The recent PR 101 podcast produced by Fair Vote Canada mentions that Fair Vote Canada supports a system where STV is used in the district-level elections of a Mixed-Member Proportional system. The podcast is at: https://www.facebook.com/FairVoteCanada/videos/2959803967596431
I think this is compatible with my views on STV. When I speak of STV, I include, in my mind anyway, both STV's use in a MMP system or simply as a form of district-based PR system without top-up seats.
I emphasize STV's value as district-based system because that characteristic means that it could be brought in incrementally, just as Alberta and Manitoba used it in provincial elections 1920s to 1950s. It was used just in part of each province, the main cities, where it was most suited. With the idea that it might be extended later. (This was done just once - in Manitoba when STV was extended to St. Boniface).
A policy of "local option" "self-determination" allows voters in a city or other place the right to determine under what system they vote. Why should voters in BC's Peace River district determine that Victoria votes will not have STV if they want it?, for example.
MMP could be brought in incrementally taking PR-inclined districts as a region and allocating top-up seats based on vote vote tallies there. But fairness visa vis other districts would suffer.
(But actually a government can bring in whatever reform it wanted.)
So bearing in mind FVC's proposal, we could coin a new abbreviation --- STV/MMP.
adding in clearer terms a third option to our discussions - MMP, STV and STV/MMP.
I'll now use it in a sentence:
Note that New Zealand is moving to allow STV in its city elections. Perhaps it will adopt STV/MMP in its national elections sometime in the future.
Thanks for reading.
======================================
Comments