Single Transferable Voting produces mixed representation. No one party can take all the seats when there is substantial support for two, three or four parties. Voter sentiment is spread out that much in most provincial and federal elections. Under STV, the party with the most support will take a good number of the seats - maybe not exactly proportional but roughly approximating its popularity. At the same time every party with substantial support will take at least one seat.
But on the whole extreme candidates, extreme parties and independent candidates will not likely be successful unless they have strong popularity with the voters. They will be unlikely to get many vote transfers from other candidates. Thus the system thins out those who are most repellent to the general voter.
The STV system is based on candidates, not parties. And voters will be able to choose among all the candidates in the large new district. They can pick and choose from across the whole field of candidates - choosing moderates or hard-liners, women or men, relatively old or relatively young, those from their part of the district or not, or any priorities they want.
They will no longer be barred from voting for their good friend or proven ally just because there is a district boundary between them.
There will still be boundaries but they would be farther apart. A district under STV could cover as much as seven of our existing districts. Or even more. A district electing 10 is even possible. Winnipeg elected 10 MLAs for decades under STV. Even a district electing two through STV would strengthen the connection between representatives and voters. Two single-member districts do not offer the same close connection.
Grouping together our present-day small city districts would be easy. It often happens that a voter lives in one district, shops in another, works in a third and spends spare time in a fourth. The district boundaries dividing a city are arbitrary. They make little sense on the ground.
A city with seven or less districts today could easily be covered by one district. Voters would have a wider choice of candidates. Transferable votes would give them liberty to vote for their first choice without worrying about wasting their vote. A candidate could appeal to his or her natural supporters, whether in one section of the city or spread across the city.
A city larger than seven districts could be made into several multiple-member districts each covering several present-day districts. Perhaps the elected legislature would contain four or five parties, but that would reflect voters' sentiments.
If no one party receives a majority of the vote
Perhaps in the elected legislature no one party would have a majority of the seats. A working majority has to be established if a government is not to fall. Elected politicians of a just somewhat popular party could perhaps be propped up in power by a much less popular party. Then two moderately popular parties would be held out of power. They would have a chance to be heard. But they would not have the power they deserve.
Therefore, the voting system could be broadened and strengthened by giving voters a vote at the party level.
A vote at the party level
We need one party to have a majority of the seats with the approval of the majority of the voters. if a majority of voters approves of a single party, then there is no issue.
But for thischoosing to be done fairly, if a majority of voters do not approve of a single party, we must use transferable votes so few are wasted, and consensus forms behind one party informally by voters back-up preferences.
Under Double Democracy this would done by having voters cast a second vote for the party they want to be government, with back-up preferences. Only one party would at the end be assured majority government.
This is a form of Alternative Voting. Choosing one party in power means there can be no proportionality. And in real life having 30 percent of the seats does not give one party 30 percent of power. The party or groups of parties that control a majority of seats has all the power under any system. We need to ensure that a majority of voters want that party to have the power.
This can be done by Alternative Voting at the party level.
Already the voter votes for a local candidate. Under STV, the voter would provide back-up preferences for the local election.
It would be democratic if the voter could also vote at the party level. Every voter could vote for which party should have a majority of the seats and thus form majority government. If transferable votes were used at this level as well, then no party would get a majority of the seats unless it had general support from a majority of voters.
If a party received a majority of the votes and if it had received a majority of the seats in the legislature through district elections, then nothing would need to change.
But if a party received a majority of the vote but did not receive a majority of the seats, then it would be allocated enough extra seats to give it a majority of seats in the legislature.
If no party takes a majority of the votes when the party votes are first counted, the least popular party is dropped out of the running and its votes transferred to other parties according to back-up preferences. This would carry on until eventually one party would have a majority of the votes. If that party does not have a majority of seats in the legislature, it would be allocated enough extra seats to give it a majority of seats in the legislature.
The number of parties used for the party elections could be limited by reference to past popularity.
Voters would not be required to cast a vote in the party-level election. If they did not, the party identification of the candidate they voted for could be used instead for the initial count. But without back-up party preferences, the voter's party vote could not be transferred so could end up being wasted.
The additional seats, if any are required, could be allocated to the party's unsuccessful candidates in order of popularity.
STV at the district level would close the connection between representatives and voters at the city level.
Party-level ranked voting would ensure that to be government a party must have the support of most voters.
Together this “Double Democracy” system would provide the increased democracy that we need.
=====================================
Comments