The system we currently use in provincial and federal elections, and in Edmonton city elections often fails us. It allows a minority to have representation while the majority do not.
First Past the Post is designed for a two-candidate contests. When more candidates compete, many votes, sometimes even a majority of votes, are wasted.
In a single-member district where three candidates compete, slightly more than one third of the votes are enough to win the seat.
example: A 33 percent
B 33 percent
C 34 percent C is ELECTED!
The proportion needed for a minority to win, decreases with every additional candidate competing.
example: A 19
B 19
C 19
D 19
E 24 E is ELECTED!
In the last federal election (2019),
of Atlantic Canada's 32 MPs, only 4 won with the majority of the votes in their districts.
Of Quebec's MPs, 53 won with only minority of the votes; only 25 with majority support.
Manitoba 9 minority winners, only 5 majority winners.
In BC, 38 minority winners, only 4 majority winners.
31.3 percent was enough to elect a Conservative in Port Moody-Coquitlam.
34.6 percent was enough to elect a Liberal in Coquitlam-Port Coquitlam.
In Jonquierre, the Bloc Quebecois candidate won with 36 percent but the combination of any two other candidates would have surpassed the winning vote total.
An NDP candidate won in Cowichan-Malahat-Langford with only 36 percent of the votes.
Under FPTP, terrible wastage and unbalanced representation is produced due to the division of voters into different small districts. The arbitrary boundaries split up voting blocks and often allow the majority overall to be inadequately represented.
A classic three-district example of unbalanced representation was presented in a 1904 booklet on electoral reform.
Even with only two parties competing (A and B) there is ample opportunity for the majority to be disregarded.
District 1 District 2 District C TOTALS
2000 A 2000 A 4000 A
1000 B 1000 B 3000 B 5000 B
A elected A elected B elected == Minority rule
The situation is worse if about the same number of voters are split into seven districts.
Districts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOTAL
800 A 700 A 700 A 700 A 100 A 100 A 100 A 3200 A takes 4 seats.
600 B 600 B 600 B 600 B 1400 B 1400 B 1400 B 5600 B takes 3 seats.
A ELECTED A EL A EL A EL B EL B EL B EL = Minority rule
A with only 3200 votes has taken more seats than B, which received 5600 votes.
It seems more than coincidental that most of B's votes would be concentrated in only three districts. It seems likely that the boundaries were drawn that way on purpose. This is called gerrymandering.
Perhaps the same was done in Calgary back in 1959.
Government candidates won every district in that city except Calgary-Glenmore. The Progressive- Conservative candidate in that district collected many more votes than any other P-C candidate in the city.
Overall the P-C party collected 38 percent of the city votes so were due about 3 of the city's seven seats. But the PCs only won one seat, 14 percent of the city's seats.
It is interesting to note that Calgary-Glenmore was drawn to be the largest of the districts in the city. More votes were cast there than in any other city district. It looks like the Conservative vote was concentrated there and the district drawn in such a way that many of the Conservative votes would be wasted there in electing only one candidate. That may have been the plan but the Social Credit government candidates were popular enough that they had a big lead in the other districts and even the Glenmore contest was a close one between the government and the P-C candidate. So Glenmore's size alone indicates possible gerrymandering.
FPTP ensured SC's near sweep of the Calgary seats in that election. Due to the SC victories in every other district, all the P-C votes (and all other opposition votes) in the other districts were wasted.
In FPTP, there is only one winner and that winner gets all the representation.
It is unrealistic for two parties to represent all the shades of opinion.
But under FPTP, it is almost impossible for a small party to get any representation.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOTAL
3000 A 3000 A 3000 A 3000 A 1000 A 1000 A 1000 A 15,000 A elected 4
2000 B 2000 B 2000 B 2000 B 3500 B 3500 B 3500 B 18,500 B elected 3
2000 C 2000 C 2000 C 2000 C 3000 C 3000 C 3000 C 17,000 C elected zero
A ELECTED A EL A EL A EL B EL B EL B EL = Minority rule
Less than a third of the voters thus secured a majority of the representatives.
In every district the winner did not take a majority of the votes.
With five parties competing, the amount needed to take a majority of the seats might be as few as one-sixth of the votes.
Under FPTP the intelligent voter has often in practice no choice but to vote with one of the two large parties. This is merely choosing the lesser of two evils and not choosing a representative according to the views and wishes of the voter.
Under STV, with all the seven districts made into one "grouped district," the same 50,000 votes would be put together to fill seven seats in one district.
Quota would be about 7,000 votes. 7,000 votes would be enough to fill a seat.
The result would be something like this (if most voters voted along party lines, giving their first preferences and back-up preferences to the same party).
Old FPTP results STV results
A 4 seats 2 seats
B 3 seats 3 seats
C 0 seats 2 seats
Voters supporting C did not have to choose among A or B as pushed to do under FPTP but were able to vote with their sentiment, knowing that their party would receive its due share of the seats.
And each voter had liberty to choose among all the 21 candidates.
The 2 A candidates that were elected not only were thought better than the B or C candidates but also better than the 5 unsuccessful A candidates. Individual appeal as well as party identification becomes important when voters have the wide range of candidates to choose from that STV provides.
Parties are encouraged to run a broad range of candidate (within the parameters of their beliefs) in order to appeal to as many votes as possible. It could be that the seven candidates that A ran under FPTP - probably mostly white middle-aged bluff men of power and prestige - lawyers and office-seekers - would be, under STV, replaced by a mixed bag of candidates - men and women, young and old, of many colours and races, various occupations and backgrounds, both workers and business persons, etc.
The more mixed group of candidates under STV would likely result in a more diverse legislature. But only if that is what the voters wanted.
They would have the ability to choose - under STV.
(Basic info taken from Alfred Cridge, Proportional Representation (1904))
Thanks for reading.
Check out my blog "list of Montopedia blogs concerning electoral reform" to find other blogs on this important subject.
===================================================
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