Two important principles of Electoral reform
one person one vote -
this is equal and equal is fair,
even when used alone (without any other PR mechanisms) if used with MM districts ensure mixed rep., and
allows good clear count of voters who supported each candidate - systems that allow multiple voting allows groups that support different candidates to have overlapping membership or none, so level of support is un- measurable.
"later no harm" - secondary preferences should be in form of contingency preferences (back-up preferences) - not brought into use if first preference still useful and only brought into use when first preference is no longer usable.
LOCAL REPRESENTATION
mass opinion is said to call for local districts in any future electoral system cause people say they want a local representative but they really don't care if it is a local representative or local representation (through multiple local representatives). The multiple option is never offered to them.
I think in survey of voters' opinion they are asked if they want a local representative to which most answer yes.
They should be asked if they want local representation and if they want a local rep who reflects their viewpoint (political opinion or party of choice).
Likely just as many or more would say yes -
But we should note that in a large number of districts - 30 to 60 percent of districts - the majority of voters in a district can only see a local rep elected who reflects their various views is if more than one rep is elected in the district.
People may want local representation but that is not to say they are happy with having just one local representative who in many cases reflects views of just minority of voters. That is just the only option offered to them.
MM DISTRICTS
as to MM districts, all PR depends on MM district or on some pooling of votes from wide expanse of electorate. and MM districts were actually quite common in our past -although rarely did the voting system that was used produce the fair voting that was possible.
As I have mentioned before, multiple member districts were actually quite common in Canadian history despite the preoccupation with single-seat districts today.
in every year from 1792 (or earlier) to 1838 and 1841 to 1867, there were always at least some government representatives elected in MM districts serving in the colonial legislative assembly of Lower Canada or the United provinces (Quebec and Ontario).
From 1867 to 1990, there were always at least some government representatives in one or more provinces elected in MM districts.
From 1867 to 1968, there were always MPs elected in MM districts.
I used to think every province except Quebec used MM districts to elect some or all of its reps at one point or another
but now I see that Quebec also used them when it was a colony from 1792 to 1838 and 1840 to 1867 when it was part of the United Province.
from 1792 to 1829 most of its colonial legislators were elected in two-member districts. only four were elected in single member districts.
It seems there was some adjustment in 1830 but MM districts remained in use.
1834 The general election of 1834 allowed voters in Lower Canada to choose 88 deputies to represent 46 districts - four single-member districts and 42 2-seat districts.
After provincehood/Confederation in 1867, Quebec switched to solely using single member districts with districts being divided and sub-divided as number of member increased.
so it is accurate to say that every province did use MM districts at some time.
Speaking of MM districts, all PR depends on MM district or on some pooling of votes from wide expanse of electorate. and MM districts were actually quite common in our past - although rarely did the voting system that was used produce the fair voting that was possible.
SNTV -- Single voting (casting of a single vote by each voter) in a MM district and election through relative lead (plurality) -- has been seen to work. and as Stephen points out has sometimes been a stepping stone to more sophisticated system. recent changes in Jordan are an example of this.
I personally do not push for any kind of district-level party-list PR but was thinking of simple plurality multi-winner system that elects the most popular candidates (SNTV)
but a more intricate system is good too, of course.
Even STV does not use party-list - parties have no direct role in STV -- although the effect - the reps elected - might be the same.
Plurality voting systems - good or bad?
I am not against plurality (election of most popular candidates)
but am against plurality systems where:
- one party can take all the seats (such as in Block voting), or
- only one candidate can be successful, leaving a large minority or often the majority in the district without representation at all (such as in FPTP).
=========================================
Comments