What do we want in our government?
Most people would say in a democracy that we want a system where the people who make up the government have much the same opinions as the voters and thus naturally work to the same ends as the people desire. A government made up of poor folk would not naturally work to help those better off, and a government made up of wealthy people would not naturally work to help those worse off. That is why elections are so important in democracies. They measure voters' opinion and then see that those whom the voters support are elected. The more clearly voters can express their choices of candidates and the more those elected reflect voters' sentiments, the closer the connection between the representatives and the voters. The closer the connection between the representatives and the voters, he more satisfied voters will be in their democratic system. The sentiments of a voter can be reflected by having an individual that the voter likes in his or her own district be elected. it can also be reflected by having a political party the voter supports have some representation in the legislature so his or her sentiments can be voiced and must be listened to by the others in government. Of course the party with a majority of seats in government will make the final decision. That is why elections are so important. A system where less than half the votes in a district elect the representative does not seem one with a close connection between the representative and the voters. In these cases, more than half the votes are disregarded. Someone is elected who does not have the proven support of the largest part of the voters, and in many cases the largest part of the voters if they could have got together would actually have elected a different candidate than the one elected. When these district elections are added together, it often happens that a party with a slight majority of the votes or no majority at all takes a lion share of the seats in a legislature. This can mean that another party with as much as 40 percent of the votes overall is left without any representation in the legislature. It can also happen that a party with a majority of the votes does not take a majority of the seats, and government is unstable and soon falls, forcing another election. This is happening in Canadian elections today – at the city level, the provincial level and the federal level. In the last municipal election in seven of the city's 12 districts councillors were elected with a minority of the votes in their wards. That is, in more than half the wards the councillors were elected by an average of only 36 percent of the votes. And that means that almost two-thirds of the votes in more than half the wards were totally wasted. In Edmonton's other five wards 58 percent of the votes elected the five councillors, thus seeing the waste of more than a third of the votes in those wards. More than half the votes did not go to the winning candidates. (Parties are not used at the city level so it is not clear exactly how unfairly the city elections reflected the view of voters overall - they had been forced to compare the disparate platforms of up to 12 candidates with no organized groupings or labels to aid them.) In the last provincial election, Conservatives won the lion share of the seats with just 54 percent of the vote. One party got ten percent of the vote (proportionally enough to win 8 seats) but no seats at all. In the election before that, the NDP took the lion share of the vote with 42 percent of the votes, while another party, the Conservatives, took 28 percent of the vote but only 10 percent of the seats. In the last federal election, Conservatives won an almost total sweep of Alberta and Saskatchewan seats with only 68 percent of the vote in those two provinces. Proportionally the Liberals and the NDP were each due seven seats, while under the first past the post system that we use, the NDP took only one seat and the Liberals no seats in the two provinces. These are just examples of how our present voting system does not ensure a close connection between the representatives and the voters. The system we use now ensures that the person with more votes than any of the others is elected. It is called first part the post because it is like a footrace -- the person in the lead at the finishing line wins. But some groups running together are fast and others are slow, so the winner in one race may be not that fast at all and the loser in another race may be very fast but just not fast enough to beat his or her competition. A race where all the runners run at the same time and the three or five or seven or whatever that are in the lead at the finishing line are declared the winners would be more fair than a series of separate races. An election can be organized the same way - separate districts used today would be grouped together and all the candidates would run against each other. Each voter would cast one vote and the three or five or seven or whatever empty seats would be filled by the candidates with the most votes. This simple system, known as Single Non-transferable Voting, would ensure that no one group or political party would take all the seats under most circumstances. If voters sentiments was mixed, which is normally the case, this system would ensure mixed representation that would reflect something of the range of opinion held by the voters in the large new district. However while SNTV would guarantee mixed representation, it would not prevent wastage of votes. If the candidate voted for was not elected, the vote would simply be disregarded, same as happens under our present system. But if a voter could record back-up preferences on the ballot, then the vote could be transferred to another more popular candidate helping that person to attempt to win a seat. It would be like in that foot race but with all the people running together. Say it is a big community league event and families have their kids running in the race. After one lap the last runner would be pulled off and his or her family would be given one marker. After the second lap the last runner would be pulled off and and his or her family would be given two markers. If a family finds that all its children have been pulled off, it may form a friendly alliance with another family to share their markers altogether. Finally say on the tenth lap the runners would be stopped and the first given say 20 markers, the second 19 markers, the third 18 and so on. Each family would gather its markers and say the six families with the most markers would win. The score would show each family's markers so even those who were not in top six would still have something to show for it. Each child's effort helps his or her family do better. delete?: (The family with the fastest and/or the most runners would do the best.) The system known as Single Transferable Voting works somewhat the same way. After the votes are counted, a minimum number of votes required to win a seat is calculated. Perhaps some candidates have received more votes that that minimum. If so they take seats immediately. But if some seats are still not yet filled, the least-popular candidate is eliminated and his or her votes are transferred based on back-up preference marked by voters. This continues until the seats are filled or until there are the same number of remaining candidates as there are remaining empty seats, at which time those candidates are declared elected. The system produces mixed representation – no one party can take all the seats when there are two, three or four parties with substantial support as is the case in most provincial and federal elections. The party with the most support will take a good number of the seats - maybe not exactly proportional but roughly approximating its popularity. At the same time every party with substantial support will take at least one seat. But on the whole extreme candidates, extreme parties and independent candidates will not likely be successful unless they have strong popularity with the voters. They will be unlikely to get many vote transfers from other candidates. Thus the system would thin out those who would be most repellent to the general voter. The system is based on candidates, not parties. And voters will be able to choose among all the candidates in the large new district. They can pick and choose from across the whole field of candidates - choosing moderates or hard-liners, women or men, relatively old or relatively young, those from their part of the district or not, or any priorities they want. They will no longer be barred from voting for their good friend or proven ally just because there is a district boundary between them. There will still be boundaries but they would be farther apart. A district under STV could cover as much as seven of our existing districts. Or even more. A district electing 12 is even possible -- Winnipeg elected 12 MLAs for decades under its STV system. A district electing two would produce a closer connection between representation and voters than two single-member districts. Grouping together our present-day small city districts would be easy. It often happens that a voter lives in one district, shops in another, and works in a third. The district boundaries dividing a city are arbitrary and makes no sense on the ground. A city with seven or less districts today could easily be covered by one district. Voters would have a wider choice of candidates, and transferable votes would give them liberty to vote for their first choice without worrying about wasting their vote. A candidate could appeal to his or her natural supporters, whether in one section of the city or spread across the city. A city larger than seven districts could be made into several multiple-member districts each covering several present-day districts. Perhaps the elected legislature would contain four or five parties, but that would reflect voters' sentiments. Perhaps in the elected legislature no one party would have a majority of the votes. Elected politicians belonging to a just somewhat popular party could perhaps be propped up in power by a much less popular party while two moderately popular parties would have a chance to be heard but not have the power that they deserve. [Here I go past a simple exposition of democracy and a simple presentation of SNTV and STV to a utopian innovation not presently used anywhere]: Therefore, an improvement could be used where the voter not only votes for a candidate and provides back-up preferences for same, but also rates the parties and provides back-up preferences at that level as well. If a party receives a majority of the party votes and if it has received a majority of the seats in the legislature through district elections, then nothing needs to change. But if a party receives a majority of the votes but has not received a majority of the seats, then it is allocated enough extra seats to give it a majority of seats in the legislature. If no party takes a majority of the votes when the party votes are first counted, the least popular party is dropped out of the running and its votes transferred according to back-up preferences to other parties. This would carry on until eventually one party will have a majority of the votes. If that party does not have a majority of seats in the legislature, it would be allocated enough extra seats to give it a majority of seats in the legislature. The number of parties used for the party elections could be limited by using past popularity; voters would not be required to vote in the party election – the party identification of the candidate they vote for could be used instead in that case, although then there would be no back-up party preferences so the voters' party votes could end up being wasted. The additional seats, if any are required, could be allocated to the party's unsuccessful candidates in order of popularity.
Commentaires