NEW SAMPLE BALLOT FOR NEW VOTE COUNTING SYSTEM

Do you agree that when you vote, you want your vote to be represented by an elected representative that your vote helped to elect?  When you have concerns to discuss, is that the person whom you would most like to discuss your concerns?  

If it is, I’m confident that you want to consider this new point-based electoral system, Preferential Ridings Proportional with Second-choice Vote, PRP2.  Here Is the proposed ballot for PRP2:

How important are inclusion and engagement in a representative democracy?

Description of Preferential Ridings Proportional with Second-choice Vote
PRP2 electoral system

Electoral areas or regions are formed and have between 4 and 10 seats; half paired-riding seats and half proportional seats.

With PRP2, all party Candidates have two ways to win a seat: 1) Riding seat or 2) Proportional seat:
1) points from own votes only, or   2) with additional points of same party candidates’ votes.
Candidates gain one point each time chosen ahead of another candidate (David Nash – Edmonton).  No additional seats are needed, but ridings are two times larger.  Each seat is won by the candidate with the most points in the candidate’s riding.  The winner can be the candidate with the least 1^st choice votes – if that candidate has the most points.  Only one count is needed to elect the winner.  This Mixed-Member-Proportional (MMP) system has increased vote representation under the present First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) system from less than 50% to over 90%.  With second-choice votes, it is possible for 100% of voters to be represented.
In Yukon’s 2016 election under FPTP (Yukon’s most recent majority government), only 46% of ballots cast were represented in the legislature.
We need almost all, if not all, votes represented so that voters can discuss their concerns with an MP/MLA they elected.  Would your MLA like her/his votes in the House meaningfully valued, whether in Government or Opposition?  Majority governments do not need Opposition votes.  Minority governments do. 

If you like this ballot and think that it could enliven change to more truly representative democracy with minority governments that require collaboration (cooperation), see what a friend thinks of this ballot.  Also ask your MP and MLA if they would like minority governments in which their vote always has value.

Respectfully presented,
  Dave Brekke, genuinely concerned former Yukon Returning Officer (RO) 

After learning how dysfunctional Canada’s present electoral system is in 2005, it concerned me. I served on the 2005 Elections Canada Special Committee of eighteen ROs formed to determine funding for proposals to increase voter turnout at elections.   Committee member stood and angrily said  

At the first meeting, directly following introductions, one committee member stood and angrily said: “What the hell are we looking at this stuff for?  Why aren’t we looking at our electoral system?”

That shocked me when I thought about the peacefulness in Canada, and the candidate with the most votes wins the seat and the most seats wins Government.  Immediately an Elections Canada official stood and said, “That is a political statement.  Cannot even be recorded here, let alone discussed”. 

Understandably, ROs are not to be political.   RO’s election experience and knowledge though, seems very valuable during consideration of electoral system change.  However, it was in after-meetings that I learned about electoral systems.  New Zealand stuck out for me, because their British history was similar to Canada’s.

I learned that almost all votes can be represented in a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system.  Under Canada’s present First Past the Post (FPTP), only the votes for the winning candidates are represented.  I liked that inclusiveness and no longer felt comfortable being a returning officer.  

My resignation as RO was not accepted until I validated the 2006 Yukon riding’s election results.  Since then, I have been on a quest for a better electoral system and trying to raise awareness of the need for electoral system change.

Are you aware of a simpler, more effective transitional electoral system for system change that has a higher degree of readiness for voters than you can see in the PRP2 ballot shown?  At this time, I am not aware of one, but certainly interested in finding one.

For future more truly representative, empowering and engaging democracy, do you think that democracies using the present First Past the Post system will benefit from consideration for implementation of this Preferential Ridings Proportional with Second-choice Vote, PRP2, system?

NICHIH GWANAt’IN – Looking forward,
Dave Brekke, resigned former returning officer for Yukon

FUTURE REFERENDUM FOR YUKON

In case you are not aware, following training by the Yukon Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform, Yukon voters are to vote in a referendum between the Ranked- Ballot system and the First-Past -the-Post system.  NEITHER OF THESE TWO SYSTEMS HAVE PROPORTIONALITY FOR INCLUSIVENESS.  I am confident that most voters will prefer discussing any concerns or suggestions that they may have with someone their vote elected.  With the PRP2 system, all voters can almost be assured of that.

WHAT CAN YOU DO FOR MORE TRULY REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY AND COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE? 

REQUEST YUKON’S SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL REFORM AND YOUR MLA TO ESTABLISH A PREFERENTIAL BALLOT FOR YOUR CHOICE OF ELECTORAL SYSTEM BETWEEN:

1. RANKED BALLOT
2. PREFERENTIAL RIDINGS WITH SECOND-CHOICE VOTE
3. FIRST PAST THE POST

At this time, following public education by the Yukon Citizens Assembly, a referendum is planned for a choice between only RANKED BALLOT and our present FIRST-PAST-THE-POST.  Neither of these two systems have proportional representation.

For future generations and ourselves, will you discuss this with a friend and express concern as suggested above?

For contact information, go to Yukon Government Info:  867 633 4418

For Truly Representational Democracy

Why not? and What if?

How do Canadians want to be governed?      DRAFT

(view Word document)

By:   A Legislature that is inclusive and functions collaboratively and is accountable during its term of office
or    A government that has absolute power during its term of office and is held accountable at the end of its term of office.

Under Canada’s present system an elected majority government can and often does have absolute power even though it was elected with less than 50% of the votes.

Under Proportional Representation PR systems, almost all votes are represented and a minority government is elected that must collaborate and can be held accountable during its term of office.  Majority Governments can only be elected with more than 50% votes

Why not proportional representation with inclusion/empowerment of voters and balance of power that can build community.  MLAs from different parties and perspectives need to work together as a team for the best overall solutions to problems.  The Legislature is responsible for the legislation of the law, and Government is responsible for executing the law.  As you may know, it would be easier to execute a law developed by all parties than a law developed only by the governing party representing less than half the voters.

Preferential Ridings Proportional PRP system

WHAT IF?

1. What if a party won all the riding seats with only 23% of party votes?
2. What if a party wins more seats than it has candidates in the electoral area (region)?

Before examining possible answers to these questions, let’s look at the results of applying the Preferential Ridings Proportional PRP system to past election results using the present First Past the Post FPTP system with only ‘X’ voting:

In the 2008 Federal Election, dealing with all cities having 4 or more ridings, 138 ridings, PRP changed the percent of voters who could point to an elected MP whom their vote helped to elect went from 51% under the present FPTP system to 93% under the PRP system.

2008 Alberta election, from 54% under FPTP to 94% under PRP

2014 Ontario election, from 50% under FPTP to 93% under PRP

2014 Quebec election, from 49% under FPTP to 88% under PRP

2016 Yukon election, from 43% under FPTP to 92% under PRP

For more detailed information, see the spread sheets on these elections.  http://electoralchange.ca/more-info/

For an example of how the system works
2016-Yukon-Results-Prd-Ridings-with-maps-

Possible solutions to two very reasonable questions re. possibilities that could happen with the Preferential Ridings Proportional PRP system:

PRP Questions – Shawn Kitchen

1. What if a party won all the riding seats with only 23% of party votes?

TO START. WHAT KIND OF GOVERNANCE DO WE WANT?
Fair         Inclusive              Collaborative           Representative          Accountable

Normally, the value of seats in electoral areas is 100% with 50% riding + 50% proportional:  with 10 seats seat value is 10%, with 8 seats is 12.5%, with 6 seats is 16.7% and with 4 seats is 25%.

Usually in PRP, almost all parties need one or more proportional seats to give representation to their so far unrepresented riding votes – 50% of party votes are represented with riding seats and the other almost 50% by proportional seats.  After riding and fully-supported proportional seats are determined, the last partially supported seat is won by the party with the most remaining unrepresented party votes.

Under PRP, one party could win all the riding seats with only 23% party votes?  However, its winning candidates would need considerable support by having a number of 2^nd and 3^rd choice votes from other party supporters who feel confident in the candidates’ respectfulness and ability to collaborate.  But how can we give fair representation to the 77% of voters who voted for a party that did not win a riding seat?
How do you think it would be to give equal point value to each of the proportional seats?  With 5 proportional seats, each proportional seat would represent 77/5 or 15.4% of unrepresented votes?

This would allow the proportional seats to be distributed fairly between parties with unrepresented votes.  The elected riding MLAs would have had good 2^nd and 3^rd choice support of the voters who gave their party vote to another party.

2. What if a party wins more seats than it has candidates in the electoral area?

One suggestion for consideration:  The extra seat be won by the highest runner-up same party candidate in the electoral area who ran for becoming a riding candidate.  As parties understandably want to forget the candidate race and focus on the winner, those results could be placed in a sealed envelope, submitted to the Returning Officer with the candidate’s submission, not to be opened unless needed in the election.

Ballot for the inclusive Preferential Ridings Proportional PRP System April 10 2018

YUKONERS’ OPPORTUNITY March 29 2018

Motion No. 19 – Re urging the Government of Yukon to appoint a non-partisan commission on electoral reform – passed unanimously by all 19 MLAs from all political parties.

Proposed system changes: Paired-ridings, Electoral Areas, and Preferential voting with newly proposed boundaries.

If you haven’t yet taken a close look, you may not know that Canada’s First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) electoral system only represents half the votes cast. In all ridings, if you didn’t vote for the winning candidate, your vote had no effect on the election results. All parties and candidates are affected without cause. It doesn’t have to be that way. All votes could count with no illusory (false) majorities.

Think about it. As I think you would agree, effective communities encourage all citizens to both be included and feel included. Change to a more representative electoral system could help to increase that inclusive feeling of belonging in community.

Dave Brekke, very concerned former Federal Returning Officer for Yukon; and former school principal in the isolated community of Old Crow, 1966-68, when a Centennial Project became a BARN-RAISING event. HOW? – through change to one far more collaborative community, by INCLUSION IN GOVERNANCE, from three sub-communities (with only one governing).

Fairness with REPRESENTATION of Votes in Elections     Brief technical version      February 5, 2018

Our current First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) electoral system is one of the historic electoral systems. More commonly used Proportional electoral systems have been implemented globally to satisfy the need for greater representation of the Voter. Why not the Yukon and Canada?

First-past-the-post is more likened to a horse race than electing representatives. Why not have a system that elects the most wanted or accepted candidates and puts them into proportionally elected Party based teams to collaborate with the whole team in the Legislature having a balance of power.

We want a system where votes cast for a party and seats won are proportional to voter choice. We want a system where the candidates that win the seats are wanted or accepted by the most voters. We want power in the hands of representatives who can do the best job for the whole community – the candidates of choice.

We want the government in power to collaborate and pass laws that reflect the wishes of all voters.  Proportional representation systems are far more representative than FPTP.  Using this proposed proportional system, the proportional seats needed to do this are produced by pairing ridings to be twice as large. This results in half as many riding seats plus the same number of proportional seats.

FPTP must go. It is time to try a more representative system.  Voters are far more educated and progressive than they were in ancient times when landlords were necessary and tyrants were common.

Instead of each of us voting for one candidate, we could go to the Ballot box expecting to have two votes on the Ballot.  First, for the party of our choice, second, for the local Candidates of our choice, in order of preference.

1) First vote for the preferred Party.  The total Party votes cast would determine the percentage of seats received by each Party.

2) Second Vote for the local riding Candidates using a preferential point awarded process.  The most wanted or accepted candidate in each riding would win the seat for the riding.  Candidates gain 1 point for each time they are chosen ahead of another candidate.  (On each ballot:  WANTED candidate would be 1st choice and receive highest points.  ACCEPTED candidates would be 2^nd, 3^rd, . . . according to their degree of acceptance).

Now we have a much preferred, fairer, more representative system for electing our Legislature.  To see the proportional effect of this untried system on past elections, EXAMPLES
Multi Elections Fed Prov Overview Feb 5 2018

The second vote determines not only the winning local candidate in each riding, but also the Parties’ winning proportional seat candidates in Electoral Areas.  Unlike other proportional representation systems,
Party lists are not used.  For a brief description of how this untried system would work:  EXAMPLE
2016-YUKON RESULTS 2018 edit Feb 5 2018

This not yet tried voting system is called Preferential Ridings Proportional or (PRP)

It is time to try a fairer, more representative electoral system
Learn more, have conviction, and help make change happen.

For more:  electoralchange.ca – Fairness and inclusion in democracy

Click here to view a comparison of FPTP and the proposed PRP system in the most recent territorial elections (i.e. 2006, 2011, and 2016).

Click here to view a comparison of FPTP and the proposed PRP system in relatively recent federal and provincial elections (i.e. 2008 federal, 2008 Alberta provincial, and 2014 Ontario provincial).

If Canadians like Inclusion and Collaboration, why not improve the electoral system, the first step in democracy?

Effective Voters are voters who can point to someone their vote helped to elect.

Under this Alternate System, candidates have two ways to win a seat. Candidates can win riding seats through preferential voting. If not, with so far unrepresented proportional votes in their electoral area, the most popular party candidates can win proportional seats.

When voting is inclusive, false (illusory) majority governments don’t happen. In their place, are inclusive minority governments that require collaboration.

Canadians can have Inclusion and Collaboration by improving their electoral system.

The proposed (alternate) system used in this comparison of electoral system results is the Preferential Ridings Proportional (PRP) system.

Candidates representing a political party have two ways to win a seat:

1. A preferential riding seat with their own votes.
2. A proportional seat with party votes

To facilitate connection between voters and their elected representative, proportional seats are determined in ELECTORAL AREAS with between 4 and 10 representatives. In each electoral area, half the seats represent ridings and half the seats represent the entire electoral area, being proportional seats.

Under PRP, the Yukon would be composed of 3 “Electoral Areas”:

• South East 2 riding seats and 2 proportional seats
• Whitehorse 5 riding seats and 5 proportional seats
• North West 2 ridingseats, 2 proportional seats and the 1 Vuntut Gwitchin limited riding seat (Not elligible to win a proportional seat)

Please download the summary and electoral area results for the 2016 Yukon election. The graphs are followed by the details of how the PRP system would have worked in each electoral area.

Dear Anita et al,

As Fair Vote Canada FVC knows extremely well, Canada needs to improve its electoral system.

Does FVC give its support to the Preferential Ridings Proportional PRP system? FVC’s support could be very helpful.

As you may know, the Preferential Ridings Proportional PRP system has been applied to past election results taking the effectiveness of voters, (voters who can point to an elected representative whom their 1st choice (X) vote helped to elect), from half to almost all voters casting an effective vote. With preferential 2nd and 3rd . . . choices in their votes, all voters could feel some connection to the election result, i.e. feel included.

The PRP system would be far simpler to implement than most other systems, because the riding boundaries and voting structure are very similar to Canada’s present system, and make modification easier and faster.

This combination Preferential Ridings Proportional PRP system can be simply and seriously considered to replace the FPTP system with an A I R test. The A I R test means that throughout the process of change, the PRP system could be Accepted as is, Improved to make it better, or Replaced with a better system. All political parties would be more fairly represented in all elections with this PRP system. The parties that reject change because they want the possibility of having an illusory majority government, with 100% power and less than half the votes, do not show much respect for the half of the voters who cast ineffective votes in that election. Some of those ineffective voters are in their own party.

Does FVC give its support to the Preferential Ridings Proportional PRP system?

Yours truly,

Dave Brekke, very concerned former Federal Returning Officer for Yukon

Dear Justin,

Though I have met you in Whitehorse, other commitments you had did not allow us time to discuss the inclusive combination electoral system, Preferential Ridings Proportional PRP. I hope that you have now received it through Yukon’s MP, Larry Bagnell. If not, I hope that you soon will.

This is in reply to a received invitation to join you on, “working together to grow the most open and inclusive movement in Canada. . . . I’m calling on you to help build the best possible country we can. . .” It was a real pleasure for many to see the inclusive structure of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, and such a disappointment when you and the Liberal Party shut it down.

As you will see in the PRP electoral system, this topic of inclusiveness is of great interest to me.

If you reopen the electoral reform file for more inclusive and truly representative democracy, and think that the combination PRP electoral system is worth consideration, I would very much like to work with you on building the ‘best possible country we can . . .’

Yours truly,

Dave Brekke, Very concerned former Federal Returning Officer for Yukon.