top of page
Tom Monto

Effect of STV on our House of Commons today

I was recently asked

what do I think would be the effect of adopting STV federally, using multi-member districts ranging from 2 to 7 members each, with an average of 4.


Here is my response:

Thanks for question. 

First off, I'm sure we would have to have single-member ridings in the extreme north, for practical reasons. STV being a district level system, can be brought in in districtrs right across the country or only in districtrs where practicality and public acceptance makes it beneficial and less costly in sentiment. If it is going to piss most people off in the Upper Coyote Ridge country or in Blackfly Coulee, they don't need to have it. Both Manitoba and Albeta installed STV for election of MLAs only where it was thought to be beneficial or politically possible.

Overall, under STV, I think Liberals would elect fewer MPs than they have presently.


right now Liberals are over-represented overall. its 33 p.c. of votes only proportionally would give it 112 seats, but they have 157. This is natural under FPTP, when they are leading party in 86 percent of the country. So I would expect them to do less well under a pro-rep system.


regionalism would decrease under STV, I expect. I expect - but have not actually statistically proven - that at least one MP of each party (or at least one of each of the big three parties anyway) would be elected in each province, thus ensuring each party's at least token representation in each region (bearing in mind that some of our individual provinces, such as Quebec and BC, individually form a region and under STV even those single-province regions would have mixed representation - which they often do not have under FPTP.)

Bloc Quebecois would still take many seats under STV. A party that is elected now would assuredly take many seats under STV. Meanwhile each of the other parties would take at least a seat or two, if they have at least a third to an eighth of the votes in a city or other grouped district (the portion varying in reference to the number of seats in a district).


As STV is district based, it should not affect ability of locally-strong candidates or provincially-strong parties to take seats.


Perhaps it might even allow an eccentric socialist or environmental candidate to be elected in Toronto or a sub-Toronto riding, especially in a seven-seat riding. If he/she received only 13 p.c. of vote over a territory that used to be divided into 7 separate ridings, he or she would for sure take a seat.


That is just an example of how local representation would change under STV, I expect.

(The grouping of districts is major aspect of STV, the system in 1910s was called pro-rep by grouped districts. The use of large districts allows a small and dispersed party a chance at a seat, and reduces gerrymandering.)


Most people who think regionally think of Alberta and Sask as the Prairies or more wrongly as the West. at least in last election Sask and Alberta elected caucuses that were similar Conservative-dominant, hind appearances, voting behaviour was different - NDP being second strongest party in Sask; Liberals being second strongest party in Alberta (maybe a strategic voting glitch).

------------------------------

For a clear explanation for how STV works in practice, I think many of my blogs (as well as my blue hand-out) speak to this.


My blog  "Change Edmonton elections today! STV and at-large elections now!" has info on my expectations.


See also blog "1952, 1955 Edm elections shows effect of STV". What it did in 1950s is what it would do today, I expect.


Here's my carefully considered precis of how STV works:


STV provides mixed roughly-proportional representation at the district level.

Each voter casts a single vote but marks back-up preferences on the ballot. The ballots in a district are counted and sorted. The quota required to win a seat is calculated based on number of seats in the district. ** Some votes in the first count may elect one or more candidates on account of specific support. The surplus votes not needed by the winners (those over and above the quota) are transferred. Some go to candidates of the same party to further create proportionality of party representation. * Some go to candidates of other parties. These transfers plus others transferred from eliminated low-ranking candidates are used to elect the best of the rest through formed consensus among the remaining voters. * The point being that proportionality is measure of party success only. When STV is used for non-party situations which it also works well for, proportionality cannot be measured and has no bearing. Mixed representation, apart from any measure of proportionality, though is also product of STV -- and a good thing that is not provided by FPTP ** there is of course a system of STV that does not use quota. Bottom-up STV is being adopted by some retrograde cities in Australia right now. it does not use quota - and consequently many votes are wasted under its use. That reminds me to tell anyone reading that

there is Electoral Reform Society in Britain. you can enlist and receive their newsletter,

also an Australian blogsite called The Tally Room, interesting articles there. What do i think what would likely be

the actual make-up of legislative chambers after adoption of STV?

I don't know myself except to say it would be fairer (more proportional) than the existing FPTP in each large city, each province and each region, and fairer overall.

To get a rough idea of what the House of Commons might look like under STV, alot of work would give you something to go by.


you can take each major city as a single riding


(although in practice sub-city districts - a grouping of half, a third or quarter of a city's districts -- may be required to keep length of ballot down to manageable size. Seven seats would good number to serve as maximum number of members in a district under an adopted STV system, although for decades 10 MLAs were elected in Winnipeg-as-a-single-district using STV.


An election of 7 members would probably see something like 32 names on the ballot. If the system does not require each voter to mark more than 3 or 6 back-up preferences, or no minimum at all, the ballots despite the multitude of names should not be overwhelming for voter. The ballots would be probably 16 inches or more in length though.)

Then derive the proportion of vote of each party in the city as a whole grouped district, and derive seat count for each city for each party.


This would be only rough estimate of vote strengths under STV ,

as strategic voting mixes the message, and

as under FPTP, votes for small parties and less popular candidates - actually any but the leading candidate in each district - are now ignored without saving grace of transferability.


Transfers of these votes under STV may produce a different complexion to the elected representation from a city, only practical use will tell us that.


At the same time voting behaviour will change for the first couple or several elections as strategic voting stops, people who have given up hope get out and vote (as much as 40 percent of eligible votes do not vote), and different kind of candidates and parties are elected, not to mention the changes in society and economies that would be taking place meanwhile in these unstable times.


Anyways, a good proportion of a province's or of the country's seats are in cities so such a reckoning should give you something of an idea of the outcome after STV is adopted.

But this calculation would entail alot of work. Instead, we should just bring in STV where the people want it and judge by its results.


Thanks for reading.

========================================================= keywords: electoral reform, single transferable voting

1 view

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page