Proportional Representation Discussion

[Guest]

I think we're talking about six to eight member ridings. And why is big bad? Ridings are more based on population than on geographical size.

To get six or eight member ridings in most of the country would require geographically massive districts. This is a problem if you believe ridings are important to look after regional issues.

[ToadBrother]

To get six or eight member ridings in most of the country would require geographically massive districts. This is a problem if you believe ridings are important to look after regional issues.

Most of the population in Canada is urban. Considering we have electoral districts as vast as Yukon, then doesn't your objection apply to electoral districts as they are currently formulated?

[biotk]

I think we're talking about six to eight member ridings. And why is big bad? Ridings are more based on population than on geographical size.

So are we going to have a riding that combines the current Kenora, Thunder Bay-Superior North, Thunder Bay-Rainy River, Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing, Timmins-James Bay, Nipissing-Timiskaming, Sault Ste Marie?

Because that is 7 member ridings, and already both Kenora and Timmins-James Bay are ridiculously large. If such a proposal went up for a referendum, I can't picture it getting more than 5% among the local constituents. I personally view this as a non-starter anywhere outside of the largest cities.

[Smeelious]

This calls for an infographic on the effect of 7 member ridings!!

I'll leave this for someone else.

[poochy]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-electoral-reform-first-past-the-post-1.3292694

In other words, "don't ask - tell". The ultimate irony of this would be if the Liberals, having received a minority of the vote, push a major reform of Canada's "democracy" without asking people.

That would be almost....Conservative level evil. Anyway, i do enjoy the discussion among some of the most politically fringe people on the forum of how we need to change the system to benefit all Canadians...right. Your valiant efforts to help the 90% of us who are ok with not screwing up what has worked in the the best country in the world will be long remembered, o but the green party is underrepresented!, maybe it deserves to be, but the communist party is underrepresented..yea..this is about all of us, not them, surely.

[Guest]

Most of the population in Canada is urban. Considering we have electoral districts as vast as Yukon, then doesn't your objection apply to electoral districts as they are currently formulated?

Yes somewhat, except that the vastness of the regions becomes far worse with multi-member ridings. All three territories combined still wouldn't have enough population for a multi-member riding. Plus multi-member constituencies aren't very proportional unless they happen to contain a large number of members. STV just isn't a good fit for Canada.

[biotk]

This calls for an infographic on the effect of 7 member ridings!!

I'll leave this for someone else.

I don't have the time or ability to create one myself right now, but I will say this - the Northern Ontario riding I mentioned would be 25% bigger than the provinces of Manitoba, Saskachewan, and Alberta. While it would be smaller than the NWT and Nunavut, it would be almost twice the size of the Yukon and with a population more than 16 times that of the Yukon. And would consist of a population for which there is absolutely nothing in common except for being angry that that have been stuffed together.

[Big Guy]

Perhaps it will be the format and the wording of the question on a referendum:

Two questions:

Question 1 - "Do you favor election reform". (yes or no)

Question 2 - If there was reform, rank your choices of A or B or C or D?

The votes are counted - if the majority votes "no" then game over. Referendum complete.

If the majority votes "yes" then the answer to question 2 is considered. The votes are counted - If there is no one choice getting 51% then the least popular choice (4th place) is dropped with the second choice on these ballots getting the vote - until one choice has 51%.

That then is the new Canadian electoral system.

[-1=e^ipi]

Perhaps

Yes, obviously you want a ranked referendum on this question.

[ToadBrother]

Perhaps it will be the format and the wording of the question on a referendum:

Two questions:

Question 1 - "Do you favor election reform". (yes or no)

Question 2 - If there was reform, rank your choices of A or B or C or D?

The votes are counted - if the majority votes "no" then game over. Referendum complete.

If the majority votes "yes" then the answer to question 2 is considered. The votes are counted - If there is no one choice getting 51% then the least popular choice (4th place) is dropped with the second choice on these ballots getting the vote - until one choice has 51%.

That then is the new Canadian electoral system.

I think we're assuming Trudeau will go back on his word and try to sink his reform commitment with a referendum. The Liberals' commitment was rather clear, that the 2015 election would be the last election under First Past The Post, which means whatever happens in 2019, it will be decided by MPs, and not by a referendum.

[Big Guy]

I think we're assuming Trudeau will go back on his word and try to sink his reform commitment with a referendum. The Liberals' commitment was rather clear, that the 2015 election would be the last election under First Past The Post, which means whatever happens in 2019, it will be decided by MPs, and not by a referendum.

I may be mistaken but I remember the statement and do not recall that he was specific as to how and what changes would be made.

[ToadBrother]

I may be mistaken but I remember the statement and do not recall that he was specific as to how and what changes would be made.

Because no specific recommendations have been made. At some point in the near future a Parliamentary committee will begin reviewing possible changes, and as I recall there's some talk of public hearings or some similar mechanism. The most I think anyone knows is that the Liberals were in favor of ranked voting, but I don't think they committed to that.

[Guest]

I may be mistaken but I remember the statement and do not recall that he was specific as to how and what changes would be made.

In the statement from his platform Trudeau was specific that change would happen, FPTP is gone, an all-party committee will choose the new system and the change would be presented to parliament for a vote within 18 months. No mention was made of a referendum, so there is very little room for him to wiggle out of this promise.

We will make every vote count.

We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.

We will convene an all-party Parliamentary committee to review a wide variety of reforms, such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting.

This committee will deliver its recommendations to Parliament. Within 18 months of forming government, we will introduce legislation to enact electoral reform.

https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/electoral-reform/

Edited November 3, 2015 by Guest

[Guest]

The Liberals mention input from citizens on the committee in this policy resolution on restoring trust in democracy:

https://www.liberal.ca/policy-resolutions/31-priority-resolution-restoring-trust-canadas-democracy/

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Liberal Party pursue political reforms which promote:

• Open, democratic nominations of candidates;
• Fewer “whipped” votes in Parliament and more “free” votes requiring individual MPs to assume full responsibility for their decisions;
• Stronger Parliamentary control over public finances, including an annual deadline for the budget; accounting consistency among the Estimates and the Public Accounts; more clarity in voting on Estimates; a costing analysis for each government Bill; and a requirement that government borrowing plans must get Parliament’s pre-approval;
• A truly independent, properly resourced Parliamentary Budget Officer;
• A more effective Access-to-Information regime with stronger safeguards against political interference;
• An impartial system to identify and eliminate the waste of tax-dollars on partisan advertising;
• Careful limitations on secret Committee proceedings, Omnibus Bills and Prorogation to avoid their misuse for the short-term partisan convenience of the government;
• Adequate funding, investigative powers and enforcement authority to ensure Elections Canada can root out electoral fraud;
• Pro-active disclosure of parliamentarians’ expenses, a more transparent Board of Internal Economy and better audit rules;
• A truly independent Senate not based upon partisanship or patronage;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT immediately after the next election, an all-Party process be instituted, involving expert assistance and citizen participation, to report to Parliament within 12 months with recommendations for electoral reforms including, without limitation, a preferential ballot and/or a form of proportional representation, to represent Canadians more fairly and serve Canada better.

The policy resolution is older than the platform statement so there are some changes. You can see that the time frame changed from 12 to 18 months and that mention of citizens on the committee was dropped. Every opposition party will be opposed to a simple ranked ballot, within single member constituencies as it clearly favours the Liberals. The NDP and Greens will support PR, with the Dippers in support of MMP specifically. Edited November 3, 2015 by Guest

[ToadBrother]

The policy resolution is older than the platform statement so there are some changes. You can see that the time frame changed from 12 to 18 months and that mention of citizens on the committee was dropped. Every opposition party will be opposed to a simple ranked ballot, within single member constituencies as it clearly favours the Liberals. The NDP and Greens will support PR, with the Dippers in support of MMP specifically.

Well, the NDP, Greens and Tories may object, but Trudeau definitely has the numbers in the House of Commons to push through any system the Liberals want.

The issue then becomes whether the Senate would intervene. I'm assuming that, once this comes to a vote (it strikes me we're probably two years off from a legislative change), the Tories will no longer have the largest number of seats in the Senate, which will be dominated by ex-Liberals and those filling vacancies by whatever means Trudeau chooses. Still, never discount the possibility of the Tories trying to use every procedural trick they can to try to kill electoral reform.

[ReeferMadness]

Yes somewhat, except that the vastness of the regions becomes far worse with multi-member ridings. All three territories combined still wouldn't have enough population for a multi-member riding. Plus multi-member constituencies aren't very proportional unless they happen to contain a large number of members. STV just isn't a good fit for Canada.

I don't agree.

Most of Canada's population live in urban areas that will work well with multi-riding seats. The exceptions need to be dealt with as just that. You could lump the 3 territories together and have one massive riding or leave them separate and they would become instant runoff ballot seats.

[ToadBrother]

I don't agree.

Most of Canada's population live in urban areas that will work well with multi-riding seats. The exceptions need to be dealt with as just that. You could lump the 3 territories together and have one massive riding or leave them separate and they would become instant runoff ballot seats.

That would seem a reasonable compromise to me. You could also potentially role PEI into such a solution, so that those ridings with very small populations would be retained as single-member ridings. Further, you could put the formula into the legislation to allow for a single member riding to become a multi-member riding when population if population increases.

Really we're dealing with a very small number of ridings that this would apply to, with the vast majority of ridings in Canada being urban or semi-urban.

[Smeelious]

Proportional votes for some; tiny flags for the rest!!

Two tier voting...I'm not digging it.

Somehow going STV with rural/geographic exceptions would strikes me as benefiting the Conservatives. They would still get representation in urban areas, while retaining most of the rural. Time for research! (Well, in Ontario anyway)

Edited November 4, 2015 by Smeelious

[Big Guy]

Proportional votes for some; tiny flags for the rest!!

Two tier voting...I'm not digging it.

Somehow going STV with rural/geographic exceptions would strikes me as benefiting the Conservatives. They would still get representation in urban areas, while retaining most of the rural. Time for research! (Well, in Ontario anyway)

I am working on the assumption that the decision of electoral reform will not be based on what is best for which party at what particular time in history. The question is one of fairness - some people feel that the current system is "fair" enough and any change to PR would create chaos in our society. Others feel that the switch to PR will make the government more representative of the electorate and feel that situation to be more "fair".

Personally, I have started to research the question. I believe that the answer may change how Canada will be governed. With the information that I have yet to read it will take me a few more weeks to decide on a position. I do know that about half the nations in the world use FPTP and the other some form of PR. I am still not certain which system will satisfy my political senses and still lead to a stronger Canada.

[Smeelious]

Gotta be careful with "equal" vs "fair".

The two tier might be equal, but I'm not sure that it would be fair. And, I'm not sure that fair is more important here than equal.

[Guest]

I don't agree.

Most of Canada's population live in urban areas that will work well with multi-riding seats. The exceptions need to be dealt with as just that. You could lump the 3 territories together and have one massive riding or leave them separate and they would become instant runoff ballot seats.

So you would recommend either different electoral systems for various ridings or varying levels of proportionality? That doesn't seem fair at all. Shouldn't we strive to create a system that grants an equal level of representation for every vote?

Since we are electing a national government shouldn't the popular vote of the nation as a whole be used to determine the proportions of parliament?

[Guest]

Well, the NDP, Greens and Tories may object, but Trudeau definitely has the numbers in the House of Commons to push through any system the Liberals want.

I suppose it depends on how the committee is constructed. If the Liberals simply create a group dominated by Liberals to push through a ranked ballot the entire process will be a farce. I hope actual citizens are included as mentioned in the policy statement.

The issue then becomes whether the Senate would intervene. I'm assuming that, once this comes to a vote (it strikes me we're probably two years off from a legislative change), the Tories will no longer have the largest number of seats in the Senate, which will be dominated by ex-Liberals and those filling vacancies by whatever means Trudeau chooses. Still, never discount the possibility of the Tories trying to use every procedural trick they can to try to kill electoral reform.

In 18 months time JT could easily fill the vacancies left by Harper, so the senate need not be an issue. Though, I share your fear of conservative tricks.

[ReeferMadness]

So you would recommend either different electoral systems for various ridings or varying levels of proportionality? That doesn't seem fair at all. Shouldn't we strive to create a system that grants an equal level of representation for every vote?

Since we are electing a national government shouldn't the popular vote of the nation as a whole be used to determine the proportions of parliament?

It's not really a different electoral system per se. You can have differing numbers of members in STV ridings (look up the BC STV example). If you get down to just one member in a riding, you get IRV.

In terms of equal representation for each vote, we don't have that today. Rural ridings and ridings in certain provinces have much fewer people in them than large city constituencies, meaning that the people in those cities cast votes that count less. The goal of representative democracy should be that citizens feel represented. There is no point in getting hung up on a mythical notion of vote equality.

There's no perfect electoral system - all are a tradeoff of proportionality, local representation and degree of party influence. By having single member seats in the north, you sacrifice a little proportionality overall but not that much. Unless you add seats, you're going to have issues with MMP as well. The regions in the regional top-up seats are going to be enormous.

[Guest]

It's not really a different electoral system per se. You can have differing numbers of members in STV ridings (look up the BC STV example). If you get down to just one member in a riding, you get IRV.

In terms of a proportional parliament, MMP would be a far better choice. Unless the multi-member constituencies are very large, scores of votes are wasted and we would still have the problem of black sheep not being able to contribute. Like left voters in rural Alberta or Conservative voters in the Maritimes. Since, MMP would determine the proportionality of parliament with the national popular vote, every ballot (or at least a minimum of 95%) is equal in terms of creating representation.

There's no perfect electoral system - all are a tradeoff of proportionality, local representation and degree of party influence. By having single member seats in the north, you sacrifice a little proportionality overall but not that much. Unless you add seats, you're going to have issues with MMP as well. The regions in the regional top-up seats are going to be enormous.

As mentioned STV seriously sacrifices proportionality by wasting far more votes than MMP. How many seats would the Greens win if they achieved 10% of the popular vote in 6 - 8 person (or less) ridings?

MMP would add more MPs. However, we could increase the size of current ridings a little to marginally reduce the number of local representatives, plus list MPs are cheaper since they don't have a local office budget.

[ReeferMadness]

In terms of a proportional parliament, MMP would be a far better choice. Unless the multi-member constituencies are very large, scores of votes are wasted and we would still have the problem of black sheep not being able to contribute. Like left voters in rural Alberta or Conservative voters in the Maritimes. Since, MMP would determine the proportionality of parliament with the national popular vote, every ballot (or at least a minimum of 95%) is equal in terms of creating representation.

With all systems, the devil is in the details. With MMP, the details are how many top-up seats do you have and are they national, provincial or regional? The more top-up seats you have, the more proportional you can make the results and the larger the local ridings need to be. If you have a single, national list of top-up seats, who exactly do these representatives represent? A common complaint with MMP is that you have two classes of MP and the top-up MP's can become perceived as party hacks. I'm not anti-MMP but I don't believe that it is a "far better choice"

As mentioned STV seriously sacrifices proportionality by wasting far more votes than MMP. How many seats would the Greens win if they achieved 10% of the popular vote in 6 - 8 person (or less) ridings?

That depends on the Green candidates ability to capture second choice votes. When you claim that STV seriously sacrifices proportionality, do you have a citation? It's true that STV doesn't force proportionality the way MMP does but my reading indicates that, providing you have a sufficient average magnitude, in practise it normally provides a high overall level of proportionality. And many people find it attractive that it does it in a way that forces voters to vote for real people, not a party.

MMP would add more MPs. However, we could increase the size of current ridings a little to marginally reduce the number of local representatives, plus list MPs are cheaper since they don't have a local office budget.

I've never seen a PR proposal that would add seats overall. Usually, it's a matter of rearranging existing ridings. If you're prepared to add seats, you could get better proportionality from STV as well.