If we ask voters for their opinion on electoral reform options, we should frame question in such a way as to give them flexibility.
This was elaborated on in more detail in my blog "BC referendum question too sticky. Loosen up!"
Instead of giving complicated pairing and alternatives, we should give voters flexibility to indicate preference for as much or as little electoral reform as they want.
For Edmonton,
The electoral reform referendum questions could be :
- Do you want Edmonton to establish multiple-member districts and adopt Single Non-transferable Voting* yes or no?
- If Edmonton adopts multiple-member districts, do you want
A. three districts, each covering 4 of our existing wards?
B. four districts, each covering 3 of our existing wards?
(or the choice could be one district versus two, if you prefer)
- Do you want Edmonton to elect three additional at-large councillors, yes or no? [bringing the council up to 15 in number (16 if you include the mayor)]
*I would prefer the question to be
"Do you want Edmonton to establish multiple-member districts and adopt Single Transferable Voting yes or no?" But right now the provincial government forbids a city to use STV.
But it seems to me no provincial legislation forbids the city to use multiple-member wards - many cities have only one at-large district. Nor does the law forbid voters from casting only one vote, - Voters in Edmonton do that today.
Multiple-member wards, or an at-large district, coupled with voters only casting one vote each, produces Single Non-transferable Voting - a perfectly fine (if blunt) system of (rough) proportional representation, one that ensures that no one single group can take all the seats and that every large minority group will be represented.
So if city council does not have the verve to adopt a more proportional system without a referendum, then
hold a referendum with questions phrased along the lines above and
let voters decide.
Thanks for reading.
============================
Here's another reform proposal for Edmonton city elections:
On assumption that people vote for those like them, if half the population is women, proportionally you would expect half the reps. to be women.
PR though usually operates on simpler policy that people should have the rep they vote for, (which may or may not be, and often is not, the people who are like them at least in specific aspects.)
vote counts in elections show that women do not as a rule vote for women candidates.
and to lesser degree men do not vote for men as a rule.
Party in particular is considered more important than voting for candidate of your own gender.
if gender balance is considered important when one formulates an electoral system,
you can use something like this "PR light" idea I created for Edmonton city elections:
Edmonton has never yet established gender-based quotas to ensure balance on council between genders. But this simple formula might be the most straightforward way to ensure gender balance. Edmonton is split into three five-seat districts in each the two most popular men and the two most popular women are elected plus the most popular candidate among the remaining candidates. Each voter having only one vote - that would ensure that one voting block does not take all the seats in any district and that men and women have at least two seats each. The most popular candidates, likely reflecting the largest parties, are elected.
=====================================
Comments