Contrary to my previous blog on the use of natural watersheds and cities to form the multi-member districts required under STV, we could conversely use federal ridings as base of multi-member provincial districts.
In the populated places, there would be no difference as compared to the watershed plan.
Five populated places
Edmonton 21 MLAs 20,000 votes per seat (2019) prob. 3 districts each with 7 MLAs
Calgary 27 MLAs prob. 3 districts each with 9 MLAs
Lethbridge 47,000 votes (2019) 2 seats
Red Deer 48,000 votes (2019) 2 seats
Sherwood Park/Strathcona County (98,000 pop.) 52,000 votes (2019) 2 seats (not a city but a populous county/hamlet)
[54 seats in cities -- This is slightly more MLAs than the populated places currently have.
Calgary with 825 sq. kms
Edmonton 768 sq. kms
approximately the same geographic size so I have given each of them three districts but have varied the number of MLAs to reflect number of present MLAs
Calgary currently has 10 ridings. (Calgary-prefix ridings) would have 27 MLAs
Edmonton currently has 9 ridings. (Edmonton used in the name of riding.) would have 21 MLAs
2 Red Deer ridings would be combined and given two MLAs (Red Deer city itself spun off and given two MLAs. The other parts of present riding would be combined with adjoining rural riding to form multiple-district provincial district. The area of Red Deer-Lacombe and Red Deer-Mountain View west of Highway 2 given to Yellowhead; the part of Red Deer-Lacombe and Red Deer-Mountain View east of Highways 2 given to Battle River-Crowfoot.)
Lethbridge would have two MLAs.
Sherwood Park/Fort Saskatchewan riding would have 3 MLAs.
thus 55 MLAs
This leaves about 32 MLAs for rural ridings.
After 15 ridings taken care of above, we are left with 11 ridings.
Rural ridings
Banff
Battle River
Bow River
Foothills
Ft. McMurray
Grande Prairie
Lakeland
Medicine Hat
Peace River
Sturgeon River Parkland
Yellowhead
Each could be easily and conveniently given three MLAs.
Overall we would have 88 MLAs in the new system.
There would be 20 multi-member districts, each electing between 2 and 9 MLAs.
And there we have the system of multi-member districts based on federal ridings solved.
Much of the advantages of the Watershed/city system described in the other blog would apply here as well:
Wide range of candidates offered to voters in each district
Mixed representation elected in each district (Even a district with two MLAs would elect mixed representation unless a single party had support of two-thirds of the voters in the district.)
Gerrymandering only possible if federal ridings adjusted. As federal ridings are adjusted to keep fairly uniform voter-to-member ratio, uniform rate of 3 MLAs per federal riding would reflect this equality.
Transferable votes would mean that voters could vote for whom they truly support with no regard to possible wastage, vote-splitting. Would have no use for strategic voting.
So this could work too. And would give a more accountable government than we have now under FPTP in 87 small single-member districts.
Thanks for reading.
=====================================
============================
The advantage of STV is the use of large multi-member districts.
These districts where possible encompass whole cities or quarters of thirds of large cities.
In the rural areas, they may use natural boundaries such as counties or federal ridings.
The relative small number of boundaries decrease possibility of gerrymandering and the proportionality of all district representation limits the benefits of gerrymandering- if all are represented fairly no mater in which district the votes find themselves, there can be no benefit of gerrymandering.
Another possible way to set these large multi-member districts is the use of natural watersheds. Cities are on the banks of rivers invariably and well within a single watershed so such a scheme will not divide a city.
Looking at Alberta, we can set up electoral boundaries that conform to watersheds.
With STV allowing variable number of seats in the different districrts, the districts dod not have have the same size. Say there would be on the average 33,000 voters per seat. (1.9M (2019) /87 = 67 p.c. turn-out)
Of course there are the populated places:
Edmonton 20 MLAs 20,000 votes per seat (2019) prob. 3 districts each with 7 MLAs
Calgary 26 MLAs prob. 3 districts each with 9 MLAs
Lethbridge 47,000 votes (2019) 2 seats
Red Deer 48,000 votes (2019) 2 seats
not a city but a populous county/hamlet -- Sherwood Park/Strathcona County (98,000 pop.) 52,000 votes (2019) 2 seats
[52 seats in cities]
The largest watershed are just three
- Milk River that flows into the Gulf of Mexico
- Rivers that flow into the Hudsons Bay
- Rivers that flow into the Arctic Ocean.
But there are various river watersheds that break down these three major watersheds.
Electoral districts could be arranged along the lines of these river watersheds. They would unchanging so gerrymandering and boundary changes/redistribution would be prevented. Changing the number of MLAs in each district would ensure relatively uniform MLA-to-voter ratios over time.
STV districts covering Alberta could be arranged like this:
South Country (Milk, South Sask, Oldman River watersheds)
6 MLAs (formerly Livingstone, Taber, Cypress, Cardston, Brooks-Medicine Hat, part of Cardston-Siksika, Taber-Warner)
The Siksika part of Cardston-Siksika would go to the new Bow River district.
Bow River watershed (excluding Calgary and Banff)
5 MLAs (formerly Highwood, Airdrie..., Airdrie..., Chestermere, south part of Old-Didsbury-Three Hills, part of Cardston-Siksika)
Mountain district (covering Banff and Jasper and more)
3 MLAs (formerly Banff, west part of Rimbey/Rocky Mountain House/Sundre, West Yellowhead)
Central Alberta (Red Deer watershed excluding Red Deer City)
5 MLAs (formerly Drumheller/Stettler, north part of Olds/Didsbury, Innisfail, Lacombe /Ponoka, east part of Rimbey/Rocky Mountain House/Sundre, Lacombe/Ponoka)
Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds
3 MLAs (formerly Maskwacis/Wetaskiwin, Camrose, Vermilion/Lloydminster/Wainwright)
Upper Saskatchewan (middle Saskatchewan watershed excluding Edmonton)
6 MLAs (formerly Drayton Valley/Devon, Spruce Grove, St. Albert, Lac Ste. Anne..., Morinville, Leduc/Beaumont, )
East Central (North Sask watershed east of Edmonton and Beaver River watersheds)
3 MLAs (formerly Ft. Sask/Vegreville, Bonnyville/Cold Lake/St. Paul, part of Vermilion/Lloydminster, part of Athabasca/Barrhead/Westlock)
Upper Athabasca (part of Athabasca watershed)
2 MLAs (formerly part of Athabasca/Barrhead/Westlock, Lesser Slave Lake)
(Part of present LSL district is in Peace River watershed. But I did not split up the district.)
Lower Athabasca downriver (Athabasca watershed from Ft. McMurray north plus Lake Athabasca, Slave River watersheds)
3 MLAs (formerly part of Athabasca/Barrhead/Westlock, Ft. McMurray/LLB, Ft. McMurray/Wood Buffalo)
Peace River watershed (including Hay, Laird, Buffalo River watersheds)
4 MLAs (formerly Grande Prairie, Grande Prairie/Wapiti, Central Peace/Notley, Peace River)
[40 MLAs outside populated places,
making total of 92, a slight increase from the present 87 MLAs]
Actually we need number to be odd by tradition, although with one MLA becoming Speaker, perhaps we should start with an even number after all.
Thus there would be:
five populated places -
three city-wide districts (Lethbridge, Red Deer, Sherwood Park/Str. County)
three Calgary districts, each with 9
three Edmonton districts, each with 7
10 rural districts -
each with between 2 and 6 MLAs.
Thus 19 districts covering all of Alberta.
Probably the new Peace River district would be the largest in geographic size.
Calgary with 825 sq. kms
Edmonton 768 sq. kms
approximately the same geographic size so I have given each of them three districts but have varied the number of MLAs to reflect number of present MLAs
The watersheds do not change so gerrymandering would generally be impossible.
The number of MLAs per district would change as population numbers change.
In each district, voters would have wider range of candidates to choose from than under present FPTP single-member-district system.
Calgarian voters would have widest range with nine seats in each of that city's districts. A Calgary ballot may contain 40-50 names so perhaps that would be a problem, although a voter would not be required to rank any set number of candidates. If every voter marked four back-up preferences, that should be sufficient to ensure that most votes would not become exhausted, especially if at least one of the choices is a popular candidate.
Transferable votes would ensure that votes could vote according to their true sentiment and not misrepresent their wishes through strategic voting. One would expect more votes - at least first preferences - going to small parties and independent candidates.
Due to the looser voting and the district-level proportional representation accorded by STV, it would be expected that a mixed crop of MLAs would be sent to the legislature.
MLAs of two or three different parties would likely be elected in most districts.
In the many-member districts of Calgary and Edmonton, candidates of four, or even five, parties might be elected in a district, but in due relative proportion to their popularity (based on first preferences or a combination of first preferences and vote transfers).
Thus overall the legislature would reflect a wider range of voter sentiment and in fairer proportions than under today's system.
While local representation - at the city or region scale - would still be preserved.
And under STV the voters of a town feeling "submerged" in a new watershed-style district would have liberty to mark their votes only for local candidates of whatever political stripe. If that town had enough votes to exceed the district quota (a sixth of the vote total in a five-seat district; a quarter of the vote total in a three-seat district, etc.), it would elect a candidate of that town and there would be nothing the voters in the rest of the watershed district voters could do about it. It would be their due.
One could go through the 2019 election results and by totalling the votes for each party in each of the new watershed districts allocate party seats. However, under STV, as noted, people would probably vote differently due to less strategic voting. And of course in these fast-changing times, the votes cast in 2019 may not strictly reflect votes cast in the next election.
It could be assumed that under a system that uses multi-member districts across Alberta, the seat proportions in the legislature would more truthfully reflect the votes cast across the province, however they would be cast, than we have now with Alberta divided into single-member districts.
Under the present system of single-member districts and plurality FPTP, perhaps half the votes in a district are not used at all but simply thrown in the wastebasket, while a candidate with not more than perhaps 35 percent of the vote takes the seat.
This would not happen under STV in multi-member districts. and the Alberta legislature would reflect this tighter accordance to the votes cast if multi-member districts were used across Alberta.
Of course with STV being a district-level system, multi-member watershed-styled districts could be brought in incrementally, just where the voters in a group of the present districts accept the new idea. It could even be brought in, in a few cases to start, on an experimental basis for just a couple elections. Either it would satisfy voters in this grouped district or it wouldn't - but I think it will. That is, if they are looking for fairer representation - which perhaps many of them might not be.
And if it works in a place or two - in an election or two - it might spread to a wider application.
The first thing is to give voters in some place in the province practical experience of the benefits of STV. The sooner the better. To my mind, a long-drawn out debate about an untried system such as MMP or party-list pro-rep is time we can't afford.
We need action quickly - even if it is only a trial run on a small scale.
And STV, a system already used in eight Alberta provincial elections, would be an easier sell than an untried method of pro-rep. STV is a soft-tech, vote-driven process more than a system. It allows voters to choose between parties and between individual candidates based on whatever priorities the voter chooses. It is very flexible and very accountable to voters.
But in all cases where used it produces mixed representation - where a large majority of the voters see someone they voted for be elected to represent the district.
FPTP sees 34 to 68 percent of the votes in a district reflected in the representation elected, often less than 50 percent of the vote.
But under STV about 80 percent or more of the votes in a district are effective votes (used to elect someone).
This has got to have an effect on turn-out and on active participation of citizens, as well as producing a general toning-up of our democracy. And these are all things we want.