here is the source document for the list
Here is my own interpretation of the info:
According to the Vermont Legislative Research Service, there are several distinguishing characteristics of the possible forms of voting in a MMD: The number of votes that each voter can or must cast 1. Block voting (bloc voting): Voters receive as many votes as there are open seats, and can vote no more than once for a particular candidate. All votes must be used. 2. Block voting as used in Canada (formal name: Bloc with partial abstention (BPA): Voters may cast as many votes as there are open seats. and can vote no more than once for a particular candidate. Voters can elect not to use all of their votes. 3. Limited Voting more than one vote but not as many as the number of open seats. Used in Toronto when it was a MMD, from 1886 to 1894. Type of votes cast The above forms of voting generally use X voting. Transferable votes are an option under the next form of voting. 4. Each voter casts just one vote - and it can be transferable or non-transferable.. Single Non-Transferable Voting (SNTV) uses X voting but as no one group can (under normal circumstances) take all the seat in the district, mixed representation results. Mixed representation is the hallmark of proportional representation. Not all mixed rep is proportional but the result is more balanced and therefore more fair than a one-party sweep of multiple seats. Single Transferable Voting (PR-STV) has all the benefits of SNTV. And further it reduces the number of wasted votes /ignored voters that plague FPTP and other forms of X voting. It has the drawback of ranked voting, which some consider to be irksomely-complicated for voters. SNTV has not been used in any election in Canada. PR-STV was used in five MMDs on the Prairies in the 1900s. Limit of one vote per candidate or no such limit or something in between Another distinguishing feature of voting is whether votes can be "lumped" on to a candidate or have to be cast with a limit of one for any specific candidate. Cumulative: Voters may use their votes however they wish, such as casting all of them on a single candidate or casting one or more of them separately for different candidates. This system was not used in state legislative elections as of 2020. The last state to use the system was Illinois, which ended the practice in 1982.[5] Other forms of voting where each voter can give no more than one vote for a specific candidate Other forms of voting where each voter can give no more than say three votes for a specific candidate. This ensures a minimum size of the minority that can be assured of electing one candidate. Example: in Toronto city election of 1903, 12 members of the Board of Education were being elected. Each voter could cast up to 12 votes, but with no more than three given to any candidate. This meant that if one-quarter of the voters gave three votes to a candidate, he or she would be elected. If they did that with four candidates, the four would be elected - four out of 12. Any minority smaller than a quarter of the electorate would not be assured of electing even one candidate, due to the three-vote limit. All members' terms end at same time or staggered An election may either fill all the seats or only a portion of the seats in a MMD. In Staggered elections in MMDs -: Two or more legislators represent the same district with elections happening in different years due to staggered terms. If only two members, staggered elections become single-seat contests, but in MMDs with more than two seats, the staggered elections may be multi-seat contests. More often, all the seats are filled at the same time, with concurrent terms. MMDs does not always mean multi-seat contest Even where districts have more than one seat filled at the same time (either no staggered terms or the District Magnitude is high enough that staggered terms do note prevent two or more seats being filled at one time), still the seats may be filled through single-seat contests. This can be accomplished by what is termed MMDs with posts. Instead of running in a single pool of candidates, candidates are divided up, and each separate group runs for just one of the district's seats, as in a single-member district. Each voter may cast a vote for a candidate running for each post. This was how BC filled the seats in its MMDs in the 1952 and 1953 elections, elections when BC was not using Block Voting. Seat/post was also used in the four Toronto districts in the 1908 and 1911 provincial elections, (each electing two members), and in the three Winnipeg districts in the 1914 and 1915 provincial elections (each electing two members). In Canadian experience, no staggered elections were used at the provincial or federal level. But it was common at the municipal level. The type of Block voting where voters had to cast the same number of votes, was also not used in Canada. Voting in MMDs in Canada took these forms: Block Voting - where voters could cast as many votes as there were seats to fill and where there was no minimum of votes needed to be cast by voter. This is and was common in municipal elections, and was used in provincial elections in provinces from coast to coast (except Quebec) at one time or another. Limited Voting - where voter cast two votes to elect three MLAs (Toronto) STV - major cities in Alberta and Winnipeg from 1920s to 1950s Cumulative Voting was used to elect some city officials in Toronto starting in 1903. and the Seat/Post system - BC used this system to fill the seats in its MMDs in the 1952 and 1953 elections, elections when BC was not using Block Voting. Seat/post was also used in the four Toronto districts (each electing two members) in the 1908 and 1911 provincial elections, and the three Winnipeg districts in the 1914 and 1915 provincial elections (each electing two members).
Comments