Both STV and MMP are cjurrently used by just a relatively few countries.
List PR is the most common system in countries that have PR of any sort.
Back in 1911, John H. Humphreys in his book simply titled Proportional Representation gives a "state of the world of PR" round-up.
At that time he listed these PR systems being in use (or having been in use):
"single voting" in Japan (SNTV)
Belgian PR
Swedish PR
Finland PR
Bale (canton in Switzerland) PR p. 114 125 195 387 (I have not seen what he said yet)
STV as already used in Denmark, South Africa (Johannesburg city and Senate election), and Tasmania.
Cumulative Voting, Limited Voting is also mentioned as having been used enough to have practical experience to report on. but he likely gives them only faint praise.
single-winner majoritarian systems -- two-round voting, IRV are also discussed.
FPTP and Block Voting (what he called "plural voting") are disparaged of course
plural voting (what we call block voting) was perceived rightly as being unfair as it allowed a voter in one district to cast multiple votes while in other districts where just one member was elected each voter had just one vote.
(He is referring to Britain but mix of MMDs with single-member districts, FPTP with Block Voting, occurred often in Canada history too -- AB 1909-1921, MB 1914-1920, BC 1875-1980!, ON 1914-1928 ish, SK 1920s-1940 ish, NS, NB and NL as well.
(PEI with all MMDs from 1860s to 1990s! never used Block Voting I say offhand. The post/seat system was its style.)
in interesting parallel of our Court Challenge (the court case pending in October/November 2023 on whether or not FPTP is actually fair enough to be constitutional)
he wrote
"Mr. Harcourt's Plural Voting Bill, a highly complex measure to give effect to the principle of one man one vote The bill was strongly opposed on the ground that the reform was partial in characgter [like FVC's stand against Trudeau saying he wants to change to IRV]
If, said the opponents of the bill, it is unfair that one elector should have twelve votes whilst another elector has but one, it is equally unfair that the vote of an elector in one constituency should be twelve times as valuable as the vote of an elector in another constituency."
[whether constituency is meant to be district or voting block is not clear - either way the statement holds -
a Liberal in an Alberta riding today has zero direct representation;
more poignantly, a Green voter in an Alberta riding today has zero direct representation,
a People's Party or Communist Party voter today has zero direct and zero indirect representation;
while a Conservative voter in Alberta (but outside Edm-Strathcona) has oodles of direct and indirect representation among Alberta MPs and across the country (barring PEI and central Toronto).
The point of the Court Challenge is -- sure everyone has one vote but if half the votes are cast aside and elect no one, as they are, there is no equal value. same as Humphreys was saying back in 1911]
Humphreys continued:
The justice of the argument [agaisnt Block Voting]must be admitted, and explains why the rejection of the Plural Voting Bill by the House of Lords aroused comparatively little public feeling.
Yet the rejection of this Bill has focussed attention upon the deficiencies of our franchise laws and the eyes of all politicians are turning towards that more comprehensive measure of electoral reform which cannot be indefinitely postponed.
Such a measure has been categorically promised by Mr. Asquith on more than one occasion. So far back as 1908... [prepeat of Trudeau saying 2015 would be last...]
"what are the lines on which a truly effective [ER] scheme can be framed?...
It may be assumed that an effective scheme must deal with three problems:
[Britian in 1911 suffered under handicaps that it (and Canada) no longer suffer from, although PR is still un-achieved.]
- franchise (including registration) [at the time Britian had 20 different basis on which a voter might gain the right to vote - our present practice -- (almost-) universal adult suffrage -- is immeasurably simpler]
- redistribution [he meant changes to ensure the same voter-to-member ratio across the country, which is already done (mostly) in Canada. grouping of single-member districts into MMDs would also fall under this term.]
-three-cornered contests [today five-cornered contests are common].
Humphreys wrote that any fear that changes to electoral system may allow "the most numerous class in the country to monopolize representation may be met by linking the [change] with a system of election that shall give due representation to minorities." [PR]
One might paraphrase Humphreys to say that
any PR scheme established in Canada would have to decide on three basic questions plus more minor ones:
general system --
district list PR or provincial-level list PR
district STV,
AMS (where top-up is sub-provincial regional or provincial at largest)
RUPR (mixed member STV/FPTP with list PR top-up -- sub-provincial regional or provincial at largest))
(Constitutionally votes cannot mix from province to province so that excludes NZ's MMP, at least not without changes)
redistricting -
some list PR systems may require province-wide districts
district list PR, district STV and RUPR calls for MMDs;
MMP calls for larger SMDs unless additional members are added to provide top-up.
size of MMDs if any --
would they all have consistent DM or varying as in system where pre-existing units (cities, counties etc.) are used;
would SMDs be retained in the North of each province? (Single-member ridings would be retained in the Territories)
issue of handling of casual vacancies --- different models available - byelection, countback, etc.
type of STV used, if any (surplus vote transfer method - whole vote, Gregory etc.)
type of list PR (Saint Lague, D'Hondt, etc.)
ER might also include guaranteed Indigenous representation (but still within each province is easiest Constitutionally) various models could be applied -- NZ's overlaid Maori districts create two parallel district systems (that mix together for the top-up). (Likely Canada's PR would have no overall top-up)
ER might also include guaranteed Women representation (but still within each province is easiest Constitutionally) various models could be applied.
Ethnic and racial fairness would be achieved through PR at least for consituencies that have say more than 10 percent of population. Indigenous population of 3 percent of our population, spread from coast to coast to coast, need help to be guaranteed 10 seats in a 338-seat HofC.
Those are factors that will have to be solved for a new PR scheme.
Our job is comparatively easier -- back in 1911 Humphreys and others were still fighting against those who were defending Block Voting for some and FPTP for others.
===========================
Commentaires