The Charter Challenge judge missed the point on minority and race representation, iMO
[34] Professor Bird also opines that improving the fair representation of diverse minorities would require not just enactment of a PR system, but implementation of several other structural changes: modest district size in most ridings (3 to 7 members per district), the creation of special electoral districts with a smaller number of members in northern areas where the Indigenous population is concentrated, and a legislated role for diverse local populations in the ranking of candidates. Proportional representation in and of itself will not suffice to increase minority representation; at the very least, the numbers of minority representatives will inevitably turn on the political disposition of party leadership in populating the party list in a PR system that depends on party votes rather than individual candidate votes.
modest district size is not required - the smaller the district (the lower the DM), the larger percentage of votes a minority party would need to have to get a seat.
because under fair voting (list PR, STV) the higher DM the more proportional is the result.
The opposite holds true for unfair votong sytem such as Block Voting.
Under SNTV, the larger the DM, the more voters are satisfied through "secondary representation" due to candidates of a wider range of parties being elected and thus range of opinion being represented in the district. the wider the range, the more votes feel they have someone in the distrcit who represents their sentiments.
The creation of special electoral districts in northern area, with low DM, is not required to have minority representation - it will likely naturally occur under district PR system anyway.
As the goal of switch away from FPTP is not to produce perfect proportionality, but only an improvement on the present un-representative situation,
getting PR everywhere is not necessary.
each of the Territories will still be represented by one MP, and that can never be proportional.
but the effect of having province-wide PR or PR in MMDs in the provinces wold be massive improvement over present system.
votes crossing provincial borders would require constitutional change
Territories each are not eligible for more than 1 MP so no PR there. (without constitutional change)
The goal of switch away from FPTP is not to produce perfect proportionality, but to adopt a system where the available PR options for Canada:
each sub-provincial district or province-wide district,
or MMP within a province,
or list PR within a province
would produce due representation to each substantial group whether majority or minority.
minority representation so poorly done under FPTP is emphasized in regards to unfairness but due rep. of majority is justified under fair voting just as much as due representation of minority groups.
under FPTP the only minority group that gets representation is the one that wins - and when it wins, it does against the will of the majority (the majorty obviously suffering from vote-splitting between parties)
Proportional representation in and of itself will not suffice to increase minority representation.
Yes, PR will ensure that minority groups that previously got less than their due share of votes will get more. yes it will, to the degree that voters vote along the lines of gender or ethnicity or party and to the degree that the PR system is P.
but under list PR the diversity of rep is limited by the way the party brass formulate the party list. (in open list PR, parties want to present as diverse a slate as possible so as to invite voter support. So even though party lists are set by brass under any list PR system, there is push to have diversity in system where votes can vote directly for candidates.)
the judge's next staement only applies to list PR and then actually only to closed list list PR.
At the very least, the numbers of minority representatives will inevitably turn on the political disposition of party leadership in populating the party list in a PR system that depends on party votes rather than individual candidate votes.
the judge does not go on to say that under STV or SNTV or open list PR, other factors than party can play a part. when voters have choice of candidate of different genders and ethnicity even if they vote for a party they have choice within that party's offering to choose along gender or ethnic lines or any other factor they want.
Thus not examining the behaviour of PR in STV or open-list PR, he goes on to #35.
[35] The evidence with respect to minority representation in different electoral systems is even less definitive than that of women’s representation. On one side, Professor Bird cites the example of New Zealand as one where the move to a form of PR has coincided with a significant increase in the representation of minorities, to the point where New Zealanders of European origin are now slightly underrepresented (63% of MPs compared to 70% in the general population), and the indigenous Maori and Pacific Islander populations are now proportionately represented. There is, however, relatively little comparative evidence with which to assess whether social/political conditions in New Zealand have made it unique, or whether it can be taken as typifying other democratic jurisdictions in this respect.
under NZ's system votes place their votes in SMD where each party presents a one-name paty list (under SMP) or in top up they vote just for parties. so it is not clear that voters voted 63 percent in favour of European origin candidates or 70 percent or some other percent altogether.
for one we cannot assume that European origin voters ( a majority by the way, not a minorty group) each voted for European origin candidates, if they even had the choice.
NZ's system other than Maori seats and the Maori party running candidates in normal constituencies (under SMP) is not race based or particularly race friendly.
with party of choice decided, voters can not veer their votes to a Maori or coloured-skin candidate any more than to a white European-origin candidate within that party, and visa versa.
any system with MMD, fair voting and candidate based voting -- open-list PR or STV or SNTV -- would allow race based voting within a party's offering, just not NZ's system.
so don't judge behaviour visa vis race rep. of all PR systems by looking at NZ.
it may not be at all that the "social/political conditions in New Zealand have made it unique" but the detail of its election system,
unique even from other forms of PR.
NZ does great job at representing parties in line with votes cast,
if Canada had MMP even at province level and without Territorial MMP, it would be great improvement on present system,
just we should not expect it to perform too well visa vis race or gender.
I admit (in advance of the rebuttals) there are ways to make MMP ethnic, race and gender fair, but I personally think MMDs, fair voting and candidate-based voting - open list PR, STV or SNTV -- is easier way to go and more flexible for voters, but NZ's MMP does well, what it does.
=================================================================
More clarification of what I said before:
under FPTP the only minority group that gets representation is the one that wins - and when it wins, it does against the will of the majority (the majority obviously suffering from vote-splitting between parties)
By this, I am talking about result in a district (not the make-up of the chamber)
in the chamber a minority group (say an obscure extreme party) can get representation through lucky break in a specific district easier than under PR
but the middle-size parties (pretty much) always suffer under-rep. under FPTP, which would not be the case under PR system.
AS reformers, i think we should under promise and then over deliver --
harder in short term but better in long term
i think we shouldn't say perfect proportionality will come with "PR" because we are held back when
the judge is saying Territories can only have one member (each) so would never have PR so therefore no one can have PR!
or if someone says PR can never be perfect so it is not worth the change anyway...
plus past occasions where promises were made that it would be fair to parties and would bring in ethnic, race, gender, etc. balance as well and then failed one or other aspect and then was thrown out, even though doing good in very many ways.
=======================
Comments