Most people would say a democracy is where the elected people have the same opinions as voters. Representatives like this would 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. 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 elect representatives that echo their sentiments, the closer the connection between representatives and voters. The closer the connection, the more satisfied voters will be in their democratic system. A voter will be more satisfied if a candidate the voter likes is elected to represent the voters district. A voter will be little satisfied if a candidate the voter despises is elected in the voters district. If a voter votes for a party candidate, and no one of the party is elected, the voters will be little satisfied. But if someone of that party is elected, the voter will be more pleased. If the party has some representation in the legislature the voter's sentiments can be voiced and must be listened to by 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. Where less than half the voters in a district elect the representative, there is not a close connection between the representative and voters. In these cases, more than half the votes are disregarded. Often representatives are elected who do not have the proven support of the largest part of the voters. In many cases the largest section of voters would actually have elected someone else. That is, if they could have got together. STV allows them to do that, thereby requiring popular support to be elected. When these district elections are added together, often a party with a slight majority of votes or no majority at all takes most of the seats. 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. In these cases the government is unstable. Often it 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, seven of the city's 12 councillors were elected with a minority of the votes in their wards. That is, more than half the city's councillors were elected by less than half the votes in the ward. They 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 wards 58 percent of the votes elected the five councillors. This meant the waste of more than a third of the votes. Overall more than half the city votes did not go to elected representatives. (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. Voters had been forced to compare the scattered 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. The Alberta Party got ten percent of the vote. This was proportionally enough to win eight seats. It won 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 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. But Conservatives received only 68 percent of the vote in those two provinces. Proportionally the Liberals and the NDP were each due seven seats. But 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 examples of how our present system does not ensure a close connection between representatives and voters. The system we use now ensures that the person with more votes than any of the others is elected to represent a district. 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. The winner in one race may be not that fast at all. The loser in another race may be very fast but just not fast enough to beat his or her competition. Our recent elections shows the results of holding separate district elections as separate footraces. In 2015 there was a “slow” race in Calgary Cross. The winner won with only 4602 votes. Calgary Buffalo's election was also “slow,” with the winner winning with 4671 votes. Nearby in the same city there were “fast” races where candidate that received many votes did not win. In Calgary Glenmore a candidate with 7015 votes did not win. And in Calgary Elbow a candidate with 6254 votes did not win. There is a fairer way to determine the fastest runner. If all the runners ran at the same time, the three or five or seven or whatever that are in the lead at the finishing line could be declared winners. This would ensure that the fastest runners are declared winners. An election can be organized the same way. The separate districts used today would be grouped together. All the candidates would run against each other. Each voter would cast one vote. 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 usually ensure that no one group or political party would take all the seats. Normally voters sentiments are mixed. Under this system representation too would be mixed. The mixed representation would reflect the range of opinion in the large new district. However while SNTV would guarantee mixed representation, it would not prevent wastage of votes. A vote cast for a candidate who is not elected is simply disregarded. This is the same as happens under our present system. But if a voter could record back-up preferences on the ballot, the vote could be transferred to another 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. The six families with the most markers, for example, would win. The score would show each family's markers so even those who were not in the top six would still have something to show for it. Each child's effort would help his or her family do better. 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. Surplus votes are transferred according to back-up preferences. 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. Finally all the seats are filled by candidates passing quota. Or if so many are eliminated that there only remains as many candidates as there are remaining empty seats, then those remaining candidates are declared elected. The system produces mixed representation. No one party can take all the seats when there is substantial support for two, three or four parties. Voter sentiment is spread out that much in most provincial and federal elections. Under STV, 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 thins out those who are 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 10 is even possible. Winnipeg elected 10 MLAs for decades under STV. Even a district electing two through STV would strengthen the connection between representatives and voters. Two single-member districts do not offer the same close connection. Grouping together our present-day small city districts would be easy. It often happens that a voter lives in one district, shops in another, works in a third and spends spare time in a fourth. The district boundaries dividing a city are arbitrary. They make little 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. 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. A working majority has to be established if a government is not to fall. Elected politicians of a just somewhat popular party could perhaps be propped up in power by a much less popular party. Then two moderately popular parties would be held out of power. They would have a chance to be heard. But they would not have the power they deserve. Therefore, the voting system could be broadened and strengthened by giving voters a vote at the party level. Already the voter votes for a local candidate. Under STV, the voter would provide back-up preferences for the local election. It would be democratic if the voter could also vote at the party level. Every voter could vote for which party should have a majority of the seats and thus form majority government. If transferable votes were used at this level as well, then no party would get a majority of the seats unless it had general support from a majority of voters. If a party received a majority of the party votes and if it had received a majority of the seats in the legislature through district elections, then nothing would need to change. But if a party received a majority of the vote but did not receive a majority of the seats, then it would be 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 to other parties according to back-up preferences. This would carry on until eventually one party would 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 reference to past popularity. Voters would not be required to cast a vote in the party-level election. If they did not, the party identification of the candidate they voted for could be used instead for the initial count. But without back-up party preferences, the voter's party vote could not be transferred so 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. STV would close the connection between representatives and voters at the city level. Party-level ranked voting would ensure that to be government a party must have the support of most voters. Together this “Double Democracy” system would provide the increased democracy that we need. ====================
Tom Monto
Comments