The Jan/Feb 2021 Alberta Views carries my letter to editor on proportional representation.
Entitled "RE 'Online Voting, anyone?'", it refers to a short article in the November Alberta Views on how online voting has been a success in Estonia.
But I point out that it would do Canada more good if we copied a different aspect of Estonia elections - the use of pro-rep.
Typo crept in though that I want to point out. The letter as published reads: "STV produced a mixed representation in each election. Candidates of four parties were elected in fair proportion in city-wide districts in Edmonton and Calgary. Elsewhere large multi-member districts eliminated gerrymandering and spitting of voting blocs." We don't need word "elsewhere". in fact STV was only used in Edmonton and Calgary (except for Medicine Hat in one election). My point was that not only did STV elect mixed representation but also it eliminated the partisan skewing of the vote by the intentional drawing of artificial provincial district boundaries in such a way as to manufacture waste of opposition votes and to split up voting blocks. (Long sentence. Thanks for sticking with me to the end!) If the district is an entire city, there is no division of the city voters, no gerrymandering. STV produced all of this at one time within Edmonton and Calgary. So thanks for Alberta Views for a little more publication of pro-STV thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some after-thoughts on the piece:
As someone I know once said, all things arise from and point to electoral system so hooks on which to hang letters to editors are everywhere! Write one yourself to your local newspaper - today!
It is true enough that any kind of PR is better than FPTP, So my letter was not meant to stress STV over any other but...
For Alberta readers I think it is an important point to say that we had STV and used it without problems for more than 30 years. It was used in 8 provincial elections and 60 city elections.
I do not call for a referendum on pro-rep. I often point out that Alberta brought in STV without any referendum and cancelled it as well without any referendum.
Every province west of Quebec has in fact changed their prov. electoral system, without referendum. Many times provincial electoral systems have been changed in Canada.
But no provincial electoral system has ever been changed in Canada after a referendum.
And like in Ireland, PR (STV ) in Alberta was brought in after successful use at city level.
Steps toward provincial STV:
Lethbridge city elections - Lethbridge disbanded its city council. Its board of commissioners was elected through ranked ballots (Alternative Voting), starting in 1913
Calgary city STV starting in 1917
STV set up for provincial referendum on Prohibition in 1923, to choose best of four options. (One won with majority on first count)
Edmonton city STV starting in 1923
Alberta provincial STV starting in 1924, first use in general election in 1926.
Edmonton and Calgary made into city-wide districts and elected five MLAs each,
Medicine Hat made into city-wide two-member district.
(Lethbridge, which had started the process,
==========================================================
Later the Medicine Hat provincial districts were re-drawn and were reverted to FPTP.
And later the number of Edmonton and Calgary MLAs was increased, then decreased, then increased again in number. Alteration of representation of a city was easy with district level STV, no re-districting was required.
District level PR (such as STV) has that advantage that it does not need to be brought in wholesale. It can be brought in where majority of voters in a district or group of districts such as the districts of a city, call for it, or where representation needs to be increased and re-districting is unwanted.
PR-STV was brought in in Alberta and Manitoba at provincial level, only in some districts and not in others. In Alberta this did not lead to wider application. In Manitoba it did spread to a couple other districts. But in future it could be spread more widely after initial entry in just a couple districts.
Better to bring it in in even only a couple cities at first, than to await general overhaul of electoral system, I think.
On majority rule:
I was trying to say that Conservative governments -- and other governing parties -- seldom have majority of votes and do not deserve the majority of seats that they often win under FPTP.
We generally have minority rule. Under STV, a majority of voters will elect a majority of the legislators. In some elections, no single party takes a majority of the seats, so sometimes occasionally this majority of legislators encompasses politicians of more than one party. So minority government is possible. Where no one party takes a majority of seats, to make a working majority in the legislature, parties representing a majority of the votes will have to combine their forces, informally or formally in a coalition - that makes it majority rule.
But where a party has majority of the votes it should be given majority of seats and all the power. Although strong minority representation under PR would soften government's desire or ability to do bad things to minority groups.
Minority representation is reduced to minimum under FPTP so there is little social brake on power welded by governments elected by that way nowadays. Perhaps for that reason many people are leery of giving power to majority party, and call for coalitions and shared power.
As Alberta STV campaigner John D. Hunt used to say "to the majority should go power, to the minority should go representation."
If majority of voters does not elect government, then the minority of voters does. And that is not democratic.
Of course majority of votes does not necessarily mean one party. A coalition or working relationship of multiple parties that together receive majority of votes and together control majority of seats is a majority, and rule by such a group is fair.
Majority rule is democratic. Minority rule is not. although of course there are grey areas where the damage of lack of democracy is less than in others.
It is said that under First Past The Post, the only minority that is properly represented is the one that takes a majority of the seats. Hardly a fair situation.
Thanks for reading.
============================================================
Comments