Thursday, October 16, 2014

How would proportional representation work in Southwestern Ontario?


How would proportional representation work in Southwestern Ontario (Waterloo—London—Windsor), for federal elections? 

Polls show more than 70% of Canadians support proportional representation for Canadian elections. Canada’s Liberal Party has opened the door to start implementing PR within one year of the 2015 election. The NDP and Greens fully support PR. 

So this is no longer an academic discussion. This is a practical discussion: if Canada gets PR, how would it work in Hamilton—Niagara—Brant? And it should interest Liberals, who were shut out here in 2011. 

Mixed Proportional

With the Mixed Proportional system, you elect more than one MP. You have competing representatives, likely including someone you helped elect. 

You have two votes. With one, you help elect a local MP as we do today. The majority of MPs would still be local MPs. 

With the other vote, you can vote for the party you want to see in government, and for your favourite of your party’s regional candidates. So you help elect a few regional MPs, topping-up the local results to make them match the vote shares. Every vote counts: it’s proportional. You can vote for the regional candidate you prefer: it’s personal. There are no closed lists. Voters elect all the MPs. 

Competing MPs

You can choose to go to your local MP for service or representation, or you can go to one of your regional MPs from a “top-up region” based in your area.

Accountable MPs

This open list method was recommended both by our Law Commission and by the Jenkins Commission in the UK. Jenkins’ colourful explanation accurately predicted why closed lists would be rejected in Canada: additional members locally anchored are “more easily assimilable into the political culture and indeed the Parliamentary system than would be a flock of unattached birds clouding the sky and wheeling under central party directions.” Our own Law Commission saidallowing voters to choose a candidate from the list provides voters with the ability to select a specific individual and hold them accountable for their actions should they be elected." 

Every vote counts. Each province still has the same number of MPs it has today. No constitutional amendment is needed. Fair Vote Canada says “We must give rural and urban voters in every province, territory and regional community effective votes and fair representation in both government and opposition.”

What would regional MPs do?

How would regional MPs operate? The regional MPs would cover several ridings each. Just the way it’s done in Scotland. They could have several offices, just as Dave MacKenzie has offices in Woodstock and Tillsonburg. 

Two models:

Under the Law Commission of Canada`s model, the 16 MPs Southwestern Ontario voters will elect in 2015 would be in one “top-up” region (Waterloo—London—Windsor). Under the “moderate” model inspired by the UK`s Jenkins Commission Report, they could be in two top-up regions.
 

How would it work out?

So what would these two models look like?

This simulation is only if people voted as they did on May 2, 2011. When every vote counts, turnout will likely be at least 6% higher, and no one will have to cast a “strategic vote.” We would have had different candidates - more women, and more diversity of all kinds. We could even have different parties. Who can say what would be the result of real democratic elections?

Meanwhile, I’ve done simulations on the votes cast in 2011.
 

One region

On the votes cast in 2011, the winner-take-all results in Southwestern Ontario on the new 2015 boundaries would be 13 Conservative MPs, three New Democrats, and no Liberals. Yet those voters cast only 47% of their votes for Conservatives, 29% NDP, 20% Liberals, and 3.4% Green. If every vote counted equally, Conservative voters would elect eight MPs, New Democrat voters five MPs, and Liberal voters three. (See technical note as to how Green voters come extremely close to electing an MP.)

Since I’m projecting from the 2011 votes, I’ll start with the 2011 candidates. Suppose the nine local MPs were (depending on local nominations in larger ridings) Conservatives Gary Goodyear in Cambridge, London’s Ed Holder, Jeff Watson in Essex County, Woodstock’s Dave MacKenzie, Kitchener’s Stephen Woodworth, Joe Preston in St. Thomas, and Chatham’s Dave Van Kesteren; and New Democrats Irene Mathyssen and Joe Comartin. In that case, Liberal voters would have elected three regional MPs from across the region, New Democrat voters would also have elected three, and Conservative voters one. 

The regional MPs for each party would be the party’s regional candidates who ended up with the most support across Waterloo—London—Windsor. Liberal voters might have elected Waterloo’s Andrew Telegdi (who got 24,895 votes), London’s Glen Pearson (17,803), and Kitchener’s Karen Redman (15,592), or London’s Doug Ferguson (16,652), Essex County’s Nelson Santos (7,465), or Chatham-Kent’s Gayle Stucke (7,264). NDP voters might have elected Windsor’s Brian Masse (21,592), Cambridge’s Susan Galvao (15,238), and Sarnia’s Brian White (14,856), or London’s Peter Ferguson (16,109), or Fred Sinclair in St. Thomas (12,439). Conservative voters might have elected London’s Susan Truppe (19,468) or Windsor’s Denise Ghanam (14,945).

Two regions

These smaller regions are intended to be “moderately” proportional, less likely to elect MPs from smaller parties like the Greens. But in return, they provide better geographic representation, and more accountable regional MPs. 

Waterloo—Oxford

On the votes cast in 2011, the winner-take-all results in this region on the 2015 boundaries would be six Conservative MPs and no others. Yet those voters cast only 49.5% of their votes for Conservatives, 23% for Liberals, 22% for New Democrats, and 4% for Greens. If every vote counted equally, Conservative voters would elect three MPs, Liberal voters two, and New Democrat voters one. 

Again suppose the three local MPs (from larger ridings) were Conservatives Gary Goodyear in Cambridge, Woodstock’s Dave MacKenzie, and Kitchener’s Stephen Woodworth.  In that case, Liberal voters would elect two regional MPs, and NDP voters one.  Liberal voters might have elected Waterloo’s Andrew Telegdi (who got 24,895 votes) and Kitchener’s Karen Redman (15,592) or Bob Rosehart (10,653). NDP voters might have elected Cambridge’s Susan Galvao (15,238) or Kitchener’s Peter Thurley (10,742).

London—Windsor

On the votes cast in 2011, the winner-take-all results in London—Windsor on the 2015 boundaries would be seven Conservative MPs, three New Democrat MPs, and no Liberals. Yet those voters cast 45% of their votes for Conservatives, 34% for New Democrats, 17% for Liberals, and 3% for Greens. If every vote counted equally, Conservative voters would elect five MPs, New Democrat voters still three, and Liberal voters two. 

Suppose the six local MPs were (depending on local nominations in larger ridings) Conservatives Ed Holder in London, Jeff Watson in Essex County, Joe Preston in St. Thomas, and Chatham’s Dave Van Kesteren; and New Democrats Irene Mathyssen and Joe Comartin. In that case, Liberal voters would elect two regional MPs, New Democrats one, and Conservatives one. The regional MPs for each party would be the party’s regional candidates who ended up with the most support across the region. Liberal voters might have elected London’s Glen Pearson (17,803) and Chatham-Kent’s Gayle Stucke (7,264) or London’s Doug Ferguson (16,652) or Essex County’s Nelson Santos (7,465). NDP voters might have elected Windsor’s Brian Masse (21,592) or Sarnia’s Brian White (14,856), or London’s Peter Ferguson (16,109), or Fred Sinclair in St. Thomas (12,439). Conservative voters might have elected London’s Susan Truppe (19,468) or Windsor’s Denise Ghanam (14,945). 

Two models: summary

By using two regions, both regions are sure of keeping all six or ten MPs. On the one-region model, in theory all seven regional MPs might have been from one half of Southwestern Ontario. And with only six or ten MPs per region, the proportionality is more moderate. 

Also, by a fluke of rounding differences, the two-region model costs NDP voters an MP, while the Liberals gain one. One nice feature of a system with 27 regions is that these rounding differences even themselves out across Canada. 

Regional candidates

How would party members nominate and rank a group of regional candidates? It could be done on-line, and with live conventions. Likely party members in each region would decide to nominate the same candidates nominated in the local ridings, and some additional regional candidates. (In Nova Scotia in 2011, in all 11 ridings the Liberals nominated only men. Additional regional candidates would surely have included some women. Since polls show 90% of Canadians want to see more women elected, we’ll elect women when given the chance.) 

But voters would have the final say, since they can vote for their party’s regional candidate they prefer. 

More choice

For local MP, you can vote for the candidate you like best without hurting your party, since the party make-up of parliament is set by the party votes. In New Zealand, 35% of voters split their votes that way. 

Canada-wide consequences.

With the new 30 MPs, on the 2011 votes transposed by Elections Canada onto the new boundaries, the winner-take-all results for the 338 MPs would be 188 Conservative, 109 NDP, 36 Liberal, 4 Bloc, and 1 Green. 

When every vote counts, the result is: 140 Conservatives, 104 NDP, 64 Liberals, 19 Bloc, and 11 Green, using full proportionality on province-wide totals. 

With these two mixed models, the projected results are 140 Conservatives, 106 or 108 NDP, 63 or 67 Liberals, 15 or 18 Bloc, and 8 or 11 Greens. Close to perfect proportionality, while keeping all MPs accountable to real local and regional communities. 

Canadian diversity

As Stéphane Dion says "I no longer want a voting system that gives the impression that certain parties have given up on Quebec, or on the West. On the contrary, the whole spectrum of parties, from Greens to Conservatives, must embrace all the regions of Canada. In each region, they must covet and be able to obtain seats proportionate to their actual support. This is the main reason why I recommend replacing our voting system." 

This is not a partisan scheme. Unrepresented Conservative voters would elect eight more Quebec MPs than in 2011, one more in Newfoundland, one more in PEI, one more in Northern Ontario, and one more on Vancouver Island. 

Of course, proportional representation would mean a lot for Canada. We would not likely have a one party government’s Prime Minister holding all the power. (The last Prime Minister to get more than 50% of the votes was Brian Mulroney in 1984.) Parliament would reflect the diverse voters of every province. 

An exciting prospect: voters have new power to elect who they like. New voices from new forces in Parliament. No party rolls the dice and wins an artificial majority. Cooperation will have a higher value than vitriolic rhetoric. Instead of having only a local MP -- whom you quite likely didn’t vote for -- you can also go to one of your diverse regional MPs, all of whom had to face the voters. Governments will have to listen to MPs, and MPs will have to really listen to the people. MPs can begin to act as the public servants they are. And all party caucuses will be more diverse.

With this kind of power-sharing, Canada would look quite different.

If we had a Proportional Representation voting system, here are only a few of the things Canadians could have accomplished over the past twenty years:
Ø Engaged and motivated voters
Ø A reinvigorated democratic system
Ø More women MPs and a fair mix of party representation

Our electoral system is broken and people know it:
Ø Disengaged citizens are ignoring their right to vote
Ø A dysfunctional conflict-oriented political process
Ø Majority governments with minority voting results

Poll results on proportional representation

Environics asked in 2013 “Some people favor bringing in a form of proportional representation. This means that the total number of seats held by each party in Parliament would be roughly equivalent to their percentage of the national popular vote. Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose moving towards a system of proportional representation in Canadian elections?”

Interviewing for this Environics National Telephone Survey was conducted between March 18th – 24th, 2013, among a national random sample of 1,004 adults. The margin of error for a sample of this size is +/- 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Result: support 70%, oppose 18%, depends 6%, don’t know 6%. 

The Environics poll showed 93% of Green voters support proportional representation while 4% oppose; 82% of NDP voters support it while 11% oppose; 77% of Liberal voters support it while 15% oppose; 62% of Conservative supporters support it while 28% oppose; and 55% of voters undecided as to party support PR while 19% oppose and 27% said “don’t know” or “depends.” 

This is not new. Poll results have shown this for 13 years.

Technical notes

The rounding method used in the simulation is highest remainder, for the same reason the Ontario Citizens Assembly chose it: it's the simplest. Germany used to use this too, on the premise that it offset the risk to proportionality of their 5% threshold. Similarly it offsets smaller region sizes.

Green voters come extremely close to electing an MP in Southwestern Ontario.  Here’s how the calculation of numbers of MPs turns out: Conservatives 7.5532, NDP 4.74, Liberals 3.15, Greens 0.5527. After the first 14 seats are calculated, the 15th goes to the “highest remainder,” the NDP, and the 16th then follows the “highest remainder” principle and goes to the Conservatives. If discouraged Green voters in these 16 ridings had cast only another 18 Green votes, they would have elected an MP such as Waterloo’s Cathy MacLellan (who got 3,158 votes) or London’s Mary Ann Hodge (2,177), taking a seat from the Conservatives. But with the two-region model, it would have taken another 6,410 Green votes to take a regional seat in Waterloo—Oxford from the Liberals, and another 9,340 Green votes to take a regional seat in London—Windsor from the Conservatives.

Would second preferences, used in the Jenkins-inspired model, have changed any results? Sometimes, using the EKOS poll taken April 28-30, 2011. But not in Southwestern Ontario.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

How would proportional representation work in Central Ontario?


How would proportional representation work in Central Ontario, for federal elections? 

Polls show more than 70% of Canadians support proportional representation for Canadian elections. Canada’s Liberal Party has opened the door to start implementing PR within one year of the 2015 election. The NDP and Greens fully support PR.  

So this is no longer an academic discussion. This is a practical discussion: if Canada gets PR, how would it work in Central Ontario? This is a region in dire need of proportional representation: in 2011 the Conservatives swept all but one of its MPs. 

Mixed Proportional

With the Mixed Proportional system, you have two votes. With one, you help elect a local MP as we do today. The majority of MPs would still be local MPs. 

With the other vote, you can vote for the party you want to see in government, and for your favourite of your party’s regional candidates. So you help elect a few regional MPs, topping-up the local results to make them match the vote shares. Every vote counts: it’s proportional. You can vote for the regional candidate you prefer: it’s personal. There are no closed lists. Voters elect all the MPs. 

Competing MPs

Every voter in the region would be served by competing MPs. You could choose to go to your local MP for service or representation, or you could go to one of your regional MPs from a “top-up region” based in your area, likely including someone you helped elect. 

Accountable MPs

This open list method was recommended both by our Law Commission and by the Jenkins Commission in the UK. Jenkins’ colourful explanation accurately predicted why closed lists would be rejected in Canada: additional members locally anchored are “more easily assimilable into the political culture and indeed the Parliamentary system than would be a flock of unattached birds clouding the sky and wheeling under central party directions.” Our own Law Commission saidallowing voters to choose a candidate from the list provides voters with the ability to select a specific individual and hold them accountable for their actions should they be elected." 

Every vote counts. Each province still has the same number of MPs it has today. No constitutional amendment is needed. Fair Vote Canada says “We must give rural and urban voters in every province, territory and regional community effective votes and fair representation in both government and opposition.”

What would regional MPs do?

How would regional MPs operate? The regional MPs would cover several ridings each. Just the way it’s done in Scotland. They could have several offices, just as MP Kellie Leitch has offices in Collingwood and Alliston. 

Two models:

Under the Law Commission of Canada`s model, the 14 MPs Central Ontario voters will elect in 2015 would be in one “top-up” region. Under the “moderate” model inspired by the UK`s Jenkins Commission Report, they could be in two top-up regions.
 

How would it work out?

So what would these two models look like?

This simulation is only if people voted as they did on May 2, 2011. When every vote counts, turnout will likely be at least 6% higher, and no one will have to cast a “strategic vote.” We would have had different candidates - more women, and more diversity of all kinds. We could even have different parties. Who can say what would be the result of real democratic elections?

Meanwhile, I’ve done simulations on the votes cast in 2011.
 

One region

On the votes cast in 2011, the winner-take-all results in Central Ontario on the new 2015 boundaries would be thirteen MPs and one Liberal. Yet those voters cast only 54% of their votes for Conservatives, 20% NDP, 18% Liberals, and 6% Green. If every vote counted equally, Conservative voters would elect eight MPs, New Democrat voters three, Liberal voters two, and Green voters one. 

Since I’m projecting from the 2011 votes, I’ll start with the 2011 candidates. Suppose the nine local MPs were (depending on local nominations in larger ridings) Conservatives Tony Clement, Kellie Leitch, Michael Chong, Barrie’s Patrick Brown, Kawartha Lakes’ Barry Devolin, Northumberland’s Rick Norlock, Bruce County’s Larry Miller, and Huron County’s Ben Lobb; and Liberal Frank Valeriote in Guelph. In that case, NDP voters would also have elected three regional MPs from across Central Ontario, Liberal voters one, and Green voters one. 

The regional MPs for each party would be the party’s regional candidates who ended up with the most support across Central Ontario. NDP voters’ three regional MPs might have been Peterborough’s Dave Nickle (who got 14,723 votes), Bruce County’s Grant Robertson (13,493), and Kawartha Lakes’ Lyn Edwards (12,934) or Barrie’s Myrna Clark (11,842), or Parry Sound’s Dr. Wendy Wilson (11,217) or Guelph’s Bobbi Stewart (9,880). Liberal voters might have elected Northumberland’s Kim Rudd (12,822), or Peterborough’s Betsy McGregor (12,664), or Orillia’s Steve Clarke (11,090) or Barrie’s Colin Wilson (9,113). Green voters might have elected Caledon’s Ard Van Leeuwen (7,132), or Owen Sound’s Emma Hogbin (5,099), Guelph’s John Lawson (3 619), Simcoe North’s Valerie Powell (3,489), or Barrie’s Erich Jacoby-Hawkins (3,266). 

Two regions

These smaller regions are intended to be “moderately” proportional, less likely to elect MPs from smaller parties like the Greens. But in return, they provide better geographic representation, and more accountable regional MPs.

Barrie—Peterborough

On the votes cast in 2011, the winner-take-all results in this region on the 2015 boundaries would be eight Conservative MPs. Yet those voters cast only 54% of their votes for Conservatives, 21% for New Democrats, 16% for Liberals, and 5% for Greens. If every vote counted equally, Conservative voters would elect five MPs, New Democrat voters two, and Liberal voters one. (See technical note as to how close Green voters came to electing an MP.) 

Suppose the five local MPs were (depending on local nominations in larger ridings) Conservatives Tony Clement, Kellie Leitch, Barrie’s Patrick Brown, Kawartha Lakes’ Barry Devolin, and Northumberland’s Rick Norlock. In that case, NDP voters would elect two regional MPs, and Liberal would elect one too. The regional MPs for each party would be the party’s regional candidates who ended up with the most support across the region. NDP voters might have elected Peterborough’s Dave Nickle (who got 14,723 votes) and Barrie’s Myrna Clark (11,842), or Kawartha Lakes’ Lyn Edwards (12,934), or Parry Sound’s Dr. Wendy Wilson (11,217). Liberal voters might have elected Northumberland’s Kim Rudd (12,822), or Peterborough’s Betsy McGregor (12,664), or Orillia’s Steve Clarke (11,090) or Barrie’s Colin Wilson (9,113). 

Guelph—Bruce

On the votes cast in 2011, the winner-take-all results in this region on the 2015 boundaries would be five Conservative MPs and one Liberal. Yet those voters cast only 53% of their votes for Conservatives, 21% for Liberals, 18% for New Democrats, and 7% for Greens. If every vote counted equally, Conservative voters would elect three MPs, Liberal voters one, New Democrat voters one, and Green voters one. (As to how Green Party voters in this region would elect an MP, despite the “moderate” region size of only six MPs, see the technical notes). 

Suppose the four local MPs (from larger ridings) were Conservatives Michael Chong,  Bruce County’s Larry Miller, and Huron County’s Ben Lobb; and Liberal Frank Valeriote in Guelph.  NDP voters would elect a regional MP, and Green voters would elect one too.  NDP voters might have elected Bruce County’s Grant Robertson (who got 13,493 votes) or Guelph’s Bobbi Stewart (9,880), or North Wellington’s Ellen Papenburg (9,861). Green voters might have elected Caledon’s Ard Van Leeuwen (7,132), Owen Sound’s Emma Hogbin (5,099), or Guelph’s John Lawson (3 619). 

Two models: summary

By using two regions, both regions are sure of keeping all six or eight MPs. On the one-region model, in theory all five regional MPs might have been from one half of Central Ontario. And with only six or eight MPs per region, the proportionality is more moderate. 

Regional candidates

How would party members nominate and rank a group of regional candidates? It could be done on-line, and with live conventions. Likely party members in each region would decide to nominate the same candidates nominated in the local ridings, and some additional regional candidates. (In Nova Scotia in 2011, in all 11 ridings the Liberals nominated only men. Additional regional candidates would surely have included some women. Since polls show 90% of Canadians want to see more women elected, we’ll elect women when given the chance.)

But voters would have the final say, since they can vote for their party’s regional candidate they prefer. 

More choice

For local MP, you can vote for the candidate you like best without hurting your party, since the party make-up of parliament is set by the party votes. In New Zealand, 35% of voters split their votes that way. 

Canada-wide consequences.

With the new 30 MPs, on the 2011 votes transposed by Elections Canada onto the new boundaries, the winner-take-all results for the 338 MPs would be 188 Conservative, 109 NDP, 36 Liberal, 4 Bloc, and 1 Green. 

When every vote counts, the result is: 140 Conservatives, 104 NDP, 64 Liberals, 19 Bloc, and 11 Green, using full proportionality on province-wide totals.

With these two mixed models, the projected results are 140 Conservatives, 106 or 108 NDP, 63 or 67 Liberals, 15 or 18 Bloc, and 8 or 11 Greens. Close to perfect proportionality, while keeping all MPs accountable to real local and regional communities. 

Canadian diversity

As Stéphane Dion says "I no longer want a voting system that gives the impression that certain parties have given up on Quebec, or on the West. On the contrary, the whole spectrum of parties, from Greens to Conservatives, must embrace all the regions of Canada. In each region, they must covet and be able to obtain seats proportionate to their actual support. This is the main reason why I recommend replacing our voting system." 

This is not a partisan scheme. Unrepresented Conservative voters would elect eight more Quebec MPs than in 2011, one more in Newfoundland, one more in PEI, one more in Northern Ontario, and one more on Vancouver Island. 

Of course, proportional representation would mean a lot for Canada. We would not likely have a one party government’s Prime Minister holding all the power. (The last Prime Minister to get more than 50% of the votes was Brian Mulroney in 1984.) Parliament would reflect the diverse voters of every province. 

An exciting prospect: voters have new power to elect who they like. New voices from new forces in Parliament. No party rolls the dice and wins an artificial majority. Cooperation will have a higher value than vitriolic rhetoric. Instead of having only a local MP -- whom you quite likely didn’t vote for -- you can also go to one of your diverse regional MPs, all of whom had to face the voters. Governments will have to listen to MPs, and MPs will have to really listen to the people. MPs can begin to act as the public servants they are. And all party caucuses will be more diverse.

With this kind of power-sharing, Canada would look quite different.

If we had a Proportional Representation voting system, here are only a few of the things Canadians could have accomplished over the past twenty years:
Ø Engaged and motivated voters
Ø A reinvigorated democratic system
Ø More women MPs and a fair mix of party representation 

Our electoral system is broken and people know it:
Ø Disengaged citizens are ignoring their right to vote
Ø A dysfunctional conflict-oriented political process
Ø Majority governments with minority voting results 

Poll results on proportional representation

Environics asked in 2013 “Some people favor bringing in a form of proportional representation. This means that the total number of seats held by each party in Parliament would be roughly equivalent to their percentage of the national popular vote. Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose moving towards a system of proportional representation in Canadian elections?”

Interviewing for this Environics National Telephone Survey was conducted between March 18th – 24th, 2013, among a national random sample of 1,004 adults. The margin of error for a sample of this size is +/- 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Result: support 70%, oppose 18%, depends 6%, don’t know 6%. 

The Environics poll showed 93% of Green voters support proportional representation while 4% oppose; 82% of NDP voters support it while 11% oppose; 77% of Liberal voters support it while 15% oppose; 62% of Conservative supporters support it while 28% oppose; and 55% of voters undecided as to party support PR while 19% oppose and 27% said “don’t know” or “depends.” 

This is not new. Poll results have shown this for 13 years.

Technical notes

The rounding method used in the simulation is highest remainder, for the same reason the Ontario Citizens Assembly chose it: it's the simplest. Germany used to use this too, on the premise that it offset the risk to proportionality of their 5% threshold. Similarly it offsets smaller region sizes. 

You might wonder how those 6.3% Green voters across Central Ontario would elect an MP; and how Green Party voters in Guelph—Bruce region would elect an MP despite the “moderate” region size of only six MPs; and how close Green voters in Barrie—Peterborough region came to electing an MP. 

Here’s how the numbers of MPs turn out across Central Ontario: Conservatives 7.67, NDP 2.82, Liberals 2.62, Greens 0.89. After the first 11 seats are calculated, the 12th goes to the “highest remainder,” the Greens, the 13th then follows the “highest remainder” principle and goes to the NDP; and the 14th goes to the Conservatives.

With the two-region model, in the Guelph—Bruce region, the numbers are: Conservatives 3.21, Liberals 1.28, NDP 1.07, and Greens 0.44. After the first five seats are calculated, the 6th goes to the “highest remainder,” the Greens. 

In the Barrie—Peterborough region, if discouraged Green Party voters had cast 13,200 more votes across the region, they would have elected an MP such as Simcoe North’s Valerie Powell or Barrie’s Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, taking a seat from the NDP. 

Would second preferences, used in the Jenkins-inspired model, have changed any results in 2011? Sometimes, using the EKOS poll taken April 28-30, 2011. But not in Central Ontario in 2011, although they might have helped Frank Valeriote win in a larger Guelph—Wellington riding.