Stéphane Dion’s new proposal reflects a broader discussion: the merits of “moderate proportionality.”
Dion proposes Swedish-style pure-list PR, but with smaller regions: voters
elect between three and five MPs from multi-member districts. The standard would be five-member districts. A degree of proportionality, says Dion, “moderate enough to avoid a
proliferation of parties and retain the possibility of a majority government
formed by a single party.”
Moderate
proportional models exist
The most recent academic
advocates of “moderate proportionality” are Professors John Carey and Simon Hix (2009).
The “sweet spot”
They
suggest a district magnitude “‘sweet spot’ in the four to eight range, where
the most improvements in representativeness have already been realized but
where the predicted party system fragmentation and government coalition
complexity remain limited enough to allow voters to sort our responsibility for
government performance and attribute credit and blame accordingly.”
They
propose “low-magnitude Proportional Representation
with districts in the six to eight range.” “Low-magnitude PR simultaneously
fosters inclusiveness and limits the political unruliness high magnitudes
invite via party system fragmentation and coalition complexity.” They find the
combined probability of achieving good outcomes on all four of their variables
“rises sharply moving from pure single-member districts through the low-magnitudes,
peaks in the six to eight range, and then declines.” They specifically do not
recommend districts as small as three. No country uses many such small districts except Ireland, and their last review concluded that the number of TDs representing a constituency should not be less than 4 unless the geographic size of such a constituency would be disproportionately large.
By
contrast, the Law Commission of Canada has recommended a mixed member model “as
inspired by the systems currently used in Scotland and Wales.” Scotland uses
regions of 16 seats, Wales of 12. Regions of 14 seats give results twice as
proportional as regions of seven seats, so many more voters can be represented by
their first choice.
Districts with seven
MPs at large would, under a pure-list model, mean districts containing 700,000
residents. While this might be acceptable in Canada’s nine largest metropolitan
areas (which contain 51% of Canada’s population), the other 49% of us live in
communities smaller than 700,000 people. Even a district magnitude of four MPs,
with districts containing 400,000 residents, would only suit another 5% of us,
since 44% of Canadians live in communities smaller than metropolitan Halifax’s 390,328.
Therefore, even a
“moderate” model for Canada will need to be a mixed-member proportional system
(known in Quebec as Mixed Compensatory), to maintain geographic representation.
A moderate MMP model
A moderate MMP
model following Carey and Hix’s recommendations might have an average District Magnitude of about 7 Canada-wide; 7.1 in Quebec, 7.56 in Ontario, 6.8 in Alberta, and 7 in BC, in the new 338-MP House. Regions would mostly range from six MPs (four local,
two regional compensatory), seven MPs (four local, three regional), eight MPs (five local, three regional), nine MPs (five local, four regional) or ten MPs (six local, four regional) with exceptional three-seaters in northern BC,
northwestern Ontario and Saguenay, a four-seater for northern Nova Scotia, five-seaters in New Brunswick, South Alberta, Central Alberta and Northern Alberta, and an 11-seater in Toronto Centre.
Would this
exclude, for example, Green Party voters? In 2008 when the Green Party’s vote
across Canada peaked, a simulation using (as Dion does) the highest remainder
calculation shows this model would have done well for Green voters: they would
have elected 7 of the 9 Ontario MPs they deserved, 4 in Alberta and 4 in BC.
So, although it
would be less proportional than the model recommended by the Law Commission of
Canada, it would be a vast improvement over Canada’s winner-take-all system,
for the very reasons Dion describes.
Projected Results
What results would
this “moderate” model produce, on the votes cast in 2011, in the new 338-MP
House?
My simulation projects
145 Conservatives, 114 New Democrats, 60 Liberals, 14 Bloc, and 5 Greens. This
is not quite the same as the results with perfect province-wide
proportionality: 140 Conservative, 103 New Democrats, 64 Liberals, 18 Bloc, 13
Greens. That's because the smaller regions hurt the Liberals slightly. But it is a vast improvement on the projected results with Canada’s
skewed winner-take-all system: 189 Conservative MPs, 108 NDP, 36 Liberals, 4
Bloc, and 1 Green. With 170 MPs needed for a majority government, an
NDP-Liberal coalition would have 174 MPs.
What would Parliament look like, with a “moderately proportional” voting system?
Is “moderate proportionality” acceptable?
Fair Vote Canada
prepared, in 2005, assessments of the models proposed for Quebec and BC. On
Quebec, FVC said it “provides a very good foundation on which to build a fair
voting system, but the current proposal must be greatly improved. With 14
regions instead of 27, a typical region could have six riding seats and four
list seats. More seats per district will allow better proportionality, meaning
that many more voters can be represented as they wish.” On BC, FVC endorsed
BC-STV but “If BC-STV is adopted, we urge British Columbians to press for
further improvements to increase proportionality and enhance diversity.” Evidently,
Fair Vote Canada is not dogmatically opposed to ”moderate proportionality.” However, with four regional list seats, parties would nominate at least five regional candidates in order to have a spare for cases of death or resignation of a sitting regional MP. Nominating five candidates is, from European experience, a good minimum to get better representation of women and minorities. So regions with fewer than four regional MPs could raise equity concerns.
