There is much confusion between terms used to describe elections and PR.
confusion between the terms majority in district and majority government,
between majoritarian and plurality elections in districts,
confusion between single transferable votes (ranked votes used in IRV and STV)
and Single Transferable Voting (a system of electing members using single transferable votes)
I see elections being five layers:
1 Votes cast by one voter
2 How vote may be transferred as in STV
3 Districts seats are allocated
4 Top-up added as under MMP
5 Make-up of chamber - who has majority etc.
This is fully explained in previous emails, and in my blog "https://montopedia.wixsite.com/montopedia/post/analysis-of-election-systems-votes-districts-and-a-bit-more-sometimes-stv-mmp-list-pr
If I had the choice, I would say
terms to do with voting should use the word voting
terms to do with electing (layers 3 and 4) should have the word electing.
thus single transferable voting is casting of ranked vote
"STV electing" would be the vote count process where seats are allocated using single transferable votes and MMDs
"FPTP electing" is single-winner plurality electing.
(some of course point out that there is no post in FPTP, except it could be taken to mean that you win if you are ahead when voting counting stops.)
Block voting
"Block vote electing" is multi-winner plurality electing /
what Wiki calls "Plurality block voting".
(the word plurality can mean plural voting or plurality winning. so there is that confusion as well)
we should use term "Block vote electing"
Some say Block voting is FPTP with multiple winners.
But FPTP usually is single winner so I say the term "FPTP" should only apply to single-winner situations
X voting is casting of non-transferable vote.
casting of multiple votes (what I would call block voting) would be a part of variety of systems:
Block vote electing
Limited vote electing.
Cumulative vote electing, (but where votes can be lumped (cumulated) on a single candidate).
I know that this terminology talk is crazy geeky but it does shed light on PR -
it is not voting that we need to change, but how the electing is done.
We want Fair Electing.
We also want effective voting - for only where vote is used to elect someone is it true voting. (getting back to talk of the constitutional challenge).
FPTP's X voting is not the problem.
X voting is used in Vanuatua's SNTV and NZ's MMP
in those places x voting produces much more fair results than it does in Canada's FPTP, even though voting is the same.
for Vanuatu, the districting is what is different.
for NZ, the top-up (based on overall proportionality) is added.
it is not FPTP's voting that is wrong but its districting or lack of top-up.
casting of ranked votes as under IRV would not address FPTP's basic un-fairness.
simply re-drawing the boundaries of our present FPTP's districts is not the solution either.
PR depends on fair electing in MMDs or in at-large, or PR top-up.
Canada had two-seat district in Halifax for a hundred years starting in 1867. It was, actually prescribed in the BNA Act, but with block voting there was no fairness in results. The minority was denied any rep. more often than not.
We need MMDs with fair voting or top-up to have "Proportional Representation electing!"
========================================================
Comments