There is a well-thought-out STV simulation out there. I examine it here and then present my own STV system for Canada.
This is brief description of the STV simulation.
It is described as "a classic Single Transferable Vote (STV) model with moderate-sized ridings of about 12 members each [on average]....
The grouping of existing ridings into multi-member ridings is based on work by Antony Hodgson, President of Fair Voting BC."
Its specifications are described this way: Number of Constituency MPs: 338 [what we had in 2021, likely going up to 342 in 2023]
Number of Top-Up MPs: 0
Total MPs: 338
Number of Single-Member Ridings: 3 [in the three Territories]*
Number of Multi-Member Ridings: 28**
Total Ridings: 31
Number of Top-up Regions: 0
*3 Territories' members would be elected in Single-Member Districts
The Territories members would be elected through Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV).
**the Multi-Member Districts would be of these District Magnitudes (number of members in the district):
DM Number of districts
of that DM
4 1
7 2
9 2
10 3
11 3
12 5
13 2
14 4
15 4
16 1
18 1
Total 28
The size of the districts (as indicated on this list) are determined by two things:
- districts cannot cross provincial boundaries. (This is a constitutional requirement.)
- district should be as large as can work within provincial boundaries to a maximum of 18 members in a district. (The designers apparently put an upper limit on 18 on the DM, but the designers chose not to use the maximum DM everywhere that such was possible. There are not as many 18-member districts as there are provinces with total seat count of 18 or multiples of 18. Perhaps the districts are based on cities or some other sub-provincial units.)
Judging by my vague understanding of the intent of the creator of this simulation,
the districts by province are something like this:
PEI is a single 4-member district.
NFLD is a single 7-member district.
NS is a single 10-member district.
NB is a single 11-member district.
The rest of the provinces are larger than can be covered by a 18-seat district, but only one has an 18-seat district - there is only one 18-DM district listed -- so it is unclear how the other 24 districts are arrived at.
With DM of 14 to 18 used as maximum, we see the simulation envisions 28 districts. It is unclear to me why 18 DM is used in one place - literally one place -- and not in other places.
Anyways it seems to me that the large size of 18-seat districts would be too large for easy adoption, especially as, if STV is adopted, the re-districting would be accompanied by change in ballot (from X voting to a ranked ballot) and the very adoption of multi-member districts.
Canada at one time or another used MMDs in every province and in the two older Territories, but MMDs have not been used anywhere in federal or provincial politics for more than 25 years. So the use of MMDs of any size is already a revolutionary change, even if the size is to be only moderate (3 to 7 members per district). DM of 18 is almost as large as the largest DM used anywhere in the world. (That record size is set by New South Wales, which elects 21 members in a single contest. It works fine but is unusual.)
There is no need for Canada to push the envelope quite so much as that, I think.
DM of 13 to 18 may seem too large to many people.
Perhaps a maximum size of 12 is something to try.
If districts cannot be larger than 12 members, we see that 33 MMDs are required, as presented in following table.
Seat counts by province
Seats Number of Districts
in the province (with 12 DM as max. size)
ON 121 at minimum 11 districts
QU 78 at minimum 7 districts
BC 42 at minimum 4 districts
AB 34 at minimum 3 districts
SK 14 at minimum 2 districts
MB 14 at minimum 2 districts
NS 10 1 10-member district
NB 11 1 11-member district
NFLD 7 1 7-member district
PEI 4 1 4-member district
TOTAL 33 MM Districts
======================
If districts cannot be larger than 12 members, we see that 33 MMDs are required, as presented in following table.
12 is actually not that great a number, being even. Odd-numbered DM is more efficient to get fair results.
I would prefer nine being maximum in cities, and perhaps three in rural areas. More on rural MMDs below.
If districts cannot be larger than 9 members, we see that 42 MMDs are required, as presented in following table.
Number of districts in each province
12-DM max 9-DM max Actual seat count
Simulation Simulation in 2021
PEI 1 1 4
ON 11 14 121
QU 7 9 78
BC 4 5 42
AB 3 4 34
SK 2 2 14
MB 2 2 14
NS 1 2 10
NB 1 2 11
NFLD 1 1 7
33 MMDs 42 MMDs 0 MMDs
SMDs (provinces) 0 0 335
Territories 3 SMDs 3 SMDs 3 SMDs
Total districts 36 45 338 (single-winner first past the post)
Having the country divided into only 36 or 45 districts, with 3 of them SMDs based on Territory boundaries, we take away much of the opportunity for gerrymandering -- and all of the energy spent re-districting, which occurs whenever the number of MPs in the House of Commons is increased. (We could simply add one more member to an existing MMD.)
MMDs of three-DM in the rural areas would be enough of a change, there is no need to push the DM to 9 or 10 or 12, at first. Rural areas are somewhat contentious. (see my blog on three-member districts, for more information on this.
But if the cities alone are made into MMDs, then that would provide a large degree of balance in most of the provinces.
Cities, which already exist, are natural districts, prime for MMDs.
===========
Let's look at a STV system that uses city-wide districts of varying DM.
23 Canadian cities are large enough to have more than one MP.
These cities are just the central cities, not the metropolitan areas (except GTA is metro size). (Someone else can figure out which -- actual city corporate limits or metropolitan areas -- is fairest to use.)
If we calculate that each city should have one member per 100,000 residents (about the same ratio as we use today), we have about 23 cities that would get multiple MPs and thus be large enough for one or more MMDs.
Population MPs
Toronto ON 5.928M 59
Montreal QU 1.763M 18
Calgary AB 1.3M 13
Edmonton AB 1.2M 12
Ottawa ON 1.1M 11
Winnipeg MB 759,000 8
Quebec City QU 773,000 7
Hamilton ON 730,000 7
Vancouver BC 675,000 7
Kitchener ON 523,000 5 total 147
London ON 423,000 4
Victoria BC 363,000 4
Halifax NS 349,000 3
Oshawa ON 336,000 3
Windsor ON 307,000 3
Gatineau QU 285,000 3
Saskatoon SK 265,000 3
St. Catherines ON 242,000 2
Regina SK 225,000 2
St. Johns NL 186,000 2 total 29
Kelowna BC 181,000 2
Barrie ON 155,000 2
Sherbrooke QU 151,000 2 total 6
TOTAL 182 MPs
Under such a system, a majority of MPs elected in Canada would be elected through district-level PR (STV). This would go a long ways towards making our elections truly reflect votes cast.
Cities with MMDs (as listed) by province:
Ontario 9 Quebec 4 MB 1 SK 2 AB 2 BC 3 NS 1 1 = 23 cities
MPs in Cities with MMDs as listed above:
Ontario 96 Quebec 30 MB 8 SK 5 AB 25 BC 13 NS 3 NL 2 = 182 MPs in MMD-cities
(thus slightly more than half the MPs in HofC would be from cities with MMDs)
Every region in Canada (except Far North) would have MMDs under this system.
Every province in Canada (except NB and PEI) would have MMD(s) based on city-wide districts or city segments. (Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Edmonton are listed as using MMDs that are not city -wide but instead cover a segment of the respective city.)
Thus, I expect each region, and almost every province, to produce a mixed crop of representatives.
Several provinces would elect most of their MPs in MMD(s) - Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta.
This would end the one-party sweeps of a province's seats that now helps to artificially produce the regionalism that now plagues Canada.
Under this system, at most, a MMD would have nine members.
With 9-DM as maximum and odd-numbered districts where possible, the district break-down could be:
Toronto 5 9-member districts, 2 7-member districts
Montreal 2 9-member districts
Calgary 1 7-member district, 1 6-member district
Edmonton 1 7-member district, 1 5-member district
Ottawa 1 6-member district, 1 5-member district
Winnipeg 1 8-member district
Vancouver 1 7-member district
Quebec City 1 7-member district
Hamilton 1 7-member district
Kitchener 1 5-member district
London 1 4-member district
Victoria 1 4-member district
Gatineau 1 3-member district
Halifax 1 3-member district
Oshawa 1 3-member district
Windsor 1 3-member district
Saskatoon 1 3-member district
St. Catherines 1 2-member district
Regina SK 1 2-member district
St. Johns NL 1 2-member district
Kelowna BC 1 2-member district
Barrie ON 1 2-member district
Sherbrooke QU 1 2-member district
23 cities 33 MM districts DM ranging from 2 to 9
Of the 33 MMDs, 17 would be based wholly on the city boundary; 15 would be based mainly on the city or Metro boundaries. No chance for gerrymandering; no need for re-districting ever again.
All but five of the cities would have only one district. That district would be city-wide.
Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa would have two districts.
Only Toronto would have more than two districts - it would have 7 districts.
So very little re-districting required --- simply use the city's boundaries, in most cases.
With 181 MPs elected in MMDs, even with no grouping of rural districts, the number of districts in Canada would decrease from 338 (2021) to just 188 (32 MMDs and 156 SMDs) with 3 SMDs based on Territories' boundaries, 17 districts based wholly on city boundaries, and 15 based mainly on city or Metro boundaries.
As other cities grow to pass the 150,000 threshold, they too could get districts for themselves and get two members. Rural SMDs would be re-structured to separate rural district from the new urban district and to spread out the new count of rural MPs over the province. As a city passes that threshold to MMD-ness, perhaps province representation would increase as well, the province as a whole getting one more member, making the change easier.
As well, if a city already made into an MMD or MMDs increases in population (or deceases in population) it would be easy to make the adjustment. Simply add (or take away) a member - no re-districting required.
With fair voting in MMDs, we can expect upwards of 80 percent of the votes in a city used to actually elect someone, while Instant-Runoff Voting in the rural SMDs might see about 51 percent used to elect someone. Voter turn-out would likely increase under both systems compared to the present turn-out under FPTP.
The vote structure would be far different from today's results where in many cities, more votes are ignored (unrepresented) than are used to actually elect someone. As the present electoral flaws impacts small parties mostly, we can expect Greens and NDP to get more seats, to dependably get their due share of the seats. As it happens, the present electoral flaws hurts one party in the cities and the other major parties in the rural areas, there is rough balance so the relationship of seats counts of the Conservatives and Liberals is not likely to change much.
But fair voting in MMDs (STV) would mean that that party-to party comparison would be more dependable and logical, more likely that the most popular party would have the most seats, and that the unlucky party would not suffer under a wrong-winner result by his opponent. As well, each major party would win seats in each major city that reflects their voting share. This would mean that each major party (aside from Quebec-only parties) would win a seat or seats in each province (each province with an MMD anyway).
When the Conservatives or Liberals form a government, they would be able to include in their cabinet an MP from each province or at least from each region of the country, not always possible under FPTP.
The artificially-created regionalism would cease (or be suppressed anyway), because it would not be inflamed by electoral results.
================================
Is a nine-member district manageable?
Winnipeg successfully used STV in a ten-member district from 1920 to 1949.
STV and MMDs are not so complex. It was used again and again at a time before computers and computer spreadsheets.
It would be just as easily done today.
Today actually 21 members are elected in one STV contest. This is in New South Wales and it has been a success in every election since 1990.
With use of MMDs and STV, each of the 23 cities would produce mixed, balanced representation --- unless one party took more than two-thirds of the vote in a city-wide district (or in each of the districts of a large city), which is not very likely.
Mixed representation in any one district in a province means that no one party could score a one-party sweep of a province's seats.
With each province having at least two MMDs, except Manitoba, Newfoundland, PEI and NB, we can expect at least two, and likely four or more members elected from a party other than the most popular one.
Thus, the balance of representation elected as part of a province's caucus would be more than just a token opposition member. It would be enough to give substantive representation to minority voting blocks/parties.
Likely, no one party would take much more than half of a province's seats, just as the votes cast in the province would indicate. With the rest being spread across any other parties that have substantial support.
How many votes would elect each member under STV and MMDs?
Portage-Lisgar (Manitoba) had almost exactly 100,000 residents in the 2021 election.
It had 60,000 eligible electors.
46,000 votes were cast in 2021 federal election.
Yellowhead (Alberta) had almost exactly 100,000 residents in the 2021 election.
It had 74,000 eligible electors.
51,000 votes were cast in 2021 federal election.
So if we take average of these as rough estimate of votes cast, we see
per member, each district of 100,000 residents would cover 65,000 voters and would see about 50,000 votes cast.
Quota is established by votes cast. (The formula of votes cast divided by DM plus 1 is close enough for this exercise.)
Wasted votes are generally about one quota, more or less. Thus the amount needed to win (in most cases) and the amount of wasted votes would be much more consistent than under FPTP where anything from 72 percent of the vote (or more) to 24 percent of the vote (or more) elects the member and anything from 76 percent to 28 percent is wasted.
Under STV, the amount needed to be certain of a win is about the same as the number of votes not used to elect anyone (wasted). The number of wasted votes is always less than half, usually around 20 percent, unlike FPTP where as much as 80 percent of votes cast can be wasted.
Percentages for win or waste, in general:
1 DM (IRV) 50,000 votes cast Quota 25,000 votes.
2 DM (STV) 100,000 votes cast Quota 33 percent 33,000 votes.
3 DM (STV) 150,000 votes cast Quota 25 percent 38,000 votes.
4 DM (STV) 200,000 votes cast Quota 20 percent 40,000 votes.
5 DM (STV) 250,000 votes cast Quota 17 percent 42,000 votes.
6 DM (STV) 300,000 votes cast Quota 14 percent 43,000 votes.
7 DM (STV) 350,000 votes cast Quota 13 percent 44,000 votes.
8 DM (STV) 400,000 votes cast Quota 12 percent 44,000 votes.
9 DM (STV) 450,000 votes cast Quota 10 percent 45,000 votes.
(If DM of 10 is used,
10 DM (STV) 500,000 votes cast Quota 9 percent 50,000 votes)
So irrespective of DM, we see a fairly consistent vote-to-member ratio.
Under FPTP, in 2021 federal election, an MP was elected with anything from 29 percent of the vote to 76 percent of the vote, and with anywhere from 4,119 votes to 44,000 votes. (See footnote for specifics.)
But under this system, most members would be elected with quota, which would range from 25,000 to 45,000 votes. In MMDs the range for quota would be just 33,000 to 45,000.
One or so members in each MMD may be elected with less than quota but they would be the most popular at the end of the count.
For example in 1948, in Edmonton when five members were elected in city-wide district, one candidate was elected at the end with less than quota but he had 98 percent of quota, so very close, especially as compared to the 1 to 10 variation of votes received by winners that prevailed in the 2021 election.
Let's say that all voters cast ranked ballots and in single-member districts (outside cities), the winner is chosen through Instant-Runoff Voting, a majoritarian system.
There would be a range of city sizes using the same DM. But still the requirement to be elected would be much less varied than under FPTP.
If we look at the range of city sizes in each DM, we still see fairly consistent vote percentages needed for win.
Number of votes for win, with respect to range of city sizes:
1 DM (IRV) 57,000 residents. 33,000 votes cast Quota 16,500 votes. (Miramichi)*
1 DM (IRV) 149,999 residents. 75,000 votes cast Quota 37,500 votes.
2 DM (STV) 150,000 residents. 75,000 votes cast Quota 25,000 votes.
2 DM (STV) 249,000 residents. 125,000 votes cast Quota 42,000 votes.
3 DM (STV) 250,000 residents. 125,000 votes cast Quota 32,000 votes.
3 DM (STV) 349,000 residents. 175,000 votes cast Quota 44,000 votes.
4 DM (STV) 350,000 residents. 175,000 votes cast Quota 35,000 votes.
4 DM (STV) 449,000 residents. 225,000 votes cast Quota 45,000 votes.
5 DM (STV) 450,000 residents. 225,000 votes cast Quota 38,000 votes.
5 DM (STV) 549,000 residents. 275,000 votes cast Quota 46,000 votes.
6 DM (STV) 550,000 residents. 275,000 votes cast Quota 39,000 votes.
6 DM (STV) 649,000 residents. 325,000 votes cast Quota 47,000 votes.
7 DM (STV) 650,000 residents. 325,000 votes cast Quota 40,600 votes.
7 DM (STV) 749,000 residents. 375,000 votes cast Quota 48,000 votes.
8 DM (STV) 750,000 residents. 375,000 votes cast Quota 42,000 votes.
8 DM (STV) 849,000 residents. 425,000 votes cast Quota 47,200 votes.
9 DM (STV) 850,000 residents. 425,000 votes cast Quota 45,000 votes.
9 DM (STV) 949,000 residents. 475,000 votes cast Quota 47,500 votes.
(If 10 DM is used:
10 DM (STV) 950,000 residents. 475,000 votes cast Quota 43,200 votes.
10 DM (STV) 1,049,000 residents. 525,000 votes cast Quota 47,700 votes. )
So in cities with population larger than 250,000, quota is between 32,000 and 47,700.
And in cities with population larger than 600,000, we see very narrow range of just 40,000 to 48,000.
Vote count
Under STV, in cities larger than 250,000 population, the ratio of smallest quota of votes to largest quota of votes is something like 2 to 3,
which is very tight compared to the 1-to-3.1 ratio of winner's vote tallies in the 2021 FPTP federal election (FPTP).
MP in Miramichi elected with just 14,000 votes
MP in Foothills (Alberta) elected with 44,000 votes.
Percentage-wise
Under STV, in cities larger than 250,000 population, the ratio of smallest quota of votes to largest quota of votes is ten percent to 17 percent, something like 1 to 1.7,
which is very tight compared to the 24 percent to 76 percent range in the 2021 federal election (FPTP), a ratio of 1 to 3.
The kind of even-handedness produced by STV then means that each MP would be elected with about the same number of votes, and therefore that each party would get its due share of the seats.
===========================
Miramichi footnote
Miramichi was the riding with the smallest population, aside from ridings in NL and PEI and the Territories.
population of 58,000
2021 only 33,000 votes cast in the riding
winner won with less than half -- winner won with only 14,000 votes cast.
==================
[Footnote] 2021 federal election -- some record results
Some record results include:
Successful candidate receiving highest percentage of votes cast:
76 percent Robert Kitchen Souris Moose Mountain
Successful candidate receiving lowest percentage of votes cast:
29.49 percent René Villemure Trois Rivieres (29.49 percent is less than many unsuccessful MPs)
Successful candidate receiving largest number of votes cast:
44,456 John Barlow Foothills (Alberta)
Successful candidate (in a province) receiving smallest number of votes cast:
Labrador 4,119.
Of unsuccessful candidates, this one received largest number of votes cast: Peterborough Liberal Maryam Mounsef 24,664 votes (which is more than many successful MPs)
Of unsuccessful candidates, this one received highest proportion of votes cast (in a province): Markham Conservative Bob Saroya with 42 percent of votes cast (which is more than many successful MPs)
==================================
More on what city-based PR could look like:
If we talk about the various PR systems each having particular weaknesses and strengths, then that means that not all PR systems will be "tarred with the same brush"
while closed-list PR means ethnic or race rep. will not be improved (or not by much), any system that allows voter to vote for candidate and offers them choice of candidate of diff. ethnic or race etc. then you can expect improvement if that is voter's choice.
if strict party proportionality is goal, then looking at STV or list PR in districts (Belgium style) may turn one off PR.
even list PR in districts like in Denmark produces results that are not strictly proportional (esp to parties thinly spread across whole country, and that is why Denmark uses top-up on top of list PR in districts.
in particular those who see only list PR in large swathes say there cannot be local representation while district PR (list PR or STV in city-wide districts) can effect as local representation as the mayor of the city.
so i think discussion of diff types PR systems makes sense even as early as this in defence of anti-PR arguments.
the judge (in the 2023 Charter Challenge of FPTP) actually says election system is balance of different aspects and until that is worked out or established by public discussion etc. then no move is possible.
But it is clear people are known to be unhappy with present situation and let's take a stab at what most of the countries in the world are already doing.
some meachanics and detail can be worked out through trial and error and practical lived experience
but we already know a bit what to expect.
balance/choice needs to be decided between
- local member(s)
- local representation (not necessarily same thing as local member)
- party proportionality
- constitution - no votes crossing provincial borders for example so proportionality is taken in each province separately
- gender, ethnic, race representation -
two routes:
- each group will elect members of their own group
- voters in each group will be accorded their due number of sets to fill as they want.
(even Maori seats are nuanced -- anyone can run for the seats but only Maori can vote there - seats are filled separately through FPTP so race rep at expense of PR, but overall top up addresses some of that party disproportionality
- ease of voting
full-preferential ranking is good at preventing vote waste but is harder on voters
likely even more things to balance than that list but you get idea.
just saying PR is easier but sets the road to problems.
but of course any PR system would be improvement
any PR system that can only go forward with constitutional change is not good in my mind when much improvement without crossing that obstacle
so if we discuss just PR systems that do not require constitutional change, then we are already ahead in the process.
and if we can say that no size fits all, then we have moved forward down that road.
the following is discourse on detail of the future PR system so may not be of interest
Territories must be single-member districts (but multi-member districts possible elsewhere)
PEI could use province-wide district for list PR, STV or SNTV, or MMP with say two top-up members
any province with between 5 and 21 MPs NS, NB, NL, SK MB
choice is
province-wide district for list PR or STV
MMP (province-wide top-up)
RUPR (STV or list PR in cities, overall top-up)
STV district (no top-up)
list PR district (no top-up) (DM of 5 to 11)
(STV in district, list PR in districts, SNTV in districts could allow for single-member ridings where necessary)
provinces with more than 21 MPs
MMP (province-wide top-up)
regionalized MMP (regional top-up ala Scotland)
(Scotland each region having 15 to 17 members so if we roughly follow this, min regional DM 13, max regional DM 25 (or 17). anything less than 26 members would likely be one region, 26 to 50 (or 42) MPs would be two districts, 43 (or 51) to 59 (or 67) MPs would be three districts.)
(do Canadians care about regional representation? i would think the grouped district or the one-member district, and provincial rep would be what they care about if they even look past rep. of their favoured party in the HofC)
RUPR/STV used in cities (provincial top-up)*
RUPR/list PR used in cities (provincial top-up)*
RUPR/STV used in cities (regional top-up)*
RUPR/list PR used in cities (regional top-up)*
STV district (no top-up)
list PR district (no top-up)
(STV in district, list PR in districts could allow for single-member ridings where necessary.
RUPR implies use of both MMDs and single-member districts)
*the important difference of the four various RUPR systems is that STV has upper limit on district magnitude of 10 or 15 or 21 at most, while list PR in a city has no upper limit in the Canadian context (no city has more than 100 members)
Districting
MMP (province-wide top-up) might keep existing single-member districts unless required to change due to need for top-up members
regional MMP (regional top-up) might keep existing single-member districts unless required to change due to need for top-up members
(formulation of regions are not described below)
but the other systems listed: list PR district, or STV district or SNTV district need MMDs (but not everywhere has to be MMD)
RUPR for sure has mixture of MMDs and single-member districts
rule of thumb could be established that
ridings would remain as is where they are larger than 60,000 sq. kms.
all others would be grouped:
ridings less than 60,000 kms in size outside cities -
new grouped riding would be no larger than 90,000 sq. kms and have no more members than 5.
in cities with 2 to 7 MPs
new grouped riding would encompass whole city
in cities 8 to 13 members
new grouped riding would encompass whole city if list PR, STV, RUPR used.
SNTV would see city split in two districts, of DM 4 to 7.
in cities 14 or more members
one city-wide district if list PR district or RUPR/list PR used
if STV district or RUPR (STV) used, city might be split into districts electing no less than 7 (or 5) and no more than 21 (or 11 or 15).
SNTV would see city split in two or more districts, max. DM of 7, min. DM of 5.
(city-wide top-up if regional MMP used)
these schemes of districting are based on largest use of STV (21 NSW) or SNTV (7 in vanuatu) known in the world today.
smaller DM than that might be preferred and might be used with pretty much equally fair results.
=============================
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.
Tom
========
FPTP fails
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)
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.
=======================
extra bit --- a bit off topic --- on Charter Challenge of FPTP (2023)
Subject: the judge on PR minority rep
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 voting 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:
based on sub-provincial district or province-wide district (STV, SNTV, list PR, or RUPR)
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 olpen list PR, partis want to prec=sent as diverse a slate as possible so as to invige 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 statement 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 No. 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 minority 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 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.
===============================
housekeeping:
public access to this blog is
コメント