• Single-member electorates, or multi-member proportional?
    0 replies, posted
Throughout much of the world we vote for representatives, who take our views and local issues to the state or federal / national legislature. However, in places like the United States or much of Australia, we only elect a single representative from an entire electorate. Under instant runoff voting systems, that candidate only requires 50% support to win office. Under plurality voting, that candidates doesn't even need a majority of the electorate to support them, only that they receive more votes than the other candidates. With either method, wouldn't it be unfair that their would be a significant amount of the electorate who do not have their views represented? Why couldn't we be like Ireland or Tasmania, and elect multiple representatives from a single electorate? The most ideal system for electing representatives to a multi-member electorate is the single-transferable vote. To the voters it seems simple enough - number each of the boxes, with a '1' next to a candidate being the candidate you most prefer, '2' is the candidate you support the most after '1', '3' is the candidate you support the most after '2' and so on. However it is a tricky system in how it works. Candidates need a quota of votes to win a seat, and their are several methods of calculating a quota (Droop, Hare etc). If a candidate exceeds the quota, they win a seat and the surplus of votes above the quota are distributed to the other candidates through the next preference on those ballots (such as through the Gregory transfer, or even random systems). If no candidate exceeds the quota, the poorest-performing candidate is eliminated and the preferences of the voters for that candidate are distributed. All this is done until the seats are filled. The single-transferable vote is fair, allows independent candidates and candidates from small parties to contest the election (and gives them a chance of winning), and allows rough proportionality (if their is an electorate of five seats and a party has 40% support by the electorate, they are probably going to win two seats). Un-like closed-list party-list proportional systems (or the party vote in MMP), the voter can preference the candidates within the party rather than having to accept whoever the party desires. Each electorate system has their advantages and disadvantaged though: Single-Member Electorate + voting process is simple, especially with plurality voting + a winner under instant runoff is said to have the support of at least half of the electorate + simple ballot paper under plurality voting, as each party would only field one candidate - even under instant runoff, a party can win government in parliamentary systems as long as they receive >50% support in >50% of the electorates. Therefore, a party can theoretically win government with 25% of the popular vote. This can also be much worse under plurality voting - the single winner doesn't representative all voters in that electorate, alienating minorities - two-party rule under all single-member electorate voting systems Multi-Member Electorate with STV + allows roughly proportional representation in the legislature of who the population supports + ends two-party rule, allows smaller parties and independents the chance to win seats + the ballot paper need only be as complex as an instant runoff voting ballot paper + some minorities receive essential representation + doesn't necessarily require electorate boundaries to constantly be re-drawn. Larger electorates can simply be granted more seats in the legislature + candidates with similar views can effectively share campaign costs, so it may be cheaper for some candidates to run under STV - can lead to no party having a majority in a parliamentary legislature, effectively causing a minority government or an uneasy coalition of parties - with multiple representatives from multiple electorates, a legislature under STV can easily become very large. Eg, if electorates for US Congress moved to four-member electorates, the US Congress would balloon to roughly 1,600 congressmen and congresswomen - can lead to very large ballot papers for some electorates. Eg, in the 2013 federal election for the Australian Senate in the state of NSW, there were more than a hundred candidates on the ballot paper - the fairest transfer method of surplus votes is the Gregory transfer, which can become very expensive to calculate I myself would still support multi-member electorates with STV, as it gives more people a voice in the legislature, and in general I find that the positives of STV outweigh the negatives. Electorate boundaries may have to be re-drawn so there are fewer but larger electorates, but the change would be worth it. What do you think?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.