Graham Lettner, former provincial candidate on electoral reform platform, interviewed me on my views of PR.
Interview held at Alhambra Books, a quality used-book bookstore in Old Strathcona area, Edmonton.
Some good points made.
Here are some clarifications and elaborations...
26:20 I meant to say Edmonton is currently 20 prov. districts - I say Alberta
My analogy of the messenger going to buy a book became a bit complicated by talking about messenger bringing home five books.
Below I go into explanation of what I was trying to say (or wished I had said):
the point of the five books is in a five-seat district more votes are happy because five, not just one, is elected in the district. even if votes are not transferable, more will be happy with result because perhaps five parties are represented among the district members, and any one voting for one of the five parties then has rep. of a party they prefer,
(unlike FPTP where you either vote for the one candidate who is elected or you don't - FTPP gives voter only one chance to have rep.)
As well, there is diversity among the five so most voters find someone among the five members that they agree with- not necessarly of the party they voted for but someone of a party close to their sentiment
say in five-seat district, you have one or more conservative members and one or more leftists.
likely both women and men will be elected in each multi-seat district.
44:45 sales tax
I actually had not thought about how PR would enable gov't doing a thing that is required but kneejerk public clamour now prevents it.
so it surprised me
I am still not sure what to say.
in a district under PR, member does not need to try to please all but only needs to please his/her supporters to be re-elected.
so that gives freedom to do right thing even if large minority is against it.
Commuters now are likely the largest single group (if you go by who is commuter, who walks to work, who takes bus), and because it is largest single group, it gets much attention even if it is not an actual majority.
say on issue of carbon tax (a federal surtax put on gasoline or equivalent charged by prov gov't
(BC charges the amount so keeps the money. AB does not charge it so the taxes raised go to federal gov't )
because of the FPTP-generated clout of commuters, AB opposes the upcoming increase of the carbon tax -
for the sake of the planet it is right thing to do but commuters have more clout than their numbers (IMO) should give them. and AB gov't opposes the tax.
under PR the make-up of the electorate would be more clear.
the matrix that I spoke of:
voter would have four choices of party and position on carbon tax (more than four actually if more parties considered)
Conservative NDP Green
carbon tax yes A C E
no B D
those in favour of carbon tax could vote for A, C, E depending on party of choice
those opposed could vote for B or D depending on party of choice
as mentioned in the podcast, voter would mark his/her back-up preferences based on party (in line with party label of first preference) or in line with position on carbon tax of first preference,
how voter marks back-up preferences would be up to the voter
say percentages work this way
A 16 carbon tax
B 33 no carbon tax
C 37 carbon tax
D 9 no carbon tax
E 5 carbon tax
carbon tax would be seen to be supported by 51 percent of voters, with 49 percent against.
even if majority of largest party is opposed to carbon tax, that would not dictate position of the conservative party as a whole,
if member has leeway to vote how they choose, carbon tax would pass.
Under PR, even if only in 5-seat district, any candidate wtih 16 percent of the vote would be elected.
but say each district had same make-up of voters' sentiment,
and say Green gave backup prefernce to NDP cand in favour of carbon tax
and voters of conservative and NDP gve second preference to other candidate of same party.
Slate and vote tally on 1st count
Conservative slate would be A1 10 %, A2 6 %, B1 22% , B2 8 %, B3 4%
NDP slate would be C1 24 %, C2 8%, C3 5%, D1 6% D2 3%
Green Party E 5%
1st Count result B1, C1 elected with quota
A1 later elected
B2 later elected.
C2 later elected.
on carbon tax:
B1, B2 opposed
A1, C1, C2 in favour
perhaps Conservative with two-thirds of its sitting MLAs opposed to carbon tax would force the pro-carbon tax one-third to vote against the tax,
but if MLAs had right to vote how they wanted, A1 could pitch in with NDP's elected MLAs in supporting cabon tax.
under STV MLAs have more leeway -
even if they have opinion opposed to majority of the party, they still might win nomination, or perhaps party will let them run with hardly any nomination filtering - party might say let the voters decide who is best member for party and rely on vote transfers they might run amany candaie of diverse stripes hopoing to capture votes that way and relying on vote transfers to concentrate vote behind suitable number of candidates to win.
(under STV in Malta each party runs many more candidates than there are seats for, relying on voters marking preferences along party lines without dispersion
first count you can see how many seats each party will take because very few votes cast for big parties transfer across party lines. you dont know who will ake the seats but you can tell how many seats each major party wil take. and actually you can mostly tell who will win because the candidate in winning position in the first Count usually do go on to be elected in the end.)
(this has become something like how i talked in the podcast - long sentences with clauses and clarifications.!)
under STV, MLAs have direct relationship with voters
- no party list organized by party brass as under list PR -
they know that if they can get 16 percent of the vote in a five -seat distict, they will be elected - some might know they don't really need party label to be elected.
that freedom allows the true belief of the voters to come through more consistently than under FPTP.
SO if majority of voters in favour of sales tax, then despite the Conservative party's position, taken to patronize the commuting minority (largest single group) and the Conservatives taking many seats with just support of a minority of voters, under PR a majority of MLAs will be in favour of sales tax and to a greater extent than under FPTP, those MLAs will have leeway to vote as their supporters want them to.
sales tax will come in despite will of the Conservative party brass.
getting back to party/carbon tax matrix:
under FPTP
each party runs just one candidate
Conservative party vote concentrated behind B1 -- B1 elected with 49 percent of the vote.
NDP party vote concentrated behind C1 -- C1 would get just 46 percent of the vote.
Green Party vote concentrated behind D - D get 5 percent of the vote.
Conservative would get majority of seats in the legislature and carbon tax would be blocked.
So that is how I see mechanism under PR would cause constructive policy to be made into law if it is will of the voters.
and why it does not happen under FPTP in many cases
so now that you made me think about it, I do see how a good law may be prevented under FPTP, and would not be under PR.
Whether sales tax is actually good for Alberta may be thing that we disagree on though...
I can forward you an article I have written on the recent Alberta budget.
I am talking about reform of income tax as route to still not have sales tax
The discussion was a bit funny because I am actually against sale tax and you are saying that PR is way to get the policy through.
So above I use carbon tax, which I see as a better example of good policy held up by FPTP....
===============
Comments