Proportional Representation Discussion

[ReeferMadness]

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.

The number of names on the ballot is irrelevant. Only the magnitude of the STV riding is important.

Here.

[TimG]

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?

I just treat the ranks as multiple votes so in a 5 member riding people can vote for up to 5 people. The proportion of the vote is calculated using the total number of votes (5 times the number of voters). Edited October 20, 2015 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

I just treat the ranks as multiple votes so in a 5 member riding people can vote for up to 5 people. The proportion of the vote be calculated using the total number of votes (5 times the number of voters).

So how is it that you think that someone with little popular support could gain a victory? Someone with little general support even in a much larger multi-member riding isn't going to be chosen no matter how many candidates there are.

[ReeferMadness]

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.

You could argue that an open list system gives you more choice than you have today. Today, if you want to vote for a party, you have a choice of exactly one person.

[TimG]

The number of names on the ballot is irrelevant. Only the magnitude of the STV riding is important.

Thx. So mathematically speaking you could have a situation where no one meets the threshold to fill the last seat. The question is what happens then? Leave the seat open or give it to someone who does not meet the threshold?

[ReeferMadness]

Thx. So mathematically speaking you could have a situation where no one meets the threshold to fill the last seat. The question is what happens then? Leave the seat open or give it to someone who does not meet the threshold?

This is theoretically possible if you have a huge number of parties, all of which have considerable voting percentages. In that case, the people who have the most votes after the process is completed win. Does that happen? I've never seen anything that indicates it happens often enough to be a problem.

What happens in first past the post in the case of a tie? That's also theoretically possible but I've never heard of it actually happening.

[Smeelious]

Thx. So mathematically speaking you could have a situation where no one meets the threshold to fill the last seat. The question is what happens then? Leave the seat open or give it to someone who does not meet the threshold?

I don't think you can actually. Unless everyone who votes for say the conservatives has their second vote as liberal and vice-versa

In the end I don't think this would happen. Lets take Stephen Harper's riding:

37,283 - Harper

15,132 - Liberal

4,255 - NDP

1,304 - Green (Ps...this guy has the greatest beard Kelly Christie for Prez)

Realistically, the conservatives would have two candidates in this riding running. Anther kinda funny thing about STV...The parties would have to decide if they could support a second candidate. (Or hopefully, we see something like the PC and Alliance, or something) In this riding it is unlikely the Liberals or the NDP would run a second candidate.

So in hypotheical STV land there are 5 candidates running and 3 have to get elected.

Harper (Alliance Party) easily gets the required 33% of the vote needed. (100%/3 candidates = 33%) He also happens to get around 45% of the vote, because he can play the piano don't you know. None of the other candidates get the required 33%.

Harper - 44%

PC - 20% (harper got 64%, I'm robbing Peter to pay Paul.)

Lib - 26%

NDP - 7%

Green - 2%

Since Harper got more than the 33% required his extra votes go to the voter's second choice, which in this case is likely the PC candidate...+11%

Harper (ELECTED)

PC - 31%

Lib - 26%

NDP - 7%

Green - 2%

Now the Green party gets the boot... and that 2% gets distributed (lol)

Harper (ELECTED)

PC-31%

Lib - 27%

NDP - 8%

Since no other candidate has 33% yet...another party gets turfed.

Harper (ELECTED)

PC - 31%

LIB - 35% (ELECTED)

Now, since the Liberals have more than 35%, any votes that had the PC's as the second choice (That's a reasonable assumption) would be transfered to the PC Candidate.

Harper (ELECTED)

PC - 33% ( ELECTED)

LIB - 34% (ELECTED)

So the problem becomes...Are there enough people who voted Liberal with a second choice of PC to make this happen. I would bet that there would be, but what happens then?

Obviously the PC candidate gets elected. I would assume that the PC candidate would have enough 2nd or 3rd votes from Liberal or NDP supporters to make this valid.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Smeelious

[Smeelious]

The other thing here is that STV is not PR. I know someone called Eric on saying the same thing, but he isn't wrong. It isn't PR. It is more representative than FPTP, but not perfectly so, and in some cases not even remotely so.

[ReeferMadness]

The other thing here is that STV is not PR. I know someone called Eric on saying the same thing, but he isn't wrong. It isn't PR. It is more representative than FPTP, but not perfectly so, and in some cases not even remotely so.

Eric was absolutely wrong. Sorry if I sound crank, I get tired of repeatedly correcting this statement. And even Eric corrected his own mistake.

There are two PR voting types: party list PR and the single transferable vote (STV).[4][5] Mixed member proportional representation (MMP), a hybrid method that uses party list PR as its proportional component, is also usually considered a distinct PR method.[6]:22[7]:142–143[8]

STV provides proportional results providing you have ridings with sufficient magnitude. I've read books that say 7 is the sweet spot between proportionality and ridings that get unwieldy but even with 5, you get much better proportionality than FPTP.

[Smeelious]

Eric was absolutely wrong. Sorry if I sound crank, I get tired of repeatedly correcting this statement. And even Eric corrected his own mistake.

STV provides proportional results providing you have ridings with sufficient magnitude. I've read books that say 7 is the sweet spot between proportionality and ridings that get unwieldy but even with 5, you get much better proportionality than FPTP.

Exactly, you get better representation, but not strictly proportional. The Green party will still be turfed in all ridings but 2. They would be underrepresented in an STV system, unless you want to increase the house 7x..

Edited October 21, 2015 by Smeelious

[Civis Romanus sum]

You people are delusional if you think Trudeau, with a taste of majority government under his belt, will put anything in place which will make it less likely for that to happen again.

He might switch to second choice voting if studies show that would benefit the Liberals, but that's it.

[ToadBrother]

The other thing here is that STV is not PR. I know someone called Eric on saying the same thing, but he isn't wrong. It isn't PR. It is more representative than FPTP, but not perfectly so, and in some cases not even remotely so.

STV is considered, with the right parameters (larger multi-member ridings) to be roughly as proportional as PR systems.

[Smeelious]

You people are delusional if you think Trudeau, with a taste of majority government under his belt, will put anything in place which will make it less likely for that to happen again.

He might switch to second choice voting if studies show that would benefit the Liberals, but that's it.

Well,

I'm not going to let reality get in the way of debate. It's going to be the main talking point at weed peddling brothels. I hear the first one is going up near me. Seems like it should be a good place to get my debate on.

[Smeelious]

STV is considered, with the right parameters (larger multi-member ridings) to be roughly as proportional as PR systems.

Yes, but geography is a bit of a limiting factor in Canada. We have ridings larger than most (all?) European countries already.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Smeelious

[ReeferMadness]

Exactly, you get better representation, but not strictly proportional.

*No* system will provide "strictly proportional" results except direct democracy. All systems are a trade-off between proportionality, local representation and degree of party control. And you can improve the proportionality of systems by increasing the overall number of representatives (which is generally off the table when voting system reform is discussed).

So, if you just want to maximize proportionality, you would choose a pure party list system with a single nation-wide list. The voters would instantly reject it because it gives too much control to the party and no guarantee of local representation.

Different implementations of MMP and STV address these trade-offs differently. In general, you sacrifice proportionality as you improve local representation and vice versa.

The Green party will still be turfed in all ridings but 2. They would be underrepresented in an STV system, unless you want to increase the house 7x...

The results under STV are completely unknowable because you have no idea what the second choices would have been. In fact, they are unknowable under any proportional system because changing the voting system would change strategic voting behavior.

Edited October 21, 2015 by ReeferMadness

[ToadBrother]

You people are delusional if you think Trudeau, with a taste of majority government under his belt, will put anything in place which will make it less likely for that to happen again.

He might switch to second choice voting if studies show that would benefit the Liberals, but that's it.

I think we'll have to wait and see. He committed to it again as PM elect, and Trudeau is probably looking at the long game, and not simply at the next election.

[Civis Romanus sum]

I think we'll have to wait and see. He committed to it again as PM elect, and Trudeau is probably looking at the long game, and not simply at the next election.

He commited to electoral reform, not pr. Electoral reform could mean second choice voting. That would almost certainly benefit the Liberals and make them the perpetual top party.

[ToadBrother]

He commited to electoral reform, not pr. Electoral reform could mean second choice voting. That would almost certainly benefit the Liberals and make them the perpetual top party.

It could mean lots of things. The fact that your paranoid tells me that you fear that the Tories have some built-in disadvantage. If that's the case, then they, or whoever succeeds them, will deal with it. As I've said elsewhere, in a ranked or proportional system, the easiest way for the Conservatives to deal with this perceived inadequacy is to split into a moderate centrist Progressive party and a more right wing Conservative party, much as how countries like Germany function.

[ReeferMadness]

In case anyone is interested, FVC has a faq page which addresses concerns with PR.

[ReeferMadness]

You people are delusional if you think Trudeau, with a taste of majority government under his belt, will put anything in place which will make it less likely for that to happen again.

He might switch to second choice voting if studies show that would benefit the Liberals, but that's it.

Trudeau has committed to an all party committee to study systems and make a recommendation; and that's I what I expect to happen. Now, will that result in a recommendation of PR? I guess that remains to be seen.

[-1=e^ipi]

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

Under a list system, if you don't like how they party makes a list, don't vote for them. How hard is that.

And honestly, if you had dynamic lists as opposed to static lists then you could also have the requirement of 10% support from a riding while still having lists. I.e. you would define dynamic lists as some sort of function that maps the distribution of support after an election to a list. Maybe parties could simply write their function as a computer program and submit it to elections Canada before the election.

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

You mean like Mauril Belanger?

A monkey in a suit could win any of these safe ridings, which means you can have perpetual politicians in safe ridings. On the other hand, very qualified individuals that don't live in ridings that suit their parties do not get elected. How does that result in a better parliament?

[-1=e^ipi]

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.

And parties can't Gerrymander by tweaking the threshold?

What are these thresholds based on?

Thresholds are dumb.

[TimG]

Under a list system, if you don't like how they party makes a list, don't vote for them. How hard is that.

The problem with lists is the power to control who is an MP rests with the party rather than the voters.

A monkey in a suit could win any of these safe ridings, which means you can have perpetual politicians in safe ridings.

Yet at any election the voters could choose to get rid of them. With party lists it is impossible for voters to get rid of favored politicians higher on the lists.

[TimG]

And parties can't Gerrymander by tweaking the threshold?

Letting people be MPs who can't get 10% of the people in the riding to vote for them is dumber.

[-1=e^ipi]

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

What is wrong about that? Why shouldn't people that are not regionally concentrated in a single area get representation?