I may be accused of being technical about term "at-large" as used in phrase "at-large districts," versus term "multi-member districts." The distinction though is important. In Canada no STV elections were at-large, except for some - and not all - elections of city councilllors. Apart from those exceptions, STV was district-based, ie. to elect local reps (councillors or MLAs) in a subset of the total jurisdiction - in multi-member wards or constituencies, but not electing all the reps of a chamber of power in a single contest. A provincial multi-member district in Canada sometimes enclosed a whole city, a subset of the province. But it never enclosed a full province (although it is used that way in Australia and other places, I know)
But in many STV usages, districts are used - such as Ireland - still using STV after a hundred years - or Malta where 13 five-seat districts elect the parliament. My emphasis on districts is because I want to stress that STV can still preserve local representation.
STV does not have to be city wide for city elections, province wide for provincial elections or country wide for federal elections.
Re: the term "Plurality at-large" to mean voters casting multiple votes in multi-member districts.
The term Plurality at-large may work fine for some. I prefer Block Voting, in long-standing usage.
The widest use of Block Voting in Canada was in BC where it was used from 1800s to 1986 excepting 1952, 1953 elections.
Until 1986 with those two exceptions, BC had a mixture of FPTP in single-member districts and Block voting in multi-member districts. Oddly you will find little mention of this combined system - - not in the hard-copy Encyclopedia of BC, - nor - until my recent efforts - on Wikipedia, which may not have stuck, such as in the BC electoral reform wikipedia page, - nor in the 1966 BC general election wikipedia page. This is a natural place to mention the FPTP/BV scheme as that election was first after BC switched from Alternative Voting (IRV) (in both single and multi-member districts - a weird combination itself eh?) back to the FPTP/BV combination scheme.
I have just (on March 22) added this to the 1956 election wikipedia page:
"This election was first after BC switched from Alternative Voting (IRV) (in both single and multi-member districts) back to its historic system that used First Past The Post in single-member districts and Block Voting in multi-member districts."
We'll see how long old sticks-in-the-mud let it stand! They who seem to believe that all elections are FPTP. And that no electoral reform has ever taken place in Canada, except BC's switch to weird system of AV in early 1950s. - nor in other Wikipedia BC election coverage. Without stating Block Voting (or multiple voting, if you prefer), the implication is that voters may have been casting single votes in multiple member districts. This would be SNTV, a primitive proportional system, a far cry from the disproportional Block Voting system that was used. Funny how in some circumstances voters casting single votes is natural; while in other circumstances voters casting as many votes as there are open seats is natural (unlike STV or SNTV or Limited Voting).
------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for reading.
Check out my blog "List of Montopedia blogs concerning electoral reform" to find other blogs on this important subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------
This year is the:
* 100th Anniversary of United Farmers of Alberta party being elected on promise to bring in electoral reform, a promise fulfilled three years later.
* 50th anniversary of the last STV city election in Canada. Calgary elected 14 city councillors through STV, and then switched to FPTP for city elections. By that time, more than 54 years after the first STV city election, anyone old enough to have voted using X voting in a city election would have had to be 75 years old.
* 50th Anniversary of election of Lougheed's Progressive-Conservatives. With only 46 percent of the vote they took more than 60 percent of the seats. NDP received 11 percent of the vote but elected just one (Grant Notley), instead of the nine MLAs it was due.
====================================================
What is STV?
From a 1902 reform magazine:
"Thinking it well to have in every number something by way of a brief explanation of proportional voting, I repeat in this number the following. Proportional representation means the use of a reasonable and scientific system of voting instead of the present stupid, unfair and inefficient procedure.
Methods: There are several systems by which the principle of proportional representation may be given effect to. Large electoral districts, each electing several members, are a necessary feature. The "quota" plan is usually employed. It means that a quota of the votes elects one representative. To arrive at the quota, the number of valid votes cast is divided by the number of seats to be filled. For instance in a seven-member district any one-seventh of the voters could elect one representative and the other six-sevenths could not interfere with their choice.
The three principal systems of proportional representation are the Free List as used in Switzerland and Belgium [party-list pro-rep], the Hare system as used in Tasmania [STV], and the Gove System as advocated in Massachusetts.
The Preferential Vote [Alternative Voting/Instant Run-off Voting] -- This is used in the election of single officers such as a mayor. It is not strictly a form of pro-rep but is akin thereto, and uses part of the same voting methods. The object of preferential voting is to encourage the free nomination of candidates and to obtain always a clear majority at one balloting, no matter how many candidates are nominated."
(From the Proportional Representation Review Dec. 1902, p. 77) (Hathi Trust online resource, page 81/180)
Thanks for reading.
========================================================
Comments