Submission FISHER-BRADLEY-0792 (Online)
|
| Submission By | Jen and Stephen Fisher-Bradley |
| Address | Victoria, BC, Canada |
| Organization | Equity and Justice Research and Development
Foundation |
| Date | 20040706 |
| Category | Electoral system change |
|
Abstract
|
|
A Mixed-member Proportional System that dispenses with the
undemocratic party-lists and treats Independent voters fairly as a
party grouping that includes equitable proportionality for gender
and other demographics. [4 pages]
|
|
Submission Content
|
A Mixed-member Proportional System that dispenses with
the undemocratic party-lists and treats Independent voters fairly
as a party grouping that includes equitable proportionality for
gender and other demographics
SUMMARY
What follows is a detailed plan for a mixed-member pro rep
system that:
-
is equitable toward Independent voters
-
assures that riding representatives are representative of the
wishes of at least 50% of the riding voters
does not entrench a bias toward the party system or reduce the
voters' control of the results as the party list does
-
offers equitable proportionality for gender and other un- or
under-represented demographics
-
honours the full spectrum of choices without artificial barriers
or exclusions
-
is simple and economical to operate
WEAKNESSES OF PARTY LISTS
-
increases democratic deficit by disenfranchising voters from a
direct role in the choice of non-riding representatives
-
voters have no control over the choice and ranking of candidates
on the party lists
-
allows entrenched party elites to make choices that belong to
the voters
-
any perceived equity offered by party lists in terms of
including un- or under-represented demographics (such as women or
youth) would not provide an authentic and autonomous voice for the
under-represented demographics, because they would be chosen by
party elites on the basis of their allegiance to the party line
-
party lists fail to offer any method of providing equitable
proportionality to the voters who vote for Independents
GOALS OF PROPOSED SYSTEM:
-
maximum possible suitability of riding representatives
-
maximum possible voter control over outcomes
-
maximum possible equitable proportionality (incl. Independent
voters and important demographic groupings)
-
maximum possible simplicity and economical operation
OUTLINE OF THE PROPOSAL
THE BALLOT
Use federal riding boundaries:
-
to reduce number of ridings to allow for proportion-balancing
members without increasing the size of the legislative assembly
-
to avoid costly duplication in terms of mapping, boundary
adjustment studies, etc.
-
to develop voters' sense of identity with their riding as a
bio-regional entity one ballot only for each riding (no party list
ballots)
-
parties may run as many as 2 candidates in a riding (since
unelected riding candidates will form the pool from which
proportion-balancing representatives are chosen)
THE VOTE:
Preferential vote: voters mark their first choice with a '1',
their second choice with a '2', and their third choice with a
'3'
THE ELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES:
The election of riding representatives
-
the first choice count is examined to see if anyone has received
50% or more, if so, that person is elected as the riding
representative, if not,
-
the candidate with the lowest number of first choice votes is
eliminated from the running and their votes are awarded to their
second choices
-
this is repeated until someone achieves 50% of the vote or only
one candidate is left, and that person is elected as the riding
representative
The election of proportion-balancing representatives
-
Representatives will be chosen in order to balance the
proportions of representatives in the legislative assembly
according to:
A. party or
Independent representation (the total number of first choice votes
received by any given party and by all Independents together
treated as a virtual 'party' as a % of all votes cast TIMES the
total number of MLAs to be elected and rounded to the nearest whole
number of MLAs - except that 'parties' qualifying for less than
0.75 of an MLA will be rounded down to zero)
B. representation
for important demographics (the total voting age population of that
demographic in the province according to the most recent available
census data as a % of the entire voting-age population of the
province TIMES the total number of MLAs to be elected and rounded
to the nearest whole number of MLAs - except that demographics
qualifying for less than 0.75 of an MLA will be rounded down to
zero) (gender balance will considered within each demographic group
rather than separately - in order to avoid a false sense of
balance, such as most female members being elderly Anglophones, or
most First Nation members being young males)
i. AGE: females
under 30, males under 30, females 30 - 60, males 30 - 60, females
over 60, males over 60
ii.
ABORIGINAL/NON-ABORIGINAL: female First Nations (incl. Inuit), male
First Nations (incl. Inuit), female Metis, male Metis, female
'Settlers' (all others), male 'Settlers' (all others)
iii. MOTHER
TONGUE: female English mother tongue, male English mother tongue,
female French mother tongue, male French mother tongue, female and
male for every other mother tongue with sufficient population to
warrant a member in the legislative assembly
-
The method
A. LIST 'A',
ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES: elected representatives are listed and
their numbers tallied according to 'party' groupings ('party'
includes all Independents as a virtual 'party' - The Party of None
of the Above Parties) and their numbers are tallied according to
the demographic groupings listed in i., ii., and iii. above. For
each grouping the number of representatives required for
proportionality is determined. Number required for proportionality
MINUS number actually elected EQUALS number of proportion-balancing
representatives required.
B. LIST 'B',
UN-ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES: all un-elected riding representatives
in the province will be put on one list in order of the % of the
first choice vote they received in their riding. The number of
un-elected representatives for each 'party' or demographic category
will be tallied.
C. For each
'party' or demographic category: the number of un-elected
candidates available DIVIDED BY the number of proportion-balancing
representatives required EQUALS the ease of satisfying the
requirement.
D. For the most
difficult 'party' or demographic category to satisfy the
requirement for proportionality (the one with the smallest outcome
from the calculation at C.): go down list 'B' and select the first
candidate (the one with the highest % of votes) to satisfy the
'party' or demographic category: this candidate is now an elected
proportion-balancing representative.
E. The elected
proportion-balancing representative is removed from list 'B' and
added to list 'A'.
F. Calculations
begin again at A. using the new lists. Repeat the sequence until
all proportion-balancing representatives are selected.
THE MANDATE OF RIDING AND PROPORTION-BALANCING
REPRESENTATIVES:
Mandate of riding representatives
-
Firstly, to represent to the best of your ability the needs and
wishes of every citizen and every ecological community in your
riding.
-
Secondly, as above for the whole province.
-
Thirdly, as above for the demographic and 'party' categories of
which you are a part.
Mandate of proportion-balancing representatives
-
Firstly, to represent to the best of your ability the needs and
wishes of every citizen and every ecological community in the
entire province.
-
Secondly, as above for the demographic and 'party' categories of
which you are a part.
-
Thirdly, as above for the riding in which you ran.
|
levelCMS