Different voting systems have a variety of different features, ranging from how proportional they are (whether seats in parliament reflect votes cast), the connection between MPs and their communities, and the extent to which voters can choose between different candidates.
When establishing an election system, decisions must be made as to:
-how the electorate will be districted? Or will the electorate be used as an at-large district?
Larger districts electing more members allow smaller percentage of voters in the district to elect a member. They also divide the electorate into fewer slices so waste fewer votes and allow thinly-spread parties to have more chance for representation.
-the election system that will be used to elect the members.
PR systems waste fewer votes than First Past The Post and produce more fairness to candidates and parties than FPTP.
Ranked vote systems waste fewer votes and produce more fairness to candidates and parties than X voting, especially if used in combination with multi-member districts. They also communicate more information about voters' opinion than X voting.
There are a variety of PR systems used in the world today.
They are all more or less equally fair.
The choice of which to use likely will arise from political culture and history, and such fundamental questions as
-Do you want to keep districts much like they are and add top-up?
-Do you want to go to multi-member districts, perhaps based on existing communities on the ground?
-Do you want to keep X voting as under FPTP or switch to ranked votes so as to reduce waste and increase fairness?
-Do you want to let the voter vote for a candidate or for a party list, or do you want to give voter the choice of voting for a candidate or a party?
-How much do you want to change of the present FPTP system, and how much do you want to keep the same at expense of fairness?
-What changes will voters accept?
-What changes will elected members accept?
In the following presentation, I made the decision that:
Each voter is to have one vote. (It makes counting easier and allows clear analysis of proportionality. In MMP systems, sometimes the voter is allowed one vote in the district contest and one vote to help allocate the top-up seats.)
Single-member districts with top-up, or multi-member district with or without top-up, would be valid choice.
Voting for a candidate or for a party list or label are both valid.
Ranked voting or X voting are both valid.
Some of the factors to consider when formulating an election system and some of the math involved is presented below.
=========================================================
Proportional representation entails multiple-member districts or some sort of pooling of votes
and a mechanism for fairly allocating seats to parties or candidates.
If each successful candidate is elected by the same number of votes, then each party ges its fair share of seats. such is the principle behind STV.
If each party gets a seat for each set number of votes, then each party gets its fair share of seats.
Such is the principle behind list PR.
District Magnitude should be set at a level where each substantial voting block gets at least one seat.
But whether an electorate is split by districts or is elected as one at-large district, the number of votes required to take a seat is about the same. This is true if fair voting is used and if each district has same voter-to-member ratio. But it may be desirable, due to geographical limitations, to have districts with widely-ranging voter-to-member ratios. If the district election system used is fair enough, even with such variance there shouldd still be much better proportionality than under FPTP.
Using districts allows local representation but divides the electorate, thus wasting some votes and disconveniencing parties with thinly spread support, thus giving an advantage to a party with geographically-concentrated support
Using at-large district means a party that has scattered support is able to concentrate its votes behind one or more candidates, if pooling or transferable votes are used.
The use of several districts may divide a party's support and reduce its support in any one district to below the threshold needed to elect even one member anywhere.
Candidate-based election systems
Proportional representation reflects votes cast, so in normal cases, it produces mixed representation where no one party takes all the seats, each party with substantial support takes one or more seats.
Such mixed representation is produced by the simple system known as Single Non-Transferable Voting (SNTV).
Each voter marks a preference for a candidate. Each voter has just one vote and marks just one X.
Multiple candidates are elected in a single contest.
However under SNTV some parties may suffer from vote splitting and the parties do not necessarily receive their proportional share of the seats.
With ranked votes, it is possible for votes to be transferred from less-popular party candidates to other candidates of same party, so parties do not generally suffer from vote splitting.
As well, votes may transfer across party lines so that, say voters of the right can concentrate behind just a few candidates, and same for voters of the left, etc.
Ranked votes can be used in single-winner (Instant-Runoff Voting) or multi-winner applications (STV).
Ranked votes in IRV and STV are intended to provide back-up preferences/contingency preferences for use if voter's first preference is not useful.
In STV, each successful candidate is elected with the same or about the same number of votes so each party gets its fair share of the seats. Some candidates may receive votes when candidates of other parties are eliminated so a party may take more seats than its initial vote tally would indicate.
Candidate-based voting but party electing
Even where voters votes for candidate, the party label of the candidate can be taken as indication of support for the party. Then seats can be allocated to the most-popular party or parties. This would limit dangerous effect of vote splitting.
In a multi-member contest, the seats can be allocated as a party ticket (with all seats going to the most-popular party) or pro-rated proportionally within the district.
Party-based First Past The Post (ley de lemas)
In a single-member contest the seat can be awarded to the most-popular party (and to the most-popular candidate within that party). Thus a party could run multiple candidates even though only one would at most be elected.
In world history, one place did use single-member district in which each party could put forward a multi-name slate without suffering from vote splitting. The most-popular candidate on the list of the most-popular party was elected. Uruguay used the ley de lemas system to elect the president from 1985 to 1995, and still uses it in a multi-winner variant today.
More on candidate-based voting/party-electing in the next section: List PR.
Party-based systems
List PR as used in many places has a voter vote for his or her preferred party list. Each party gets its due share of seats based on party's vote tally. This is closed-list PR.
Portugal, Romania, Guatemala, Macedonia and many more use closed-list PR in districts.
Israel uses closed-list PR in a country-wide at-large contest.
Party-and-candidate-based list PR
Open-list PR allows voter to indicate preferred party list and also for a preferred candidate. Sometimes voter marks preferred candidate and the candidate's party label indicates to which party his or her vote should be recorded. And the most-popular candidates of the party fills the party seats if any.
Many open-list PR systems allow the voter to mark a preference for a party list if desired. But others make voter mark preference for individual candidate or candidates.
Sweden, Finland, Switzerland and Austria uses open-list PR to fill the seats in districts.
Netherlands uses open-list PR to fill the seats in at-large contest.
================================
Mixed Member Proportional
In Mixed Member Proportional systems, some members are elected in districts; others are elected as top-up. The top-up members are elected in compensatory fashion to address disproportionality or under-representation of parties produced by district contests and how votes indicating party preference may differ from votes cast in local district contests.
New Zealand, the Scottish Assembly, Bavaria (Germany) and Denmark use different versions of MMP.
The New Zealand MMP system uses both districts and at-large pooling.
Election in district is by First Past The Post. In local district, voter has choice of one name of each party at most.
In at-large pooling, voter has opportunity to choose just one party list. Top-up members are elected based on country-wide pooling.
Scottish Assembly MMP uses both districts and top-up.
The top-up members are allocated at the regional level, a grouping of the districts smaller than nation-wide.
Bavarian MMP
in the Bavarian MMP system, the district election is same as for New Zealand.
in the top-up seat voting, the voter can show preference for an individual candidate.
In the at-large pooling, "top-up" members are elected by list PR.
Denmark's mixed-member proportional system uses multi-member districts where members are elected by list PR, each vots csts one vote and the party label of the candidate marked is taken as a party vote.
As well, the same vote is used to allocate seats based on at-large pooling where "top-up" members are elected by list PR.
Denmark uses open-list PR to fill the seats both in districts and at-large top-up, by taking account of popularity of individual candidates when filling party seats.
===================================
Choice is whether to elect at-large or in multi-member districts or in single-member districts or in combination of those.
If multi-member districts are used, top-up may not be necessary.
If single-member districts are used, then top-up must be used to get PR.
Top-up can be either at-large or in grouped districts larger than single-member districts but smaller than at-large.
At-large members are thought to have wider interests, while local district members hold advantages and rewards for the local district over wider concerns.
Local district election forces member to have direct accountability to local voters or at least to a large voting block within the district, but to say a single member represents a district overlooks the variety of sentiment held by voters in the district.
As well, a single member in a district can never by himself or herself produce proportional representation.
A district large enough for multiple members may be thought too large for a member to represent properly, but modern transportation and telecommunications make such much easier than in past times. Certainly a city where a mayor represents the whole city should be easy to make into a multi-member district because if one person can represent the whole city, then surely multiple members should be able to do the same.
Under fair voting in a city-wide district or a large chunk of rural real estate, a small portion of the district voters may be enough to elect a member. So if a candidate appeals to local voters of just a small corner of the city, the voters there may be numerous to elect the member just by thesmselves.
Thus, under STV or list PR where a set number of the votes cast in the district determine the quota or electoral threshold, then any part of the district where most of the voters vote for candidates from there, and where those voters make up a quota, or are more than the threshold, would elect a member from there, no matter what the voters elsewhere in the district do.
The Math
Say you have a city of five members where 50,000 voters live.
under FPTP the city is split into five districts, a member is said to represent a fifth of the city, and is elected by a majority of voters in the district or by just a purality of the votes cast in the district.
And perhaps voter turnout is just 60 percent (30,000 votes are cast).
Say 6000 votes are cast in each district.
A member may be elected by just 40 percent of votes cast in the district, so perhaps 2400 votes, less than half the votes cast in the district. (The small number required to elect the member may be thought to mean that any small group can get representation but actually it is only the largest group in each district that will get representation. A group with fewer votes than the largest group, even if just one less, will get no representation at all.)
It is possible most of the votes, 3600 votes, will not be used to elect anyone in a district
But still it is thought the member is able to be a voice for all the people living there.
(Across the city or rural area, perhaps as few as 12,000 votes elect the five members, and as many as 18,000 are disregarded and produce no representation.)
under STV or list PR, where a whole city or large rural area is just one district, the member is said to represent only the voters who support him or her.
Voter turnout rate may be 75 percent or higher.
So perhaps 37,000 votes will be cast across the city or rural area.
under STV, a member is generally elected with support of at least one-sixth of votes cast in the district, so perhaps 6,000 votes.
Almost always about 30,000 votes of the 37,000 votes cast elect the five members.
Perhaps one-sixth of votes cast (6,000) are not used to elect anyone.
under list PR, a member is elected with support of about one-fifth of votes cast in the city so perhaps 7,000 votes elect each member, perhaps fewer due to wasted votes that were cast for less-popular parties or candidates.
Any party that gets at least 7,000 votes will elect at least one member.
Likely about 33,000 votes of the 37,000 votes cast elect the five members.
Perhaps only five-ten percent are not used to elect anyone.
under MMP, single-member district used same as now but that district is larger, all other things being equal, due to having to free up seats for top-up members.
so perhaps city or rural area has three members, each elected in separate district. (The other two members have been freed up to join with others as top-up seats.)
voter turnout rate may be 75 percent (37,000 votes cast).
About 12,000 votes are cast in each district.
With a district of that size, under FPTP, the member within each district may be elected by just 4800 votes, with 7200 votes being ignored and producing no representation.
As well, about 40 percent or more of seats are top-up so parties are allocated seats to produce proportionality overall.
At the district level, perhaps as few as 14,000 votes elect the three members.
But the top-up is used to produce proportional representation of parties as much as possible. Any party that gets at least 3 percent of the vote will elect at least one member to the chamber, in normal circumstances.
Perhaps only five-ten percent of votes cast overall are not used to help elect anyone at the top-up level.
Using Denmark's mixed-member proportional system, fewer top-up members are needed as district results are already very fair.
perhaps city or rural area has four members, all elected in one district.
voter turnout rate may be 75 percent (37,000 votes cast).
within the city or rural area under list PR, each member would likely be elected by 8500 votes.
Likely about 36,000 votes elect the four members.
1000 votes might be ignored and produce no district representation.
As well, about 20 percent of seats are top-up. The one set freed up in the example city is pooled with other seats freed up across the country.
Parties are allocated these seats to produce proportionality overall.
Perhaps only five-ten percent of votes cast overall are not used to help elect anyone at the top-up level.
==========================================
A Short Course on PR for Unions and Others of broad minds but little background knowledge of Electoral Reform.
Put up a short list of key words:
Representative democracy
Elections converts votes to seats
Majority
Votes
Proportional Representation
Districts
Limited voting
Single Voting
STV
List PR
Open-list PR
MMP
Here is talk on each of the terms listed:
Representative democracy
government is composed of elected members who represent their supporters
Some do better job than others
Some switch policies or parties and try to find new supporters
We elect specific people and people change and vary from control by others.
In addition to the human factor, the election system we are using is flawed.
the pont of this little talk is to show how it is flawed and how Canada can be converted to using a sytem of proportional representation, that is, a system where seats are allocated in such a way that each party gets is fair share of the seats and where a large percentage of votes are used to actually elect someone.
Elections -- convert votes to seats
our current system is First past the post or winner take all.
only one member is elected in each district
myth goes that they are elected by majority choice but that is myth - usually in more than third and somtes more than half the districts the member is elected with only support of a minority of voters in the district.
Majority
majority is more than half.
you will never have a member elected with support of all the voters
pleasing most of them - more than half - is best you can do.
but when three or more run, usually the largest groups is merely a minority, less than half.
and in that case the majority of votes cast - even if split over two or more parties - is not represented while the minority is.
in Canada's situation we see the Liberals and NDP parties together getting half the votes that is where they are now in many districts. They are quite similar in outlook, at least right now,
and we see the Conservative candidatre sometimes taking the seat with less than half the vote in the district.
on such occasions, less than half the votes are used to elect the district members.
Votes
People want their vote to count - they want their vote used to elect someone.
They also want to express their opinion and vote for someone who will if elected represent their view in the chamber.
Some are prepared to vote for someone they don't hate to help prevent someone they hate from being elected; Others stick to their opinion and vote, hell or high water, for the candidate that represents their views, even if they believe that that candidate has little chance of being elected.
with any voting system, only votes cast for the most popular candidates are elected.
First past the Post takes this very striclty - only one is electred in each district.
Only votes cast for the one winner in the district are used to elect anyone.
oher election systems allow more flexibility. as we'll see.
FPTP uses X voting.
With X voting, if you vote for a candidate who comes in second or lower in popularity, then the vote is wasted.
Some proportional representation election systems overcome those problems by using:
multi-member districts - so more than one group can elect representation in a district
ranked transferable voting - where if a vote is cast for someone who is unpopular, the vote may be transferred to another candidate who has more chance to be elected.
In other systems, multi-member districts are used and seats are allocated to specific parties based on the percentage of voes they revceive. the winers bing those upermost on the party lists asembled by the party brass.
Both of those see a large proportion of votes used to elect the winners. and both ensure that each party gets about its due share of seats.
They do it in two different ways, but both are about as effective as the other under the same circumstances. We'll get into that later.
What is Proportional Representation?
Parties whose candidates take many votes take many seats,
Parties with few votes take just one seat or none at all.
Districts
today we are using single-member distrcits in federal and provincial elections
Many but not all city elections use single-member wards to elect city aldermen and councilllors.
but In Canada's history, multi-seat districts were quite common.
This may be surprising so I'll say it again -- Canada had a deep and wide experience of using districts with multiple seats.
Winnipeg for 30 year eleted its MLAs in a ten-seat city-wide district.
A voter anywhere in Winnipeg used the same ballot as anywhere else in Winnipeg
A voter anywhere in Winnipeg had the same choice of candidate, and the votes were pooled across the city when they were counted and seats allocated.
Edmonton and Calgary echelected more than four MLAs in city-wide district for 30 years.
Toronto was a three-seat district at one time.
Two-seat districts were common in each other province, even as late as the 1990s.
Mostly these multi-member districts used block voting where each voter could cast as many votes as the number of seats. sUneer such system fair results were a matter of lchance.
But in severl cases fair election systems were used in these multi-member districts
Limited Voting
Toronto voters could cast up to two votes to fill three seats.
Limited Voting meant no one party could take all three seats when the minority choice had support from at least a third of the voters.
The fairness of Limited Voting in a three-seat district was limited -- only two parties at most were represented in a three-seat district.
Like with any X voting, many votes were wasted, but because multiple members were elected in the Toronto district and because two parties saw one or more candidates elected, most voters had someone elected that they agreed with, even if one or both of their votes was not used to elect anyone.
Another system had all the benefits of Limited Voting but also some of its disadvantages.
Single voting
each voter marks an X, each voter has one vote.
if we have MMD of five seats but each voter has just one vote, then the five most-popular candidates are elected.
Some candidates will be super popular and they will hog the votes that go to the party they belong to. so some parties usually get fewer seats than they deserve.
Other candidates will be not so popular. with X voting being used, gthere is no ability to trasfer votes and and some candidates who might have accumulated more votes through transfers have no chance to do so.
The five winners can be easily determined.
breakdown might be like this:
A 11
B 9
C 8.5
D 6.5
E 5.5
F 5
G 4.9
H 4.8
I 4.6
J 4.4
4
3.5
and so on down to least-popular candidate who got less than half a percent of votes cast.
Only A to E are elected . Those five candidates have only a total of 41 percent of the vote.
The five winners each came from five different parties and about 59 percent of the votes were cast for candaites of of those parties, so 59 percent of voters likely had an elected member with whom they share opinions.
But as with any X voting, many votes were wasted and the parties' share of seats was not proportional to parties' share of votes.
One party ran three candidates in this district. It received enough votes to take two seats but got only one.
The next system we look at is much like single non-transferable voting but we give it ranked votes. that allows votes to be transsferred if they would otherwise be wasted.
Voters have more chance to elect someone they prefer even if not their first choice; parties get seat counts that better reflect their vote counts.
(The percentages are actual eleciotn results -- Vanuatu 2020 eleciton - Efate District)
STV
We keep the multi-member districts and give each voter the chance to mark back-up preferences - to be used if the candidate who is their first preference has no chance to be elected.
As well, a quota is determined and candidates who receive more votes than they need to be elected see their surpus votes trasferred to possibly help others of same party or of a similar party.
Because each winning candidate receives about same number of votes, each party receives about its right share of the seats. of cource sometimes voes can trabsfer from party to party so final set couint reflects how vtoes are transferred as well as how votes were initially cat.
Parties whose candidates take many votes take many seats,
Parties with few votes take just one seat or none at all.
The back-up preferences marked by voter gives assurance to large proportion of voters that their vote will be used to elect someone.
List PR
voters mark an X for party that they prefer.
vots are totalled.
seats are allocated to parties and parties fill their seats based on the list they made up in advance of the election.
each party gets its due share of seats.
But voters have no control over which person their vote will elect.
Open-list PR
a form of list PR allows voters control over how the vote is used.
this is called open-list PR and voters can mark vote for individual candidate.
the vote is counted as a party vote but the most-popular candidates of the party will fill the seats.
MMP
[this blog not quite done ... perhaps look at info above to get idea of how MMP works)
===========
see also
=================================================
Comments