Obviously, until we get STV or PR everywhere, the strongest party will be over-represented.
I would rather have STV in some places than PR in no places, if that is the choice.
I would rather have MMP in some places, if you can devise such a system, than MMP in no place.
If a government will bring in partial PR (through STV or MMP in some cities) but won't bring in overall PR through MMP, then I would rather it bring in partial PR than none at all.
AV has little effect on elections in practice or in effect, (seldom is someone elected who would not have won under FPTP)
but in STV/AV systems, AV would be useful for two reasons -
- all voters would use same voting system - ranked voting - so consistency would make public education easier. thus it is a step toward PR-STV
- psychologically it shifts the voting in all places, gets us out of the rut we are in without doing too much. Unfortunately - recently - the public have so far shown no great acceptance of change to PR in referendums.
But
Victoria voters did vote for change so they should get it ASAP
and
the 2019 election has produced voting unfairness (against each party in different places).
Results were at great variance to how votes were cast in:
Newfoundland - Liberals took less than majority of the votes 45 percent - but all the seats. PEI - Liberals took less than majority of the votes - only 44 percent - but all the seats. Nova Scotia - Liberals took less than a majority of the votes - only 44 percent of the vote - but took 86 percent of the seats. Quebec In Montérégie, the BQ actually received less than half the votes - only 41 percent - but took two thirds of the seats. Western and Northern Montreal elected all Liberals but the Liberal party received only 43 percent of the votes there. Ontario Ottawa elected all Liberals except one. That is, the Liberal party took 88 percent of the seats there - but the Liberal party received only 48 percent of the vote there. Toronto elected candidates of just one party. All Liberal MPs. Central and Suburban Toronto elected all Liberals, but the Liberal party candidates received only 54 percent of the vote there. Brampton, Mississauga and Oakville elected all Liberals, but the Liberal party candidates received only 52 percent of the vote there. Manitoba Rural Manitoba elected all Conservatives except one. That is, the Conservative party took 83 percent of the seats there - but the Conservative party received only 61 percent of the vote there. Saskatchewan - Conservatives took only 64 percent of the votes - but all the seats. Alberta Alberta - Conservatives took only 69 percent of the votes - but 97 percent of the seats. In Calgary Conservative candidates took only 69 percent of the votes - but all of the seats. BC BC Interior - Conservatives took only 47 percent of the votes - but 77 percent of the seats. On Vancouver Island, the NDP took only 31 percent of the votes - but 71 percent of the seats. These regions all have shown the need for electoral reform so under my UFA-style proposal hopefully a government would move ahead to bring in PR-STV (or other form of PR ) in those places. Anyways that is what I am proposing. Elsewhere PR would be great too, but probably a more difficult sell.
==================================================
My STV/IRV proposal involves a change to AV everywhere (except where the change is immediately to STV), but that is no big change, either in practice or effect. In those places AV would allow the single-member districts to remain, the only change being voters could mark back-up preferences if they wanted to, and some votes may be transferred if and only if no candidate received a majority in he first count. So I see this as being hardly any change at all. The real change (the change to STV) would only happen where there is popular support for the change or where the votes are cast in such a way that there is proven to be unfair representation. Thus it would be scientifically-based and politically defensible in a way that pushing MMP everywhere might not be. And of course it would be up to the government to make any change. I see my process as being open and step by step. It is more incremental than full-on MMP because MMP is overall, while my change to STV would be city by city or area by area. It is a bit odd for me to propose that a party should put forward not a promise of a clear PR system proposal but instead to promise immediate conversion to Alternative Voting with some cities in the country switching to STV, and a formula for eventual conversion with broader and broader use of STV. Under my proposal, it is clear that any later move to extend STV would be prone to political considerations by the government of the day. But even a change to MMP would not be set in stone and any government cold revert the electoral system back to FPTP or change it to another system. So my proposal merely accepts that. under my proposal there would be some immediate application of STV in some cities, with the door open to more as circumstances cause, as and if the government of the day chooses to broaden it. I would rather that than no change at all, and am concerned that holding off and insisting on full-on MMP may mean no change at all. I'll check out Fair Vote Canada's Rural-Urban PR proposal and think some more...
===========================================
Comments