I saw recently that Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) was against ranked votes so investigated and found this fairly masterful exposition by a CUPE writer on need for change and why CUPE was in favour of MMP.
The article that I found (the one reproduced below) generously seems to grant FPTP with ability to produce majority governments when in fact only two of last six governments were majority under FPTP. Rightly it criticizes FPTP for producing false majority governments in most cases. But it implies that only MMP (PR) produces minority governments and coalition governments, when FPTP does as well - and often.
CUPE is against Preferential Voting (Instant-Runoff Voting) on the strong grounds that it is no more proportional than FPTP.
But note that it does not state CUPE is against ranked votes in all cases, such as when used in STV.
It does not mention STV at all (unfortunately), although STV is the only PR system ever used in provincial elections (other than Toronto's MLAs being elected through Limited Voting in 1890s and 1900s).
In recent chat I mentioned Alberta and Mantoba's use of STV for 30 years and the man I was talking to was struck by the power of that historical experience - saying how can people say PR is too complicated or does not work when it was used for so long in those two provinces.
Interesting to note that both Limited Voting and Single Transferable Voting strengthen fair representation by limiting the power of the voter.
The very term STV points to each voter casting just one vote although voting in multiple-member district.
Limited Voting is where voters (in Toronto's case) cast two votes but in district that elected three MLAs (actually MPPs -- same difference).
By the voter being restricted, the largest single group is prevented from taking all the seats, thus mixed bag of reps are elected, thus variety of rep is produced, and thus proportional rep (of a rough kind) results.
historically a writer noted that in Single Voting (STV and SNTV) and Limited Voting, when we restrict any one group from taking all the seats in a district, the election is fairer because the single largest group (to which the voter generally does not belong*), usually the "machine" party, is prevented from taking all the seats. Thus the voter's group then has the ability to have some representation.
*statistically this is the case because the largest single group in a third or more districts is only a minority of the voters in a district and in the rest the largest single group is seldom a large majority. So it usually or often happens that more than half of the voters who cast votes are ignored.
So against appearances and counter-intuitively, we actually get more political freedom through "limiting" the power of the voter than by letting every voter cast as many votes as there are seats to fill and the candidate with the most votes then being elected.
The same could be achieved by limiting ability of groups/parties to run complete slates in a multi-seat district. This too would prevent one party from taking all the seats. But we want voters to have wide election of candidates, not the opposite.
So putting restriction on voters (the power of a single group to dominate) makes more sense even if it looks odd to try to get more freedom through restricting voter's ability to cast votes.
Taking votes away from people (giving only single votes to people who had been casting multiple votes under Block Voting) always was a problem in past application of PR.
FPTP at least already has limited voters to just one vote so changing the number of votes each voter has is not required in moving from FPTP to PR Single Voting.
The CUPE article says in MMP each voter has two votes but actually what is meant is that each ballot has two questions - the voter votes on who the local rep should be and which party the voter supports.
in fact some MMP systems do not have the two questions but instead the vote for local rep is used to calculate overall or zone party tallies and used to name top-up members.
PR blogger Rhys states that such a unitary system is actually preferable.
Either way we probably don't want to say that each voter has two votes, as that can lead to thoughts of multiple voting as in BlockVoting.
The CUPE article below neglects to point to fact that MMP is based on redistribution due to necessary increase of size of local districts (Either that or increasing number of members in the HoC is needed to free up top-up seats).
If we are going to do that, let's just go to multi-member districts at least in cities where division of a city makes no sense on the ground anyway, and bring in SNTV or STV. Just single voting in a multi-member district produces mixed rep and thus PR of a rough kind naturally.
SNTV or STV are voter-driven candidate-based systems that do not give parties more power. MMP does do that.
Tom Monto, Edmonton
==================
Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE)
Counterpoint (CUPE newsletter) Oct. 21, 2016
Electoral Reform Long Overdue
Mario Emond | CUPE Communications
The world may see Canada as a young country but what it doesn’t see are the brittle bones of its aging electoral system.
Canada’s electoral system dates to its pre- Confederation days – days when women, people of colour and aboriginal people couldn’t vote. Though our system has become much more inclusive since then, it still lags in the bottom 15 per cent of countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in terms of truly representing voter intentions.
It’s a system where a minority that earns less than 40 per cent of the popular vote can form a majority government and then impose its will on the other 60 per cent. That’s what happened in 2011 and again in 2015.
The discrepancies also come up in the average number of votes per parliamentary seat. In 1993, for example, the Liberals won 177 seats with 5.6 million votes, while the Conservatives won only two seats with 2.2 million votes. In other words, the Liberals earned one seat for every 31,000 votes while the Conservatives earned one for every 1.1 million votes.
Reform is needed to bring Canada into the 21st century.
The Liberal government has recently struck a parliamentary committee to examine the question of electoral reform. This committee will be holding public hearings before drafting a report to be tabled by December 1st.
CUPE advocates for a system based on proportional representation. Of the various proportional representation models that exist, CUPE favours mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) as the most representative model.
Here is an overview of three of the most prominent electoral models:
First-Past-The-Post (FPTP)
What is it? Only the candidate in each constituency who receives the most votes is elected, regardless of the percentage. All other votes do not count. It’s our current system.
Who’s for it? Only the Conservatives.
Pros: It’s simple to understand, promotes local accountability and often produces stable majorities.
Cons: In the past two federal elections, the Conservatives and Liberals received only 39.5 per cent of the popular vote but went on to form majority governments, also referred to as “false majorities”.
Preferential Ballots (PB)
What is it? Also called ranked ballots or preferential voting, this allows voters to rank candidates according to preference. If no candidate receives 50 per cent of the votes on the first round, then the candidate with the lowest votes is eliminated and the second place votes are counted on the ballots and added to the totals of remaining candidates. The process continues until someone receives 50 per cent.
Who’s for it? Justin Trudeau and many other Liberals.
Pros: Easy to implement and understand.
Cons: It favours centrist parties, like the Liberals, who are more likely to be a second choice for voters to the left and right of them. Like the FPTP, it is a winner-takes-all system and is not proportional representation.
Mixed Member Proportional Representation (MMP)
What is it? It is a system where each political party receives a proportion of Parliamentary seats that more closely reflects the party’s proportion of the popular vote. Each voter gets one ballot with two votes. The first vote is for the local candidate and it works exactly the way elections work now: the candidate with the most votes wins.
The second vote is for the party. The results of this vote are tallied and the proportion of votes determines how many of these at-large MPs each party gets. These additional MPs would come from a pre-determined “topping up” list.
Who’s for it? CUPE, the NDP, the Greens as well as many Liberals, including Bob Rae and Stéphane Dion. Also the Council of Canadians, Fair Vote Canada and Lead Now.
Pros: It’s the best of both worlds: every vote counts and you still have an MP with a connection to your riding. It eliminates “false majorities,” where parties win a majority government with only a small part of the popular vote, but still sweep in and make drastic changes. It also reduces the likelihood of regional party blocs such as the monopoly the Liberals currently have in the Atlantic provinces (32 of the 32 seats available). It encourages cross-party cooperation and greater representation of regions.
Cons: Can lead to minority and coalition governments, which may make governing more complicated. Unless there is a minimum percentage for seat eligibility, it may allow extremist parties to gain seats and influence. The MPs selected from the pre-determined lists, sometimes party insiders, aren’t accountable to local constituents.
=======================
Comentarios