<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Mader Blog &#187; STV</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.maderblog.com/index.php/tag/stv/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.maderblog.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 May 2011 21:58:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Why Not Intra-Riding STV?</title>
		<link>http://www.maderblog.com/index.php/2009/05/why-not-intra-riding-stv/</link>
		<comments>http://www.maderblog.com/index.php/2009/05/why-not-intra-riding-stv/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 16:02:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Mader</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proportional Representation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[STV]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.maderblog.com/?p=2782</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;m swamped with work at the moment and haven&#8217;t had a chance to do any real (non-work) writing, but yesterday&#8217;s BC election&#8211;and particularly the rejectiond of a single-transferable vote system of quasi-proportional representation&#8211;has me thinking. I must confess to not having followed the BC (or earlier BC and Ontario) PR debates closely with respect to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m swamped with work at the moment and haven&#8217;t had a chance to do any real (non-work) writing, but yesterday&#8217;s BC election&#8211;and particularly the <a href="http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/05/13/guess-thats-a-no-then/">rejectiond of a single-transferable vote system</a> of quasi-proportional representation&#8211;has me thinking.  I must confess to not having followed the BC (or earlier BC and Ontario) PR debates closely with respect to the particular systems proposed.  But insofar as Paul Wells is <a href="http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/05/13/guess-thats-a-no-then/">right</a> that one major obstacle to reform was the complicated nature of the proposed system, I have a proposal for an incremental reform that (I believe) satisfies the major concern of the pro-PR crowd while maintaining the most visible element of the status-quo.</p>
<p>The proposal is simply to adopt a single transferable ballot <span style="text-decoration: underline;">within each riding</span>.  Representatives (whether MPs or MPPs or what have you) will still be apportioned according to population within contiguous geographic bounds&#8211;i.e. ridings&#8211;but each voter within that riding will be able to indicate a second and even third &#8216;choice&#8217; on their ballot.  If no candidate receives a majority of votes within the riding based on first preferences, candidates receiving votes below a certain threshold will be disqualified and &#8216;their&#8217; ballots recast according to those voters&#8217; second preference.  If there is still no majority winner, the process repeats until there is.</p>
<p>Having a single transferable vote system within ridings would&#8211;unless my math is wrong&#8211;eliminate the main objection to the First Past the Post System, namely its propensity in multi-party democracies to grant majority power to a party winning only a plurality of votes.  If a government is formed by the party winning a majority of seats, and if each seat is held by a candidate who has ultimately received a majority of votes (whether first-preference or first-through-third preference), then a majority government will enjoy the electoral support of a majority of voters (assuming ridings are equal or roughly equal in population&#8211;and I&#8217;d be all for ensuring that this is, and continues to be, the case).</p>
<p>It&#8217;s not PR, by any means; but I happen to be one of the neanderthals who things that in a broad and diverse nation, expressions of geographic interest play an important role.  In any case, it strikes me as being an incremental improvement that gets us closer to a truly proportional system of representation without scrapping the existing system entirely.</p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.maderblog.com/index.php/2009/05/why-not-intra-riding-stv/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

