The advantage of STV is the use of large multi-member districts.
These districts, where possible, encompass whole cities or quarters or thirds of large cities.
In the rural areas, they may use natural boundaries such as rivers and/or the boundaries of existing government areas such as counties, federal ridings or rural municipalities.
(Consider for example how the Slave Lake provincial constituency covers, in addition to two towns, 11 First Nations Bands, three Metis settlements and the entire rural municipality of Opportunity, also parts of three other rural municipalities (as reported in the Alberta Views, March 2021).
You would think if farmers were gathered together in a rural municipality, it would make sense to move them as one into a provincial district. The failure to do so leads some to suspect gerrymandering. Perhaps that parts of these rural municipalities, for some reason, were less friendly to the party in power so the voters there were spliced away. Or perhaps the three RMDs were split out of desire to put those parts of the three RMDs where voters most commonly vote Conservative into the Slave Lake district, to gather into Slave Lake district those most likely to vote for the candidate belonging to the party in power. The fact that a Conservative won every election from 1989 to 2012 adds credence to this latter accusation.)
But if provincial districts simply take in one or a combination of whole existing counties or RMDs, there can be no accusation of gerrymandering.
The relative small number of boundaries decrease possibility of gerrymandering.
Also,proportionality of each district's representation, through use of STV or other PR system, limits the benefits of gerrymandering - if all are represented fairly ,no matter in which district the voters find themselves, there can be no benefit of gerrymandering.
Another possible way to set these large multi-member districts is the use of natural watersheds. Cities are on the banks of rivers invariably and well within a single watershed so such a scheme will not divide a city.
Looking at Alberta, we can set up electoral boundaries that conform to watersheds.
With STV allowing variable number of seats in the different districts, the districts do not have have the same size. Say there would be on the average 33,000 voters per seat. (1.9M (2019) /87 = 67 p.c. turn-out)
Of course there are the populated places:
Edmonton 20 MLAs 20,000 votes per seat (2019) prob. 3 districts each with 7 MLAs
Calgary 26 MLAs prob. 3 districts each with 9 MLAs
Lethbridge 47,000 votes (2019) 2 seats
Red Deer 48,000 votes (2019) 2 seats
not a city but a populous county/hamlet -- Sherwood Park/Strathcona County (98,000 pop.) 52,000 votes (2019) 2 seats
[52 seats in cities]
All of Alberta is in just three major watersheds:
- Milk River that flows into the Gulf of Mexico
- Rivers that flow into the Hudsons Bay
- Rivers that flow into the Arctic Ocean.
But there are various river watersheds that break down these three major watersheds.
Electoral districts could be arranged along the lines of these river watersheds. They would unchanging so gerrymandering and boundary changes/redistribution would be prevented. Changing the number of MLAs in each district would ensure relatively uniform MLA-to-voter ratios over time.
STV districts covering Alberta could be arranged like this:
South Country (Milk, South Sask, Oldman River watersheds)
6 MLAs (formerly Livingstone, Taber, Cypress, Cardston, Brooks-Medicine Hat, part of Cardston-Siksika, Taber-Warner)
The Siksika part of Cardston-Siksika would go to the new Bow River district.
Bow River watershed (excluding Calgary and Banff)
5 MLAs (formerly Highwood, Airdrie..., Airdrie..., Chestermere, south part of Old-Didsbury-Three Hills, part of Cardston-Siksika)
Mountain district (covering Banff and Jasper and more)
3 MLAs (formerly Banff, west part of Rimbey/Rocky Mountain House/Sundre, West Yellowhead)
Central Alberta (Red Deer watershed excluding Red Deer City)
5 MLAs (formerly Drumheller/Stettler, north part of Olds/Didsbury, Innisfail, Lacombe /Ponoka, east part of Rimbey/Rocky Mountain House/Sundre, Lacombe/Ponoka)
Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds
3 MLAs (formerly Maskwacis/Wetaskiwin, Camrose, Vermilion/Lloydminster/Wainwright)
Upper Saskatchewan (middle Saskatchewan watershed excluding Edmonton)
6 MLAs (formerly Drayton Valley/Devon, Spruce Grove, St. Albert, Lac Ste. Anne..., Morinville, Leduc/Beaumont, )
East Central (North Sask watershed east of Edmonton and Beaver River watersheds)
3 MLAs (formerly Ft. Sask/Vegreville, Bonnyville/Cold Lake/St. Paul, part of Vermilion/Lloydminster, part of Athabasca/Barrhead/Westlock)
Upper Athabasca (part of Athabasca watershed)
2 MLAs (formerly part of Athabasca/Barrhead/Westlock, Lesser Slave Lake)
(Part of present LSL district is in Peace River watershed. But I did not split up the district.)
Lower Athabasca downriver (Athabasca watershed from Ft. McMurray north plus Lake Athabasca, Slave River watersheds)
3 MLAs (formerly part of Athabasca/Barrhead/Westlock, Ft. McMurray/LLB, Ft. McMurray/Wood Buffalo)
Peace River watershed (including Hay, Laird, Buffalo River watersheds)
4 MLAs (formerly Grande Prairie, Grande Prairie/Wapiti, Central Peace/Notley, Peace River)
[40 MLAs outside populated places,
making total of 92-94, a slight increase from the present 87 MLAs]
Actually we need the number to be odd by tradition, although with one MLA becoming Speaker, perhaps we should start with an even number after all.
Thus there would be:
five populated places divided into 9 districts electing 54 MLAs -
two city-wide districts -- Lethbridge, Red Deer
one full county -- Sherwood Park/Str. County
three Calgary districts, each with 9
three Edmonton districts, each with 7
10 rural districts electing 40 MLAs-
each with between 2 and 6 MLAs.
Thus 19 districts covering all of Alberta.
Probably the new Peace River district would be the largest in geographic size.
Calgary with 825 sq. kms
Edmonton 768 sq. kms
approximately the same geographic size so I have given each of them three districts but have varied the number of MLAs to reflect number of present MLAs
The watersheds do not change so gerrymandering would generally be impossible.
The number of MLAs per district would change as population numbers change.
In each district, voters would have wider range of candidates to choose from than under present FPTP single-member-district system.
Calgarian voters would have widest range with nine seats in each of that city's districts. A Calgary ballot may contain 40-50 names so perhaps that would be a problem, although a voter would not be required to rank any set number of candidates. If every voter marked four back-up preferences, that should be sufficient to ensure that most votes would not become exhausted, especially if at least one of the choices is a popular candidate.
Transferable votes would ensure that votes could vote according to their true sentiment and not misrepresent their wishes through strategic voting. One would expect more votes - at least first preferences - going to small parties and independent candidates.
Due to the looser voting and the district-level proportional representation accorded by STV, it would be expected that a mixed crop of MLAs would be sent to the legislature.
MLAs of two or three different parties would likely be elected in most districts.
In the many-member districts of Calgary and Edmonton, candidates belonging to four, or even five, different parties might be elected in a district. They would be elected in due relative proportion to their popularity (based on first preferences or a combination of first preferences and vote transfers).
Thus overall, the legislature would reflect a wider range of voter sentiment and in fairer proportions than under today's system.
While local representation - at the city or region scale - would still be preserved.
And under STV the voters of a town feeling "submerged" in a new watershed-style district would have liberty to mark their votes only for local candidates of whatever political stripe. If that town had enough votes to exceed the district quota (a sixth of the vote total in a five-seat district; a quarter of the vote total in a three-seat district, etc.), it would elect a candidate of that town and there would be nothing the voters in the rest of the watershed district voters could do about it. It would be their due.
One could go through the 2019 election results and by totalling the votes for each party in each of the new watershed districts allocate party seats. However, under STV, as noted, people would probably vote differently due to less strategic voting. And of course in these fast-changing times, the votes cast in 2019 may not strictly reflect votes cast in the next election.
It could be assumed that under a system that uses multi-member districts across Alberta, the seat proportions in the legislature would more truthfully reflect the votes cast across the province, however they would be cast, than we have now with Alberta divided into single-member districts.
Under the present system of single-member districts and plurality FPTP, perhaps half the votes in a district or more are not used at all but simply thrown in the wastebasket, while a candidate with not more than perhaps 35 percent of the vote takes the seat.
This would not happen under STV in multi-member districts. and the Alberta legislature would reflect this tighter accordance to the votes cast if multi-member districts were used across Alberta.
Of course with STV being a district-level system, multi-member watershed-styled districts could be brought in incrementally, just where the voters in a group of the present districts accept the new idea. It could even be brought in, in a few cases to start, on an experimental basis for just a couple elections. Either it would satisfy voters in this grouped district or it wouldn't - but I think it will. That is, if they are looking for fairer representation - which perhaps many of them might not be.
And if it works in a place or two - in an election or two - it might spread to a wider application.
The first thing is to give voters in some place in the province practical experience of the benefits of STV. The sooner the better. To my mind, a long-drawn out debate about an untried system such as MMP or party-list pro-rep is time we can't afford.
We need action quickly - even if it is only a trial run on a small scale.
And STV, a system already used in eight Alberta provincial elections, should be an easier sell than an untried method of pro-rep. STV is a soft-tech, vote-driven process more than a system. It allows voters to choose between parties and between individual candidates based on whatever priorities the voter chooses. It is very flexible and very accountable to voters.
But in all cases where used, it produces mixed representation - and under it a large majority of voters see someone they voted for be elected to represent the district.
FPTP sees 34 to 68 percent of the votes in a district reflected in the representation elected, often less than 50 percent of the vote.
But under STV about 80 percent or more of the votes in a district are effective votes (used to elect someone).
This has got to have an effect on turn-out and on active participation of citizens, as well as producing a general toning-up of our democracy. And these are all things we want.
Thanks for reading.
=============================================
What is STV?
From a 1902 reform magazine: "Thinking it well to have in every number something by way of a brief explanation of proportional voting, I repeat in this number the following. Proportional representation means the use of a reasonable and scientific system of voting instead of the present stupid, unfair and inefficient procedure. Methods: There are several systems by which the principle of proportional representation may be given effect to. Large electoral districts, each electing several members, are a necessary feature. The "quota" plan is usually employed. It means that a quota of the votes elects one representative. To arrive at the quota, the number of valid votes cast is divided by the number of seats to be filled. For instance in a seven-member district any one-seventh of the voters could elect one representative and the other six-sevenths could not interfere with their choice. The three principal systems of proportional representation are the Free List as used in Switzerland and Belgium [party-list pro-rep], the Hare system as used in Tasmania [STV], and the Gove System as advocated in Massachusetts. The Preferential Vote [Alternative Voting/Instant Run-off Voting] -- This is used in the election of single officers such as a mayor. It is not strictly a form of pro-rep but is akin thereto, and uses part of the same voting methods. The object of preferential voting is to encourage the free nomination of candidates and to obtain always a clear majority at one balloting, no matter how many candidates are nominated." (From the Proportional Representation Review Dec. 1902, p. 77) (Hathi Trust online resource, page 81/180)
------------------------------------------------ Again thanks for reading. Check out my blog "list of Montopedia blogs concerning electoral reform" to find other blogs on this important subject. ----------------------------------- This year: *Alberta is celebrating 150 years in Confederation 1870-2020 *100th Anniversary of STV first being used to elect legislators in Canada Winnipeg MLAs first elected through STV in 1920 ==============================================================
Comments