Ontario uses the same boundaries as those at the federal level for its Legislative Assembly in Southern Ontario, while the 11 seats in Northern Ontario correspond to the federal districts that were in place before the 2004 adjustment.
This prevents any provincial gerrymandering. Districts are set at the federal level by a non-partisan federal district commission.
This is something other provinces should copy.
Probably other provinces will not follow Ontario's example so far as to, in most cases, simply place one MLA in each federal district.
And most provinces would have no need to do so. For example in Alberta, we have 87 MLAs and 34 MPs, so we have a different number of federal and provincial reps. This would allow the allocation of multiple MLAs in each federal district.
Ontario has 124 MLAs (25 are in Toronto)
Ontario has 121 MPs (25 are in Toronto) (the 2004 redistribution took away three seats from the north.)
14 in suburban Toronto
11 in Central Toronto
But there is a wide variation in the sizes of the districts used in Ontario provincial elections. The Northern Ontario ridings have a population of around 30,000 people each, compared with more than 120,000 people in some southern Ontario ridings. This is caused by the sparse population in the North, and a feeling that a district that is too huge would be un-representable. Meanwhile districts in the south, despite their large number of voters (Toronto-Danforth has 80,000 votes), are miniscule in geographic size. Toronto-Danforth is less than 20 square kilometres in size.
If we look at geographic size, Toronto is between 630 and 2000 square kilometres in size. This is smaller than many federal districts. So geographically it could be one district even if we take the city as a single entity.
Multi-member districts taking in half or a third or a quarter of a city as large as Toronto would be perfectly do-able. And the large number of MLAs in each district would ensure representation of a much higher democratic quality than is now done under the non-proportional single-member plurality system that we now use.
The use of about the same number of seats in both provincial and federal levels, as is done in Ontario currently, is caused by a very human ceiling put on the number of legislators. Anything more than 50 or 100 is seen as excessive and only allowed if really necessary. Thus, Alberta has not increased its number of seats much since the number of seats in its Legislature went above 50. That was back in 1913 when fewer than 100,000 votes were cast (1913). Now our Alberta provincial elections see 1.9M votes cast (2019), but the number of seats in the Legislature has only increased to 87 seats, an increase of just 40 percent over a span of more than a hundred years. In the last hundred years, the ratio of votes cast per MLA has risen from 2,000-to-one to 22,000-to-one.
Generally district sizes are smaller at lower levels. It is generally the fact that a province or a city with a set population will have more MLAs than it has MPs. Alberta has 34 MPs and 87 MLAs. Edmonton has 11 MPs and 20 MLAs.
But apparently due to Ontario's large population, the practice of closer relationship between voter and rep at the lower level of government is discarded. As 125 is thought to be a limit on the size of the Ontario Legislature, Ontario has only slightly more MLAs than it has MPs. If Alberta's ratio of increase moving from federal to provincial levels was used in Ontario, the Ontario Legislature would have something like 300 provincial reps. This is perfectly do-able. The House of Commons of Commons functions quite well although it has 338 MPs.
PR depends on having multi-member districts. There can be no proportionality if multiple reps do not represent a section of voters. For if votes cast their votes for a variety of candidates (which they invariably do), only a variety of reps can properly represent the majority of those voters.
One way to form multi-member districts is to use federal districts for provincial elections and give each federal district multiple MLAs. This is of course only possible where there are more MLAs than MPs.
Another way - and the only way it can be done in Ontario - is to group the voters in each city - or perhaps in a half or a third of the city - and then allocating as many MLAs as the voter numbers warrant.
So Edmonton with its 20 MLAs could have two multiple-member districts, one with 11 seats, the other with nine, or four districts each of five seats.
Toronto with 25 MLAs could have three districts, two with nine seats each, and one with 7.
Although each district would be larger than the present district, a high proportion of the voters would elect a MLA - although not perhaps the voter's first choice. and more than 80 percent of the voters would have an elected MLA that shared his or her political beliefs, one that the voter would feel comfortable in relying on to represent his or her views.
Under the PR system I envision here - STV - districts would be larger but satisfied voters would be more plentiful.
In the existing non-proportional system we use - FPTP, districts are smaller but many voters - in some cases as much as 69 percent of the voters in a district - are un-satisfied by the election result. As much as 69 percent of the votes cast their voters for someone other than who was elected. It may be that the winner wold be successful under a system where majority is required to win (such as Alternative Voting) or it may be that a whole other candidate would have won the seat.
Under FPTP with votes being non-transferable and only first preferences being marked on the ballot, in many districts the single rep is elected with just a minority of the votes as cast. We have no way to know whether most of the voters would place the elected rep among the first or second preferred candidate of those running, or not.
But under PR-STV, a large majority of the voters cast are represented and are known to be represented. The votes they cast are actually used to elect someone. Multiple reps are elected in each district where STV is used, and the popularity of the elected reps is proven by a combination of first preference and transferable votes. Most of the valid votes are used to elect someone.
==================================================
Thanks for reading.
Check out these lists of my other blogs on this important subject: "List of Montopedia blogs concerning electoral reform" https://montopedia.wixsite.com/montopedia/post/list-of-electoral-reform-articles-index and "Montopedia blogs on electoral reform 2021 part 1" https://montopedia.wixsite.com/montopedia/post/montopedia-blogs-on-electoral-reform-2021
As well, please consider purchasing my booklet When Canada Had "Effective Voting" STV in Western Canada 1917-1971. 68-page overview of Canada's PR experience in the last century - the fight for proportional representation, the adoption of STV by 20 cities and two provincial governments in the 1920s, and STV's final use in a government election, in the 1971 Calgary city election. Available through AbeBooks.com or email me at montotom@yahoo.ca
--------------------------------------------------------------- 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