• Home
  • Blogs
    • Politics & Policy
    • Just for Fun
  • Where I Stand
  • Letters
    • A Modest Proposal For Electoral Reform
    • Question Regarding May 22nd Article
    • Looking for a Critique of an Electoral Reform Idea I Had >
      • Prof. Andrew Heard's Reply
      • Prof. Tom Flanagan's Reply
  • SM-PV
  • Albert
  • Fundy Royal
The Tory Pirate

Electoral Reform: Bennett Method 2.0

5/16/2015

2 Comments

 
Note: An earlier version of this article had a calculation error in regards to the Bloc Quebecois. I have corrected it and added additional information in italics regarding calculating voting power.

I have been posting about electoral reform for a while now. Mostly this has been concerning a new system I devised which I named the Bennett Method. I applied it to the results of the recent provincial election but the flaws were already becoming evident. The results just refused to move as close to proportionality as I would like. Re-tooling was in order it was clear.

After some thought I decided to fix what was a major inconvenience of the original idea; its complexity. The original idea had three main objectives. 1.  Decouple voting power in Parliament from seat totals and align it with the popular vote.
2. Reward MPs who secured proportional higher vote totals in their ridings. 3. Keep as much of the current system in
place as possible. I have come to realize the second objective would have to be abandoned in the interest of simplicity.

So what does the Bennett Method 2.0 look like? So glad you asked.

Like the previous version this method keeps the First-past-the-post system largely intact. Voters still cast a single vote in a single-member constituency. The candidate who receives the most votes still becomes the MP. But in place of the next several convoluted mathematical steps there is but one: Give each MP a vote proportion to their party's share of the
popular vote.

The formula would be Popular Vote / # of MPs in party = Voting share of each MP.

I would like to draw your attention to the 2011 Federal Election. The Conservative Party won 166 seats (53.89%) with
39.62% of the popular vote. The NDP won 103 seats (33.44%) with 30.63% of the popular vote. The Liberals won 34 seats (11.03%) with 18.91% of the popular vote. The Bloc won 4 seats (1.29%) with 6.04% of the popular vote. Finally the Green
Party won a single seat (0.32%) with 3.91% of the popular vote. Using my system each Conservative MP would have a vote valued at 0.23, each NDP MP vote valued at 0.29, each Liberal vote valued at 0.55, each Bloc vote valued at 1.51, and the single Green vote valued at 3.91. 
Voting power in Parliament under the proposed system:
Conservative voting power: 38.18
Liberal voting power: 18.7
New Democrat voting power: 29.87
Bloc voting power: 6.04
Green voting power: 3.91
As a result the FPTP electoral system will have been rendered mostly proportional.

Some eagle-eyed readers may note that the totals above do not equal 100%. This is true. For starters only 99.11% of the popular vote went to parties who won seats. So were did the remaining 3% that is missing go? I think this is due to not rounding numbers on my part. I will do so now. Below are the new voting power totals (with MP share rounded and in brackets):
Conservative voting power: (0.24) 39.84
Liberal voting power: (0.56) 19.04
New Democrat voting power: (0.30) 30.09
Bloc voting power: (1.51) 6.04
Green voting power: (3.91) 3.91

Again, slightly off at 98.92% which is better than the previous 96.7%. But in either case does this matter? As a percentage of 96.7 the Conservatives totals of 38.18 is 39.48%. If rounding is included 39.84 is 40.27. For the NDP it works out to 30.88% & 30.41% respectively. The Liberal totals come to 19.33% & 19.24%. In all three cases it would seem that rounding to the second decimal place provides little in the way of overall change to voting power. Only in the tightest of minority situations would it even matter. As such, not rounding the totals is acceptable. 

Advantages of the system I have proposed:
-The voting system does not change at all for Canadian voters.
-It is as understandable and simple as FPTP is.
-It renders the House of Commons mostly proportional.
-It is no more expensive than FPTP is.
-It benefits (or at least does not harm) all of the main political parties in different ways.
-It makes votes for parties in ridings where they will never win matter.

Now, this system is not perfect. It should also be noted that votes for parties that do not win a seat still do not count.
What's more, large numbers of such votes can mess with the math unless explicitly excluded (which I did not do
here). At the federal level this should not be an issue since such parties generally receive less than 1% of votes cast. The
Green Party's high of 6% being somewhat acceptable as well.

So how would things like confidence votes and picking a Speaker work? Surprisingly well as it turns out.

Picking a Speaker (and other scenarios)- Under the current system picking a Speaker lowers the vote total of his or her party. However, under this system I foresee a rule that states the voting power is recalculated at the beginning of each day. In short a Speaker would simply have to drop his party affiliation and his party's total would not be affected. Likewise, re-calculating the numbers each day means vacant seats would not affect a party's total (which they currently do). I would not extend this rule to MPs who end up as independents for one reason or another due to potential loophole abuse. At the same time, poaching MPs from other parties will no longer be advantageous as having more MPs will not mean more voting power.

Forming a Government- While voting power should be based on popular vote I feel the formation of governments should remain based on seat count. The reasons are simple: regional representation and a larger talent pool to draw on.

Confidence Votes- I would keep explicit confidence motions and the Speech from the Throne as being based on seat totals but have all other legislation based on voting power.

Concluding Remarks
As I have repeated often, I don't think this is a perfect system. I do however think I am making it better. As a means of distinguishing this system from the original idea I have decided to call it Single Member-Proportional Vote. 

2 Comments
James Gilmour
5/17/2015 02:33:29 am

We don't need to devise a new voting system. We just need to adopt the single transferable vote system of proportional representation (STV-PR). STV-PR has been used for public elections for more than 100 years, so we know how it works and we know its effects.

Keep it simple - that way we might get effective reform.

Reply
james wilson
5/18/2015 10:39:12 am

We don't *need* to devise a new system but it may be desirable to do so. It is no secret that different voting methods give advantages to the different parties. The Conservatives support FPTP for just this reason. The proposed system keeps the advantages the largest party gains from FPTP (most seats and ability to form the government) while conceding some of the ability to legislate. As such it is more likely to be implemented as it doesn't fatally harm any party.

While STV-PR has been used for many years its both more complex in voting and counting the votes. Since my system adds proportionality without increasing seat counts or otherwise messing with the current system I feel it is a reasonable solution. If we had a large number of parties that had support but were not electing candidates I would not recommend this system (New Brunswick would be a poor fit)

The advantage of the proposed system is that it grants the greatest gains for the least amount of change. ie. keepin' it simple.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    James Wilson

    Likes: Government Transparency, Constitutional Monarchy, Politics

    Dislikes: Political Dishonesty, Canadian Republicans, Intellectual Property

    Ambivalent Towards: Pears, the Green Party 

    Archives

    November 2017
    June 2016
    May 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    March 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014

    Categories

    All
    2015 Election
    Alberta
    Albert County
    Assassination
    Brexit
    Britain
    By Elections
    By-elections
    Campaign
    Canadian Monarchy
    Climate Change
    Conservatives
    Convention
    Copyright
    Debate
    Democracy
    DPR
    Economy
    Education
    Elections
    Elections Canada
    Facebook
    First Nations
    Free Speech
    Fundy Royal
    GhostVolunteer
    Greens
    House Of Commons
    Independents
    Intellectual Monopoly
    Japan
    Just Not Ready
    Language
    Liberals
    Libertarian
    Link Storm
    Media
    Medieval History
    Mincome
    Minor Parties
    Monarchy
    NDP
    New Brunswick
    PANB
    Pirate Party
    Policy
    Poverty
    Prime Minister
    Progressives
    Provinces
    Quebec
    Quotes
    Random Thoughts
    R.B. Bennett
    Referendum
    Reform
    Republic
    Scotland
    Senate
    SM-PV
    Speaker
    Srsly Wrong
    Supreme Court
    Symbolism
    Technology
    The Tory Return
    Thought Experiment
    Unanswered Questions
    War
    Xkcd
    Yellowhead

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.