TVO talk on ranked ballots and PR Meslin, Esselment, Kitts
In addition to using the term "ranked ballots"to mean just Instant-Runoff Voting and
saying IRV is not like FPTP when it mostly is,
the discussion also failed the test by saying that if no one takes majority in first count, and if no one takes majority after the least popular candidate has been eliminated and his or her votes transferred to second-choice candidate, third-choice preferences are thrown in.
This I think is called the Bucklin system, discredited more than a hundred years ago. Cleveland tried this then moved on to STV.
better to say IRV works like this:
if no one takes majority in first count, the least popular candidate is eliminated and his or her votes transferred to second-choice candidate, if still no one has majority, another least-popular candidate is eliminated and and his or her votes transferred to second-choice candidate. (at that time some of the ballots previously transferred may be moved to their third-choice preference, but that is not really important.) the process continues until someone has majority and is elected to fill the district's one seat.
so after this shaky introduction Dave Meslin (Unlock Democracy Canada) by 13:10 is saying that Ranked Ballots (IRV) is "incredibly transformative" for municipal politics but is no great thing for provincial elections, where it would create new problems and amplify existing problems (such as one-party sweeps).
my take-away: municipal elections are so unfair that even IRV helps. other reforms (PR!) would do more but IRV does something.
Why fight for IRV when PR would do more eludes me!
16:10 Meslin makes point that election by just 17 percent of the vote makes a mockery of our elections. especially true for incumbents -- (even with all the advantages of being incumbent. you cannot get support of a majority of voters?) -- but for all candidates as well - majority should be required.
Anna Esselment (prof, U of Waterloo) said having many candidate shows there is buy-in to the system.
Dave Meslin, looking at elections through eyes of votes, would likely see that low-turn-out is sign that many (in many cities most people) do not "buy-in".
in her logic, having lots of candidates shows support for FPTP. Take that, those who put their names on the ballot in Winnipeg in recent federal election to show that FPTP was weird and bizarre - I guess the professor did not see the other way to view a large number of candidates.
In the case she presents, perhaps so many thought it was worth taking a flier on a long shot. because under FPTP no one knows who might win. If they get votes of just 9 percent of the voters, they could win.
[apparently she would also believe that so many people buy lottery tickets because they think it is fair and balanced way to distribute wealth or to make money. I say this because putting your name in a FPTP election has always been seen (by some) as being a hobby or business investment for adventurers, not for steady, responsible people. Certinaly it is chancy, almost-random, while other more scientific electoral systems are not so chancy.
Esselment suggests that where the Citizens Assembly and referendum pathway has failed, maybe just let the governing party implement its reform based on an election campaign promise. I am actually fine with this -- it was how partial PR was brought in in 1924 in Alberta.
In the discussion of the legitimacy of Christin Carmichael Greb's win (with just 9 percent win of voters in the ward) no one makes the point that perhaps Greb might have accumulated a majority of the votes if the system had worked through the process of determining who had majority. She still might have won and her legitimacy in that case would be unassailable. Her ability as one person, to represent all the various interests in the ward would fall short -- just as does every single rep in every single-member district -- but her legitimacy would be unassailable.
Esselment goes on to say that people may not know more than one candidate to mark a preference for. Dave points out that ranking (marking back-up preferences) is optional.
Even if you do mark back-up preferences they may not be considered - if you give your first-preference for the wining candidate, none of your back-up preferences will be considered. So marking or not marking them in first place might not change anything.
to counter criticism of Australian STV (apparently a thing in NZ) and the professor's charge against IRV, marking back-up preferences does not have to be mandatory.
in Canadian STV elections (prov. elections in AB and MN and in 20 cities) marking back-up preferences was not mandatory. the good of STV mostly arises from single voting in multi-member districts, not from transfers. And that is something that FPTP and IRV does not provide. Under IRV (ranked ballots as the zoom call termed it) would still allow one-party sweeps and male domination --- and lack of minority voices. in fact it ensures that no minority voice would be represented (except in so far as two or more minority voting blocks might get together and elect one of their number by a majority).
While we strive to guarantee majority (50 percent plus 1) under IRV, 80 to 90 percent effective votes was/is usually achieved under STV
(Edmonton in 1926 under STV was 69 p.c. effective votes (I should have said this in other recent PR chat group email) because there was southside guarantee (for the well-known Whyte Avenue district) that dropped the party proportionality and effective vote measurement.
Dave Meslin on Premier Ford stopping IRV in ON cities, says Ford acted like nanny state, telling London to go back to FPTP, and telling Kingston and Cambridge that they must stick with FPTP, and preventing other ciris from moving forward.
But he says Ford can slow history but can never stop it. and due to Greens' and NDP's (and Liberals'?) support for change, ER will come within a few years!
Catherine Kitts
Ottawa city councillor Ward 19 yes Ward 19 -
Ottawa has 23 wards and 23 councillors. Take that, other cities with 12 or 14 councillors. Unfortunately Ottawa uses single-member wars so still no PR! but it does have much better voter-to rep ratios than elsewhere.
Kitts agreed with Meslin that lack of political parties at municipal level means ranked ballots would work best at municipal level while not so good at higher levels.
I say actually political party labels perhaps should be used at city levels. it would at least help voters know who was who and help people mark their ranked ballots -- whether used in IRV or STV-- just mark along a party line.
================================================
Comments