Even if I don't know Yukon too well and perhaps my input is not wanted, I did some thinking on Yukon and electoral reform there. Hope it is interesting....
Rabble.ca ran a series of articles on Yukon Electoral reform back in 2018. They were written by Linda Leon. (links to them are at bottom of article)
Here's basic info she shared:
In August of 2018, the population of Yukon was 38,993. The population of the Whitehorse area — including the city, Mount Lorne and Lake Laberge — was 30,238. Currently, approx. 22 per cent of the population is represented by six sparsely populated ridings.
so you have this rough framework:
pop. percent members
Whitehorse 76 11
sparsely settled areas 24 8
some overlap between WH and rural area.
Lake Laberge and Mount Lorne... being small in area for rural area (so apparently taking part of Whitehorse environs)
============
Here's additional info I have found on Yukon:
Yukon 482,000 sq. kms. (This is larger than France and also of Germany) population 39,000 (about 43,000 as of 2021)
Yukon Assembly has 19 members
Whitehorse and area 11 YT assembly members 400 sq. kms in area
11 districts: Copperbelt N and S; Riverdale N and S; Porter Creek C, S and N; Tukhini; Whitehorse C and W; Mountainview (WH subdivisions)
Rural Yukon 482,000 sq. kms. eight Yukon Assembly members
eight rural districts: Lake Labarge; Vuntut; Watson Lake; Pelly; Klondike; Kluane; Mayo; Mount Lorne
on average each rural district covers 60,000 sq. kms, each an area larger than New Brunswick, NS or PEI.
Oddly enough, size of districts was not an issue in 1909 when the whole territory was divided into just five districts each electing two members.
The election was held using Block Voting, a non-PR system.
Although parties were not used, it seems likely one single group elected both members in each district in those old-time elections, as is normal for Block Voting, so no PR, despite the multi-member districts.
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1909_Yukon_general_election)
Most recent FPTP Yukon election
Yukon Party 8
Liberals 8
NDP 3
Regional breakdown
North -- Klondike L Mayo L Vuntut NDP
South -- Kluane Y Lake Labarge Y Mount Lorne L Pelly Y Watson Lake Y
Whitehorse -- L 5 Yukon 4 NDP 2.
(if Whitehorse was to be one district, the 11 members would be asked to represent no more than what the mayor of Whitehorse already does by herself.)
Minority representation under FPTP in last Yukon election
In the last Yukon election:
in most of the disticts no candidate took majority of the vote.
(So the results posted above from the 2021 election are in many cases just flukes that have little to do with real strength or voter choice.)
in five of the eight rural districts the winner did not take a majority of votes. (One where the two candidates actually tied was decided by the luck of the draw.)
In eight of the 11 Whitehorse districts, the winner was elected without taking a majority of the vote.
The NDP, with 28 percent of the vote, only won two seats by votes and happened to win a third by the luck of the draw. The under-representation of the NDP would seem to be the worst disproportionality caused by the use of FPTP, in that election anyway.
The other two parties got more seats than they deserved
Yukon Party 39 percent of the vote got 42 percent of the seats
Liberal Party 32 percent of the vote got 42 percent of the seseats.
No party took a majority of the votes overall, and no party took the majority of the seats so that at least was fair.
But the 8 winners in the rural areas received about 3114 votes;
In the Whitehorse districts, the 11 winners received about 5963 votes.
Total of 9077 votes were used effectively, to elect someone, while more than that number, 9937 valid votes, were not used to elect anyone.
In Whitehorse in 2021 election, the seat count was five Lib., four Conservative and two NDP.
None of the Yukon Party voters in the districts where Liberals were elected saw their vote used effectively.
And none of the Liberal voters in the districts where the Yukon Party candidate was elected saw their vote used to elect anyone.
And NDP voters in nine of the 11 WH districts did not see their vote used effectively.
It just happened that overall proportionality was preserved by about the same being elected for each of the two leading parties.
But this balance is vulnerable to slight shifts in voting:
A shift of just 200 votes could have lost the Liberal three seats;
A shift of just 70 votes could have lost the Conservatives one of the four seats they won in Whitehorse.
And the results in the rural districts were even more happenstance -
Two Liberals won by less than 40-vote leads over the Yukon Party candidate
Two Yukon Party candidates won by less than 85-vote leads over their Liberal contenders.
In one district there was no difference in vote counts between the two candidates. The seat finally being decided by luck of the draw.
A more scientific system would prevent such happenstance results.
PR systems - such as STV, or MMP or MMP/STV - are scientific systems that produce results more dependably than the present FPTP system.
================
Leon cites a list of values Yukoners would want to see in a new election system.
"Here is the list of criteria for an effective and fair electoral system gleaned from exchanges with Yukoners.
Make all, or most, votes count.
Maintain regional representation. [I take this to mean regions like Whitehorse, southern Yukon, northern Yukon, East? West?)
Do not significantly increase the number of seats in parliament or legislature.
Do not significantly increase the costs of elections.
Keep extremists out.
Have an electoral system that people can understand when they go to the polls.
Resistance to undue influence by power groups."
================
I would add
- Prevent artificially-created regionalism. one-party sweeps of a region by a party with less than two-thirds of the votes in that region
- Ensure proportional results (although having most votes count must mean proportional results).
Leon analyzed several systems and whether they could be applied in The Yukon:
MMP – she saw 12 members elected in single-member districts and 10 top-up
(Thus its district elections would continue the dis-proportional misrepresentation that FPTP creates)
Dual-member Proportional (DMP)
Leon was writing in 2018 before the 2021 election had happened. She calculated the result if DMP had been used in Yukon’s 2016 election and found that the result would have been 7 Liberal, 6 Yukon and five NDP members (and another seat taken by an undetermined party.)
The result in 2016 under FPTP was 11 Liberal, 6 Yukon Party, and 2 NDP, the Liberal party taking majority government with only 39 percent of the vote. (False majority)
(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Yukon_general_election)
STV -
Leon correctly says Ireland uses STV but then goes on to say Ireland uses very large districts. This is odd when the whole country of Ireland is 84,000 sq. kms, just a bit larger than the size of just one average-sized rural district in the Yukon. And Ireland is divided into 39 districts.
The largest Irish district is the Mayo district (which elects four members). Mayo is 5500 sq. kms in size, about ten times the area of Whitehorse but about one-tenth the size of one of Yukon’s rural districts on average.
So not particularly large at all, if you look at it through Yukon eyes.
She puts forward the idea that STV is sometimes called “instant proportional representation”. I could see “Instant-runoff PR” (although I don't see STV being instant or particularly quick), but that term is very similar to “instant runoff voting”, the non-PR use of ranked voting to elect one member. And we don’t want more confusion.
(Using the term Effective Voting or the Super-vote to mean STV works for me.)
She explains STV as a system where voters rank their choices and she says there is no limit on how many candidates voters may rank.
I would elaborate on this and say voters mark first choice and back-up preferences if they want to. There is no (that is to say, there should not be a) limit on how many or how few back-up preferences the voter marks.
She then says a quota is derived and any candidate who takes more than that number of first choice votes is elected. Surplus votes over the quota are transferred. And then eliminations occur of the least-popular candidates until all seats are filled.
Actually a quota achieved by a candidate can be composed of first choice ballots alone or a mixture of first choice and back-up preference votes transferred from others.
All candidates with quota are declared elected but it is possible to be elected without quota as well, when the field of surviving candidates narrows to the number of remaining open seats.
She, like most, emphasize the ranked ballots used in STV and does not mention that each voter casts just one vote in a MM district - that is the real backbone of STV and the main way that STV produces mixed roughly-proportional representation in each district where it is used. (The vote transfers based on marked preferences are just polish on the main balance produced by single voting in MM district.)
She then answers whether or not STV would work in the Yukon and says no, because the size of MM districts would prevent regional representation.
Elsewhere she says that Whitehorse is fairly homogeneous.
So why not use STV in a MM district covering Whitehorse or perhaps distrcits that each cover half the city?
No reason I can see against that.
All of “metropolitan Whitehorse” has far less population than most provincial-level districts in the provinces.
The city is smaller in area than the smallest rural riding in Alberta. 16 Alberta ridings are larger than Whitehorse.
A single district covering Whitehorse would be 1/800th the size of the largest riding in BC, just for example.
So I see no reason why 11 members could not represent that area very well.
(11 members may seem like a lot to elect through STV but Winnipeg elected ten members in seven elections with no trouble at all.
(A single district in New South Wales used STV to elect 21 members a couple years ago.)
And Winnipeg’s old-time STV elections saw more votes cast than were cast in Whitehorse in 2021.
In 1941 60,000 votes were cast in Winnipeg and successfully counted;
only 12,610 votes were cast in the Whitehorse districts in 2021.
So well within the bounds of STV.
Maybe STV could not be used everywhere in the Yukon. I admit grouping districts might appear difficult in the remaining eight districts which are already quite large already, each being larger than Ireland for example.
So if she was discussing a unitary system where STV would be used everywhere in Yukon and MM districts would be needed everywhere, then that could be a sticking point.
Although not necessarily.
In BC a single MP (the member for Skeena-Bulkley Valley) represents an area three-quarters the size of all of Yukon,
so surely three Yukon members could represent a district that covers just one third of the Yukon, about half the size of Skeena, which would be the case if Yukon was divided into three rural districts.
One way STV could work is if you divide Yukon into four or five districts,
each half of Whitehorse could have five seats (or all of Whitehorse could have just one district with ten or 11 members)
The rest of the Territory could be divided into three districts, each electing three members.
The total number of members would be 19 or 20, about the same as at present.
District elections would produce mixed representation in each district.
Voters would not have to do more work than presently - unless they wanted to.
Even where voters mark no back-up preferences, STV produces more fair and balanced representation than FPTP --- and more votes are used to elect someone, and more voters are satisfied with the result. (This is due to each voter casting just one vote in a multi-seat district.)
In the sprawling rural districts, STV may seem too complicated (due to needing to collect all votes in one place to conduct vote transfers), but transferable votes could still be maintained by using the Gove system where votes are transferred according to directions set by the candidate being eliminated (or by the candidate who was elected, in the case of surplus votes).
(The Gove system is discussed briefly in the Wikipedia article “Single transferable vote”.)
STV would produce much more fair result than the present FPTP system.
Any displeasure expressed at Whitehorse dropping from 11 seats to 10 (if WH is two 5-seat districts) would be compensated for by having about 80 percent of the votes cast in Whitehorse actually used to elect someone, a much more fair result than under FPTP where as much as 80 percent can be ignored in an election.
Less than half the votes cast in Whitehorse were used effectively under FPTP in Yukon’s 2021 election.
Minority representation under FPTP in last Yukon election
In the last Yukon election in five of the eight rural districts, the winner did not take a majority of votes. (One where the two candidates actually tied was decided by the luck of the draw.)
In Whitehorse’s 11 districts, eight of the winners were elected without taking a majority of the vote.
The NDP with 28 percent of the vote only won one seat by votes and happened to win a second by the luck of the draw. That under-representation of the NDP would seem to be the worst dis-proportionality caused by the use of FPTP in that election anyway. (It would not happen under PR.)
No party took a majority of the votes overall, and no party took the majority of the seats so that at least was fair.
But the winners in the rural areas received no more than 3114 votes;
In Whitehorse the winners received no more than 5963 votes.
A total of 9077 votes were used effectively, to elect someone, while 9937 valid votes were not used to elect anyone.
====================================
Top-up in MMP/STV system
If you added perhaps three members to the Assembly, they could be given to parties not represented proportionally in the district elections -
to ensure any party that takes majority of the vote is given majority of the seats
and that any party with about five percent of the vote has at least one seat.
(Five percent being the functional threshold when the chamber only has about 20 seats).
That would be creating a MMP/STV system (the Rural/Urban-PR system).
But STV in Whitehorse would be big improvement
Even just using STV in Whitehorse would be a major advance in proportionality as Whitehorse voters fill half the seats in the Yukon Assembly.
And the result would be much more scientific than using FPTP if we judge by the 2021 result.
Under list PR, the seat count in Whitehorse’s 11 seats would be Lib 4, Cons 4, NDP 3.
STV would be likely to produce much the same result.
How vulnerable is PR (party-list PR or STV ) to slight shifts in votes?
A shift of 200 votes from Lib to Conservative would not change the result at all.
A shift of 200 votes from Cons to Liberals would not change the result at all.
A shift of 200 votes from Conservative to NDP would not change the result at all.
A shift of 200 votes from Lib to NDP could drop Liberal seat count by one and give one more seat to NDP.
UNDER FPTP
Taking the most dramatic change possible:
A shift of 200 votes from Lib to Conservative could drop Liberal by 3 seats and raise Conservatives’ seat count by 3 seats.
A shift of 200 votes from Cons to Liberals could drop Conservatives by 2 seats and raise Liberals’ seat count by 2 seats.
A shift of 200 votes from Conservative to NDP would not change the result at all.
A shift of 200 votes from Lib to NDP could drop Liberal by 2 seats and raise NDP seat count by 2 seats.
These are much more dramatic changes than under science-based party-list PR.
STV is a bit looser but its results would be much closer to party-list PR than it is to erratic FPTP.
And STV has the advantage that voters would be able to vote directly for individual candidates, something not always possible under party-list PR.
=====================
Rural-Urban PR
In the articles, Leon also makes reference to Fair Vote Canada’s Rural-Urban PR system but says it is MMP in MM districts and STV in rural districts (ignoring that the rural districts apparently would elect single members so could not have STV).
Actually, Fair Vote Canada’s RUPR would have STV or district-level party-list PR in MM districts in the cities and IRV in the rural seats.
STV is not envisioned for single-member districts, that is for sure.
And she expresses more interest in RUPR where STV or MMP would be used in multi-member districts in Whitehorse and IRV in single-member districts outside WH, with top-up producing proportional results.
(This seems to me to be the same as FVC’s RUPR system.)
Her remarks are here:
In summary, there is much need for a more fair electoral system in the Yukon. And I hope that the Yukon government moves to bring in a system that gives Yukon voters what they are looking for
- one where a great proportion of votes count and
-one where the members elected are in line with how votes are cast across the Yukon and in Whitehorse.
===================================================
3 Special Committee on Electoral Reform
35th Yukon Legislative Assembly
Final Report
April 2023
Final Report of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform (yukonassembly.ca)
2.2 Single Transferable Vote (STV)
[STV is similar to a block vote electoral system, with multi-member electoral districts, but unlike block vote, where voters can cast a ballot for each seat elected from the district, in SNTV, the voter casts only one vote.]
The Single Transferable Vote system uses multi-member districts and enables a voter to vote for individual candidates [unlike a party-list PR system].
[Under STV a voter] indicates his or her first choice by marking it with a 1, and provides back-up preferences by marking rank-order preference for [other] candidates.
Candidates are elected when their vote total crosses the “threshold”, which is the minimum of votes needed to guarantee election. If a candidate receives more votes than the threshold, they are elected.
[Yes, Candidates are elected when their vote total equals or exceeds quota, or possibly by being still in the running when the field of candidates is thinned to the number of remaining open seats].
Furthermore, all their votes above the threshold [quota] are transferred to other candidates, based on the preferences of those voters [preferences marked on the ballots].
[Until the seats are filled, in each round either surplus vots are transferred or], the candidate with the lowest vote totals is eliminated, and the subsequent preferences [marked on the ballots of that candidate's supporters] are distributed to remaining candidates.
The threshold [quota] is calculated as the total number of ballots cast divided by the number of seats plus one, and one is added to this amount [threshold = (votes/(seats + 1)) +1].
To illustrate, suppose there were 2 electoral districts in Yukon, one for the 11 Whitehorse seats and one for the 8 seats in the rest of the territory, called the Regions.
Voters in the Regions would receive a ballot for electing 8 [members]. Each party could nominate up to 8 candidates and there could be independent candidates as well. With three parties, this would mean there were at least 24 candidates, and with four parties, at least 32 candidates (assuming each party nominated eight candidates).
There also could be smaller parties that nominated only one or two candidates, to maximize the votes for those candidates.
For simplicity of presentation, let’s assume an electorate with 4000 voters and 3 seats. The election would proceed as follows:
calculate the threshold [quota] as [(votes/(seats + 1)) + 1].
Thus threshold [quota] = [(4000/(3+ 1)) + 1] = (4000/4) + 1 = 1000 + 1 = 1001.
Once a candidate receives 1001 votes, they are elected, and their “surplus” votes can be redistributed.
As well, if necessary, the candidate with the lowest vote total is eliminated and their votes redistributed based on the voters’ preferences, following each round of counting.
The vote counting could proceed as follows:
assuming three-seat district
(in this example, each party has small slate.)
Candidate Party 1st count 2nd count 3rd count 4th count 5th count Transfer Transfer Transfer Transfer
Dell’s Gallant Fortney’s Clarke’s
surplus eliminated surplus
votes votes votes votes
Dell* Party B 1050 -49 1001 0 ----------- ---
Brock* Party A 990 0 990 0 990 0 990 +100 1090
Fortney* Party C 910 0 910 +100 1010 -9 1001 -----
Abbott Party A 570 0 570 +10 580 0 580 +20 600
Elliott Party B 250 +49 299 0 299 +9 308 0 308
Clarke Party A 120 0 120 0 120 0 120 -120
Gallant Indep. 110 0 110 ---- ---- ----
*Elected candidates
Proportionality
First preferences
Votes Vote % Seats won Seat %
Party A 1,680 42 1 33.3
Party B 1,300 33 1 33.3
Party C 910 23 1 33.3
Independent 110 3 0 0
Observations.
The STV electoral system provides voters with the ability to choose among parties and among candidates in each of the parties.
Each of the elected candidates has achieved the electoral threshold.
[in this case] each elected member having about thesame number of votes allows party proportionality.]
The counting system tends to be quite complex, even in a simple example with seven candidates and three seats.
It is much more so if there were two electoral districts, with 8 and 11 seats each, or one electoral district with 19 seats.
[Actually the example shows how simple it is.
it is no more complex with more seats and candidates, just longer.
Having two districts does not make it more complex, actually reduces the number of seats in each district and reduces the number of candidates.
But yes under real-life STV, Yukon will likely use districts, each having more than the three seats used in this example, perhaps as many as 6 or 8 or 11, which are perfectly do-able under STV.
Back in 1920 Winnipeg elected ten MLAs in one contest using STV.]
In the current example, there is a lower level of proportionality [judging by] first preference [votes], in part because subsequent preferences are considered.
[lower than what? certainly it is more proportional than FPTP]
Parties may also behave strategically and nominate less than the full slate of candidates.
[there is no need for them to behave strategically. If they do nominate a full slate, or a slate that exceeds its vote share, it is no problem - if its supporters mark their back-up preferences for candidates of same party, the party will take all the seats that are its due.
But yes, a party usually does not nominate enough candidates to fill all the open seats, which is just reflection of STV's fairness.
If a party cannot hope to take all the votes, it will not have any real reason to run enough candidates to take all the seats.]
2.3 Single Non-Transferable Vote (SNTV)
The Single Non-transferable Vote electoral system is sometimes categorized among proportional representation systems and sometimes as an “other” system. It is similar to a block vote electoral system, with multi-member electoral districts, but unlike block vote, where voters can cast a ballot for each seat elected from the district, in SNTV, the voter casts only one vote. Seats are awarded based on the largest number of votes obtained by the candidates, and therefore candidates are elected based on the number of votes they receive. [SNTV is candidate-based -- parties do not enter into it, same as STV. Both are unlike list PR that way.]
This also implies that candidates are elected based on the proportion of votes they receive. Thus, the proportionality of seats is based on the proportionality of candidate votes, not on the proportion of a party’s vote.
[under SNTV, candidates' success is not based on the proportion of votes they receive any more than the election of members under FPTP is based on the proportions of the vote they receive.
Under SNTV as under FPTP, members are elected based on plurality, having more votes than their contenders.]
It is a system that can reward minor parties and encourages all parties to act strategically in the nomination of candidates.
To illustrate a SNTV system, imagine the following hypothetical distribution of votes and seats for the following 6 candidates, when 1,000 votes are cast and where four candidates are elected:
Candidate Party Votes
1 A 300
2 A 90
3 B 200
4 B 180
5 C 120
6 D 110
Of the 1,000 votes, candidate 1 finished with the most votes, 300, followed by candidates 3, 4 and 5. These are the four candidates that would be elected under SNTV
But consider that happens when looking at the outcome from the perspective of votes obtained by each party:
Party Votes Vote % Seats Seat percentage
A 390 39 1 25
B 380 38 2 50
C 120 12 1 25
D 110 11 0 0
Observations.
In this hypothetical election, party A received 39% of the votes, but only one seat, compared to party B receiving 38% of the votes and two seats. The single candidate for party C received only 12% of the votes, but obtained one seat, as many as party A with 39% of the votes. The votes among party B candidates were more evenly distributed than among party 14 A candidates, enabling it to win two seats.
Therefore, the proportionality of the system characterizes the seat distribution among candidates more so than among parties.
[As I mentioned, under SNTV, parties play no part in allocation of seats.]
It provides a greater opportunity for minor parties to obtain representation
[because large parties running multi-name slates are more likely to suffer from bad vote splitting than a small party running just one candidate.]
-
================
As it happens, the 2024 Yukon Citizens Assembly decided Yukon would maintain its single-member districts and use Instant-Runoff Voting.
How does IRV match Yukon electoral reform goals?
Here again is the list of values Yukoners would want to see in a new election system, according to Leon for "an effective and fair electoral system".
Make all, or most, votes count.
[IRV will ensure that about half of votes at minimum will be used to elect member. This is improvement over FPTP but is not as many as would be effective under list PR or STV.]
Maintain regional representation. [I take this to mean regions like Whitehorse, southern Yukon, northern Yukon, East? West?)
[voters outside WH would have own district and members separate from WH. But seam could be acheived by MMDs covering rural area.]
Do not significantly increase the number of seats in parliament or legislature.
[yes, achieved]
Do not significantly increase the costs of elections.
[yes, achieved]
Keep extremists out.
[yes results under IRV will be very similar to results under FPTP. so same under -representation of small parties.]
Have an electoral system that people can understand when they go to the polls.
[marking back-up preference is not complicated and is only voluntary]
Resistance to undue influence by power groups."
[IRV does not increase influence by parties]
============================================
The possible alternatives to FPTP I present above can be summarized this way:
redistricting to produce multi-member districts:
Whitehorse changed to
two districts of 5 seats each, or
one district of 11.
Outside Whitehorse
Three districts of three seats each
or one district in North of 3 seats; one district in South of 5 seats.
Each district electing members through STV.
(SNTV could work but if Yukon voters will be used to marking ranked ballots, then STV should be no problem.)
====
Linda Leon suggested MMP where 12 elected in districts and ten top-up.
voters likely are not willing to vote for parties, hence FVC put in submission calling for open-list MMP.
Flexible-district PR (RU-PR)
keep 8 districts outside Whitehorse as now,
reduce Whitehorse districts to 5,
have 6 top-up seats.
=======
talking about Carcross
- the South Klondike Area Local Advisory Council called for rep. for Carcross.
Carcross is way too small in population to have its own member
its 300 pop. is much less than 1/19th of pop. of Yukon.
apparently Carcross is in Watson Lake district.
results here in last Yukon eleltion
Yukon 313
Liberal 237
so you can see Watson Lake has very small population and vote numbers.
====================
From members' statement "What we have learned"
Electoral systems have three components: ballot structure, electoral formula, and district magnitude. Ballot structure is how the ballot is laid out and filled in. Electoral formula involves the rules by which a candidate wins. District magnitude is the number of candidates elected in each riding. There is no single perfect system and every system involves trade-offs. For example, there's a trade-off between having a local representative for your riding and having each party's number of seats in the legislature reflect the number of votes they received.
Further, there is tradeoff between having one representative in the riding and having all (or most or 80 percent) votes used to elect someone!
And further there is inverse relationship between DM and proportionality of party rep. (as Ed H would point out)
both of which are same and different from the members' statement, which seems to overlook MMD
member's staement seems to say choice is between at-large Terr.-wide or single-member district.
so apparently based on that
members recommend IRV,
optional-preferential voting (mark as few as you want)
X works for first chioce
OUR RECOMMENDATION
We recommend Ranked Vote as a system of preferential voting where each voter ranks some or all the candidates standing for election in their riding. Every voter will indicate their preferred candidate and may optionally rank all candidates from first, or most preferred, to last, or least preferred. A single X would count as an expression of a voters’ first choice. To win, the successful candidate must receive a majority, consisting of 50 percent plus one of votes cast in their riding. If no candidate receives 50 percent plus one, the candidate with the least amount of first preference votes will be eliminated. The next preference of the voters who marked the eliminated candidate as their first choice will then be distributed to the remaining candidates.
This process continues until one candidate receives at least 50 percent plus one of the votes cast. As a result, successful candidates will have demonstrated support from the majority of voters in their riding.
so consensus not a goal
but too high expectation of IRV
in many or most districts, member will be elected with less than half of votes cast
at least that is how IRV worked in London ON mun. election
in London votes could not makr more than three chocies
in Yukon perhaps many voters will mark less than 4 and suffer similar incidence of exhausted votes
oddly "supporting information" says
"The 38 assembly members represent the Yukon’s 19 current electoral districts."
Yukon has 19 members each representing an SMD.
so what up with "38"?
"Quick Facts" shows how IRV was emphaized and sold partly under false premise
========
QUICK FACTS
• Ranked Vote, as recommended by the Yukon Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, is also known elsewhere by the names Alternative Vote, Instant Run-Off Voting, and Ranked Choice.
• Ranked Vote is a majority electoral system. Winning candidates must achieve a majority of all votes cast in their riding. • The Yukon’s current electoral system, First Past the Post, is a plurality system. Winning candidates must achieve more votes than other candidates in their riding, but not necessarily a majority of all votes cast.
• Ranked ballots are used in Australia, Ireland, 62 jurisdictions in the United States including Maine, Alaska, New York City, Minneapolis and San Francisco. [use of term "ranked ballots" here. likely few noticed the slight distinction from "ranked vote" (AKA IRV)]
Ireland and Minn actually use ranked ballots in STV]
• Canadian political parties often use a ranked ballot system in leadership elections. [yes they use IRV]
• The full report of the Yukon Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform containing all details of the process leading to their recommendation will be publicly available and tabled in the Yukon Legislature by October 31.
The Yukon Legislature is responsible for determining next steps, including whether a public vote will take place, and when, so Yukoners can decide whether to adopt the Ranked Vote system or retain the current voting system.
======
so last sentence shows what Legislature thought choice was --- IRV versus FPTP.
I dont know why choice was only those two options.
nowhere in Quick Facts is there mention of other alternative voting systems Smelly Rat for sure!
nor that Yukon itself once used MMDs so SMDS no necessary esp. in Whitehorse which has multiple seats.
"Between May 25 and August 12, the Assembly received 44 public submissions. Submissions received, all learning sessions, and more information on the citizens’ assembly process can be found at yukoncitizensassembly.ca."
so maybe if we go there, we'll see how MMDs, PR, STV were proposed but then obviously ignored.
Brekke submission called for MMP, paired ridings plus additonal party votes?
so that proposal is complicated
four proportional elecotoral areas (MMP regions?)
1=2x2, 2 top up seats plus "RRF party votes" TOTAL 6
2 2x2 plus 2 top up plus VG party votes TOTAL 6
3 3x2 plus 3 topup TOTAL 9
4 3x2 plus 3 top up TOTAL 9
one SMD VG riding
I make it total of 31 members but he seems to call for 22 (complicated...)
BREKKE:
Group the 22 ridings into four proportional electoral areas:
1. South Centre and East Yukon Area Two Paired-riding seats plus two Proportional seats plus Ross River/Faro party votes a. Mount Lorne + Southern Lakes/Copper Belt South b. Pelly-Nisutlin + Watson Lake PLUS party votes from Ross River/Faro. The candidates from Ross River/Faro (RRF) will not be eligible for proportional seats, RRF not having been paired.
2. West and North Yukon Area Two Paired-riding seats plus two Proportional seats plus Vuntut Guich’in party votes a. Kluane and Lake Laberge b. Klondike and Mayo/Tatchun) PLUS party votes from Vuntut Guich’in (VG) for proportional seats. VG candidates will not be eligible for proportional seats, VG not having been paired.
3. North Whitehorse Area Three Paired-riding seats plus three Proportional seats a. Porter Creek North and Porter Creek Center b. Porter Creek South and Takhini/Copper King c. The additional two Whistle Bend seats
4. South Whitehorse Area Three Paired-riding seats plus three Proportional seats a. Riverdale North and Riverdale South b. Copperbelt North and Whitehorse West c. Whitehorse Center and Mountain View
=========
McCormick pro - IRV
Lenore Morris pro-MMP (SMDs, top up)
very articulate is she FVC?
Geographical representation by riding is important in a place as large as Yukon and with communities as diverse, but representatives could also act for Yukoners as a group and I believe our legislature would be better and stronger for it. The range of political viewpoints, e.g. between conservative and socialistic politicians, is far more significant than e.g. the South Riverdale – North Riverdale divide. The interests of those two neighbourhood halves are virtually identical, meanwhile whole swathes of the population see no one in the legislature advocating for issues that are important to them.Yukoners would be better served with a legislature that reflects not merely geographic divisions but the range of political views within our territory – proportionately. I advocate a system that would have some MLA's represent particular ridings but with other MLA's who do not – with the 2nd set of spots filled in the way that best balances party votes cast...
Gerald Hasse pro-MMP or another system
articulate is he FVC?
addresses worry of extreme groups:
The simple answer to this potential problem lies in setting threshold limits to parliamentary seats, eg 2.5% or 5% of popular vote needed to gain seats in government.
did not present one alternative but left door open:
"We have many models to follow, yet we can come up with something made in the Yukon! Open-list PR, Mixed Member, or STV voting systems all out-perform FPTP systems, according to the social science. Concurrent to this CA’s work, the work by the commission on Electoral Boundaries is relevant. We don’t need double the number of MLAs to fairly represent Yukoners, but surely it’s no big deal to add a couple of MLAs to ensure that Vuntut Gwitchin interests, and those of other rural ridings are fairly represented, should we need to ensure this.
I favour some form of mixed-member representation, but others could work in the Yukon. Dave Brekke has designed a voting system that could work as well."
==========
Brigette Parker pro-PR but no concrete proposal seen
While I support proportional representation, I am calling on the Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform to make recommend serious changes that create and centre a vibrant, inclusive and accountable democracy.
=====
Murray Munn speaks favourably of PR (list PR) but not too knowledgeable about subject -- he blamed PR for UK's FPTP results
"Proportional rep sends votes directly to the party one chooses. Mind you, the then-leader of the BC Green Party also chose to support Horgan, and thus went against his party's stated position. …. Also, recent editions of The Guardian Weekly about the win by Labour in the UK tell us that Fair Vote methods can also lead to misrepresentation (numbers for Labour were very low, yet Labour won the election); however, I think that comes down to the fair vote system employed in the UK..."
A voted-in party must adhere to its stated, pre-election positions. A party is more stable than an individual, as my above examples show.
Also, I would like to see certain names disallowed....
...
To sum up, I'm not politically knowledgeable enough to figure out why the UK's system led to a Labour result when too few voted for that party (though I like the result), so if that can be studied so that that cannot happen here, that would be excellent.
At least Canada and the Yukon by extension are not plagued by the electoral college built-in sneakiness, but we still need to bring in proportional representation.
Thanks. Hope this makes vague sense.
=======
Ella Bradford (1) either mis-spoke or was poorly quoted
seems to say WTA/FPTP bad, FPTP is better
==========================
Ella Bradford (2) called for MMP (perhaps with MMDs?)
"A system where some votes are for regions [district reps.] and some votes are proportional would include the two most important aspects in our democracy; having someone to represent regions and representing all voices..."
[rightly assumes that districts will be larger in size under MMP so not "districts" any more but "regions"
might even be assuming multi-member districts that cover whole regions of Yukon]
=====================
Here is list of submissions not yet seen --
Stuart Clark
Amerongen
Tegart
Handley
Sokolov
McCarthy
Wilkinson
McKenna
Dabbs
Pinard
Millard
Whiteside
Handley, Tanya
South Klondike Local Advisory Council wants smaller districts, more MLAs, and member for just Carcross [nowhere is it mentioned that fair voting such as STV means small pat of a MMD could have member if it has quota and its voters all vote (and mark preferences) only for local candidates.]
Town of Faro mayor -- wants referendum as 38 not enough to make decision and wants to speak to the two from his district
Jennifer B -- accuses electoral change of being cover for taking two members away from First Nations (outside Whitehorse) [guaranteed First Nations rep (like NZ's Maori seats) never brought up in CA as far as I have seen]
Greetham, Sue wants change -- anything but FPTP
Doerr
Slotte
Thieverege
Caldwell
Fitzsimmons, Ralph
Alcock
Loenen
Greetham, Susan
Fitzsimmons, Ralph
RM
Greetham, Sue
Randy Clarkson
Yukon party leader Dixon
Anita Nickerson (Fair Vote Canada)
Arsenault
Salvin
Brekke
Radwanski
Vernon
====================
Fair Vote Canada submission
I thank FVC for putting it in but I think the submission is overly complicated and fact- and terminology-heavy.
my reading of the FVC submission was cursory but here's some remarks:
FVC submission offered three systems
open-list PR in MMDs
STV in MMDs
[point might have been made that both could use same districting (MMDs)
no mention that in STV each voter casts only one vote]
MMP.
[uses same districting more or less as presently]
MMP said to have "Two Votes Per Voter: Each voter has two votes. The first vote is for a candidate to represent their local district (much like in traditional systems). The second vote is for a candidate from a party slate."
[In most MMP systems, second vote is for party, not for candidate.
if second vote is for individual candidate, this is not the NZ system but is the system used in Bavaria.]
..
District Representatives: The first vote elects representatives in single-member districts.
[actually submission could have mentioned that the first vote is used toward electing the local member but most will be ignored.
if we discuss MMP, do we have to seem to approve of FPTP?
Party Seats: The second vote determines the overall proportion of seats each party should have in the legislature. These seats are filled from party slates, with the seats filled by the candidates with the most personal votes from that slate.
[so this is not NZ MMP.
it is a system used in Bavaria,
submission says it is system used in NZ, Germany and Scotland..
Yukon having an untried election system is very innovative, especially for rural jurisdiction without especially sophisticated government needs. but that may be an urban-centric view of Yukon...
But while seeming easy to mark vote for candidate on party list, filling those seats will be complicated as will come clear first time an election is held and they try to use NZ's rules.
NZ system is not Scotland's regionalized MMP,
so FV was bending terms to say the MMP system it was presenting was used in Scotland or NZ.
I think it is odd that Rural-Urban PR was not given as possibility.
with Whitehorse being natural place for MMD and rest of the Territory being not-so-easily-seen as place for MMD, Yukon seems natural place for R-UPR.
elsewhere in FVC's submission
I think the submission's use of term "threshold of exclusion" was ill-advised. there are maybe only 100 people in Canada who know what that term means and how it differs from "threshold of inclusion"...
I am not sure I understand it in practical sense.
I get it in general way --
less than a certain amount is "deal-breaker", not enough to mean election
above a certain amount is certain to mean election.
but would not dare to use it in a conversation
Such concepts or terminology is bound to turn off northwoods men and women,
not because they could not understand it but their minds don't necessarily turn to such matters.
even talking of elections and votes, districts and voters, effective votes and party representation are things that most people don't think about.
But i appreciate Fair Vote Canada giving submission.
Too bad none of its three offered systems were chosen as the recommended alternative.
many submissions that i have examined so far mention that under FPTP half of voters in district often do not see their choice elected.
but apparently that was not considered a problem - it will not change with IRV....
===================================
Comments