Here's an example of a Mixed-Member Proportional system that combines single-member districts and medium-size districts of 5 to 9 seats each, with an overall "at-large" scheme --
- Each city with currently 5 to nine seats would be made into a city-wide district electing the same number of reps. through STV.
- Each city with 10 to 18 seats would be made into two districts, each district electing roughly half the reps. through STV
(and so on for larger cities)
- Outside the cities, two or more districts, up to 5 districts together, would be combined so their new total land area would be large but not too large to be practical. And the new district would be given the same number of seats as the districts together used to have. Electing its reps. through STV.
A maximum practical size would be 150,000 square kilometres or five seats, whichever comes first. Thus, a new rural multi-member district could have 250,000 voters (five times an average of 50,000 voters per old district).
A somewhat typical rural riding, Banff-Airdrie riding in Alberta contains 12,000 square kilometres. This riding takes about an hour's drive from one corner of the riding to another, as a bird flies.
As large as that seems, there are many federal ridings much larger. Each is represented by only one MP.
Even with many new districts being established with the maximum size (150,000 square kilometres), there are some current ridings that cover even larger land areas. Admittedly, these ridings are in remote areas (ironically where transportation is very difficult).
These existing large ridings are:
Quebec's Manicouagan riding contains 264,000 square kilometres.
Quebec's Abitibi - Baie-James - Nunavik - Eeyou is crazy large containing more than 800,000 square kilometres.
Ontario: Churchill - Keewatinook Aski riding contains 494,701 square kilometres.
Ontario: Desnethe - Missinippi - Churchill River riding contains 342,903 square kilometres.
Ontario: Timmins - James Bay contains 251,599 square kilometres.
BC: Prince George - Peace River - Northern Rockies riding contains 243,276 square kilometres.
BC: Skeena - Bulkley Valley riding contains 327,275 square kilometres.
The Yukon riding contains 482,443 square kilometres.
The NWT riding contains 1,346,106 square kilometres.
The Nunavut riding contains 2,093,190 square kilometres.
(info from Wikipedia -- Population of Canadian federal ridings)
Each of these are represented by one single MP.
Under STV a multi-member rural district, sometimes much smaller than those listed above, would be represented by 2 to 5 MPs so multi-member districts seem perfectly do-able.
Concern about the loss of local representation under such a large district should be dispelled by knowing that voters in any corner of the riding could band together to support local candidates and if they had quota they would elect at least one rep, and there would be nothing the voters elsewhere could do to stop them.
The current riding of Fort McMurray - Cold Lake, with 147,412 sq. kms., is about the size of the maximum size of a "grouped riding."
Thus, under this new system, Banff-Airdrie could be combined with something like four other of our current ridings to create a single multi-member riding, covering the south and west corner of Alberta with a single riding.
- Those districts too large to be made larger (larger than say 100,000 square kilometres) would be left as single-member districts, each electing its rep. through Alternative Voting perhaps. The ridings left as is would include the ten largest ridings listed above. They would not be made any larger, although the voters present in each (about 20,00 to 30,000 voters each) are but a fraction of that of populous urban ridings like Victoria, which has 90,000 voters.
The attached at-large scheme could be as simple as
- allocating a supplemental hundred seats to the political parties as per their vote tallies, or
- allocating a supplemental 50 seats to the political parties as per their vote tallies.
The largest remainder system would be used to allocate seats as fairly as possible.
Under such a simple top-up, a party that had one or two percent of the vote would get a seat or two in the at-large scheme, even if its support was so spread out it could get no seats in district elections, even with the fair representation achieved through the district-level STV used in a large part of the country.
The very fact that there were a hundred or 50 seats reflecting the exact percentage of support would show in immaculate exactness the standings of the parties. That would bring clarity to the election results.
As well it would produce more fair representation to the smaller parties. Even with 100 top-up seats, the top-up seats alone would not give a party the percentage of the seats in the chamber overall that it was due but they would give each party at least a third or so of what it was due. This would be a much fairer result than the present FPTP system. ======================= The 150,000 sq. km. max for grouped districts is meant for federal ridings but it works for provincial districts as well, although at that level the seven (or 9) seat count is likely to impose a ceiling more often, at least in populated areas of Canada. For Nunavut or other territories or provinces with small legislatures, a top up of 20 seats (one per each five percent of the overall vote) might be more appropriate. Taking 150,000 sq. kms. as the norm for a rural grouped district will cause complaints, but currently many districts are that size or just about that size and one member represents the whole area. Having multiple members should make representation of the district do-able. This size if square shaped would be about 387 kms by 387 kms. or less than about two hours drive from the centre to the outside of the district in the four directions. Telephone, electronic communication would help make it workable. And the district having multiple reps would help as well. In the cities, the ceiling on seat count (nine seats) will impose a limit long before the 150,000-sq.-kms. area limit is reached.
Food for thought.
Thanks for reading.
======================================
Comments