Principles electoral reformers can agree on

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). [7]

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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 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?

Why not join them all?   Am I not allowed? And if not, why not?

Brian

Why not join them all?   Am I not allowed? And if not, why not?

Brian

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.

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

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 [43]. As you can see here [44], 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

New Zealand's going to have a referendum on MMP in 2011.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.