|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 6, 2017 4:02:49 GMT
Proportional Representation or PR
Supporters of Proportional Representation (PR) are welcome to express their views. The forum is titled "Vote123" because that is what the creators of this forum support. We acknowledge that there are many viewpoints to be considered and we do not want to limit the discussions to IRV (Vote123). To encourage full and open discussion this forum will not tolerate any form of "bullying" or "Harassing" of members due to their views. Any such behaviour will result in the member being "blocked" from this forum.
Proportional Representation is not an Electoral System in itself, it refers to different Electoral Systems that produce Party-Proportionality. There are 3 legitimate PR systems;
- Party List PR - The Voter votes for a Party and the Party picks the representative. This does produce very Party-Proportional results in the Parliament or Legislature.
- Single Transferable Vote - STV also produces a good level of Party-Proportional results in the Local Ridings - this is then reflected in the Parliament or Legislature.
- Mixed Member Proportional - MMP combines both Party-List PR with STV. MMP uses Party-List (open or closed) with the election of the Party-vote Candidate as well as including a Local Candidate that STV focuses on, with the Local Candidate vote.
Please Note; There has been attempts to hijack the meaning of Proportional Representation (PR) to mean MMP. In this forum PR refers to all 3 types of PR. Please be clear if you are referring to ALL forms of PR or being specific in the type of PR one is referring to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Independent on Oct 7, 2017 6:37:27 GMT
Party-Proportional Representation (PPR) or Electorate-Proportional Representation (EPR):
Proportional Representative (PR) in its many forms is focused on Party Representation based on a Province-Wide Popular Vote. The Sound-bite "30% of the votes = 30% of the seats" definitely sounds good and is impossible to argue against. It would be more appropriate if we actually had a Province wide "at-large" election. "AT-LARGE" means that the Province would be ONE LARGE RIDING. We would then elect 87 MLAs Province-Wide. This would make the Province-Wide Popular Vote and the "30% of the vote = 30% of the seats" much more relevant. If we had this "At-Large" Province-Wide election the large majority of the 87 MLAs would probably come from the Lower-Mainland where the large majority of the population resides. This would not represent the Province very well - many regions of the Province would NOT BE REPRESENTED AT ALL.
In our wisdom we have 87 Riding elections (more of a Ward type system). Having 87 separate elections - one in each of the 87 Ridings - makes sure that each region of the Province is represented. The issue of the "Popular Vote" is relevant to each of the 87 elections. We need a system that makes sure that the Riding's Popular Vote is the focus - not the Province-Wide Popular Vote. When we focus on the Riding's Popular Vote changes what needs Representation, now we need to see if the ELECTORATE is being represented by the Riding's Popular Vote. The question becomes - Who elects the MLA (a minority or a majority of voters)? If it is the minority of voters that elect the MLA, then the majority of the Electorate is NOT REPRESENTED. With the minority electing the MLA the Electorate is dis-proportional represented. We need a system where the elected MLA needs a MAJORITY of voter support - then we have Electorate-Proportional Representation and the majority of the Electorate are represented!With our current electoral system (FPTP) it is too often that it is a Minority of voters that elect the MLA. This results in the minority of the Electorate being well represented in the Legislature - at the cost of the majority of the Electorate. This is what we are trying to fix with Electoral Reform. We need to keep our attention on what needs fixing - Electorate Representation & Riding's Popular Vote. Being distracted by the Province-Wide Popular Vote will not fix what needs fixing, and could lead to more problems. Instant Runoff Voting (IRV or Vote123) does fix what needs fixing. Vote123 keeps the 87 Ridings as they are, no changes needed. The level of Local Representation is maintained. Each of the Ridings still elects a single MLA. Vote123 uses the Ranked Ballot, where the Voter can prioritize the Candidates on the Ballot. The elected MLA requires the Riding's Majority of Voter support. The Candidate with a MINIMUM of 50%+1 of the votes cast is elected. With each of the 87 MLAs representing this minimum requirement means that each Riding the MAJORITY of the Electorate is REPRESENTED. We have Electorate-Proportional Representation! Proportional Representation (PR) in all of its different forms need much larger ridings (or regions). Changes our electoral system from 87 local communities being represented to a much larger and fewer regional representation (this is similar to a "At-Large" system). This greatly dilutes the Local Representation and in extremely large regions the Local Representation is completely LOST. This move to larger regions makes the Province-Wide Popular Vote more relevant. This also puts the Parties much more prominent in the Legislature. The reason for this need of large ridings is to produce Provincial Party-Proportionality in the END RESULT. Single Transferable Vote (STV-PR) requires large ridings to accommodate multi-MLAs for each riding. The more MLAs elected in each Riding produces more Party-Proportional results. The moderate size ridings (3 - 5 MLAs) the Party-Proportional is greatly reduced. The Irish learned this about STV, they had large ridings with as many as 10 (MLAs) to be elected. They now limit the size of their STV ridings to a max. of 5 (MLAs). This reduced the level of Party-Proportional results - but it kept a fair level of Local Representation. Ireland is about 1/10th the size of BC, if they could not work with large STV ridings, BC would have more problems even with 3 - 5 MLAs maybe too big for BC. Ireland found a balance between Party-Proportional and Local Representation. BC could also find this balance with STV with the ridings electing a single MLA (STV(1) is IRV). Mixed Member Proportional (MMP-PR) also requires much larger ridings. MMP does it completely differently by creating 2 types of MLAs;- Local MLA - Each local riding elects a single MLA. The problem here is that the riding could easily be 2X their current size. Now we have a single MLA representing 2X the population. This results with about 44 local MLAs elected.
- Regional MLA - These Regional ridings are much larger and consists of multi-MLAs to be elected. I suspect the Province will consist of 3 Regional Ridings - 2 ridings with 14 MLAs elected in each plus 1 riding with 15 MLAs elected for a total of 43 MLAs. These large Regional ridings are much more along the line of "At-Large" elections. Because of the size of these ridings plus the fact that their are multi-MLAs to be elected, the MLAs are much more difficult to be ACCOUNTABLE to anyone - except the PARTY.
MMP uses the Regional MLAs as "top-ups" for the Parties. First the Party's local MLAs count and if the Party's Popular Vote allows the Party to have more seats than their number of local MLAs. The Party is assigned enough of the "top-up" MLAs (from the Regional ridings) to equal their Popular Vote. These assigned Party-seats (Regional MLAs) belong to the Party - not the Electorate.
NOTE: With MMP there is talk that it will be a split of 60% local MLAs and 40% regional MLAs. The trouble with this is that creating more local MLAs will increase the Party Dis-proportional and with only 40% regional MLAs to try and make it Party-Proportional is doubtful. Not enough "top-ups" MLAs. This is why I believe it will be 50% local and 50% regional. A 60-40 split will not produce anything close to Party-Proportional Representation.
With IRV (Vote123) we fix what needs fixing and we achieve Electorate-Proportional Representation!
|
|
