My complaint against PR is that you get little chance to pick a candidate, the party has a bigger say over who is on the list. This is true for FPP, where people can be parachuted in, but it is easier to get a groundswell against such activities or people who piss off the local electorate on a personal (not party) level.
I prefer STV.
I prefer STV.
If you retain all the rural seats, and use STV for urban seats, you get the best of both worlds - the party lists only have significance in an urban riding, and rural ridings get to keep their local representatives.
What actually happens is this.
The BC STV proposal had 85 MLAs in 20 STV seats. Depending on how you draw the lines, it's possible to eradicate all the rural representation.
You'd also get oddities where a party (say the greens), win 10 percent of the total and get 10 percent of the 50 percent (and zero of the rest), so they would get 5 seats. All 5 would be in areas that they did extremely poorly.
You could have ridings under this setting where 60, 70 percent of the people vote one way and they end up with a representative who earned 5 percent of the votes in that area.
The other thing is that because of the cutoff, you'd see little incentive for smaller parties to form. There would be zero incentive to campaign in rural ridings, as you could earn their seats just by doing well in urban areas.
I don't honestly see how STV is more democratic than FPTP.
Comment