PR Primer: Why we need a new voting system Prepared by Wendy Bergerud, May 2015 (with much borrowed...

PR Primer:

Why we need a new voting system

Prepared by Wendy Bergerud, May 2015(with much borrowed material)

How did I get into this?

• Like most people I have been unhappy with the way our political system seems to work.

• For instance:– How can 40% of the popular vote give a

party a majority of seats and hence a majority government?

– Why does the power seem to be getting more and more centralized in the PM or premiers’ offices?

2

Photo by Kent Kallberg

7

Supplemental Material

• Three handouts that provide supplemental material:

1) FVC: Frequently Asked Questions

2) FVC: Why Proportional Representation?

3) FVC: Statement of Purpose

• Changing our voting system would be a foundational improvement to our democracy.

8

What is Fair Vote Canada?

• National, multi-partisan citizens’ campaign for voting system reform.

• FVC promotes changing our voting system to one that better meets the 5 goals in the FVC: Statement of Purpose.

• Over 55,000 supporters, 34 chapters and teams across the country.

• Advisory Board of prominent Canadians.9FVC: FAQ

To determine the best model of Proportional Representationfor Canada, we call on federal parties and candidates to commit to:

1.Conducting a citizen-led consultation process immediately following the next federal election.2.Implementing the model in time for the following election.

FVC Member?

• Consider signing the Declaration of Voter’s Rights (link on main page: www.fairvote.ca)

• Consider joining Fair Vote Canada Just $10 the first year. (click on the DONATE button on the main page)

• Consider donating to FVC.11

12

What is a voting system?And who can change it?

• This is the system of rules and methods by which citizens’ votes are translated into seats in our legislature or parliament.

• The Voting System can be changed directly by parliament.

• There is NO legal requirement for a citizens’ assembly or a referendum.

13

The constitution does NOT need to be changed

• BUT the number of members elected from each province is restricted by the constitution.

• So whatever voting system we change to must have the same number of MPs within each province as we now have.

• The country-wide proportionality must be obtained by proportional results within each province == > no country-wide list.

What is Proportional Representation (PR)?

• It is any voting system that produces a Parliament (or other representative body such as a legislature or council) where the voters are represented in that body in proportion to how they voted.

• OR “where the number of seats obtained is proportional to the share of votes obtained by each representative or party”.

14FVC: FAQ

Does FVC advocate for any particular PR system?• We do NOT advocate for any particular

PR voting system.• Nevertheless we need a “made in

Canada” solution to take into account our large and diversified country.

• While some form of PR-list is used in most countries using a PR voting system, no one is recommending it for Canada.

15FVC: FAQ

16

Our current SMP (FPTP) system

• SMP stands for Single Member Plurality

• == > SM means that just one person is elected from each riding/constituency/electoral district (ED)

• == > Plurality means that the candidate with the MOST votes “wins” the seat.

• FPTP stands for First Past The Post

• A Winner-take-all voting system.

17

Our current SMP (FPTP) system

• For 2015, our current system divides the country into 338 ED’s with approximately equal numbers of people in each.

• Our association and interest in parliament is defined by where we live.

• Instead of ONE election we actually have 338 elections: one MP from each riding.

• == > The 338 results create our parliament.

• We don’t actually vote for a government.

What’s wrong with the candidate with the most

votes winning?• == > Half of Canadian voters don’t

actually elect anyone• == > The “elected” Parliament rarely

looks much like how we voted.• “In a democratic government, the right

of decision belongs to the majority, but the right of representation belongs to all”

18FVC: FAQ

2008 Federal Election

• 1.3 Million votes = 49 Seats

• Greens 940,000 votes = 0 Seats

20

Alberta votes that didn’t help elect someone

Votes Not Electing

Votes Received

Percent

PC 340,154 412,955 82%

WRP 215,013 360,201 60%

NDP 148,104 603,461 25%

LIB 54,994 62,171 88%

AP 25,158 33,867 74%

Other 14,141 14,141 100%

Total 797,564 1,486,796 54%

http://myvoteshouldcount.ca/

21

Two Main Parties

False Majorities

Strategic Voting

Neglected Minorities

FPTP (First Past the Post)

BC and Canada’s Current Voting System

ElectedCandidates

Voters are dividedinto small ridingsbased on where

they live. Colours indicate party or group preference.

Wasted votes 2011 = 7,280,599 Approx 50% each election

Liberal 2,211,697NDP 2,117,112Green 540,205Conservative 1,455,077Bloc 826,805Other: 129,703

It’s an election. Doesn’t someone have to lose?

• Yes, but it shouldn’t be the voters!• Generally, half of all those who voted

can’t see anyone in Parliament who they helped elect.

• In New Zealand’s 2011 election, using a PR electoral system, 97% of those voting helped elect someone.

25FVC: FAQ

Would PR make our system more unstable?

• We’ve had more elections since WWII than Italy (supposed particularly unstable).

• SMP is sensitive to small shifts in voter preferences, especially in “swing ridings”.

• Leads to more regime changes after elections.

• == > Difficult for gov’t to address the country’s long-term priorities.

27FVC: FAQ

Won’t this mean constant coalition

governments?• Gov’ts formed under any voting system

represent coalitions of different groups.• Our “big tent” parties are already coalitions.• Coalition gov’ts require more public and

transparent negotiations.• The resulting coalitions will represent a true

majority of voters. Their policies are more likely to be supported by most voters and remain supported over the long-term.

28FVC: FAQ

Won’t parties multiply like rabbits?

• Our current parties may restructure, but we’re unlikely to see many more parties.

• Voters want to support parties with the “heft” to have an impact on policy.

• Most voting systems require some minimum level of support to get elected – either deliberately or naturally from the design. Parties without substantial support will still find it hard to win seats.

29FVC: FAQ

What effect might PR have on national unity?• Should be good for national unity• Regional parties get more seats for their

popular vote than parties with diffuse or national support with same level of support.

• Regional parties: Reform and the Bloc• National/widespread support: Green Party• In 1993, the PC’s got 16% of the vote but

only two seats. Should have gotten 47 seats!

30FVC: FAQ

What about representation by

women and minorities?• < 25% women MPs• Puts us abut 54th in the world.• With just one candidate per riding, that

person often ends up being a white male.• Under PR, parties will be putting forward

several candidates in multi-member districts of some kind. Diversity will be easier and more easily rewarded.

31FVC: FAQ

How many countries use PR?

• > 90 countries use PR (see handout)• Includes most European and all Latin

American countries.• Most countries have used PR for decades

– E.g. Ireland and Tasmania have been using it for nearly 100 years.

• New democracies don’t choose SMP.

32FVC: FAQ

Families of Voting Systems

• Winner-take-all– SMP/FPTP– AV/IRV – Alternative Vote/Instant Run-off

Voting• Proportional Voting Systems

– PR-List– STV – Single Transferable Vote– Mixed: MMP – Mixed Member

Proportional and MMM / Parallel

33FVC: WhyPR

34

But isn’t our current voting system simple?

• Our current voting systems seems simple:– The ballot is easy to use– Counting the votes is relatively easy:

just figure out who got the most votes

• BUT– The outcomes are anything but simple

to explain!

35

Local Representation

• A supposed “strength” of SMP/FPTP.

• This system fundamentally “defines” our interests by where we live; it is assumed that we share our values and interests with our physical neighbours.

• This may have worked back in the 1800’s when a small group of landowners within would get together and decide who to send off to the far away legislature to represent their (similar) interests.

36

Local Representation

• But it doesn’t work anymore:– System hasn’t adapted as more groups

were enfranchised (e.g. Women, Asians, Aboriginal, Indo-Canadians, etc.)

– Many “communities of interest” are now spatially diffuse and unable to get reasonable representation – they must be spatially congregated enough within a riding to get representation.

37

Local Representation

http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/legislation/ebca/pdf/WhitePaper.pdf

38

Local Representation

Can an MP or MLA really represent ALL of his or her constituents when they vote as a legislator?

39

Local Representation

This ombudsperson role is really about providing“constituency service”. Is it really “representation”?

40

Using our voting system to reflect the will of the electorate is like using a funhouse mirror to reflect your image.

Outcomes with SMP are erratic

41

Outcomes are erratic

• Let’s look at the results of three provincial elections:– In 2005, the Liberals got a majority

government with just 45% of the vote. – In 2001, the Liberals got 97% of the

seats with only 58% of the popular vote. The Green Party got no seats with 12%.

– In 1996, the NDP formed gov’t even though they got less of the popular vote than the Liberals.

BC NDP Support Almost Constant yet outcome

unrelatedYear Liberals NDP Green1986 7% 43% 0.2%

1991 33% 41% 1%

1996 42% 39% 2%

2001 58% 22% 12%

2005 46% 42% 9%

2009 46% 42% 8%

2013 44% 40% 8%

42

43

Are Regions different?

• Differences between regions exaggerated: Provincially Vancouver Island looks NDP while Okanagan looks Liberal (only 50% vote Liberal!)

• Parties emphasize “swing” ridings during elections - their “safe” seats tend to be neglected during the campaign.

• Areas of support often “rewarded” during party’s term of office.

45

North of the Malahat (2005)

Riding Obtained by Winner

Alberni-Qualicum 52.6%

Comox Valley 45.7%

North I sland 45.3%

Powell River-Sunshine Coast 43.3%

Nanaimo 51.9%

Nanaimo-Parksville 51.1%

Cowichan-Ladysmith 50.0%

Overall: 48.6%

46

Okanagan (2005)

Riding Obtained by Winner

Kelowna-Lake Country 50.4%

Kelowna-Mission 53.7%

Kelowna-Westside 54.4%

Okanagan-Vernon 43.2%

Penticton-Okanagan Valley 50.2%

Shuswap 47.0%

Overall: 49.7%

50%

34%

9%7%

OkanaganPopular Vote

41%

46%

11%2%

North of MalahatPopular Vote

29%

71%

Seats

Local DistortionsBC 2005 Election

100%

Seats

• Fairly similar popular vote, but radically different outcomes.

49

Majority Governments?

• A “majority” government should represent a majority of its citizens.

• We commonly get one-party majority governments with less than 50% support

• While “stable” during their term, long-term stability is missing as we lurch from one ruling party to another.

• In the last 16 BC elections we’ve had only one “true” majority government (2001).

50

Minority/Coalition Gov’ts

• Minority or coalition governments are more likely with a proportional voting system.

• Parties are more likely to form coalitions that represent a majority of the voters.

• Small changes in voting patterns won’t change results much so parties will have to work together hence ==>

Policy changes will be more stable over the long-term.

• If you and your neighbour don’t agree politically, the only way that each of you can be properly represented in Parliament (or legislature) is if each of you helped elect a different MP.

• With our current system, we only let one person speak for each geographic district (or riding).

52

SMP: Half of the voters are

denied the MP they voted for

• In a modern democracy, each region needs different MPs or MLAs to represent the diverse groups and points of view within it.

• This would improve local representation.• That is, we need multimember districts.• This is one essential component of any

proportional voting system.

53

Instead: Every vote should affect the

outcome

What are some PR choices?

Three main families:

1.PR-List – vote for parties (candidate lists)2.Mixed: MMP – a mixture of PR-list with SMP (or AV – ranked ballots in single member ridings)3.STV – a variety of PR-list where voters rank the candidates on the party lists and can cross party lines when doing so.(Note: Ranked Ballots is not a voting system on its own.)

Main Features of a PR system

• MUST have multi-member districts!• STV uses ranked ballots in multi-

member districts.• The “candidate list” in MMP actually

represents a multi-member riding. Each list belongs to a multi-member, maybe regional, riding.

• MMP also uses single member ridings.• PR-list only uses multi-member ridings.

Main Features of a PR system

• PR systems can be designed with “tiers”.• STV and FPTP are one tier systems.• MMP is a two tier system: one tier of single

member ridings and at least one tier that combines the single member ridings into regions for the list(s).

• PR-list is often designed with tiers so that the lower tier ridings can be smaller, while the upper tier ridings help smooth out the overall proportionality of the results.

Voting System Components

• Electoral districts, including how many are elected from each (DM-district magnitude)

• Ballot, including how voters mark their preference(s)

• Calculations: how voters’ choices are counted and calculations for determination of which candidates get seats

• We’ll describe the first two features

57

Simple PR-List Ballot

Blue Party

Red Party Χ

Orange Party

Green Party

58

Ballot may include names of all party candidates.

PR-List Ballot

59

• Ballot may include names of all party candidates or just party leader’s name and/or picture

• Closed List – can only vote for party.• Open List – Vote for party via choice of

one of the party’s candidates.• Flexible List – can vote for the party and

accept their candidate ranking OR choose to vote for one of a party’s candidates.

10 Member Region

60

Results of the popular vote

PR-List results closely match the popular vote

SMP / FPTP Ballot

Art Scallion (Blue)

Sandy Rouge (Red) Χ

Ellen Holland (Orange)

Victor Oak (Green)61

Party lists of ONE person

FPTP results

62

Single Member Plurality (SMP)

Disproportionate Results

AV / IRV Ballot

Art Scallion (Blue) 2

Sandy Rouge (Red) 4

Ellen Holland (Orange)

1

Victor Oak (Green) 363

Party lists of ONE person

Calculations:1.If someone gets a “quota” of 50% + 1 of the vote then they get the seat.2.If not, then person with the fewest votes is eliminated. Their ballots are then transferred to the next choice marked.3.Repeat until someone reaches the quota or there isjust one person left.

64

AV / IRV Ballot

AV / IRV results

65

Party Outcomes often similar to SMP / FPTP

Disproportionate Results

Ranked/Preferential Ballot

Can be used as a component of any PR voting system, but is not a voting system on its own.•Voting can be sincere instead of “strategic”•Prevents the election of unpopular candidates.•Eliminates vote splitting within the EDs•Requires candidates to court the supporters of other candidates/parties == > leads to more civil & meaningful debate

66

STVBallot

67

Party lists of several persons

Voters assign ranks to individual candidates - not parties

Art Scallion (Blue) 3

Bev Oyster (Blue) 2

Martin Moonlight (Blue)

1

Sandy Rouge (Red) 4

Walter Water (Red) 6

Lee Feather (Red) 5

Bill General (Orange) 7

Ellen Holland (Orange) 9

Jack Nimble (Orange)

Heather Maple (Green) 8

Victor Oak (Green)

STV - Small Regions

68

Teams of MLAs in each region provides proportionality, both locally and overall

Proportional Results

MMP Ballot 1) Local Member - SMP

Art Scallion (Blue)

Sandy Rouge (Red) Χ

Ellen Holland (Orange)

Victor Oak (Green)69

Party lists of ONE person within single member ridings

MMP Ballot 1) Local Member - AV

Art Scallion (Blue) 2

Sandy Rouge (Red) 4

Ellen Holland (Orange)

1

Victor Oak (Green) 370

Party lists of ONE person within single member ridings

2) MMP Ballot – Closed List

71

Party lists of several persons

Blue Party Χ

Red Party

Orange Party

Green Party

Art Scallion

Sandy Rouge

Bill General

Heather Maple

Bev Oyster

Walter Water

Ellen Holland

Victor Oak

Martin Moonlight

Lee Feather

Jack Nimble

Vote ONLY for the preferred party

2) MMP Ballot – Open List

72

Party lists of several persons

Blue Party

Red Party

Orange Party

Green Party

Art Scallion

Sandy Rouge

Bill General

Heather Maple

Bev Oyster

Walter Water

Ellen Holland

Victor Oak

Martin Moonlight

Χ Lee Feather

Jack Nimble

Vote for preferred candidate also counts for party vote.

73

Party lists of several persons

Blue Party Χ

Red Party

Orange Party

Green Party

Art Scallion

Sandy Rouge

Bill General

Heather Maple

Bev Oyster

Walter Water

Ellen Holland

Victor Oak

Martin Moonlight

Lee Feather

Jack Nimble

2) MMP Ballot – Flexible List

Choose party OR candidate

74

Party lists of several persons

Blue Party

Red Party

Orange Party

Green Party

Art Scallion

Sandy Rouge

Bill General

Heather Maple

Bev Oyster

Walter Water

Ellen Holland

Victor Oak

Martin Moonlight

Χ Lee Feather

Jack Nimble

2) MMP Ballot – Flexible List

Choose party OR candidate

MMP – A Two Tier System

75

Disproportional results in the first tier are compensated by results in the

second

First Tier(like FPTP

or AV)

Second TierRegional

List

FVC Videos• MMP – with 16 MP regions and plurality in

the single member ridings• Jenkins – AV+ is an MMP model with 8 MP

regions and ranked ballots in the single member ridings

• Dion’s P3 – Small multi-members ridings like STV BUT uses a ranked ballot for parties with a candidate choice ONLY for the first preference party.

• Hopefully an STV video will also be made.

76

To determine the best model of Proportional Representationfor Canada, we call on federal parties and candidates to commit to:

1.Conducting a citizen-led consultation process immediately following the next federal election.2.Implementing the model in time for the following election.

Websites• Fair Vote Canada: www.fairvote.ca • Resources at: www.fairvote.ca/resources/• Fair Voting BC: fairvotingbc.com• Elections BC: www.elections.bc.ca • Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada:

http://www.fairvote.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ Law-Commission-of-Canada-Report.pdf

• BC White Paper on Electoral Boundary Reform: http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/legislation/ebca/pdf/WhitePaper.pdf

79