A problem with STV is that votes have to be gathered together in a central location for the transfers. This can cause delay (maybe even as much as the two-week delay to count mail-in votes that is happening in BC right now.) Anyways C.G. Hoag, in his pamphlet Effective Voting (1914), described two systems where votes do not have to be gathered together to allow vote transfers. He wrote that STV is still best, allows votes to be transferred according to each voter's personal taste, but - - the Gove plan allows channelled transfers without the gathering together that STV requires. - the List plan allows pooling of votes among a party's candidates without transfers at all. Under Gove each candidate pre-sets where his votes will be transferred to in case he cannot be elected. The voter by voting for the candidate is accepting that the vote will be transferred, if necessary, in line with the candidate's instruction. The List plan does not involve transfers but does create proportionality anyway. Names of candidates are arranged on the ballot in lists, one list for the candidates of each party in the district. A voter puts his X next to the candidate of his choice. The votes for each list (party) are computed and the number of seats won by each party are calculated proportionally (through largest remainder quota system). The seats per party are awarded to the individual candidates who are most popular on each party list. It is an open list system because voters have influence on who is elected off of each list - the successful candidates are not determined by party officials. These systems could be used in far-flung rural areas, especially far-flung if made large enough to have multiple members. Physically collecting votes for STV transfers could be difficult and time-consuming there.
The use of one of these systems could make district-level pro-rep work in such situations. Old techniques - put to use once again.
(more notes at bottom)
---------------------
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)
------------------------------------ Thanks for reading. Check out my blog "list of Montopedia blogs concerning electoral reform" to find other blogs on this important subject. ----------------------------------- This year (2020): *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 ============================================================== NOTES
I came across a reference in a 1907 textbook to a system of pro-rep where voters cast multiple votes as in Block Voting, Quota is arrived at through Droop. Vote tally for candidates of each party are combined. The party's tally is compared to quota and the number of seats the party is due is computed, the seat or seats going to the candidate in the party who are most popular.
I did not know the name for the system but then found that the description fits perfectly with the "List Plan" system, as described in Hoag Effective Voting (1914).
==========
This is the way a 1964 essay described the "List Plan" system:
"Under the list plan, each party nominates a slate of candidates for the district. The elector votes for the party rather than for individual candidates although some list plans permit him to indicate his preferences among the candidates of the party for which he votes. While each of several formulae for distributing seats among the parties theoretically allots seats to each party on the basis of that party's proportion of the total vote cast in the dis trict, the various formulae do not all produce the same distribution.
One important question concerns which candidates on a party's list will get the seats to which the party is entitled. This may be determined by the party organization's ranking its candidates so that the highest-ranking candidates on the list will get the seats won by the party. If voters are allowed to indicate preferences, each party's seats go to that party's candidates with the largest number of preferences.
The list system allows the voter less freedom of choice than the Hare system does. The list system also strengthens party organization and cohesion, because votes are cast primarily for parties, and seats are allotted to parties on the basis of their over-all strengths in the district."
(From Ruth C. Silva, "Relation of Representation and the Party System to the Number of Seats Apportioned to a Legislative District"
online: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/106591296401700410)
Comments