Cumulative Voting does have advantages over FPTP or Block Voting (plurality at-large) but is not as proportional as Single Non-transferable Voting (SNTV) or Single Transferable Voting (STV). It suffers disadvantages that those two systems do not have.
It seems relatively easy to convert from plurality at large (Block Voting) to CV because under both systems voters cast as many votes as are to be elected.
But under Cumulative Voting, votes are spreadable, fractions of votes can be given to multiple candidates, or all of a voter's votes can go to one. So it is not an easy system to explain and is not one used in Canada in the last century.
As well with each voter casting as many votes as there are open seats, the amount of counting under Cumulative Voting is much greater than under STV where each voter casts only one vote. (And the subsequent vote transfers that are part of STV may not add much counting -- perhaps only a few hundred votes may need to be moved from one candidate to others in a single transfer.)
Under CV, a minority may -- or may not -- manage to elect one representative in a multi-member district, if votes lumped on just one candidate, but unlike STV or SNTV it cannot be depended on to do so. And effective use requires co-ordination of the voters of a minority group, or a very narrow field of candidates or both - to lump votes on just one candidate.
Under CV, a minority group will usually choose to put up one candidate to encourage votes to be lumped on just the one. This limits the range of candidates offered to voters, it strengthens party control of nomination. Both are not fitted to the present times when many seek to limit power of parties, and to empower voters.
STV allows transfers. Under STV a group may elect one or more even if the initial votes are placed on different candidates - the votes are gradually concentrated through transfers on to the appropriate number of candidates who are able to win based on the group's size, the number of quotas worth of votes the group has.
Cumulative Voting could lead to dissatisfaction and set electoral reform back a decade or more.
CV was discredited back in late 1800s and most attention moved to STV then.
SNTV or STV are simple to create and simple to use and have history of effective use, in western Canada at least.
If we want to switch away from FPTP or Block Voting, let's switch to a system that uses single voting or single transferable votes. This has proven to work well in, the past in Canada, in the multi-party system that Canada has.
All but three municipalities in Alberta - and I think many across Canada - use Block Voting.
Leaving BV districts as they are and simply reducing number of votes that a voter can cast to one, would yield Single Non-Transferable Voting, and create roughly proportional mixed representation that would be the same as the First Count in STV. The first count is sometimes not changed at all through the vote transfers that are part of STV, and mostly less than third of the leaders in the first count are replaced through transfers in STV.
But STV produced impressive advances over the FPTP or BV that was used before and after its use, even if not the exact proportionality commonly thought to be produced by party-list pro-rep.
Just having single votes in multi-member districts ensures:
- no one group will take all the seats
- all substantial groups will be represented.
in municipalities where there are no parties there are still voting blocks - business interests know who the business-friendly candidates are, reformers know who the reform candidates are, etc. Probably examination of the ballots cast under BV would show much overlap between those who vote for A and B and not much overlap between A and C - or between B and C. But it is hidden.
STV, if it does nothing else, shows how votes move around. It is much clearer polling of voters' sentiment than a system where each voter casts several votes with them all mixed together.
And in cities where FPTP is used in single-member districts, it is also easy to switch to SNTV, Simply group wards together - people don't usually have real ties to their wards anyway - and voters still cast just one vote. This immediately creates SNTV.
Add transferability of votes and public education of voters - and you have STV.
Under STV, the count in the polling places is exactly the same as under FPTP. Some candidates would quickly know they are elected as soon as their first choice vote totals are compiled and the vote total and quota is produced
Under STV transfers are conducted in a central location. so votes have to be collected there and trained election official would do the counting of transfers there over the next day or two, to fill the remaining seats.
As someone asked "Is it better to have odd almost accidental results in quick time or to have sure and fair results a couple days later?"
Another said if you want results on say Oct. 16, the date of the old election day, then hold the vote under STV on Oct. 13 and then for sure you will have results on Oct. 16 same as under the old system.
But seriously the delay, although it may take a bit of time to get used to, will be good for the news channels. In historic practice the vote-counting process - with successive eliminations and elections of members, and resulting transfers - was done in great halls with the results shown on big blackboards for spectators and reporters in galleries to see the process as it went along. This was transparent - much more than computer work.
Also it was unusual, interesting and visually newsworthy. And it made voters note that there was something new happening. The work created voter interest and increased turn-out in most cases - and was good for newspaper sales.
Cumulative Voting may include fractional votes, each derived from math done for each ballot separately, so is not easy to use, not transparent, and would not be as easy to explain or as visually stimulating to watch.
IN SHORT -
Cumulative Voting:
easy to change to if will is there - difficult to explain to voters - limited offering of candidates to voters - mathematically complicated in use.
SNTV :
easy to change to if will is there - very easy to explain to voters - some limit on candidacy - fairer results - as simple to count as Block Voting.
STV:
easy to change to if the will is there - easy to instruct voters - wide open candidacy - very fair results - and interesting to see in action, over the couple of days after polls close.
I think the choice is clear
Thanks for reading.
===========================================
Commentaires