Alternative Vote is NOT Proportional Representation (PR)!
Hello Green Candidates and campaign teams!
Some quick suggestions about endorsing Electoral Reform (ER) and Proportional Representation (PR) voting systems.
I have been seeing and hearing people make an elementary error that needs to be corrected when it comes to the increasingly huge issue of voting systems and electoral reform. The Liberal Party, when pressed, often states that it would be amenable to a different voting system than our current Single Member Plurality (SMP) system: Alternative Vote (AV). AV, however, in its classic version (as used in Australia's lower House, for example) is NOT proportional representation. Instead, it is what's know as a majority voting system. By means of a rank-ordered (ordinal) ballot (i.e. voters place a 1, 2, 3, etc. next to the names of their preferred candidates), each voter's preference is quite accurately tabulated, and the winner in each constituency (riding) wins with a tacit majority of votes. But there is only one winner per district.
By contrast, Single Transferable Vote (STV), a system which IS considered a form of proportional representation, and which also employs a rank-ordered (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. or 'ordinal') ballot, always has at least 2 or more seats, often 3, 5, 7, or even 9 seats per district. This increased 'district magnitude' with STV is what makes it proportional. Other proportional voting systems include Mixed Member Proportional (MMP), and List Proportional Representation (List PR).
So in general, only STV, MMP and List PR can be considered forms of proportional representation. Single Member Plurality (SMP) that we currently use is not proportional, nor is Alternative Vote (AV), Block Vote (BV), or Mixed Member Majoritarian (MMM).
If anybody has any questions about proportional representation or voting systems, please feel free to post them.
Next Blog: Why PR will finally make parliament (and parliamentary committees) work well.
- Greg Laxton's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
'Popular' Vote is proof Eliz MUST be in Leaders' Debates
The hundred's of thousands of those who voted for the Green Party in the last election DESERVE to have the opportunity to hear Elizabeth May speak in the leaders debates. The same is true for the huge number of undecided voters. With the POPULAR vote the Greens received, they would have members in parliament and do not have more due to our dysfunctional voting system. Broadcasters are 'not' parliament and do not operate under parliament's system. They are there to give people the programming they want to see otherwise they are not serving the people's wishes and not work against them.
Sharon Howarth
Toronto Danforth
Great post on distinctions between SMP and PR systems
Missed it previously. Didn't start reading these blogs with any regularity until late September.
It's crucial that Greens understand the differences between non-proportional and proportional models, particularly given that some Liberals and Conservatives have been promoting the Alternative Vote or Instant Runoff Vote as voting systems they'd consider under an electoral reform process.
No surprise, that. The Liberal and the Conservative parties would thus continue benefiting from a majoritarian system while the majority of voters would still be left disenfranchised.