1 / 15

Electoral Reform?

Electoral Reform?. CLN4U. Our current system. “First-the-post” The candidate with the most votes in a riding gets the seat, and the party with the most seats forms the government Not all that common (used in UK and some of her former colonies – Canada, USA, India)

kylar
Download Presentation

Electoral Reform?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Electoral Reform? CLN4U

  2. Our current system • “First-the-post” • The candidate with the most votes in a riding gets the seat, and the party with the most seats forms the government • Not all that common (used in UK and some of her former colonies – Canada, USA, India) • Other former colonies have abandoned the old FPP system in favour of a system of Proportional Representation (ex: New Zealand in 1993), which is the norm throughout most of Europe and the Americas

  3. What’s wrong with our current system? • Ex: In the 2004 election the Conservatives won about 93% of the seats (13 out of 14) in Saskatchewan, even though they only got 42% of the vote

  4. What’s wrong with our current system? • Should the % of seats in parliament reflect the % of the vote each party received? • Ex: 2011 Election results

  5. What’s wrong with our current system? • Another example: the Bloc Quebecois • In 2008, the NDP got 18.2% of the vote, but only 12% of the seats, while the Greens got 6.8% of the vote, but no seats

  6. What’s wrong with our current system? • Ex: 1998 Quebec Election

  7. What’s wrong with our current system? • Ex: 1987 New Brunswick Election

  8. What’s wrong with our current system? • Ex: 1993 Federal Election

  9. What’s wrong with our current system? • Concerns: “Tactical Voting” • Voters have an incentive to vote for one of the two candidates they predict are most likely to win, even if they would prefer another of the candidates to win, because a vote for any other candidate is wasted • “All votes for anyone other than the second place are votes for the winner” • Ex: 2000 US Election

  10. What’s wrong with our current system? • Concerns: voter turnout • A vote for a losing candidate (or any votes for the winner beyond what is necessary to win) is pointless • Ex: Anyone who voted Conservative in Quebec, Liberal in Alberta, NDP in Saskatchewan, or Green anywhere other than Saanich-Gulf Islands, is not represented • Perhaps not surprisingly, countries with the FPP system typically have the lowest voter turnout

  11. The Alternative? • Proportional Representation • Basically, % of parliament = % of vote • Used in 81 countries • Several variations • Mixed Member Proportional • Single Transferrable Vote

  12. Mixed-Member Proportional • Scotland, Wales, Germany, and New Zealand • Voters vote for their individual local representatives the way we do • Also cast a separate second vote to elect “top-up” regional MPs • In the “open list” version recommended by the Law Commission of Canada, the top regional vote-getters from underrepresented parties fill top-up seats until those parties’ share of seats reflects their share of the popular vote

  13. Single Transferable Vote • Ireland, Iceland, India (upper house), and some states in Australia • Voters in combined local districts get to elect five, six, or seven representatives instead of just one, ranking individual local politicians from all parties by order of preference • If your favourite candidate doesn’t have enough votes to get elected, your vote is transferred to your next-favourite candidate, and so on. • If your favourite candidate has more votes than he or she needs, your vote is similarly transferred to your next-favourite candidate, and so on, until it ends up where it’s most needed to get you the group of representatives you want

  14. Single Transferable Vote • In a 2005 referendum, 58% of British Columbia voters voted “Yes” to STV for provincial elections • The BC gov’t decided that 60% was required for legitimacy • Gov’t had just won 97% of the seats with 57% of the vote

  15. What do you think? • Pros/Cons of a switch to Proportional Representation? • Should be move towards a Proportional system? • Which is better, MMP or STV?

More Related