[fvc-wat-disc] "Local Proportional Representation"

Fri Mar 3 17:55:59 EST 2017

Yes, that's it, Eleanor.

And while it's "less than full PR" as I explained a few messages ago, *ALL
the moderate PR models are "less than full PR." *This is pretty good.

With regular STV (an average of 4 members per riding), about 90% of voters
overall in Canada get an MP from a party they like. This is more
proportional than that.

AND it's a model that can be easily improved on in a future government by
adding just a few top up seats when new seats are added to the House anyway
- *without a huge battle from incumbents that one of the primary problems
we face - because adding a few top up MPs later wouldn't affect incumbents
at all. *If this model was implemented now, and we want further
improvements, there's something realistic to campaign for.

LPR is basically just STV but it keeps the structure of the single member
ridings we have now intact.

*Whereas regular STV basically merges them, this just groups them, but each
one is still its own entity with its own MP.*

1) Proportional overall results. Each cluster of ridings - which they call
a "region" - is say 4-8 ridings - electing members using STV.

2) The only difference from regular STV is that each riding that exists now
will still have its own MP. This is accomplished by a* tweak in the
counting. The first candidate to meet the quota in each current single
member riding is elected.* A candidate cannot be eliminated if they are the
last one left in the single member riding.

So at the end of the day each single member riding still has one MP to deal
with constituency work and "economic advocacy".

For Kitchener Centre, let's pretend it's Raj.

In this model, where say we are in a 5 seat region, if you want help with
your passport, if you are in Kitchener Centre, go to Raj. If you want an MP
to go to Ottawa and try to make sure that gov't call centre is going to be
built right in Kitchener Centre and not in Hamilton, go to Raj.

If you have any other legislative issues - like, the main thing most people
vote on, federal policy stuff - go to any of the MPs in your "region" -
from your party of choice, probably someone you helped elect.

So like MMP, each MP still has his/her turf (they like that).

And the parties can still nominate a single person to run in their riding
just like now.

And because the local MP does the constituency work just for that local
riding, you don't have MPs like Mike Bossio complaining we can't have any
PR because their riding is now too big and they can't possibly drive five
hours to 52 municipalities to meet mayors of small towns to lobby for local
things.

His riding size for those kind of functions doesn't change with LPR. (This
was also a problem solved by Rural-Urban PR).

The neat thing with this model is that regular STV was a non-starter in
rural and small urban areas because of complaints like Bossio's - riding
too big, don't want to share. But now, you CAN make the groupings of
ridings a lot bigger (and therefore more proportional) even in rural areas.

*The main reason system was chosen is it meets some of the things the ERRE
was looking for:*

1) No redistribution (almost none) because you just group ridings.

So...they can choose to implement this thing and have lots of time still to
do it. Sept passes... next January passes... guess what, they still have
time.

2) No new MPs.

See below for a sample ballot.

*Voters can:*

1) Rank all over the region, across party lines, however they like, as
shown in red.

2) Just rank within one party if they want.

3) Just rank within their local riding if they want.

4) Just put one X beside one person in their local riding just like now if
they want.

Like *every *single PR system on the table it is not perfect and has what I
call "perception problems". (AKA opponents pick the one feature that will
meet resistance and harp on it till the cows come home, even though the
system overall is great).

In this system, it's the idea that say Raj was the most popular MP locally
in Kitchener Centre, but Susan Cadell was ranked highly by many voters in
the region. Susan could get more votes overall and win the local seat, even
if Raj was more popular among voters just in Kitchener Centre.

Parties would adapt their campaigning to this and choose where to run
different candidates.

Anita

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Eleanor Grant <eleanor7000 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Fair Voters,
>
> Cathy and Salim and I went to the meeting in Guelph Thurs evening about
> the new initiative called Local PR.  Their Liberal MP Lloyd Longford is
> prepared to push it forward if they get enough signatures.  They'll be at
> Guelph market Sat March 11.
>
> The speaker, Steve Dyck, said that Local PR has the support of Nathan
> Cullen, Eliz May, and Jean-Pierre Kingsley - and even our Anita N.  It has
> the advantage that it can be implemented more quickly than other PR systems
> because it would not require new riding boundaries or more MPs.  In this
> way we could call Trudeau's bluff, that there's "no consensus on a system"
> and "too hasty" to do by 2019.
>
> Web site AllVotesCount.ca
> Twitter @AllVotesCount , @SteveDyck .
>
> The system was not quite explained to my satisfaction.  I couldn't see how
> it's really different from STV - you just have *clusters* of ridings
> instead of larger ridings.  And every riding has to have one MP - so I
> couldn't see where it would actually work out be fair to the small
> parties.  Depending on the number of ridings in the cluster, the
> *threshold* at which a smaller party would get a seat would vary: the
> bigger the cluster, the lower the threshold.
>
> It appears to be less than true PR, but perhaps more palatable to those
> who are hesitant about change, and definitely an improvement over FPTP.
>
> Cath and Salim, and Anita, do you think I've explained it accurately?
>
> If Guelph succeeds in spear-heading Local PR, there'll be a push to get
> support across Canada in a very short time frame - like 2 months.
>
> FYI,
> Eleanor
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
> Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_
> listserv.thinkers.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.thinkers.org/pipermail/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org/attachments/20170303/ada4d04d/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Guelph-model-ballot.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 88659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.thinkers.org/pipermail/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org/attachments/20170303/ada4d04d/attachment-0002.jpg>