Pro-democracy critic of Edmonton's electoral system, Tom Monto, today stated:
The use of indigenous names for the new wards in Edmonton is ironic because the cultures honoured in that way believed in consensus where everyone had their say and was listened to, while in Edmonton elections, the votes of most of the people are ignored.
Traditional societies were governed by consensus, where everyone had opportunity to speak - and also the right to take to the bush if they could not live with the final decision. Of course, individuals with prestige held more attention while there were many, as in all peoples, who just went along, leaving to others the decision.
But it probably never happened that in a traditional society, a majority of people would indicate their sentiment in one direction and the final decision was to go in another direction.
But that is what happened in the last Edmonton election. 86,000 votes went to the 12 councillors elected, while 105,000 votes were cast for other candidates.
Ten candidates in the election took more votes than one of the successful candidates but they were not elected.
In Ward 3 a combination of any two of the four unsuccessful candidates would have received more votes than the one who was elected.
In Ward 4 any pairing among six of the unsuccessful candidates would have received more votes than the winner.
In Ward 5 a grouping of three of the unsuccessful candidates would have received more votes than the winner.
In Ward 7 two different pairings of unsuccessful candidates would have received more votes than the winner.
In Ward 8, a twelfth of the city, only 16,000 votes were cast. This shows the miserable state that Edmonton's democracy is in. In this ward, a pair of unsuccessful candidates, or any grouping of three of the five unsuccessful candidates, would have received more votes than the winner.
In Ward 9, a grouping of three of the unsuccessful candidates would have received more votes than the winner.
In Ward 12, a grouping of three of the unsuccessful candidates would have received more votes than the winner.
These are hardly results derived through consensus such as was the code of conduct of traditional societies. It does not show forbearance toward minority views unless you recognize that most of the councillors were elected by minorities. If you recognize that, then you have to recognize that we have minority rule. This is quite contrary to majority rule, which is said to be the backbone of our democratic parliamentary system.
The Indigenous ward names are basically window-dressing - to give the wards presence in the city to cover the fact that they are arbitrary divisions of the whole city into 12 different voting districts. These boundaries divide voting blocks, even separate neighbours, while the First Past The Post system means that the candidate with the most votes, even if only a minority of the votes, is declared the district's single representative. This is acting as if one person alone can represent all the views held by the residents in an arbitrary district covering one twelfth of the city, or that that one person is the choice of the majority of the district voters without it being proven.
Such a system irrespective what names the districts bear, is bound to produce the same unbalances unrepresentative result that the last city election produced.
It is like putting the name "Tommy Douglas Clinic" on a private facility where people are turned away if they can't pay.
A far better and easily-created system is to have district that elect multiple members while each voter casts only one vote. Under this form of Limited Voting, no one voting block can take all the seats. Votes can group themselves voluntarily, through the votes they cast, into voting blocks, unlike the arbitrary ward system that dictates who they will vote with. (The ward system also dictates whom a voter can vote for - only for those who are candidates in their specific ward. A larger multi-member district offers a broader range of candidates to voters.)
Just by grouping together pairs of today's wards, no one voting block could take both of the district seats (unless it had more than two-thirds the votes - which just ain't going to happen).
Under such a system, even with only two members, you allow voting blocks spread over the two wards to come together, the proportion of votes placed on winners increases, the choice of candidates offered to voters broadens.
The number of councillors does not change.
The benefits of Limited Voting increases, the fewer the districts, and and the more members per district. If the city was taken as a whole, electing 12 councillors through Limited Voting in a single district, any voting block that had about 8 percent of the city-wide vote would have at least one representative, and there would be nothing the other 12/13ths of the city could do about it.
If you don't think that would widen the range of representatives on council compared to today's tepid 12, then you have another think coming.
When Winnipeg used STV, a system similar to the Limited Voting system we are discussing, in its provincial elections, a Communist was elected to one seat, giving representation - but not dominance - to that particular voting block. As well, Stephen Juba, an flamboyant but grassroots-based Independent, was elected. He went on to be mayor of Winnipeg, an achievement unlikely without the street credit produced by his work as an Winnipeg MLA. As well there were Conservatives, Liberal-Progressives and Labour/CCF/NDP among Winnipeg's MLAs in each election, in due proportion to the size of their voting blocks in the city.
This the kind of broad representation that could be created by a more fair system than our present FPTP in 12 single-member wards, no mater what the names of the wards.
The consensus style of governance in traditional socieities may be overstated. In some cultures the influence of women was, where present, mostly persuasive. Power in those societies could be described as mostly persuasive overall. Leaders led by personal example. "Followers" were relatively free to stop following at any point. Those societies had more clearly the basic tenet of human free choice that we have today - you can do anything you want as long as you are prepared to take the consequences. The consequences may not be just prison term or monetary payment but punishment exerted by one's conscience later.
I hold little sympathy for those who speed and then object to paying the fine. Or for politicians gearing up for the next election by trying to get the votes of these people by promising to obstruct the operation of systems that punish speeders.
Our much-defended criminal justice system does not stop people from committing crimes. It only ensures (usually) punishment of those who commit crimes. There is an implied prevention aspect but it is only self-imposed.
Bringing up people in low-stress situations, to be well educated, respected and respectful, healthy and active, should be the goal of the city council as well as all other levels of government. Aside from other benefits, it would lower the crime rate.
That so many are homeless, and so so many stressed reveals that government is not doing its job as it should. A more balanced, just representation would help to push governments to take on this duty while at the same time giving it the personnel right in the decision-making body to get the job done.
And that is what Limited Voting - and STV - could do for us, them, everybody.
To quote Dan Ackroyd "..you, me, them, everybody ...Everybody needs somebody. .. Everybody needs somebody to love, someone to love..." (from the film Blues Brothers)
Thanks for reading - and for singing.
Check out my blog "list of Montopedia blogs concerning electoral reform" to find other blogs on this important subject.
======================================================
keywords: proportional representation electoral reform Edmonton, Alberta
======================================================
What is STV?
From a 1902 reform magazine: "Thinking it well to have in every number something by way of a brief explanation of proportional voting, I repeat in this number the following. Proportional representation means the use of a reasonable and scientific system of voting instead of the present stupid, unfair and inefficient procedure. Methods: There are several systems by which the principle of proportional representation may be given effect to. Large electoral districts, each electing several members, are a necessary feature. The "quota" plan is usually employed. It means that a quota of the votes elects one representative. To arrive at the quota, the number of valid votes cast is divided by the number of seats to be filled. For instance in a seven-member district any one-seventh of the voters could elect one representative and the other six-sevenths could not interfere with their choice. The three principal systems of proportional representation are the Free List as used in Switzerland and Belgium [party-list pro-rep], the Hare system as used in Tasmania [STV], and the Gove System as advocated in Massachusetts. The Preferential Vote [Alternative Voting/Instant Run-off Voting] -- This is used in the election of single officers such as a mayor. It is not strictly a form of pro-rep but is akin thereto, and uses part of the same voting methods. The object of preferential voting is to encourage the free nomination of candidates and to obtain always a clear majority at one balloting, no matter how many candidates are nominated." (From the Proportional Representation Review Dec. 1902, p. 77) (Hathi Trust online resource, page 81/180) ----------------------------------- This year: *Alberta is celebrating 150 years in Confederation 1870-2020 *100th Anniversary of STV first being used to elect legislators in Canada Winnipeg MLAs first elected through STV in 1920 ==============================================================
Comments