Preferred Voting System and STV

[gc]

The recent electoral reforms proposed by the conservative government has prompted me to think about different voting systems, so I was hoping to get some discussion going on different voting systems (for federal or provincial elections), especially STV. I voted yes in the B.C. referendum last year because I believe that the proposed system was better than the current system, however I don't think it's ideal. Why not use the same system used to select party leaders, where candidates are listed and ranked in order and one is chosen with a majority? This would retain some of the advantages of STV (easier to vote for third parties without wasting your vote), while keeping one member per riding. What are the arguments against this system vs. BC-STV? What about other voting systems?

I think any shift towards proportional representation will probably help the liberals and NDP, but hurt the conservatives and bloc.

 

[Naci_Sey]

RE: Preferred Voting Syst

Although I was dubious at first, the more I learned about BC-STV, the more I liked it. Like you, I was among the 58% who Voted YES in the referendum. I'm furious at the 60% threshold and that it remains in effect for the next time referendum. That high a threshold is absurd.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: A Mixed System for Canada

I have been in exhaustive conversations on the topic of reform to the method of the election of persons to the House of Commons, and compromises between separate systems seemed to be needed to ensure that the representative nature of our system could be continued (whereby there would be one Member of Parliament per constituency), while there could be a more accurate representation of the popular vote in the House.

Members would continue to be elected, en masse, to the Commons through the First-Past-the-Post system; however, those members having been elected, the popular vote would be checked, and it would be the prerogative of parties to send members to the Commons to represent the popular vote of the party, starting at the least-voted-for party and moving upward (assuming that a party has garnered at least one per cent of the vote).

Now, in order to accomodate these one hundred members, the representation of each Province of Canada would need to be decreased — however, this decrease would be by a uniform percentage and, therefore, no Province would "gain" or "lose" representation, in aggregate. In order to accomodate another one hundred, each Province would decrease its representation by one-third (and where a number is a fraction, it would be rounded appropriately).

Therefore, the Provinces would be represented as such (for the purpose of this exercise, let's assume that the Constitution Act, 1867 clauses granting a certain number of minimum seats in the Commons have been amended):

• The Province of British Columbia would have twenty-four (24) seats;
• The Province of Alberta would have nineteen (19) seats;
• The Province of Saskatchewan would have nine (9) seats;
• The Province of Manitoba would have nine (9) seats;
• The Province of Ontario would have seventy-one (71) seats;
• La province du Québec aura cinquante (50) députés et députées;
• The Province of New Brunswick would have seven (7) seats;
• The Province of Nova Scotia would have seven (7) seats;
• The Province of Prince Edward Island would have three (3) seats;
• The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador would have five (5) seats;
• The Yukon Territory would have one (1) seat;
• The Northwest Territories would have one (1) seat, and;
• The Territory of Nunavut would have one (1) seat.

Given the decrease in representation from each Province, this would give the Commons a "vacant" one hundred one seats (we can ignore the extra seat for now, though, and proceed with the consideration of one hundred). From these one hundred seats, for each percentage point that a party earns in the election in the popular vote (rounding to the appropriate whole number), they would be assigned to those parties. Let's consider this situation.

An election has just concluded, and has resulted in this:

• The Conservative Party of Canada earns 86 seats, with 36 % of the vote;
• The Liberal Party of Canada earns 78 seats, with 35 % of the vote;
• The Bloc Québécois earns 25 seats, with 9 % of the vote;
• The New Democratic Party of Canada earns 18 seats, with 17 % of the vote;
• The Green Party of Canada earns no seats, with 3 % of the vote.

Due to the popular votes, each party would be assigned seats:

• CP : 86 (FPTP) + 36 (POP) = 122 seats;
• LP : 78 (FPTP) + 35 (POP) = 113 seats;
• BQ : 25 (FPTP) + 9 (POP) = 34 seats;
• NDP : 18 (FPTP) + 17 (POP) = 35 seats;
• GP : 0 (FPTP) + 3 (POP) = 3 seats.

So, due to this system, while ensuring that each constituency has a member whom the population can go to for assistance, questions or concerns, we can have the number of seats for each party in the Commons better represent the popular vote.

• CP : 39.7 % of seats, with 36 % of votes;
• LP : 36.8 % of seats, with 35 % of votes;
• BQ : 11.1 % of seats, with 9 % of the vote;
• NDP : 11.4 % of seats, with 17 % of the votes;
• GP : 1.0 % of seats, with 3.0 % of the votes.

It's not perfect, by a long-shot, but it's more representative of the parties than our present system, while retaining the purpose of members of the Commons (in exemplia, to represent constituents and constituencies).

 

[gc]

RE: Preferred Voting Syst

I realize every system has its downfalls, but I think I see a few problems with that system (correct me if I'm wrong):

1. It would still be hard for less well-known parties/Independent candidates to get elected

2. How would the seats awarded by the popular vote be distributed? Who decides which candidates will get a seat in this case? You say that "it would be the prerogative of parties to send members to the Commons to represent the popular vote of the party", does that mean the party chooses who will get a seat in the house of commons, because I don't like that idea.

3. 100 members of parliament would not represent a riding, and ridings would have to be redistributed (though this probably isn't as big of an issue as # 1 and 2).

 

[FiveParadox]

I recognize your concerns, gc, and in fact share them.

I am an advocate for the First-Past-the-Post system, but have learned to compromise (due, for the most part, to my extensive debates with Finder on the issue of our election system). I think that the system provides the feature of having one member represent a constituency, which is how I think things should be done.

I would prefer that "party lines" be a much looser thing, and that citizens would research both the party, and the person, before casting a vote in an election. When you get right down to how our system was intended, it was constructed under the premise that persons should vote for a member, and through that, the party would be secondary.

Unfortunately, the faults of the FPTP system are largely due to an apathetic population, and a citizenry that is too lazy to look into the person they're voting for.

 

[Finder]

I dislike STV.... MPP is much better with seats in the tradition FPTP still in the system and then you would have the rest propotional. STV has always interested me, but the voting results if you ask me can be extremely scued by a populer third party which is everyones second favorite party. Thus in the last election if everyones second favorite party had been NDP who voted liberal and conservative, the NDP could have easyly had won the last election and this would not have been right (and I'm an ndp supporter). This could have easyly had happend as many people who vote conservative in some provinces also vote ndp, such as they say happens in BC. Also many Liberal voters like the NDP as well and with the anger over the liberal government it may have made some conservative voters chose NDP second over spit.

Anyhow STV is too unstable.