An Undemocratic Democracy?

Pollister Nick Nanos opines in the G&M that perhaps Canada is a 'joyless democracy' and points to the fundamental disconnect between the economic numbers hurled at Canadians and the anxiety we feel about the future. He continues by wondering if there is a fundamental disconnect between democratic sentiment and parliamentary outcome in regard to the results of our last election which returned a minority parliament.

He goes on to suggest that this is perhaps because the outcome of the popular vote is not reflected by the various party standings in the HoC, this is hardly a new opinion for the efforts to change our electoral system early last term fell by the wayside when the various political partys could not agree on a new system. I would suggest that this was in part, if not mainly, because the various political partys and many of their supporters are scared of MINORITY Parliaments where to get ANYTHING done they would have to find consensus, seek compromise, be open to opposing ideas, something not seen much of generally in the political arena. Perhaps our 'representatives' are more cooperative behind closed doors but on the floor of the House and in public gatherings and social media they are far too busy slamming the other guy to say much productive. It is this that makes for that joyless opinion that so many of us are coming to have of our democracy.

We are a LONG way from having any kind of truly representative parliament here for not only is it, as we have seen, difficult to select an acceptable system from the many proposals and their various specific details but I suspect that even if such a system was brought in tomorrow how would our confrontational MPs react in what would almost certainly be a series of minority coalition parliaments. It CAN work as seen in New Zealand where they are on just their fourth coalition since 1996 and where their native population are part and parcel of that government. I see the desire for such a system building here in Canada but are we ready to embrace and support such a radical change just yet?

Finally a word about the dangers of social media.

As a senior citizen who has personally resisted the thrall of 'social media' I am hardly qualified to comment about its effect upon our democracy but will ask this: is the speed with which information both accurate and inaccurate can be spread part of the problem? How many of us take the time to determine the accuracy of what is being fed to us from the various modern media before having a knee jerk reaction and quickly head for our keyboard (or thumbboard) to add to the confusion. Think before you poke folks, once its out there its out there for keeps in this day and age!

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Is it all about the $$$?

Regular readers, all two or three of you, will know that I have had little to say here at Democracy Under Fire during the recent election period, the manure being spread was simply too deep for this old fellow to wade through. Now that the BS is gradually subsiding I thought I would return to examining our voting system based upon the results from this recent attempt to bring us 'fair' representation to the House of Commons.

First lets dissect the results and the campaign funding involved in that....

Liberals 157 seats, 5,915,950 votes, 33.1 per cent of the popular vote

Conservative 121 seats, 6,155,662 votes, 34.4 per cent of the popular vote

Bloc Québécois 32 seats, 1,376,135 votes (7.7 per cent)

New Democrats 24 seats, 2,849,214 votes (15.9 per cent)

Greens 3 seats, 1,162,361 votes (6.5 per cent)

Others 1 seat, 383,373 votes (2.1%)

It can be clearly seen that the Block is strongly over represented and both the Greens and the NDP are under represented if representation by popular vote is taken into consideration. Clearly there is a strong influence to national results by the regional concentration of votes in any particular region, this is further reinforced by the Conservative sweep of Alberta and Saskatchewan (100% representation from 55% of votes in Alberta)

There will be no doubt a number of folks saying if this were proportional voting the results would be this xx, but I will not do that here because I believe that if folks knew that their vote for a particular candidate would not be 'wasted' by the first past the post system they may well vote differently.

Moving on to the influence of 'funding' upon any particular individual or their party its much more difficult to pin down, clearly the various political partys believe it has a great deal to do with the results or why else would some of them be spending millions of (partly refundable) dollars on (often questionable) advertising. This in addition the the substantial refund they get at the riding level.

Here are some of the numbers on that (just from April 1 to June 30 of this year).....

Conservatives raised $8.5 million from 53,000 donors.

Liberals raised $5 million from 41,500 donors

NDP raised $2.65 million from 21,000 donors

Greens raised 2.15 million from 21,000 donors.

The final numbers not yet available obviously will be much more revealing but I suspect that the amount of money spent has far less influence on the results than the fundraising gurus would have us, and their partys, believe. Obviously those running for election must have the ability to let the public know about their 'platform' but spending millions on political advertising much of which is spent slagging the opposition rather than outlining their own beliefs, is but BS no matter who's paying for it.

NOTE

The election expenses reimbursement subsidizes 50% of the national campaign expenses of any party that obtains at least 2 per cent support, or at least 5 per cent in the ridings (electoral districts) in which they presented candidates.

Riding organizations are also reimbursed 60% of all expenses incurred by their candidates in each riding where they obtained at least 10% of the votes, plus 100% of allowable "personal expenses". There does not seem to be any restrictions on how those 'returned' funds are then used.

A final thought here on this, I believe that the previous per vote subsidy of $1.53–$2.04 previously paid to every registered federal political party based upon their previous election results prior to 2015 when Harper discontinued it was a much fairer way of ensuring that partys had a way of getting the word out. Those electors who were not inclined to send thousands to the party of their choice still got to support the electoral process where unfortunately the almighty dollar has far too much influence.

Having looked at some of the various voting systems over the past few years some of which I have explored in detail on these pages I still dont know if any of the proposed alternatives are a step forward or an invitation to further problems. I suspect there will be further discussion about this in the coming couple of years based upon the results outlined above.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

The ABC Dilemma ….again

As 'be counted' day approaches each of us of voting age must decide which 'party' to vote for, yes I know we do not vote for the party but for an individual who 'represents' (or more correctly is a member of) said political party. Lets face it the whole idea that we are voting for an individual is becoming more and more of a farce each time an election comes around be it federal or provincial, the 'party' the 'leader' and the back room boys of said party have all the power and for the most part our individual MPs have very little influence in what is said and done in their name by that inner group.

Cynical you say, perhaps so but when we see 'leaders' (of all stripes) dictating who and who cannot run under their banner even after the local Electoral District Association has selected and endorsed a candidate, when even the smallest long past comment is grounds for 'the party' rejecting a candidates ability to run under their banner, then perhaps my initial thoughts above are not so far wrong. Let he who is without fault cast the first stone is perhaps the appropriate comment here!

This leaves those of us who intend to vote on Oct 21st in a bit of a dilemma, do we vote for that local candidate who we like and trust but who has little chance of getting elected, do we vote for the 'next best' candidate who has a better chance 'representing us'? Do we vote for an individual we dislike and distrust but whose party is our preferred choice of government or do we vote to reduce the chances of a party we don't want to see in power from having one more MP in the house and possibly gaining power.

This latter choice is then where the heading for this piece comes from ABC ….. Anyone But Conservative ….. Long time readers will know that this blog was originally started to highlight and document the previous conservative government of Stephen Harper attacks on our democracy. Whilst I have attempted to highlight issues that jeopardise our democracy by any and all partys I cannot help but say that I still think that the conservative mind set as evidenced by the Frord regime here in Ontario is the greatest danger to it. That Scheer seems to want nothing to do with his Ontario counterpart kinda says it all in my mind, there may be a bit of a divide between provincial and federal politics but I see little difference in the ideological beliefs of the various leaders or would be leaders.

In May of this year I wrote “Frankly the thought of Ford in control of our province scares the living shit out of me, I am firmly convinced that he will do and say anything to gain power, nothing he says can be taken at face value.......” That assessment has been proven to be correct and I can but hope that we don't get to see if indeed Mr Scneer is cut from the same cloth!

I still don't know if I will be voting for my local candidate, the party of choice (both Green at this point) or strategically to stop the Frord want to be. Stay tuned.......

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Electronic Voting Not an Option.... yet.

Following the panel discussion on voter engagement of young people at Ryerson University recently backbench Liberal MPP Arthur Potts proposes that the voting age should be lowered two years, to 16. Scotland and Argentina are among the places where teenagers are allowed to cast ballots at that age, a time when many are taking on other responsibilities such as getting behind the wheel of a car,. “They can drive. They can work,” “This proposal is not a stretch from where we are today.” he said.
“I think they’re quite capable of making a reasoned choice for a political party,” he added, noting two high schools in his riding already hold mock elections to mirror real-world elections. “I can’t imagine a downside.”
Its hard to substantially disagree with him given that most of our youth are much more “connected” than us older folks were at that age and that its much easier nowadays to keep abreast of the various 'platforms'. This is not to say that there will be youth who will have no clue about the choices presented or wont care, but then that is no less true of many 'adults' where the traditional low turnout say much about our collective apathy around voting.

It is gradually getting better with a 50% turnout in the last Ontario election and an unprecedented near 70% 2015 federal election, whilst much of the uptick may have to do with the choices put before us and the quality of said candidates the inclusion of more youth may liven things up a little. Our younger voters will be much more comfortable with online voting than some us 'old fogies' but even this 70+ fellow uses online banking so it should be that much of a stretch to include online voting as a alternative to paper balloting.
According to the 2011 Elections Canada Survey of Electors, a majority of non-voters (57 percent), primarily those with Internet access at home, said they would have voted had it been possible to do so over the Internet using the Elections Canada website. The proportion was 10 percentage points higher among 18-to-24-year-olds. Of interest, the likelihood of non-voters saying that they would have voted online was higher among users of Facebook and similar applications.
The Study sheds additional light on electors' attitudes about Internet voting. Just under half of electors (49.1 percent) agree, somewhat (31.5 percent) or strongly (17.6 percent), that "Canadians should have the option to vote over the Internet in federal elections". This compares to 39.4 percent who disagree. A majority of electors said they would be likely to vote over the Internet if they could do so but 50.3 percent of them think voting over the Internet is "risky" while only 29.7 percent think it is not. I suspect that these figures have changed considerably since 2011. 

Ontario has  e Registration, where you can confirm, update or add your information to the Voters List “in just a few easy steps”. I have not tried that yet so cant verify how 'easy' it is but I do hope it is an improvement over some of the previous efforts in that regard, you will not however be able to vote electronically in any provincial or federal election that I know of. 

Elections Canada has a long, and I do mean a loooong, discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of moving towards a modernised voting system that includes electronic voting but it looks to be far distant dream at this point. What follows is a few clips from that document which seems to me to be mostly about why we cannot adopt such a system.

First, proponents cite convenience and the principle of voting at any time as a primary advantage. Research of online voters in municipal elections in Canada confirms that convenience is the leading reason for using the voting method, with 66% of those surveyed in the 2014 Ontario municipal elections noting that is why they voted online

(Finally) claims of youth engagement are often made since presumably young people are more technically inclined than previous cohorts of electors and are avid users of the internet. Studies find, however, that young or first time voters are more likely to vote by paper than online

Overall benefits such as convenience, access, greater voter privacy and reduction in spoiled ballots are well established. Modest improvements in turnout are also documented in a Canadian context, albeit for municipal elections, as well as the attraction of some non-voters to the voting method.

Opposition to online voting, or hesitancy to pursue it, is based on several principal barriers., they include....

The digital divide refers to having access to an internet connection, the quality of that connection and digital skills and knowledge. If an elector does not have access to the internet, or a poor quality/ slow connection, it is argued they will be less likely to vote online. …...it remains an issue in some more rural places in Canada, notably in northern areas and Indigenous communities........

Ballot secrecy is one of the top barriers to online voting implementation ….....any voting or counting process that does not adhere to the principle of ballot secrecy “cannot be considered democratic”

Authentication is another barrier that must be sufficiently overcome to adopt online voting. It refers to the process of confirming voters are who they say they are. The Auditability of voting must be maintained with online voting (can the votes as recorded be confirmed to be correct).

A list of common security threats associated with online voting systems that are not present in traditional paper voting at the polls where ballots are counted by hand is shown in a table included in the article and summerised here....Vote Selling and Coercion , Phishing , Automation bias , Denial of Service , Client-side Malware/Spyware , Server penetrations , Insider Influence , State-level Actors

Finally

Overall technical barriers such as authentication, verification, ballot secrecy and auditability need to be managed based on available technology and contextual circumstances, threats to security present additional challenges. In practice, the two principles of being able to verify votes are cast as intended and tallied as cast take place in three phases or steps whereby voters can check that their ballot was cast an intended, recorded as cast and tallied as cast:

1.    Cast as intended – at the time of voting, voters are provided with evidence, often in the form or a receipt or code, that their encrypted ballot reflects their voting choice.
2.    Recorded as cast – voters can check that the encrypted ballot has been included correctly by seeing the encrypted code they cast on a public list, which shows the encrypted votes that have been cast.
3.    Tallied as recorded – “any member of the public can check that all the published encrypted votes are correctly included in the tally, without knowing how any individual voted”.

There is the potential to make our voting system much easier and to encourage greater participation via electronic voting however the recent rushed disaster in attempting to use such a system to select a new Ontario Conservative leader has not improved the chances of using such for provincial or federal voting anytime soon!





Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Democratic Renewal

Recently Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne, Progressive Conservative interim leader Vic Fedeli, NDP Leader Andrea Horwath, and Green Leader Mike Schreiner recently gathered at Ryerson University to discuss - not to debate - the need for democratic renewal . Moderated by the Star’s Queen’s Park columnist, Martin Regg Cohn the forum focused on the urgent need to better engage young people.

In the last two elections, barely half of Ontarians bothered to cast a ballot — an embarrassing 48 per cent voted in 2011, and a dispiriting 51 per cent turned out in 2014.

They were the worst showings by civic no-shows in our democratic history. And far worse turnouts than in any other provincial or federal election ever.

The Green’s Schreiner told more than 300 people at the George Vari Engineering and Computing Centre

“Who do we blame for disengagement? I think the media, politicians, and the way we conduct politics has to share in some of the blame,”.“I am deeply concerned about our civil discourse in terms of how we refer to voters. Think about some of the media tropes that are out there,” “We talk about ‘taxpayers’ a lot as if we’re only ‘taxpayers,’ or we talk as if voters are there to harvest votes, or that we’re consumers of government services, rather than actually talking about people as citizens.” interim leader Vic Fedeli said it’s no wonder young people don’t vote because the electoral process is so antiquated.

Progressive Conservative interim leader Vic Fedeli said it’s no wonder young people don’t vote because the electoral process is so antiquated.

“You have to get to a voting place. You’re either going to take transit or drive a car and park or get there somehow, walk. You’re going to go to a building you’ve probably never been to before. You’re going to get in a line with people you’ve never met before — a long line in some cases — you’re going to finally get up there, bring out paper ID and register,” he said. “You’re going to be handed a ballot. You’ll get in a cardboard box and there’s a pencil and you’re going to fill out your ballot and hand it to somebody who is going to put it in another box,” “The way you actually work is not reflected in the way our government system has you voting. You’re not reflected in that. You work with tablets and electronic voting. The way you work is completely different than the way our system is set up.”

An aside here.... as I have said on these pages before I am no great fan of the 'Conservative' mindset, at least as it currently exists in both Federal and Ontario politics. I am however somewhat disappointed that Mr Fedeli is only 'interim leader' for he seems to be the only one of those currently involved in the conservative leadership fiasco with the experience and skills to actually move the party forward in a positive way. Perhaps the current total cfk will bring about a positive change eventually but I an not holding my breath!

Moving on......

Wagging our fingers won’t help. Making people feel guilty won’t make them vote.

What will it take to revive the democratic impulse at a time when the pulse is especially weak? The polling by Campaign Research provides interesting clues:

• The biggest single reason people don’t vote — cited by more than one-third of all Ontarians — is they believe they can’t, because they are somehow not registered. This finding cries out for targeted information from the media, electoral authorities, political parties, and activist groups.
  

• Mandatory voting is the law in Australia, but remains a long shot here — Ontarians are evenly split on fines for those who don’t cast ballots. Nearly two-thirds of those born outside Canada support compulsory voting, their sense of civic duty and democratic engagement could be harnessed with greater outreach.
  

• Better campaign platforms and information are also the top reasons cited by voters for what would make them more likely to participate. Bottom of the list: electoral reform, cited by only 1 per cent in the survey.

My own thoughts on this as I eye up the choices that will soon be presented to us here in Ontario is that perhaps if we had a better selection of both candidates and party platforms (not that you can believe anything they say during an election period) then perhaps more folks would bother to make a choice! As always the delema of whether to vote for the individual, the party they run under or the platform that party presents further adds to the difficulty, often leading to the wish for a 'Non of the above' choice at the ballot box. Certainly making sure our youth and more recent citizens are aware of their voting rights and how to register and vote as well as a much simpler and less archaic system would also go a long way to improve the turnout.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

The Demise of Democracy

A recent post by Owen over at Northern Reflections brought my attention to this highlighting an “investigation” by a long time former MP.


Both major parties have made a mockery of Canada’s electoral system, which was on its sickbed when the Liberals came to power. It’s now on life support — according to the investigations of former Liberal MP Paul Szabo.


“According to Szabo, the Liberal Party thwarts local voters to cherry-pick its chosen nominees. The campaign expense reports of some of those nominees are often late, incomplete and perhaps even illegal. Worse, many of the memberships that secured the nomination for one candidate over others were allegedly fraudulent. “


There is little doubt that the whole system by which candidates are selected is being 'gamed' by most, if not all, political partys.


“What Szabo has flagged in the federal system — the undemocratic and even potentially illegal manipulation of the nomination process — is raging at the provincial level as well. As Ontario gears up for its next election, PC leader Patrick Brown is knee-deep in charges of skullduggery bordering on corruption.
His party’s nomination system has been rife with ballot stuffing, fake memberships, fake membership forms, people registered without their knowledge, payment or permission, as well as cheating so egregious that it elicited a rebuke from one of the staunchest Tories of them all: former Conservative Senator Marjory LeBreton.”


The series of (lets be nice and call them) negative ad's currently being aired in Ontario from various political partys and their supporters does nothing to make me think that the final results are not being manipulated by those with the resources to 'buy' our election process.


“Ultimately, what Szabo is addressing is nothing less than the demise of democracy. From the selection of party nominees through to election of our public officials, the will of the people has been reduced to the predatory manipulations of a few.
Whether it’s the PMO pulling strings to get its cronies nominated, a band of unscrupulous partisan techies suppressing the vote by robocalls, or a lazy and ineffective Elections Canada cutting slack when it should be bringing down the hammer on miscreants, we are not headed to a good place.”


The old adage from historian and moralist known simply as Lord Acton back in the 1800s comes to mind ....: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The ease with which large portions of our population can be 'manipulated' via various on line media by those with almost unlimited resources to do so should concern us all!




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Fair Elections Act Updated

This week the Liberals introduced a bill to reverse many of the more egregious changes brought in with the Conservative “fair” elections act, the summary of this legislation says......
This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to
(a) remove limitations on public education and information activities conducted by the Chief Electoral Officer;
(b) establish a Register of Future Electors in which Canadian citizens 14 to 17 years of age may consent to be included;
(c) authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with information about permanent residents and foreign nationals for the purpose of updating the Register of Electors;
(d) remove the prohibition on the Chief Electoral Officer authorizing the notice of confirmation of registration (commonly known as a “voter information card”) as identification;
(e) replace, in the context of voter identification, the option of attestation for residence with an option of vouching for identity and residence;
(f) remove two limitations on voting by non-resident electors: the requirement that they have been residing outside Canada for less than five consecutive years, and the requirement that they intend to return to Canada to resume residence in the future; and
(g) relocate the Commissioner of Canada Elections to within the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, and provide that the Commissioner is to be appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer, after consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, for a non-renewable term of 10 years.


In addition, the enactment contains transitional provisions and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=8626914


All in all a positive move that removes some of the voter suppression tactics introduced by the Harper Regime in their “fair” elections act, there should be little objection to this bill but it will be interesting to see how the 'old school' conservative MPs react to it! I will say that whilst I do agree with a citizen being a citizen for life no matter where he or she lives. I do have a few reservations about clause (f).
if a citizen has left Canada and not returned in 5 years and says he or she has no intention of returning then I find it difficult to say that they should be able to influence to future of those that actually live here. I am still a British citizen (AND a Canadian one) after some 45 years in Canada, should I then be able to vote in the Brexit debacle or for a representative for British Parliament.....I dont think so.
The pre-registration of younger voters is a big step forward and the reinstatement of Elections Canada’s mandate to educate and encourage voters is so obviously right that no further comment should be required. The updating of the voters list (and hopefully the resources to do so) is long overdue, an inordinately large portion of the problems at the polls was the discrepancy between the voter list and the reality on the ground, particularly in rural ridings where addressing norms are often far different from urban norms (which the database appears to be set up to accommodate).


These small but important changes will no doubt get totally lost in the discussions that are about to explode about the Electoral Reform Committees report about to be released and which I fear will simply create further division particularly with the call for a referendum which it is rumoured to contain in order to achieve some kind of consensus with the conservative contingent on the committee.


Its going to be interesting to see where this all goes and is, I suspect, a no win situation for the Liberals, but never forget that had they not come to power there would be no debate and we would be heading in the other direction, as it would seem are our neighbours to the south.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

The Good, the Bad and the Narcissist

Regular readers will be aware of a lack of posts of late and no commentary on the situation south of us and perhaps are asking how a blog about democracy can be silent about the upcoming change in the U.S. Administration. Apart from being driven almost speechless by the American people electing a lying hatemonger as their president there is little more that can be said that has not already appeared in various media across the world. All I am going to say on the subject is that we know it is going to be bad but with Drumph appointing like minded arseholes, racists, misogynists, climate sceptics, brain dead, right wing extremists to positions of power it is looking worse each day......
That his accession to power seems to have emboldened such sick individuals across the world, including in Canada, to spread their hate and intolerance shows just how dangerous it is to give such narcissist access to almost unlimited coverage in the press, on TV and on the internet. It took a certain dictator several years to “seize power” over a democracy in the 1930s, with modern communications it has taken Drumph just 6 months to gather a cult like following.


Here in Canada I am VERY thankful that we no longer have a right wing government here for who knows what the rise of such an extremist across the border would have encouraged the Harper Regime to do. We cannot however ignore the effect that events to the south will have upon us here both in the practical sense of trade and environmental concerns but also in the thinking of those who agree with his stated policies. Whilst there is no doubt room for some criticism of the Liberals now in power I for one am a LOT more comfortable with the general direction and tone of our current government. This brings me to the latest road block that appears to being erected to their promise of a new electoral system being in place before we next vote again. It appears that in 'seeking consensus' the Electoral Committee may include the conservative members demand for a referendum in their report, remember the report is just a 'recommendation' to the government and it has been fairly firmly established that such cannot be accomplished in time to have a new system in place before October 2019. As with several other issues that are awaiting decisions the Libs are damned if they do and damned if they don’t on this one and have some very hard and possibly controversial decisions to make in the next year, all the consultations in the world do not make such decisions any easier.


When the new U.S. President makes our previous Prime Minister look good then its easy to feel really good about our current Prime Minister!




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

An Electoral Framework for the 21st Century

Marc Mayrand, the outgoing chief electoral officer, has apparently put together a number of suggested changes that he would like to see made to our electoral system. I can only say thet the eight highlighted by Kady in the Ottawa Citizen look pretty good to me........



“While it’s well worth perusing the full document when/if you have time, here’s a quick overview of the chief electoral officer’s most (seemingly) commonsensical recommendations, several of which, it’s worth noting, can also be found in Team Trudeau’s 2015 campaign platform, but have thus far failed to materialize in the House in legislative form:

• Reverse the ban on using the Voter Information Card as as identification at the polls and loosen the new restrictions on attesting for electors without sufficient ID that were brought in under the Fair Elections Act.
  
• Re-empower the chief electoral officer to launch public outreach and education programs, including those that specifically target “persons and groups most likely to experience difficulties in exercising their democratic rights,” as well as groups with a lower rate of voter registration than the general population.
  
• Give the Commissioner of Elections the power to compel testimony – a recommendation that, the report notes, was first made in 2013 – as well as the authority to lay charges without the go-ahead from the director of public prosecutions.
  
• Set a maximum length for an election period – the CEO suggests “45 or 50 days, for example,” and “consider” adding a new provision specifying that the writ be issued on September 1.
  
• Look at switching from a weekday to a weekend polling day, which would allow the vote to take place on Saturday or Sunday
  
• Give the agency the power to impose fines – or “administrative monetary penalties” – for certain violations of the rules – specifically, those relating to financing and communications – rather than rely on criminal sanctions
  
• Give Elections Canada the authority to initiate “pre-registration” campaigns targeting 16 and 17 year olds “with a view to eventually including them” in the permanent electors list, as well as verify citizenship status of potential electors with the citizenship and immigration department.
  
• Allow in-home and “curbside” voting for those who are unable to vote at their assigned polling station, whether due to mobility challenges or any other mental or physical disability that restricts their ability to enter a polling station (like, for instance, extreme scent sensitivity).
  

These suggestions have nothing to do with the way we vote but more to do with how elections are conducted and the role of Elections Canada in conducting said elections, something which after Harpers “Fair” Elections act we all know need updating desperately.



Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Electoral Reform Online Survey Available

The Special Committee on Electoral Reform began witness hearings in July and this week, launched an electronic consultation to probe citizen views on electoral systems and other vital aspects of voting.


The introduction to that multiple choice survey says in part:-
The House of Commons has created a Special Committee on Electoral Reform to identify viable alternative federal voting systems to replace the first-past-the-post system and to conduct a study of them, as well as to examine mandatory voting and online voting. As part of its mandate, the Committee is using various tools and methods to consult with Canadians. This e-consultation is one such consultation tool intended to solicit Canadians’ views both on voting and on the election of Members of Parliament. The Committee’s report to the House of Commons will take into consideration the results of this consultation.
What to Expect
Before completing the e-consultation, you will have the opportunity to familiarize yourself with background material on electoral systems.
If you consent to participate in this e-consultation, you can expect to complete the questionnaire within approximately 30 minutes. (or less)
You do not need to complete the questionnaire in one sitting. You can interrupt the e-consultation at any question, save your work, and return to it at a later time. If you plan to complete the e-consultation in more than one sitting, it is recommended that you bookmark the webpage.
Find the survey Here


Those with a greater understanding of the issues than the average citizen may find themselves wishing for the ability to further define their answers, there is however a comment section at the very end. As noted in a previous post those with more to say can send their comments via this web form or via email to ERRE@parl.gc.ca

 
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Irish PR-STV system

In my last post I promised to take a harder look at the Irish electoral system of Open List PR-STV which is, as I said before a combination of a multi riding STV and Preferred Ballot system. I will start by covering some of the remarks made by Michael Gallagher, Professor of Comparative Politics, Trinity College Dublin and Michael Marsh, Emeritus Professor, Trinity College Dublin in their presentation to the Electoral Reform Committee.


“Nothing comes without problems, and there are two problems in particular that might be identifiable. One is that constituencies as we call them, ridings, would have to be much larger, both in geographical size and in population because proportional representation necessitates multi-member constituencies, so ridings would be much larger, and they already are huge in some cases. In addition, government formation becomes a much more complicated process because single party government would be very unlikely. It's very hard for any party under a really proportional system to win an overall majority.”
I note that whilst STV systems produce more proportionality than FPTP they are NOT a proportional system in and of itself.


“To expect an electoral system change to transform the whole nature of politics and make it more civil and so on, I think, is probably unrealistic. Generally we shouldn't try to over-explain things through the electoral system. A lot of people do look at countries, including Ireland, and say that Irish politics works this way, and it's got that electoral system, so it must be cause and effect. Very often it's not. “
I have said before in these pages that expecting a change in our voting system to cure all the problems in our system of governance and expect parliament to suddenly become more 'functional' is dreaming in technicolour!


“When voters go to vote, they see a ballot paper with all the candidates in the constituency listed. In Ireland they're listed in alphabetical order. That's not necessary, but that's the way it's done in Ireland. Votes are cast for their favourite candidate, their second favourite, their third favourite, and so on. They don't have to vote for any more than the favourite. They might vote for the favourite and then quit and not give a second preference. Or they might go from their favourite right down to the bottom of the ballot paper and cast number 17 for their least favourite.
This part is much the same as in Preferred Ballot systems except for the inclusion of candidates from 3 or more ridings.


“As to the counting process, if we went over a detailed, stage-by-stage, blow-by-blow explanation, it would all sound rather more complicated than it really is.”
I disagree with this statement, it not only sounds complicated but is VERY complex. See the fuller explanation of the counting system later in this post.


“The surplus distribution is the most complex part of (this system of) STV. What's more straightforward is that if a candidate fares very poorly, and gets only a few hundred votes, those votes are not wasted. The candidate is eliminated from the count and the votes are transferred to other candidates in accordance with the second preference marked. If that candidate in turn is later eliminated, the votes are transferred on in accordance to the third preference marked, and so on. The aim is that even if a voter votes for someone who doesn't do very well, this vote is not wasted as it is under the first past the post system. “
He makes it sound simple but in their particular system it is NOT.


“The counting is a multi-staged process. It takes much longer than a first past the post count. ......... Counting is not an instantaneous process—it can be several days before the full result emerges..........

When it comes to counting, the system that's used in Scotland, for instance, in local elections, is electronic, so it's instant. “

If this system were adopted electronic counting of the ballots and calculation of the results would, in my opinion, be essential. Recounts could still be assured by having the ballots both human and machine readable.


“A few thoughts on how PR-STV might work in Canada. At the moment you've got 338 MPs, so if Canada had PR-STV there might be around 70 to 90 multi-seat ridings, each returning anything from maybe three to seven MPs, or it could be more. Just looking at a few particular provinces, we see that Newfoundland and Labrador currently has seven single-seat ridings that might become one three-seat riding and one four-seat riding, for example. Prince Edward Island currently has four single-seat ridings that would become one four-seat riding. New Brunswick currently has 10 single-seat ridings that could become two five-seat ridings. It could be that really large geographical areas like Labrador, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Yukon would remain as single-seat ridings. I see that Labrador is a single-seat riding. Labrador is about three times as big as the entire island of Ireland, so to us it's unbelievable that this would be just one— “
Can you imagine a ballot with 4 (ridings) x up to 5 (parties) or up to 20 candidates to rate? Can you imagine the line ups waiting for folks to figure in what order to rate them?


Question
“Is there a preference built into the system for causing the more rural, more lightly populated areas to have a smaller number of TDs in order to keep the districts within a reasonable geographic size, and then do the opposite when it comes to the urban districts? That tends to have been the discussion in Canada, when we've debated this kind of system, that we would have larger numbers of members per district in the urban areas and fewer in the rural areas. Is it the same thing there, or is there a different logic? “

Answer

“No, not really. In a word, there isn't. That would create a potential unfairness. The parties that were stronger in the cities would kind of lose out because they might not get their fair share of seats in the smaller rural constituencies, whereas the big parties would do better in the rural ones and only get their fair share in the urban ones.
This whole question of making our already large (rural) ridings even bigger (even with several Mps representing the area) leaves me shuddering with the thought of the possibility of ALL those chosen living hundreds of miles away from those the purport to represent.

Question

“The riding I represent in British Columbia is four times the size of the entire country of Ireland. My people come from Longford (Ireland) and I looked it up and my riding is 330 times the size of Longford. The notion we're looking at is to create even larger constituencies in the rural communities. You're designated by the constitution in Ireland. We're not limited that way here in Canada, I don't believe. The notion of having even larger rural constituencies, as you can imagine, gives some pause. There's been a notion to have a hybrid in which we had an STV or some sort of proportionality within the more dense urban populations, yet leave the rural constituencies as they are. Has anyone mused about that in Ireland, or are you simply constrained by your constitutional requirements to keep
 We are constrained by the constitutional requirements. In fact, there was a referendum back in the 1960s on allowing for a higher level of representation in rural areas, thinly populated areas, than in urban ones.”

Answer

“I've always wondered how it is that STV can be proportional, given, as you say, that there's no proportionality that is privileged by the way the seats are organized; there's no separate set of seats to represent the imbalance that's created by voting at the constituency level.
 Within each constituency there's a reasonable degree of proportionality, especially in the larger ones, such as the five-seat constituencies. In three-seat ones, in particular, you might not get such proportional results, but what nearly always happens is that, simply on the law of averages, if a party loses out in one place they'll win out on another occasion.
I simply do not believe this would produce such results in Canada in part due to those huge districts and in part due to our greater number of political partys as compared with Ireland. I also note that the professors said that the more combined riding’s in a district the more proportional the results become the less number the less proportional. Thus this system and STV as a whole can be said to be more proportional than FPTP but is NOT fully proportional and should not, in my view, be called such.


Some member of the committee had difficulty understanding the counting system which as I said above is NOT simple. I have tried to assemble the concise explanation below gleaned from an official outline that left my head spinning.


In the Irish system of counting the Preferential part of the PR-STV voting system is totally opposite from the normal method where the bottom candidates are eliminated and the second choices are added to the previous count.

In that in this system they are electing several individuals per district they first count the number of ballots and then calculate the minimum number of votes required to be elected (in a 3 riding district a quarter of the votes plus one). Any candidate receiving more votes than this 'threshold' is deemed elected. Any excess votes for elected candidates over this threshold are distributed as per the second choice on the ballot, because the number of transferable votes may be more than the remaining ballots the votes are distributed in proportion to the number of selected secondary choices. With the removal of these ballots from any 'elected' candidate the 'excess' votes are recalculated and further votes removed over the elected threshold from any elected candidates for the next round.

Very, very complicated counting system that few would fully understand and takes several days to complete when done by hand as it is in Ireland......... !!

A complete explanation can be found here http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Publications/LocalGovernment/Voting/FileDownLoad%2C1895%2Cen.pdf

Transcripts and submissions (briefs and witnesses) including my own submission can be found here-

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Committees/en/ERRE/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=9013025

Evidence (which can be found under the individual meetings listing at http://www.parl.gc.ca/Committees/en/ERRE/Meetings ) is the edited transcript of what is said before a Committee and includes both remarks made by Members of the Committee and those made by the witnesses. Please note that the Evidence is only published for public meetings and may take approximately 1-2 weeks to be posted to the Committee web page.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Electoral Reform Committee Hearings Continue

The meetings of the Parliamentary committee studying Electoral Reform resumed this week with presentations from a series of “expert” witnesses. In the first of these meetings the call for a referendum once again came to the fore and was quickly shot down by all three experts! This after Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef told the committee on July 6 that referenda are divisive and not the best way of seeking clarity on the issue, and Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand earlier having estimated the price tag would be around $300 million.


After having reviewed the synopsis of the weeks proceedings as presented by that long suffering reporter Kady O'Mally in her live blogging (as apparently the only reporter actually viewing and reporting live from the meetings, as opposed to watching on parl-view, she is to be congratulated for her perseverance and deserves our thanks) I was struck by a number of things. Firstly how much time was wasted discussing the need / possibility a referendum, mostly in response to questions from the conservative contingent. The committees mandate, so far as I can tell, was to study and recommend to parliament a system of selecting our parliamentary representatives NOT to decide upon how such a system would be implemented. The choices are complex enough without bringing up this issue which most of the expert witnesses dismissed as “not particularly good at resolving complex issues” or otherwise inadvisable.
I also noted that with a few notable exceptions the presentations and discussions were very general in nature rarely getting into the 'mechanics' of any of the options discussed. One presenter even went so far as to say that such details were unimportant. I beg to strongly disagree, the details of the chosen system, particularly should that choice be some form of MMP, is fundamental to both the outcome and the acceptance of such a system.
The discussions of STV systems seemed to get a fair bit of attention perhaps in view of the early presentation by two Irish professors promoting their system of Open List PRSTV which as I understand it combines STV with Ranked Ballot in muti-constituentcy districts. (I must dig deeper into that system!). Despite what has been touted as the liberals preferred system Ranked Ballot seems to have received very little attention from either the presenters or the committee members. Finally before I attempt to summarize Kadys summary I note that the evening video conference with the Australian and New Zealand Electoral Commission commissioners was not covered by Kady which given that their systems are one the most often referred to in discussing MMP systems is a shame. ( no shame to Kady as she had already sat through two sessions that day). I may view the video and comment if / when I get time!


Here then are a few extracts from what reporting there is on the proceedings (my bold and italics), the meeting are all available on parl-view via the committee web site at http://www.parl.gc.ca/Committees/en/ERRE/Meetings no transcripts are available so far as I can tell.


Day one (Momday) the committee heard from:-
• R. Kenneth Carty, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Colombia
• Brian Tanguay, Professor, Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University
• Nelson Wiseman, Director, Canadian Studies Program, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto


Ipolitics reports that:-
Ken Carty (professor emeritus at the University of British Columbia), who served as the director of research for the B.C. Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, said the evidence from that referendum suggested a large majority of the people who cast ballots in that referendum knew nothing about the issue on which they were voting. And that evidence from Ontario’s referendum suggests the same.
Nelson Wiseman (professor at the University of Toronto) said “I would not put the issue of an alternative voting system to a referendum. It’s unnecessary; it’s a waste of money; and it will almost certainly fail. You may as well recommend not changing the system and save Canadians the cost.”
When asked about his preferred electoral system for Canada, Wiseman suggested the hybrid system used in Alberta and Manitoba between the 1920s and 1950s — with a single transferable vote system used in the cities (Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg) and an alternative ballot in the rural areas. (As a rural resident I have previously pointed out in these pages how unsuited STV is in rural and remote areas of Canada)
“If you live in a large metropolitan area, it doesn’t matter if the MP represents Davenport or Spadina Fort-York — the issues are similar. However, if you live outside of those cities it’s very vital,”
A heated exchange of Monday’s meeting took place between Brian Tanguay (professor at Wilfred Laurier University) and Conservative MP Jason Kenney, who has remained a federal MP and member of the committee despite having announced his intention to become leader of a united Wildrose and Progressive Conservative party in Alberta. Tanguay arguing for proportional representation and Jason saying that “some of the most dysfunctional democracies in the world are in the consensual category”

Day two (Tuesday) the committee heard from:-
• Michael Marsh, Emeritus Professor, Trinity College Dublin
• Michael Gallagher, Professor of Comparative Politics, Trinity College Dublin
• Patrice Dutil, Professor, Ryerson University
• Peter Russell, Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto
• Tom Rogers, Electoral Commissioner, Australian Electoral Commission
• Robert Peden, Chief Electoral Officer New Zealand Electoral Commission

Extracts from Kadys live blogging follow, see http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/kady-liveblog-mps-talk-irish-electoral-reform-experience-with-dublin-professors

The Irish electoral system uses (a version of) the Single Transferable Vote, which, Gallagher tells MPs, does lead to a closer relationship between share of the vote and the composition of the Parliament itself.
It does, however, require much larger ridings, he notes – –  as multi-member constituencies are needed — and it does indeed make it distinctly less likely that one party can command a majority.
“You mustn’t expect too much from electoral system change,” he warns the committee — it won”t “transform” the basic nature of politics by instantly rendering it more civil and collaborate. Expecting that from a change to the vote count formula would be “unrealistic,” he notes.
Marsh makes a pretty good pitch for the extended, 24-36 hour vote counting process, which, by his account, turns into a marathon political reality show to which the entire country is riveted.
Kenny still banging on about referendum as per Irish changes (as he and his fellow conservatives did throughout the entire week) Marsh warns that it would take a whole lot of resources to ensure there was enough information and awareness out there.
Peter Russel:-
Minorities, he reminds MPs, can often make Parliament more meaningful. (Minority *parliaments*, that is.)
As for “false majority” , his explanation is surprisingly simple: He just gets irked when governments and leaders claim a mandate from “the people,” an assertion he describes — with preemptive apologies to the public — as “BS” .
Russell also predicts that, in a post-FPTP minority, there likely wouldn’t be constant confidence votes, simply because there would be no incentive to do so in order to force an election and win a majority for your own party. 
Kady notes that Dutil is, indeed, very pro-referendum. (One of the few)
NOTE (A third session took place in the evening with the Aussi and NZ presenters which is not covered here)

Day three (Wednesday) the committee heard from:-
• Henry Milner, Senior Researcher, Chair in Electoral Studies, Université de Montréal
• Alex Himelfarb, Clerk of the Privy Council, 2002-2006
• André Blais, Professor, Department of Political Science, Université de Montréal
• Leslie Seidle, Research Director, Institute for Research on Public Policy
• Larry LeDuc, Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto
• Hugo Cyr, Dean, Faculty of Political Science and Law, Université du Québec à Montréal

Kady reports (in part) see http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/kady-liveblog-mps-talk-electoral-reform-with-former-pco-clerk-alex-himelfarb
Henry Milner gives a quick(ish) rundown of the arguments included in the much more extensive written brief he provided in advance, (which as with other similar documents does not seem to be available on line)
Kady - In his view, MMP is the only alternate to First Past The Post that ensures every voter has a person in the House to represent them, while still making every vote count.

Using Ottawa as an example. There would be six districts, he estimates, which might be larger than the existing ridings. That would mean six MPs, who would be voted for directly by the electors, and then another four seats that are divvied up according to vote share, from a list. So, everyone has their own MP, and there are four other members hanging around as at-range extras. 

Milner does not seem to be prepared to go into the details of how those lists would be assembled, which is, of course, a fairly critical element of any such system. (Exactly Kady!)
Himelfarb notes that, while he’s not going to endorse any one system, he believes that any option must ensure the voters, not the party, chooses the names on a list, which may or may not involve preferential weighting.  He confesses to a fondness for multi-member and single transferable vote systems, but he very much opposes lists created by parties — this is, he says, supposed to be about voters, not parties, so it should be open list or no list.  He also reminds MPs that “design matters.” (As I said at the top the 'mechanics' of the system chosen the details of the resign do indeed matter)
Blaikie then gives Milner the opportunity to outline the different models for putting together a list — should it be the party? Or the voters through second-round voting? Milner is actually fine with a closed-list, which is a courageous stance in this context, as noted earlier. But he’s also not opposed to the idea of having voters go through that list, although he worries that some might it find it difficult to do so.
Himelfarb, however, is very much in favour of an open list, which, he says, also makes it clear to the *candidate* that if they don’t make a special effort to “win the hearts and minds” of the voters, they may pay the price.

Following Kenney’s lead, Theriault, too, tries to get the witnesses to agree to the need for a referendum. (Nothing new here!)
Next up: Larry LeDuc, who says look at New Zealand it took three elections, two referendums and nine years, but they did *eventually* do it. (change their voting system). He seems to be a fan of process and principles over practical recommendation, and cautions the committee against delving too deeply into the details of any one possible option. (Say what!)

In conclusion, he sides with Peter Russell: the main job of an electoral system is to reflect the will of the voters. That, he says, is why he believes in list-based PR, as it both achieves that goal and is, after all, the most widely used in the world, unlike STV which is used only in Ireland and Malta. 

Ruby Sahota askes his thoughts on referendum,s he’s not implicitly opposed to the very idea of such a vote, but sees many, many, many shortcomings, including the ‘disinformation campaign’ that can result during a short, “chaotic” campaign.

Day four (Thursday) the committee heard from:-
• Dennis Pilon, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, York University
• Jonathan Rose, Associate Professor, Department of Policital Studies, Queen's University
• Maryantonett Flumian, President, Institute on Governance,

And Kady had this to report (in part) see http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/kady-liveblog-mps-talk-electoral-reform-with-political-science-professors-former-deputy-minister


First up: Dennis Pilon, who like the vast majority of witnesses to appear before the committee this week, he seems to be pretty keen on proportional representation; he also finds the arguments that insist the constitution requires a referendum to be ridiculous, and laments the increasing proliferation of such “internally inconsistent” logic appearing in the media, courtesy of the “right wing think tanks”  behind the funding.


Rose doesn’t believe it’s up to Canadians to design a new electoral system: That, he thinks, is the job of this committee. What Canadians must do is let the committee — and presumably the House and the government — what principles they believe are critical.  If the desired output is proportional representation, we must then go back to the principles to determine how to make that happen, which means asking questions about local representation and the potential tradeoffs that might have to be made.
(Kady says - Over the course of these hearings, it’s becoming clear that no one really wants to discuss tradeoffs that may occur under their preferred voting system, but that probably shouldn’t come as a surprise.)  (And yet each and every system will involve such 'trade offs' and it will be important for the committee to understand such shortcomings)
Flumian thinks that turnout could be boosted by making it less of a hassle to register — and to cast a ballot — particularly, although not exclusively, for youth.  She brings up the Conservative-initiated limits on vouching – –  allowing an elector to vouch for just one other voter — and suggests that might have had a dampening effect. On online voting, Flumian enthusiastically clicks yes
“Selling a voting system is like selling a car,” Pilon observes — voters want to know the basics, not the mechanics underlying it.and most voters don’t need to have the counting system explained to the point that they could serve as an  emergency deputy returning officer in a pinch, (but you do if you wish to actually understand the system and comment upon it with any authority!)
Apparently,it’s also we-the-media who are responsible for convincing everyone that if you can’t explain the voting system in 15 seconds or fewer, it’s a write-off. (In point of fact it take many hours of study to fully understand many of the systems being proposed as I have personalty found out!)

On referendum, (more wasted time) Flumian agrees that it tends to be “a very blunt instrument,” and one that has, at least for those in the generation that currently dominates this table, been divisive and not particularly good at resolving complex issues. 
Pilon — that in the Irish system, voters get very good local representation, and can even choose between *different* representatives from the same party.  (Still have to do more research on that one)
Reid, - Given the sheer size of this country, will it not be very hard to ensure that ridings don’t become even more vast, or sacrifice true proportionality by putting a cap on the number of members?  Rose doesn’t disagree that this is one of those tradeoffs.

Thats it, I am sure it hardly touches the approximately 20 hours of presentations and discussions, for that you will have to go to http://www.parl.gc.ca/Committees/en/ERRE/Meetings and watch the video of each session. I do note that one “expert” has summarized his initial presentation on his blog at https://afhimelfarb.wordpress.com/2016/07/27/proportional-representation-fairness-representativeness-and-accountability/ which may be worth viewing. Also see Kadys brief overview of the week.






Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Electoral Reform – The Ballots

Having recently reviewed a few of the more commonly used voting systems that may be considered by the proposed committee to examine electoral reform in Canada I thought it might be useful to collect some examples of the type of ballot that such systems would require. These examples are from various existing or proposed systems across the world, it was surprisingly difficult to find good examples of some types of ballots. Click on the examples to get a clearer view.


First up Mixed Member Proportional – Closed List where you have one vote for your local representative and one vote for the partys extra candidate of your choice. The Party chooses the individuals needed to make up the number of MPs needed to satisfy the proportionality of the vote.

Next up MMP – Open List where you have one vote for your local represntitive and one vote for the partys extra listed candidate of your choice. The individuals needed to make up the number of MPs needed to satisfy the proportionality of the vote are decided by who gets the most votes. I was unable to find an example of this type of ballot but it would look something like this which is a combination of the above and an open list proportional ballot.

The third example is that of a, Single Transferable Vote ballot based upon a sample from the BC STV proposal, the instructions were added from a Scottish STV ballot as no such information was included in the original. It is the same as AV shown below in that you rank the candidates except that the list contains the names of candidates from 2 or more ridings and the one per riding are elected. Those who win (using the ranked method of selection) represent the combined district..

A far better example of an STV ballot is this one from the U.S., it has the additional quality of being machine readable, something that I believe ALL ballots should encompass but particularly any that have ranked voting.

Finaly we have this simple machine readable Alternative Vote, Ranked Ballot (or whatever you wish to call it, I wish we could settle on a common name for this voting method). Here you rank you local candidates and your choices are taken into account when non of the candidates get more than 50% of the #1 votes.

One final note here. In MMP all votes (for both the local candidate and the Party or their choice list) are counted using First Past The Post, there is nothing stopping one or both of these choices being a ranked choice (except to make an already complex system more complex) thus eliminating those with less than 50% of the vote from automatically winning a seat. Such a ballot for Ranked MMP – Closed list might look something like this.......

As with each voting method there are many different varietys of ballots and what constitutes a valid or spoiled ballot as well as how said votes are counted. Any proposal must include a sample ballot which includes clear instructions on its use printed ON the ballot as well as, where appropriate, exactly how that vote is distributed. (i.e. The number of ridings represented in and STV ballot)
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Single Transferable Vote & Instant Run Off Voting

This week I will once again discuss some of the voting systems that may be considered for our future electoral reform. Single transferable vote (STV) is often touted as a “proportional” system, it is not, it is merely Instant Run Off (otherwise known as Alternative Vote or AV) with a wider choice of candidates by combining several ridings and having voters indicate their choice of candidates in order of preference. The representatives for the 2 or 3 or 4 ridings are then selected using the instant run off method from the combined list of candidates.


That is:-
An STV election starts with every voter's first choice, according to the following steps:

1. A candidate who has reached or exceeded the quota (usualy 50%) is declared elected.
   
2. If a candidate has more votes than the quota, surplus votes are transferred to other candidates. Votes that would have gone to the winner go to the next preference.
   
3. If no-one new meets the quota, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and those votes are transferred.
   
4. This process repeats until either a winner is found for every seat or there are as many seats as remaining candidates.
   

As with all voting methods there are variations, such as how to transfer surplus votes from winning candidates and whether to transfer votes to already-elected candidates. As usual the devil is in the details.


The advantage of this system compared with MMP (proportional) alternatives is that the number of elected MPs remains the same as the number of existing ridings (even after they have been combined for voting purposes) however for those who are determined to have a fully proportional system this will not produce such results despite it being described as 'somewhat proportional' in many write-ups. There are no 'extra' MPs and thus no artificial limits upon national votes that eliminate a smaller party from equal opportunities or any method to make the results 'proportional' with the popular vote.

The problem with STV in a country a large and diverse as ours with some riding’s covering hundreds of square miles is that whilst combining ridings and electing multiple representatives to cover that area may work in urban areas, in other parts of the country it could result in the election of MPs totally unconnected with distant parts of the combined riding and the wishes of larger centres within the combined district overriding those of the more distant areas. The combination of just 3 ridings in my rural area (in SW Ont) would result in a riding of more than 14, 000 sq km twice the size of the GTA with its 58 seats, this would be a 'small' riding compared with some other areas of the country. This system is only partly proportional anyway.
As mentioned above STV is merely Instant Run Off (AV) but with combined ridings.

AV (instant runoff) where your second and third choices are taken into account in electing a single LOCAL MP work exactly the same but just one MP is selected from the resulting voter preferences, otherwise all remains the same, I now (having previously voted for MMP in the Ontario referendum) personally flavor this way (AV / Instant Runoff) of electing our local representative (even within a proportional system should that happen, i.e. AV+), it is after all a known and well used system used by political party’s and others to elect leaders. It is the 'first past the post' thing that has everybody complaining about it so why would we still elect out local MP this way as most MMP systems do? It does not (except in its 'plus' format) add to the number of MPs in the HoC. It is not proportional in the true sense but may reflect the wishes of more electors in perhaps electing their second choice and does to some extent let folks spread their votes between a choice of person and party. It is also simplifies the ballot compared with most other systems and may be better understood by the general public..

For clarity AV+ is basically MMP but with the local candidates selected by an Instant Run Off method. Any system which calls upon voters to select or rate multiple candidates and / or party representatives will by default require a much more complex ballot and a more robust method of counting (and selecting the winners from preferential lists) than currently employed. If you thought the line ups were too long during the recent election wait till you have to rate candidates in order or select multiple candidates or select 'party candidates' as well as local ones.

As I have said before, I am all for voting reform but fear that it is not as simple as some would believe and some of the choices may well come with voter confusion, more spoiled ballots, longer line ups, more results challenged due to not understanding counting methods etc etc. I do not envy the “committee' in their work to 'recommend' a replacement system to FPTP!
One final note, there has be some commentary that this system or that give advantage to this party or that, I do not believe this is the case. Taking past results and applying them to a new method of voting tells us nothing. With each method and voter choices the voter selections made may have very little to do with past preferences and no one can predict the outcome, which is perhaps the single best thing about the change.




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers