Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

[Brad Sallows]

Yes, I consider it "more fair" (and healthier for the stability of the country) when people in a locality can choose a representative unencumbered by the preferences of people further away.

 

[jmt18325]

Yes, I consider it "more fair" (and healthier for the stability of the country) when people in a locality can choose a representative unencumbered by the preferences of people further away.

Given the size of some of our current ridings, your concern seems somewhat arbitrary.

 

[McG]

Yes, I consider it "more fair" (and healthier for the stability of the country) when people in a locality can choose a representative unencumbered by the preferences of people further away.

It must be that you are being deliberately obtuse, given that the three London ridings together are all just one small "locality."  Collectively these three ridings are a fraction of the size of any adjacent riding.  Are the people of Lambton-Kent-Middlesex deprived of fairness as most of them are "encumbered by the preferences of people further away" to an extent that would be unachieved in the hypothetical three member riding that you use distance to argue against.

 

[dapaterson]

Size is a dangerous term to use.  Are you referring to geographic dispersion, or to population?  Should we draw a grid of equally sized shapes over Canada and assign one MP each, regardless of the population?  Should a farmer on 100 acres have more sway that a thousand people in an apartment complex on a single acre?

 

[McG]

Too much distance, too many bodies, too little direct connection = too little accountability.

The trick is to do as Alberta did from 1905 to 1955 and limit multi-member ridings to the urban centres that could otherwise support multiple single member ridings.  Distance is does not become a factor, and the citizens are directly connected to their representatives through municipal transportation systems (bus, light rail, monorail, subway).

 

[Brad Sallows]

Looking at a graphic of London from the 2015 election, I now see that the 2 x LPC and 1 x NDP ridings seem to be surrounded by CPC ridings.  So I'm more convinced that the pocket of NDP supporters in London who can currently manage to elect a NDP representative - at least occasionally - get a fair shake from FPTP that they might never otherwise get in a multi-member riding.  And, looking at Canada-wide results in general, it is clear that "locality" matters and in a densely populated area the political flavour of the population can change dramatically.  But having lived in Metro Vancouver for years, I already knew this.  Larger multi-member ridings mean shutting some people out too much of the time.

Representation is population-based.  It doesn't have to be perfect, but those who want to have angels-on-a-pin discussions may go ahead.

 

[jmt18325]

Looking at a graphic of London from the 2015 election, I now see that the 2 x LPC and 1 x NDP ridings seem to be surrounded by CPC ridings.  So I'm more convinced that the pocket of NDP supporters in London who can currently manage to elect a NDP representative - at least occasionally - get a fair shake from FPTP that they might never otherwise get in a multi-member riding. 

That literally makes no sense. 

 

[McG]

Looking at a graphic of London from the 2015 election, I now see that the 2 x LPC and 1 x NDP ridings seem to be surrounded by CPC ridings.  ... looking at Canada-wide results in general, it is clear that "locality" matters and ... 

What you are feeling is called cognitive dissonance.  If "locality matters" is your underlying premise against geographically small multi-member ridings, then it does not matter what surrounds the city of London when we are talking about voting results inside the city of London.  Looking inside the city of London, 32% (almost 1/3) want a conservative MP but they do not get this under FPTP single representative ridings.  A multi-member riding would give one conservative MP.

Places like Nunavut could stay as 1 riding with 1 member.  Places like the City of Winnipeg, or the province of PEI could be combined into single multi member ridings employing a simple formula STV system.

I do not think PEI makes a good candidate for a single multi-member riding.  Much of it is rural, without the benefit of public transportation to connect voters to riding offices.  Further, despite the province being small, its three rural ridings are still geographically much larger than the multi-member ridings that could be created through combining existing urban ridings in large cities.

The only potential east coast multi-member ridings that I can see are Halifax and maybe St John's.  In either city one Liberal MP would be replaced by one NDP MP under a multi-member riding.

 

[jmt18325]

And that's a compromise I could go for - turning the larger CMAs (the ones with more than one MP) into mixed member ridings and leaving the rural ridings as is would be fine with me.  Places like Calgary, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, etc, could work well.

I totally disagree with PEI though.  I live in Dauphin - Swan River - Neepawa.  There's nothing large about PEI.

 

[McG]

Again, my opinion, "partyism" is the problem and should not be pandered to.  I would sooner have more representatives, with smaller salaries, controlling the purse strings - and with no party connections.

Agreed, and that means that any consideration of multi-member ridings would have to give voters the ability to select the individual MPs (ie. no party lists).  Unfortunately, when working with FPTP results to model a hypothetical multi-member riding, the data just does not exist to replicate STV.  It also does not let you model an independent ... Brent Rathgeber scored well enough in his riding that if other ridings provided him similar support he would have been a contender in a North Edmonton multi-member riding, but data only exists for the riding he actually ran in.

In any case, I extended the model of multi-member ridings across the country (less Vancouver and Victoria which I just did not get to) to get 36 multi-member ridings (including the ones already posted).  I am sure threehundredeight.com could do a better job of this, but my model suggests use of big city multi-member ridings would have produced the following results in the 2015 election:

Liberal		Conservative		NDP		Green		BQ
163​		112​		44​		1​		11​
-21​		+13​		+7​		+0​		+1​

Attached are the ridings that I have not yet posted, if you want to see what the results would be in your neighbourhood. 

 

[McG]

I totally disagree with PEI though.  I live in Dauphin - Swan River - Neepawa.  There's nothing large about PEI.

At 5,660 square km, PEI is larger than Toronto's 630 square km.  I would not form multi-member ridings on that island unless Charlottetown ever grows big enough to merit two MPs.

 

[dapaterson]

At 5,660 square km, PEI is larger than Toronto's 630 square km.  I would not form multi-member ridings on that island unless Charlottetown ever grows big enough to merit two MPs.

Let me know when it's big enough to merit one.

 

[McG]

Let me know when it's big enough to merit one.

I don't think that either of us will be around when that day comes.

 

[Kirkhill]

The problem that I have, overall, is that every system will be gamed over time.  Sooner or later somebody will figure out how to take advantage of the rules for their own betterment.

We can continue to keep changing the rules to try and stay ahead of those types.  Or we can just accept that all systems are suspect and live with it.

Football - Soccer - Rugby Union - Rugby League - Rugby Sevens - Gaelic Football - Aussie Rules - American Football - Canadian Football

Or if you prefer

Hurling - Shinty - Field Hockey - Ice Hockey

Always on the lookout for a better set of rules.

 

[dapaterson]

Well, Mike Duffy lives in PEI apparently.  And the Ottawa suburb of Kanata (where he lives and has lived for 25 years or so) has an urban population of 100,000.  So...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I am against anything that would mean more MPs on the payroll. We have too many freeloaders already.

 

[Kirkhill]

I agree the payroll is too large.  I don't agree that we don't need more MPs.  The "job" should be a duty not a reward.  And it shouldn't be a vocation or even an avocation.  I don't want anybody there that wants to be there.

 

[jmt18325]

At 5,660 square km, PEI is larger than Toronto's 630 square km.

And still much smaller than many single member ridings that exist now.

 

[jmt18325]

The problem that I have, overall, is that every system will be gamed over time.  Sooner or later somebody will figure out how to take advantage of the rules for their own betterment.

People do that now. 

 

[Lumber]

I agree the payroll is too large.  I don't agree that we don't need more MPs.  The "job" should be a duty not a reward.  And it shouldn't be a vocation or even an avocation.  I don't want anybody there that wants to be there.

Maybe I'm getting the context wrong, but at face value, I disagree with the completely. I don't want anyone doing any job that they don't want to be doing, especially running our legislature.  Sure, make the job difficult, onerous, and demanding, but I want people who are passionate about what they are doing.

No one "wants" to go to war, kill people, and see their friends killed; but I don't want my next CO to hate his job either.