Here's a U.S. writer on how the U.S. must get away from its single-member districts if it is have a chance to elect representational governments.
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/its-the-single-seat-districts
I so agree. The same holds true for Canada.
A big difference between FPTP and a proportional system is the number of districts. How they are drawn may not be the most important thing. their very presence is the problem. Districts fragment the voters and limit proportionality.
At-large (used in most city elections in Alberta) means there is no fragmentation. If we could only limit the number of votes cast by each voter, then we would have a crude proportionality in these elections, even without preferential voting or party-list PR. (This would be Single Non-Transferable Voting. More on that below) The fewer the districts, the less the fragmentation. Where five-member districts are used, the fragmentation is one fifth as much, or some such mathematical calculation. Interestingly, while people object to Single Non-transferable Voting (so-called Japanese PR, due to its partial use there in old days), saying it is not proportional, it is actually the system used in party-list systems, and in the top-up section of Mixed Member Proportional elections. Each voter has one vote (used to select party) and it is a multi-seat contest. More than one party running in each contest. Party-list PR is as proportional as it is, despite using such a crude system, because - it is at-large. all the votes are taken together, which is the way that proportionality is measured, and - the number of seats allocated is so large that close-grained proportionality is produced. SNTV in normal usage is district-based. That wastes votes in each district and also limits the number elected in each, decreasing the sensitivity to voter sentiment as shown by the representation. The crudeness of SNTV combined with the problems of having many districts means output is not so proportional. Thus SNTV is disrespected, although it is much better than FPTP. And it becomes better as the number of districts is decreased. Party-list PR as used today does not include transferable preferential balloting at the party level. But it should be. It seems to me that it is better have a majority of voters choose the majority government at the polls, through preferential (first, second preferences, etc.) than to hope for the same government to be produced by discussion among elected representatives later. Perhaps the mechanics of the chamber of power will see a government come to power that reflects the first preferences of many and the second preferences of others (satisfying the largest number of voters). Or perhaps discussion among those elected will create a different solution where it covers a majority of the seats but does not satisfy as many of the voters. The number of seats a districts has is probably as important as any other part of the equation. The quota - The difference between the Hare and the Droop is only the same as adding one more seat to a district. And so on. Speaking of the difference between Hare and Droop quota, even that is not so important in STV elections. The Hare quota is the total number of votes divided by the number of seats rounded down. the Droop quota is the total number of votes divided by the number of seats plus one, rounded up. Or perhaps better to say, it is important but the difference created by the choice cannot be foreseen. Under some circumstances: any party with two quotas (the most popular ones but not necessarily only the most popular one) will benefit from the use of the Droop. The lower quota (as compared to Hare) means more votes are transferred from the most popular candidate to another to let the party take more than one seat. But vote transfer are not only between candidates of same party. Even with Hare, a party can win multiple seats by getting benefit of vote transfers from candidates outside the narrow party. (Proportionality is measured using the percentage of the vote each party gets in first preferences but that overlooks the nuance of "second best is better than none at all" theory of preferential voting, as used in STV.) Under some circumstances, A party with just one candidate and with just enough vote (say one-sixth of the vote in a five-seat district) will take a seat under Droop. While under Hare it would not have enough votes to take a seat, needing one fifth of the vote under that system. Thus Droop can benefit both large and small parties under certain circumstances more than Hare. And note that in the end in STV elections held in Canada (1917-1950s), usually a fifth to one half of the seats are taken without regard to quota at all. They are won by candidates who survived until the field of candidates thinned to a number equal to the number of remaining open seats. By this time, many votes had become exhausted due to needing to be transferred more than the number of back-up preferences marked thereon by voter. Many of these votes are disregarded - and thus wasted. Other factors thus play a larger role in the outcome than even the quota. Exhausted votes can be more or less of a problem depending on rules of the game. if voters are forced to rank all candidates, as in Australia, there will be no exhausted votes. If voters are forbidden from marking more than three (such as in London (Ontario)'s Alternative Voting election of 2018), there will be many. The size of the district, derived by the number of districts, is the most important thing in elections, I think.
==============
I am definitely talking about changing district boundaries. Having multi-seat districts is the important thing, not maintaining single-seat districts and adding preferential voting.
Of course you would not need to change district boundaries to make multiple-seat districts. You could use the same districts but triple or quadruple or more the number of representatives you are electing, but (strangely) mostly people are good with the number currently elected. So that option is out. (This despite the fact that for example in Alberta the number of MLAs is now only about four times the number we had in 1905 when the province had perhaps an eighth the population. or that Edmonton has only 12 councillors, only four more than the number it had hundred years ago when the city was less than one-16th the size it is now.)
But basically to make multi-seat districts, we need to group the existing districts in units of five to ten districts, electing the same number as before.
Part of the confusion maybe how sometimes the term Preferential Voting is used to mean Instant Runoff Voting, also known as Alternative Voting as it used to be called in Canada. This is the election of a single member in a district with preferential voting/ranked ballots.
STV uses preferential voting/ranked ballots and multi-seat districts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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