Simple Proportional Representation

The problem is that this model doesn't have any regional representation. My brother outlined a mixed model:

You vote for a candidate who is affiliated with a party, just as you currently do.

For each party, a list of the candidates is organized so that the one with the highest proportion of votes in their riding is at the top and the one with the lowest proportion is at the bottom.

Then you do the proportional thing, so if the Libs have 155 seats, the first 155 candidates on the list get in. The Conservatives get 150 seats, the first 150 on their list get in.

In this model, it would be possible for two members to get elected in one geographical region, so perhaps there would need to be 30% more seats than ridings.


I do realize that this is more complicated than the system you propose, but it has some geographical representation. I come from Northern BC and our riding is 1/4 of BC's geographical area. The resources extracted from this area finance much of our economy. And yet we only have one seat in parliament. So the people who understand the resources, and consequently the economy, aren't heard, let alone listened to.

-KY

---
Kory Yamashita

"What lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Anyone interested in electoral reform, or in keeping things the way they are I would recomment going to www.citizensassembly.bc.ca website and reading some of the presentations made by mostly ordinary BC citzens to our Assembly. There are all kinds of recommendations laid out there for all kinds of reforms. It really is a most fascinating procedure that is taking place in BC by the ordinary citizens. Really. Go have a look. Then start collecting signatures for your own provincal reforms. And then join Fair Vote Canada so we can change the Federal elections as well. Do something constructive all Vive visitors and members.

Stephen Harper has proposed Proportional Representation so the quickest way to get it introduced would be to vote Conservative on Monday.

lol @ Anon

---
"Love actually, is all around us" --From the movie Love Actually.

FYI

The Scottish Parliament

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/educa ... op-rep.htm

Elections New Zealand

http://www.elections.org.nz/elections/e ... elect.html

I like parts of your brothers idea Kory. I would suggest the following changes.I think we should have one MP for every 100,000 Canadians. That would give us approx. 360 MP's. Then we do the regional thing, break provinces up into regions, for example, Edmonton North with 15 MP's electable. <p>The parties rank their candidates according to how many votes they got. This is where the complications roll in, you divide the seats up according to the vote percentage. So lets say the vote goes 15% Liberal, 41% NDP, 7% Conservative, 12%Green and 25% CAP. So the elected tallies would be: <p>NDP - 6.15 candidates, CAP - 3.75 candidates, Liberal - 2.25 candidates, Green - 1.80 candidates, Conservative - 1.05 candidates. <p>So the the NDP elects their top 6 vote getters in this region, the remainder (15% of an elected MP)goes to the NDP <b>National Left Over Tally</b>. CAP elects their top 4 vote getters in this region and the shortage (25% of an elected MP) is deducted from the CAP <b>National Left Over Tally</b>. <p>Currently we have 308 seats in the House of Commons (HoC), the seats added to accomodate the 100,000 to 1 rule could go to the <b>National Left Over Tally</b>, (<b>National LOT</b>), so we would then have 52 seats to be won in this National division. <p>Each party would have a list of its top <b>unelected</b> vote getters and they would win available seats from the <b>National LOT</b> accordingly. ie. The <b>National LOT</b> accumulates parts of elected candidates that did not get seats from all the regions. It also subtracts parts of candidates from each parties <b>National LOT</b> that are needed by parties to make a regional elected candidate a 100% value. <p>This sort of a scenario gives fairly good local representation as well as a new category of National seats that represent the country at large instead of a particular riding. <p>This is just a rough unfinished draft for discussion purposes.

I think I need a pie chart. Even some of the wording is new to us and therefore adds to the complications.

Jim's idea is fine and would work if we elected regionally our Senators. Then we have a House and Senate that reflects our wishes.

Roy

Some good ideas, and this is why it's so hard to explain to the novice.

By keeping it as simple as possible, while making sure all regions of the country are represented, would be an easy sell to the general public.

That's precisely why I started this thread.

I am aware of the MMP system in New Zealand and Scotland, Germany has it's own version, etc.

I am a member of Fair Vote Canada, and they have many "experts" as members, and I do not mean that as derogatory, it's just that some make it soooo messy it would be impossible to explain to the lay person.

Just remember, there is no perfect system in the world. Because of our regional differences and geography, this makes it even more complicated. That's why I am looking for simple. As long as it works the way we expect, it shouldn't have to be complicated.

Keep it up, you're doing great !


---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca

All the yakking and yipping about proportional representation is for naught, I fear.

The fly in the ointment of proportional representation is party politics.
No parliament largely consisting of party followers is going to do anymore than pay lip service to the idea of PR. It's not in their interest. That's all there is to it.

But just think: Without parties there would be no problem in the first place.

Since the parliamentary political party system is inherently undemocratic anyway, the solution is obvious: get rid of political parties.

How? Easy. Here's one way:

Find and support credible people willing to run as independents in every riding. Campaign and vote for independent members of parliament.

Keep doing that until there are no party bums left, and you'll have proportional representation _and_ democracy.

Then why are we one of the last 3 countries that are democratic to adopt this method ?

Britain, Canada and the US stand out against many, and the others seem to do just fine.

Also, PR has more women involved, in contrast to our present system.


---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca

But Stephen Harper is (was?) a professed Libertarian, and one of the aspects of Libertarianism I quite like myself is the notion of voluntary taxation. So, if Harper is elected, will we go to voluntary taxation? I think the answer to that will also answer your PR question.

---
RickW

I postred this in another thread:
"How about having each riding put representatives into Ottawa, based on the popular vote, with a cut-off at 10%? But the ridings would be condensed to about 100, instead the present 308, as each riding would be represented (proportionately) by at least 3 reps. The pay scale for these reps would be based on the popular vote as well."

What I didn't say was that the "power" of each representative would be reflected by the popular vote, whe it comes to voting in Parliament. So if ther were three reps in a riding, and the pop.vote was 40-40-20, the votes would be 2-2-1.

---
RickW

Good job starting this thread, Jim.

I think it's a mistake to think every voter is going to even want to know all the math and other details that are involved in a PR system. After all, few voters now either know or care about the behind-the-scenes processing of our voting results. They want the outcome, that's all. If some individual wants to learn all the gory details, well fine.

It's the people who are against PR (not you, Jim) who keep dragging out the old canard that "it's too complicated". Give people some credit, fer cryin' out loud.

I favor the mixed model used in Germany, New Zealand, etc. What's complicated about that? The voter gets two ballots instead of one. Big deal; in municipal elections we usually get a ballot for major and a ballot for council (and ballot for school board rep., referendum ballot, second referendum ballot, yada, yada, yada). You vote for the candidate on this ballot and the party on this ballot. A Conservative could figure it out.

"As long as people are treated like children they will act like children."