Looking at Chartists in 1838 Britain, they asked for "equal representation." Apparently they wanted districts of equal sizes, each electing just one member.
I am frankly surprised such revolutionaries/reformers/utopians wanted so little as that.
In those days there were many MMDs and some SMDs with some SMDs larger than some MMDs, so having equal-sized districts with consistent DM would have addressed some of the inequality. But doubtless their goal was for each voter to have due representation -- if Chartist candidates take ten percent of the vote, they should get ten percent of the seats - that is equal representation, to my mind.
It seems they thought that would be achieved through equal sized FPTP districts. (we have only to look at Canadian elections to see the fallacy of that belief) Being able to vote in a FPTP district of equal sizes would have likely not given the Chartist movement its due share of seats, just as it denies fair number of seats to the NDP almost always and Greens almost totally since forever, and the People's Party as well in the last two elections, so it is hardly what they were seeking - but that district-equality is the only fairness that FPTP can do. (but not what MMDs (even two-seat districts) could do - with fair voting FPTP cannot guarantee minority representation. FPTP cannot even guarantee that each winner will have same number of votes because distribution of the vote in the district varies, and does not guarantee that each district will have same number of votes because turn-out varies. FPTP does not guarantee that each successful candidate will have same percentage of votes even.(even IRV simply gives a minimum percentage - must have at least 50 percent of votes, votes still in play at that point in time not necessarily votes cast. under FPTP percentage of votes varies from 18 percent (2014 Toronto city election) to 82 percent under FPTP in 2021 election winner's percentage varied from 29.5 percent to 76 percent (Souris Moose Mountain) winner's number of votes in last federal elections varies from 44,000 to 13,000 in standard districts (much lower than that in Territories or far north, I think) so even equal-sized district is not foolproof at ensuring winners are elected with same number of votes. New York city when it used STV 1937-1947 used the borough as districts - so no arbitrary districts - and made fairness by allocating different number of seats to each borough - not as per population but as per voter turn-out so that is fairness to the "almost-nth" degree. (the nth degree (in practical terms) would have been city-wide list PR and a DM of 100 or more. as the number of seats varied with voter turnout (as much as gradients of 50,000 to 75,000 votes allowed), so the number of votes that were quota stayed pretty constant. using voter turnout to set seat count meant that quota was about the same in each borough despite different number of votes in each. the vote count no matter what it was was divided by number of seats plus one (if Droop was used) (I think so anyway - the exact form of STV used is still murky) and so in 1937 you had something like this I know the seat count for each borough but not the vote total. I assume Droop quota was used but if Hare was used, number would vary but there would be almost the same range of quota.): Richmond one seat 75,000 to 125,000 votes (actually this is IRV as there is only a single winner) quota is 50 percent plus one, so 37,500 to 62,000 Queens and the Bronx each with five seats350,000 to 425,000 votes quota was between 58,333 and 70,833.
Manhattan six seats 425,000 to 500,000 votes quota was between 60,714 and 71,428. Brooklyn nine seats 650,000 to 725,000 votes. quota was between 65,000 and 72,500. so we see that irrespective of vote tallies and seat counts in each district, the number of votes that guaranteed success ranged from just 58,333 to 72,500.a factor of 1 to 1.24. as each member has an equal one vote in the chamber, it makes sense for each to be elected with the same number of votes. That is also really the only way to ensure that each party gets its fair due. In New York, each party got its fair number of seats based on that organically-uniform rate (quota). while the quota for a seat stayed the same from election to election, voter turn-out varied from election to election so the number of city councillors on council under this system varied from term to term depending on voter turnout. However 24 years earlier, John H. Humphreys, part of the brain trust of the PR movement at the time, pointed out how a uniform quota could have drawbacks and produce disproportional results. Humphreys discusses the drawback of using a uniform quota (say 1000 votes) when number of valid votes vary from district to district in the Mercury, Oct. 21, 1913 THE LIMITED APPLICATION OF THE UNIFORM QUOTA. - To the Editor of THE LIMITED APPLICATION OF THE UNIFORM QUOTA. - To the Editor of Sir,—The House of Assembly in declining,to limit the application of the uniform quota has, 1 venture to suggest,... in Humphrey's example district seats varied from 5 to 7 districts' votes totals vary from 5000 to 7000 (the range we see under FPTP is much more than this) party totals were 2000, 4000, 12,000 and 14,000. party totals in districts varied from 100 to 3100. In his example, uniform quota (1000, actually 1001 as back then (apparently) you had to pass quota to be elected) and use of the electoral threshold (apparently requirement to have one district seat to be eligible for the second allotment was taken as given), this situation produced party dis-proportionality.
This dis-proportionality was produced despite the use of a fair "averages" system used to set seats after "first allotment" (the second allotment being the equivalent of the overall top-up), the point being, districting caused vote splitting and the uniform quota did not make sense.
2000, about a third of votes in a district with 6 seats, gave one party just one seat.
But that is pretty artificial result -- that vote tally is just two votes less than two quotas.
And in another district the same party got just one vote less than one quota.
thus almost three times quota produced one seat.
this apparently was what PR was about in old days -- discussing whether uniform quota or STV's organic quota makes more sense (the question of a set number of votes versus a set fraction of the vote)
we are at least past that -- I think no one is saying use uniform quota, and district DM is taken as being set in advance - no need for the fluctuating district size method of old New York City. (perhaps NYC's strict STV added fuel to the anti-STV/anti-PR feeling that gradually formed a majority in the city.)
STV -- normally now -- does not use "uniform quota" -
the quota used is a set ratio or fraction --
in a five-seat district, for example, Droop quota is one sixth of the votes, plus one, however many that is
And we see that STV as used today produces much more fair results than FPTP, although not as cleanly as the fluctuating seat count system in old New York City.
in 2020 Ireland election
in five member districts:
highest quota 12,992 Tipperary
lowest quota 10,057 Galway West
lowest vote tally of successful candidate 8340 Dublin Fingal (this is the final count, not that candidate's first count tally)
the range under STV in five-seat districts was a factor of about 1 to 1.5.
Examples of districts of DM of 3 and 4 (I don't have time to look at each district)
Three-member districts
Cork SW quota 11,085 least-popular successful candidate had 10,078
Cork NW quota 11,593 least-popular successful candidate had 11,173
Galway East quota 10.361 least-popular successful candidate had 10,022
Four-member districts
Dun Laghoire quota 12,459 least-popular successful candidate 11,071
Limerick City quota 9226 least-popular successful candidate had 8207
Mayo quota 12,871 least-popular successful candidate had 10,977
The range of these districts was from 8340 as the least for a successful candidate to 12,992 as the largest vote tally taken by a successful candidate (this is the vote tally counted for the candidate after any surplus votes were taken away from him/her and his/her vote tally was lowered to the quota in that district.)
Thus the range here too was a factor of about 1 to 1.5.
The number of votes received among successful candidates is much more consistent than the range under FPTP in Canada's last federal election.
Canada's federal 2021 election conducted using FPTP successful candidates largest vote tally 44,456 Foothills (Alberta )
lowest vote tally (in provinces) 4119 Labrador (NL)
Labrador is special case being a Northern district with sparse population
To give FPTP the benefit of the doubt, let's look at the lowest vote tally by a winner in a district with about 100,000 residents (about average for a district across the country):
Trois Rivieres winner got 17,000 votes (29 percent of valid votes).
the range under FPTP was a ratio of 1 to 2.6. This range was as large as it was despite each district having the same number of members - one member each - and each having about the same number of residents and voters, and thus theoretically having about the same number of votes cast. The percentage of the votes cast received by successful candidates varied from 76 percent (Souris Moose Mountain) to 29 percent (Trois Riviere). This was due to plurality being enough to be elected, and the vote structure in each district varying widely due to vote splitting, different numbers of candidates competing, etc. While under STV in Ireland, quota - as a percentage of votes and as number of votes - varied much less: five-seat district quota was 17 percent and that meant a median of about 11,500 votes in each 5-seat district. four-seat district 20 percent and that meant a median of about 11,000 votes three-seat district 25 percent and that meant a median of about 11,000 votes. The number of seats in the district varied, the number of votes cast varied but the function of quota meant that quota in each district was about the same number of votes irrespective of size or voter turnout. However while it is clear that normal STV today produces much more fair results, perhaps there is reason to use old New York City's organic (fluctuating) seat count system. If Canada switches to RUPR, where cities are multi-member districts and institutes fair voting in each city (STV or SNTV or list PR), the voter turn-out will be largely unknown - will more voters get out and vote under fair system? would turn-out stay at about 50-65 percent or dramatically increase? will boundary changes affect turn out? so bearing that in mind, guessing at total vote tallies in each district will be difficult but essential if seat count is to reflect votes cast, a necessity if quota is to be about the same from district to district. so we could use the NY city method (at least for first couple RUPR elections until things settled out): after votes are counted (the first count), in each province separately a quota could be established - the number of votes cast in the province divided by number of seats in the province (established by the Constitution) say a 16 percent fluctuation up and down allowed for cities versus rural ridings - so 5 to seven ratio. (or the votes could be counted in two groups -- those cast in rural districts and those cast in city districts -- and average (quota) established for each using 5 to 7 ratio of rural versus urban. that would set two quota, one for rural districts and one for city districts. each district would be guaranteed to have at least one seat. each district would be given additional seats based on the quota. with "STV quota" calculated for each district as per vote total in the district, and vote counting proceeding like under normal STV.
Such would give each city or rural district the number of seats it desred based on votes cast not on population as measured by census which might have little relationship to votes cast.
or the seat quota could be used to calculate both the seat count in each district and also used as the quota for the vote count. and of course if not enough persons won seats with quota, then those in the lead at the end would be declared elected.
Using "uniform seat quota" would encourage people to vote as the district would have more rep if it had more votes cast (within limits of seats available)
because rep should not be about representing an area or a city (irrespective of votes cast) but representing the voters who cast votes within the area or city.
and party proportionality depends on each member being elected with about same number of votes. (This can only be done if quota (number of votes required to be certain of victory in each district) is the same. if a district with five seats has many more votes than another district with five seats, then there is no such equality. But if a district with more votes cast can have more members than a distrcit with fewer voters cast, then there would be that fairness.)
Because even if we have fair voting and use districts, there would be some degree of unfairness if winners were elected with different number of votes from district to district.
say for example in Alberta ridings (in 2021)
Banff voter turn-out was 77,000
Foothills 64,000
Red Deer- Mountain 63,000
Red Deer 62,000
Lethbridge 59,000
Battle River 59,000
Lakeland 53,000
Bow river 51,000
Yellowhead 51,000
Medicine Hat 48,000
Peace River 47,000
Fort McMurray 43,000
Grande Prairie Mackenzie 43,000
so even just in Alberta rural ridings there is wide variation in votes, from 43,000 to 77,000.
all the seats listed here were taken by candidates of one party so there is no party proportionality issue
but there is a fairness issue, and if there comes a time when the Conservatives do not take all the rural seats (as they have been doing again and again), then the wide variation might cause disproportionality.
say if Liberal or NDP voters take one seat with more than half of 77,000 versus a Conservative taking a different seat with just more than half of 44,000, or visa versa.
not to mention taking a seat with just 24 percent of the votes in a 43,000-vote district versus 76 percent in a 77,000 vote district, as can happen under FPTP.
=============
Comentarios