Recently I was informed that the nomination process was an integral part of democracy. (This is only a quick response.)
I must admit I have not previously given it much thought.
Party control of the candidacy is a problem for an open democracy.
That is part of why STV is strong - it does not rely on party discipline or control as a party-list pro-rep would.
If Canada has stricter party control by denying local constituency associations the right to put forward their own candidates aside from central party vetting, as I was told, and this is seen as bad, then we can look at the STV system in Ireland where most elected representatives are Independent.
However, Alberta voters, unlike, say, Winnipeg voters, were strict party supporters. Only one Independent candidate was elected under Alberta STV - an Independent-Labour candidate. Most vote transfers, or at least the largest groups of votes, were passed on to other specific candidates of the same party.
This relatively-strict party allegiance also meant that in Alberta no new parties, other than those to be expected over the 30 years that STV was used, were created - despite the common fear that STV spawns a plethora of dangerous small parties and then elects a scatter-gun of representatives. During STV's use in Edmonton and Calgary, only representatives of the big parties were elected - Conservative, Liberal, UFA, Labour/CCF and Social Credit - plus one Independent-Labour.
But voters could have elected Independents if they chose.
One Independent - Johnnie Caine - was the most popular on the first count in Edmonton in 1944, but voters marked few back-up preferences in his direction. Party supporters stayed with their party and he did not take a seat.
In a couple STV elections in Alberta, a candidate was not elected while another candidate of the same party passed him in vote totals and took a seat. Both were nominated, or at least signed on, by party leadership, but voters distinguished between the two -- they did not just look at the party label.
Perhaps if voters since the 1960s are known to have voted only for party labels and not looked at names of candidate, that was because in FPTP there is only one candidate for each party. STV, where each party puts forward a partial or full slate of two to five or more candidates, will force voters to distinguish and know individual candidates.
Or at least I expect it will.
Meanwhile, it is said that nomination battles for provincial or federal candidates, or primaries as held in U.S. elections, are not necessary under STV. Those who want the nomination can be allowed to put their names on the election ballot, allowing voters to choose the individual candidate they want elected, and back-up preferences arranged along party slate lines if they desire. Either way, the party and the individual candidate, or parties and individual candidates, will be elected whom the voters want elected. Of course, the number running must be reasonable just as there are only a reasonable number that run for nomination in the first place.
Thanks for reading.
=============================
Comments