STV the British form of PR
STV was called the British form of PR, because under it voters elect individual candidates. This is unlike the party-list PR used in continental Europe, where merely party affiliation was polled and individual people elected by choice of the party involved.
And in the British Empire, STV was the usual system used where PR was adopted. It was used in Malta, Ireland, Australia and Canada at both city and lower state elections.
Other systems have been used in the British Empire. FPTP of course. Occasionally even Block Voting, where multiple members are elected in a district (but without transfers and with each voter casting as many votes as there were seats to be filled).
It is said that five systems are currently used in UK, including at the city level.
"The five electoral systems used are: the single member plurality system (first-past-the-post), the multi-member plurality system, the single transferable vote, the additional member system and the supplementary vote." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_Kingdom#:~:text=The%20five%20electoral%20systems%20used,system%20and%20the%20supplementary%20vote)
The various usages are:
Single-member plurality system is used for elections to the House of Commons (the UK Parliament), and elsewhere as well.
Multi-member plurality system (Block Voting) is used in some local elections in England and Scotland (community councils).
STV is used in Northern Ireland Assembly elections and in some local elections in Scotland (local authority councils).
Supplementary Vote system is used in London mayoral elections. This is a combination of two-round voting and preferential voting.
Additional Member system is used in Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, and London Assembly elections. FPTP used in district elections; additional members allocated regionally or at-large. For at least the Welsh Assembly the additional member system is a party-list system. This allows gender equity and from the start the system allowed/guaranteed that women would hold half the seats in the Welsh Assembly. Baroness Randerson in 2021 was among the women elected under Additional Member System who may h]not have been under FPTP. (some of her remarks on PR are in another blog.)
Additional Member systems used in UK come in three variations:
London Assembly elections - Mixed-Member Proportional system - Additional members added based on votes cast in one London-wide at-large district.
25 members. There are 14 geographical super-constituencies each electing one Member, with a further 11 members elected from a party list to make the total Assembly Members from each party proportional to the votes cast for that party across the whole of London using a modified d'Hondt allocation.
May 2021 election -- 2.6M valid votes. Four parties took seats.
Two parties (Labour/Labour Co-op (running for both Labour and the Co-operative Party) and Conservatives) took super-constituency seats, two other parties (Greens and Liberal Democrats) took seats through allocation of the additional members. No party took majority of the vote. No party has majority of the seats.
Labour took 38 percent of the regional vote; Conservatives took 31 percent of the regional vote. Each took a larger share of the votes cast in the local district elections. FPTP pushed about 10 percent of the voters to vote for whom they were okay with but not their first choice.
Four main parties took about 97 percent of the vote in the FPTP district elections, but only 86 percent voted for those four parties in the regional vote where voters voted for whom they truly wanted to see elected. The additional members allocated as per the regional vote (in a compensatory manner) reflected the support for the Greens and Liberal Democrats that was not reflected in the candidates successful in the district elections. Even so, 14 percent of the regional vote received no representation at all.
(This is much more fair result than the last Edmonton city election where more than half the votes did not produce representation.)
(info from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_London_Assembly_election#Results)
Scottish Parliament elections -- regionalized MMP -- Scotland divided into 8 electoral regions.
129 members known as Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs), elected for five-year terms[5] under the additional member system: 73 MSPs represent individual geographical constituencies elected by the plurality (first-past-the-post) system, while a further 56 are returned from eight additional member regions, each electing seven MSPs.
Voters cast two votes. More than 99 percent of the voters cast their district vote for the five main parties, but only 94.7 percent did so in the regional vote, where they had liberty to vote for whom they truly wanted elected.
Four parties took seats in district seats. One more party was given representation through the additional members.
Because additional members are not added based on overall voters but on the regional vote, there is some discrepancy between percentage of votes received and final seat count percentage.
Scottish National Party won 40 percent of the valid votes overall but won 52 percent of the seats. Despite already holding more seats than its vote share warranted through district elections, it was allocated two additional members regionally.
Central Scotland: nine districts The Scottish National Party took all nine district seats with between 52 and 59 percent of the vote in six district. but taking only minority of the vote (47 percent) in Falkirk East; 46 percent in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse; 49.9 percent in Uddington and Bellshill.
Its clean sweep of the district seats being more than its vote share warranted, SNP was given none of the additional seats in the region. Labour, Conservative and Green were allocated the seven additional seats, but even so Labour was under-represented, being due about four seats but only allocated three. Conservatives and Greens were ever so little over-represented in the end in that region.
In Highlands and Islands, SNP was given one additional member although it had taken six district seats and with its 40 percent of the regional vote was due only six seats (well, 6.46 seats) in the 15-seat region. This contributed to that party's overall over-representation.
Welsh Assembly -- regionalized MMP -- Wales divided into 5 electoral regions.
In elections for the National Assembly for Wales, each voter has two votes.
The first vote is for a candidate to become the Assembly Member for the voter's constituency, elected by the first past the post system.
The second vote is for a regional closed party list of candidates. Additional member seats are allocated from the lists by the d'Hondt method, with constituency results being taken into account in the allocation (the additional members are added in a compensatory manner). Regionally Wales is divided into three south districts, 1 North and 1 Mid and West (Senedd).
Senedd has twelve members, eight directly-elected constituency members and four additional members. Four parties took seats here in 2021.
Conservative won four seats in the FPTP elections and was due four seats so got no additional members.
Plaid Cymru was due four seats, won three in FPTP so was allocated one additional member.
Labour was due three seats, won one in FPTP so was allocated two additional members.
Liberal Democrats was due one seat, won zero seats in FPTP so was allocated one additional member.
No other party was due a seat under the d'Hondt method of seat allocation.
Every party received its due share of the region's 12 seats.
Again like with the Scottish Parliament, there are discrepancies between the seat counts of the parties and their vote percentages.
Labour was due 22 seats (36 percent of the 60 seats overall) but received 30, including three additional members due to regional (but not overall) under-representation.
The discrepancies were not so large that a party received a majority of the seats without a majority of the vote though.
==================
That kind of unfairness is an outcome common in Canadian elections.
The same discrepancies between party seat counts and vote percentages would likely happen in Canadian PR elections. This is so if the pro-rep system used is of the party-list form such as additional members in MMP where proportionality would be established (to the extent that it would be) at the scale of provinces or sub-provincial regions.
Another party-list format, Dual-Member (DMP) systems, envisions regions made up of more than one province. I am not sure how this would work when constitutionally we have to allocate seats as per provinces (the Senate clause).
I think it would be difficult to formulate a system that produces exact overall proportionality within the Canadian constitution, especially if we want direct election of successful candidates by voters (the party-list format being generally disapproved of).
So there has to be a trade-off.
However, I think, we can come up with a made-in-Canada PR system that would ensure that a mixture of parties is elected in each province, anyways as much as the variety of votes cast and the number of seats each province is due allows.
STV at the city level for example would ensure that each province has a mixture of parties represented.
The province-based PR system that I proposed recently produces that as well.
A mixture of representation in each province is important if we are to prevent the regionalism that now is causing national discord and a lack of voice for many in the national government.
Note though that as long as we have district elections and judge only by first choice votes, some voters will see their votes ignored.
The best we can do through one or another PR system is see that each of the main parties in each province has some representation in that province (even if the majority of votes in a district are ignored in a district election) and/or that the general sentiment of most of the voters are reflected in those elected locally through first or early secondary preferences (in a system using ranked ballots); and
that local representation is preserved.
I say preservation of local representation does not necessitate preserving the present single-member districts, but under PR local rep could be in multi-seat districts, a single district covering a small or moderately-sized city, say one with no more than 10 members.
Even Dual-Member Proportional sees a doubling of the size of districts if the number of legislators remains the same and seats must be found for "the second candidate [in each district] [who is] elected by a process that ensures proportionality of the results." (Sean Graham, Reforming the Electoral System in Alberta").
Same holds true for MMP. To create additional members, the current districts have to be reduced in number and increased in size - unless the size of the legislature is increased in size.
And STV depends on creation of multi-member districts.
So preservation of the current districts - preservation of local representation as currently practised - is impossible under any imaginable PR system - unless the number of members overall is increased.
Edmonton for example
There are currently eight ridings with the Edmonton prefix but Edmonton-Wetaskiwin extends far outside Edmonton city boundaries so that would have to change under a city-based multi-member district.
With increased fairness, rigid adherence to district sizes would be less important. Whereas currently districts are relatively equal sized, most votes are wasted in many districts. In the last election, two Edmonton MPs were elected with minority of the district vote - a Conservative in Edm-Centre and a NDP in Edm Strathcona. The majority of voters in these districts did not have their choice elected.
Whereas districts may be equal sized, votes received by successful candidates ranged from 22,000 to 35,000, with the number of votes in a district that were ignored ranging from 36,000 to 16,000.
An equal and consistent quota under STV would be 48,000 votes (428,000 votes divided by 9). Conservatives receiving about 230,000 of the Edmonton votes, they were due four of the city seats, not seven.
At least one Liberal and a NDP would have been elected as well if Edmonton seats had been filled by a PR system. This would have been much more fair and would have prevented the artificial regionalism, caused by the current almost-total Conservative sweep across Alberta, that we are now presented with.
under multi-member districts, more variation in representation per member would be accepted due to more fairness in vote results. STV has proven itself at being able to elect candidates that have support of high portion of the votes. Other PR systems do the same.
So for example under STV, we can envision Edmonton as a multi-member district and in a new multi-member district of Wetaskiwin-Red Deer (created by putting together the old Red Deer-Lacombe and Red Deer-Mountain View districts with the portion of the Edmonton-Wetaskiwin that used to be outside Edmonton).
STV has proven itself at being able to elect candidates that have support of high portion of the votes. So it is expected that with STV in eight-seat Edmonton district, 80 to 90 percent of the vote in Edmonton would be used to elect an Edmonton candidate who is the preferred candidate, even if not the first choice.
with a new two-member district of Wetaskiwin and Red Deer
RD-Lacombe Conservative 54,000 Cons 67,000 overall
RD-MV 55,000 68,000 overall
Edm-Wet 63,000 87,000 overall
(estimated portion moved to new RD district: 32,000 Cons 44,000 overall
total 141,000 Cons 179,000 overall
Quota would be about 60,000. 120,000 voters would see their choice elected.
Usually at least two-thirds of votes are represented by a STV election in two-seat district.
Conservative vote in 2019 was more than two thirds in favour of Conservative candidates so still two Conservatives would be elected in the new two-member district.
If instead the new multi-member city of Edmonton district was made into a seven-seat district, and the new Red Deer-Wetaskiwin district made into a three-member district, the new rural district would likely elect two Conservatives and one MP of a different party. The quota would drop to 45,000 (179,000 divided by four).
The 19,000 Liberal votes, if helped by transfers of NDP votes and others, would be enough to take one seat, or conversely the 16,000 NDP votes, if helped by transfers of Liberal votes and others, would be enough to take one seat.
The point being that overall proportionality is I think not do-able under Canada's constitution, just as it is not produced in Scotland's regionalized MMP. But if MMP, DMP or STV would be used in Canada, it would prevent regionalism and produce more fair elections.
======================
Of the four systems currently used in UK, STV and the Additional Member systems are proportional.
Until recently when Britain was part of the European Union, election to the European Parliament was conducted in a closed-list party-list system. Each country in the EU could determine how its members would be elected. However the system must be a form of proportional representation, under either the party list or the single transferable vote system. UK adopted a party-list system, where voters cast votes that allocated the seats to parties but the parties themselves filled the seat by naming individuals. But those elections are now no more with Britain leaving the EU.
So British voters - no more intelligent than Canadians all in all, although they do speak correctly if you judge by British television - were able to handle a diversity of voting systems. They apparently mastered both ranked voting and X voting, cast both single and two votes with seemingly equal grace and aplomb, to all appearances looking with equal equinamity on their first choice or their back-up preference being used to pick the winners, whether in a district that elects a single member or a ward that elects multiple members, and taking obvious pride as residents of districts that elect mixed representation where possible under the various systems that are used as alternatives to the historic plurality systems.
It seems likely that Canadian votes could do the same - should any government in the future grant them the right to do what they in referendum in PEI (2016) and BC (2005) once proved they wanted. Let's hope they get the chance to show they can do it sometime soon, just as they once proved they could do it before.
At various times Canadian voters in three provinces have cast ranked ballots in provincial elections - Alberta and Manitoba under STV; BC under Alternative Voting. At various times, voters in five provinces - BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario - have cast ranked ballots in city elections. We know we can handle it.
STV's deep roots in the British Commonwealth
With FPTP and Block Voting, STV has deep roots in British Commonwealth countries.
STV was used to elect government members in Tasmania starting in 1890s and has been used in elections to the Australian Senate since 1948. It is also currently used in election of local boards of government in New Zealand and a few other places in the world.
For a short time around 1920 it was used in elections in Northern Ireland and is now again in use for elections of members of that body.
(See Wikipedia: "Single transferable vote").
STV was also used in several Canadian jurisdictions, at both the city and provincial levels.
The cities of Edmonton and Calgary elected their MLAs through STV from 1924 to 1956, when the Alberta provincial government changed those elections to use first-past-the-post.
The city of Winnipeg elected its MLAs through STV from 1920 to 1955, when the Manitoba provincial government changed those elections to use first-past-the-post.
Less well known is STV use at the municipal level in western Canada. The cities of Calgary and Winnipeg used STV for more than 40 years before city elections in each were changed to first-past-the-post or Block Voting. (In these plurality systems, a relative lead in votes over the contenders determines the winners, with no guarantee that they have the support of a majority of voters.)
Eighteen other municipalities, including the capital cities of BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan, also used STV in about 100 elections during the 1918-1931 period.
STV was also used in city elections in South Africa.
Voters can handle a change for a change away from FPTP - and many are asking for a new system. Let's hope they get a chance to show what they have sooner rather than later.
Thanks for reading.
=================
how many districts and electionsused STV when Canada had STV?
PROVINCIAL ELECTIONS
Manitoba
Winnipeg
1920
1922
1927
1932
1936
1941
1945 total 7 70 members
Winnipeg Centre 1949 1953
Winnipeg North 1949 1953
Winnipeg South 1949 1953 total 6 24 members
St. Boniface 1949 1953 total 2 4 members
Manitoba total 15 98 members elected
Alberta
Edmonton Calgary
1926 5
1930 6
1935 6
1940 5
1944 5
1948 5
1952 7/6
1955 7/6 total 16 90 members
Medicine Hat 1926 2 members
Alberta total 17
32 district elections were held using STV.
DM ranged from 10 to 2.
188 members elected in total
in those elections, 32 members -- 21 (Alberta) and 11 (Manitoba) -- were elected who were not in a winning position in the First Count. So it is safe to say that overall most of the candidates leading the first count, before any transfers were done, were elected in the end, wihout change.
The transfers are important in that they either confirm the original ranking or they polish the rough balance already achieved in the first count.
But transfers are not the main source of fairness or proportionality that we see in STV.
Single voting in multi-member district, achieved in the First Count, is the source of the most of the fair and balanced results we see in STV elections.
(So there is really no need to go to the lengths of using Weighted Inclusive Gregory, for example, to conduct the transfers when they make not all that much difference anyway.
WIGM or other similarly-complex fractional vote transfer method also means that computers and vote counting machines must be used, which leads to potential mistake or corruption of the results.)
Note: some of these replacements by initially-lower-ranking candidates did not affect party standings as they were changes of candidates within the same party.
========================================================
Comments