top of page
Tom Monto

Making "odd" multi-member districts

Updated: Oct 29, 2020

All proportional representation systems require multi-member districts. At least one anyway. Even a system where seats are apportioned across the whole jurisdiction (province, city, country) uses a multi-member district, one that covers the whole jurisdiction.


When the whole jurisdiction is the only district, there is little choice of whether to have an odd-number or even number of seat in the district. But where there is more than a single district, such a decision can be made.


We can learn from past practice from the time when STV was used in many cities in North America - 17 Canadian cities alone used it in more than 150 elections. These elections, and information assembled in the U.S., show that the chance of a party with a majority of votes in a district taking a majority of seats was increased if the district had an odd number of seats.


At the same time the largest number of seats in a Canadian STV district was 10 (used in the election of Winnipeg MLAs). As one pundit put it, the Biblical number of 7* was preferred.


Districts of five seats were envisioned by many Alberta Social Credit-ers in 1935. (EB, April 27, 1935)


Thus theoretically multi-member districts should have an odd-number of seats and no more than 9.


After agreeing to group the districts in a city (or in a rural area) to form multi-member districts, it may present some difficulty to compose odd-numbered districts out of the total number of seats in the city or area, assuming no change in the number of representatives.


But with the use of the following table it would be easy.


2 seats are just enough to make one multi-member district

3 seats are just enough to make one multi-member district

4 seats are just enough to make one multi-member district

5 seats are just enough to make one multi-member district

6 makes two districts, each electing 3 representatives

7 seats make one multi-member district

8 makes a 5-member and 3-member district.

9 makes three districts: electing 3 each == 3, 3, 3

10 5, 5

11 5, 3, 3

12 7, 5

13 5, 5, 3

14 7, 7

15 5, 5, 5

16 9, 7 or 5, 5, 3, 3

17 7, 5, 5

18 9 and 9 or 5, 5, 5, 3

19 7, 7, 5

20 5, 5, 5, 5

21 7, 7, 7

22 7, 7, 5, 3

23 9, 7, 7

24 7, 7, 5, 5

25 9, 9, 7 or 5, 5, 5, 5, 5

26 7, 7, 7, 5


I'll stop there.


25 is the number of MPPs and MPs in Toronto currently so that metropolis could be divided into five multi-member districts, each electing five MLAs.


Edmonton has 20 MLAs so could be divided into four multi-member districts, each electing five MLAs.


Calgary has 26 MLAs so could be divided into four multi-member districts, three electing 7 and one electing 5.


Making these new districts, where a city or rural area has to be made into more than one district, would not be too difficult. Merely take the desired number of existing districts standing together and group them together with no alternation to the outside boundaries. Just as long as the number of old seats equals the number of seats desired, you're good.


The more square the resulting new district, the less apparent use of gerrymandering.


With voters in each district represented proportionally, the benefit to be derived from gerrymandering - and thus the desire to gerrymander - is lessened anyway.


---------------------------------------------------------------

* Biblical seven is reference to the number of each type of animals put on Noah's ark. Some animals were put on two by two but rabbits and others such were put on in groups of six females and one male. As well, more commonly, the Bible refers to seven in these contexts - it is the number of cardinal virtues and deadly sins; the number of days in the week (six to work, one to rest); and the four corners of the world plus the Holy Trinity.


Thanks for reading.

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

2 views

Recent Posts

See All

Kommentare


bottom of page