Consensus would be great, but our parliamentary system is not based on that. Only on mere working majority.
To ensure that this working majority is based on majority support would be fine first step.
STV and party-list pro-rep ensures it takes approximately a majority of votes to win approximately a majority of seats, STV as compilation of many at the district-level elections, party-list more at-large, with perhaps regional component. so about 50 percent.
IRV ensures it takes a majority of vote in a majority of districts to win working majority in the assembly. so as few as 26 percent.
FPTP ensures it takes plurality of votes in a district (perhaps as few as 33 percent in a district) in a majority of districts to win working majority in assembly. so as few as 17 percent.
=======
These are worst case scenarios:
FPTP in Canada federal elections the fewest votes received to win majority government has been 38 percent, in 1997.
IRV when IRV used in Alberta 1930 election taken as sample
54 percent of the vote took 82 percent of seats contested
STV has never been used to elect majority of seats in any province so no historical data available.
======================================================================
In Alberta when IRV used in rural districts,
in 1930 UFA won a majority of 60 percent of the seats won with 38 percent of the vote
but more fair picture emerges if you get down to just the seats contested by UFA, where Alternative Voting was used to determine the winner.
in the 1930 election UFA took about half the first preference votes in the rural districts to win 36 of Alberta's 63 legislature seats. it won another seat in Edmonton where STV was used. and two by acclamation.
of just the 44 IRV seats contested by UFA,
that is, all the rural seats except Leth,, Med hat, Drumheller, Edson, Rocky Mountains, and except 2 acclamation
UFA took 36 of these seats.
that is, 82 percent of the contested seats with 54 percent of first-preference votes.
The UFA candidates received more votes than that 54 percent indicates. In three districts (Clover Bar, Innisfail, Wainwright) no one received majority in first count and second counts were conducted where UFA received some votes through transfers. and won the seats.
Still it seems odd that little more than 54 percent of the vote could take as many seats as 82 percent. Perhaps I made mathematical mistake.
However even that is better than worst case under FPTP where 28 percent of the vote could take 82 percent of seats. (33 p.c. times 82)
With the group think that inhabits Alberta elections, and to some degree all Canada elections, the mere (and undemocratic) minimum required to win majority of seas as envisioned in the worst case scenario will not likely happen.
This was average of 1900 UFA votes per seat. (Quota in the cities where STV was used was about 3000 at that time.)
One UFA was elected in Edmonton with 3000 votes (just slightly above quota)
In rural area only in five districts did no one get majority of votes on first count.
Three saw first count leader UFA elected in the end.
The other two districts were among the five districts where UFA not run. first count leader elected in the end in these districts as well
IRV acted more as safeguard of majority victory in the district than as way to unseat the first count leader. But proved that the elected representative had support from at least half the voters in the district.
Thanks for reading.
=============================
Comments