Proportional Representation Discussion

[ReeferMadness]

The history of politics shows that voting system reform doesn't happen often because parties tend to organize themselves in ways that take advantage of the current system. In particular, first past the post (properly called single member plurality) voting tends to favor the winning party. In the case of yesterday's election, the Liberals wound up with something like 55% of the seats with less than 40% of the popular vote.

However, I heard on the radio that electoral system reform came up in Trudeau's speech yesterday (I missed it) and so I have to assume that something will be done. Trudeau is on record favoring alternative vote; which doesn't produce proportional results and which is thought to favor the Liberal Party.

This thread is a discussion point for how Canada can get to a proportional system and which system would work best in our country. There are 3 main types of proportional voting systems, party list, mixed member proportional (a hybrid of party list and FPTP) and single transferable vote (STV).

[ToadBrother]

This thread is a discussion point for how Canada can get to a proportional system and which system would work best in our country. There are 3 main types of proportional voting systems, party list, mixed member proportional (a hybrid of party list and FPTP) and single transferable vote (STV).

I think it's a guess that an IRV (instant runoff voting) system would automatically favor the Liberals. I understand the theory, that in a country with two centrist parties; Tory and Liberal, the Liberals would always be at least second choice among the Tories. But as with the discussion of how the Greens would fare under some other system, I think this one attempts to feed historical and current electoral trends that have evolved under FPTP into an alternative system.

My thoughts are that the Tories would best adapt to an alternative voting system by splitting into two; the breaking of the old coalition of Progressives and Conservatives. This would, I think, mean that in ridings that would tend towards conservative votes, that the two right of center parties would end up as the top two choices, which ought to alleviate sine if the concern that an IRV system like AV would just automatically favor the Liberals.

I think the same logic would apply in a pure PR system like MMR or STV. The idea here is to stop thinking about which party forms a government, but rather which PARTIES would form a government.

As an example, look at Germany, which has several right and left center parties, but still has two main rivals; the Christian Democrats as the predominant right center party, and the Social Democratic Party as the left of center party. These two parties, under Germany's PR system, have very little chance of ever gaining a majority government, and so end up being the center of semi-stable coalitions, that will come together after an election to give one of the main parties the seats they need to form a government, but will split away during an election.

To my mind, that's exactly what would happen in Canada. You would have two major right of center parties, the Liberals still planted in the middle, but maybe a bit more leftward, with the NDP (and maybe the Greens) as partners. During elections the parties would split apart, but then some combination would come together to form a government.

[ReeferMadness]

I think it's a guess that an IRV (instant runoff voting) system would automatically favor the Liberals. I understand the theory, that in a country with two centrist parties; Tory and Liberal, the Liberals would always be at least second choice among the Tories. But as with the discussion of how the Greens would fare under some other system, I think this one attempts to feed historical and current electoral trends that have evolved under FPTP into an alternative system.

Instant runoff voting works well when you only have one position that can be filled (e.g a president or a mayor). It tends to favor centrist, compromise candidates. I think it would tend to produce fewer parties rather than more but I don't think that's important. It isn't a proportional system and in fact can produce results that are even less proportional than FPTP.

To my mind, that's exactly what would happen in Canada. You would have two major right of center parties, the Liberals still planted in the middle, but maybe a bit more leftward, with the NDP (and maybe the Greens) as partners. During elections the parties would split apart, but then some combination would come together to form a government.

Lots of things are possible. The key point in my mind is that more people are able to vote for something they believe in rather than against something they don't. This election could best be described as the people who couldn't stand Harper vs the people who couldn't stand Trudeau.

[TimG]

Rules for any voting system:

1) No party lists. Every MP must have stood for election and given the voters a chance to support or reject them;

2) Minimum 10% for any MP; No system should elect MPs who get less than 10% of the vote in their riding;

Party lists are evil because they allow a class of perpetual politicians that cannot be gotten rid of.

Does any system meet those reqs?

Edited October 20, 2015 by TimG

[-TSS-]

Look how New Zealand did it and do exactly the opposite. Nobody really likes the system nowadays in NZ but there is no return to FPTP.

[ToadBrother]

Rules for any voting system:

1) No party lists. Every MP must have stood for election and given the voters a chance to support or reject them;

2) Minimum 10% for any MP; No system should elect MPs who get less than 10% of the vote in their riding;

Party lists are evil because they allow a class of perpetual politicians that cannot be gotten rid of.

Does any system meet those reqs?

STV is a PR system that has no party lists, but instead uses ranked voting and multi-member ridings. That seems to be the most popular true Proportional Representation system.

The Liberals had mentioned Alternative Vote, which is a form if Instant Runoff Voting, wherein we have exactly the same ridings we have now, each of which votes on MP in as now, but you rank from most to least preferred. While pure IRV is not truly proportional, there are modifications that can be made to make it more representative. In general IRV systems will produce results not unlike FPTP, whereas PR systems like STV and MMR (the system you don't like) produce results much closer to the popular vote.

[TimG]

STV is a PR system that has no party lists, but instead uses ranked voting and multi-member ridings. That seems to be the most popular true Proportional Representation system.

My concern about STV are ridings that have are too large will lead to MPs getting elected with tiny proportion of the popular vote. MPs should require a minimum threshold before they can be considered. This also increases the scope for gerrymandering because a party can tweak the algorithm used to determine riding boundaries to suit them.

IRV without tweaks sounds good to me.

Edited October 20, 2015 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

My concern about STV are ridings that have are too large will lead to MPs getting elected with tiny proportion of the popular vote. MPs should require a minimum threshold before they can be considered. This also increases the scope for gerrymandering because a party can tweak the algorithm used to determine riding boundaries to suit them.

I'm not sure how this follows. These will be much larger ridings, and hence will have much larger numbers of candidates. Trying to "game" STV would, to my mind, break it, and I fail to see why it's necessary.

[Smallc]

My concern about STV are ridings that have are too large will lead to MPs getting elected with tiny proportion of the popular vote. MPs should require a minimum threshold before they can be considered.

That's one of the prime things that I like about STV - it has a threshold. That's also why somewhere about 7 seats per riding is considered optimal.

[TimG]

I'm not sure how this follows. These will be much larger ridings, and hence will have much larger numbers of candidates. Trying to "game" STV would, to my mind, break it, and I fail to see why it's necessary.

If you have ridings with 10 MPs and 50 candidates then a single MP could get in with <10% of the vote. If you have a riding with 3 MPs and 15 candidates the minimum necessary percentage would be larger. The net effect of the system we end up with depends entirely on who sets the parameters for Elections Canada.

[TimG]

That's one of the prime things that I like about STV - it has a threshold. That's also why somewhere about 7 seats per riding is considered optimal.

7 is too large. MPs will be elected with a tiny share of the vote.

[ReeferMadness]

Party lists are evil because they allow a class of perpetual politicians that cannot be gotten rid of.

The problem with voting system reform is that people who have little understanding of electoral systems immediately come up with blanket statements like this one. Voting systems should be a mandatory part of curriculum in school.

There are two types of party lists, open and closed. Open party lists allow voters to select individuals from the list as well as the party. Closed lists are when the party chooses the order in which the candidates are chosen to reach the party's share of the vote. In addition to open vs closed, lists can be regional or national.

[TimG]

Open party lists allow voters to select individuals from the list as well as the party.

So our current systems has ridings with a open party list of 1? Seems like a silly distinction. Either people vote for the candidate or people vote for the party and the party picks the candidate. Any system where an MP does not have to specifically chosen by voters is bad.

[PrimeNumber]

Forgive me if I'm not understanding this. But is there system that allows FPTP where everyone votes for their ridings members than at the same time votes for a party. The votes for the parties are tallied and say there are 20 seats to be had for national party votes they are divided based on percentage of vote. We would have to shrink the number of elecotral districts in the country but this could give some parties that have less of a chance in any one riding more of a say in the national scheme of things like the Greens and NDP.

Edited October 20, 2015 by PrimeNumber

[ReeferMadness]

7 is too large. MPs will be elected with a tiny share of the vote.

You stipulated nobody elected with less than 10%. In a 7 member riding, you need 12.5%+1vote. And since the riding would be 7 times as big, that's more votes than most MP's will get today. If an average riding is 100,000 votes, than an STV riding would be 700,000 votes. 700,000*12.5% is 87,500 votes, more than almost any MP gets today.

[ReeferMadness]

Forgive me if I'm not understanding this. But is there system that allows FPTP where everyone votes for their ridings members than at the same time votes for a party. The votes for the parties are tallied and say there are 20 seats to be had for national party votes they are divided based on percentage of vote. We would have to shrink the number of elecotral districts in the country but this could give some parties that have less of a chance in any one riding more of a say in the national scheme of things like the Greens and NDP.

You seem to be describing mixed member proportional (MMP). It's a hybrid between FPTP and party list. The list candidates are used to make the final number of MP's in each party more proportional.

[TimG]

You stipulated nobody elected with less than 10%. In a 7 member riding, you need 12.5%+1vote.

The top ranked candidates would get much greater than 12.5% which means the lower ranked candidates would get less - probably less than 10%.

[Smallc]

The top ranked candidates would get much greater than 12.5% which means the lower ranked candidates would get less - probably less than 10%.

You need to meet the threshold to get a seat.

[ReeferMadness]

So our current systems has ridings with a open party list of 1? Seems like a silly distinction.

It is a silly distinction - nobody would describe it that way.

Either people vote for the candidate or people vote for the party and the party picks the candidate.

That's not true. In our current system, the party picks the candidate and then we vote for them. In a party list system, the party has a list of candidates and then we vote for them. The difference is that in MMP, the list MP's are used specifically to make the results more proportional.

[ReeferMadness]

The top ranked candidates would get much greater than 12.5% which means the lower ranked candidates would get less - probably less than 10%.

That's true and it's a good point. The excess votes are distributed according to 2nd choice until a second winner is picked. And it goes on until you have a full list of chosen candidates.

[-TSS-]

Until now you have had a situation that if there are elections today and the opposition wins the majority= The opposition leader becomes PM tomorrow.

No more in the PR. There will be long negotiations of a coaltion-government with all the horse-trading attached.

[ReeferMadness]

Until now you have had a situation that if there are elections today and the opposition wins the majority= The opposition leader becomes PM tomorrow.

No more in the PR. There will be long negotiations of a coaltion-government with all the horse-trading attached.

That's what happens when you need a real majority to have a legitimate government. Not a majority like we have today where a "majority' is made up of 40% of eligible voters. It really has nothing to do with PR per se.

Edited October 20, 2015 by ReeferMadness

[TimG]

It is a silly distinction - nobody would describe it that way.

But it is an accurate description of what we have now. When I talk of party lists I am talking of closed party lists where voters cannot control who gets to be an MP.

[TimG]

No more in the PR. There will be long negotiations of a coalition-government with all the horse-trading attached.

Yep. Election promises mean nothing since promises may need to be abandoned to get a deal. The end result is much less accountable government.

[ReeferMadness]

But it is an accurate description of what we have now. When I talk of party lists I am talking of closed party lists where voters cannot control who gets to be an MP.

So, if you don't like closed party lists, that's a common complaint; but it's not a reason to reject open party lists.