Some anti-Pr spokespeople use used slanted language to press the anti-PR message -
That is, they hide the truth concerning the 2022 Ontario election, for example.
Here's instances:
"The 2022 turnout is not unusual for a “non-change” election."
The 2022 turn-out was 44 percent, the lowest ever, so it actually is unusual.
"The share of the vote varied across ridings and indeed many candidates won with majorities — 34 ridings were won with more than 50 per cent (26 PC, 7 NDP, 1 Green)."
Tell me again how many MPPs were elected in the election. Isn't it 124? So how many were elected by just minority of the voters in their district? 90!
"In proportional representation (PR) systems, also favoured by some reformers, the proportion of total votes are translated into seats, which gives areas with high population densities more say in the outcome of elections, further marginalizing rural and remote voters."
But that is only partially true even for systems where overall PR is used to set seats.
It does not hold any water for district-level PR (STV or Additional-Member systems as used in Scotland Assembly elections). Under district-level PR, each part of the province would get as many seats as its population warrants, and the seats in the rural or remote areas would not be drowned out by voters in the cities at all.
And under overall PR, each vote is represented in miniature in the chamber whether in cities or in rural and remote areas.
Under FPTP, more than half the votes has no say in the outcome of elections, all votes in each district cast for other than the leader being without representation.
It is basic fairness that "gives areas with high population densities more say in the outcome of elections." Only an unfair system would see a rural area have as many seats as Toronto. (But for the same measure only an unfair system would see someone with 8000 votes in one place elected while someone else with 8000 votes elsewhere is not elected.)
Our electoral system even today, being fair, ensures that the same number of voters anywhere has the same number of seats, although slight over-representation is accorded rural voters.
But most of the votes cast are disregarded anyway under FPTP - they would not be under PR.
Pundits might disregard STV. STV might be dismissed by lumping in with single-winner ranked voting (Instant-runoff voting) dismissed, where "ranked voting" is said to "often result in one’s second or third choice being victorious." It is unsaid that under FPTP most voters - literally most of them - don't see even their second or third choice, not to mention their first choice, elected.
Which would you prefer - seeing your first choice not elected and your second choice elected or your first choice not elected and your second choice also not elected?
For most voters under FPTP, the second is the outcome.
Under ranked voting, many do see the first outcome.
But let's be clear.
In most districts under FPTP or under single-winner ranked voting, only a minority see their first choice elected.
The difference is under ranked voting, some of those whose first choice is not elected get to see their second choice elected.
Under single-winner ranked voting, a simple majority (just more than half) will see either their first choice or a secondary choice elected. (And that is not even always the case - majority is measured by votes still in play as votes are rendered useless in the vote count process. In the 2018 London Ontario city election held using single-winner ranked voting, more than a third of the elected members never did receive a majority of votes cast in their district.)
Under ranked voting where multiple members are elected in the district (STV), 80 percent of votes cast or more will be used to actually elect someone, whether it is the candidate marked as their first choice or a secondary choice.
In every STV election, a majority of the voters in a district will see a candidate of the party they support elected in the district. Something not even dreamed of in most FPTP districts.
Just as under an overall PR system, about 80 percent of voters or more will see their vote used to elect someone of the party they support.
PR is true representation.
=============
Proportional Representation electoral systems ensure that elected members reflect how votes are cast and if, as is the case today, no party takes a majority of the votes, then no party takes majority of the seats.
Such minority governments produce discussions and compromise to create a government (working majority) that adequately reflects the disperse points of view that a majority of voters have expressed.
Even under PR, not all the points of view of the voters will be represented on the in-power side of the HofC.
Unlike the HofC under FPTP, under PR the majority in power in the HofC will reflect the views expressed by a majority of voters - even if not enclosed by just one party.
Some pundits say that electoral reform cannot truly provide a majority opinion.
They say under STV votes see their vote used to elect their secondary choice.
or that under PR parties negotiate working majorities without reference to voters' sentiment.
Concerning ranked voting under STV, they conflate the process of how a vote is used, and how a member is elected in the individual riding, and the idea of proportional representation (PR), which is about the legislative chamber being reflection of how votes are cast.
This echoes my previously-expressed analytical approach of three levels of an election:
- a voter's vote/all voters' votes
- the district results
- the overall chamber's makeup after the election.
Much confusion results if you conflate the different things.
Of course sometimes the confusion may be intentional. to cloud the issue so the reader cannot make sound assessment of the current voting system and see advantages of PR.
Some pundits express the thought that electoral reform cannot provide a true majority opinion.
They might say: "Ranked ballots, a reform option, have voters choose several candidates on a list, often resulting in one’s second or third choice being victorious."
Ranked ballots, as they is use the term, is a matter of single-winner contests with no aspect of PR, so is not even PR.
Also, ranked ballots is not choosing several candidates but selecting your first choice and marking back-up preferences to be used if your first preference is not elect-able or is elected with surplus votes.
Whether a vote goes to the first preference or to back-up preference does not have have anything to do with whether or not a majority of members reflect the votes of majority of voters. Votes and district results are different things (but, of course, it is a poor system that allows most votes to be disregarded and not to be used to elect anyone. So by this criterion, FPTP is a poor system.)
Having disposed of single-winner ranked voting ("a reform option" that she has lumped in with PR), Miljan moved on to prove that PR (party-list PR and perhaps MMP) is not able to produce "a true majority opinion."
Here they might conflate basic fairness of equal-sized districts, a rule in our system today where each district selects a single member, with PR. (But note that the fairness of equal-sized districts is drowned out by the noise of a FPTP election where wildly varying number of votes determine the different district winners.)
They might say "In proportional representation (PR) systems, also favoured by some reformers, the proportion of total votes are translated into seats, which gives areas with high population densities more say in the outcome of elections, further marginalizing rural and remote voters."
But both FPTP and PR awards seats on equal basis based on population. In old days (1920) it was said that people called for PR until they realized that PR would give Toronto as many seats as Saskatchewan. Even under FPTP we have moved on past those days and Toronto now has more seats than all of Saskatchewan. We know this is fair and just reflects the urbanization of our country. (Right-wingers would be loud in complaining if Alberta did not have the number of seats that its population warrants, even if most of Alberta's population live in its two big cities. so that has nothing to do with PR.
And rural or remote voters are not threatened by urban voters under PR of any sort. A high proportion of votes - rural and urban - are used to elect someone under all forms of PR - party-list PR and MMP and STV. So no marginalization there.
STV, which anti-PR pundits might ignore totally or dismiss by lumping with single-winner ranked voting (IRV), actually separates rural votes from big-city votes. They are in different districts, with members elected separately. Each district is given a number of seats that may be based on the same voter per member ratio, as generally we do today, or they may use a different voter per member ratio. District-level PR would not necessarily adhere to the present ratio of representation, rural to urban, nor need it necessarily veer from it. But it could - in either direction, toward more consistency or toward more variation.
Note though that district-level PR vote count would be of such variance with today's process that it would be barely recognizable.
A system where 80 percent of the votes would actually be used to elect someone would be an immensely different thing than one where more than half are usually disregarded (FPTP today).
No less than 90 MPPs were elected with less than half the votes in their district. They got more votes than any other candidate in their district but more than half the voters did not vote for them.
A system where each member in a district (in most cases) would be elected by the exact same number of votes (with surplus votes transferred on) is very different than one where on a single day in a single city 4000 votes elects the member in one district; 21,000 votes elects the member in another district while in other districts candidates receiving 5000 to 8000 votes are not elected. (all of which occurred in the 2014 Toronto city election)
Having districts equal sized is of little importance where plurality is enough to win. 18 percent of the vote may be enough to be elected in one district while in another district the winner receives as much as 86 percent of the vote. (Toronto city election 2014)
What effect then if the voter per district number is allowed to vary by no more than 10 or 15 percent?
Practically no effect at all. But without it, the unfairness of the system would be transparent.
And party-list PR, with seats allocated by party vote tallies or at least guaranteed fair at provincial level through compensatory top-up, would also see seats allocated based on consistent voter per member basis (otherwise there is no proportionality). (Note: not voter per district basis but voter per elected member basis.)
So many votes, whether rural or big-city, would be enough to elect a member, and there is nothing the other voters could do about it.
Gerrymandering would be fruitless.
Vote-splitting would be without pain.
Each and every voter would have about equal power - unlike in FPTP today.
The difference would be amazing.
============================================
(Some of this is in reference to a Toronto Star article of June 2022 -- https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/the-saturday-debate/2022/06/25/the-saturday-debate-it-is-finally-time-for-electoral-reform-in-ontario.html)
Comentarios