Submission DIVINE-1343 (Online)
|
Submission By | Michael Divine |
Address | New Westminster, BC, |
Organization | |
Date | 20040813 |
Category | Electoral system change |
Abstract
|
A proposal for a majority system with provision for at
large minority representation in the legislature. [2
pages]
|
Submission Content
|
Thank you for the very important work you are doing. A fair,
workable voting system is the foundation for any democratic
government. The many distortions in our present system deprive too
many citizens a voice in the electoral process and discourage them
from voting.
Here is a brief overview of my objections:
-
The present system exaggerates the power of the majority.
-
Minority views are not represented and not heard in the
legislature.
-
Minority parties are not represented in the legislature.
-
We seem to oscillate from one arrogant party in power to the
next arrogant party.
-
There is no genuine debate, merely posturing, pontificating, and
berating the opposition. How can sound, thoughtful legislation come
out of such an atmosphere? A legislator should not be an obsequious
rubber stamp.
I have looked at a number of voting systems on your site. Some
of these are quite complicated. I am guided by the following
principles:
-
For legitimacy, representatives must be elected by a majority of
the voters, not a plurality.
-
To have true debate over alternatives, minorities must be heard
in the legislature. The primary task of a legislator is to enact
laws only after careful thought and vigorous debate. The majority
requires real input from minority representatives if it is going to
enact laws in the public interest.
-
The system must be reasonably simple, workable, and cost
effective, particularly if voters are going to accept it in a
general referendum.
I believe that a mixed electoral system would best satisfy these
requirements. No voting system is perfect. The first priority is to
reform the most damaging aspects of the present system. The most
grievous harm is done by the first-past-the-post or plurality
system when there are more than two candidates. A distinct minority
candidate may be elected because another minority candidate siphons
votes from a stronger candidate. This is wrong in a representative
democracy. I do not want my third choice to win because I vote for
my first choice. I believe the following system is more
representative while maintaining simplicity:
-
In all the existing ridings, representatives would be elected by
a majority vote. If there were more than two candidates and no one
got a majority, all but the two top vote getters would be
eliminated. The second choices of those voters whose first choices
were eliminated would be distributed to the two remaining
candidates to determine the winner. This would result in fairer
voting outcomes in hotly contested ridings and would likely
contribute to a result that was closer to the actual voting
percentages. The final legislative seat adjustment would be made
according to section 2 below.
-
Assume 70 seats in the legislature. Also assume, for example,
that the leading party got 50% of the vote and 50 seats, the second
party got 35% of the vote and 20 seats, and the third party got 15%
of the vote and 0 seats. The distribution of seats is way out of
proportion to the actual voting percentages. The representation is
equalized as follows:
a) Start with the party that got the
most disproportionately favourable distribution of seats. (Usually
the leading party) It gets no additional seats. In the above
situation, how many at-large seats must be distributed to the other
two parties to reduce the leading party's distribution to 50%. A
quick calculation shows that 30 additional seats are needed.
Another calculation shows that 15 of these seats are distributed to
the second party and the final 15 seats are distributed to the
third party. Each party now has a distribution of legislative seats
that is proportional to the overall vote it received.
b) The losing candidates
who garnered the most votes in the 70 electoral contests would get
the at-large seats in the legislature. Thus, some ridings would
have two representatives from different parties a good thing since
these districts were probably hotly
contested. c)
Note under this system, the number of at-large seats is variable.
The more the seat distribution conforms to the actual voting
percentages, the less need there is for additional at-large
representation. In the last election, this would have resulted in
roughly 50 at-large seats and lots of unwelcome legislators
returning to Victoria. It may be best to fix the number of at-large
legislators (to 30, for example) and try to get the seat
distribution as close as possible to the actual voting
percentages.
d) A minority party would have to
reach a threshold of 5 to 10% of the total vote to get any at-large
seats.
I hope you find the foregoing useful in your ongoing
deliberations. First-past-the-post is simply awful. Good
luck.
|