Our logo is bigger now

STV MMP variant for Canada?

42 posts / 0 new

Log in or register to post comments

Sun, 2009-03-29 16:09

#1

Brian White

STV MMP variant for Canada?

Single transferable vote has (for whatever reason) gotten more traction in the "for show" referendums on voter reform in canada than the other main Pro Rep system MMP. I say "for show" because there is a 40% veto built in and a new voting system is highly unlikely ever to beat that veto. (BUT it keeps us plebes amused and that is what counts).

How about a MMP STV voting system?

Voting papers would have a party section where you can put your x beside one party and the stv part where you select your local rep. Ridings to elect 2,3 or more MP's and any exausted votes (the votes that do not elect anyone) go into the party pile to be counted towards the extra mmp seats.

I have not gone into the math of the thing.

The MMP portion of parliament would depend on the size of the exausted component. If someone only wants local reps, they need not vote in the stv portion and if they do not like the lists, they do not have to put a party vote into the box. Perhaps if the local reps were really bad, most of the votes in that area would be list.

I think that such a system would give the local choice that people want, and also allow the "party, not the person" voters to vote for harper's crew or iggys crew or Jacks people or whatever.

The federal NDP is the only party in parliament with a stated pro rep objective.

A stv mmp system like above might just have greater appeal to the voters than the fptp mmp that is traditionally offered.

Brian

Sun, 2009-03-29 16:12

#2

Brian White

Sorry, I made a mistake, I should have put "if someone wants only local, they can just vote in the stv section".

Basically the vote would be valid if either the stv or mmp section or both were filled in.

Sun, 2009-03-29 22:47

#3

ReeferMadness

So, basically STV with a top-up for proportionality? Interesting.

One of the big complaints I've heard about STV nationally is that the ridings would be too big. Wouldn't this make it worse because you'd have fewer seats to put into the STV ridings?

Mon, 2009-03-30 00:38

#4

Brian White

I think most complaints about new electoral systems are phoney.

You double or tripple the size of a riding (and give it 2 or 3 times the number of members) and people cannot pick up the phone anymore? Give me an honest break!

The irish euro elections have ridings with 300,000 to 400,000 votes cast in the ridings.

By any standard, thats a considerable number of votes cast in a riding.

How do many children go to school in rural australia? Answer, by computer.

The old phony arguement. "We are so big that anything other than single member ridings could not possibly work" probably has some Canadians puffing out their chests and adjusting their pants.

But think again. Big is relative to technology and we are world leaders.

One of my great great great unkles eloped with a girl of a different religion about hundred years ago. That side of the family disappeared until about 15 years ago when an oddly familiar looking guy approached my unkle Noel and told the story. His ancestor eloped to a town about 15 miles distant! Might as well have gone a thousand miles.

Big is relative. Ireland has had STV since the early 1920's. My Da never was to ulster, a couple of times to munster, once to connacht (provinces of ireland) in his life. He never went to any other country either. (he was quite happy with that and passed away in 2001).

Now, go back to say,, 1930. Only a few thousand cars in ireland, i guess. Probably most people did not even own a bike. Relatively speaking, (for elections), Ireland was bigger then than canada is now! They still managed to use STV and conduct elections without their heads spinning.

Mon, 2009-03-30 01:07

#5

Policywonk

Brian White wrote:

Single transferable vote has (for whatever reason) gotten more traction in the "for show" referendums on voter reform in canada than the other main Pro Rep system MMP. I say "for show" because there is a 40% veto built in and a new voting system is highly unlikely ever to beat that  veto. (BUT it keeps us plebes amused and that is what counts).

How about a MMP STV voting system?

Voting papers would have a party section where you can put your x beside one party and the stv part where you select your local rep. Ridings to elect 2,3 or more MP's and any exausted votes (the votes that do not elect anyone) go into the party pile  to be counted towards the extra mmp seats.

I have not gone into the math of the thing.

The MMP portion of parliament would depend on the size of the exausted component.  If someone only wants local reps, they need not vote in the stv portion and if they do not like the lists, they do not have to put a party vote into the box.  Perhaps if the local reps were really bad, most of the votes in that area would be list.

I think that such a system would give the local choice that people want, and also allow the "party, not the person" voters to vote for harper's crew or iggys crew or Jacks people or whatever.

The federal NDP is the only party in parliament with a stated pro rep objective.

A stv mmp system like above might just have greater appeal to the voters than the  fptp mmp that is traditionally offered.

Brian

MMP is already a hybrid of single member constituencies (elected by FPTP or preferential ballot or whatever) and Party List proportional representation (which is in truth the most common form of Proportional Representation, used in far more countries than STV and MMP combined). MMP and STV are really the only PR systems being discussed in Canada, and comparing the referendum results in PEI and Ontario to that in BC, STV is probably the only chance of getting any kind of PR in Canada for a generation, if ever (considering the possibilities of social disintegration if not civilizational collapse in the next few decades). There is enough to discuss with variants to STV and MMP (district magnitude and electoral thresholds for example), without complicating matters by proposing a combination of the two.

Mon, 2009-03-30 01:19

#6

Brian White

No, not really a top up for proportionality. STV proportionality has been tested over generations and it is fairly good. Part of its proportionality is achieved by the random dropping of the "last loser". In one multi seat riding, it is represents mainly votes for one party, in the next for another and randomized over about 40 ridings, it ends up pretty close to "very fair". )If you know anything about industrial quality control, you know that a special form of the "bell shaped curve" will cover the results). In Irish stv, about 79% of the votes elect people.

It is more of a top up to make all the votes count and to try to still make them count as the voter intended. In first past the post, the partys restrict the party loyalists to one choice and thats it. It is also wildly unproportional and turns into a bit of a poker game. If you want to make your vote count, you often have to vote for your second or 3rd choice.

Stv improves on that because it adds intra party competition so the voters can steer their party a bit. It also allows voters to vote their first choice and it offers a fairly reliable level of party proportionality.

However, federally, greens and the NDP will lose out a bit more in STV if ridings elect 3 or less. So the big partys WILL push for 2 seat and 3 seat stv.

(Small partys are just a little more likely to drop in 3 seaters). But if you have an mmp option, a green or ndp voter can just vote green candidates or ndp candidates and their vote goes straight to the list section if their local candidate loses and their vote gets exausted.

I think it is a little more complicated but it removes the obsession with gaming the system that partys have. (You should see maps of US ridings!). They game the system by changing riding shapes. Republicans try to make a bunch of ridings with tiny republican majoritys and one or 2 with huge democratic majoritys to elect more republicans and the democrats do the reverse.

In Ireland, the big partys push for more 3 seaters, and in Canada, they try to disenfranchise homeless people and make many rural ridings with low numbers of (conservative) voters in each riding. Partys WILL try to cheat.

STV MMP recognises that fact and trys to make it harder for them to succeed.

ReeferMadness wrote:

So, basically STV with a top-up for proportionality? Interesting.

Mon, 2009-03-30 01:26

#7

Wilf Day

There are many possible variations. One of the most unusual was the 1996 Forum election in Northern Ireland. It looked like a topped-up STV election.

But it wasn't actually STV at all. The voter voted for a party. Period. Not transferable. No ranking of candidates. Still, the parties got the number of Forum members from each five-seater that you would expect from an STV election, depending on whether they got one quotient, two quotients, or whatever. Then they used a "highest average" method to assign the left over seats to the parties with the highest part-quotients. If a party won two seats in a five-seater, it got the first two on the constituency list. That's right, a closed-list election trying to look like STV.

But you have to remember the Forum was a body for negotiations among all parties, not a government. Independents were not really wanted. And the purpose of the extra 20 seats, 2 for each of the top ten parties, was to make sure the two little parties speaking for the loyalist paramilitaries were at the table. It worked as intended. It also gave two seats to the Labour group (as expected) and to the Women's Coalition (who let these women in?) The main six parties also got their two centrally appointed members: the top two on the central list, after crossing off those who won local seats. Good grief, it was actually an MMP election, eh? Except the "top-up" was parallel, not compensatory.

If the "top-up" had been compensatory, the 20 would have been:

SDLP 5

SF 2

Alliance 2

UKU 3

PUP 3

UDP 3

Women's Coalition 1

Labour 1

So two years later they held their first STV election to the Assembly, from the same 18 districts, with the same party labels, and most voters thought it was a comparable election: except this time they got the usual freedom to vote for the candidates they preferred, which resulted in 3 independent Unionists being elected out of 108 MLAs; but the results were otherwise similar except the UDP and Labour were squeezed out, followed by the Women's Coalition in 2003. Northern Ireland might be a little better off if they had kept the top-ups?

Mon, 2009-03-30 01:52

#8

Brian White

" There is enough to discuss with variants to STV and MMP (district magnitude and electoral thresholds for example), without complicating matters by proposing a combination of the two" . Well, part of the reason for STV-MMP is to take those things OUT OF the discussion! No point for the larger partys pushing for all 3 seaters or all 2 seaters if it just gives the NDP more list seats, is there? The exausted portion in a 3 seater is about 25% while in a 5 seater it is about 16%. So more list seats for the NDP if the big boys go for 3 seaters. And more local seats if they go for 5 seaters. So no way for the conservatives and Liberals to do the big cheat. And I think with stv-mmp, you will not need thresholds on the mmp section. I have always found them to be such an arbitary thing anyway.

We had an all party boycott on working with elected members of sinn fein for about 30 years in the republic of ireland. (Until they rejected violence). And I am sure Canadian politicians are every bit as mature as Irish ones. With mature politicians, who needs thresholds?

Brian

Mon, 2009-03-30 13:35

#9

Policywonk

Thresholds in PR are either explicit (a certain percentage of the vote before you are entitled to seats) or effective (a function of district magnitude, even if the district is the entire province or country). STV-MMP is a misnomer. What you are actually describing is a form of MMP with STV used to elect constituency seats and Party List PR for the top up or compensatory seats. Why not simply have single seat ridings with compensatory seats awarded from party lists? That would address the somewhat spurious arguments made that there is less local representation under STV (there is a chance of less local representation but also the possibility of better local representation under STV, so it's a wash). On the other hand, STV already gives reasonably proportional results (depending on district magnitude), so there would be considerably fewer compensatory seats. It could also be set up in a way that the Party List seats would address any holes in regional representation as well as gender balance.

Mon, 2009-03-30 20:47

Agent 204

Agent 204's picture

The "MMP plus" or "Alternative Vote plus" system could be considered a special case of your idea. In that one you use instant runoff voting (the single member, and decidedly non-proportional, form of STV) to elect local candidates, but have top-up lists for proportionality, as in MMP. However, I don't think it's in use anywhere in the world, and there may be a good reason for that. The only real advantage I can think of over regular MMP is that it might be fairer to independent candidates.

Tue, 2009-03-31 00:02

Wilf Day

Policywonk wrote:
What you are actually describing is a form of MMP with STV used to elect constituency seats and Party List PR for the top up or compensatory seats.

STV already gives reasonably proportional results (depending on district magnitude), so there would be considerably fewer compensatory seats.

Exactly why Wayne Smith proposed such a model for Ontario a few years ago. It had only 17% compensatory seats, 21 MLAs. However, it still used province-wide closed lists for those 21 MLAs. Northern Ontario would still want 2 of those 21 to be from the North. This model would work fairly well with open-list in three regions.

Tue, 2009-03-31 01:53

Brian White

I would NEVER advocate using "alternative Vote plus" You can get all the single riding people elected representing one party, (just like in fptp). Nothing can correct that!

What I am discribing is not a top up system (and it could still have some deep mathematical flaw). The main thing of note is that each voter has just one vote. Either the STV part or the list part is counted, not both. Perhaps it would end up that the voter HAS to mark something in the STV part but if the vote gets exausted in the stv section of the election, then it has to go to elect someone from the party lists. Right now in this early thought period, or brainstorming session, if you like, I would go with having variable size parliament so that if more votes end up in the list section, then more members in parliament. But perhaps it should be fixed size parliament?

After all we know that there will be about 25% of the votes wasted in a normal STV 3 seater. So we might be able to fix the number of list members fairly easily?

The point is to make a system where everyone has one counted vote,all votes count equally and to make it hard for the political partys to game the system. I used STV for years. I think it is good but could be better. For instance, to try to make your vote count, you should rank everybody, leaving the people YOU DO NOT WANT elected to last. But there is a grey area. Some candidates are unknowns because they mount useless campaigns. So it is perplexing to rank them. And you still end up ranking people you do not want elected!

With mmpstv, you do not need to rank everybody. You can just rank those you are comfortable with. If your vote fails to elect any of them, it goes into the party list pile. I think that system might just be easier for everybody.

Not so many preferences to count as straight stv, (less work counting ballots) still lots of local choice and open competition and the party ministers and shadow benches would top the lists because they are recognised names and they might not have the time to fight out riding wars due to their political committments.

Agent 204 wrote:

The "MMP plus" or "Alternative Vote plus" system could be considered a special case of your idea. In that one you use instant runoff voting (the single member, and decidedly non-proportional, form of STV) to elect local candidates, but have top-up lists for proportionality, as in MMP. However, I don't think it's in use anywhere in the world, and there may be a good reason for that. The only real advantage I can think of over regular MMP is that it might be fairer to independent candidates.

Tue, 2009-03-31 16:31

JKR

ReeferMadness wrote:

So, basically STV with a top-up for proportionality? Interesting.

One of the big complaints I've heard about STV nationally is that the ridings would be too big. Wouldn't this make it worse because you'd have fewer seats to put into the STV ridings?

The opposite is true. Adding a top-up component to STV would allow STV ridings to be a lot smaller. You could even have a very proportional STV system with just two seats per riding if an MMP-type top-up was added to STV.

The major weakness of STV is that in order for it to be proportional it needs large ridings that are on average greater then 4 seats. Adding a top-up component to STV would allow it to have fewer members per riding.

The CA`s version of MMP was very similar to this. It proposed using the Alternative Vote (AV), another preferential system, to elect single-seat constituency members.

Here`s an idea about a possible STV/MMP hybrid - Instead of worrying about open or closed lists, a best runners-up system could be created whereby one top-up member could be elected from each STV riding. So half the members would be elected from the first place finishers in STV constituency ridings. The other half would be elected from the best runners-up in STV ridings. Each STV riding would be limited to two represntatives - a first place finisher and a second person who may or may not be the second place finisher. Top-up members would be chosen using their respective final round tallies using STV.

And the Alternative Vote could be used to determine how many seats are allocated to each of the parties. Parties that do not attain certian threshold, let`s say 7% would be knocked off the AV ballot and their subsequent votes would be given to parties that attained the 7% threshold.

So basically the voters would fill out two ballots. A preferential STV ballot for their local riding and a preferential AV ballot for the parties ballot.

Wed, 2009-04-01 14:34

ReeferMadness

I dunno. One of the knocks against STV is that it's too complicated. This isn't getting any simpler.

Wed, 2009-04-01 19:09

Brian White

Whats complicated about putting 1 by the name of your favorite, 2 beside your second favorite,etc?

This is a serious question. Which among you who are reading this post cannot count?

If you cannot count, you probably cannot read either. But for people who cannot read amd just want to sign their X in a random box, STV is backward compatible with fptp and allows them to do that too.

So what the hell is your problem?

I know lots of dope heads.

Even at their most stoned, they can still do 1,2,3.

Now about counting the votes, relax, it is thankfully not your job to do that.

ReeferMadness wrote:
I dunno. One of the knocks against STV is that it's too complicated. This isn't getting any simpler.

Wed, 2009-04-01 20:06

Coyote

Just a spoonfull of sugar helps the medicine go down, in the most delightful way . . .

Wed, 2009-04-01 22:04

Policywonk

Brian White wrote:

Whats complicated about putting 1 by the name of your favorite, 2 beside your second favorite,etc?

This is a serious question. Which among you who are reading this post cannot count?

If you cannot count, you probably cannot read either. But for people who cannot read amd just want to sign their X in a random box, STV is backward compatible with fptp and allows them to do that too.

So what the hell is your problem?

I know lots of dope heads.

Even at their most stoned, they can still do 1,2,3.

Now about counting the votes, relax, it is thankfully not your job to do that.

ReeferMadness wrote:
I dunno. One of the knocks against STV is that it's too complicated. This isn't getting any simpler.

Don't forget what Stalin (I think it was him) said about counting the votes.

Thu, 2009-04-02 14:04

Brian White

"Don't forget what Stalin (I think it was him) said about counting the votes".

O hero of inuendeo, what did stalin say?

Do you know the difference between counting votes and votes counting?

I do not know if you smart guys know it but already your votes are counted by optical scanner. So whats the dif? it is compromised right now. Back in ireland, i think they are still all counted by hand. Why? because if the counter makes a mistake one of the party scrutineeers that are watching over their shoulders will spot it.

Thu, 2009-04-02 14:22

Coyote

I have been in countless gyms on election night scrutinizing the vote as it is counted by hand.

Thu, 2009-04-02 15:53

Brian White

My city of victoria votes were counted by optical reader, and coyote,

do you agree that if your vote does not elect anyone, your vote gets counted but it does not count?

First past the post is kinda like going down to the store, buying milk and been handed engine oil. If you are part of the largest minority, you always get milk, but for most others it is always engine oil.

Havn't u figured that out yet?

Thu, 2009-04-02 16:04

Coyote

You said "your" votes are counted by optical scanner, meaning anyone who happens to disagree with you. You did not specify that you were speaking about yourself in one municipality, in fact you stated exactly the opposite. But whatever.

I don't think FPTP is the root of all evil, no. I think it's one of many democratic systems. I don't get very worked up about FPTP vs MMP vs STV, though on a national level topping up with some proportionality makes some sense to me. I've though maybe that's what the senate should be.

I actually think it's more important to fight for progressive governments than to spend too much time fighting over acronyms 90% of the country couldn't tell you the difference between.

But of course, unless one is in lock-step agreement one is the enemy. So continue on your merry way.

Thu, 2009-04-02 16:13

Coyote

Truthfully, I've always found France's run-off elections pretty exciting to follow.

Thu, 2009-04-02 18:51

Brian White

"I actually think it's more important to fight for progressive governments than to spend too much time fighting over acronyms 90% of the country couldn't tell you the difference between".

In that case you will always fight from the outside and you will almost always lose. In Irish STV about 79% of the votes contribute directly to electing people, The figure for MMP is probably similar and FPTP gives 45 to 55% of votes contributing to the election of someone. FPTP also has a huge bias against progressive government built in. It gives small partys a tiny seat to vote ratio. The leaders of this country are counting on people like you and your attitude to knowelege to keep them where they are.

Thu, 2009-04-02 18:59

Coyote

Has Ireland become a socialist state when I wasn't looking? Or New Zealand? Or Israel or Italy? And quit saying "they don't count" 'cause they do so, sorry.

I'm not against proportional representation if the case can be made. I just think it's one of many different democratic systems. I respect people who care passionately about the issue; I have less respect for those who think their passion earns them the right to ignore everything anyone else says.

Thu, 2009-04-02 20:47

Brian White

Clearly you do not respect people who care passionately about pro rep. Otherwise you would not be wasting our time in this thread.

A vote that does not elect someone is a wasted vote and does not count.

Thats one reason why BC with the same population as Ireland has fewer voters. Whats the point of voting if you vote gets "counted" before it and your candidate gets binned?

If you have nothing new to say, please say it elsewhere.

Thu, 2009-04-02 20:53

Coyote

lol! Psst. I've been on this board a long time. I'll discuss any issue I wish, thank you. If you don't like that, you can do whatever your heart desires. Won't bother me a lick.

Thu, 2009-04-02 21:43

melovesproles

Quote:
Has Ireland become a socialist state when I wasn't looking? Or New Zealand? Or Israel or Italy? And quit saying "they don't count" 'cause they do so, sorry.

I have to admit I don't get where you are coming from Coyote, from reading your posts I had always thought you were one of those that identify with being a Social Democrat (and that you consider this to be fundamentally different than a Socialist) but when it comes to your arguments about electoral reform you often use a 'the ends justify the means' approach and now you are stating that the manner in which we select our leaders is less important than having a Socialist government. As someone who is pretty disenchanted with Western "democracy" I'm just wondering how far would you go with that?

Thu, 2009-04-02 21:49

Coyote

I would amend that to read that to me "the democratic manner in which we select our government is less important than working to elect a Social Democratic government."

Thu, 2009-04-02 22:06

Coyote

And let me just say that by this I mean were I living in New Zealand and other progressives were pushing for FPTP I would perhaps have some sympathy, but my priority would be working to elect Labour under the STV rules.

Thu, 2009-04-02 22:18

melovesproles

What we have just doesn't look very democratic to me, it doesn't look very well disposed to Social Democracy or Socialism either. In fact it looks rigged to produce the opposite. And the reality is that if you are counting votes in your school gym and 12 people agree with me on this and 9 agree with you, your side is still going to win. Why is that more democratic than any other rigged fake "Democracy" anywhere else in the world. Simply because the votes are being counted?

If we have such a low threshold for what constitutes a 'democratic manner' and are more concerned with the end result or government then really why cling to the process at all?

Thu, 2009-04-02 23:16

Coyote

Look. I don't like the 60% threshold either. If it were an NDP government calling the referendum, I would expect it to be 50+1. All the more reason to elect and NDP government.

Fri, 2009-04-03 03:44

Wilf Day

Coyote wrote:
the democratic manner in which we select our government is less important than working to elect a Social Democratic government.

Perhaps there is a reason why Brazil, Spain, Chile, Austria, Angola, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, and dozens more countries, with socialist-led governments, (and Argentina, if you consider its government leftist) -- I'm only at the Cs -- have modern proportional electoral systems. It goes with having modern political attitudes.

Fri, 2009-04-03 18:44

Coyote

And that's fine, Wilf. Like I've said before, I'm not anti-prop rep. I might caution that the countries I know best in your list so far (Chile and Spain - hey, how's Spain a C! Cheater! :P) Have had conservative governments before and will again, no matter the electoral system.

My only point is that the method of electing is not a sinecure, and my priority will always be to elect social democrats no matter the democratic system currently employed.

Fri, 2009-04-03 19:00

Wilf Day

Coyote wrote:
my priority will always be to elect social democrats no matter the democratic system currently employed.

Perhaps an equal priority might be to prevent right-wing faux-majority governments being elected with the support of 37% of voters?

Fri, 2009-04-03 19:04

Coyote

Maybe. Or maybe we'd just see more grand coalitions like we have right now in Ottawa, with the two social democratic parties sidelined.

Sun, 2009-04-12 02:35

Machjo

If we were to adopt a system whereby we could choose to vote for either party or candidate, I'd suggest that no party name appear under candidate names to avoid confusion, to make sure voters understand clearly and without ambiguity which part of the ballot is for party, and which for candidate.

Sun, 2009-04-12 02:41

Machjo

Honestly, I don't care too much which system is used as long as it gives independent candidates an equal chance as party-member candidates. Democracy must remain open to both of these categories of candidates equally.

Sun, 2009-04-12 14:43

Brian White

Machjo wrote:

If we were to adopt a system whereby we could choose to vote for either party or candidate, I'd suggest that no party name appear under candidate names to avoid confusion, to make sure voters understand clearly and without ambiguity which part of the ballot is for party, and which for candidate.

Information goes hand and hand with informed choice. (so definitely you need the party allegence beside candidate name). With the proposed system you vote only counts once. If you want it just to apply to a party nominee from the party list, then perhaps you only need fillout the party section. If you want a local person to represent you, then you also fill out your preferences in the individual candidate section. Your vote would only go to party list when it is exausted locally. I think independent candidates would have less of a chance in this system than in pure stv. But a bonus for this system would be that it might force independents to come together to form partys. We need a way to renew politics. The liberal and conservative "brands" are so old. You need a way to have new partys with new ideas to grow replace the old dead wood. (This system could allow the ndp to grow). Actually, the bloq might even get party votes right across canada too!

Mon, 2009-04-13 17:52

Policywonk

Brian White wrote:

"Don't forget what Stalin (I think it was him) said about counting the votes".

O hero of inuendeo, what did stalin say?

Do you know the difference between counting votes and votes counting?

I do not know if you smart guys know it but already your votes are counted by optical scanner. So whats the dif? it is compromised right now. Back in ireland, i think they are still all counted by hand. Why? because if the counter makes a mistake one of the party scrutineeers that are watching over their shoulders will spot it.

Something about those who count the votes being more important than those who vote. But that's only if there isn't transparency and democratic oversight and has nothing to do with the electoral system. You think votes in federal elections are counted by optical scanner? Are you kidding?

Tue, 2009-04-14 22:04

Coyote

Brian gets lost in hyperbole. But he's growing on me! I like his passion, if I find it slightly (and I do mean only slightly) misplaced.

Mon, 2009-10-12 21:22

Wilf Day

Topped-up STV may be about to happen -- in Ireland.

The Irish Greens' platform calls for:

Quote:
A proportion of the seats in Dáil Éireann to be elected by a top-up procedure. In a Dáil of 130 seats, 100 could be elected as now in multi-seat PRSTV constituencies and 30 seats could be filled from national party lists, so that all parties with at least 2% of the national vote are proportionally represented.

The current system of multi-seat constituencies has considerable advantages. Representatives are close to the people who elect them. However, there is concern about TDs being over-loaded with constituency matters at the expense of national issues. Our proposal would allow for a balance between local and national concerns among deputies.

This has just been added to the governing Fianna Fail -- Green Party coalition’s new Programme for Government:

Quote:
Within 12 months, the Electoral Commission will also propose reforms to the electoral system, including:

- Examine and make recommendations for changes to the electoral system for Dáil elections, including the number of deputies and their means of elections.

This refers to establishing a new Independent Electoral Commission, which will no doubt have some members prepared to look at this seriously.

The “concern about TDs being over-loaded with constituency matters at the expense of national issues” has been expressed for years by all parties and commentators. The leadership of all parties would benefit from top-up seats from national lists. I’d bet it’s going to happen. (But perhaps with the same 166 seats, rather than 130.)

Topped-up STV: its time may have finally come.

Tue, 2009-10-13 22:28

Brian White

Thank you Wilf. It will be interesting to see what the details bring. Depending on the details, it might force a lot of independents out. Independent ff and independent fg people have been getting elected for years. If you reduce the number of seats, I bet ff and fg will be pushing for less 4 and 5 seaters.

Hopefully it is not all about the leaders pushing the people into their little camps. Top up stv might still produce the same no of greens, but perhaps they will all come off the list in the absense of 5 seaters. A lot more power for the leader.

I have always thought 3 seat stv is a joke, by the way. 4 or 5 or 6 is much more preferable.

As always before in ireland, this move is coming from the politicians. So what if they work hard. Is it such a bad thing? Politicians take long recesses in ireland too and if they really wanted to, they could jointly (as a group) cut their time helping constituents. It looks to me like a "shock doctrine" move to fix an electoral system that is not broken. Ireland sent ministers to jaol for corruption, just not enough of them to stop the rot.

In ireland, changes like these can only be brought about by referendum and it is enshrined in the constitution that a win is 50% of the valid vote +1 vote. (Otherwise you have a wrong winner referendum) (As anyone who is not a total twit would know).

Compare that to bc where the leader drives drunk and CAUGHT! in another country, gets clean away! and the ledge gets raided over a bc rail giveaway, and NO minister gets fired! and the government destroys years of emails that are needed in a criminal trial. AND GETS AWAY WITH IT!!!!

and makes up rules for referenda. "You are on my side so we will make your vote bigger than those other guys votes " "Don't worrry, they are stupid and will not know the difference"

There is NO oversight here. Or undresight or hindsight.

I believe Campbell went to nigeria to teach decades ago. I can only think that his course on corruption was very successful.

some other things are interesting

"We will abolish the employee PRSI ceiling" I called for that 15 years ago! People totally did not comprehend. We used to pay 12% social insurance the first time I worked in ireland. But it was only on the first 30,000 that you earned. So I used to call it a12% tax break for the rich. People used to say, it is social insurance, not tax. I Said, its a fffing tax. All money that the employer must provide (and that you do not get or that you then have to give to the government is a tax. But it was totally lost on people because of the power of words. Finally some on the left in the green party have pushed this.
· Introduce Carbon Tax in Budget 2010.