Wayne Smith, President,Fair Vote Canada (http://fairvotecanada.blogspot.com/) says my simple, yet elegant, proposal on Proportional Representation is, and I paraphrase, too whacko for Canada. I proposed that:
I'm a simple guy and I'm simple minded, too. I like the purity of a straight PR system. If the Greens get 10% of the vote then they would constitute 10% of the members of parliament -- that's about 30 MPs: constituted by the leader and the next 29 highest (by percent) vote-getting Green candidates. Simple. Simple. Simple.Wayne Smith called it a simple national party list system. Gee, it was just simple PR to me. Simple Proportional Representation determines both the number of candidates from each party AND which candidates get elected. Simple. Nothing convoluted here.
Now IDGWIAT posted a list of concerns with PR and I'll try and address a few of them here.
- the need to choose a system that is least likely to result in minority governments (something PR is prone to creating - one if its main drawbacks)
Drawback?? Simple PR gives all votes equal value. Now that's democracy. - complex formulae that may confuse (and irritate) voters
Got that right. The diddlers making the simple, complex. - the possibility of candidates chosen from two separate lists
Talk about dumb. The diddlers again. - the pitfalls of allowing leaders to choose candidates from "lists", if such a system is chosen (STV largely prevents this, as voters ultimately choose the candidates)
WTF?? The voters have chosen with their votes. And STV? Frig that. More diddlers. - suburban ridings potentially enlarged (thus giving their component commmunities an ever lesser aggregate voice)
Simple PR makes every vote equal. - the potential need for an electoral threshold (a minimum amount of popular vote that must be obtained, before any seats can be awarded - i.e. 5% of national vote)
This is a problem? Only for the spitting hair diddlers.
Message to PR proponents ... stop complicating things. People understand simple PR. People don't trust the diddlers.
And, you know what is really weird? People are always talking about PR. They say that under PR this party would have this many seats and that party would have that many seats ... you know what, they are using SIMPLE PR! already. Then they go off and diddle, ruining everything they intuitively stated. Example taken from FairVoteCanada blog:
WTF! The case is stated using Simple PR (the chart) and then they go off and diddle it up with unspoken complexities. No wonder the public rejects PR.
If we had voted under a different electoral system that better reflects the popular vote – such as a Single Transferable Vote or a Mixed Member Proportional system ...
I suppose I should mention why I think the diddlers love to dive in and feed. Perhaps their greatest excuse is that under simple PR not every riding in the country will get to send an MP to parliament. Some ridings might send two members! So what, says I. An MP isn't supposed to work for the benefit of the riding but for Canada, instead. Special deals for a riding, like a golf course frinstance, smells like corruption. Ergo, simple PR reduces corruption.
And there is something in the Constitution about equal representation but simple PR is an exactly equal vote ... so it is even better representation than we have now!
Simple PR, people. Simple PR.
But, what do I know. Feedback, please.
I don't know what's whacko about your idea. That's the way it's done in other truly democratic countries (especially across Europe). Wayne Smith needs a remedial course in basic democracy, it seems.
ReplyDeleteHey, AA. Thanks for leaping to the support of a simple guy's simple idea. But, to be fair to Wayne, my paraphrase was tinged with a bit of extremist humour -- but only because of his invoking the constitution to poo-poo simple PR. He is quite the expert on electoral systems.
ReplyDelete"straight" pr is a disaster in the making. making mp's accountable to their leader, and not to the voters takes all that is bad about the current system and makes it worse. Any electoral system has to emphasize the fact that mp's hvae only one boss - those that elected them. In this system we would elect 302 empty suits and 5 party leaders. This is the power of STV, make the leaders of the parties less powerful and individual mp's the most powerful.
ReplyDeleteI understand the concerns about being too complicated. Well taken. But that is not a reason to regress.
"...a disaster in the making. making mp's accountable to their leader..."
ReplyDeleteWha?? You have demons in your head.
And as for the "leader," greens operate in an entirely different manner from other political parties. Green MPs represent the EDA, first and foremost. That's as accountable as you can get.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehmmmm, need more coffee. you people are confusing me...
ReplyDeletei'll come back when i'm of mind to take on the rationale behind accountability...!
715 donk, SEE CHART ABOVE! I think you're missing it. Put down the Guinness for a moment.
ReplyDeleteRead my lips:
If the Greens get 4.5% of the vote then they would get 12 MPs: constituted by the leader and the 11 highest (by percent) green candidates. The ballot that people vote on remains the same (as in the last election).
And, based upon the last election, they would be:
1. Bruce Grey - Owen Sound: 12.9%
2. Calgary Centre North: 11.8%
3. Calgary Centre: 11.7%
4. BC Southern Interior: 11.3%
5. Wild Rose: 10.8%
6. Ottawa-Centre: 10.2%
7. Calgary-West: 10.2%
8. Dufferin-Caledon: 10.0%
9. Saanich-Gulf Islands: 9.9%
10. Guelph: 8.7%
11. Victoria: 8.1%
These are the 11 highest green percentages. I know you are just dying to ask -- my percentage, 7.41%, Calgary East.
herbinator! your site is a dandy read. keep on greening the web!
ReplyDeleteHerb,
ReplyDeleteOpen list proportional representation as you propose is better than party list PR, but it will not eliminate strategic voting. I think that voter intention may be better served by a single transferrable vote (STV)system that empowers voters to vote their beliefs first and employ strategic voting therafter.
For example, strategic voting may cause an environmentatlly conscious voter to choose NDP or Liberal because those candidates have the best chance of success. In STV, an environmentally conscious person might vote Green 1, NDP 2 and Liberal 3.
There is, of course, no reason to believe that existing percentages would be preserved with any form of PR.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey, 604, you got it. Simple takes a lot of explaining when one is used to deep, dark, and intricate. And, you make an excellent critique about the leader wrt Simple PR.
ReplyDeleteI just tagged that leader rider on ... seemed like the right thing to do. In our current system we do the resignation and run-off thingy (as with Mulroney) to get leaders into parliament but that is not possible in PR.
And, Cyc, come on, STV? It is NOT simple. The result is not intuitive. It raises strategic voting to HIGHER level -- on par with a parlour game or a betting system. Counting is mind-numbing. Potential for fraud is increased. Voting is for people not computers.
PR is the way to go but complicating things will only alienate the populace and make them resist change, as demonstrated in BC and PEI.
By the way, the GPC uses STV internally and it aint pretty, and it assumes a rather informed (as to candidates) electorate. Speaking for myself, I'm kinda uncomfortable using it when voting because I'm ranking people I'm not all that familiar with.
BTW, your observation on Inglewood voters was right on. Had a lot of support here. Under Simple PR, six or seven more seats and I woulda been in. Pension, benefits, salary, free coffee ... almost.
Herb,
ReplyDeleteIf simple is the goal, we already have it. We vote for a single candidate in a single riding. The candidate with the most votes takes it.
STV is not complex. A 1-2-3 STV system differs from many party runoff systems because there is only a single vote call. If you like simple, just vote for your favourite candidate. If you have opinions that can only be expressed as a blended appreciation for the platforms from a number of candidates, rank them and vote for your favourite three.
As a Calgarian, your system appeals to me because any non CPC vote here is a wasted vote. Nonetheless, I think simple open list PR still encourages stragegic voting. The big three parties (NDP, CPC, LPC) will remain at the top and smaller parties will remain on the outside.
Why not support an achievable system? Do you really think Quebecers will support a system that cuts back the Bloc's seat numbers so significantly? I rather think it would be regarded as a blatant attempt to reduce Quebec's influence.
OK, Cyc, you prefer 1-2-3 STV. Kinda comes with its own rallying cry, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteAs for your closing two questions, maybe you'd like to pose them on your blog? They are a little off the track for debate here.
In any case, we both support PR.
Cycles,
ReplyDeleteI'm not convinced Quebec would be a great barrier to PR at all. There are as many there that deem the existing system in the same light that you describe non Conservative voters in Alberta...
I think the large parties have the most to loose, yes. And they may well invest a lot into creating public dissention / contraversy over it.
Interesting discussion folks, food for thought, thanx.
Ricia,
ReplyDeleteI am concerned that Quebec may officially oppose simple list PR and it will further fuel the sovereignty movement. This is one more reason why I think that STV may be more feasible. I continued my thoughts on my own blog.
Herb,
ReplyDeleteThanks for getting the ball rolling on this one. I've been constantly challenged on PR voting on the basis of how do we choose the people representing the party (i.e. the Greens' 12 seats). Its a great and simple solution to a problem that has been plaguing Canadians for a long time.
Keep fighting the good fight!
Lex
Alberta went 100% Conservative in this election (2006). Not only would four greens have been elected in Simple PR but one NDP would have made it (Edmonton Strathcona). Alberta is not so neanderthal afterall (as revealed by SImple Proportional Representation). Alberta is oppressed by the archaic voting system.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of simple PR. The way for it to work and prevent political operators from always getting a seat (as is often the case in Israel), is as follows.
ReplyDeleteThe winning party in an election gets to first fill the seats in proportion to their popular vote starting with the riding where they got the largest plurality. That means that in Alberta, some current "winners" would not get seats.
Second, the next placing party, gets to fill its seats from the remaining available untaken seats, in proportion to their popular vote with the highest plurality that they obtained. This process would continue until all seats were filled.
What this would do is allocate seats that are strongly won to the winning parties, while marginal seats would become "swing" seats that could go to any party.
I did this exercise in the last Chretien election, and of Alberta's 28 seats, only 17 would have gone to the Tories, six to the Liberals, three to the NDP and two to the Greens for a total of 28 seats. That would have been much superior representation then what we got.
In this result, none of the highest plurality 17 Tory seats would have changed, and two of the Liberal seats would have remained unchanged, but the PR would gain an additional four seats for the Liberals. The NDP would garner three seats after the Liberals were allocated their seats, but there is no assurance that a party leader would win, except if he did well personally in relation to the the remaining party candidates.
Many very good points.
ReplyDeleteOnly one I have to express concern over:
"under simple PR not every riding in the country will get to send an MP to parliament. Some ridings might send two members! So what, says I. An MP isn't supposed to work for the benefit of the riding but for Canada, instead. Special deals for a riding, like a golf course frinstance, smells like corruption. Ergo, simple PR reduces corruption."
Coming from rural Sask, I can see how this would pose a major problem. People from different ridings can lose touch with the concerns of people if they don't live in the same demographic. That's why we elect MPs from across Canada, and not just in Ontario and Quebec. The same problem goes right down to the riding level, where if the MP isn't a local man or woman, then there will be thousands of people without a voice willing to speak for them in the House.
Saskboy. They voted. They had a voice ... and an equal one at that. That is the beauty of Simple PR. Every vote counts toward getting your party representation in parliament -- just as every vote gets the party $1.75.
ReplyDeleteYour proposed system is quite fine if you do the calculation province-by-province. As you say, no harm in one riding having more than one MP, but lots of harm in one province getting more than its share of MPs while another gets less. Unconstitutional, for a start.
ReplyDeleteThe German province of Baden-Wurttemberg uses a model rather like yours for provincial elections, but they calculate it over four regions to make sure the capital district -- where voters smaller parties tend to be concentrated -- don't get more than their share of MLAs.
However, you may find it hard to explain to voters why the candidate who won in the riding doesn't always get to be an MP, so a riding may be represented by someone who came fourth. If you used the Baden-Wurttemberg model, with ridings twice the size we have today, the local winner would always be an MP, and the other half of the MPs from the province would be chosen exactly as you describe, to top-up the local results. MMP, yes, but with no lists, the additional MPs are (as you suggest) those who got the highest percent.