Having achieved Responsible Government, now we need to get "Accountable Government"

"Accountable Government"

If first part of Canada's constitutional history was drive for responsible government - away from appointed colonial officials dictating government policy

(and too perhaps UK's -- in UK's case, drive was  for "constitutional monarchy") -

then the next part of our history has been and will be the drive for accountable government --

elected government accountable to the voter.

Goals of movement would be:

-each vote has same strength (unless some system will be devised where every vote can count, then getting having 80 or so percent effective is best we can do. Such is achieved by list PR and STV.)

-each substantial group has some representation

-majority of votes required to elect party or coalition that has majority of seats in the chamber

-sentiment of majority of voters is reflected by government policy.

sometimes campaign for accountable government is first directed at equal-sized districts.

in Britain use of both one- and two-seat districts in early 1800s

Chartists called for equal-sized districts, meaning each district would have same size of population.

the difference between one or two members being less important at that time than that each district would have thousands of voters and have about same population.

this was due to the existence of "pocket boroughs" where  less than 50 voters were electing one or two members.

the reform to abolish these was called for by the Chartists, who were not allowed to vote so perhaps may not have even noticed that some districts elected two while others elected one. 

(The Reform Act 1832, failed to extend the vote beyond those owning property)

the end of pocket boroughs was only achieved after Chartists were suppressed.

(Wiki "Pocket boroughs" -- "Significantly diminished by the Reform Act 1832, pocket boroughs were for all practical purposes abolished by the Reform Act 1867.")

(by the time Canada elections were given official formulation in early 1800s, equal-sized districts was basic, I think, but perhaps broken in many instances such as the Upper versus Lower Canada disparity.

Achieving "rep by pop" in 1867 Confederation allowed Ontario and Quebec to have equal-sized districts,

without Rep by Pop, some districts would have had to have differently-sized populations.

whether within each province, districts were actually equal-sized districts is open question.

Rep by Pop. preserved today to large degree (barring PEI and the Territories)

and relatively equal-populated districts are used, each electing one MP (again barring PEI and the Territories) and relatively equal-populated provincial districts each electing one MLA. although the winner in one district compared to another are elected with widely-varying number of votes.

Even while votes are unequal in strength, not having any vote at all was seen as an evil.

(Australian PR champion Catherine Helen Spence was not a strong campaigner for female suffrage seeing that until PR established, all that would be accomplished was that women voters would see their vote wasted just as much as men voters were already seeing theirs wasted.)

achievement of universal adult male suffrage in late 1800s (extended to many women in Canada in 1917/1921, in UK in 1918/ 1928)

(universal adult suffrage for citizens in Canada  finally achieved in 1960s or 1970s-- adult being defined as 18 or older was a separate reform)

1950s? (or earlier?) plural voting was challenged. 

Systems where some voters (such as property owners) had more votes than others was challenged.

1910s   movement turned to Direct Legislation - initiative, referendum and recall

(being re-tried today in BC, Alberta -- and NB?)

then usually movement was redirected to Electoral Reform and PR

-- adoption of Cumulative Voting in Illinois in 1871

-- adoption of Limited Voting in Toronto (a dead end?)

-- adoption of partial STV in Manitoba and Alberta.

PR coming to many European countries in early 1900s

(perhaps dead ends pursued -- Bucklin method (Cleveland), of Proxy Plan (Oregon 1909), open primaries, or IRV (today))

(I am not sure that Illinois's CV was not a dead end as it expired in illinois without growth to full PR))

===

PR means that the other reforms tried earlier were not so important.

with STV or list PR and Multi-Member Districts (sometimes already in use under Block voting), districting -- equal or otherwise -- not so important.

with gerrymandering being suppressed or rendered useless, with smoothing out the variation in districts' voter turnout rate, with each member in a district getting same or almost same number  of votes, much more equality in strength of vote.

although some votes still not being used to elect the first choice, but under STV being transferred to someone also preferred by voter.

under list PR, a vote being pooled and used to elect someone through party connection.

(open list PR vote being used to elect an individual candidate if possible. if not, then being pooled and used to elect someone through party connection.)

either way, under PR 80 percent or so of votes are used to elect someone, and each member is elected by about same number of votes  (effective votes divided by seat count)

hence guaranteeing that majority of members in chamber overall reflect sentiment of majority of voters overall (or at least majority of 80 percent of voters), 

although majority of members and voters is composed of adherents of various parties but in same proportions on each hand.

not a consensus where all opinions count

but much more fair than FPTP system where less than half of vote cast can elect majority of members in chamber, and where half or a third of votes cast are ignored and become merely demonstration of  "placebo voting."

FPTP system is where government is not accountable to the majority of voters.

and FPTP elects governments that are not accountable in the ways I am talking about.

===================================