Further to my other recent blogs, I would like to give more info on what I call the UFA-style PR plan.
Under it a party promises to bring in PR through a combined system of STV in cities and Alternative Voting elsewhere. And then after election it does so. After initial application of STV in a city or two and application of AV elsewhere, later STV would be extended where desired or found to be needed.
Thus I see the UFA-style plan as being more incremental than a full-on MMP system.
Sure, my proposal involves a change to AV everywhere (except where the change is immediately to STV), but that is no big change, either in practice or effect. In those places AV would allow the single-member districts to remain, the only change being voters could mark back-up preferences if they wanted to, and some votes may be transferred if and only if no candidate received a majority in he first count. So I see this as being hardly any change at all.
The real change (the change to STV) would only happen where there is popular support for the change or where the votes are cast in such a way that there is proven to be unfair representation. Thus it would be scientifically-based and politically defensible in a way that pushing MMP everywhere might not be. And of course it would be up to the government to make any change.
I see my process as being open and step by step. It is more incremental than full-on MMP because MMP is overall, while my change to STV would be city by city or area by area.
It is a bit odd for me to propose that a party should put forward not a promise of a clear PR system proposal but instead to promise immediate conversion to Alternative Voting with some cities in the country switching to STV, and a formula for eventual conversion with broader and broader use of STV.
Under my proposal, it is clear that any later move to extend STV would be prone to political considerations by the government of the day. But even a change to MMP would not be set in stone and any government cold revert the electoral system back to FPTP or change it to another system.
So my proposal merely accepts that.
Under the UFA-style proposal there would be some immediate application of STV in some cities, with the door open to more as circumstances cause, as and if the government of the day chooses to broaden it.
I would rather that than no change at all, and am concerned that holding off and insisting on full-on MMP may mean no change at all.
More elaboration and explanation
The UFA-style PR proposal does not "give" the strongest party too many seats.
It already has that under FPTP.
It is true to say though that the UFA-style proposal, being quick-starting but incremental, does not immediately completely change the existing system.
But a simple presentation of a mock election can show the type of progress made under electoral reform.
A simple presentation of a mock election will give us some insight into the working of PR.
Let's use 100 districts (of seven types), 10,000 votes and four parties
Let's say vote counts as cast in each district were like this:
in 10 districts (area #1) Party A 30 Party B 10 Party C 34 Party D 26
in 10 districts (area #2) Party A 36 Party B 32 Party C 22 Party D 10
in 10 districts (area #3) Party A 26 Party B 40 Party C 24 Party D 10
in 20 districts (area #4) Party A 36 Party B 16 Party C 28 Party D 20
in 10 districts (area #5) Party A 40 Party B 30 Party C 19 Party D 11
in 20 districts (area #6) Party A 25 Party B 55 Party C 14 Party D 6
in 20 districts (area #7) Party A 60 Party B 24 Party C 10 Party D 6
PARTY SEAT COUNTS
FPTP STV/AV STV/AV STV/AV STV
VOTES (area#1=STV)
(areas#1-2=STV) (areas#1-4=STV)
(all areas=STV)
Party A 3780 votes 60 43 37 47 38
Party B 3000 votes 30 31 34 31 30
Party C 2020 votes 10 23 25 13 20
Party D 1200 votes 0 3 4 9 12
Total 10,000 100 seats 100 seats 100 seats 100 seats 100 seats
So the immediate result of even partial change to PR is seen to be somewhat more proportional representation,
with results become generally fairer the more PR is used. The seat count of Party D for example gradually rises to the proper level as more districts use PR.
Note: the results of AV were derived by
in area #6 and area #7, no vote transfers are conducted because one party took majority of votes in the First Count in each of the districts.
And assuming
in area #3, Party B holds the lead and receives some votes transferred from Party A, enough to take majority.
and generally there is A-C-D (Liberal-NDP-Green) partial co-operation such that:
in area #2 Party A (Liberals) holds the lead and receives vote transfer from Party C (NDP) and Party D (Greens) to take majority.
in area #5 Party A holds the lead and receives vote transfer from Party C and Party D to take majority.
the one place where turn-over happens
in area #4, Party C (NDP) receives some votes transferred from Party A (Liberals) and Party D (Greens) to take a majority of votes in each district.
This change to Party C winning these districts is partly why the seat count in "STV/AV (area #1= STV)" above shows Party C with 23 districts, up from 10 in FPTP.
This is an example of the change in seat counts that AV may yield in exceptional cases as compared to FPTP.
Such change occurs only in exceptional cases.
Vote transfers have no effect at all on seat counts in districts where a candidate takes a majority on the first count, because no vote transfers are conducted in those districts.
And vote transfers only have an effect on seat counts in districts where the front runner in the first count does not have as much overall support as a different candidate.
AV more fair than FPTP
The scale of this dis-proportionality is small compared to the almost random results under FPTP.
FPTP almost random
Under FPTP, slight changes in votes create wide fluctuations:
If Party A gets five fewer votes in each district, a change of just 500 votes, its seat count drops from 60 to 50.
If Party B gets 12 more votes in each district in area #2 and area #5, its seat count goes up to 50 and Party A's goes down to 40. Thus, Party B could have government if just 240 specific additional voters (out of about 10,000 voters) decided to vote and voted for Party B.
If Party B gets five more votes in each district in area #2, its overall seat count rises from 30 to 40.
If Party C gets ten more votes in each district in area #4, its overall seat count triples, rising from 10 to 30.
If Party C gets five fewer votes in each district in area #1, it loses all its seats - its overall seat count drops from 10 to zero.
I believe that PR (even STV/AV) is more scientific and dependable than that!
===============================
More explanation
UFA-style plan, being incremental, envisions adjustments, after initial start so the whole concept is based on future changes. However that is due to initial public reluctance, not any expected complications or problems arising. STV/AV did work just fine in eight elections in Alberta and seven in Manitoba (Manitoba used urban STV/rural FPTP in two elections). The only change that was needed in that time in Alberta's eight elections was to change the number of members per city/district, to allow X voting for the first choice (later rescinded), and to change Medicine Hat to a single member.
The STV and STV/AV system is/was not complicated.
A simple time-proven system based on comparison between candidates' vote tallies (as in both STV and AV) and of comparison of candidate vote tallies to an easily derived quota (as in STV) or of comparison of candidate vote tallies to majority (as in AV) is not complicated.
The STV/AV system did not require any special tinkering. Periodic redistribution are part of our political system as it stands.
Unlike Alberta and Manitoba's historical practice, I hope that today UFA-style proposal would see STV extended more widely so later changes are part of the proposal I am defending. Society today being more urbanized than a hundred years ago or 70 years ago gives me reason to be optimistic about this.
We know more than we did a hundred/70 years ago and have computers now! So we should be able to handle PR even better than them then. And it is not complicated. At least STV/AV is not. Perceptions of PR being complications are one reason to bring it in incrementally. The first use of it should show how do-able it actually is.
Computers are useful but vote counting machines are not necessary and create their own problems - see the recent (AV) NY election where trial votes were added into the real count for example.
An example that uses only two parties does not show much that is pertinent to today's politics.
Any mock election can be skewed to show an intended outcome. But we have to look at what happens/happened in real life.
I have already written recently that in Alberta history AV did not give any great advantage to the party in power.
The UFA did not get any additional seats under AV than it would have had under FPTP, and the SC government famously suffered (to the extent of just four seats) in 1955 under AV. But I am not defending AV by itself but only as it uses ranked voting, the same voting system to be used in the cities (so STV/AV provides important consistency). AV would thus be stepping stone to gradual extension of STV.
AV does share the dis-proportionality of FPTP but, unlike FPTP, AV is a stepping stone to STV.
STV/AV is more proportional than FPTP, which we are stuck with while we are awaiting application of an overall PR system, as we seen to be doing.
I am not stuck on STV/AV necessarily.
But I do think simplicity is a virtue.
Multi-member districts of one sort or another are necessary for PR. They could be local geographic or at-large/regional top-up. The election of multiple members in a single contest is a basic part of any PR system.
The more direct the relationship between votes cast and the members elected, the more I like the system.
STV/AV has that advantage. No party lists!
Other systems that could work are:
urban SNTV/rural FPTP where each voter everywhere casts just one non-transferable vote. FPTP is lousy but at least the partial SNTV would produce mixed representation and thus a degree of proportionality.
or even a system of regional MMP where
in each large city local MPs are augmented with say five MPs allocated based on non-compensatory top-up, each 20 percent of the city vote (or largest fraction thereof) is given one top-up seat .
And to preserve the existing balance rural and urban populations, the same number of top-up members as is used in urban centres are allocated as per the overall rural vote, again in non-compensatory fashion.
Such a system could look this:
the two largest cities in each province each would have five top-up members. Votes cast there would be used to allocate top-up members, one per 20 percent of the city vote (or largest fraction thereof)
all the voters outside this city would have ten top-up members. Votes cast there would be used to allocate top-up members, one per 10 percent of the vote (or largest fraction thereof).
This would be more proportional than the present system and eliminate the single-party overall sweeps and single-party regional sweeps now produced by FPTP. But this would waste more votes and would produce more dis-proportionality than STV.
It would not be perfect (any MMP system with a threshold is also not perfect) but would be an improvement on the existing system.
Top-up of five or ten members creates an automatic threshold, of 20 or ten percent, (although large fractions thereof could get a seat), but it does produce mixed representation, the hallmark of proportionality, so would be an improvement on existing FPTP.
I think there is more truth in the statement "ANY PR system is better than ANY FPTP system" than there is falsehood.
And the quicker to start and simpler the PR system, the better, even at the expense of overall application or precise proportionality.
I think we don't want a system where we leave it to politicians to hammer out and negotiate the workings of PR through consensus. A single party in power has constitutional right to change electoral system but of course should do only what is fair. (Retention of FPTP is not fair if you think about it!)
A party elected on promise of electoral reform should do so even against opposition by other parties. It is just right.
Adoption of a time-proven system (STV/AV) or transparent non-compensatory MMP top-up is basic and defensible. Any more complicated system becomes less transparent and could be seen (or presented) as being unbalanced in effect or would be prone to long negotiation and foot-dragging.
In fact any later changes may be upsetting and frustrating for the public so should be done only as necessary but the system should be such that future changes are few and seldom.
under UFA-style proposal any extension of STV would happen where voters in a city or region voted in favour of the change or where AV was seen as producing un-proportional results. But in a perfect world, the basic working (how votes are cast and counted) would be set in stone, without amendment and confusion. Such dependability is perhaps why Alberta and Manitoba were able to maintain their PR systems for as long as they did.
To clarify what I wrote before
In Newfoundland, PEI and NS a single-party has total sweep. this is not proportional and should be addressed by bringing in STV (or other district-based PR) in the largest cities in each province.
Montreal and Toronto also shows single-party sweeps and should be addressed by bringing in STV (or other district-based PR).
in Alberta a single-party has an almost total sweep. The Liberal party does not have the seats it is due. NDP does have one seats (thus it is not total Conservative sweep). This is not proportional and should be addressed by bringing in STV (or other district-based PR) in the largest cities in Alberta.
Victoria has asked for PR. adopting PR in that city would address the total sweep that Vancouver Island currently produces.
the total sweeps in rural Manitoba and interior BC are puzzles but one solution is to produce several three-member districts (by grouping three existing ridings) in each place. The use of single voting (whether STV or SNTV) would prevent single-party sweeps in each three-seat district (and thus in each region as whole). Such a combination would address much of the dis-proportionality.
Regional MMP with top-up members is another way but, like I say, is the more complicated and the more non-transparent, and thus prone to problems, the more proportional it is designed to be. At least I think it would be.
=============================================
Comments