The Law Commission’s inspiration, they said, was Scotland and Wales, with regions of 16 and 12 deputies. So some projections for Canada have used regions averaging 14 MPs (nine local, five regional). But Stephane Dion proposes five-seaters, and Justin Trudeau wants all MPs to represent real communities.

How would regions averaging seven MPs work out?

Really, almost any PR system would be better than the system we have now. And unless the NDP or Liberals win a majority – which I can’t see happening – neither is going to be able to implement a system they posited before an election. It will take negotiation between the parties, a commission to research a “Made in Canada” solution, and compromise to come up with a form of PR that can be enacted. The key thing is that the goal is defined, an agreement struck, so that when they share power after the election, voters will want them to follow through.

I will say that I think a MMP system with Regional “top-up” lists (as recommended by the Law Commission of Canada) is a good one, with some sort of minimum threshold needed (eg. 3-5%). Single Transferable Vote (STV) is good too, but I think that might be viewed as even more complicated by most. (MMP has the benefit of at least sharing elements of our current system, ie. the single-member ridings with a simple plurality needed).

That said, DPR sounds intriguing – thanks for the link, I’ll read more on it. :)

Many supporters of FPTP consider simple voting and counting, and all MPs elected in single member constituencies, are genuine democratic advantages.

You may be interested in Direct Party and Representative Voting (www.dprvoting.org) . This is a form of PR designed to replace FPTP. No change is required to constituency boundaries and voting and counting are very simple, so introducing the system would require very little change to the existing voting system. Worth a look?

If a government is elected that proceeds with MMP, it would start with a consultation of some kind for 6 or 12 months on the design details: how many MPs? What proportion of local MPs to “top-up” MPs? How large are the “top-up” regions? Do the top-up MPs come from open lists, closed lists, open “flexible” lists (vote for the list or for one person on it), or the no-list model (“best runners-up”) that thenewnick likes. Then we’ll need new Boundaries Commissions to set up the new ridings. No problem, as long as the new government starts right away before it gets cold feet. (I’m nervous about the idea of waiting to see if a Senate crisis erupts that might let a government get a consensus of all ten provinces on eliminating the Senate; while simultaneously adopting MMP for the House and adding more MPs to the House.)

Is it possible to have a “happy voter” if their party of choice isn’t a “major influence” in Parliamnet?

With PR, I think so. Such a system would very likely create minority governments, meaning parties will have to actually discuss plans and compromise with each other. Coalitions would likely form, with the larger party likely leading policy debate – but smaller parties neccessarily have to be a part of the discussion to shape that policy (so I disagree that the Green Party wouldn’t have great “influence” with “just 7% of the seats”). So voters who voted for those smaller parties can be more content that their vote has helped shaped government. Opposition parties also have more of an ‘opening’ as they still have opportunities to try to sway support, and be a strong limiter to what kinds of reforms are put in place as if they can make a strong argument that resonates with voters, coalition partners will take note.

Some people won’t be “happy” (some never are). But a PR system at the very least means that a majority of voters will have contributed to electing a ruling government. If that doesn’t make people “happy”, I think at least would keep most people “satisfied”.

I vote for the government of my choice and if it only managed 7% of the seats, it still isn’t my government, just better than before.

But it would be “your government”, particularly if that 7% was needed to help form a majority. Consider that to secure support from smaller parties, the larger ones have to make concessions, find concensus. Already that’s better in my mind than just pushing through whatever they want unopposed.

“because my MP would ideally represent my riding and its constituents, not their party.”

I agree that would be the ideal. But… in practice, that’s rare – and unless the single MP has multiple personalities, they can’t possibly represent everyone in their riding well. Let’s say an MP won a seat under FPTP with 40% of the votes. His party wants to push through a policy that’s unpopular with 60% of his constituents. He’ll still vote with the party, as he/she wants to be re-elected next time by the 40% that helped them win the last time, party whip or not.

With PR, at least if a voter’s MP doesn’t share the same ideals in policy, there’s a share of government that does represent the voter. (However, I agree that there should be more “free votes” in Parliament).

“It is easier than trying to reform as can be seen in the Ontario MMP Reform vote and UK’s AV Reform vote.”

I’m not sure it’ll be easier… particularly with strict control exerted by certain party leaders. Passing the Ontario MMP referendum or the UK’s one on AV… I think those failed for different reasons (Ontario: poor education of public – many didn’t even know about the referendum! – and not an ideal implementation of PR anyway; UK: most people knew that AV wasn’t much of a reform, being just about as bad as FPTP. Both cases that could have been overcome with better proposed systems and better education of voters. Not to mention having large parties backing the reform, unlike in Ontario where the Liberals didn’t make a stand for it).

“This is one of my pet peeves with election analysis – the assumption we all conference and vote in a specific way to get the government an individual wants”

Agreed – there’s no way people can do that, particularly when we have 308 separate elections that can’t influence each other under FPTP. It’s a very strange line from some journalists.

“I haven’t spent to much time researching all possible electoral reforms that are possible, but I just can’t bring myself to trust a party list”

If it were an open party list, would that change your mind? (ie. you can pick and choose from that list)

This is one of my pet peeves with election analysis – the assumption we all conference and vote in a specific way to get the government an individual wants. From an example of the 2006 election: [Canadians wanted to try out the Conservatives, but didn't want to give them too much power] (An approximation of a quote from a CBC analysis).

As for the defeated candidates list, the biggest issue I can foresee is a candidate who has strong local convictions and ideologies that earned them significant portion of the popular vote, but are contrary to the national population.

I haven’t spent to much time researching all possible electoral reforms that are possible, but I just can’t bring myself to trust a party list.

Hopefully more Liberals (MPs, former MPs, and supporters) will realize that PR is in their best interests (indeed, everyone’s best interests) and join the push towards a better voting system.

Since the election, their democratic reform critic, now unleashed, Carolyn Bennett, has explicitly called for PR, and many Liberals are joining Fair Vote Canada whose President is a Liberal Party member. The more, the better!

There are various types of PR systems, and although some have issues, they generally produce far better representation in government than FPTP.

I think the concern you cite – “giving big city friends of the leader a free ride” – is one often levelled at closed-list PR systems, where the party chooses the order members are elected to list seats, securing seats for their “most preferred”.

However, a better system is open-list PR – where voters can choose the candidates from the Party List themselves. Even better still is when these open lists are made regional. This is the system that the Law Commission of Canada proposed in 2004.

Your idea of using a list of candidates based on the number of votes they received has potential. But, it’s certainly a tricky balance. The Green Party of Ontario tried to be “open” about how it would put together its party lists (when Ontario’s MMP system was proposed) – basing their list on the vote-percentages in each riding from the previous election. (They also interleaved female and male candidates in the list, to ensure equal representation).

As to your determination of “happy voters” at ~60%… I’m sorry, I think that’s a flawed metric. ~40% of Conservatives might be happy with the outcome of this election (even if their local candidate didn’t win), but then saying that 20% of other voters should be “happy” just because their local candidate won – despite the fact that their party of choice has little power under a Conservative “majority” – is a bit of a stretch.

The truth is that just over 50% of votes cast went towards electing anyone, and 60% of the electorate feel that they are shut out of debate in government. Even for the 20% of non-Conservatives whose candidate of choice won their riding, their MPs victory is small consolation.

My proposal would be to replace the party list with a list of defeated candidates in order of most votes to least. As a voter, at least I know the MPs elected had support of their locals, fought a good fight, and earned the right to sit on parliament! The party list is, in essence, unnecessary since you will always have defeated candidates.

As a side note, I did do a calculation that determined “happy voters” to be in at 60.2%. Happy voters were determined by either their MP of choice was elected, or they voted a CPC candidate (sourced from Elections Canada poll data). This suggests that things are not as unfair as people make it to sound, although not as good as one would hope.