my letter to editor (LTE) was published in the March 2023 Alberta Views.
Here it is:
Re the April letter in response to “Making Elections Fairer” (Jan/Feb):
James Saltvold described weaknesses of party-list proportional representation (PR) and New Zealand’s mixed-member system. He noted voters aren’t allowed to vote directly for candidates in all or many cases. That is a problem—although it seems true that most people vote based on the party label even in our first-past-the-post system.
Saltvold presented his own scheme, which can be called single non-transferable voting (SNTV) in 10-member districts. Each voter casting just one vote in a multi-member district is a solid recipe for mixed, balanced representation. And multi-member districts were once common in Canada. Every Alberta election between 1909 and 1955 used them. From 1921 to 1955 all Edmonton MLAs were elected in a city-wide multi-member district. Same in Calgary.
But having 10 members in a district is unusual. Outside the big cities, a district large enough for 10 members would be a hard sell. And Saltvold’s claim that 10 per cent of the vote would be required to take a seat does not hold up. Without transferable votes, many votes would be wasted, and the amount needed to take a seat would likely slip down to 5 per cent or less.
To get each member elected with a similar number of votes and to ensure that each party gets its proportional share of seats, you need to set a quota, transfer surplus votes from successful candidates and allow votes to be transferred from candidates who have no chance of being elected. This can be done through single transferable voting (STV), as in Edmonton/Calgary, 1926–1955.
STV would work again today. Ten-seat districts are fine in cities. Elsewhere even three or five-seat districts would give us much fairer results than we have now. STV would ensure that 75–90 per cent of votes would actually elect someone. Under FPTP, in 2015 [and in 2019], 67 per cent of voters in some Alberta ridings were unrepresented, with the winner elected with just 33 per cent of the votes or fewer.
Voters deserve better. STV would give them that better.
I heartily subscribe to the sentiments printed therein!
================
Here's the longer version as originally submitted
(the editing was gentle but still why not read it in full if you want?)
Weaknesses of party-list PR and New Zealand's MMP were described in James Saltvold's LTE (April 2023 issue). He noted voters are not allowed to vote directly for candidates in all or many cases. That is a problem, although it seems true that most people do vote based on the party label, even in our First Past The Post system.
Saltvold presented his own scheme of proportional representation, which can be defined as Single Non-Transferable Voting in ten-member districts. Each voter casting just one vote in a multi-member district is a solid recipe for mixed, balanced representation. And voting directly for candidates is in line with our practice over the last 156 years.
Multi-member districts are actually more common in Canadian history than widely supposed. Every Alberta election between 1909 and 1955 used one or more of them. In every election from 1921 to 1955, all the MLAs in Edmonton were elected in a city-wide multi-member district. Same for Calgary.
But having ten members in a district is unusual. And outside the large major cities having a district large enough for ten members would be a hard sell.
Saltvold's claim that ten percent of the vote would be required to take a seat does not hold up. Without transferable votes, many votes would be wasted, and the amount needed to take a seat would likely slip down to five percent or less.
The country of Vanuatu uses SNTV. The largest districts there have seven members. Members are elected in those districts with as much as 12 percent and as little as five percent of the vote.
To get each member to be elected with a similar number of votes and to ensure that each party gets its proportional share of seats in a district, you need to set a quota and transfer away surplus votes from successful candidates and also allow votes to be transferred from candidates who have no chance of being elected. This can be done through Single Transferable Voting, as it was in Edmonton and Calgary from 1926 to 1955.
STV worked then and would work today.
Ten-seat districts are fine in large cities, but outside the cities even three or five-seat districts would give us much more fair results than we have now. And STV would ensure that 75 to 90 percent of votes would be used to actually elect someone. Under FPTP, in 2015, 67 percent of the voters in some districts were unrepresented, the winner being elected with just 33 percent of the votes or fewer.
Voters deserve better. STV would give them that better. Tom Monto, Edmonton
Thanks for reading.
Comments