Preventing false-majority government should be first (or minimum) achievement of Proportional representation or at least any electoral reform using top-up, such as MMP
Any system that increases representation for under-represented small parties is a step toward this as well. Because it would decrease the windfall always given to the leading party (except for the 2019 and 2021 elections and perhaps one or two other elections in our history).
Basic fairness between two strong antagonistic parties (social forces) is what caused Winnipeg to adopt PR in 1920. Labour or Capital would win the election (city and provincial) and if the winner was not the popular choice, the outrage was feared to be immense.
the choice for society is increased fairness or drift toward authoritarianism, trying to force people to vote certain way. I vote for fairness.
Top up is one way to go but ...
A different tact that would provide benefits in different directions (increased minority representation, choice for voters, fewer wasted votes, etc.) would be to group districts to make multi-member districts at least in cities. This is also an easy first step toward reform, accomplished by re-districting, which we do periodically (although seldom to that degree) anyway.
but anything would help - top-up or distrcit PR through multi-member districts!
Below is my suggestion for incremental first step for Alberta - MMDs
With upcoming provincial election (expected for May 29th or so) and Alberta in a two party system -- only two parties in the legislature -- the province is in a critical crux.
"Take Back Alberta", a hard-right group, has taken the short road to power by taking pivotal positions in the so-called United Conservative Party and playing large role in nomination, it will be determining that right-wing nominees are chosen to be the UCP candidates. it is not foreign interference but is a form of outside interference.
so Conservative party votes will have choice of lump it or leave it.
This is due to the "one-member party slate closed list plurality election system" that we use in our elections - First Past The Post, in other words.
FPTP puts the Conservative voter in that bind --
while MMDs would give voter the choice of candidates on the right.
I fear appointment of people on a party list or even "best losers" may not address that kind of small group take-over of large party.
Although certainly helping establish party proportionality.
Actually in Alberta (federally or provincially) Conservatives are not likely (at the present) to get top-up seats anyway, so what I am saying may be baseless fear.
Outside interference in the Liberals under MMP may actually still be concern though.
My suggestion copied from other thing I wrote:
"An easy electoral reform can be accomplished very easily that way, simply by adopting multi-member districts where geography allows, and having each voter cast a ranked ballot. Alberta used this system in Edmonton and Calgary in eight elections from 1924 to 1955 so we know it works. and provided mixed roughly balanced proportional representation. The northern districts of the province are more difficult to group together so I suggest they be left as is. But the rest of the province could fairly easily be made into districts electing from 2 to ten members each. in Edmonton and Calgary, I suggest grouping the existing districts by simply dividing the cities into halves or thirds, making multi-member districts of 8 to ten seats each. In each city district, the two or three or four most-popular parties would win seats, depending on the size of districts involved. Outside those cities, in districts in line with or south of the Morinville-St. Albert district, group each pair of our current districts. In the new two-seat districts, the two most-popular candidates would take each of the seats, thus pretty much ensuring that the supporters of two different parties would have representation -- unlike today, where just one party - often with support of just a minority of voters - gets all the representation. Each voter would still have only one vote (same as now), so no one party could take all the seats in a city district. And in almost all of the rural districts, no one party would take both seats as happens nowadays. To prevent waste and ensure roughly-proportional results party-wise in each district, each voter would have just one vote but they would be given opportunity to mark back-up preferences. This would allow a vote to be transferred from a candidate with no chance of election to another also favoured by the voter. And excess votes received by elected candidates would be transferred to aid another candidate preferred by the voter. In most cases this vote transfer would go to someone else of the same party, to help allow someone else of the same party to be elected. But the voter could mark for a cross-party transfer if desired. Like in the STV used in Ireland and in Alberta from the 1920s to 1950s, I suggest the new Alberta system would give liberty to voters to mark as few or as many preferences as they desire. A voter marking just a simple X would still get benefit from the combination of multi-member district and single voting or in worst case be no worse off than under our existing First Past The Post system. The opposition to such a promise would be just those parties who think they do or would derive unfair advantage from the weaknesses of FPTP. So would present themselves as greedy and self-serving.
But the above is not to say that getting a Citizens Assembly to discuss pro-rep is not an important preliminary step!
================================== But any reform will help - it may be that we just have to get the first pickle out!
Comments