babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Mixed-Member Proportional Representation Proposal

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Mixed-Member Proportional Representation Proposal
Albert R. Calleros
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 432

posted 29 June 2002 09:25 PM      Profile for Albert R. Calleros     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is perhaps the most ideal mixed-member proportional representation proposal. This proposal would consist of two components - district vote (constituency MP 's & constituency MPP 's): 3/5 of total seats; single-member; Condorcet-Tideman (Ranked Pairs); 50.00 % minimum
threshold & party list vote (at-large MP 's & at-large MPP 's): 2/5 of total seats; open OR closed
lists (federal & provincial); pure Sainte-Lague; 5.00 % minimum threshold. This proposal would lead to enhanced degrees of both sincere voting and proportionality. This proposal would also lead to an extremely stable political order. From the set of ranked head-to-head pairings between candidates, a path from ascending to descending order would be established to determine the Condorcet winner. There would be a modified "topping-up" of party list seats. If a party were to garner at least 5.00 % of the total district seats, that party would gain additional seats if that parter were to garner at least 5.00 % of the party list vote total. Even if a party does not garner any district seats, as long as it garners at least 5.00 % of the party list vote total it will be guaranteed that percentage of seats based on the party list vote totals. This proposal would apply to both federal & provincial
elections throughout Canada.

FEDERAL
CANADA: (300 constituency MP 's & 200 at-large MP 's)

PROVINCIAL
AB: (60 constituency MPP 's & 40 at-large MPP 's)
BC: (60 constituency MPP 's & 40 at-large MPP 's)
MB: (30 constituency MPP 's & 20 at-large MPP 's)
NB: (30 constituency MPP 's & 20 at-large MPP 's)
NF: (30 constituency MPP 's & 20 at-large MPP 's)
NS: (30 constituency MPP 's & 20 at-large MPP 's)
ON: (90 constituency MPP 's & 60 at-large MPP 's)
PE: (30 constituency MPP 's & 20 at-large MPP 's)
QC: (90 constituency MPP 's & 60 at-large MPP 's)
SK: (30 constituency MPP 's & 20 at-large MPP 's)


From: Davis, CA, USA | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 29 June 2002 10:29 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Uhm, 5% is a lot, especially when 200 seats are at stake. 5% of 200 is 10 seats, which is just short of what the Tories now have in the House of Commons of 301 seats. Also, the NDP barely got over 5% last election. Getting 5% of the vote in a country where political allegiances are more or less already established is fairly hard for parties other than the Big Five, and I don`t think excluding smaller parties is really a good idea. There's a myth that more parties makes a parliament unstable. And I must say, I think it's just silly anti-pluralism. It has nothing at all to do with stability

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: meades ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca