The recent issue of Alberta Views (October 2021) has published cribbed info from the Unlock Democracy Canada website on the London Ontario city election that used Alternative Voting (IRV).
points out that Ontario legislation passed in 2016 allowed Ontario cities to adopt ranked ballots either in AV or PR-STV version. (since then, Ford has cancelled this.)
The article goes on to say how London was the first city brave enough to adopt ranked ballots. But no admission is made that the city adopted AV and that AV is only majoritarian where, at least for aldermanic elections, voters are divided and split by the boundaries of 14 different wards. It is not proportional. In fact, there is no mention of PR thereafter
At the end it says 68 percent of participating voters marked back-up preferences and two thirds of them marked three.
That is great although three, the maximum allowed, was not enough and many votes had to be declared exhausted before the transfers were finished. (No limit on the number of back-up preferences that could be marked should be imposed on voters! Let us mark!, should be our battle cry.)
But more importantly than how many voters marked all three preferences we should ask how many votes - whether through first preference or back-up preferences - actually elected someone? In many wards it was less than a majority of votes cast - this was due to so many votes being declared exhausted.
Holder, the winning mayoral candidate, was elected in the end with 44,373 votes when 48,320 was a majority of valid votes that were cast. Holder had lead of only 13,000 votes, and 20,000 votes had been declared exhausted so it is not clear he was the choice of most voters. In Ward 5, Cassidy won with 3922 votes, 44 percent of votes cast. In Ward 8, Lehman won with 3058 votes, 39 percent of votes cast. In Ward 12, Peloza won with 3139 votes, 48 percent of votes cast. Ward 13, Kayabaga won with 2325 votes, 41 percent of votes cast. Ward 14, Hillier won with 2522 votes, 48 percent of votes cast.
As well, the IRV used in London 2018 election produced no different representation than FPTP would have. The leader in the first count won in the end in every ward. Under any election where votes cast single votes and multiple members are elected, there is diversity among those elected. No one group can take all the seats. If London had adopted ranked ballots and multiple-member districts or at-large, diversity would have been produced, not just a partially-failed attempt at majority rule. Kayabaga, whose election is taken by many as the benchmark of diversity produced by ranked ballots., would have been even more assured of election under PR. Under PR-STV, she would have been elected by a broader base than just 41 percent of the voters in one ward. Next year she may decide to run again. If she does but is only up against one candidate she may not be re-elected. But under a multi-member PR system, that kind of democratic diversity would be more certain. That two-thirds of 68 percent of the London voters marked three preferences is something. But marking preferences is not what gives you PR or fair representation or a high proportion of votes being used to elect someone. When each voter can cast just one vote and multiple members are elected, there is diversity in the front runners in the first count. If the election ends there, with just the front runner being used to fill the seats, it would be more balanced and diverse and proportional than FPTP or AV. In 1930 and 1944, Calgary was using STV to elect its MLAs. (It was using STV in city elections too but that is another story). In those two elections the front runners in the first count - before any votes were transferred - were all elected in the end, after all the vote transfers were done. Was it any less proportional because back-up preferences made no difference? Candidates of three different parties were elected each time - seems pretty proportional. Single Non-transferable Voting would have produced exactly the same result. FPTP or AV would almost certainly not have. The marking of back-up preferences is nice because it shows voters are buying into reform and playing the game. But if they are not allowed to mark enough it is so much wasted effort. And sometimes the back-up preferences are not, in fact, used. Any votes bearing first preferences cast for those who won in the end were never transferred - the candidate was never eliminated, none of the back-up preferences on his first-count votes were used. Back-up preferences are not enough to secure just (righteous) representation. Single voting and multiple members in a district or in at-large elections with no districts at all, even with no back-up preferences used, provides proportionality, whether through STV or MMP or SNTV. Single-winner elections never can produce proportionality - or when they do, it is a strange kind of proportionality where the success of voters of type A in one ward are balanced by the success of voters of type B in a different ward, while the unsuccessful voters in each ward - perhaps a majority in each - have no representation at all. The story of electoral reform in London does not need to end with many of its voters marking three preferences in 2018. Let's hope that was just the beginning.
=====================================================
Comments