of party between right and left too. So you do not have to jump from the stormtroop party to the little red book paty if you are unhappy with your party. Little political jumps are much easier to take.
For many people storm trooper or little red book is not a choice at all. but it is all we have here.
The small steps between parties is characteristic of all PR systems.
FPTP promotes 2 parties with small differences and a lot of demonizing. CF Republicans and Democrats.
I would disagree that there are small differences between republicans and democrats in the us. The differences are big enough to mean very few people jump from one party to the other. The republicans are the party of the free enterprise religion. That is their gospel and many poor white people are hooked on it even though it is pushing them into the dirt. "A rising tide lifts all boats" John McCain was big on that. But what of the law of the sea when the boats are in the water? Not much chance for a rubber dingy when a destroyer comes steaming at it.
Thats the real capitalism but nobody on the left likes making alternatives to "a rising tide lifts all boats".
(A lot in the us political scene is also linked to a subtext of racism.)
and I do agree than any pro rep system will allow easier jumping between partys.
Brian
The small steps between parties is characteristic of all PR systems.
FPTP promotes 2 parties with small differences and a lot of demonizing. CF Republicans and Democrats.
If the Olympic movement used FPTP, Madrid would have won instead of Rio. As it is, using a fair system Rio beat Madrid by a huge margin - 66 votes to just 32!
Too bad most Canadians don't realize how a bad electoral system - FPTP - gives bad results.
Rio wins in a lanslide!
First round
Madrid 28
Rio 26
Tokyo 22
Chicago 18
Second round
Rio 46
Madrid 29
Tokyo 20
Final round
Rio 66
Madrid 32
Why not just adopt Germany's particular MMP system? Unlike other MMP systems, it combines the best aspects of PR and some aspects of FPTP. More accurately, FPTP is a facade maintained only by "overhang" seats set to be banned in two years' time.
Basically, the party fraction sizes are determined by the total popular vote minus constituency seats won by individual parliamentarians.
Yes, but it needs some tweaking:
1. For Canadians, having only half of MPs personally accountable is generally not acceptable. The Bavarian open-list variation of MMP is required. In Bavarian provincial elections they have seven regions, each with its own regional list, and voters have the usual (in Germany) two votes: you vote for your local MPP and for one candidate on the regional list, and the compensatory regional MPPs elected are those who got the most votes in the region, so every MPP faces the voters.
2. Having 50% list MPs would mean local ridings twice the size of today's. That would be no problem in Toronto, where the 22 MPs could remain: 11 local, 11 regional. But in many parts of Canada, doubling the size of the local riding would mean a community loses its local MP. So the Law Commission of Canada, when it recommended a system similar to Bavaria's, suggested at least one-third regional, the other two-thirds local, so typically three present ridings become two. More acceptable to most communities. However, more overhangs, less perfect proportionality. But it's the appropriate trade-off for Canada, close enough.
3. The German variant allocates MPs nationally by parties, then allocates MPs within the party according to the proportion of that party's votes that came from each province. This means the number of MPs from the province is not fixed. Unthinkable in Canada; the allocation would have to be entirely at the provincial or regional level, again as recommended by the Law Commission.
In short, the 2004 Report of the Law Commission is still as good as new, never been used. Although their "demonstration model" has regions two or three times larger than Prof. Henry Milner recommends. As you can see here, Milner's variation gives fair and accountable results.
Hi, Wilf. I see f vote Canada is going to focus their efforts on smaller elections. municipal and student elections, etc. Is it possible to expand it to environmental organisations too? In the land concervancy of bc, they recently had a coup and counter coup where the slate of the founder and briony penn won back the organization from the usurpers. I was happy enough that they won but very unhappy that slates can so distort democracy. the usurpers had some good points probably and in the election of the board they got a conciderable proportion of the votes.
Same in victoria in the recent municipal election. First time I was allowed to vote, and it was easy with the left wing slate of the now city mayor. BUT it should not work like that. It basically turned the thing into about 10 concurrent fptp elections. A slate meant that you got about 10 unfair winners. 30or 40% of the voters in the city did not elect anybody at all. There is a hell of a lot of room for improvement!
I was exposed to other systems but one of the problems here is that very few people have any experience of other systems. If we could get a few cities to use stv or mmp pro rep, it would be very helpful.
From the Hill Times
Get over it: electoral reform debate continues, for good reason
Imagine this election scenario. A party wins 155 seats in a 301-seat Parliament and forms a majority government. But after the election, officials discover that 1.5 million fraudulent votes had been stuffed in the ballot boxes, giving the winning party 38 seats it didn't deserve and majority power that it didn't earn.
That would be electoral fraud on a breath-taking scale. Fortunately the scenario is imaginary, but the following one is real.
In 1997 federal election, the Liberals won just 38 per cent of the votes, but the voting system—not the voters—gave them 51 per cent of the seats, or 38 more seats than warranted by the popular vote. If Canada had a fair voting system that treated all votes equally, the Liberals would have needed another 1.5 million votes to capture a majority of seats.
The imaginary scenario would be criminal because individuals manipulated results to give an undeserved 1.5 million vote advantage to one party. The real-life election in 1997 also produced an undeserved advantage equal to 1.5 million votes. The only difference is the fantasy fraud was perpetrated by individuals, whereas the culprit in real life is a voting system that distorts what we say with our ballots.
New Zealand's going to have a referendum on MMP in 2011.
MMP referendum to be held at 2011 electionMMP Referendum
MMP referendum to be held at 2011 electionThe first referendum on the MMP voting system will be held in conjunction with the 2011 general election, Justice Minister Simon Power announced today.
"The National-led Government made a pre-election promise to hold a referendum on MMP by no later than 2011, and we are honouring that promise," Mr Power said.
"The first referendum will ask two questions: the first will ask voters if they wish to change the voting system from MMP. The second will ask what alternative voting system they would prefer, from a list of options.
"Cabinet will be making further decisions in the next few months, including drafting the questions included in the first referendum, the alternate electoral systems to be offered, and how that referendum will be conducted. These decisions will be announced once they are made.
"The Government is committed to acting on the outcome of this referendum.
"If a majority of voters opt for a change from MMP, there will be a second referendum at the 2014 general election. This will be a contest between MMP and the alternative voting system that receives the most votes in the first referendum. It will be binding.
"If a majority of voters prefer the alternative voting system to MMP, the 2017 general election will be held under the alternative voting system.
"The first MMP referendum will be the opportunity for voters to review the voting system and decide if they want to keep it. Five general elections have been held under the MMP voting system, and it's timely to consider how that system has worked.
"Holding the first referendum at the same time as the 2011 general election will ensure a high voter turnout, which is important to ensure the legitimacy of the referendum result.
"If a majority of voters opt for a change from MMP, there will be plenty of time for public discussion on the merits of MMP versus the preferred alternative voting, system before the second referendum. The Government wants to ensure New
Zealanders have time to consider all the issues fully before making their decision."
A bill empowering the first referendum will be introduced into the House in early 2010. The bill will include the two questions to be asked in the first referendum, including a question on what alternative voting systems voters would prefer, which they will be able to choose from a list of options.
"There will be time for the public to comment on the bill at the select committee stage of the bill's progress. We want to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to have their say on this significant constitutional issue."
...
Is the first referendum binding?
The first referendum is not legally binding, but the Government is committed to acting on the outcome. The second referendum will be legally binding. The government must follow the result.
What happens after the first referendum is held?
If a majority of voters opt for a change to the voting system, a second referendum will be held in conjunction with the 2014 general election. If the majority vote to retain MMP, there is no need to hold a further referendum.
What will the second referendum ask?
The second referendum, if it goes ahead, will ask voters to choose between MMP and the preferred alternative voting system (selected in the second question of the first referendum). This was the process followed in the 1993 binding referendum on the voting system when MMP was the favoured option.
...
A majority of voters is more than 50% of votes, that is, 50% plus at least one vote. If a majority of voters opts for change in the first referendum, then the Government is committed to acting on the outcome. The decision of a majority of voters in the second referendum, to keep MMP or adopt the alternative voting system, is binding.
Yes, and the National Party, which does not benefit from MMP and would prefer to ditch it, has to pretend to be neutral. So far, they look neutral, but the real test will be:
1. what alternatives will be put forward? and
2. how that referendum will be conducted, by FPTP or the Alternative Vote?
Many MMP supporters would like to improve MMP by
1. eliminating the one-local-seat loophole in return for lowering the threshold to 4% (this was the threshold originally recommended); and/or
2. changing to an open-list system, perhaps with three or four regional open lists, either pure-open or "flexible list," and/or
3. fewer MPs.
Then again, there are even more interesting improvements being debated in Germany, particularly in Hamburg which has seen four proposed electoral laws in the last five years after voters supported in a referendum a complex citizen initiative which would give voters ten votes.
Other electoral reform supporters would like to change to STV, which has been used in some municipal elections so voters are now familiar with it; but then Green Party and other small-party supporters would want a large-district model. Tasmania, almost next-door to New Zealand, had seven-seat STV districts until the Green Party won four seats and held the balance of power; so the two main parties promptly changed the system to five-seat districts, and the Greens promptly lost three of their four seats, a simple demonstration of the importance of district magnitude under STV.
Then there is the Supplementary Vote, or parallel system, which some winner-take-all fans will promote as a compromise; fewer minority governments but a token taste of proportionality.
And there may be other choices.
As you can see, with several choices, if the 2011 referendum is a FPTP choice, the outcome will be rather random depending on how votes are split between a variety of choices, including perhaps two separate possible improvements to MMP, and even including two STV variations.
If it is conducted by the Alternative Vote as it should be, that will not matter much.
If by winner-take-all, a return to FPTP might get the largest single number of votes, so that the second referendum would be between the present somewhat flawed MMP model and the "status quo ante." Electoral reformers could, in the first referendum, fall to fighting among themselves between one or more improved MMP models, and one or more STV models. Sound familiar?
Yes, and the National Party, which does not benefit from MMP and would prefer to ditch it, has to pretend to be neutral. So far, they look neutral, but the real test will be:
1. what alternatives will be put forward? and
2. how that referendum will be conducted, by FPTP or the Alternative Vote?
Many MMP supporters would like to improve MMP by
1. eliminating the one-local-seat loophole in return for lowering the threshold to 4% (this was the threshold originally recommended); and/or
2. changing to an open-list system, perhaps with three or four regional open lists, either pure-open or "flexible list," and/or
3. fewer MPs.
Then again, there are even more interesting improvements being debated in Germany, particularly in Hamburg which has seen four proposed electoral laws in the last five years after voters supported in a referendum a complex citizen initiative which would give voters ten votes.
Other electoral reform supporters would like to change to STV, which has been used in some municipal elections so voters are now familiar with it; but then Green Party and other small-party supporters would want a large-district model. Tasmania, almost next-door to New Zealand, had seven-seat STV districts until the Green Party won four seats and held the balance of power; so the two main parties promptly changed the system to five-seat districts, and the Greens promptly lost three of their four seats, a simple demonstration of the importance of district magnitude under STV.
Then there is the Supplementary Vote, or parallel system, which some winner-take-all fans will promote as a compromise; fewer minority governments but a token taste of proportionality.
And there may be other choices.
As you can see, with several choices, if the 2011 referendum is a FPTP choice, the outcome will be rather random depending on how votes are split between a variety of choices, including perhaps two separate possible improvements to MMP, and even including two STV variations.
If it is conducted by the Alternative Vote as it should be, that will not matter much.
If by winner-take-all, a return to FPTP might get the largest single number of votes, so that the second referendum would be between the present somewhat flawed MMP model and the "status quo ante." Electoral reformers could, in the first referendum, fall to fighting among themselves between one or more improved MMP models, and one or more STV models. Sound familiar?
Yes, and if they want to keep PR? keep the ridiculous alternatives out of the picture, that will go a long way to preserving MMP, I'm not convinced their current version wouldn't win on the basis of "sure it sucks (the system) "but it's better than FPTP", this seems to be a common sentiment from what I've read and who I've talked to from that part of the world, my personall feeling is that New Zealand has far too many members for it's population, this would be a great opportunity to downsize,the worst thing that could happen for MMP is a "downsized" version of FPTP going against their current MMP system in a referendum, that could spell trouble.
What's the motivation to reduce the size of the Chamber? 120 for 4 million doesn't strike me as excessive, but then I'm a hard core democrat.
Going right back to skeiseid's 'first principles', wherein you say 'in a democracy people have the right to vote' - I think that is not really going back far enough, In a 'democracy', as far as my understanding of the term goes, 'democracy' means some kind of majority rule, in which a majority of 'we the people' decide what is going to happen in 'our' country. I don't think we have ever really had a democracy, anywhere, and getting 'the vote' is meaningless if the people elected are not somehow firmly under the control of the people who elected them, and required to keep promises etc, with some meaningful form of making them beyond 'throw the buggers out the next time they call an election, yea!' - if 'democracy' is to work, then it has to be grassroots-up rather than party-down, as we currently have now. But that is all stuff for later, and to get to that much more ideal place, we apparently have to work through the party system for now with whatever small 'rights' we do have - so any steps taken towards making the party system more accountable are worth pursuing, which is why I have been a supporter of PR for the last 20 years or so - my first foray into actual involvement was making a presentation to a PEI Legislative Committee around 1985 in favor of PR (which turned out to be a farce - something like 23 of 25 submissions supported PR, but the committee said, basically, "Heck, nobody else in Canada is doing PR, and we sure aren't about to be the first!' Life in 'democratic Canada' for sure.
Anyway, to the post - to deal with the current question of the best form of PR, I have had what seems to me to be a new take on all of this - at least I don't recall ever reading this idea before (and I am sure if it has been considered and dismissed before, someone will enlighten me quickly enough). I haven't got a catchy name, but tentatively - FPTP-PR (thinking to maybe give the supporters of FPTP a bit of comfort zone or something)
Briefly, I think most of the current ideas being tossed around are much too complicated, and not very fair, for various reasons - i.e. just for one example, most kinds of STV I've read about are not really 'PR' at all, they just give a falsely 'legitimate' majority to somebody as the lesser parties are cast aside - but it would be very, very unlikely the 8-10% of people who voted, say, Green, would ever see a rep under STV, and certainly not in proportion to their overall vote - so it is not really PR at all, And MMP really is a rat's nest of complications full of problems too. I think I have something much simpler, and much fairer to offer.
What if we had a real PR system, run on quite simple but effective lines, such as:
We have a normal election, with votes cast for any parties running. In any riding where a candidate has a majority of the cast votes, they get the riding, obviously, no problem, no argument.
But then - make any numbers you like regarding actual vote percentage and actual majority seats awarded - and
- the remainder of the seats get divided thusly: If Party A has 10 seats owing it to make its vote percentage equal to its seat percentage, which were not filled through 'true' majority votes, then their candidates in the ten ridings in which they got the highest percentage of the vote but not a true majority get those seats. Then we go to Party B, and the same idea is followed with the remaining ridings not yet 'elected', and then Party C, and a party D if necessary. In most ridings, then, we have a candidate who got a plurality of votes in the riding they represent, and are thus directly accountable to the people in 'their' riding. The only downside is that a small handful of ridings are going to have a representative who does not have even a plurality of votes, for instance the greens in the last election obviously did not have a plurality anywhere, but should have received around 20 seats, and although those who oppose PR in general will obviously make big noise about this, I think the overall fairness of the system, and the fact that the Greens (for instance) would still have substantial support in those ridings that come to them, should make the objections answerable - it is less than perfect, but still far superior to the FPTP in which the Greens got no seats at all although some 7% of Canadians voted for them. And the ridings which the candidate with technically a plurality but who do not get the seat will be the ones with the smallest plurality, so their objections the weakest, as there should not be that much difference between their vote and the PR candidate who gets the riding. Options to deal with this could be considered - for instance, just something off the top of my head, in those ridings where a candidate with a plurality of votes does not get the seat because it has to go to a Green or someone as a PR seat, even though they got more votes than this candidate, they could be given a title of Parliamentary Advisor to the MP, or something, with various powers and responsibilities (short of a voting seat in the House, of course, which would have to go to the PR appointee, but still with some 'power' one way or another).
Extreme case - no ridings with a candidate with a majority - what happens? The party with the highest percentage of overall votes goes first, and say they have 40% of the vote, then the candidates in the 40% of the ridings where they got the highest plurality of votes are given the nod, and then to the next party, and etc. Or perhaps they go in turns - the candidate from party A with the highest riding percentage gets selected, then the candidate from Parties B, C, D etc. And then back to Party A - when Party D has its seat allotment according to vote percentage filled, it drops from the rotation. And etc.
Is there some reason this does not work? The advantages are obvious - primarily, it is quite simple and straightforward and transparent, and all the crap about unaaccountable back room boys picking unelected people through 'secret lists' (BS though it is) is done with, as only candidates who actually ran and got a substantial number of votes will ever get a seat, and most of those will have a plurality in their ridings - and the reverse, it acts almost the same as FPTP in giving people with a plurality of votes in most ridings the seat, so the people in most ridings are going to have nothing to complain about, as the candidate from that riding did get a plurality of votes. And even in the ridings where the 2nd or even 3rd place candidate has to be given the seat for PR, and the complaint is that most people did not vote for him or her - well, duh, that is no different than the situation we have in most ridings now, where more people vote against any particular candidate than for. We're just making the overall system much more fair - and hopefully 'the few' will be able to understand making this small sacrifice in the name of the greater good.
I haven't got time right now to go through the election results of recent elections and see how it all would have played out in real terms, but I don't see any holes in the idea.
Comments appreciated.
The problem, of course, is that many ridings would then have as their only representative a candidate who got only 10% or so of the vote.
What you suggest is actually somewhat similar to the "near-winner" no-list MMP model used in the German province of Baden-Wurttemberg. In each of four regions in that province, the local MLAs are elected as we do today, then the usual proportional calculation is done to add MLAs for the unrepresented or under-represented voters, but then, the added MLAs are -- just as you suggest -- the candidates of that party in the region who got the most votes. The best "near-winners." No lists. Only candidates who actually ran in a local riding and got a substantial number of votes will ever get a seat.
So some ridings have more than one MLA, but the additional MLA really represents not only the voters for his or her party in that riding, but also in other ridings in that region.
This particular MMP model is one which many conservatives prefer, because there are no regional nominations; it's the most local of all the MMP models. I think it should be on the table in Canada along with other MMP variations. However, in New Zealand no one seems to be proposing it.
Wilf - that sounds reasonable to a point - but then - aren't we going to have a problem much like we have today, when some parties get way more seats than their share of the vote justifies? For example, in PEI with about 30 seats, it is common, with the NDP siphoning just a bit of the vote, for one party to get, say, 50% of the vote - but 90% of the seats (i.e. Libs 50% vote 27 seats, Cons 45% vote 3 seats, NDP 5% vote, 0 seats). So (assuming no absolute majorities) - does your method (German method) mean that then the other major party, say the PEI Cons, would be given another ~20 MLAs, and the NDP ~2, thus almost doubling the size of the House, to 'proportionalize' things without messing with the actually elected MLAs? I wouldn't really support such a think - I think keeping the same number of seats, but replacing the lowest winning pluralities with PR appointees, would be better overall ...
- and as for such candidates representing other ridings etc - that is not really, when you think of it, anything novel - the current Cdn NDP, for instance, with their 30 members or whatever, are effectively speaking for all NDP supporters in Canada, and etc.
-- but then again, I can see your point about ridings where the 'appointed' PR member has only gotten ~10% of the vote, and this causing some unrest. I don't think there would be too many of those - I had a quick look, and it appears the Greens, for instance, as the main party receiving the PR seats (currently in Canada, anyway) had several ridings where they got over 20% of the vote (May got 27%), and I don't think that would get too many people too upset, if the Libs and Cons weren't all that far ahead of the Greens. And in the few ridings where we were forced to remove a person with say 30-35% of the vote for a PR-appointee with 10% - hmmmm. But again, I think we could come to a solution without getting too far away from the current method of ridings etc - even with this kind of accepted problem, it is still a great deal more fair to the voters of the country as a whole than the current FPTP system, in which, again, most ridings are represented by an electee whom most of the voters did not support, and in Ottawa we get 'majority' governments free to do as they wish with the support of ~40% of voters (and, of course, with low turnouts, ~20% of the actual electorate).
Yes. That's why, with MMP, local ridings have to be larger if you want to keep the same number of MPs. Germany would give Saskatchewan 7 local MPs and 7 additional MPs. Scotland would make it 8 and 6. The Law Commission of Canada's model would make Saskatchewan 9 and 5, which is usually enough, and if the 5 additional MPs were not quite enough, then the model is not perfectly proportional, but that would happen rarely. Quebec's proposed model would take their present 125 MNAs and make them 77 local and 50 regional top-up, making 127.
Keeping ridings the same size, and taking away some locally-elected MPs to accomodate the top-up ones, is not done anywhere in the world, so I can't say how well it works. In a major metropolitan area, where few know who their local MP is anyway, it might work fine. Toronto, Montreal/Laval, and the Greater Vancouver Area all have enough MPs (22, 21 and 21) that, if supporters of a party getting 5% of the vote should elect one MP, your model could work. But in New Brunswick, you would give Fredericton a Green Party MP who ran fourth when only 10% of their voters voted for her, instead of the cabinet minister they have today. In Central East Ontario your model would give Simcoe North (Orillia area) a Green Party MP who ran fourth when only 11% voted for her. In Eastern Quebec your model would give Lotbinière--Chutes-de-la-Chaudière an NDP MP who got only 13% of the vote. And so on.
Yes, I can see where there might be a bit of unrest in a few ridings. But I also think we need to work at the problem from both ends - not just giving some seats somehow to parties that got enough votes to warrant seats but did not win outright in any ridings - but also taking some seats away, somehow, from parties which benefitted at the other end - as we know, it happens federally all the time, a party getting a majority of seats with a minority of votes, and this is not good - for instance, the PEI example I gave - this used to happen regularly when I lived there, and I know it still does happen at least sometimes, and I think we need to take some steps to stop parties getting 50% of the vote 90% of the seats. There's probably some 'selling' involved, some spin - right now an MP thinks they have a 'right' to a seat with a plurality of the vote - but with the right messaging that could be turned around - the only person with a 'right' to a seat is a candidate who wins OVER 50% of the vote - after that, the system arranges things with proportionality in mind, and just having a plurality should be seen as no guarantee of a seat, since most voters in the riding rejected you. Or something. I'll think on it a bit more, thanks for your help - although I suppose considering the apparent disinclination of most Canadians to care much about it, and the outright hostility of the media to talking about it, and the again inclination of most Canadians to talk about only what the media tells them to talk about, it's pretty much academic.
What you suggest is actually somewhat similar to the "near-winner" no-list MMP model used in the German province of Baden-Wurttemberg. In each of four regions in that province, the local MLAs are elected as we do today, then the usual proportional calculation is done to add MLAs for the unrepresented or under-represented voters, but then, the added MLAs are -- just as you suggest -- the candidates of that party in the region who got the most votes. The best "near-winners." No lists. Only candidates who actually ran in a local riding and got a substantial number of votes will ever get a seat.
So some ridings have more than one MLA, but the additional MLA really represents not only the voters for his or her party in that riding, but also in other ridings in that region.
This particular MMP model is one which many conservatives prefer, because there are no regional nominations; it's the most local of all the MMP models. I think it should be on the table in Canada along with other MMP variations. However, in New Zealand no one seems to be proposing it.
I think the Baden-Wurttemberg model of MMP, with a few modifications, would be the best alternative for Canada. During the Ontario MMP referendum, many people who had no experience with electoral systems, independently suggested that a "best runners-up" version of MMP would be the best alternative to FPTP.
The only changes to the Baden-Wurttemberg model of MMP, I would suggest would be:
- Each constituency could only have one extra member, so each constituency would thus have two members. Some constituencies couldn't have more members then others.
- Half of the members would be first place finishers and the other half would be additional members.
- No regions.
- I would prefer using AV to elect memebers but FPTP would be fine too.
Considering its simplicity and similarity to our current electoral sytem, I'm suprised the BC and Ontario Citizen Assemblies didn't support a version similar to the Baden-Wurttemberg model of MMP.
Every supporter of electoral reform should be acquainted with the Baden-Wurttemberg model of MMP.
I think that we have a problem. At least 2 partys currently benefit from the flaws of fptp in every province and in Canada generally. In BC the bc libs and ndp party were luke warm because it would let in the greens. In ontario, it would have let in the ndp, etc etc. And on top of that, in the referendum situation Canada uses a 40% minority veto to prevent electoral reform. So we are done with electoral reform by referendum. It cannot happen in Canada.
So now we have to find a system that is agreeable to one of the partys provincially and get that party to put it in their election platform. Is there any partys (already represented) that are willing to put a real, already built, voting system on the table as part of their electoral manefesto? I am sure the Carole James NDP will not do it. They are morally bankrupt.
Perhaps some other provincial ndp party?
Fair vote Canada are now going to concentrate on municipal election reform (Thats all that is left for them to influence due to the minority veto at higher levels).
Municipal elections in Canada present a unique problem. Pretend partys.
The ndp call themselves something else at municipal level, as do the cons and the libs. (Normal countrys do not have this level of dishonesty, it is the same party at all levels). Anyway, this pretend party situation means that it will be very difficult for fair vote canada to push mmp at municipal level. They will push high dm stv instead. (The problem here is that fair vote Canada does not really like stv.) It is mostly an eastern Canada organization and they have no experience with stv and no understanding of how it works.
Brian
Given that Fair Vote uses STV internally I don't see how you can legitimately say that it doesn't like it or doesn't understand it.
From a quick skim through the posts, I don't think anyone has yet posted the link to a CPAC debate on Canadian democracy. It includes Andrew Coyne, Paul Wells, Ed Broadbent, Rick Anderson, Eddie Goldenberg, and John Raulston Saul. It's long (2 hours) but it's an excellent debate and each of the participants makes excellent points. I'm struck at how I can agree with each of these individuals, who collectively cover a lot of the political spectrum.
So we are done with electoral reform by referendum. It cannot happen in Canada.
So now we have to find a system that is agreeable to one of the partys provincially and get that party to put it in their election platform.
Taking electoral reform to the courts is another option.
This is especially so if a future election provides exceptionally preverse results. In such a case many voters could be persuaded to turn to the courts. A "wrong winner" could be such a catalyst.
Let's say a federal election produced the following preverse results:
Lib: 31% of the vote and 120 seats
Con: 33% of the vote and 108 seats
BQ: 9% of the vote and 45 seats
NDP: 18% of the vote and 35 seats
Green: 9% of the vote and 0 seats
After such an election, many angry voters could be organized to take their grievances to the courts. Most people would consider a government that came in 2nd place with less then 1/3 support as illegitimate. Cons would feel robbed that the 2nd place Libs stole government from them. NDP'ers would point out that they won fewer seats then the BQ, a party that received half as many votes as they did. Greens would be even more agrieved as they would get no seats while the BQ gets 45 with fewer votes.
Such a preverse result would leave many voters feeling cheated. At that point a court challenge could have a lot of backers. The key would be organizing as many people as possible immediately after such an election.
I agree. Societal injustice is rarely corrected by asking politely. Or by referenda. We have the right to a fair electoral system but we need to be prepared to demand it.
PROTESTERS calling for Parliamentary reform and proportional representation, in the wake of the MPs’ expenses scandal, are using Guy Fawkes day today to float an effigy up the Thames to the Houses of Parliament.
Protest organiser Willie Sullivan said: “Sir Peter Viggers’ Duck Island has come to epitomise the absurdity of the expenses crisis.
“So the duck house is heading up river for a ‘Bonfire Night of Vanities’ at a nice stretch of waterfront property in Westminster.
“For those on the Commons Terrace too busy feathering their nests, our message is that they can’t ‘duck’ change.”
The Vote for a Change campaign is calling for a referendum “to bring accountability to Parliament.”
The last time anyone tried to mess with Parliament was in the Gunpowder Plot of 1605—and that ended in tears.
Beware, Girolamo Savonarola was himself burned on his own Bonfire of the Vanities
Gunpowder, treason and plot! Happy Guy Fawkes day everyone. Penny for the Guy?
Large-scale Proportionality vs. Local Representation, Legitimacy, and Accountability - In response to siamdave - Nov 1 and Wilf Day - Nov 2. The problem for PR systems that include some form of local or regional representation is: 1) Making the local or regional representatives "legitimate", "accountable", and "representative" of the local or regional district, and 2) Making the party membership in the law-making body reasonably reflect the multi-party vote throughout the province or country.I don't think any voting system will be able to accomplish these goals in a wholly satisfactory manner. In your system, siamdave, proportionality comes at the expense of legitimacy. If a local candidate doesn't get a majority, it's a crapshoot to determine the winner. The "winner" could be the fourth or fifth place finisher. How could that "winner" be a legitimate representative of that district? Also, what's a fair method for determining the "winners" in the plurality districts? Alternating parties? Going to the remaining district and remaining party with the highest percentage of the vote? Using this method, "winners" from smaller parties could have a smaller percentage of the vote than the party as a whole because their better-performing candidates have already been eliminated in most districts.
Both Regional MMP and STV use multi-member districts to get to proportionality, and, at the same time maintain local representation. In STV, there are serious concerns about the accountability of the representatives in the large multi-member local districts. Anita Hagen, former NDP MLA in New Westminster, made this point in the run-up to the May 11 referendum in BC. In Regional MMP there are serious concerns about the legitimacy and accountability of the representatives in the multi-member regional districts.
_____________________________
On Nov 1 siamdave wrote:
What if we had a real PR system, run on quite simple but effective lines, such as:
We have a normal election, with votes cast for any parties running. In any riding where a candidate has a majority of the cast votes, they get the riding, obviously, no problem, no argument.
But then - make any numbers you like regarding actual vote percentage and actual majority seats awarded - and
the remainder of the seats get divided thusly: If Party A has 10 seats owing it to make its vote percentage equal to its seat percentage, which were not filled through 'true' majority votes, then their candidates in the ten ridings in which they got the highest percentage of the vote but not a true majority get those seats. Then we go to Party B, and the same idea is followed with the remaining ridings not yet 'elected', and then Party C, and a party D if necessary. In most ridings, then, we have a candidate who got a plurality of votes in the riding they represent, and are thus directly accountable to the people in 'their' riding. The only downside is that a small handful of ridings are going to have a representative who does not have even a plurality of votes, for instance the greens in the last election obviously did not have a plurality anywhere, but should have received around 20 seats, and although those who oppose PR in general will obviously make big noise about this, I think the overall fairness of the system, and the fact that the Greens (for instance) would still have substantial support in those ridings that come to them, should make the objections answerable - it is less than perfect, but still far superior to the FPTP in which the Greens got no seats at all although some 7% of Canadians voted for them....
_______________________________
On Nov 2 Wilf Day replied:
The problem, of course, is that many ridings would then have as their only representative a candidate who got only 10% or so of the vote.
What you suggest is actually somewhat similar to the "near-winner" no-list MMP model used in the German province of Baden-Wurttemberg. In each of four regions in that province, the local MLAs are elected as we do today, then the usual proportional calculation is done to add MLAs for the unrepresented or under-represented voters, but then, the added MLAs are -- just as you suggest -- the candidates of that party in the region who got the most votes. The best "near-winners." No lists. Only candidates who actually ran in a local riding and got a substantial number of votes will ever get a seat.
So some ridings have more than one MLA, but the additional MLA really represents not only the voters for his or her party in that riding, but also in other ridings in that region.
This particular MMP model is one which many conservatives prefer, because there are no regional nominations; it's the most local of all the MMP models. I think it should be on the table in Canada along with other MMP variations. However, in New Zealand no one seems to be proposing it.
Large-scale Proportionality vs. Local Representation, Legitimacy, and Accountability -Both Regional MMP and STV use multi-member districts to get to proportionality, and, at the same time maintain local representation. In STV, there are serious concerns about the accountability of the representatives in the large multi-member local districts. Anita Hagen, former NDP MLA in New Westminster, made this point in the run-up to the May 11 referendum in BC. In Regional MMP there are serious concerns about the legitimacy and accountability of the representatives in the multi-member regional districts.
_____________________________
Anita actually had a problem with multi member districts under STV, and as you know MMP provides the best of both worlds in a local rep as well as regional reps if engineered that way. STV does not do this.
Rubbish. I lived in a 5 seater, I had a local rep who lived near me. (Not of my party) just like most people in Canada. But at least I could phone one of the others if I had a party political problem and their reelection chances were affected by how they dealt with me. Fair vote is now concentrating on municipal politics (since ranger and his buddys killed off pro rep).
How can mmp work in that situation?
Partys are bazare creatures in municipal politics. Perhaps Wilf has a solution?
In Victoria, the greens and the dean fortin ndp (Sorry, I forget what they called the "Party") had a slate together that won almost everything.
I don't care, anything is better than what we have.
Wilf? What mmp variant would work in local politics? The "partys" teeter totter from one week to the next.
I think it is even odder in Vancouver.
Maybe it is only in BC that it is so royally screwed up. In the UK and in Ireland, it is always the same party from top to bottom. From national, to munciipal. I think that is the situation for the most part in Germany too.
Why is Canada (or at least BC) different?
Brian
Anita actually had a problem with multi member districts under STV, and as you know MMP provides the best of both worlds in a local rep as well as regional reps if engineered that way. STV does not do this.