The theory of proportional representation being pushed today is something like the Group Government concept put forward by Henry Wise Wood, leader of the United Farmers of Alberta, around 1919.
Wood's idea would have had occupational groups - Farmers, Labour, Manufacturers and Bankers - elect their own representatives who would then proportionately assemble in the legislature.
William Irvine (later a Labour and UFA MP in the 1920s and 1930s) wrote a book on the concept entitled Co-operative Government.
The term "Co-operative Government" could also apply to any government that is friendly to pro-rep as it would have respect for all. Pro-rep grants each party equality of opportunity to be represented and accords representation to each in due proportion to its share of the vote, a very fair arrangement.
However when the UFA were elected government in 1921, farmers formed a majority government, and thus one occupational group had all the power in the Legislature. This was not in accord with Wood's vision of "Co-operative Government."
But the UFA candidates had never wanted absolute power, to have far more than their due share of the seats based on popularity at the polls.
They had promised if elected they would bring in electoral reform. And they fulfilled the promise.
The UFA government brought in a form of proportional representation now known as Single Transferable Voting for the election of Edmonton and Calgary MLAs.
STV was to be used to elect five in each city, with each voter casting only one vote. The vote was transferable to reduce the amount of votes that were wasted by being initially cast for unpopular candidates. The transfer-ability of the votes also ensured that votes were not wasted when a heavy surplus of votes were cast for the most popular candidates.
And with the use of STV, in each election in each city a mixed roughly proportional crop of representatives were elected. And only a small percentage of votes were not used effectively to elect someone.
A virtue of STV is that it is district-based. It can be brought in just in districts where it is most useful and most wanted. Thus it does not necessitate the waging of a fight that might be evoked by the imposition of a widespread system that imposes electoral reform in both districts where it is wanted and where it is not.
The City of Victoria - a majority of votes there - voted for change in the last BC referendum. And in 2005, a majority of voters in 77 out of 79 districts voted for change. Under STV, change can be brought in just in a city or cities, or large swathes of the rural landscape, where it is wanted.
Partial proportional representation is better than none at all.
And outside the cities, where STV found an easy home, the UFA also changed the game.
Outside the cities, the UFA government brought in a somewhat similar system that was also fair in its own way. This was Alternative Voting AKA Instant Runoff Voting. The single-member districts were maintained outside the cities, so proportionality was impossible.
But instead another goal of democracy was pursued - the right of the majority to be represented.
Under Alternative Voting, the successful candidate must have the support of a majority of the voters. A majority of voters are represented by the elected representative. (This is a far cry from the results under First Past The Post winner-take-all elections where in between a third and half of the districts the elected representative is elected with only a minority of the votes in the district.)
Alternative Voting is similar to STV because they both use transferable preferential votes.
Under Alternative Voting, if no candidate receives a majority of the votes inthe First Count, the least popular candidate is declared defeated and his or her votes transferred to the next marked choice. This is repeated until one of the remaining candidates accumulates enough First Preference choices and transferred votes from others to have more than half the remaining votes. (I use the term remaining votes because usually some ballots are declared exhausted if they are needed to be transferred and there are no more un-used back-up preference marked for those not already eliminated.)
By bringing in the combined STV/AV system, the UFA ensured that voters in every district in the province used the same method of voting.
Under both systems, voters did not need to game the system, to mis-represent their sentiment in order to have their vote be effectively used, to avoid it being wasted (as is commonly done under First Past The Post winner-take-all elections).
And under both systems, parties and candidates had to try to be welcoming to as many votes as possible, in order to get majority support.
A party and a candidate running in a district had to not only try to get as many first preferences as possible but also to cool his or her jets to avoid turning off voters who initially prefer another but may give him or her their back-up preference.
Voters voting as their true sentiment inspires them, parties and candidates being conciliatory and respectful toward others and statesman-like/stateswoman-like, these are noble aspects of what elections should be.
And they are organically produced by the workings of STV and AV.
(The difference between STV and Alternative Voting is elaborated on in my blog entitled STV an unusual abbreviation. Do you prefer "transferable preferential voting"?)
====================================================================
How does STV work?
The vote-counting process under STV is straightforward - if a bit time-consuming.
Count all the votes and establish the tallies for each candidate.
This is the First Count.
Calculate quota. This is the minimum votes needed to win (although it is possible to be elected without it.)
Usually quota is calculated by dividing the total number of valid votes by one more than the number of seats to be filled, rounded up.
Than apply Step A or B.
Step A. Declare elected all those who have at least quota. Calculate and transfer out any surplus votes of the elected candidates.
All the votes above the quota are stripped from the successful candidates and transferred to other candidates, if the voter has marked backed-up preferences, or to a pile marked "exhausted ballots" if the voter did not mark usable back-up preferences.(The transfer of surplus votes is explained below.)
Then repeat Step A or apply Step B.
Step B. Eliminate the least-popular candidate and transfer each vote to the next marked back-up preference who has not been elected or eliminated, if any. Ballots not bearing usable back-up preferences go to the "Exhausted" pile (see below).
Apply Steps A and/or B until all the seats are filled by quota or until there are only as many remaining candidates (not yet elected, not yet eliminated) as there are remaining open seats. In the latter case, the remaining candidates are declared elected even if they do not have quota.
The process ends as soon as all seats are filled. Note: Once a candidate is elected or eliminated, he or she receives no vote transfers. -----------------------------------------------
Transfers of Surplus Votes When a candidate is elected, any surplus must be transferred if possible to ensure fair representation.
But which votes are transferred and which stay behind with the elected candidate?
The transfers are arranged in such a way that the quota and the transfers are each assembled so as to replicate in miniature the votes cast for the candidate, at least as far as the next choice goes.
First, any exhausted ballots are removed. They will stay with the winning candidate.
The winning candidate's remaining ballots are then sorted by the next marked back-up preference directed to a candidate not yet elected nor eliminated. The transfer of surplus votes is done proportionally. The votes left behind with a successful candidate (the quota) bear the names of the next back-up preference in the same proportion as the whole votes garnered by the candidate. And votes are transferred in the same proportion.
Mathematically, the transfer of surplus votes from successful candidate A to candidate B can be expressed thus: [the number of second choices marked on A's ballots for Candidate B]
divided by
[the total number of A's ballots minus any exhausted ballots]
multiplied by
[the number of surplus votes].
In the Alberta system, whole votes, not fractions, were transferred. The math set forth often produced results that included candidates claiming fractional votes and surplus votes not allocated. These fractions of votes were dealt with, in the Alberta system, by allocating whatever votes of the surplus were not yet allocated to the candidates with the largest fractions claimed.
This was the system formulated by John D. Hunt and described in his 1924 pamphlet Key to P.R. (1924), reprinted in many sources on Alberta elections.
Here is an example in practice:
Quota is 30.
A received 55 votes in the first count and is declared elected.
A's votes
(just considering 1st and 2nd preferences):
24 A-B
12 A-C
7 A-D
2 A-E
10 A with no back-up preference marked
Surplus is 25.
The 10 exhausted votes are put aside.
This leaves 45 to be sorted for proportional quota and proportional transfers.
Composition of transfers
25 votes are to be transferred:
votes marked for B 24/45 X 25 = 13.333 votes marked for C 12/45 X 25 = 6.67 votes marked for D 7/45 X 25 = 3.89 votes marked for E 2/45 X 25 = 1.11.
The whole numbers above (B 13, C 6, D 3, E 1) add up to 23.
The two votes remaining to be transferred are allocated to the candidates with the largest un-used fractions.
Thus, C and D get one more each.
A's final vote transfers are:
13 votes transferred to B 7 transferred to C 4 transferred to D 1 transferred to E.
These transfers are added to the votes those candidates already have to create new running totals.
The quota that remains is made up of
10 marked only A 11 ballots marked A-B 5 marked A-C 3 marked A-D 1 marked A-E.
=============================================
Exhausted ballots
When a candidate is eliminated, some of the votes have no un-used marked back-up preferences or the only back-up preferences that are marked there are for candidates who have already been elected or eliminated.
In those cases, the ballot is put on the pile of exhausted ballots. A tally is kept of the votes in that pile but otherwise they are ignored from here on. They make up most of the small proportion of votes that are wasted under STV.
===================================================
STV proves itself effective at electing mixed proportionate representation in each district where it is used.
That was its record during its use in Canada from 1917 to 1971 -- in eight Alberta provincial elections, nine Manitoba provincial elections and in 150 city elections.
STV's use of multi-member districts and each voter casting only a single vote means:
- no one group can take all the district's seats
- groups that take more quotas (units of votes) take more seats than groups that take fewer votes
- transferable votes means that votes cast for candidates who have little specific support can be shifted elsewhere to hap elect another candidate also appealing to voter. (The voter does not need to scope out who will likely be elected before casting the vote. He or she can cast their vote based on their actual sentiment. There is need to prejudge and to mis-represent their view in order not to see their vote ignored, as under First-past-the post winner-take-all system.)
The STV system's goal of achieving representation of all (excepting about a quota's worth of the votes), and the combination of multiple members and the transferable vote, means that 80 to 90 percent of the voters elect someone.
(This percentage of representation is far better than FPTP winner-take-all system where as little as 34 percent are sometimes effectively used to elect someone.)
Comments