1. Mixed Member Proportional
(MMP) System Recommended
This system allows each voter two votes, one for the local
representative and one for the party. If the number of
constituency seats is less than the number equivalent to the total
party support, then seats are topped up from a party list made
public before the election. More than 30% of
the total party seats should be party list candidates to ensure
full proportionality.
This electoral system provides more accurate representation than
the current system. For this reason, it may also attract the
growing number of non-voters. Having two votes per
voter retains the need for local representation and resolves the
candidate/party conflict. For example, I may think Joe Blow will
represent my community well. But I dislike his party. With 2 votes,
I no longer have that conflict. Also, the skills
necessary to get elected and represent 100,000 people are very
different than those needed to govern the common good of 30 million
people. Patience, charm, affability and a good public presence are
necessary to get elected. However, training and skill in policy
making and business are the skills of competent governors. The
party list feature allows the inclusion of competent governors who
refuse to run for election because they hate kissing babies or
assisting with the endless crises of their constituents.
An MMP system would be simple, easy to count, easy to understand
and enable more accurate representation. However, an MMP system
combined with a ranked vote would offer the most accurate
representation.
2. Ranked Votes Recommended
The MMP system still contains a first-past-the-post element in
that the candidate with the greatest number of votes wins. This
causes confrontational campaign tactics, blatant lying and smear
campaigns. In a ranked system, where voters rank the candidates by
preference, it is possible for the 2nd or 3rd ranked candidate to
win the seat instead.
What is a ranked vote system? A ranked vote allows
voters to identify their first, second, third, etc. choice. Each
rank is weighted with a number of points, i.e first place is worth
3 points, second place 2 points, and third place 1 point. When the
points are counted up, the person with the most points, not votes,
is the winner. That means the representative who represents the
most people, could be the party or candidate who receives far more
2nd choice votes than the "winner" who gets a smaller number of 1st
choice votes.
This would encourage candidates to be less confrontational, offend
the voters less and the phenomenon of vote splitting would not
exist. Every voter's opinion would matter on every seat instead of
the outcome of the current system in which votes for non-winning
candidates seem wasted and make the voters feel powerless.
The benefit of a ranked system is increasing since all Canadian
parties are gravitating to a moderate policy stance out of
necessity. There are no more viable, clearly-defined left wing or
right wing parties. All parties face the same hurdle: a large,
national debt and increased global competition that necessitate
fiscal prudence versus the desire for the state to pay for more
social programs. So all the parties are moderate, but have slightly
different methods of achieving the same goals. The current
first-past-the-post system exaggerates the differences between
parties when, in reality, the differences are lessening. The choice
is not black and white; it is a choice among the grey hues. The
ability to rank the greys would elect the candidate with the
broadest representation in a pool of moderate candidates.
Ranked voting is as easy to understand as MMP but it is not as easy
to count the points as it is to just count votes. However, ranked
votes within a MMP system would provide the most accurate electoral
representation in this majority-ruled society we call a
democracy.
levelCMS