Perhaps an on-going discussion on what kind of PR to adopt reveals something interesting about the debate within the PR group.
the discussion is on
my province-based MMP system presented in blog "A province-based MMP"
or Wilf Days' 42-region system
(presented here “A semi-proportional solution: keep the present ridings, and add 42 regional MPs to top-up the results from each region? These 42 extra MPs will not only make accidental majority governments far less likely, they would also make every vote count to some extent, and give all parties MPs from each region.” http://wilfday.blogspot.com/2020/03/making-every-vote-count-belanger.html). The discussion reveals something interesting about the debate within the PR group. While we all find fault with FPTP SMP, much of our discussion is on what the replacement for it should look like. in the recent FVC panel discussion, this was mentioned by Judy Rebick. She then went on to speak highly of Alternative Voting used in London Ontario in 2018. Anita (the moderator) agreed with Rebick, saying that uniting behind any move toward PR was the strategy of the Fair Vote Canada group. She did though indicate that Fair Vote Canada was not supportive of majoritarian systems including the kind of system used in London). There is clear difference of goal between PR and a majoritarian system like AV,
although majority representation, the goal of AV, is a necessary product of PR, but just one of many; and
although Lavergne in recent email to PR discussion group pointed out that four established methods of counting votes under AV (other than the strictly-majoritarian pure-AV method used in London) will lead to effects similar to those produced by PR. (Some of these good things would also be produced by SNTV.).
So it makes sense for FVC to draw a line against AV, if it wants to.
And AV is not easier to bring in than a system that elects multi-winners - some PR systems are easy to adopt.
The difference between my province-based MMP system and Wilf's 42-region system seems to be in the balance of local, regional and overall representation, and in the balance of accuracy of result versus ease of adoption and use.
local, regional and overall representation
I see little value in representation in a single-member district that covers a portion of a city. Instead city-wide multi-member districts would be lowest level of representation in a city setting under the best system I see Canada adopting (with multi-member districts covering portions of the largest metropolitan cities).
my province-based MMP system does allow single-member districts if desired and city-wide districts if desired.
nothing is in my system at the sub-province region level unlike Wilf's system
Wilf's system does not have anything at the province level, where supplemental members are added in my system.
Accuracy of result versus ease of adoption and use
accuracy of result
my system does not produce exact proportionality at the local level although the more multi-member STV districts used, the more accurate and proportional the result.
My system does not produce exact proportionality when supplemental members are added. For supplemental members, the four top parties are given one seat each in each province, in what is termed a "parallel system" (non-compensatory).
Wilf's system does not produce exact proportionality at the local level, but Wilf's system produces stricter proportionality at the regional level, through election of compensatory supplemental members.
ease of adoption and use.
This can be measured by looking at:
how many districts have to be redrawn?
(new districts can be off-putting for voters, especially if based on arbitrary decisions (not natural or existing units). Drawing new districts or forming multi-district regions can be contentious and lead to gerrymandering or accusations of gerrymandering. A system that requires redrawing of the least number of districts is easier to propose, explain and impose than one requiring 100 percent overhaul, I would think)
does a new layer of multi-district regions have to be drawn?
(I imagine this would be off-putting for voters, especially if based on arbitrary decisions (not natural or existing units, such as cities or counties).)
do voters have to be trained to use new voting system?
do election official have to be trained to use new voting system?
(systems that use votes transfers can be tricky)
Is the process used to elect representation transparent?
(or does it appear, as Andrew Coyne put it in the panel discussion, to be mere "mathematical jiggery-pokery"?
He said he feared PR sometimes does appear to be only that.)
does the electoral system produce a result in good time?
(any system with more depth and accuracy than FPTP will take more time than FPTP. Can the result, at least as far as the identity of the in-coming government, be announced on election night (even knowing as we do that in some districts the announced result is only preliminary at first)?
This election night urgency might fade in the future as more mail-in ballots are used. but for now a known result within just a couple days of the closing of the polls seems important.
Under STV historically in Canada one or two winners in each district are known on election night through the count of the First preferences. This could be done again in modern times (unless count of mail-in ballots holds that up.
The winners of the rest of the seats was determined over the next few days.
With computers, the count of the first preference may be held up and the seats filled almost simultaneously a week or more after the polls close.)
The transparency of the process is tied to the time element.
As well,
does the new system give too much power to parties over voters?
(This may be considered a question of ease of use or could be considered more about accuracy.)
What I am trying to say is perhaps the debate within the PR group, which distracts us from exposing fault with the FPTP SMP system, is due to personal choice of accuracy versus ease of adoption.
Some systems are more accurate able to produce more exact proportionality and at the smaller scale (local or sub-provincial region or city scale) versus overall or at the province scale.
Dual Member P is reputed to be very accurate
while Other systems are easier to adopt --
- keeping more elements currently in use (such as district boundaries or style of voting), or entailing the reform of these elements over a longer period of time, not in a drastic one-time overhaul.
This speaks to a personal preference for widespread overhaul in one step versus gradual or incremental change over time.
if a super-accurate system was easy to adopt, we would have perfect replacement but I think the two don't overlap. Please object if you can think of one.
So we have some people wanting systems that are super-accurate but more difficult to adopt and other people seeming to want to rush to adopt less-accurate systems, with hopes perhaps of getting further change later down the line.
===================
Canada's Historical change to STV
PR (STV) was brought in just partially in Alberta and Manitoba.
used at first in city-wide multi-member district in Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary and Medicine Hat. it was not brought in outside these cities, at least not at first.
Later changes:
Medicine Hat was soon dropped to SMP FPTP.
Later St. Boniface was made into a multi-member district and STV used there.
But most of Alberta and Manitoba outside of Edmonton, Calgary and Winnipeg remained FPTP.
Winnipeg later shifted to three multi-member districts, each covering just part of the city. That was it was given more seats and having more than 10 MLAs in one district was thought to be impractical.
where STV was used, in those cities, mixed roughly-proportional representation was produced, leading to larger representation of minorities (the opposition) in the legislature..
but no overall proportionality was used to elect members.
city-wide districts, being based on existing units (city boundaries), made adoption of STV easy.
use of preferential voting was not difficult.
Alberta
Edmonton and Calgary were already city-wide districts electing multiple members through Block Voting.
so districts did not need to be redrawn to allow STV.
city voters just were given only a single vote each (down from five used in 1921).
Edmonton and Calgary voters did not need to be trained in use of preferential voting. By the time of the first provincial STV election (1926), Edmonton and Calgary were using STV in city elections so voters knew preferential voting. As well, Edmonton voters had cast preferential ballots in a 1924 provincial by-election that used Alternative Voting.
outside the STV cities
districts did not need to be redrawn. they were left as single-member districts.
Alternative Voting brought in, so that voters everywhere used the same kind of votes. All used preferential voting, even if some were for STV elections and others for AV elections,
so voters were trained in use of preferential voting.
but there was no requirement to mark back-up preferences so many simply plumped - the only difference being they had to place a 1 not an X - so preferential voting did not put any special duty on voters if they did not want to extend themselves.
Later the prohibition against X voting was dropped, then was renewed, causing confusion and rejected ballots, which was then used as justification for dismantling STV altogether. Thsiswas despite the fact that many more votes are wasted under FPTP than ever were wasted under STV even with the "large" number of rejected votes.
after change to FPTP, the SC government then won clean sweep of Edmonton seats, far more than its due proportionally.
In Manitoba adoption was more difficult than in Alberta's case.
for one thing, Manitoba did it first - it adopted STV in 1920.
Prior to the change, Winnipeg had three multiple-member districts but they were wrong size for STV.
The three Winnipeg districts were grouped and their six seats bulked up by the addition of four more seats.
voters had participated in two separate FPTP elections in each district so they kept the single vote although under STV only casting one vote once, instead of twice.
their style of voting had to change to preferential. The provincial election of 1920 came first. STV was used in city elections as well, starting in the 1920 December election so voters soon grew accustomed to that style of voting and only used FPTP for federal elections.
electing ten MLAs in Winnipeg meant that any candidate that could accumulate nine percent of the city vote had quota and was elected. a wider range of parties were elected in Winnipeg than in five-member Edmonton and Calgary, with both Communist Party and CCF/NDP candidates being elected on many occasions, as well as Conservative, Liberal, Coalition and Farmer/Progressive candidates. STV later extended to St. Boniface. This was the only case of STV spreading. although AV was brought in outside Winnipeg with expressed intention that some rural districts would later change to STV, recognized as a fairer system. late 1940s and 1950s there were complaints of Winnipeg being inadequately represented, of rural-urban disparity of representation. The government used this as rationale to dismantle STV (although giving Winnipeg more seats was easier under STV than it was to be under FPTP, where districts had to be redrawn.) ====================
so change to STV was relatively easy, but the result of Canada's STV elections was not strictly accurate.
overall proportionality not used anywhere to determine successful candidates.
vote transfers often crossed party lines so final election results were in line with voters' sentiments, but not always with their first preferences. First preferences are usually used as measuring sticks of proportionality, but should not be used that way to measure accuracy of the count in STV.
STV more fair to minorities than FPTP. larger number of opposition MLAs elected than we would see in later Alberta FPTP elections, although always smaller parties under-represented compared to their proportion of the vote.
every large group in each city won at least one seat in each election.
relatively few votes wasted in each city under STV
in Edmonton/Calgary elections, only one-sixth or so of votes cast were not used to elect someone (although many votes were used to elect someone preferred but not the first preference)
in Winnipeg elections, only one-tenth or so of votes cast were not used to elect someone (although many votes were used to elect someone preferred but not the first preference).
District scale was important in the city-wide districts. City voters were not divided by multitude of single-member districts, voters not separated from their neighbours, wide range of candidates presented in each election.
multiple candidates ran for each major party in each city so voters had choice even while voting for a party.
voters given much power.
no party list used anywhere.
STV was used for nine elections in Manitoba and eight in Alberta so the experience was long term and positive - no objections to it on democratic grounds
No reason to end STV except self-serving decision by governments, who found rationale in a "large" number of rejected votes or rural-urban disparity of representation.
STV was brought in in both provinces and dismantled in both provinces without referendum, as governments have legal right to do.
Media supported change to STV. Newspapermen were democrats and many had called for end to FPTP for years, especially Alberta Conservative party newspapers (such as the Edmonton Journal), which saw FPTP as helping the Liberal government.
The Edmonton Bulletin (owned by Liberal party man Frank Oliver) opposed STV. (helped stop its use in city elections in 1928.)
1950s some (most) media objected to change away from STV, but governments of Alberta and Manitoba did not listen. In all of US and Canada, they were the only legislatures not using FPTP so stood out and did not want to.
After Manitoba dropped STV, Alberta was the only stand-out and did not want to stand out by itself, so that made its decision easier.
And the end came, with adverse effects on democracy and minority representation in those two provinces.
In 1963, Alberta opposition MLAs numbered three. Under STV, more than that many had been elected in just one city. (Three Liberals and one Conservative were elected in Edmonton in 1955 under STV.)
After switch to FPTP, no Communist was elected to a Winnipeg area seat in 1958, a thing that had not happened in 20 years but would be the pattern from here on. Under city-level STV, Communists were still being elected to the Winnipeg City Council. Communist Joe Zuken served on council to 1983 (a decade after the city elections changed to FPTP) when he retired after more than 20 years on council.
------------------ Thanks for reading.
==================
Comments