Contact UsSearch
Click for Search Instructions
Home > Get Involved

Submission KENNEDY-1644 (Online)

Submission By John Kennedy
AddressBurnaby, BC, Canada
CategoryElectoral system change
'Proportional Representation Through Weighted Parliamentary Votes'  [2 pages]

Submission Content
Proportional Representation Through Weighted Parliamentary Votes

I recently read a very eloquent expression of a commonly held profound misconception. It was contained in Maxwell Anderson's submission (1635). Mr. Anderson is in very good company. His opinion is apparently shared by Vaughn Palmer and Tom Berger, as reported by Palmer in The Sun, Sat. Aug. 14/04 (CA News and Events Section). On p.33 of Anderson's submission:

"The conflict between the needs for proportionality and local representation presents a challenge which cannot be perfectly resolved. It is not physically possible to maximize both these criteria simultaneously. No system, no matter how brilliant or carefully designed, could provide the smallest local constituency and at the same time give the highest level of proportionality."

Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately) Anderson, Palmer, and Berger are categorically wrong. [Cowabunga!] A Weighted Parliamentary Vote System gives near-perfect proportional representation without affecting size or number of constituencies whatsoever. How's that for "brilliant", Max? Ever heard of that, Vaughn? Tom? The Jenkins Report made a brief, general mention of such a system, but gave no details. As sure as there is an internet, I know there is a selection of Weighted Parliamentary Vote Systems "out there".

Such a system can be thought of as paralleling the practices of corporate governance. The Legislature in session equates to a shareholders' meeting of a corporation. The MLA's equate to the shareholders. And the votes won at the polls equate to the shares. Unlike business, in the political arena the shares are not owned, but held in trust. The Party with the most shares has the most voting power on the floor of the Legislature. Each MLA in that Party has an equal number of shares to vote. "Perfect PR". See submission 0767 for my take on "what's wrong" now, and why we need PR.

Please do not narrow your range of choice too soon. Beware of the box of conventional wisdom. Consider the Weighted Parliamentary Vote system in Kennedy 0740, "The Seven Cent Solution".

Keep in mind that larger ridings will be very expensive to campaign in because they require mass media advertising. Those who provide that money will have significant control over who runs and how they will vote if elected. Only the very rich will be able to avoid being in bondage to their Party and their financial backers. In the long run, we probably need smaller ridings, especially in the North.

If any of my ramblings make sense to you, you can check out submissions 0751 & 1362 while you are at it. I can be reached at

I have all kinds of faith in the collective wisdom of the CA. When Solon was asked if he gave the Athenians the best laws, he said, no, only the best they would accept. [Power & Greed by Philippe Gigantes, p19; a fun read] I am sure the CA will arrive at the "right" answer, and maybe even the "wisest" answer.

Thank you so much for your efforts. And your patience with me.

© 2003 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral ReformSite powered by levelCMSSite Map | Privacy Policy