I have searched old newspapers and found an interesting thing - it seems the UFA never made an elaborate promise concerning PR when it ran for election in 1921.
But the very first plank in its election platform called for proportional representation and preferential ballot in single-member constituencies. Proportional representation, it seems, meant PR-STV.
Thus as I see it, the party never said where or how much of the province would have PR and how much would have Alternative Voting (also known as IRV).
This flexibility may have been a strength. Certainly with no assurance that they would be elected government, there might have seemed to be little point in nailing down specifics ahead of time. And no matter what was promised, the government might do nothing, a little or a lot once in power anyway. (As we saw with Trudeau, even a clear promise might mean nothing in the end.)
In 1921 the UFA government was elected and in 1924, it brought in quite a lot of reform, even if it was not STV everywhere.
A similar flexible stance might be very effective today.
So the following is in answer to a recent enquiry "Did the UFA promise PR or PR only in cities?"
and also in answer to a recent question I received "Fair Representation Act in the US - Should we emulate it?".
The UFA's promise
In July 1921 just a couple weeks or so before the 1921 election, the UFA issued its platform for the election.
It was published in the July 6, 1921 Red Deer News and the July 12, 1921 Edmonton Bulletin as well as other newspapers
"Declaration of Principles"
"Believing that the present unsettled conditions in Canada politically are due in large measure to dissatisfaction with the party system of government, and
Believing that present day political institutions fail to measure up to requirements of present day conditions in that the present system had failed to develop a sufficiently close connection between the representative and the elector and that the people desire a greater measure of self-government,
Recognizing the rights of all citizens, believing it is the right of every citizen to exercise his rights of citizenship in the most efficient manner and in the best interest of social progress, and believing that individual citizenship can only be made efficient and effective through the vehicle of systematically organized groups,
"...each elected representatives is answerable directly to the organization [the UFA local] in the district that elected him." [but a platform is important so we submit the following] ...
"Reconstructive Legislative Program"
"Representation of all classes in the community in the Legislature according to their numerical strength. This is to be brought about through proportional representation and a preferential ballot in single member constituencies."
We endorse the principle of the initiative, referendum and recall." ...
So that clearly implies the government was promising PR in multi-member districts (PR-STV), and in other places elsewhere (where there were not to be multiple members in a district) ,it was promising Preferential Voting (Alternative Voting/IRV).
Uncertainty still existed as to which places would have multiple-member districts (where STV would be installed) and which places would retain the existing single-member districts (where FPTP would be replaced by AV).
But apparently this reportage shows us that the government never promised STV across the province. and therefore when it brought in the mixed STV/AV system that it did bring in, in 1924, it was fulfilling its promise (but doing no more than it had promised).
The UFA's proposal was worded in a fuzzy way. Preferential voting in single-member districts cannot create representation "based on numerical strength" except in so far as it would use secondary preferences to ensure that a majority of votes are satisfied by the single member elected. Thus a majority of votes are used to elect the member. Not numerical strength in the proportional sense but numerical strength in a majoritarian sense.
An unusual route to PR today
But the flexible promise in the UFA platform inspires me to suggest an unusual route to PR today --
not exactly the route of a Citizens Assembly as usually envisioned nor the route of a detailed plan. (Although if a Citizens Assembly called for this flexible plan, I wouldn't complain.)
The plan I am proposing would see a party promise to bring in Alternative Voting everywhere and to bring in PR-STV where and only as it is proven to be needed or wanted.
The purpose for AV is that it uses the same voting system as STV (ranked voting) making public education simpler and its use prepares the way for PR-STV. The only difference between AV and PR-STV is that under PR-STV multiple members are elected in a district (what I here call an area or city district).
AV is not proportional so is no big improvement but it can be a stepping stone to STV, where required.
Some places like Victoria could go directly (and likely happily enough) to STV without any need for AV.
My plan envisions STV but any system of district-level MMP could be the specific voting system installed instead.
Under my "UFA-style plan", when being elected a government would promise that it would bring in preferential voting everywhere, AV in single-member districts and PR-STV at the district or city level only where it is seen as needed or where it is wanted.
So from the start there would immediately be PR-STV in some cities or other places. This would be a more positive first step than to go to AV overall and then at some time further on, move to PR.
in the Cities
The government would bring in PR-STV in any city where a majority of the people vote for such in a referendum (Victoria has already done so, in 2018), or where a single party takes all the seats in a city, leaving no seats to the other parties (and thus the system is causing appreciable mis-representation).
To do so, the government would form a city-wide district with up to ten seats, or two partial-city districts in a city where there are 11 to 20 seats, and so on.
Each city district would elect multiple members through PR-STV.
Outside the cities
And outside the cities, the government would form groups of three of the existing single-member districts. Three is a suitable number, enough to provide proportionality without being too large. (Districts with five members are common in other countries but for Canada at least at first, installing three-member districts may be struggle enough.)
(And these three-member areas could be given more seats later. Later after these groups of three districts are established, perhaps when voting population numbers increase and change is warranted, more members could be added to these established districts, thus eventually having five or more members in an area. (Under district-based PR such as PR-STV, districts do not have to be redrawn but simply a member added or subtracted to reflect demographic changes.
Or - new thought - members could be added where voter turn-out (not population figures) dictate. As encouragement, areas where significantly more votes are cast would have a member added, either through increase in the chamber overall or a seat could be transferred to the area from an area where vote numbers are thin (that area would lose a member). This would cause (friendly) competition between areas to increase voter turn-out, and would draw attention to areas where voters are abstaining from voting - what is the local political problem there? How can we make vote more interested in the process?)
These three--district areas would at first be informal representation units. Elections would still be held in single-member districts (using AV). The difference would be that a member elected in "A" district would be seen as speaking for and acting as representative or lobbyist for supporters of that party in District B and C of the same area, thus providing a semblance of a multi-member district.
But if or when significant number of voters in the area have no elected member to represent them (as identified by party label), then the government would change the voting system itself in the next election.
The government would bring in STV in the area by grouping the three districts into just one district.
That is, if 40 percent or more of voters cast votes for parties who have no members elected in those three districts, (40 percent of the voters or more in an area are not represented by the elected members in those three districts), the government would group the three districts to make a multi-member district and bring in STV.
That is, if FPTP works, if 60 percent or more of the votes elect someone, then leave as is.
But if the voters are split equally between two parties, each party should have representation (at least one out of the three seats as won through STV, the quota process and/or vote transfers); if voters are split in such a way that no candidate gets 60 percent of the vote, then the government would step in to reform the system to ensure that two or three parties can have representation, that a large majority of voters are represented, even at cost of switching the three districts to a single multi-member district (area).
Waiting for necessity or will to arise before PR installed
The groups of three districts and the notional large city districts would be pencilled in, the government just waiting for the system to screw up.
No reform in the holding of elections (further than the change to AV) would be enacted unless circumstances show that reform is needed or wanted.
I expect in some places the wait would be short; in others say, where 65 to 70 percent of voters vote for Conservatives in the West or in Quebec where a high proportion of voters in a district vote for the Liberals, the system satisfies most voters and the wait might be longer.
(In part this high ratio of voters electing the member in a district may be possibly due to supporters of other parties abstaining from voting. But if people get out and vote and the election results show there is dis-satisfaction, then the people themselves would show the need for reform. But if there is no obvious cause for reform, then the government bringing in PR would be seen as acting against local interests. A demand for proven dis-satisfaction would in some cases encourage higher voter turn-out.)
Quick-starting and flexible over time
In the election campaign, the pro-reform party would do no more than promise "Representation of all substantial political parties in the Legislature/HOC) according to their numerical strength. This is to be brought about through proportional representation in multiple-seat districts and a preferential ballot in single-member constituencies."
But more detailed publicity would express the plan as outlined above.
Either voters endorse PR or they don't. Universal or majority approval overall is not required for my plan to begin. The change from FPTP to AV is slight enough that a government being elected under a clear promise to do just that should be mandate enough. (Less than that was enough to allow people to accept the government bringing in AV in BC in the 1950s.) With the further transformation to STV on the books but not implemented until necessary or desired by voters right there.
Such a policy of acting only where there is a proven need for reform would take the pressure off a government. The reform would be grassroots-based and bottom-up, not reform brought down from above.
And such a government policy would include public judgment of elections based on analysis of the votes cast, so drawing attention to the question of proportionality and proper representation, That kind of discussion would do wonders for the profile of the PR movement.
Sure, such a policy would not give us PR overnight and a subsequent government could disable such a program of gradual reform partway through the process, but the policy would be known and understood and either implemented if a government in favour of the reform was elected or not implemented if a different kind of government was elected by the voters.
The process would be incremental, so could start out small - but at least it could start out.
Such a reform plan would be evidence-based with well-defined rules, but would allow for flexibility within the dictates of the FPTP-to-STV or FPTP-to-AV-to-STV transformation process.
So that is my plan based on what the UFA did a hundred years ago.
In answer to recent enquiry, I would say no we don't want to emulate the Fair Representation Act in the US. Instead we want a flexible system where PR will be brought in where it is seen to be needed or where it is desired by the voters there.
Such a plan could be a vote-getter in addition to its benefit to all. If a party proved that it actually would bring in electoral reform, where desired, it might receive many votes just based on that promise alone.
Comentarios