1. Designing Alternate Electoral Systems Deliberative Phase: Weekend 3

2. The STV Type Alternative This model represents CA’s view of optimum STV type of electoral system for BC Provides a standard for judging this type of system against other alternatives, or the current Single- member Plurality system If it emerges as the most desirable system then final discussion can confirm or adjust specifics of the model.

3. A Voter Preference (STV) Electoral System  Local Representatives chosen from multi- member districts  Proportional Representation for parties with room for independents  Candidate-centred – Voters choose among candidates, from parties or independents

4. Characteristics of CA’s Voter Preference (STV) System for BC 1.DM: 2-7 2.Quota 3.Ballot Form 4.Completion 5.Transfer 6.Vacancies 1.Low in rural areas; high in urban 2.Droop 3.Candidates grouped by party and names randomized 4.Voters express as many preferences as they desire 5.All transfers counted for replicability 6.By-elections by AV

5. The Voter Preference System & Rural Representation a)This increases the physical size of existing districts by 2 or 3 times b)Districts increase numbers of Representatives – total from region does not change c)Boundaries will be drawn by an independent commission taking local community interests into account

6. Boundary Commissions – a digression Necessary wherever local or regional electoral boundaries are drawn applicable to: FPTP STV MMP/M/C Necessary wherever local or regional electoral boundaries are drawn applicable to: FPTP STV MMP/M/C Canadian practice now is for impartial, non-partisan commissions draw boundaries Canadian practice now is for impartial, non-partisan commissions draw boundaries This process under watchful eye of Courts which apply standards of Charter of Rights and Freedoms [Sect. 3] - “every citizen … the right to vote” has been interpreted to mean that every citizen has the right to ‘effective representation’ This process under watchful eye of Courts which apply standards of Charter of Rights and Freedoms [Sect. 3] - “every citizen … the right to vote” has been interpreted to mean that every citizen has the right to ‘effective representation’

7. Boundary Commissions - legal criteria Rep by Pop - Population equity: - in practice districts must have populations that are within 25% of provincial average – a comparatively high tolerance - exceptional circumstances possible Rep by Pop - Population equity: - in practice districts must have populations that are within 25% of provincial average – a comparatively high tolerance - exceptional circumstances possible Secondary Considerations: - geography and population considerations - accessibility factors - communication and transportation Secondary Considerations: - geography and population considerations - accessibility factors - communication and transportation

8. Boundary Commissions - process 1. At established intervals* Commission meets to review state of electoral map 2. Commission prepares plan to correct for any unacceptable variations among districts 3. Plan published and public hearings held to get input from local communities, citizens and political parties 4. Final report produced 5. New boundaries are formally established 5. New boundaries are formally established * In BC it is after every second election

9. Boundary Commissions - under PR ? We have no experience or jurisprudence that tells us what courts would say about the meaning of the vote, and hence boundary drawing, when using a PR system We have no experience or jurisprudence that tells us what courts would say about the meaning of the vote, and hence boundary drawing, when using a PR system With STV – we should start by assuming they would use the +/- 25% rule (adjusting for pop/DM) With STV – we should start by assuming they would use the +/- 25% rule (adjusting for pop/DM) With Mixed systems they would likely to use +/- 25% for local districts; expect some population equity across regions if regional lists used With Mixed systems they would likely to use +/- 25% for local districts; expect some population equity across regions if regional lists used

10. A Mixed System Mixed Systems are deceptive - conceptually simple - architecturally complex  Decisions needed about each type in the mix  Decisions needed about how to integrate the different parts into a working mix Designing such a system involves many individual decisions - but that doesn’t make such systems inherently more complex for voters.

11. Designing a Mixed System 1.The Mix Principle a) parallel – MMM as in Japan b) proportional – MMP as in Germany c) compensatory – MM·Lite (e.g. MMS proposal of Anderson -1635) 2.The Local – List Balance Effects proportionality and the size of local districts To achieve proportionality probably need 40-50% list C:L = Germany 50:50, NZ ~60:40, Wales 66:33

12. Designing a Mixed System 3.Seat-List eligibility of Candidates a) must run on both lists b) free to run on both c) must choose one side of system or other 4.List-Constituency Access Are there requirements that parties must run local candidates to access the list? If so, how many?

13. Designing a Mixed System 5.Number of Votes a) 2 – allows vote splitting b) 1 – asserts primacy of local vote 6.Constituency Seat Electoral Rule a) Plurality (FPTP) – retains familiar process b) AV – provides some more voter choice; encourages parties to signal partner preferences before vote.

14. Designing a Mixed System 7.The List Seats 7.1 Seat allocation level – Where is proportionality measured? a) Province-wide (NZ) b) Regional (what regions?) (Wales) 7.2 Seat assignment level a) Province-wide (NZ) b) Regional (what regions?) (Germany) This gives three possible combinations: 1) Provincial allocation, provincial list assignment (NZ) 2) Provincial allocation, regional list assignment (Germany) (Day-1203) 3) Regional allocation, regional list assignment (Scotland)

15. Designing a Mixed System 7.The List Seats (cont’d.) 7.3 Provincial or Regional List a) How complete must a party’s list be? b) If regions, what ones and what size? 7.4 Closed or Open List a) Closed – Best losers? [would requires 3 a)] b) Open – Form and counting Rules. Forced openness?

16. Designing a Mixed System 7.The List Seats (cont’d.) 7.5 Formula for seat allocations Quotas or divisor principles (Farrell 71-8) 7.6 Threshold(s) a) Kind – Individual seat, Vote share b) Level New Zealand is 1 seat OR 5% 7.7 Overhang seats ??

17. Designing a Mixed System 8.Seat Vacancy provisions a) Constituency seats b) List seats 9. Recommendations on Ballot form? a) One paper with two sides linked b) Two separate ballots