A more modest electoral reform: preferential ballots
(Submitted 14 May 2009 and edited for typos on currently recorded submission date.)
In light of the fourth failed referendum on electoral reform in Canada; I suggest that we set our sights a bit lower. While I still think that STV would be an excellent system for Canada, the Canadian public has made it clear that they do not want this kind of large-scale reform now. Rather than blaming the results on misinformation or any other excuses, I think it would be in the best interests of the party to take the banner of a less ambitious reform.
My suggestion is a preferential ballots system, otherwise known as alternative vote and instant-runoff voting. In this system we would keep the same single-member electoral districts but would allow voters to rank their choices. The candidate with the fewest votes would be dropped from the ballot until one candidate had at least 50% of the vote in that district. Many people will be familiar with this system as it is used to elect the leaders of most parties.
While this system does not have the proportional element that most advocates of electoral reform want, it has several advantages over first-past-the-post:
- It eliminates the need for strategic voting, letting voters express their true preference. It would no longer be necessary for a supporter of a small party to vote for one of the big two because their favoured party has little chance of winning the riding. They could give their first choice vote to their party they truly like, while giving their second, back-up vote, to a party more likely to win.
- It eliminates vote-splitting, meaning that a candidate liked by 40% of the candidates and hated by 60% will not take the seat by default because those 60% were split 30-30 between two parties.
- It keeps all of the full regional representation that people like about the current system.
- It is easy to understand and does not require the as much math knowlege as STV.
- It makes campaigns friendlier. It's hard to win on a first ballot, so parties will try to win the second-choice votes of their opponents' supporters. This means that they are more polite to those opponents so that they do not alienate potential second-choice supporters.
- Friendlier campaigns encourage more diverse and better candidates. Any smart person who does not want to be a part of the mudslinging of current campaigns will be more likely to run for office under a friendlier system. This often includes underrepresented groups like immigrants and women.
I know that strong supporters of electoral reform will balk at a non-proportional system, but a proportional ballot system has a much better chance of passing than the STV or mixed-member systems that voters have repeatedly rejected. Making the small but significant change to preferential ballots could be done quickly, with little structural reform, and with the support of the public. It would be an excellent first step to a more representative government.
- Jeffery J. Nichols's blog
- Login to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Search
Recent Comments
- Ron Fischer |
- Dave Bagler |
- Matthew Day |
- Matthew Day |
- John Northey |
- 1 of 1987
- ››
Email Updates:
Comments
Preferential ballots are simple to understand
Your arguments are right on!! Such a preferential voting system was used in British Columbia in the 1952 and 1953 general elections, and ushered in two decades of constructive politics that, in retrospect, now seems like a golden era:
http://www.pugetsoundradio.com/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1238995808/
If it worked then, it can work better (that is, with faster results) with machine-readable, verifyable paper ballots such as are now commonly used in BC municipal elections.
Chris Aikman
Vancouver Island North
This is called incrementalism, and it should stand as a beacon.
Preferential voting is easy to understand. It certainly is not scary. It also doesn't suffer from prioritized candidiate lists which can allow the wealthy to buy seats.
But the bigger point of this is that it is a beacon for incrementalism. That is, instead of asking voters to make a leap of faith, you ask them to take a small step. People are much happier to make small steps because it is easier for them to imagine what those steps lead to.
I'm going on a bit of tangent and will say this kind of progressive thinking needs to wend its way through the entire Green Party apparatus, all the way down to official member policy. Until that happens, the electability of the Green Party will be illusory.
Didn't Ontario PC Party Just Use Preferential Ballots?
Just a quick question: didn't the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party just elect Tim Hudak using preferential ballots? I seem to think that voters in the PC party were asked to rank their votes...on the first ballot, Hudak was ahead, but didn't have 50% of the vote...Klees was a surprising second, Elliot was third, and last place finisher Randy Hillier was dropped from the list. Prior to the vote, Hillier, who suspected he'd be the first to go, had instructed his supporters to rank Hudak as their #2.
After the second ballot, almost all of Hillier's support went to Hudak, but it still wasn't enough to get 50%, so they went to a third ballot, dropping Christine Elliot (Jim Flaherty's wife). I don't believe Elliot had instructed her voters in advance to vote one way or the other with their second choice, but it seems that most of her supporters had Hudak as their #2. On the third ballot, Hudak bested Klees with over 50%.
It was a pretty easy process to follow, although lacking Election Day drama. And I'm not sure why it took so darn long to tabulate the votes between ballots (maybe I'm missing something and someone here can set me straight).
What it did seem to be, though, was a fairly democratic, open, and representative process. It's just like the way leaders are often elected in most parties, only rather than doing so through delegates on the floor at a convention, thousands of Party voters (each individual party member, in fact) had the opportunity to influence the outcome.
In a first past the post contest, Hudak still would have won, but with a much smaller majority (that's why leadership contests don't use the ftp approach, because it would fragment the Party!). In the preferential ballot approach, Hudak can quite rightly claim that although he didn't receive more than half of his Party's support outright, a majority of the people in his party who voted ended up casting a ballot for him!
If the Tories can do this, the Greens need to do it as well. One person, one opportunity to vote, mark your preferences.
Most party leadership
Most party leadership contests use runoff elections anyway, they're just not instant-runoff, owing to the fact that it is easier to recount a couple thousand votes using a much less secure process than a federal election. This is the same principle. Our elections are behind the times.
I agree completely with your post..
Instant-runoff voting (IRV) represents an incremental change that is a lot easier to understand and accept than other forms of electoral systems.
The question is, how do we get it introduced into the Canadian Political landscape?
Same sentiment.. if we can't get PR, instant run offs!
I fully think that we should have some proportionality, but the preferential ballot certainly is an improvement over plurality in the interim. If we are going to have representation by population, then we should at least ensure the representatives are the true consensus of their local constituents.
I set up a website:
www.choicevoting.ca
To promote a variation of the instant runoff votes, similar to what they use for the english mayoral elections. Sign the petition if you want!
The only way to get it in, is to promote it.
That being said, Tom Flanagan, Harper's former campaign manager supported the alternative vote. Dion also supported it in the past.
While a preferential ballot will not give you proportional results, it will allow voters to express their true intent, showing a much more clear picture of the electoral preferences. It would allow voters to freely cast their vote.
The Australian model, with local preferential votes and a proportionally elected Senate may be good for Canada to consider. (More so if we can move legislative and criminal law authority to the proportionally elected Senate, even if base powers of taxation remain in the commons.) For state elections, Australia has a legislative council which is elected via proportional representation to work alongside the instant run off lower houses.
Also, it is notable in that Britain may have a preferential ballot prior to their next election as George Brown, the PM, is having his cabinet draw up a plan for an alternative vote as well as Senate elections!
Arguably, no referendum is required to bring in preferential ballots since they do not change the primary characteristics of out electoral system. (they are still single seat and majoritarian.)
When Papau New Guinea recently switched from first-past-the-post to a choice voting system, their election violence decreased from 100 - 3 deaths, as instead of having supporters of divergent candidates fight each other, they had to woo each others supporters. Preferential ballots push candidates to appeal beyond their base in a way that neither FTPT or even more PR systems require them to do.
"seek simplicity, then...
...mistrust it" (wisdom from A.N. Whitehead, great process philosopher)
I know in Canada there is mostly little choice but to simplify, and what you propose might be an improvement over, well, you don't improve your own case by citing the PNG thing. But how does the preferential ballot come out as "consensual"? There is built-in prima facie favouring of "fringe party" supporters' second choices, for example. FPTP is outright fairer, if balanced by an otherwise constructed legislative arm (Senate & Commons could go either way). Expressing "true intent" might serve to assuage some frustration, but eventually disappointment could reign. And any simplicity is underlaid by unpredictable complexity regarding how lesser choices play out. A few Greens could slip in with the proposal, since enough have expressed a second choice attitude about us. But that seems an odd way to rectify structural & cultural electoral ills.
But almost anything might be preferable to what we have now. So I'm not going to not wish you good luck. But not not not either. (Hey, maybe there's something to negative preferential balloting...)
Electing a Useful Senate By Preferential Ballot
It may be an easier "sell" to try this out first within a program of Senate Reform. It is one small step for a .... Incremental is good, and a longer term strategy to complement it is essential.
I sense from this and other blogs and member discussions that these issues are ripe for policy formation. Is our shadow cabinet representative on Democratic Reform the place to start?
This could be a really useful workshop topic.
John Hague,
Gabriola Island, BC
Preferential ballots in cities
I just listened to a CBC podcast where someone was advocating preferential ballots in municipal elections. This would be even more useful test-run of the system than the in Senate votes, as the lack of parties in most Canadian cities gives them a huge problem with vote-splitting and underrepresentation of some demographics.