Block Voting can be legally switched to a form of "fair representation".
Block Voting is used in many cities today, where multiple members are elected and voters cast multiple votes.
It can be easily switched to fair representation, by adopting STV or SNTV. The distinction being that Single Non-Transferable Voting does not require voters to make back-up preferences (preferential voting) and is, I believe, legal, even in provinces where preferential voting is prohibited by provincial governments - such as Alberta, -- and BC?
I hold the position that cities can adopt Single Voting in multi-member districts and this cannot be legally blocked by provincial governments, due to these facts:
Whereas multi-member districts are legal - many cities elect their councillors at-large. Electing at-large is election by multi-member district.
Whereas cities can decide if voter can cast a single vote or multiple votes - in at-large elections voter currently cast multiple votes; but in single-member ward elections voters cast only single votes. Therefore casting single votes is not forbidden.
Therefore it is easy (and I say perfectly legal) to switch to crude PR system by retaining multi-member districts and merely giving each voter just one vote.
No one voting block can take all the seats
mixed representation is produced
etc.
Not all mixed representation is perfectly proportional, but all proportional representation is mixed.
Mixed representation is more proportional than one party taking all the seats - which is often result of Block Voting or a collection of winner-take-all FPTP elections.
SNTV is criticized for not being proportional - that vote transfers performed under STV are necessary - but note that in some STV elections vote transfers did not change the popularity order of the candidates.
That is, the six front runners in the first count - the ones who would be elected under SNTV - were the six elected in the end after STV vote transfers. Under that particular case, the ones elected under STV were exactly the same as would have been elected under SNTV.
If STV produces proportional results, which we say it does, then SNTV in that case would have produced proportional result, because it would have produced the same result.
I think any system that uses vote transfers would be against current laws in Alberta (and BC?)
But combination of single voting/MM districts would create crude "fair representation."
I believe it is legal even under today's legislation.
Anyways, power to form own election system should be given to cities. I have recently found discussion of what I phrase as "local option" "self-determination" back in 1899.
This is early. My first thought was that local option was made an issue about 1915. That was when Ottawa voters passed a referendum on changing to PR (STV) for city elections, but the Ontario government forbade the change and Ottawa voters never did get the system they wanted.
But it seems provincial government intransigency was seen as a problem even earlier - back in the late 1800s.
The Manitoba executive of the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress and legislative committee of Winnipeg Trades and Labour Council issued an interesting questionnaire to Winnipeg municipal candidates. (as reported in Winnipeg Tribune, Dec. 5, 1899)
"Are you in favour of a more scientific system of representative government to include the following reforms:
adult suffrage
grouping of the electorate into constituencies returning several members to be elected on the Hare-Spence system of PR;
aggregate number of electors in voting districts to determine the number of representatives?"
"Are you in favour of giving wider powers of self-government to cities and towns to enable them to deal (without legislative interference) with such matters as are purely local in their nature?"
These are relevant questions even today.
===================================================
Comments