Canadian Electoral Reform

[Nature's Call]

The last couple of elections (in particular) have raised this question. The Greens say, "Hey, we got 4½% of the vote, we should have 4½% of the seats." The NDP agree, adding how can a candiate rightly represent a riding when a vast majority of the riding did not support him?

So the two obvious debate points are: Should we change the First Past the Post system? If so, how?

I subscribe to the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" rule of thumb. I see Green's point, but there is value in a bar that must be hurdled before you're in. Most Green candidates received, say only 1000 votes in their ridings against winners who received 20,000 votes. To what extent should those votes count (apart from the, what is it, $1.75 over 2% funding formula)?

But assume we should make a change, and I"ll stick with the Greens for e.g.: If the Greens get 4% of the seats, which seats do they get?

What other systems around the world should Canada emulate? I've heard Germany has an decent proportional system, but I don't know the details. Is it (or any jurisdiction) a multiple/ranked votes, i.e. I vote for my guy, and also cast a 2nd choice vote and a 3rd choice vote, then a process of elimination awards losing votes to the next choice?

[Sunspace]

I was wondering last night what would happen if everyone got ten votes instead of one, and you could distribute them among the candidates in your riding as you saw fit...

[BrainGlutton]

For pro-PR arguments (and an online petition), see the website of Fair Vote Canada: http://www.fairvotecanada.org/fvc/Home

[Giles]

But assume we should make a change, and I"ll stick with the Greens for e.g.: If the Greens get 4% of the seats, which seats do they get?
Most proiportional representation systems involve multiple-member electorates. For example, if a province elects 14 members of the House of Commons (as do Manitoba and Saskatchewan), there might be one electorate in that province electing 14 members, or the province might be divided into two electorates, each electing 7 members.

[Polycarp]

Well, one votes for a Member of Parliament, not for a party. I noticed in the Canadian election prediction thread that several people mentioned supporting specifically their own MP or his/her challenger. as individuals and not as support of the candidate's party.

What would make sense is to structure multicandidate districts, say one for Toronto Metro, one for Vancouver and suburbs, etc. and then adopt one of the alternative voting systems to ensure that the 15% NDP supporters in area X get one of seven seats, the 40% Conservatives in area Y get two of five seats, and so on.

[kellner]

I've heard Germany has an decent proportional system, but I don't know the details. Is it (or any jurisdiction) a multiple/ranked votes, i.e. I vote for my guy, and also cast a 2nd choice vote and a 3rd choice vote, then a process of elimination awards losing votes to the next choice?Every voter has two votes:

With the first, you vote for an individual (usually affiliated with a party) in your district. Half of the seats in parliament (299 of 598) go to the winners of the districts. This way everyone still has "their" representative.

With the second, you vote for a party. The proportion of these votes determines the number of seats that a party gets in parliament. If a party achieves either at least 5% of the popular vote or wins 3 districts, it gets the corresponding share of the seats. The seats won via the first vote are deducted, the rest is filled from party lists.

In the end candidates who won a district have a seat and the total number of seats of a party reflects their share of the popular vote. There are some additional complications caused by the way how the results from different states are combined under certain circumstances, but that's the general idea.

[BrainGlutton]

Previous thread on this topic: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=322402

[BrainGlutton]

BTW, where do Harper and the Conservative Party stand on PR?