Can We Have MMP & STV Together? Yes!
Let me start by saying I don't usually dive too deep into the mechanics of systems. I'm not good at math, and how many regions can fit on the head of a pin or some particular combination of design features isn't what gets me excited about proportional representation. Until this past year, I've tended to stick with talking about the main principles - 30% should equal 30% and almost every voter should be able to elect representation which reflects his/her values - and how that will change politics for the better. Principles, values, and the research to back it up. That is definitely the message PR advocates need to be putting front and centre, over and over, not mechanics. But we're now at an historic moment where our MPs are going to be considering what kind of proportional system they're going to give us - how much proportionality (very proportional or a token amount), and what model can pass a vote. When it comes to how a new system will affect "their" ridings - their job experience as MPs, their future election prospects... well, the mechanics matter to the MPs.
Mark Holland has reiterated that this will be a free vote for the Liberals. That is probably the only way the Liberal MPs could be brought along this far. We need 170 yes votes. It becomes important to have a made in Canada model on the table that is acceptable to the most Liberals.
Why a Hybrid Model?
Like many PR supporters, I have a personal preference for one system (here) but am fighting for PR, period.
While all PR systems share the most important values in common - proportional results, increased diversity, collaboration, regional balance - there are a few differences in values between MMP and STV.
STV supporters like:
Multi-member ridings - voters elect a diverse team of local MPs
Greater voter choice between candidates if voters care to use it - as one video from Ireland states, "The power the Irish voting system (STV) gives voters over what individual politicians are elected is extraordinary"
MMP supporters like:
Single member ridings - with MMP, about 2/3 or slightly more of the MPs are still elected by first-past-the-post (or a variation, ranked ballot) and are the single local MP for their riding
Because of the above, it is said to be closer to the system we already have
Here's the challenge in presenting either of these models to the rural/small urban MPs: 1) With MMP, their ridings will become about 1.6x bigger than they are now. This is necessary so that enough compensatory MPs (regional MPs, "top up seats") can be added to achieve proportional results, without adding MPs to the House. (To achieve proportional results with MMP by adding MPs to the House instead of making ridings 1.6x bigger, you'd have to add well over 100).
2) With STV, in rural ridings you might group just 2-3 ridings together into a multi-member riding electing 2-3 MPs. So the riding is geographically 2-3x bigger (but now served by 2-3 MPs who would have branch offices, as many already do now). Here's an example of the reaction you sometimes get from a rural MP to either proposal: "Yes, I am open minded on electoral reform and want to consult with my constituents!" ...."But make my riding bigger? Forget it. Change my boundaries? Forget it." As a result, some of them come up with creative solutions like just adding a few more MPs to the House with MMP. The few new MPs can be the "top up" MPs to make things more proportional, without touching their riding boundaries and keeping themselves (if they are re-elected) as the only local MP. Before you get too excited about this idea as a significant improvement, a simulation of MMP where the compensatory MPs are achieved by adding about 50 seats shows that overall in terms of the seat/vote match in the House, there is almost no difference in proportionality from what we have now. So this option may be appealing to some MPs, and a great way to start a discussion, but it is not a way to achieve even moderate PR.
Bringing STV and MMP together in a PR Model Tailored for Canada - "Rural-Urban Proportional"
Recently, former Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley has been floating an idea at a number of events: Make the urban areas multi-member districts (members could be elected with STV) and "leave the rural ridings alone" (single member elected with first-past-the-post or winner-take-all ranked ballot).
This is exactly what was done for 30 years in Alberta and Manitoba provincially. The cities of Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton used PR-STV to elect multi-member teams, proportionally. All the ridings outside the cities were winner-take-all (single member, ranked ballot). (The story ends that the politicians in the governing party in Alberta got rid of STV in cities because it was electing too many opposition members). While this proposal today is a good start for a Canadian solution, it has a couple of problems:
Voters in the cities would be able to elect representation of their choice while voters in the rural areas would be stuck with winner-take-all
The overall results in the House would still be distorted
A party that tends to win more rural ridings would have an advantage
To build on this basic model of multi-member ridings for the cities and single member in the rural areas, a few great minds in the proportional representation movement from different parts of Canada going back to 2004 and probably earlier - people who don't always otherwise agree - have proposed a proportional version. It requires only a small adjustment. Here's how it works: 1) Canada is divided into regions (just like MMP), about 20 members in each (this would vary by province and region within province)
2) Within each region there are multi-member ridings in the urban areas and single member ridings in the small urban/rural areas
3) Add a small layer of regional top up seats to each region to make the overall results proportional. In a region of 20, about 2-3 MPs would be "adjustment MPs" - elected to make the results proportional. That means about 15% of the MPs in the House would be regional top up MPs, not 40% like MMP.
The idea of a small layer of adjustment MPs ("top up MPs") elected in each region to make the results more proportional is borrowed from Sweden, which does exactly that.
Here is a basic idea of what it looks like - the general idea (top), and the general idea applied to a province (bottom -credit: Byron Weber Becker).
What's Appealing About Combining MMP and STV in this Model
1) We'd keep about 87 single member ridings in the rural/small urban areas. This is something MMP supporters like and it is highly appealing to MPs in those areas
2) Voters in the urban areas would elect their MPs in multi-member teams with all the benefits of STV
3) A few top up MPs in each region would make sure the results were proportional overall. Just like MMP, voters in the rural/small urban ridings would have MPs other than their local MP to go to - a regional MP who shares their values.
4) The ballot for voters in both urban and non-urban areas would be identical. See below for an STV ballot (in the rural/small urban areas there would just be fewer names - one for each party - rank as few or as many as you like).
5) Because only 15% top up seats are needed to make this model proportional, there are two options to for the regional top up MPs:
a) Make the current ridings just 15% bigger (compared to 1.6x bigger with MMP or combining rural ridings with STV) b) Add just 15% new seats to the House and all current riding boundaries stay the same
The regional top up MPs could be the best runners up in local ridings for the parties who failed to win their proportional share of seats in that region. See a simulation of the overall results below (credit: Byron Weber Becker), based on how people voted in the October 2015 election (and all the qualifiers that go with that - people would vote differently with PR) and the most recent data on second choice preferences. The point is: this model is very proportional.
This model achieves all the benefits of PR and appeals to supporters of STV and MMP by taking what people value from both models. Importantly, it means almost no change for the current MPs now representing rural/small urban ridings, making it easier to win their support.
Let's encourage our MPs to be creative in designing a made-in-Canada proportional solution.
