Elbert's "Local Transferable Vote" -- large rural districts could be hard sell but local representation guarantees may help sell them
Leonid A. Elbert, "Local Transferable Vote - A Better Electoral System for Canada" (submission to the HofC Special Committee on Electoral Reform, September 2016) available online
STV used with regions (multi-member districts) but guaranteed local representation for places within the region.
local seats being about two-thirds of the seats in a region
City-regions may have 10, 12 or 14 seats. Less-populated regions would have 6, 9 or 11 seats.
Nine local seats is maximum for an electoral region, with 5 "at-large" seats.[Apparently he uses these precise numbers of seats to allow for a 9:5 ratio between local seats and top-up. I don't think this precise ratio is important.]
to get elected, a candidate must meet at least one of the following [amended by Tom Monto]:
1. win more than 50 percent of the first choice votes in his or her local district;
2. meet the regional quota with first choice votes, or combination of first choice and transferred votes;
3. be the last remaining un-elected un-eliminated candidate from his or her local district, when the local seat has not been filled.
Until all seats in the region are filled, count proceeds by the elimination of the least popular candidate (unless protected by condition 3).
Even after election, local candidates are allowed to continue to accumulate votes up to the regional quota, in cases where a majority of votes in a local district is less than the regional quota or where a candidate was elected with relatively few votes by being the last remaining local candidate needed to fill an empty local seat.
In event of surplus (when a candidate's vote count surpasses quota), the last batch (the one that that caused the surplus) would be examined and each vote in the transfer would be transferred at a value equal to the number of surplus votes divided by the number of ballot papers received in the last transfer.
[This is flawed because the last transfer is just from one candidate so its range of sentiment is not wide. As well, you would have the matter of fractions.
Two better options suggest themselves for the transfer of the surplus votes (the number votes needing to be transferred). Each uses whole votes.
They are:
- merely stopping the transfer when a candidate achieves quota, and for transfer of all remaining votes skip to the next available back-up preference.
- ["old school" method, used in Alberta elections for 30 years - without computers or even calculators] transfer ballots (randomly mixed within group) at rate of transfer to each other candidate as per this formula:
(examining all the winning candidate's total winning votes, take the number of votes bearing other candidate's name as next available choice. Divide this number by the winning candidate's total winning vote tally and multiply the resulting number by the number of votes in the surplus.
Example: 100/1200 X 200 = 17, where 100 is the number of total votes held by the candidate marked for the other candidate, 1200 is the total number of votes held by the winning candidate, 200 is the surplus, 17 is the number of votes transferred to the other candidate.]
-------------------------------
Elbert says the LTV system has these advantages over STV:
- much stronger geographical connection between voters and elected representatives, as multi-member regions would be subdivided into local districts
- more seats per region than under STV, hence better proportionality without significantly increasing the number of candidates on the ballot.
- surplus transfer rule is simpler than what was proposed under BC-STV, ensuring accuracy and fairness of the results with needlessly complicating the count.
[I don't see that each region needs to be totally covered by local districts. and I think that electing a candidate that a substantial group of voters wishes to see elected trumps the idea of local representation. The freer and wider the electoral district, the more freedom the voter has to elect whom he or she prefers. This is produced by a larger number of top-up at-large seats, but I do see sense of a city like Lethbridge having a local seat if it is sunk in a region that covers a third or half of the province.
I don't see how Elbert envisions that a district that has more seats will not see significant increase in candidates on the ballot. The number of candidates will not increase as compared to the collection of all the old ballots in the previous single-member districts. But any election that has more seats will see more candidates on the ballot, it seems to me. Having many names on the ballot is a good thing as long as they are not more than voters can handle. Hopefully, his system would not require voters to rank all the candidates on the ballot but only those the voter really cares about.
I don't know what the transfer rule for BC-STV is. I am not sure its supporters even know as they refer to transfers of fractions in some places and transfer of whole votes in others. So I will not address this, but only to say easy forms of surplus transfer are presented above.]
Under Elbert's LTV,
Alberta with 34 seats would have 4 regions consisting of 8-10 seats each.
Overall, 21 local seats and 13 top-up seats.
perhaps: Edmonton 4 local, 5 top-up 9 total
Calgary 4 local, 5 top-up 9 total
Red Deer north 7 local, 1 top-up 8 total
Red Deer south 6 local, 2 top-up 8 total
He envisioned 14-seat Manitoba being like this:
Winnipeg 8-seat region: 5 local and 3 top-up
The rest of Manitoba 6-seat region: 4 local seats and two top-up
[I think that there should be multi-member local districts. Perhaps even a city could be one multi-member district that would be an entire region to itself. We don't need to break down the city into "wards." I think cities should be all "at-large" elected through the "regional" quota, the city being the region.
This is how it could work for Alberta:
5 regions
Edmonton region (one city-wide district) 9 at-large 9 total
Calgary region (one city-wide district) 9 at-large 9 total
Between Red Deer and Athabasca/Sask River excluding Edmonton 1 local, 3 top-up 4 total 1 local district = Sherwood Park
Northern Alberta north of Athabasca/Sask River 2 local, 2 top-up 4 total
1= Fort McMurray
1= Peace River area
Red Deer and south 3 local, 5 top-up 8 total
3 local members:
Red Deer 1
Medicine Hat 1
Lethbridge 1
overall 6 local, 28 at-large (18 in the two main cities' regions)]
Although local representation may not be as important as Elbert seems to believe, overall the LTV scheme's protection of local representation may grease the adoption of STV in the rural parts of Alberta and Canada. This has never been done before.
Alberta and Manitoba's use of STV in provincial elections did not include rural areas.
Adoption of STV in rural areas would decrease the considerable waste of votes that now occurs in these parts.
If we had STV across the country, there would be very good proportionality of representation. A mixture of parties would be represented in each of the "regions" as well as in the House of Commons overall.
Having "regions" and having proportionality means there would be less reason to gerrymander. As voters are represented proportionally wherever they are, the placement of the boundaries is less important.Less votes would be wasted than under FPTP, with most voters in each region having someone elected in the region if not the local district, if any, that they would be satisfied with.Being multi-member elections, each party would run many candidates. Thus voters would have a wide range of choices from which to choose.
Some seats would be filled by candidates who had accumulated quota through vote transfers from other candidates. Thus extreme candidates and extreme parties would be at disadvantage under this system.
As well, candidates would be encouraged to be moderate and soft-spoken so as not to turn off supporters of other candidates who might give them a back-up preference. Many Canadians want less divisive politics. This system would swerve politics in that direction.
Leonid A. Elbert was resident of Guelph, Ontario.
----------------------------------
LOCAL PR
(may or may not be exactly the same as "Local Transferable vote" described above)
relatively easy to build this system
except the regions will take some work and the proposed vote count process could be simpler.
But as my mock-up of a Local PR eleciton below shows, it has problems.
Local PR guarantees a member for each district,
and within region it is said to produce party proportionality, based on single voting, ranked voting and
election by quota,
or (sometimes) by being last-standing candidate in the district.
but the one seat per riding rule trumps proportionality, as we see below.
to have Local PR, one has to create multi-district regions
also work out better explanation of how it works
it says each "round" ends with election of a member and says election by quota
so in many "rounds", you would eliminate multiple candidates and transfer their votes.
(under STV, each round or count (or stage in Scotland) is elimination of one candidate and transfer of votes, or transfer of surplus votes of one candidate)
(in Local PR there is no term given for a single thing where one candidate eliminated and transfer of votes, or transfer of surplus votes of one candidate)
under Local PR,
if someone is elected, their surplus votes are transferred and
then a new "round" starts with the elected members thrown back into the hopeful stack, and
all have to try to take their seat again, but this time with no competitors from their own riding.
This seems un-necessary as that formerly-elected candidate, being only one standing in the riding, has to be elected.
why not use procedure of STV system (the common STV system)?
that is, once elected, he or she is elected - that is known and set in stone, whether in first round or last round.
no more votes come to that candidate.
surplus votes transferred to next usable marked preference if possible.
end of story for the successful candidate, except victory party.
Local PR is like STV
because of use of quota and single voting, each winner has same amount of votes.
vote has liberty to mark along riding lines or party lines or cross-party or cross-riding lines.
under Local PR
the repeated transfers (even after election) apparently are assumed to ensure that a candidate in each riding is elected with quota.
although nowhere that I see is there a mock-up of a complete vote count, to verify this guess.
I imagine there must be exhausted votes but they are not mentioned.
if they are enough, they would prevent last candidates from achieving quota, even if Droop is used, as advised.
this happens under STV and is not disastrous -- relative purality is what selects the winners, no problem
but it should be considered and planned for in the Local PR proposal.
trade-off
more complication but guaranteed one member per riding.
one-member-per-riding trumps party proportionality in region
early electionn of one candidate means all others in district are not elected, with no hope of receiving vote transfers.
STV keeps middle or high-middle candidates alive longer than Local PR
both keep most-popular alive. likely most-popular win in the end under Local PR just as STV,
but a second-place candidate in riding A will be not elected even if has more votes than any other candidate except most-popular in riding A.
Here I work it out in practice.
Here's mockup of Local PR
5 districts electing five members about 1700 votes in total quota 284
Districts
PARTIES a b c d e
X 175 55 125 85 50
Y 150 125 80 140 35
Z 75 45 30 90 120
A 60 70 65
AA 40
(B has higher-turn out and two of highest vote tallies, but that makes sene that is a competitive riding, others are safe seats.)
candidates in order of popularity Xa, Yb, Yd, Yb, Ze, etc.
assuming voters in a b c and d mark back-up preferences long party lines
district e marks them along district lines, if no other party or district candidate then exhausted (district or party(and transfers goes to most-popular next candidate)
quota is about 1700/6 = 285
vote transfers (first round of Local PR)
Zc eliminated Ze goes up to 150
Ye eliminated Ze goes up to 185
Zb eliminated Ze goes up to 230
AAe eliminated Ze goes up to 270
Xe eliminated Ze goes up to 320 Ze elected surplus transferred exhausted
---------
Here's where Local PR "Round" 2 would start.
But here I will break from Local PR vote count system and just do it mostly as STV process.
[after note: when I finished the count, I saw that I don't believe the process would have worked out any different if Local PR vote count process used, of putting elected members back into fight).
especially due to my strict transfer rules - the remaining district e votes, if any, would be wasted in any transfer, after the only district e member elected]
Xb eliminated Xa goes up to 230
Ab eliminated Ac goes up to 130
(Here's where we know that Yb cannot be eliminated as she is last remaining cand. in b, but still not yet elected)
Ad eliminated Ac goes up to 195
Za eliminated Zd goes up to 165
Yc eliminated Ya goes up to 230
Xd eliminated Xa goes up to 315 elected
surplus votes go to Xc Xc goes up to 155
according to local PR rules, Ya's vote must be transferred as district a has member elected.
this is unfortunate as Ya is Y party's most-popular candidate.
Ya's votes would go to Yd (Yd goes up to 290 and Yd is elected)
surplus votes go to Yb who goes up to 130
so then Zd has to be declared not elected as district d has an elected member
Zd's votes go to exhausted as no more Z party candidates in running
so now we know that Yb and Ac must take remaining two seats.
three elected with quota, two without quota.
final picture districts
a b c d e
parties
X 315
Y 130 285
Z 320
A 195
AA
==================================================================
so Ya, the most-popular Y party candidate most of the way through, is not elected
while Yb and Yd are elected.
[I don't believe that using Local PR vote count rules for "rounds" 2, 3 and 4 would have elected Ya. But admit I did not try it that way.]
likely Ya would not have been elected even if Ye's back-up preferences were marked for the most-popular Y party candidate instead of for the most-popular district e candidate. so we can't blame the set-up of the exercise
[I did not work out party proportionality -- someone else can if they want to.]
==================
That's how I see Local PR anyway...
did result in candidates of four parties being elected,
but that likely is result if we use STV for the entire vote count as well.
STV is simpler.
Local PR is somewhat quick to set up but intricate in its details of the vote count
and not elect most-popular people in some cases as above,
in that, it is same as FPTP.
(this is from email I sent out in December 2024)
================================================
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:
*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
==============================================================
Comentários