[EM] British Columbia voting-method reform

[VoteFair]

British Columbia (in Canada) is considering changing their voting
system. Here is a link to that process:

https://engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote/

Here is the first paragraph from that page:

"The B.C. Government has introduced legislation to hold a referendum in
the fall of 2018, which will ask British Columbians to decide whether
B.C. should keep its current voting system (First Past the Post) or move
to a system of Proportional Representation. Countries around the world
use different voting systems to elect their representatives. How a
voting system is designed influences how a society is governed."

These are the proposed alternatives:

* List Proportional Representation (List PR)

* Single Transferable Vote (STV)

* Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP)

* Mixed-Member Majoritarian (MMM) (also called Parallel)

Alas, these alternatives increase control for political-party insiders
in choosing which candidates win seats. In other words, they compromise
electorate proportionality in order to get party proportionality.

And apparently they are glossing over the important distinction between
open-list PR and closed-list PR. And some of these alternatives
continue to use single-mark ballots.

I don't have time to get involved in this reform effort, so I'm hoping
that other folks in this forum are interested in helping steer the
decision away from the worst choices.

Richard Fobes
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

[Greg Dennis]

Richard,

I'm not seeing the same information you are on the referendum site. First,
there is no final referendum language or list of options yet. That is still
to be determined, informed in part by the results of the survey.

STV involves the direct election of individual candidates, so control would
not be turned over to party insiders under that system. As you point out,
the other methods could have that effect, if they use closed lists, but
rather than gloss over the distinction between open and closed lists, the site
explains the difference
<https://engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote/votingsystems/> under
each system page.

It will be interesting to see which methods ultimately make it on the
referendum ... and which method they use to choose the winner of the
referendum :)

Greg

[VoteFair]

Post by Greg Dennis
It will be interesting to see which methods ultimately make it on the
referendum ... and which method they use to choose the winner of the
referendum :)

I was told that the choice would be done using IRV (instant-runoff
voting)! Ironically that's not one of the options. Of course that's
because it's not a proportional method, which is clearly their primary goal.

For anyone not familiar with Canadian politics, they have more than two
main parties, which makes their election results unpredictable and
surprising, especially regarding party proportionality. That's why
election-method reform is likely to occur in Canada before it occurs in
the U.S. (which is similar to what happened for women getting the right
to vote).

Richard

Post by Greg Dennis
Richard,
I'm not seeing the same information you are on the referendum site.
First, there is no final referendum language or list of options yet.
That is still to be determined, informed in part by the results of the
survey.
STV involves the direct election of individual candidates, so control
would not be turned over to party insiders under that system. As you
point out, the other methods could have that effect, if they use closed
lists, but rather than gloss over the distinction between open and
closed lists, the site explains the difference
<https://engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote/votingsystems/> under each system page.
It will be interesting to see which methods ultimately make it on the
referendum ... and which method they use to choose the winner of the
referendum :)
Greg
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

Post by VoteFair

Post by Greg Dennis
It will be interesting to see which methods ultimately make it on the
referendum ... and which method they use to choose the winner of the
referendum :)

I was told that the choice would be done using IRV (instant-runoff
voting)!  Ironically that's not one of the options.  Of course that's
because it's not a proportional method, which is clearly their primary goal.

That's unfortunate; I still think the New Zealand double question setup
is the best one, where the referendum both has a yes/no question and a
"which method if yes gets majority" one. (The question of what election
method to use on the "which" section is another matter, of course.)

Post by VoteFair
For anyone not familiar with Canadian politics, they have more than two
main parties, which makes their election results unpredictable and
surprising, especially regarding party proportionality.  That's why
election-method reform is likely to occur in Canada before it occurs in
the U.S. (which is similar to what happened for women getting the right
to vote)

An interesting question would be why the US doesn't have multiple
parties. As far as I understand, the different parties in Canada have
strong local support (in different areas of the country), and that's
what keeps Duverger's law from destroying them. But for some reason that
hasn't saved US third parties. Could it be an effect of presidentialism?
Or a corporate power thing? It is odd.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://elect

[VoteFair]

Post by Kristofer Munsterhjelm
...
An interesting question would be why the US doesn't have multiple
parties. As far as I understand, the different parties in Canada have
strong local support (in different areas of the country), and that's
what keeps Duverger's law from destroying them. But for some reason that
hasn't saved US third parties. Could it be an effect of presidentialism?
Or a corporate power thing? It is odd.

Vote splitting, combined with the use of single-mark ballots, easily
accounts for why the U.S. has only two parties.

Yes, regional affects in Canada account for the Bloc Québécois party --
which is dominant in the French-speaking province of Quebec.

As for Canada's other main parties, the Conservative party is on the
political right, the New Democratic party is on the left, and the
Liberal party, according to Wikipedia, is somewhere in the center.

The fact that Canadian citizens have to pay money to a political party
in order to vote in their party's nominating convention is very
different from the U.S. where any voter can sign up to vote in any
party's primary election. I don't know to what extent this helps to
account for the difference.

Yes, the fact that presidential elections allow for only two parties
surely contributes to the difference from Canada, where the voters do
not directly vote for their Prime Minister.

I doubt that corporations account for any significant difference.

Richard Fobes

Post by Kristofer Munsterhjelm

Post by VoteFair

Post by Greg Dennis
It will be interesting to see which methods ultimately make it on the
referendum ... and which method they use to choose the winner of the
referendum :)

I was told that the choice would be done using IRV (instant-runoff
voting)! Ironically that's not one of the options. Of course that's
because it's not a proportional method, which is clearly their primary goal.

That's unfortunate; I still think the New Zealand double question setup
is the best one, where the referendum both has a yes/no question and a
"which method if yes gets majority" one. (The question of what election
method to use on the "which" section is another matter, of course.)

Post by VoteFair
For anyone not familiar with Canadian politics, they have more than
two main parties, which makes their election results unpredictable and
surprising, especially regarding party proportionality. That's why
election-method reform is likely to occur in Canada before it occurs
in the U.S. (which is similar to what happened for women getting the
right to vote)

An interesting question would be why the US doesn't have multiple
parties. As far as I understand, the different parties in Canada have
strong local support (in different areas of the country), and that's
what keeps Duverger's law from destroying them. But for some reason that
hasn't saved US third parties. Could it be an effect of presidentialism?
Or a corporate power thing? It is odd.

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list in