If you’ve got your calculator out, you can see a problem. The total number of seats awarded drops to 334"
How did you manage that? didn't you allocate the same number of seats in each province based on provincial vote shares? if not, why not?
if each province has certain number of members (which they do under the BNA Act and subsequent laws) and they are elected, the implication is that each province's voters elect their own MPs. votes cannot cross prov. borders and each prov. has a certain number of MPs as per Constitution.
as well seats are not allocated based on votes but on population. we cannot know in advance what turnout will be in each province but we do know the last census and that is how seats are allocated - each province, other than PEI, actually have its fair share of seats based on population. it would be nice if all voters voted but they have legal right not to and turnout does fluctuate.
saying we should take seats away from SK because its turnout is lower is not legal.
yes varying voter turnout that varies form and having votes separated by provincial borders is a dent in proportionality but there is nothing else to do under the BNA Act.
The bigger problem is the half or more of votes that are cast are wasted and elect no one due to our FPTP system.
so make up multi-member districts (in most cases city-wide districts in cities would work and would be big advance in democratic accountability)
and give each voter just one vote.
leave super big ridings as they are but even two-seat districts in some rural areas would be better than one-seat districts.
and right away that Single Non-Transferable Voting in multi-seat districts gives you crude fairness, much better than FPTP.
that reform also allows us to keep the same number of members in each province!
"I’ve worked the numbers using each province as an electoral district. This produces bottom line result of:
150 Liberal. 140 Conservative. 22 Bloc. 21 NDP. 1 Green.
If you’ve got your calculator out, you can see a problem. The total number of seats awarded drops to 334"
How did you manage that? didn't you allocate the same number of seats in each province based on provincial vote shares? if not, why not?
if each province has certain number of members (which they do under the BNA Act and subsequent laws) and they are elected, the implication is that each province's voters elect their own MPs. votes cannot cross prov. borders and each prov. has a certain number of MPs as per Constitution.
as well seats are not allocated based on votes but on population. we cannot know in advance what turnout will be in each province but we do know the last census and that is how seats are allocated - each province, other than PEI, actually have its fair share of seats based on population. it would be nice if all voters voted but they have legal right not to and turnout does fluctuate.
saying we should take seats away from SK because its turnout is lower is not legal.
yes varying voter turnout that varies form and having votes separated by provincial borders is a dent in proportionality but there is nothing else to do under the BNA Act.
The bigger problem is the half or more of votes that are cast are wasted and elect no one due to our FPTP system.
so make up multi-member districts (in most cases city-wide districts in cities would work and would be big advance in democratic accountability)
and give each voter just one vote.
leave super big ridings as they are but even two-seat districts in some rural areas would be better than one-seat districts.
and right away that Single Non-Transferable Voting in multi-seat districts gives you crude fairness, much better than FPTP.
that reform also allows us to keep the same number of members in each province!
Interesting Mark, thanks for breaking down the numbers for us.