The Bloc Bonus, and other chronic bonuses

In 2008 it took 86,203 federalist voters to elect one Quebec MP, but only 28,163 Bloc voters. Bloc Québecois voters cast 38.1% of the votes in Québec, so they deserved 28 of the 74 MPs won by parties. But they got 49, a bonus of 75%.

Back in 1993 the Bloc Québecois formed the Official Opposition despite getting fewer votes than either Reform or the Progressive Conservatives.

In 1993 Bloc voters cast 49.3% of the votes in Québec, so they deserved to elect 36 MPs of Québec’s 74 seats won by parties. But they elected 54, a bonus of 50%.

And they did it again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

Over six elections they got an average bonus of 53%. (Details below)

Why do conservatives accept this?

Why do some Conservatives accept such an undemocratic voting system? A system that cheats Québec federalist voters? A system that also cheats Toronto Conservative voters, who deserved to elect six MPs in the last election but have elected no one since 1993?

Is it because their party has been run from Alberta?

The Alberta conservative bonus

In 2008 it took 449,013 non-Conservative voters to elect one Alberta MP, but only 30,450 Conservative voters. Conservative Party voters cast 64.7% of the votes in Alberta, and deserved to elect 18 of Alberta’s 28 MPs. But they elected 27, a bonus of 50%.

In 1993 Reform Party voters cast 52.3% of the votes in Alberta, so they deserved to elect 14 of Alberta’s 26 MPs. But they elected 22, a bonus of 57%.

In fact, over six elections Alberta conservative voters got a bonus of an average of 57%, even a bit worse than the Bloc’s 53% bonus in Quebec. (Details below.) Meanwhile, in six elections Toronto's Conservative voters have elected no one: 244,732 of them in 2008.

Why do Liberals accept this?

So why do some Liberals accept such an undemocratic voting system? A system that cheats Québec federalist voters? A system that also cheats Liberal voters in the West and in Ontario outside the GTA?

Is it because the party has been run from Toronto?

The Toronto Liberal bonus.

In 2008 it took only 21,887 Toronto Liberal voters to elect an MP, but it took 252,090 non-Liberal voters to elect one MP. Toronto Liberals keep getting a big bonus of their own, again for the last six elections in a row. (See this post.)

These numbers assume voters voted as they did in 2008. In fact, if voters knew every vote would count, more would have voted, and some would have voted differently. We would have had different candidates - more women, and more diversity of all kinds.

Are Canadians slow learners?

In a country of solitudes, where parties are comfortably entrenched in their strongholds, will nothing change?

When will Conservative activists outside their Party’s strongholds, and Liberal activists outside their Party’s strongholds, be more vocal? They must be thinking “what are we, chopped liver? These regional bonuses are bad for Canada. And the Bloc’s bonus keeps paralyzing Parliament.” When will they say it in public?

Imagine that 1.5 million fraudulent votes had been stuffed in Canada's ballot boxes.

Details of the Bloc Bonuses:

In 1997 Bloc voters cast 37.9% of the votes in Québec, so they deserved 28 of Québec’s 75 MPs. But they got 44, a bonus of 57%.

In 2000 they cast 39.9% of the votes in Québec, so they deserved 30 MPs. But they got 38, a bonus of 27%.

In 2004 they cast 48.9% of the votes in Québec, so they deserved 37 MPs. But they got 54, a bonus of 46%.

In 2006 they cast 42.1% of the votes in Québec, so they deserved 31 of the 74 MPs won by parties. But they got 51, a bonus of 65%.

Details of the Alberta bonuses:

In 1997 Reform Party voters cast 54.6% of the votes in Alberta, and again they deserved to elect 14 of Alberta’s 26 MPs. But they elected 24, a bonus of 71%.

In 2000 Canadian Alliance voters cast 58.9% of the votes in Alberta, and deserved to elect 15 of Alberta’s 26 MPs. But they elected 23, a bonus of 53%.

In 2004 Conservative Party voters cast 61.7% of the votes in Alberta, and deserved to elect 17 of Alberta’s 28 MPs. But they elected 26, a bonus of 53%.

In 2006 Conservative Party voters cast 65.0% of the votes in Alberta, and deserved to elect 18 of Alberta’s 28 MPs. But they elected all 28, a bonus of 56%.

Open list

As noted in previous posts, I prefer a mixed member proportional system with regional "top-up" MPs elected personally under the "open list" model. You would have two votes, and more choice. "Open list" means that voters can vote for whoever they like out of the regional candidates nominated by the party's regional nomination process. The party would win enough regional "top-up" seats to compensate for the disproportional local results that cause these chronic bonuses. Those regional seats would be filled by the party's regional candidates who got the highest vote on the regional ballot. Still, 65% of MPs would be elected from local ridings as we do today. Each province and region would keep the same number of MPs it has today. This is the model recommended by the Law Commission of Canada, used in the German province of Bavaria, and recommended for Scotland by its Arbuthnott Commission.

What would Manitoba's legislature look like with a proportional voting system?

With a regional open-list MMP system such as the Law Commission of Canada recommended (but with smaller regions), and using the Scottish Parliament's "highest average" calculation method, if Manitoba voters voted as they did in 2007 my spreadsheet projects an NDP majority of three: 30 NDP, 23 PC, four Liberal.

See MMP Made Easy.

That's using a model with at least one-third of the MLAs elected regionally, in five regions. In most cases three local ridings would become two larger ones. You might have 36 local MLAs and 21 elected regionally.

One interesting difference would be in South West and Central Manitoba: instead of the sole Brandon New Democrat MLA, I project four. That would be the three regional NDP candidates who got the most votes across the region. Maybe Denise Harder from Ste. Rose, James Kostuchuk from Portage La Prairie, and Harvey Paterson from Minnedosa? Instead of the PC near-sweep of the region, when NDP votes count equally the PCs get six seats, not nine. The ten MLAs in that region would be six local, four regional. The PCs would no doubt have won five of the six local seats, so they even get one of the regional MLAs.

Of course, this projection simplistically assume voters would have cast the same ballots they did in 2007. The reality would be different. When every vote counts, we typically see around 8% higher turnout. And you would see different candidates. When any party's regional nomination process nominates five regional candidates at once, you can expect them to nominate a diverse slate.

Conversely, Conservative votes across Manitoba would also count equally. In the 18 ridings of north Winnipeg, instead of one lonely PC we'd see five, and two Liberals instead of only one. Maybe Linda West, Chris Kozier, Kelly de Groot and Brent Olynyk would be PC regional MLAs, and Wayne Helgason a Liberal regional MLA?

The 13 ridings of south Winnipeg were less skewed. Instead of three PCs we'd see four; perhaps Jack Reimer? Instead of only one Liberal, we'd see two: perhaps Paul Hesse?

The six Northern ridings would have a couple of regional Conservative MLAs along with four local New Democrats. That might be Maxine Plesiuk and David Harper?

The 10 southeast ridings around Winnipeg actually, by a fluke, saw a fair result over all. It would still be four New Democrats and six PCs.

The exact numbers might be different if Manitoba had four regions rather than five. And they would certainly be different if Manitoba used the old German "highest remainder" calculation (which Germany has just moved away from): maybe 28 NDP, 22 PC and seven Liberal. I'm assuming the Manitoba government would prefer the Scottish model.

As noted in previous posts, I prefer regional "top-up" MPs elected personally under the "open list" model. You would have two votes, and more choice. "Open list" means that voters can vote for whoever they like out of the regional candidates nominated by the party's regional nomination process. The party would win enough regional "top-up" seats to compensate for the disproportional local results we know all too well. Those regional seats would be filled by the party's regional candidates who got the highest vote on the regional ballot. Canadian voters have twice rejected models with closed province-wide lists. The open-regional-list model is used in the German province of Bavaria, and was recommended by Canada's Law Commission and by Scotland's Arbuthnott Commission.

Why didn’t more Liberals speak up in 2008?

As noted in a previous post, with a democratic voting system, a proportional House of Commons elected as voters voted in 2008 would have given Liberal voters 26 more MPs from regions where they were unrepresented or under-represented.

That‘s nine more from the West, ten more from Ontario outside the GTA, and seven more from Quebec outside Montreal. Liberals need the recommendation of the Law Commission of Canada.

Chronic Liberal under-representation

Was this a one-time problem? No, a chronic one.

In 2006, with a democratic voting system Liberal voters would have elected 18 more MPs from regions where they were unrepresented or under-represented. That‘s eight more from the West, five more from southern Ontario outside the GTA, and five more from Quebec outside Montreal.

Chronic federalist under-representation

In 2008, 49 of Quebec’s MPs were Bloc members, and only 26 were federalists (14 Liberals, 10 Conservatives, 1 NDP, and 1 independent). With a democratic voting system in 2008 Quebec voters would have elected 17 more federalists. That‘s 43 federalists (17 Liberals, 16 Conservatives, 8 NDP, 1 Green, 1 independent) and only 32 Bloc MPs.

Was this a one-time problem? Again, not at all.

In 2006, Quebec federalist voters would have elected 17 more MPs: seven Conservatives, six New Democrats, three Greens and one Liberal. And that's chronic. See the Bloc Bonus and other chronic bonuses.

So why don’t more Liberals speak up?

Many Liberal activists in the West like Anne McLellan know all this very well; they've been dealing with it since 1972. So do Liberal activists in Quebec.

So why don’t more Liberal activists promote electoral reform?

Because in 2006 Liberal voters would have elected seven fewer MPs from Toronto and five fewer from Peel/York. Just as, in 2008, Liberal voters would have elected eight fewer MPs from the City of Toronto and four fewer from Peel/York.

Now, the best Toronto Liberal reformers have a national vision.

However, others think 12 fewer Liberal MPs from the GTA are more important than 17 more federalist MPs from Quebec. They think 12 fewer Liberal MPs from the GTA are more important than 18 or 26 more Liberal MPs from regions like Alberta where Liberal voters were unrepresented or under-represented.

Do these Toronto-centred folks really run the Liberal Party?

Perhaps not. When John Gerretsen was elected MPP for Kingston in 1995, he found himself the only Liberal elected between Toronto and Ottawa, facing a very conservative majority government elected by a minority of voters. A familiar position for Ontario Liberals, who had faced fake-majority governments for 42 of the previous 53 years. Proportional representation was in Ontario Liberals' interest, and Gerretsen started working for it. Unfortunately, by 2005 some of them had started to forget this. It is also in Quebec Liberals' interest, where the skewed demographics give the PQ the same bonus the Bloc gets; that's how the PQ won the 1998 election with fewer votes than the Liberals.

Open list

As noted in previous posts, I prefer regional "top-up" MPs elected personally under the "open list" model recommended by the Law Commission of Canada. You would have two votes, and more choice. "Open list" means that voters can vote for whoever they like out of the regional candidates nominated by the party's regional nomination process. Like this ballot, designed by Elections PEI, which PEI voters chose as the winning system in their plebiscite in November 2016. The party would win enough regional "top-up" seats to compensate for the disproportional local results we know all too well. Those regional seats would be filled by the party's regional candidates who got the highest vote on the regional ballot. Each province would keep the same number of MPs it has today.

What would a proportional representation model for Nova Scotia look like?

Nova Scotia’s Premier Rodney MacDonald stated in the May 18 Halifax Chronicle-Herald:

“One of the concerns I have . . . is the issue of proportional representation. As a rural Nova Scotian, that scares me . . . because that means less of a voice for rural parts of Nova Scotia.”

That’s why, when the Ontario NDP took a position on proportional representation in 2002, they decided on a regional model. Perhaps Nova Scotians have not yet looked at how a decent proportional system would work in Nova Scotia.

They're not alone. Outside BC, journalists routinely say things like, with winner-take-all, "you get representatives who fight tooth and nail for the good of their communities. I'm not sure how you get a system of proportional representation that doesn't somehow require the appointment of MPs or MPPs."

So let’s look at a typical regional proportional system.

In referendums in PEI and Ontario, voters turned down a Mixed-Member system with closed province-wide lists. BC voters recently turned down an STV model. That leaves a Mixed-Member system with regional open lists.

You have two votes. You vote for your local MLA -- whoever you like best locally, and this vote won't count against your party, for a change -- and you also have a vote for your favourite out of your party's candidates for regional MLA. Your regional vote counts for your party. Like this ballot.

See MMP Made Easy.

A regional MLA, who faced the voters in the region, will represent voters in the region whose votes didn‘t elect a local MLA. Unrepresented and under-represented voters will finally have a voice. And all voters will then have a choice after the election: you can go to your local MLA for service, or to one of your regional MLAs. Instead of having to vote for your party's single candidate, and then having to go to your single MLA, you have competing MLAs! What a concept!

The province has four regions. Urban Halifax has 18 MLAs as it does today: 11 local (from larger ridings) and seven regional. Cape Breton still has nine: six local, three regional. South-West still has 14: nine local, five regional. North-East still has 11: seven local, four regional. Overall, 63% of the MLAs would still be from local ridings, 33 of them, while 19 MLAs would be from the four regions.

Mr. MacDonald would like what this does in Halifax.

Take the votes as cast in 2006. (This isn’t real, since many voters in safe ridings don’t bother to vote today, while others have no hope of their vote counting and also stay home. So with a Mixed-Member system more voters would vote, and we’d expect more choices to vote for. But take 2006 as an example.)

The NDP swept Halifax in 2006. With fewer local seats, NDP voters would have elected five fewer Halifax MLAs. But PC voters would have elected three more MLAs than they did. Which three? The ones who got the most votes on the regional ballot (after skipping over anyone who won a local seat.) I’d bet on Bill Black (hmm -- might he have been Premier today?), African-Canadian educator Dwayne Provo (would Nova Scotia have a black cabinet Minister today?), and former Caucus Chair Gary Hines.

Halifax Liberal voters would have elected one more MLA than they did. Maybe their leader Francis MacKenzie wouldn't have lost his seat?

Halifax Green voters would have elected one MLA. Maybe their leader Nick Wright? Then again, Amanda Myers got more votes than he did.

But in the South-West, where NDP voters were short-changed, they’d have elected two more MLAs than they did, and PC voters two less. Maybe Wolfville Councillor David Mangle and Mahone Bay councillor Chris Heide would have been elected NDP regional MLAs?

In the North East, almost 16,000 Liberal voters elected no one in 2006, when they deserved two MLAs. I’d bet Antigonish lawyer Daniel MacIsaac would have won a regional seat, and maybe Danny Walsh from Pictou County.

Sometimes our winner-take-all system happens, by accident, to work about right. In 2006 it did in Cape Breton. PC voters elected four MLAs, Liberal voters three, and NDP voters two, and those numbers wouldn’t change.

In fact, the overall result wouldn’t be so very different from 2006, which accidentally worked out about right. You’d still see a PC minority government, with one less MLA, but better Halifax representation. Three fewer NDP MLAs, three more Liberals, one Green.

What’s the point? First, voters everywhere would have real choices, for both candidates and parties.

Second, all voters would have an MLA they trusted. Competing MLAs would be more accountable. Scotland's similar model has 16-member regions (nine local members, seven regional), while Wales has 12-member regions (eight local, four regional), allowing reasonable accountability.

Third, you’d be sure that the system gave fair results. Not like 1999, when PC voters elected 58% of the MLAs with only 39% of the vote. Supporters of all political parties would be fairly represented in proportion to the votes they cast.

Rural and urban voters would be fully represented. All regions would be sure of effective representation.

Would this system always mean minority governments? Well, in 1993 Liberal voters outnumbered the PC and NDP voters combined, so they got an honest majority, and that wouldn‘t change. Same as the PC win in 1984.

But otherwise, MLAs would have real control, not be rubber-stamps for a powerful Premier. MLAs and their parties would have to work together, like a real democracy. Bring it on!

Does anyone else use this particular model? Lots of countries use a Mixed-Member system. This particular open-regional-list model is used in the German province of Bavaria, and has been recommended as an improvement to Scotland's similar system. It was recommended for Canada by the Law Commission of Canada.

What would a proportional Alberta Legislature look like?

In the last provincial election, the majority of Alberta voters stayed home. And in the 2008 federal election, while BC had a 60% turnout. Alberta had only 54%. Why? Because, outside of two or three ridings in Edmonton, the Conservatives had safe seats. Why bother voting?

Many Alberta provincial Liberals have favoured PR for some time. The party's website used to say "An Alberta Liberal government would organize a Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform, to determine if other voting systems — including proportional representation — could improve participation and representation in our democracy."

So what would the Alberta Legislature look like under a PR model?

Note that, if voters knew every vote would count, more would have voted, and some would have voted differently. Alberta would have had different candidates - likely more women, and more diversity of all kinds. However, all I can do is project the votes cast in 2008 into a reformed voting system.

I used a Mixed Member Proportional model with regional open lists. You still have 83 MLAs. The 50 local MLAs are elected from districts larger than today's (about five of today's districts become three larger districts.) The 33 regional top-up MLAs are elected from five regions.

You, the voter, have two votes: one for your local MLA, the other for the party you want in government and for your favourite regional MLA candidate of your party (like the right-hand part of this ballot.) So you are free to vote for the best candidate locally; only your regional ballot counts for your party. The regional MLAs top up the local results, so the total result matches the vote shares in the region. Every vote counts equally. And the regional seats are filled by the party's regional candidates who get the most votes on the regional ballot (unless that person was already elected to a local seat.)

See MMP Made Easy.

Overall, PC voters would still have elected a majority: 44 of the 83 MLAs. Liberal voters would have elected 22 MLAs, NDP voters seven, Wildrose Alliance voters six, and Green Party voters four.

Liberal voters would have elected MLAs across Alberta, not just in Calgary, Edmonton and Lethbridge. In the 12 ridings of Northern Alberta, Liberal voters would have elected two regional MLAs: maybe Lisa Higgerty from Hinton and Ross Jacobs from Fort McMurray. In the 13 ridings of Central Alberta, another two MLAs such as Diane Kubanek and Richard Farrand of Red Deer. In the 13 ridings of Southern Alberta, two more regional MLAs such as Karen Charlton of Medicine Hat and Bal Boora of Lethbridge. In the 23 Calgary ridings, three more MLAs such as Craig Cheffins, Mike Robinson and Avalon Roberts. In the 22 Edmonton ridings, four more MLAs such as Rick Miller, Mo Elsalhy, Bruce Miller and Weslyn Mather.

New Democrat voters would have elected a regional MLA from Northern Alberta such as Adele Boucher Rymhs from Peace River. In Central Alberta, a regional MLA such as Lisa Erickson from Leduc County. In Calgary, a regional MLA such as Julie Hrdlicka. In Edmonton, two more MLAs such as David Eggen and Ray Martin.

Wildrose Alliance voters would have elected two regional MLAs from Southern Alberta, no doubt leader Paul Hinman, plus another such as Kevin Kinahan from Coaldale. From Calgary, two regional MLAs such as Chris Jukes and Bob Babcock. From Central Alberta, a regional MLA such as Dean Schmale from Winfield. From Northern Alberta, a regional MLA such as Dale Lueken from Fairview.

Green Party voters would have elected a regional MLA from Calgary such as leader George Read or Susan Stratton, one from Edmonton such as Glen Argan or Kate Harrington, one from Central Alberta such as Joe Anglin from Rimbey, and one from Southern Alberta such as Dan Cunin from Cochrane.

All MLAs would have faced the voters, and all votes would have counted. Democracy, eh?

Voters for all parties would be represented in all regions, except where they had too few voters to elect even one regional MLA: NDP voters in southern Alberta, Wildrose Alliance voters in Edmonton, and Green voters in Northern Alberta.

Of course, that was with a miserable turnout of only 40.6 percent. Fair voting systems usually boost turnout by an average of about six percent. Likely more in Alberta, where turnout in 1993 was more than 60 percent. Funny thing: if there's no point voting, lots of people don't. Or as Elections Alberta stated "In an election where there appears to be a clear front runner, electors may be less motivated to vote since the outcome is perceived to be predetermined and their vote may not be needed or may not make a difference." So add a whole lot more votes to the picture, and who knows what would have happened?

This projection is based on five regions: Calgary with 23 MLAs (14 local, 9 regional); Edmonton with 22 MLAs (13 local, 9 regional); Central Alberta with 13 MLAs (8 local, 5 regional); Southern Alberta with 13 MLAs (8 local, 5 regional); and Northern Alberta with 12 MLAs (7 local, 5 regional).

The same kind of model works well federally too. Alberta's provincial Liberal party is quite separate from their federal cousins, and more popular, so federal Liberals need proportional representation even more than provincial Liberals.

This model is based on the recommendation of the Law Commission of Canada. An STV model like BC-STV would likely have had much the same result.

What would a proportional House of Commons look like?

What would the House of Commons look like, under the democratic proportional model described in the previous post? (That was the open-regional-list mixed member proportional model recommended by the Law Commission of Canada in 2004 and by Scotland's Arbuthnott Commission in 2006, and like the model described in more detail by Prof. Henry Milner at an electoral reform conference Feb. 21, 2009. A similar model is used in the German province of Bavaria.)

See MMP Made Easy. See also the simulation of the 2011 results.

Power to the voters: Competing MPs

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 regional MPs, all of whom had to face the voters. A typical region would have 14 MPs, 9 local, 5 regional. 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.

Why middle-sized regions? As Lord Jenkins’ Commission in the United Kingdom wrote, additional MPs locally anchored to small areas 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.”

What would the House look like?

This simulation is only if people voted as they did on October 14, 2008. In fact, if voters knew every vote would count, more would have voted -- typically 6% or so more -- and some would have voted differently. We would have had different candidates - more women, and more diversity of all kinds. We could have different parties.

Still, this will show us the shape of a proportional House of Commons.

As noted below, the result Canada-wide would have been 117 Conservatives, 84 Liberals, 56 NDP, 31 Bloc, 18 Greens, and two Independents. The majority of Canadians voted Liberal, NDP or Green, and a Liberal-NDP-Green coalition government would have a clear majority. Or a Liberal-NDP government could rely on either the Greens or the Bloc for a majority.

The Liberal caucus would not be just the GTA plus the Montreal area and the Atlantic Provinces. Currently only 15 of the 77 Liberal MPs are outside those regions. Liberal voters would have elected 26 more MPs from regions where they are now unrepresented or under-represented: nine more from the West, ten more from Ontario outside the GTA, and seven more from Quebec outside Montreal. With the open-list system, those regional MPs would be the regional candidates who get the most votes on the regional ballot.

In the 2008 elections, 71 of the west's 92 MPs were Conservatives, 21 others. With a democratic voting system that would be 50 Conservatives, 42 others (double today's 21).

In 2008, 49 of Quebec’s MPs were Bloc members, and only 26 were federalists (14 Liberals, 10 Conservatives, 1 NDP, 1 independent). It took 86,203 federalist voters to elect one Quebec MP last year, but only 28,163 Bloc voters. With a fair voting system that would be 18 more federalists: 31 Bloc MPs and 44 federalists (17 Liberals, 16 Conservatives, 9 NDP, 1 Green, 1 independent.)

Today, 28% of the voters in South Central Ontario (Hamilton-Waterloo-Niagara) voted Liberal but elected none of those 15 MPs.

Liberal voters would have elected 26 more MPs, starting with nine more from the West:
In the BC Lower Mainland five MPs, not four. Maybe Wendy Yuan or Don Bell or Brenda Locke or Raymond Chan or Dana Miller? Maybe even Michelle Hassen?
In the BC Interior and Vancouver Island two MPs, not just one. Maybe Diana Cabott from Kelowna, or Briony Penn?
In Edmonton and Northern Alberta two MPs, not none. Maybe Donna Lynn Smith and Jim Wachowich or Rick Szostak?
In Calgary, Southern and Central Alberta two MPs, not none. Maybe Jennifer Pollock and Sanam Kang or Heesung Kim or Anoush Newman from Calgary or Michael Cormican from Lethbridge?
In Saskatchewan two MPs, not just one. Maybe Deb Ehmann or David Orchard, or even young star Karen Parhar?
In Manitoba three MPs, not just one. Maybe Raymond Simard and Wendy Menzies or John Loewen or Bob Friesen or Tina Keeper?
In South Central Ontario (Hamilton-Waterloo-Niagara) four MPs, not none. Maybe Karen Redman, Lloyd St. Amand, John Maloney and Paddy Torsney or Andrew Telegdi or Larry Di Ianni or Walt Lastewka or Joyce Morocco or Eric Hoskins?
In Southwestern Ontario (London - Windsor - Owen Sound) four MPs, not just one. Maybe Susan Whelan, Sue Barnes and Greg McClinchey or Sandra Gardiner or Matt Daudlin or Tim Fugard?
In Eastern Ontario (Ottawa to Belleville) four MPs, not just three. Maybe Marc Godbout or Penny Collenette or Dan Boudria from Ottawa, or David Remington from Napanee, or Carole Devine from Pembroke?
In Central East Ontario (Durham-Peterborough-Barrie) three MPs, not just two. Maybe Betsy McGregor from Peterborough, Paul Macklin from Northumberland—Quinte West, Steve Clarke from Simcoe North or Andrea Matrosovs from Collingwood?
In Northern Ontario two MPs, not just one. Maybe Ken Boshcoff or Roger Valley or Louise Portelance or Diane Marleau or Paul Bichler?
In Quebec City and Eastern Quebec three MPs, not none. Maybe Jean Beaupré and Pauline Côté or Yves Picard from the Quebec City region, and Nancy Charest from Matane?
In Estrie--Centre-du-Québec--Mauricie one MP, not none. Maybe Nathalie Goguen from Sherbrooke or Jean-Luc Matteau from Maskinongé?
In Montérégie two MPs, not just one. Maybe Denis Paradis from Brome--Missisquoi or Roxane Stanners from Saint-Lambert, or Pierre Diamond, or their young star Brigitte Legault?
In Laval--Laurentides--Lanaudière two MPs, not just one. Maybe Robert Frégeau or Eva Nassif or Suzie St-Onge or Pierre Gfeller or Alia Haddad?
In Outaouais--Abitibi--Nord-du-Quebec two MPs, not just one. Maybe Gilbert Barrette from Abitibi, Michel Simard or Cindy Duncan McMillan?

On the other hand, Liberal voters would have elected 20 fewer MPs from regions where they are now over-represented: 11 from the GTA, four from Montreal, two from Nova Scotia, two from Newfoundland and Labrador, and one from PEI. So they would have a net gain of only six MPs, but their caucus would be far more representative. And it would not face an inflated Bloc caucus and an inflated Conservative caucus. Why don't more Liberals speak up about our undemocratic voting system?

Conservative voters would have elected 16 more MPs from regions where they were unrepresented or under-represented, starting with eight from Quebec:
On Montreal Island three MPs, not none. Maybe Hubert Pichet, Andrea Paine and Rafael Tzoubari?
In Montérégie two MPs, not none. Maybe Michael Fortier and Maurice Brossard or Marie-Josée Mercier?
From Laval--Laurentides--Lanaudière two MPs, not none. Maybe Claude Carignan from Saint-Eustache and Jean-Pierre Bélisle from Laval or Sylvie Lavallée from Joliette?
From Estrie--Centre-du-Québec--Mauricie two MPs, not just one. Maybe Éric Lefebvre, André Bachand, Marie-Claude Godue or Claude Durand?
From Toronto five MPs, not none. Maybe Joe Oliver, Rochelle Wilner, John Carmichael, Axel Kuhn and Patrick Boyer or Dr. Benson Lau or Roxanne James or Heather Jewell, or even their young star Christina Perreault?
From Northern Ontario two MPs, not just one. Maybe Gerry Labelle from Sudbury, Cameron Ross from Sault Ste. Marie, or Dianne Musgrove from Manitoulin?
From Newfoundland and Labrador one MP, not none. Maybe Fabian Manning?
From PEI two MPs, not just one. Maybe Mary Crane?

However, Conservative voters would have elected 40 fewer MPs from regions where they are now over-represented: five from Saskatchewan, four from Edmonton and Northern Alberta, four from Calgary, Southern and Central Alberta, three from the BC Lower Mainland, three from the BC Interior and Vancouver Island, two from Manitoba, four from Central East Ontario (Durham-Barrie-Peterborough), four from Southwest Ontario, four from South Central Ontario, three from Eastern Ontario, two from Quebec City and Eastern Quebec, and two from New Brunswick. So they would have a net loss of 24 MPs, yet their caucus would be more representative of the whole country.

New Democrat voters would have elected 23 more MPs from regions where those voters are unrepresented or under-represented.
In Saskatchewan three MPs, not none. Maybe Nettie Wiebe, Don Mitchell and Valerie Mushinski or Janice Bernier?
In Edmonton and Northern Alberta two MPs, not just one. Maybe Ray Martin or Mark Voyageur?
In Calgary and South-Central Alberta one MP, not none. Maybe John Chan, Mark Sandilands or Holly Heffernan?
On Montreal Island two MPs, not just one. Maybe Alexandre Boulerice or Anne Lagacé Dowson or Daniel Breton?
In Laval--Laurentides--Lanaudière one MP, not none. Maybe Réjean Bellemare?
In Outaouais--Abitibi--Nord-du-Quebec one MP, not none. Françoise Boivin?
In Montérégie two MPs, not none. Maybe Richard Marois and Sonia Jurado or Lise Saint-Denis?
In Estrie--Centre-du-Québec--Mauricie one MP, not none. Maybe Annick Corriveau from Drummond, or their young star Geneviève Boivin from Trois-Rivières, or TV host Yves Mondoux from Sherbrooke?
In Quebec City and East Quebec two MPs, not none. Maybe Anne-Marie Day from Quebec City and Guy Caron from Rimouski or Raymond Côté from Quebec City?
In Central East Ontario two MPs, not none. Maybe Mike Shields from Oshawa and Myrna Clark from Barrie or Jo-Anne Boulding from Muskoka?
From Toronto four MPs, not just two. Maybe Peggy Nash and Marilyn Churley?
From Peel-Halton-York-Guelph two MPs, not none. Maybe Tom King from Guelph and Jagtar Shergill from Brampton or Nadine Hawkins from Markham or Karan Pandher from Mississauga?
In Eastern Ontario two MPs, not just one. Rick Downes from Kingston, or Darlene Jalbert from the Cornwall area?
From Nova Scotia three MPs, not just two. Gordon Earle or Tamara Lorincz?
In New Brunswick two MPs, not just one. Rob Moir or Alice Finnamore?
In Newfoundland and Labrador two MPs, not just one. Ryan Cleary?

However, New Democrat voters would have elected four fewer MPs from regions where they are now over-represented: two from Northern Ontario, one from Central South Ontario and one from Manitoba. So they would have a net gain of 19 MPs.

Green voters would have elected 17 MPs from regions where those voters are unrepresented:
One from Nova Scotia: no doubt Elizabeth May.
Two from the BC Lower Mainland: maybe Adriane Carr and Blair Wilson or Jim Stephenson?
Two from the BC Interior and Vancouver Island: maybe Huguette Allen or Angela Reid from the Okanagan, and John Fryer or Adam Saab or Christina Knighton from Vancouver Island?
One from Edmonton and Northern Alberta: maybe Les Parsons from Wetaskiwin or Monika Schaefer from Yellowhead or Will Munsey from Vegreville-Wainwright or David James Parker from Edmonton?
One from Calgary, Southern and Central Alberta: maybe Lisa Fox or Natalie Odd?
One from Saskatchewan: maybe young star Amber Jones, or Tobi-Dawne Smith?
One from Manitoba: maybe Kate Storey from Dauphin or Dave Barnes from Brandon?
One from Montreal: maybe Claude Genest or Jessica Gal?
One from Toronto: maybe Georgina Wilcock, Stephen LaFrenie, Ellen Michelson or Sharon Howarth?
One from Peel-Halton-York-Guelph: maybe Mike Nagy from Guelph, Ard Van Leeuwen from Caledon, Blake Poland from Oakville or Glenn Hubbers from Aurora?
One from Eastern Ontario: maybe Jen Hunter or Lori Gadzala or Sylvie Lemieux from Ottawa, or Eric Walton from Kingston?
One from Central East Ontario: maybe Valerie Powell or Erich Jacoby-Hawkins or Peter Ellis from Simcoe County, or Glen Hodgson from Parry Sound?
One from Central South Ontario: maybe Cathy MacLellan from Kitchener or Peter Ormond from Hamilton?
One from Southwestern Ontario: maybe Dick Hibma from Owen Sound or Mary Ann Hodge or Monica Jarabek from London?
One from New Brunswick: maybe Mary Lou Babineau from Fredericton or Alison Ménard from Moncton?

The unrepresented

It's not just Green Party voters who are unrepresented.

In Southern Alberta 32% of voters voted for candidates other than Conservatives, but elected no one.

As mentioned above, 28% of the voters in South Central Ontario (Hamilton-Waterloo-Niagara) voted Liberal but elected no one.

In the City of Toronto 26% of voters voted Conservative and elected no one.

In Saskatchewan 25.5% of voters voted NDP but elected no one.

In Estrie-Centre-du-Québec-Mauricie 18% of voters voted Liberal, and in Eastern Quebec 16%, but both groups elected no one.

A readily available proportional representation model for Canada.

In the last election more than half the votes cast elected no one. This is not fair. Our voting system gives regional grievance parties a bonus, but no bonus for compromising. Many members of all parties and none want a fairer voting system.

Do we have a readily available model for a proportional representation system? Yes. (I have modified the model described below similar to the model presented by Prof. Henry Milner Feb. 21, 2009.)

The starting place would be the Law Commission of Canada Report tabled in March 2004. It proposed a mixed member proportional (MMP) model with two-third of MPs elected locally as today, and one-third of MPs to be regional "top-up" MPs elected personally under the "open list" model. You would have two votes, and more choice. "Open list" means that voters can vote for whoever they like out of the regional candidates nominated by the party's regional nomination process. Like the right-hand part of this ballot. The party would win enough regional "top-up" seats to compensate for the disproportional local results we know all too well. Those regional seats would be filled by the party's regional candidates who got the highest vote on the regional ballot. Each province would keep the same number of MPs it has today.

What have we learned since then?

The Law Commission was right to propose an open-list model. All MPs would face the voters. The voters have twice rejected MMP models with closed province-wide lists. Ontario voters would have voted for even that model if they had understood it, polls have shown, but that is not easy to explain, and anyway electoral reformers have concluded the Law Commission’s model would have been more acceptable on that point: the regional MPs would be more accountable. Voters are concerned with effective local representation, having an MP that they voted for and not having to vote strategically. With open regional lists, every voter will have a local MP, and if they did not vote for him or her, at least they will mostly have a regional MP they voted for.

This open-regional-list model was recommended by Scotland's Arbuthnott Commission in 2006 as an improvement to their regional model. A similar model is used in the German province of Bavaria.

In Germany and Scotland they nominate local candidates first, then rank them on regional lists as well. With open-list in smaller accountable regions the rank doesn't matter as much.

The Report says it is inspired by the systems currently used in Scotland and Wales, which have 16-MP regions (9 local MPs, 7 regional MPs) or 12-MP regions (8 local MPs, 4 regional MPs). With 2/3 local MPs, a 14-MP region would have 9 local MPs and 5 regional MPs. This would mean seven regions in Ontario, five or six in Quebec, two in BC, and two in Alberta. They also show a sample calculation with larger regions, because they provide more proportional results than smaller districts, and make it easier for smaller parties to win representation in Parliament, but this is not their recommendation.

First, Northern Ontario showed last year that they wanted Northern voters to elect Northern MPPs, and a guarantee that the North would not lose MPPs. The North must be a separate region. Jack Murray’s Ontario NDP PR Task Force reached the same conclusion in 2002.

Second, regions of 36 or so MPs would mean an effective threshold of only 3%. In Ontario’s referendum last year, the 3% threshold was widely criticized. Smaller regions with an effective threshold of 5% (or even higher in some cases) would be less controversial.

Third, ballots with long lists of candidates for as many as 12 regional MPs would be easy targets for criticism. Smaller regions would have more accountable MPs. As Lord Jenkins said: regional "members locally anchored . . . are, we believe, more easily assimilable into the British political culture and indeed the Parliamentary system than would be a flock of unattached birds clouding the sky and wheeling under central party directions."

So we need medium-sized regions.

The preferred model for Quebec has also been refined since 2004. Last December the Quebec Director-General of Elections tabled the latest report, which suggests a model with 127 MNAs in nine regions, an average of 14 each. Typically a region would have five regional MNAs, a workable number, and nine local MNAs, with an effective threshold averaging 7.1%. In the two most urban and largest regions it would be lower, giving new parties a chance for a foothold. When parties nominate five or more regional candidates, they will naturally tend to nominate a balanced group including women and minorities. And 85% of voters support electing more women, while only 11% oppose this.

In the model described here, in most cases, three present ridings become two larger ridings. Easily organized with an expedited Boundaries Commission process. Local ridings are usually 50% bigger than today. Regions have at least one-third regional MPs; a typical region would have 14 MPs, 9 local, 5 regional.

Yet would such a model, with separate smaller regions and only 35% regional MPs (compared with more than 40% in other models), produce fair results?

Yes, fair enough. A spreadsheet of the 2008 results shows that this model would (if voters voted the same) give quite proportional results. (See below.)

Does the model have distracting math problems? Not at all. If a party gets 38% of the vote in a 15-seat region, that's 5.7 seats, round up to 6. If it won 5 local seats already, that's one regional "top-up" MP. The only possible tricky math would be this: suppose one party gets 7.4 seats, one gets 6.3, and one gets 1.3, if you round them all down, that's only 14 seats; who gets the 15th? The one with 7.4: the "largest remainder" rule.

One of Jack Layton’s objectives in the 2008 election campaign was, as he put it, "the very early implementation" of proportional representation. This model would fit the bill.

What would a proportional House of Commons look like?

As compared with a perfectly proportional model, this model gave the Bloc three extra seats as a result of the low 35% ratio, at the cost of the Greens (two) and the Liberals (one). In the rest of Canada the 35% ratio costs the NDP two seats and the Greens two more, to the benefit of the Liberals (three, outweighing their Quebec loss) and the Conservatives (one). The result Canada-wide would have been 119 Conservatives, 83 Liberals, 56 NDP, 31 Bloc, 17 Greens, and two Independents: a Liberal-NDP government could rely on either the Greens or the Bloc for a majority. (In Germany they don't use the term "minority government" in that situation, they call it "governing with shifting majorities," a rather more accurate term. But in the situation where the minority government has only one partner, that's a "minority government with external support.")

This model gives the Greens one MP from Quebec, where they got only 3.5%. If there was a legal threshold of 5% in each province, the Greens would have no MP from Quebec.

Note that these numbers assume voters voted as they did on October 14. In fact, if voters knew every vote would count, more would have voted, and some would have voted differently. We would have had different candidates - more women, and more diversity of all kinds.