Since you brought up the topic of PR : ) back in 2015 when Justin was talking about PR, I developed a little alternative option. It went like this...
The overriding consensus seems to be that the first-past-the-post system fails to accurately represent the voting preferences of the electorate in our representative democracy. A party with much less than 50% of the popular vote can form a majority government. An MP with much less than 50% of the riding votes takes 100% control of the riding vote in the legislature.
For the reform offered here no changes to the electoral process need to occur whereby voters go to the polls and cast a ballot for local candidates representing parties. Because voters already distribute their voting preferences proportionally on election night according to the current system. Within each riding different party candidates receive a proportion of the results of the electoral voting population. So, no need to change the part that is not broken.
As per usual, the candidate who wins the plurality or majority of votes in any riding heads to Ottawa to take his or her seat in the House of Commons. So, thus far, no change.
So to cut to the chase: the one and only change to the process. When the member from riding X votes in the legislature, he or she does not cast a vote representing the decision of a single member for a single riding. Rather that member's individual vote can only represent that portion or percentage of the riding vote the member actually received from the riding electorate.
For example, let's say he or she got 35% of the vote. The vote of the riding in the House of Commons will be based upon the continued voting engagement of all eligible candidates in the riding. For example, let's assume the other candidates received 25%, 20%, 15%, and 5% of the local vote.
So on any particular voting issue before the House of Commons, the riding vote will be the result of the weighted decisions of all the riding candidates. In other words, the MP who goes to Ottawa is not in exclusive, winner-take-all, control of the riding vote, but, in fact, has become the chair of a local constituency committee of the local candidates, which must come to some majority decision (50%+1) based upon each candidate's proportion of the election results, regarding any voting issue before the House of Commons.
So, any combination of the weighted candidates votes which could garner a 50%+1 majority result, would cast the riding vote in the legislature. Geographical representation remains a vital part of the political system versus relatively abstract, national, party-based ideologies.
MPs are likely to become more representative of their ridings and less exclusively of their parties, insofar as they must continue to negotiate, throughout the life of a parliament, with their fellow local candidates, issue by issue.
This is an interesting idea. Another variation: weigh each MPP's votes in the legislature based on the party's province-wide proportional electoral vote. So, if Party A has 80 members and 40% of the province-wide vote, each member casts .5 votes in the legislature. If Party N has 20 members and 30% of the vote, each member casts 1.5 votes in the legislature. So you have one-to-one local representation that is effectively proportional.
Just to add a note. One advantage of the above model is that it does not require a wholesale change across the country. It can occur on a riding by riding basis. A referendum on the riding ballot could evaluate whether the riding wants to go FPP or use this constituency committee idea. The riding referendum result would dictate how the riding legislative vote is to be constituted. Since there is no change in Ottawa (still one riding, one vote), it can be tested in a very incremental fashion. No big crisis, no big system change. PR is happening locally not at the national level directly, even if the effect is potentially national, depending on how many ridings sign on.
Now I understand how it works and the pros/cons. I wonder if a partial top-up that only filled the gap half-way to 100% proportional might be more palatable as a starting position for a new country experimenting with Democracy 2.0. Under this scenario using your Ontario example, the Libs would be topped up to 24 seats (vs 49 seats in your 100% ppl), NDP would move up to 37 seats (vs 49 seats in 100% ppl), and the Greens would go up to 4 seats (vs 12 in 100% ppl). The PCs would retain a majority with their 83 seats in this case (this is likely a pre-requisite for Govt considering any new system :).
So in other words, it would be more proportional than current FPTP, but would still recognize that winning a seat should receive more weight than simply equalizing popular votes. One other benefit is that this would limit the Ontario parliament to 148 members (vs a more unruly? inefficient? 194 in the 100% proportional setting). The end point feels like a more fair and equitable system but it's still hard to imagine how you get there.
I will say I love this system. I support MMP with a way to account for regionalism. But I was never a fan of party lists meaning parties can guarantee seats for unpopular figures. This way everyone on the lists is in someway elected
I was not aware that Baden-Württemberg constructed its party lists that way. It's elegant, and goes in the direction of capturing some of the benefits of the single transferrable vote without the complexity and lack of transparency in allocating preferential votes and calculating quotas.
I agree that any electoral reform is unlikely to happen, especially as it has failed in every referendum where it was on the ballot. I have hoped that just one province would try a proportional system so we could see how it operated in the Canadian context.
They'd be answering to the same voters who elected them, no different than MPs today. You need the support of voters to get re-elected, so if you are a bad 2nd mandate MP presumably you won't get enough voters to be re-elected as a 2nd mandate MP next time.
You are right about that not in our lifetime.
Since you brought up the topic of PR : ) back in 2015 when Justin was talking about PR, I developed a little alternative option. It went like this...
The overriding consensus seems to be that the first-past-the-post system fails to accurately represent the voting preferences of the electorate in our representative democracy. A party with much less than 50% of the popular vote can form a majority government. An MP with much less than 50% of the riding votes takes 100% control of the riding vote in the legislature.
For the reform offered here no changes to the electoral process need to occur whereby voters go to the polls and cast a ballot for local candidates representing parties. Because voters already distribute their voting preferences proportionally on election night according to the current system. Within each riding different party candidates receive a proportion of the results of the electoral voting population. So, no need to change the part that is not broken.
As per usual, the candidate who wins the plurality or majority of votes in any riding heads to Ottawa to take his or her seat in the House of Commons. So, thus far, no change.
So to cut to the chase: the one and only change to the process. When the member from riding X votes in the legislature, he or she does not cast a vote representing the decision of a single member for a single riding. Rather that member's individual vote can only represent that portion or percentage of the riding vote the member actually received from the riding electorate.
For example, let's say he or she got 35% of the vote. The vote of the riding in the House of Commons will be based upon the continued voting engagement of all eligible candidates in the riding. For example, let's assume the other candidates received 25%, 20%, 15%, and 5% of the local vote.
So on any particular voting issue before the House of Commons, the riding vote will be the result of the weighted decisions of all the riding candidates. In other words, the MP who goes to Ottawa is not in exclusive, winner-take-all, control of the riding vote, but, in fact, has become the chair of a local constituency committee of the local candidates, which must come to some majority decision (50%+1) based upon each candidate's proportion of the election results, regarding any voting issue before the House of Commons.
So, any combination of the weighted candidates votes which could garner a 50%+1 majority result, would cast the riding vote in the legislature. Geographical representation remains a vital part of the political system versus relatively abstract, national, party-based ideologies.
MPs are likely to become more representative of their ridings and less exclusively of their parties, insofar as they must continue to negotiate, throughout the life of a parliament, with their fellow local candidates, issue by issue.
(A somewhat longer description here: https://democracyskitchen.ca/Elections/electoral-reform.php)
This is an interesting idea. Another variation: weigh each MPP's votes in the legislature based on the party's province-wide proportional electoral vote. So, if Party A has 80 members and 40% of the province-wide vote, each member casts .5 votes in the legislature. If Party N has 20 members and 30% of the vote, each member casts 1.5 votes in the legislature. So you have one-to-one local representation that is effectively proportional.
Just to add a note. One advantage of the above model is that it does not require a wholesale change across the country. It can occur on a riding by riding basis. A referendum on the riding ballot could evaluate whether the riding wants to go FPP or use this constituency committee idea. The riding referendum result would dictate how the riding legislative vote is to be constituted. Since there is no change in Ottawa (still one riding, one vote), it can be tested in a very incremental fashion. No big crisis, no big system change. PR is happening locally not at the national level directly, even if the effect is potentially national, depending on how many ridings sign on.
Now I understand how it works and the pros/cons. I wonder if a partial top-up that only filled the gap half-way to 100% proportional might be more palatable as a starting position for a new country experimenting with Democracy 2.0. Under this scenario using your Ontario example, the Libs would be topped up to 24 seats (vs 49 seats in your 100% ppl), NDP would move up to 37 seats (vs 49 seats in 100% ppl), and the Greens would go up to 4 seats (vs 12 in 100% ppl). The PCs would retain a majority with their 83 seats in this case (this is likely a pre-requisite for Govt considering any new system :).
So in other words, it would be more proportional than current FPTP, but would still recognize that winning a seat should receive more weight than simply equalizing popular votes. One other benefit is that this would limit the Ontario parliament to 148 members (vs a more unruly? inefficient? 194 in the 100% proportional setting). The end point feels like a more fair and equitable system but it's still hard to imagine how you get there.
I will say I love this system. I support MMP with a way to account for regionalism. But I was never a fan of party lists meaning parties can guarantee seats for unpopular figures. This way everyone on the lists is in someway elected
I was not aware that Baden-Württemberg constructed its party lists that way. It's elegant, and goes in the direction of capturing some of the benefits of the single transferrable vote without the complexity and lack of transparency in allocating preferential votes and calculating quotas.
I agree that any electoral reform is unlikely to happen, especially as it has failed in every referendum where it was on the ballot. I have hoped that just one province would try a proportional system so we could see how it operated in the Canadian context.
So all these newly elected and mandated 2nd chance would be answering to who Eric, the party?
They'd be answering to the same voters who elected them, no different than MPs today. You need the support of voters to get re-elected, so if you are a bad 2nd mandate MP presumably you won't get enough voters to be re-elected as a 2nd mandate MP next time.