Currently, we vote for one representative per riding. The issue with that is that (hypothetically) one riding could have a million people and another could have 100 people. But both of them would have the same amount of power in Parliament because 1 riding = 1 mp.
How would that work in a proportional election system? Is there one candidate per X number of citizens in an area? Wouldn’t cities be over represented? Wouldn’t there be one candidate to cover very large sparsely inhabited areas that might not have the same needs from one spot to another?
I’m really curious how this would be implemented.
Well, MMP breaks down when you realize you need to define geographic areas of ridings that you need to lump together so that you can get the ratios right. An example elsewhere in the post points out lumping Victoria’s 4 seats and the rest of Vancouver Island’s 3 seats. If all lumped together, you can get the ratios of actual votes to match the representations of the MPs pretty good - but ultimately someone has to sort of ‘fix it in post.’ If 80% vote for party X in all 7 ridings (which, without looking at the data, I will concede in advanced has never bloody happened) you’re going to take one of those ridings and hand it off to an MP that didn’t win to represent the collective 15-20% that voted the second place party that might be popular there. Which riding gets the MP not elected in the riding? Of course, we need to keep ridings because the population density is very skewed in Canada. If you take a look where people live, you’d realize without ridings, in a true PR setting, the Windsor-Québec City corridor would forever run the rest of Canada. Why try to get votes anywhere else? Do you really want to give Alberta another reason to say that Ottawa has no mandate in their province?
Another option is to drastically increase MPs (that seems like a terrible idea) so that if the riding is 55% for party X and 45% for party Y, you can have 2 MPs from both parties and not add any advantage to anyone to help in forming government. It would almost be a better idea to have a run-off vote until you reach a true majority instead of a plurality in a riding.
That’s kind of the problem I wanted to raise with this question. Some areas have a much higher population density than others. They’ll basically be running the country as you said.
But then again, if the majority of Canadians live there, wouldn’t they be better represented at the parliament? Wouldn’t decisions then be made to better represent the majority?
Housing is a major issue in densely populated areas. Shouldn’t there be more push to tackle this problem for example?
That’s why there’s a difference in riding sizes… 1 vote per person shouldn’t mean that Windsor-Québec should decide fishery issues for Newfoundland… So a riding on the rock has less people, because it has unique needs based on its location and geography that might be better served by giving them more of a say than ridings in London Ontario, which might have very similar needs across the city. In essence, more people don’t necessarily mean more unique issues. There’s a limit to that of course - but the general ‘needs’ are outlined by law and adjusted without gerrymandering - which is not terrible, but maybe could be improved with more representation in the dense ridings - after all, there’s increase concerns within the cities these days.