Proportional Representation Discussion

[PrimeNumber]

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.

I like that system. Maybe in this way the parties get to choose whom among them gets a national seat. We wouldn't have some of the better MP's that lose elections to other MP's that are good sitting on the sidelines. For example people like Megan Leslie as I'm sure the NDP would prefer to have her in parliament.

Edited October 20, 2015 by PrimeNumber

[ReeferMadness]

I like that system. Maybe in this way the parties get to choose whom among them gets a national seat vote. We wouldn't have some of the better MP's that lose election to other MP's that are good sitting on the sidelines. For example people like Megan Leslie as I'm sure the NDP would prefer to have her in parliament.

I'm not sure if there is any system in existence that allows candidates to be both local and list candidates but it's probably possible.

ETA: NDP is proposing MMP.

Edited October 20, 2015 by ReeferMadness

[TimG]

You need to meet the threshold to get a seat.

But with these multi-member constituencies they have to give the seats to someone. When you have a ballot with 30-40 names on it they may have to give to seat to someone with a tiny share of the vote. That is why ridings should be small. 3-4 at most.

[TimG]

Question about MMP or STV:

5 MPs means 5 votes per person or 1 vote per person?

Scenario: the 34% voting for Party A slate; 33% voting for Party B slate and 32% voting for Party C slate;

Does that mean 5 MPs from Party A or 2 MPs from Party A; 2 MPs from Party B and 1 from Party C?

Edited October 20, 2015 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

But with these multi-member constituencies they have to give the seats to someone. When you have a ballot with 30-40 names on it they may have to give to seat to someone with a tiny share of the vote. That is why ridings should be small. 3-4 at most.

Not true. As I described above, the number of votes required is ((1/m+1)*t)+1 where m is the district magnitude and t is the total number of votes. Even in a 9 member riding, you would need 10%+1 vote to be elected. The number of names on the ballot is irrelevant.

[ToadBrother]

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.

But STV is ranked system, so in effect whoever gets in, even if it's a second or third runoff count, is going to get more than that.

[PrimeNumber]

I'm not sure if there is any system in existence that allows candidates to be both local and list candidates but it's probably possible.

ETA: NDP is proposing MMP.

I think it would be cool. Essentially your vote just goes to the party and the party chooses. So say they win 5 seats out of 20 they can put their 5 best in those seats. In order to qualify you can't already be an elected MP. You have to at least have been running somewhere though.

[ReeferMadness]

Question about MMP or STV:

5 MPs means 5 votes per person or 1 vote per person?

Scenario: the 34% voting for Party A slate; 33% voting for Party B slate and 32% voting for Party C slate;

Does that mean 5 MPs from Part A or 2 MPs from Party A; 2 MPs from Party B and 1 from Party C?

In STV, you rank candidates. You can rank as many as the number of MPs in that riding; so in a 5 member riding, you can rank from 1 to 5.

In MMP, you get 2 votes, 1 for you local candidate and 1 for the party. In an open list system, you would choose a person for the party vote.

[ReeferMadness]

I think it would be cool. Essentially your vote just goes to the party and the party chooses. So say they win 5 seats out of 20 they can put their 5 best in those seats. In order to qualify you can't already be an elected MP. You have to at least have been running somewhere though.

Typically, the list candidates can be open list (you choose a person from the party list) or closed list (you choose the party and the party decides in what order the candidates are selected).

To do what you're suggesting could mean that candidates who did very poorly in their own ridings could suddenly be MP's.

Edited October 20, 2015 by ReeferMadness

[ReeferMadness]

Personally, I prefer STV to MMP; but I prefer any proportional system to non-proportional systems.

[TimG]

In STV, you rank candidates. You can rank as many as the number of MPs in that riding; so in a 5 member riding, you can rank from 1 to 5.

In MMP, you get 2 votes, 1 for you local candidate and 1 for the party. In an open list system, you would choose a person for the party vote.

So STV will allow ridings to change hands. MPP will create safe seats where parties will be more or less guaranteed a fraction of the seats based on their core vote.

[ToadBrother]

In STV, you rank candidates. You can rank as many as the number of MPs in that riding; so in a 5 member riding, you can rank from 1 to 5.

Somehow I think Tim is missing the point of a ranked system. No one in a ranked system is going to win with a small number of votes. They may not be the first or second choice, but a lot of voters have decided they are at least a choice.

[ReeferMadness]

So STV will allow ridings to change hands. MPP will create safe seats where parties will be more or less guaranteed a fraction of the seats based on their core vote.

We already have tons of safe seats, MMP wouldn't change that.

[-TSS-]

In Germany and in New Zealand they have the MMP-system. The problem with it is that it creates two tiers of MP's. Those who fail to get elected from the local lists often sneak in from the party-lists. Needless to say really that those who get elected from the local lists never stop repeating how they have a real mandate.

[TimG]

Somehow I think Tim is missing the point of a ranked system. No one in a ranked system is going to win with a small number of votes. They may not be the first or second choice, but a lot of voters have decided they are at least a choice.

Really? Is that mathematically guaranteed or are you just assuming?

[cybercoma]

I still like Éric Grenier's suggestion the best.

[ReeferMadness]

Really? Is that mathematically guaranteed or are you just assuming?

What do you mean by mathematically guaranteed? Do you think Toad and I just made this up ourselves?

[TimG]

We already have tons of safe seats, MMP wouldn't change that.

MPP would make it much worse. STV sounds like it would be more dynamic and therefore preferable.

[ToadBrother]

Really? Is that mathematically guaranteed or are you just assuming?

How is it an assumption? An STV ballot is going to allow you to rank your preferences. While some candidates will be elected who are not on the first choice, they will have been elected based on how they scored overall in the rankings. You seem to be arguing against STV based on an FPTP notion of binary score. Every person who gets elected will have a wide base of support, whether it's as a first choice, second choice, third choice or so on.

In that case, how is it that you formulate a "10% limit" rule?

[Smallc]

MPP would make it much worse. STV sounds like it would be more dynamic and therefore preferable.

MMP is a complicated disaster.

[ReeferMadness]

I still like Éric Grenier's suggestion the best.

I'm not sure what his suggest was but I'm a little leery of Grenier suggesting a voting system. In his original writeup, he erroneously said that STV wasn't a proportional system (maybe he confused it with AV). This is pretty fundamental mistake so I have to question his expertise.

There's a guy named Wilf Day in Ontario who seems to be something of an expert. Also, Dr Dennis Pilon, a political scientist, has written books on PR.

[TimG]

What do you mean by mathematically guaranteed? Do you think Toad and I just made this up ourselves?

I don't see how you could mathematically guarantee that every MP elected from a ballot with 30-40 names on it would meet a minimum vote threshold.

[ToadBrother]

MPP would make it much worse. STV sounds like it would be more dynamic and therefore preferable.

That's my general view. I like ranked voting systems because they preserve the notion of an elected representative with a fixed geographic constituency.

But to some extent, I will admit my objection to party list systems is more philosophical than actual. Perhaps if we held open primaries like the Republicans in the States do, there might be some point to complaining about a representative being elected from a list, but in reality, riding associations will pick the candidate you see, and in most cases that means the party leader has sign their nomination papers. Voters have no say whatsoever on who shows up on the ballot, so effectively, FPTP is just a version of an open list system.

[ToadBrother]

I don't see how you could mathematically guarantee that every MP elected from a ballot with 30-40 names on it would meet a minimum vote threshold.

Minimum threshold has no meaning in STV. What counts is how many votes a candidate got; whether that's as a top rank, second rank, third rank, etc. You're trying to force fit an FPTP concept into a ranked voting system. They are two different kinds of systems.

I think the conceptual problem may be that you are thinking that a first rank candidate has more legitimacy than a second rank candidate, and so on. Is that your conception of STV?

[ReeferMadness]

This kind of got overshadowed by the election but in September, over 500 Canadian academics, including several Fellows of the Royal Society of Canada, 29 Canada Research Chairs and two Professors with the Order of Canada, called on all political parties to work together to bring in a proportional electoral system.

Fair Vote Canada is a non-partisan, grassroots organization devoted to voting system reform.