We may get to a stage where a referendum is again held on electoral reform. I believe we would want to give voters a choice of district-level PR or maintaining FPTP, and want to let local voters decide on districting in their areas, while still ensuring that all voters use the same voting method.
Such a referendum could be done this way:
A map would be drawn setting out proposed "grouped districts." (The methodology of the districting used in the map is described in the footnote at the bottom of this section).
Referendum would be two questions. Each is separate from the other.
The first question would be just within each "grouped district" as per the map.
The other would be province-wide.
#1 Which do you prefer?
[1A] The single-member district you have now
or
[1B] The "grouped district" as presented in the map
#2. Which do you prefer?
[2A] The existing X voting
or
[2B] Optional ranked voting, where each voter could mark just one preference or could mark first preference and back-up preferences as well
The referendum proposed here is for a province, not for federal level.
A federal referendum might require some changes.
The referendum thus is written in line with these ideas:
A map of proposed "group districts" would be drawn up ahead of the vote and would be open for viewing. Voters would know what they were voting for.
It is up to each pre-set "grouped district" whether or not to change from present single-member districts to a multi-member district. It would be majority decision of the votes cast in that "grouped district".
Having MM district or single-member district is local decision. Revision of the existing district would happen only if majority of votes cast in the "grouped district" support such change. Votes outside the "grouped district" would not have any impact on the local decision on districting.
Province-wide, it is up to majority of voters whether to switch from existing X voting to optional ranked voting where each voter could mark just one preference or could mark first preference and back-up preferences as well. (In the elections to follow, it would be up to individual voter how many preferences they mark even if ranked voting passes.)
If majority of voters in the province vote for ranked voting, each voter across province would have liberty to mark back-up preferences if they wanted. Even under STV, a voter would not be required to mark back-up preferences but could simply mark their first choice only. (The chance of the vote being wasted would increase if no back-up preferences are marked but that is voter's own choice.)
Each question being a simple A or B question, a majority would be seen on one side or the other in each question.
it could happen that some would maintain single-member districts and some would change to MM districts. MM districts would give semi-proportionality or very good proportionality in that district, depending on number of seats and whether or not ranked votes are used. Most electoral reform proposals dictate that some districts would remain single-member districts. Mine leaves it up to local voters to make that call.
Block Voting, an undependable and usually dis-proportional system, is not a possible outcome of this referendum. The only possible outcomes are the existing system, local use of a majoritarian system (IRV), local use of a proportional system (STV) or local use of a semi-proportional system (SNTV). The last two, even if only partial, would improve the proportionality of representation in the legislature compared to the existing FPTP. Any use of IRV would ensure that a majority of voters in the district were represented by the local member. Local IRV would not necessarily improve overall proportionality but would affect the quality of local representation.
Any degree of PR anywhere helps the province everywhere.
Such a referendum would create a degree of flexibility and local autonomy. It does not give voters outside a "grouped district" the right to determine or not whether a "grouped district" will become a MM district or continue as single-member districts.
In the last BC referendum, voters in Victoria voted in favour of electoral reform but were barred from getting any due to anti-PR votes cast outside the city. But SNTV would have been an improvement of proportionality in the city and could have been produced by simple grouping of Victoria's four provincial districts.
Local district-ing is a strictly local question. Under district-level PR, it is not necessary to change all the voting patterns across the whole province to get some improvement. Alberta and Manitoba used a mixed system of STV/IRV for three decades, and even partial use of STV meant that the overall proportionality was improved. And local autonomy is part of this referendum.
On the other hand, I believe the voting method adopted should be consistent across the whole province, as has been the practice in most cases. Only in two provincial elections ever in our history did some voters cast ranked votes while others cast X votes. Even where Block Voting was used in conjunction with FPTP, under both systems voters cast X votes.
It is all around simpler if all voters use the same voting method. Thus in my referendum proposal, the one voting method used across the province would be set by whether a majority across the whole province want ranked voting or whether it wants to maintain X voting. The majority would get its wish.
Various outcomes would be:
Ranked voting (back-up preferences optional)
Mixed STV/IRV as was used in Alberta and Winnipeg, 1920s to 1950s
IRV across the board as Australia uses now for lower-house elections
STV across the board as Ireland uses now
X voting
Mixed FPTP/SNTV (SNTV = single voting in MM districts), as used now in Vanuatu
FPTP in single-winner districts same as now
SNTV (single voting in MM districts) across the board, as used in Iraq
Details of the six possible outcomes:
RANKED VOTING
Mixed STV/IRV
(majority in some "grouped districts" vote for 1B; majority in some "grouped districts" vote for 1A, and majority in province vote for 2B)
Majority in some of the pre-set "grouped districts" vote to change; the others vote to maintain single-member districts. Majority in the province vote for preferential voting. Some of the grouped districts are used and some of the old single-member districts maintain the old boundaries. All voter have liberty to use preferential voting. Voters in the single-member districts would use Instant-Runoff Voting but could plump. If they plump (just mark the first preference), the system would be FPTP. Voters in the multi-member districts would have STV -- all voters would mark their first-preference choices and voters would have liberty to mark back-up preferences. If a voter plumps (just mark the first preference), the system would be SNTV for that voter. (The chance of the vote being wasted would increase if no back-up preferences are marked but that is voter's own choice.)
IRV across the board
(majority in all "grouped districts" vote for 1A, and majority in province vote for 2B)
Majority in all the pre-set "grouped districts" vote not to change and majority in the province vote for ranked voting. All voters would use IRV. All voters would mark their first-preference choices and voters would have liberty to mark back-up preferences. If a voter plumps (just mark the first preference), the system would be SNTV for that voter.(The chance of the vote being wasted would increase if no back-up preferences are marked but that is voter's own choice.)
STV across the board
(majority in all "grouped districts" vote for 1B, and majority in province vote for 2B)
Majority in all the pre-set "grouped districts" vote to change and majority in the province vote for preferential voting. all the grouped districts are used and all voter have liberty to use preferential voting. In the next election, all voters would use STV but could plump. If a voter plumps (just mark the first preference), the system would be SNTV for that voter. (The chance of the vote being wasted would increase if no back-up preferences are marked but that is voter's own choice.)
X VOTING
Mixed FPTP/SNTV
(majority in some "grouped districts" vote for 1A; majority in some "grouped districts" vote for 1B, and majority in province vote for 2A)
Majority in some of the pre-set "grouped districts" vote to change; the others vote to maintain single-member districts. and majority in the province vote to maintain X voting. Some of the "grouped districts" are used and some of the old single-member districts maintain the old boundaries. Voters in the single-member districts would use FPTP. Voters in the multi-member districts would use SNTV (single voting in MM districts).
FPTP across the board
(majority in all "grouped districts" vote for 1A, and majority in province vote for 2A)
Majority in all the pre-set "grouped districts" vote not to change and majority in the province vote to maintain X voting. All voters would use FPTP, same as now.
SNTV across the board
(majority in all "grouped districts" vote for 1B, and majority in province vote for 2A)
Majority in all the pre-set "grouped districts" vote to change, and majority in the province vote to maintain X voting. All voters would use SNTV (single voting in MM districts).
==========
Thus majorities - local majority or province-wide majority - determine outcome in each question.
Remarks
Majority in each existing single-member district does not decide on boundary revision, so that is a weakness. Where a majority in a pre-set "grouped district" votes against boundary revision, there may be case for a single-member district that lies adjacent to a city using MM and whose majority favours electoral reform to be joined with that city. But that case is not covered in my referendum idea.
I would recommend that the first question (the vote on district type) might be based on vote across a whole city, with the proposed "grouped district" covering the whole city as one city-wide district.
*In the map of proposed "grouped districts",
cities: Districts would be city-wide if a city has more than two seats but less than 12. Any city with 12 or more seats but less than 23 would have two multi-member districts, of about the same number of members and population.
Any city with 23 or more seats but less than 34 would have three multi-member districts of about the same number of members and population.
Any city with 34 or more seats but less than 45 would have four multi-member districts, of about the same number of members and population. And so on.
Districts would be groupings of contiguous existing districts or based on natural divisions in the city.
Outside the cities:
"grouped districts" would be groupings of three existing districts that are contiguous. These grouped district would not include any cities that have enough seats to be MM districts.
Districts would be pre-set and clearly marked on a map before the vote. ======================================
A Citizens Assembly could call for such a referendum if it thought it necessary or use the structure as guideline for its discussions.
Other remarks:
The result of my proposed referendum would be determined by votes cast, not by parties or politicians.
Referendums (in Canadian history and custom) do not consider parties. Referendum do not measure support by parties. They are decided by by which side has more votes - in two-side question the larger side has majority.
And decision in the legislature requires support of majority of members - again not parties and nothing to do with the proportion of votes behind the parties.
My referendum, like all the ones I have seen, will be determined by votes cast, not parties.
My proposal contains two separate questions:
Do you want to change your district boundaries or not?
separate question: do you want ranked voting or X voting?
in each case, it is only one or the other (except for those who don't care either way, the third option in any question anywhere).
Parties are not involved in my referendum. Result will be determined by the people who vote.
In one question, the local result will be determined by a majority in the "grouped district" and in the other question, the result will be determined by a majority in the province-wide vote.
In each question, separately, a majority will go one way or the other.
What happens after referendum decision is beyond scope of my proposed two-question referendum. Sure the result can be reviewed subsequently, after a couple elections perhaps, if that is choice of the powers that be.
Perhaps in the debate and discussion in advance of the referendum, people will refer to various options as to their adv. or disad. and their uses where and when - Ireland, Belgium, etc. My proposal so far is just a preliminary idea.
The result of the referendum may be unexpected.
A voter will not know if his or her district will be part of a new MM district or whether the majority in the province will decide for ranked voting or not, so voter is not voting for a particular electoral system but for the two ingredients he or she would like it to be composed of.
The outcome would be arrived at through the majority choice in the two questions.
Separate questions but voters may well group themselves in natural groups, as determined by the matrix of their choices on both questions:
those who like FPTP will vote for 1A and 2A.
those who like STV will vote for 1B and 2B.
those who want IRV will vote for 1A and 2B
those who want SNTV will vote 1B and 2A.
The voter might not get what he or she voted for, but that is up to which answer the majority, in the grouped district or in the province, give for each of the two questions.
It would be up to the people on each question.
It is not likely that a person in favour of FPTP will vote either for MM districts or ranked voting.
It is not likely that a voter who prefers PR would vote for single-member district or X voting.
A voter who prefers Instant-Runoff Voting may be surprised that his vote for single-member districts helped bring in local FPTP if the province-wide majority was in favour of X voting.
A voter who prefers SNTV may be surprised that his vote for a local MM district helped bring in local STV if the majority in the province was in favour of ranked voting.
But those kind of surprises are part of any election and also are part of the political reality of having an election system set by something other than the people. Every province in Canada once elected all or some of their elected members in MM districts. Those MM districts were disbanded with no say-so by the voters.
Never have we had a referendum question in Canada on whether ranked voting is preferred to X voting. at least not at the provincial or federal level
Never have we had a referendum question in Canada on whether local MM district is preferred to existing single-member district. at least not at the provincial or federal level
The system selected by the referendum will be a true matrix choice of the majority in each of two separate questions.
Within the scope of this referendum, I expect voters to arrange themselves into voting groups based on knowledge that:
FPTP is the tradition
it is impossible to have PR without MM district, barring overall top-up or some other kind of pooling, which are not considered in this referendum. (see next section)
impossible to decrease waste without ranked voting or arguably MM districts
impossible to have majoritarian result without ranked voting.
impossible to dependably have (very) proportional results without ranked voting.
MMP
MMP or list PR also gives PR but that is not part of my referendum idea.
MMP includes district elections and top-up seats.
The two questions in my proposal above concern the district seats. MMP's top-up seats could be layered on top of the district seats if that is choice of voters.
To give voters option on MMP, a third - and separate - question could be posed, if powers-that-be think the MMP system should be offered to votes:
Which do you prefer?
all members being elected in districts
or
the same number elected in districts as are elected now, plus an additional [a number equivalent to 15 to 25 percent of the district members] to be added to the legislature, to be allocated to parties under-represented (the parties whose province-wide share of the district seats is less than their province-wide vote share).
Such a question would not impact the future district elections as determined by the majority decision in the other two questions, whether their outcome would be maintenance of FPTP, a shift to a more proportional system or any of the other outcomes that could arise from the other two questions.
===============================
More remarks
this referendum idea is just "what to do if", assuming we have some control of the situation.
Parties play no part in vote counting in a referendum. But perhaps would in the referendum preparation process to give ER respectability and so it does not look like a power grab. The simple phrasing of my referendum (despite two questions) would both prevent the rigging and also give respectability to the result as it would be clear what voters say they want.
majority of votes, not consensus, is the determinant in my referendum result. (but of course government in power can set whatever rules it wants --- simple majority or 60 percent or proven majority in each district, etc. - part of that rigged thing you mention.)
Trudeau was wrong to say consensus is required to set the voting system.
That requirement is one-sided:
- voters in most provinces have never had chance to vote on the system that is used;
- referendums that have been held showed no consensus in favour of maintaining FPTP among voters;
- opposition parties in Alberta and Manitoba objected to dropping STV/IRV when it happened;
etc..
====================
Further remarks on the two-question referendum in which I present a non-matrix referendum with same utility to produce local and /or province-wide change.
"No" is not an option in my two-question referendum. Neither is Yes!
Questions are :
do you want your district made into a MM districts as per map or remain SMD?
do you want ranked voting or the existing X voting?
these are no more complicated than a referendum where voter have to choose one full system over another.
I believe it is simpler -
anyone who wants increased PR will vote for MM districts.
(if that side wins a majority of the votes in that proposed MM district (say the city of Victoria), that MM is established. With single voting (X voting or ranked voting), that creates SNTV or STV in that new MM distrcit.
SNTV is much improvement on FPTP -- it is likely to produce mixed representation (a characteristic of district-level PR) and in some cases produces same result as STV so very proportional (in those cases).
if a majority across province vote for ranked voting, that will be brought in.
due to local votes on MM/SMD question, this could result in all-STV, all-IRV, or quite likely mixed STV/IRV.
with ranked voting given majority support prov-wide,
still local districting is local affair --
no locality gets IRV if if majority there votes for MMD;
no locality gets STV if majority there votes for SMD.
with X voting given majority support prov-wide,
still local districting is local affair -- no locality gets FPTP if if majority there votes for MMD; no locality gets SNTV if majority there votes for SMD.
I grant you the matrix is an unusual design
but it makes clear the basic questions that voters have to ask themselves in any referendum where a ranked system is on offer or where increased P is on offer.-
do you want increased P?
do you want ranked voting?
and further it is not likely to result in total failure unlike the past all or nothing deals:
any locality that votes for MMD will get STV or SNTV.
There were many cities, etc. that voted for change in past referendums and got nothing.
a majority in Victoria voted for STV in last BC referendum, but majority across province voted to retain X voting (hidden within their vote for the existing FPTP system) - under my system, Victoria would've gotten SNTV.
There have even been referendums where majority of people voted for STV or MMP and no change was made.
under my system, in any locality where majority voted for STV they would have voted for ranked voting and local MMD (because those are the two ingredients of STV), and they would have got either STV or SNTV (SNTV only if majority across province vote to retain X voting).
Perhaps governments actually might have been willing to grant local STV where it was popular, retaining FPTP elsewhere, but due to the all or nothing referendum phrasing, that was not on the table.
Historically, Canada has at its best had mixed STV/IRV provincial electoral systems.
that was good then - better than all-FPTP or all-IRV anyway.
and my two-question matrix referendum could be a way to get it again.
In our past electoral reform referendums, the government was opposed to reform and did not really want to do it and did not allow incremental change even where majority (local or even province-wide) voted in favour of it.
if a government even discussed my referendum model, they may say it is too complicated and they might mean it (like I am sure some of you readers may do although I don't agree), or the government might just be saying that because it doesn't want overall reform or even local reform, which is why they would be holding a referendum in the first place.
I say that because a government can change the electoral system without a referendum - all but Quebec has changed their electoral system since becoming a province, some several times;
Quebec changed its system when it became a province (in 1867),
None of these changes happened after referendum,
and no referendum has resulted in electoral change.
but no referendum to date has been on local reform as well as province-wide reform.
if matrix design is complicated, possibly same effect could be achieved by:
drawing up map of proposed MMP districts (pre-set city-wide or fractional-city districts in each city and three-seat districts elsewhere). (same as first step in my matrix vote design)
giving each voter choice of FPTP, IRV, STV, SNTV.
vote splitting could occur but the salient feature of each is derived not the system itself - so vote spitting does not affect outcome.
maybe could be presented visually right on the ballot.
such as "Instructions to voters
if you want X voting, vote for FPTP or SNTV.
if you want ranked voting, vote for either IRV or STV.
if you want your district to remain SMD, vote for FPTP or IRV.
if you want MMD, vote for SNTV or STV.
majority in the MMD as per map will determine:
SMDs (FPTP or IRV) versus MMD (SNTV or STV)
majority in province will determine:
X voting (FPTP or SNTV) or optional ranked voting (where voter can cast an X vote or a ranked vote)."
votes are counted this way:
across the province
the total of votes for FPTP and SNTV would be compared to the total of votes for IRV and STV. Whichever total is larger would determine if ranked votes or X voting were to be used all over.
in each MM district, the combined vote for FPTP and IRV would be compared to the total for SNTV and STV. The larger of the two totals (the majority) would determine whether the districts in that MM would be left as SMDs or grouped to make the MM district. (whether a locality has SMDs or a MMD would not change the number of seats there. it would only determine the manner in which they are filled.)
Thus, majority in each MM district would determine the districting (SMDs or one MMD), and the province-wide vote would determine the voting method (thus having consistent method everywhere in province).
The province-wide vote would determine whether a locality whose majority favour SMDs would have FPTP or IRV, and whether a locality whose majority favour MMD would have SNTV or STV.
making districting a strictly local choice and local application
and the voting method a province-wide matter - in order to make public information as clear and broad as possible.
With the local referendums held across province, the effect would be either to retain all-FPTP, or change to all-IRV, all-STV, all-SNTV, mixed STV/IRV or mixed FPTP/SNTV.
SNTV/FPTP is more proportional than FPTP and is used with proportional effect in Vanuatu. For that reason all-SNTV can reasonably be expected to operate just as well or better than SNTV/FPTP.
STV/IRV was used in 8 elections in Alberta and nine in Manitoba, 1920s to 1950s. each time in ech city where STV was used, mixed balanced rep. was produced.
All-IRV was used in BC in 1951 and 1952 although both SMDs and MMDs were used there then.
All-FPTP is what we have now. Dis-proportional one party sweeps are produced in whole cities or whole provinces.
All-STV is used in Ireland and Malta, and at the city level in several cities, including cities in New Zealand.
so they are pre-tested and practical.
Whether my original voter-matrix design or my four-option question is used, a government discussing a referendum of that sort would sort of be put on the spot if it refuses to run such -- by objecting to a referendum of this sort, they would be saying even if local majority want pro-PR re-districting, it will not happen.
makes their self-serving hypocrisy in refusing it more clear, that is my idea anyway.
=========================================================
Kommentare