Another suggestion on improving EasyPR

It was suggested to me that EasyPR‘s proportionality could be improved by merging together some of the urban ridings. Instead of all ridings province-wide electing 2 people, the larger/rural ridings would be left alone to elect 2 people, but the smaller ridings could be merged together and elect more than two each. You could take two dense urban ridings and make one that elects 4 people, or you could Continue reading “Another suggestion on improving EasyPR”

“+Leaders” could be added to almost any PR system

One of the more interesting observations that was shared with me was that the “+Leaders” enhancement discussed in EasyPR could be added to almost any system. You could have STV + leaders, or MMP + Leaders. You could have RU-PR + Leaders, too. Almost anything really. So let’s look at the + Leaders a bit closer.

It was the Continue reading ““+Leaders” could be added to almost any PR system”

Ways in which EasyPR could be improved

One of the most interesting questions I’ve had was, how could my proposed EasyPR be improved? It’s an interesting question, because no system is perfect and every system has room for improvement. There are ways it could be improved, and even made more proportional, and I’ll explore that in this post.

The most obvious way it could be improved would be Continue reading “Ways in which EasyPR could be improved”

More questions and comments about EasyPR

My goal was to come up with a system that didn’t require vote transfers, didn’t require top-up seats, didn’t complicate the actual act of voting, allowed independents to contest every seat (except for Leaders seats obviously), and didn’t require a boundaries commission. At several points in the development process I was pretty sure it was impossible, so to get some feedback from people that it’s at least a plausible option is very gratifying!

One person observed that Continue reading “More questions and comments about EasyPR”

Introduction to EasyPR

While we call our electoral system by its unaffectionate nickname of “first past the post” (FPTP), it’s more properly described as single member plurality (SMP). Under this system one person is elected in each riding (hence “single member”) and you don’t need a majority of votes, the largest plurality of votes is good enough (hence “plurality”).

I’d like to introduce a variation that I call EasyPR. It takes the simplicity of first-past-the-post, but makes it proportional. EasyPR introduces a high degree of proportionality, with a minimum of change to how we vote or how those votes are counted. It includes a “Leader Seats” wrinkle that will make it a lot more interesting to voters, and encourage supporters of smaller parties not to strategically vote for someone else. I am proposing EasyPR as a replacement for first-past-the-post in BC’s provincial elections. Let me show you how it works:

Continue reading “Introduction to EasyPR”

BC’s federal ridings as a basis for PR, part 1 – MMP

For the 1999 election, Ontario switched from their previous provincial riding boundaries to the federal ridings. This resulted in a reduction in ridings from 130 down to 103. It was genius in that 103 elected representatives was likely quite adequate for a provincial legislature, and adopting the federal ridings meant that the Elections Ontario was no longer burdened with the task of redrawing the ridings as Ontario’s population changed. That would simply be done for them from time to time by Elections Canada, on the federal government’s dime.

The point has been made that BC could do something similar, and adopt the 42 federal ridings in BC as the basis of a new PR system (particularly if it were a Continue reading “BC’s federal ridings as a basis for PR, part 1 – MMP”