Archives

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Ranked Ballot Initiative in Toronto survives committee – on to full vote in June.

Its been awhile since I’ve posted, so I figured why not 2 on the same day (plus it gives me something else to do besides continue lamenting last night’s tragic Maple Leafs loss).

I just wanted to say I’m very pleased to read that the ranked ballot initiative proposed for Toronto Mayoralty elections – better known by the group name that supports it – RaBIT – survived a 3-3 committee vote to indefinitely table/defer it (which would have in essence killed it) and now goes on to the full Toronto City Council for a vote on whether to recommend to the province that Toronto wishes to change the Mayor’s election to Ranked Ballots. If the RaBIT page is to be believed, they already have a majority on City Council who will support that move, with others perhaps indicating in private they will support it when it comes up for vote. (The committee could also have voted to recommend to City Council that they supported RaBIT, but that also got “defeated” – likely in a 3-3 split, so it was presented to City Council without a recommendation in support or against it)

In case you wonder what ranked ballot is:

Under a ranked ballot system, voters rank their favourite candidates — 1 for their favourite, 2 for their second favourite, and so on — rather than selecting their one top choice. A candidate must earn a majority, not just more votes than the next-best candidate. If nobody has more than 50 per cent when all of the first-place votes are tallied, the last-place candidate is eliminated, and the second choices of the people who voted for that person are immediately allocated to the others. The “instant runoff” process of elimination continues until somebody reaches the 50-plus-one threshold.

All the major political parties use a form of ranked or “Instant Runoff” vote, so it shouldnt be a big step to introduce it here. Personally, I wish RaBiT would have been a bit more bold and asked for this to apply to City Councillor elections as well, but perhaps they figured they should be cautious about it.

Oh, and if you wish to see what a legislative “poison pill” attached to a bill looks like, or at least an attempted one, take a look at some of the “amendments” that the Ranked Ballot Initiative opponents on the committee tried to insert into the bill. The purpose of trying to attach these is to make the main bill unpalatable to supporters and cause them to vote against it. Fortunately, the 3 Councillors who supported RaBIT being given a chance to be debated voted on by the entire City Council were having none of it (i.e. I love Mammolitti’s motion to amend it to recommend that a province of Toronto be created).

 

23 comments to Ranked Ballot Initiative in Toronto survives committee – on to full vote in June.

  • Gary Dale

    Sorry Scott, I copied and pasted one reply that was out of sequence to put it into the correct place in your discussion. Unfortunately, in addition to putting it wrong in original post, I also somehow got it wrong the second time. Can you delete the two extra posts (the ones at May 15, 2013 at 6:54 am and May 16, 2013 at 5:48 pm), along with this post?

    Thanks.

  • Matthew Higgins

    I’m so excited for the debate in June! It would be amazing to see Toronto pioneering electoral reform in Canada. This could open the doors to all sorts of other reforms (not necessarily AV) in other locales and at other levels of government. The ultimate goal of the electoral reform movement should continue to be proportional representation provincially/federally.

    Regarding Gary Dale, I see he is still working tirelessly to promote some very extreme and dubious anti-AV claims. At this point I think it is fair to say that RaBIT has done more to advance the cause of electoral reform generally, at a grassroots level, than anything Gary has been able to accomplish with his relentless attempts to position the entire FVC membership as an extremely dogmatic PR-or-nothing group.

    The fact is that FVC has explicitly endorsed AV/IRV/ranked ballots for the position of Mayor in Toronto and plans to campaign in a positive manner for the option of an STV system for council down the road. A recent referendum of FVC members showed that nearly half of the membership supported the notion that FVC’s local chapters should have the option to advocate for ranked choice elections for mayor AND council at the municipal level where appropriate. Gary’s belief that AV is worse than FPTP and that it will kill the PR movement is an extreme position within FVC and does not represent the average member’s views.

    • Gary Dale

      Come on Matthew, you know, or should know, that was tried in Canada before. It was used at one time in B.C, Alberta and Manitoba. It never led anywhere. In fact, only B.C. has even looked at reform since dropping AV and reverting to their previous system (FPTP).

      The results are the same in the U.S., where 5 states tried AV for a while before reverting to their previous system. Not only has AV never led to further change, it has actually spelled the end of electoral reform of any kind.

      These are the facts. It is also the stated opinion of Canadian election systems expert Dr. Dennis Pilon, who also noted how easy AV has been to remove once the elites decide it is no longer in their interest. Only PR has demonstrated real staying power.

      Wanting to go with something that is a real improvement and one that could actually survive a regime change doesn’t sound extreme to me.

      FVC’s national council only endorsed AV for mayor as a result of some kind of negotiation with Dave (details unknown since it is apparently a secret treaty). I don’t know what Dave and National Council are hiding.

      So far as results go, FVC has managed to get three provinces to go to referendum on the issue of PR. RaBIT couldn’t even get the Government Management Committee to endorse its proposal.

      And no, I am not a PR or nothing dogmatist. I’ve proposed semi-proportional systems like SNTV, Limited Vote and Cumulative Vote which are superior to AV and FPTP in terms of simplicity and representation. Moreover, unlike AV, these systems have been shown to lead to further reform.

      The dogmatists are the ones who insist that AV is the only possible system despite its failings. They are the ones who also have a long tradition of curtailing debate on their lists and pages by banning people who dispute their rhetoric by introducing facts into the discussions.

      • Martin

        Gary, you forget one important thing: we have computers now.

        Yes some Canadian provinces used ranked choice voting many decades ago. But we have computers now that can count the ballots almost instantly, removing the objections to ranked choice voting in the early 20th century. Toronto is already investing in new machines that will reduce the cost of our elections. It would require almost no additional cost to have the machines tabulate ranked choice results. They do it all over the US, so there is a ready supply of voting equipment providers with tried and tested machines.

        • Gary Dale

          The jurisdictions that used AV didn’t drop it because of problems with counting. They dropped it because it didn’t work. Of course, practical reasons like the cost of counting applied back then and still apply. The more complex ballot does lead to more disputed and spoiled ballots. That cannot be avoided.

          The ballot scanners required for Toronto would be more complicated than the ones in general use in the U.S. because few U.S. cities use AV. The simpler ones would require a huge (possibly multi-page) ballot for the Mayor’s position because we get so many candidates. The more complicated ones that could use a more normal-size ballot would also require voters to do an exceptional job marking their ballots so that the OCR works properly and the ballots don’t contain mistakes.

          Only 4 cities of any size currently use it for council elections. Some cities that have formally adopted it have delayed implementation due to the costs of the new equipment. Most of these cities make it harder to run for Mayor than Toronto does. No U.S. city the size of Toronto uses AV.

          Enfranchising the electorate in a multicultural city like Toronto where large numbers of people don’t even use the Latin alphabet means keeping the ballot simple. Remember Florida’s butterfly ballot (and hanging chad). Complex ballots are more than a side issue. If you must have a complicated, make sure it really does improve elections.

          Of course, we could go to the fully automated voting booths used in some U.S. jurisdictions. However these have been extensively criticized from all sides for their lack of security and difficulty in use. I don’t think they would be an easy sell in the current fiscal climate.

          Internet voting also doesn’t remove the need to provide polling stations and equipment. It may mean the equipment isn’t as heavily used but each polling station would still have to have it. And Toronto is already criticized for not having sufficient polling stations.

  • Thanks for this great blog post Scott!

    We’re really excited about this change. The campaign is 100% volunteer-driven and we really rely on blog posts like yours to help spread the word. So thank you!

    Quick response to Gary’s comments:

    1) PR in Toronto is a non-starter. He’s just being silly. There are no parties in the City (so MMP won’t work), and the wards are already WAY to big (so STV is a non-starter), so he is essentially advocating for FPTP, which is kinda sad.

    2) He is a member of FairVote Canada, our largest voting reform group in the Country and advocates for PR. Even THEY support RaBIT for mayor: http://www.fairvote.ca/en/FVC-news/fvc-calls-for-ranked-ballot-to-elect-mayor-of-toronto

    3)His criticism of a ranked ballot is misleading and disingenuous. His proposal for Toronto is STV, which REQUIRES A RANKED BALLOT. So, his comments actually make no sense at all….

    • Gary Dale

      I wish you’d stop pretending that you speak for everyone on electoral reform Dave. Also, you should try addressing the real issues instead of setting up straw men.

      1) there are parties in Toronto but that is irrelevant to the argument. There are lots of proportional and semi-proportional systems that require neither parties nor ranked ballots. Moreover, FPTP is slightly less racist and doesn’t require the expenditures that switching to AV does so keeping the current system makes more sense than switching to a worse and more complex system.

      As for district size, I note that San Francisco used to elect its Board of Supervisors at large, which is a district size of 800,000. Oshawa recently switched to at large councillors with again a larger district size than Toronto. And Toronto’s district also used to be much larger. Australia Senate elections use districts sizes of millions of voters but still manage to elect independents. Your district size argument doesn’t stand up.

      2) You’re a member of FVC too but that doesn’t seem to stop you from advocating for systems that are not proportional. I suspect that their endorsement for Mayor won’t survive the current election.

      3) I’ve proposed numerous better systems that are more widely used than AV that don’t require a ranked ballot. While I agree that STV is the preferred system and that it does use a ranked ballot, at least it improves our elections while your proposal makes them worse. If we’re going to experience the pain of a ranked ballot, shouldn’t we be using for a system that it worth it?

  • Gary Dale

    Your wrong on all counts. Most voting systems that are actually improvements over our current can use the same equipment we currently use and the counting procedures while still improving representation. It’s only systems that use a ranked ballot that require new equipment and new procedures.

    The Liberal Democrats asked for PR but the Conservatives insisted on AV.

    Canadian polls have consistently shown that the overwhelming majority of Canadians want PR. It’s only when asked to pick a particular system that you can’t a super-majority to agree. And that’s been because the media campaign against it – usually saying that there are better PR systems that we should be adopting. This is the same technique that has proved effective in denying Americans universal health care.

    The experience of regimes that used AV is consistent. It rarely produces a different winner than FPTP. 19 times out of 20 the first round leader wins under AV. With “strategic voting” under FPTP, the actual winner would be same even more often.

    As for easy to explain, it’s easy to explain that the sun revolves around the earth. You can look up and see the sun moving across the sky. That doesn’t mean it’s correct.

    However the semi-proportional SNTV system is even easier to explain than AV and does work better that AV. In a multi-member district, each voter casts a ballot for the candidate of their choice. The top vote getters are elected. The end result is that most voters get their first choice of representative. This is not a scary reform unless you are afraid of all change.

    With AV on the other hand, fewer voters overall get their first choice than under FPTP and AV can’t even guarantee to elect the most broadly popular candidate.

    Now how about addressing the fact that AV and FPTP are inherently racist because they both preferentially give the largest groups excessive representation at the expense of minorities?

  • Gary Dale

    Actually not all political parties use ranked ballots to elect their leaders. Some use regular runoffs, which is a different system with different dynamics. However I believe the deputation by the Canadian Muslim Union put it well when they said that the system “doubles down on discrimination by trying to ensure that only the largest group can be represented.”

    They correctly blasted first past the post as being inherently racist because it over-represents the largest groups at the expense of minorities then followed through with the correct observation that AV tries even harder to be racist. Indeed, Australia has only ever managed to elect a single visible minority candidate using AV.

    I also recall the city staff pointing out the sheer size of the ballot required to rank a mayoralty election with 40 candidates (a typical number for Toronto). Even trying to elect just the mayor using a ranked ballot commits the city to purchasing expensive new equipment and implementing new centralized counting procedures to handle the ranking and runoffs. This shouldn’t be a decision that the city makes without fully investigating whether they want to implement AV.

    It’s worth noting that out of all the jurisdiction that have ever adopted AV, only Australia and a few American cities that recently adopted it still uses it. It has a lousy track record of not living up to the claims made about it.

    In the U.K., AV was introduced by the Conservatives but overwhelmingly rejected by the citizens. What’s disappointing is that it was the more progressive councillors who are keeping this farce alive. AV should be rejected as the phony reform it is. If we want to improve our elections, let’s look at what works and not what has been a colossal failure everywhere.

    • Changing to any different voting system other then the status quo is going to also cost to make changes.

      As for the UK election, AV was introduced by the Conservatives as part of their deal with the Liberal Democrats, but they ran against it.. and part of the problem there was that the electoral reformer bloc was, as here, split by those who insisted they must have PR or nothing.

      As for what works, if you’re inferring that Proportional Rep works, (and I differ here with Dave Meslin and RaBIT), the Canadian electorate has long stated they want nothing to do with PR. AV is a less radical and thus less scary reform to implement, as well as being easier to explain to people. It will have a far greater chance of succeeding then PR ever will.

      • Gary Dale

        You’re wrong on all counts. Most voting systems that are actually improvements over our current can use the same equipment we currently use and the counting procedures while still improving representation. It’s only systems that use a ranked ballot that require new equipment and new procedures.

        The Liberal Democrats asked for PR but the Conservatives insisted on AV.

        Canadian polls have consistently shown that the overwhelming majority of Canadians want PR. It’s only when asked to pick a particular system that you can’t a super-majority to agree. And that’s been because the media campaign against it – usually saying that there are better PR systems that we should be adopting. This is the same technique that has proved effective in denying Americans universal health care.

        The experience of regimes that used AV is consistent. It rarely produces a different winner than FPTP. 19 times out of 20 the first round leader wins under AV. With “strategic voting” under FPTP, the actual winner would be same even more often.

        As for easy to explain, it’s easy to explain that the sun revolves around the earth. You can look up and see the sun moving across the sky. That doesn’t mean it’s correct.

        However the semi-proportional SNTV system is even easier to explain than AV and does work better that AV. In a multi-member district, each voter casts a ballot for the candidate of their choice. The top vote getters are elected. The end result is that most voters get their first choice of representative. This is not a scary reform unless you are afraid of all change.

        With AV on the other hand, fewer voters overall get their first choice than under FPTP and AV can’t even guarantee to elect the most broadly popular candidate.

        Now how about addressing the fact that AV and FPTP are inherently racist because they both preferentially give the largest groups excessive representation at the expense of minorities?

    • Martin

      Gary Dale writes of the deputation of the CMU. He was the deputation of the CMU! He’s trying to praise himself in the third person. Also the idea that ranked ballots make it hard for minorities and women to get elected is the opposite of the truth (maybe he knows that and maybe he doesn’t). San Francisco has a similar mix of ethnic groups to Toronto and their recently enacted ranked ballot system allowed them to elect their first Asian American mayor in the most recent election. 16 out of their 18 elected officials are non-white despite the fact that most voters there are white. In Toronto our council is almost all white. Vote splitting keeps minorities and women from being elected, that’s why ranked ballots are needed, Gary! Enough with this misinformation, please.

      • Gary Dale

        You are wrong Martin. The deputation was prepared by the CMU board, of which I am only one member. The CMU has members across Canada, many of whom are also FVC members. This was not the first deputation they have made on electoral reform. They have also sent briefs to the B.C. and Ontario citizens assemblies and lobbied various party leaders and other politicians on the subject.

        San Francisco began electing visible minority candidates to its Board of Supervisors when it dropped Preferential Block Vote, not when it switched from runoff elections to instant runoff elections. The number of visible minority Supervisors also increase after Obama was elected.

        Other U.S. cities using AV also were previously using runoff elections. I agree that AV can be less polarizing in racially-charged elections than runoffs but we’re not using runoffs.

        Meanwhile Australia continues to exclude visible minorities from its house. And Naheed Nenshi would not have become Canada’s first Muslim mayor if Calgary had used AV. The various jurisdictions that have tried AV have also demonstrated extreme problems with electing visible minorities.

        Toronto Councillors are elected with over half the vote in between half and three-quarters of the races. Most of the rest have the first place finisher with such a commanding lead over the rest of the candidates that the winner is unlikely to change.

        There are only a few races in any of the megacity elections where AV could change the result. Of these only a few could have changed the gender mix. I don’t believe the racial mix would have changed in any. Moreover, the gender balance could have suffered in three of the four megacity elections if we had been using AV. More women may have lost to men than the other way around.

        Again, there is no evidence from the jurisdictions using AV that it has a positive impact on gender balance. In fact, Australia’s House elections don’t elect any more women than Canada’s despite their two-party system preventing voter defection when they object to a candidate’s gender.

        If AV helped elect more women and visible minorities, why doesn’t it show up consistently in the data? All AV supporters can offer is the occasional anecdote while the experts like Dennis Pilon point out that AV just doesn’t change the results often enough to do anything significant.

        Let’s advocate for real change instead of a phony reform. A simple change like SNTV would elect far more women and visible minorities and could lead to PR. AV can’t say any of that.

        • Martin

          To say with certainty that Naheed Nenshi would have lost is offensive and wrong. Nenshi earned over 40% of the vote. Yes, there was vote splitting, but we cannot say who would have won with ranked choice voting.

          As a minority I am offended by people like you who claim I could not win a majority and that I need help from first past the post to lower the bar to win an election. Yes, first past the post makes it possible (and frequent) to win a seat on Toronto City Council with as little as 20 or 30% of the vote. That is not a help to ethnic minorities and women. It is shameful to imply that in a multicultural city like Toronto that minorities and women can only win through the backdoor – getting lucky from vote splitting. In fact it is vote splitting that discourages minorities from standing for office when they are told to back out and let the established white, male candidate run instead to unite the left or right.

          • Chloe Doesburg

            I am thrilled to see that the ranked ballot proposal will be debated by city council in June! I support RaBIT and Fair Vote Canada and think that any public discussion about electoral reform is a good thing. I also think ranked voting is the right choice for municipal elections in Toronto.
            I find the idea that IRV is bad for minorities and women to be very troubling, and agree with Martin that the reason for this assertion seems to be because they can’t be expected to win a majority of votes. So insulting!! By eliminating vote splitting and de-incentivizing negative campaigning we will get a more inclusive and issues focussed debate at election time. New faces in politics (who are more likely to be minorities & women) will not be pressured to drop out of a race to prevent vote splitting – their voices will be heard. How is this a bad thing?

          • Gary Dale

            Actually you can say quite reasonably that Nenshi would have lost under AV. His two main opponents were politically similar and would almost certainly have been each others second choice. Nenshi was from the other side of the political spectrum and would have picked up little secondary support.

            So far as your offence goes, I’m also a member of a minority community and a visible minority family. I prefer to take offence at voting systems that deny my community a legitimate shot at representation.

            Semi-proportional systems and proportional system all give far more voters their choice of representatives. First past the post is the best of the single-member district system so far as electing minorities go. Every other system simply raises the bar to election and ends up giving fewer people overall their choice of representative.

            So far as “frequent” is concerned, we’re actually talking about 3 candidates who won in 2010 with less than 30% of the vote. In most megacity elections the number was far smaller. Moreover, only one additional councillor received less than 40% of the vote.

            Most elections were simply no contests. The average councillor won with 53% of the vote, which was down significantly from past elections. In 2000, the average councillor won with 66% of the vote.

            I know Desmond is upset over being asked to support Helen Kennedy instead of running himself, but the same thing would have happened under AV. Candidates from the community don’t usually have the resources to split among multiple campaigns. It isn’t the votes but rather resources that are the issue. There are only so many volunteers to go around.

            Conversely well funded campaigns backed by moneyed interests can afford to run multiple campaigns and hire people where community candidates have to rely on volunteers.

            AV allows moneyed interests to do this without splitting the vote. This effectively allows them to bypass election spending limits and dominate the messaging. They can’t do this under first past the post and most other systems because it would split the vote and/or dilute their branding.

            Minorities can win if the voting system is fair. What is shameful is to advocate for a racist voting system when so many better choices are out there.

          • Gary Dale

            Chloe: No one said that visible minority candidates can’t win the majority of votes. Michael Thompson won with the highest vote share across Toronto. However the simple fact is that neither our current system nor its evil AV twin reliably elect people in proportion to their prevalence in the population.

            In the world of commerce, women can be billionaires but overall women earn far less than men for doing the same job. If you want to address discrimination, don’t pretend it doesn’t exist.

            There are far better choices than AV if you would take the time to look at them.

            So far as making elections more inclusive goes, let’s focus on that. What is the evidence that AV makes elections more inclusive? Women and especially visible minorities seem to have a harder time getting elected under it. How is that helpful?

            Conversely proportional systems have been demonstrated to elect more women – as the Women for Fair Voting slogan say ‘Fair Voting Elects More Women Naturally”. And it elects minorities in proportion to their prevalence in the population, again naturally.

            Moreover, as my reply to Martin points out, it’s not votes but resources that are the concern for community voices. Some people don’t listen and run their vanity campaigns anyway, so that women like Helen Kennedy end up losing to the male candidate because the volunteer base is divided into two weaker campaigns when they could have run one united campaign.

            The main thing that eliminating vote splitting does is to allow moneyed interests to spend more in a riding than current campaign spending limits allow. This in turn makes it harder for our voices to be heard over the corporate media drone.

            So the real question is why are you campaigning against proven systems for a system that actually does the opposite of what you want?

          • Chloe Doesburg

            Hi Gary,

            The current issue being discussed is whether or not to consider ranked voting for Mayoral Elections. I don’t see how the comparison with proportional systems is relevant for a single seat election.

            As for ‘moneyed interests’ manipulating IRV elections – can you provide any examples of where this has occurred?

          • Gary Dale

            Chloe: I’d love to but AV is so rarely used that examples are hard to find. They don’t do it in Australia because, as in Canada, party branding is a national thing. People will hold their noses and vote for a candidate to vote for the party. With only two parties to choose from, cooperative campaigns are ineffective.

            In the few U.S. cities that use AV, there are no real spending limits so cooperative campaigns would simply dilute the message. Instead moneyed interest just spend whatever it takes to control the message for their preferred candidate.

            Toronto doesn’t have formal political parties to define issues and it does have strong election finance controls. This makes it prime territory for moneyed interests to outspend.

            Of course this won’t happen in every ward. After all, most councillors have a lock on their seat. However when a ward becomes open or a councillor is ripe for unseating, watch the money flow into the race. Because we don’t have formal political parties, cooperative campaigns can be far more effective at controlling the message than they are in Australia.

            We already see this happening under FPTP to some extent. However moneyed interests can’t spend above the limit and they can’t run cooperative campaigns. Dave admits, even brags about, how AV promotes cooperative campaigns. I agree with him on this. I just don’t think it’s a good thing.

          • Gary Dale

            Chloe: in response to your other point about proportionality in a single seat election, it’s an issue that many people struggle with.

            In essence, proportionality in the election of a representative assembly is about how many people are represented by the candidate or party of their choice across the entire electorate. Proportionality in a single-seat election is the same except you need to view the electing population across multiple elections.

            Some people then counter that decisions are made at a single time. That is entirely true but it’s the impact of decisions made over time that really determine the district’s character.

            That’s why some people also look beyond representation to sharing of power. An example of this is Switzerland, which elects its government proportionally. The 7 member executive is comprised of 2 members from each of the three largest parties and one member from the fourth party.

            Governments are always coalitions of all parties. The president is the person who has served on the executive longest without holding the position. The president has no special power other than to chair the meeting.

            Many people within FVC believe a better way to select the mayor would be to have Council elect the executive committee using STV and have them elect a chair. This would, as it does in Switzerland, force the factions to work together and come to agreements over how to proceed on issues.

            There are more options than just AV to consider. Pushing for one without proper study of the issues is not a wise course.

          • Chloe Doesburg

            Hmmm… doesn’t sound very implementable for Toronto Mayor.

          • Gary Dale

            Chloe: actually it’s something that City Council can do directly. It doesn’t require provincial approval. Some regional municipalities currently appoint their chair rather than electing them. Metro Toronto used to do it.

            The Executive Committee used to be elected by the council until McGuinty decided to give that power to the Mayor to strengthen the position. Of course we can all see how well that worked out. 🙂

    • Gary Dale

      Your wrong on all counts. Most voting systems that are actually improvements over our current can use the same equipment we currently use and the counting procedures while still improving representation. It’s only systems that use a ranked ballot that require new equipment and new procedures.

      The Liberal Democrats asked for PR but the Conservatives insisted on AV.

      Canadian polls have consistently shown that the overwhelming majority of Canadians want PR. It’s only when asked to pick a particular system that you can’t a super-majority to agree. And that’s been because the media campaign against it – usually saying that there are better PR systems that we should be adopting. This is the same technique that has proved effective in denying Americans universal health care.

      The experience of regimes that used AV is consistent. It rarely produces a different winner than FPTP. 19 times out of 20 the first round leader wins under AV. With “strategic voting” under FPTP, the actual winner would be same even more often.

      As for easy to explain, it’s easy to explain that the sun revolves around the earth. You can look up and see the sun moving across the sky. That doesn’t mean it’s correct.

      However the semi-proportional SNTV system is even easier to explain than AV and does work better that AV. In a multi-member district, each voter casts a ballot for the candidate of their choice. The top vote getters are elected. The end result is that most voters get their first choice of representative. This is not a scary reform unless you are afraid of all change.

      With AV on the other hand, fewer voters overall get their first choice than under FPTP and AV can’t even guarantee to elect the most broadly popular candidate.

      Now how about addressing the fact that AV and FPTP are inherently racist because they both preferentially give the largest groups excessive representation at the expense of minorities?

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.