top of page
Tom Monto

A province-based MMP system

Here is a crude Mixed Member system that addresses Canada's regionalism.


The number of districts in each province would vary from present numbers but may anyway after the next redistribution. (Any change in number can be dealt with in modest changes to number of seats representing cities, hidden by subtle moderation in number of seats representing multi-member districts covering whole cities. The system does not necessarily entail the use of multi-member districts but it does not rule them out either.) A simple solution to regionalism would be to arrive at the number of seats per province same as now but to have four seats in each province filled outside of district elections. First determine the number of seats per province The three steps in determining the number of seats per province are based on info in the Canadian Encyclopedia: Redistribution of Federal Electoral Districts | The Canadian Encyclopedia Redistribution of Federal Electoral Districts | The Canadian Encyclopedia History, politics, arts, science & more: the Canadian Encyclopedia is your reference on Canada. Articles, timeli... 1. allocate seats based on population 2. each province gets minimum seats as per grandfather clause and Senate-parity guarantees. 3. in line with 1985 redistribution arrangement, each province which had been over-represented is to get additional seats if its proportion of the seats is less than its portion of the population. then determine the number of seats elected through districts: All but four of the seats are to be filled through district elections in single- or multi-member districts. (using this terminology leaves an opening for multi-member districts. I want to leave an opening for creation of some multi-member districts (perhaps filled through STV), if desired.) The remaining four seats in each province are filled after the election, allocated to people named by the leader of the four most-popular parties. Thus in this Mixed Member Proportional system, there are four supplemental seats in each province. Conformity with existing constitutional seat redistribution is maintained while a vestige of party-list Proportional Representation is created through the supplemental members. Regionalism would be mostly addressed, with each province electing representation of each major party. Each of the major parties gets about the same benefit of the supplemental members, so it is even-handed that way - results under this kind of MMP system would be at least as proportional and fair as the present FPTP election system gives us now. Even with single-member districts, the result would be much like today's House, but with more fairness. The districts would likely go to the same parties as today. Each of the four main parties would win supplemental seats, with the smaller parties, who are the worst under-represented, getting what would look like more substantial help. (A few more seats is more significant if you only have a few seats than if you have more than a hundred already.) And with multi-member districts there would be even more fairness (especially if STV is used to provide city-level PR). As mentioned, regionalism would be mostly addressed, with each province electing representation of each major party. With votes as per the 2019 election, the Greens would be left out of Quebec though. With votes as per the 2019 election, the Greens would not have won the fourth seat in Quebec so would still be shut out in that province but would have nine supplemental members MPs elsewhere. This would give the Green Party 12 seats altogether, up from its three today, assuming it would win three districts.) If giving seats in each province to the four most popular parties seems too open-minded, the number could be changed to the top two parties in each province or the top three, if that is preferred. The smaller number of supplemental seats, the less change would have to be done with the number of district seats in each province, although some change happens in the normal run of things through census-driven redistribution. The same sort of thing is easily done at the provincial level as well, through allocating ten additional seats in non-compensatory manner, one seat per ten percentage of votes overall. Having no constitutional safeguards at this level makes the addition of supplemental seats into a simple matter for provincial elections. Something to consider... Thanks for reading,

================================

2 views

Recent Posts

See All

Comentarios


bottom of page