A comment with a life of its own...
Alright, so this post actually started as a comment in response to Scott Penny on the "1/2 of Alberta Votes 2008: A glimpse into another world" stream. However, since I obviously have a lot to say about PR and geographic representation I've decided to make it into a full blown post. Here goes....
Comment:
PR is a great system for urban centers. In Edmonton and Calgary, even Red Deer it doesn't make sense to fragment the city. At the provincial level there aren't too many distinct issues from one side of this or that avenue.
However much to your shock I am sure, Alberta does not consist solely of Calgary, Edmonton and sometimes Red Deer. There are vastly different issues in Ft. McMurray, Brooks, Peace River, Banff, Whitecourt or Drayton Valley.
To have PR work in sparsely populated areas you either need to have huge ridings or far more MLA's. To either I say no thank-you.
If something was proposed where urban area ridings were combined into some sort of PR system, I might be in favor of that depending on the details.
Response:
Scott Penny:
Allow me to address your arguments in a few points...
1. PR inhibits representation of unique geographical interests
There are actually several forms of proportional representation (PR). Among them: two types of list PR (open and closed), mixed member proportional (MMP), and single transferable vote (STV). It may come as a shock to you, but two of these systems (MMP and STV) are actually designed to maintain or maximize geographical representation. Under MMP, anywhere from 1/2 - 2/3 of seats would continue to be elected under FPTP, while the remaining 1/2 - 1/3 would be elected under PR. This makes constituencies slightly larger, however overall vote totals are still fairly proportional.
If you can't deal with the minor increase in the size of electorates, STV is your answer. STV electoral systems actually maintain the same ratio of constituents to representatives. This means that if one MLA represents 50 constituent under FPTP they will continue to represent 50 constituents under STV. By contrast under MMP, one MLA would see the size of her constituency grow to include up to double the number of voters (and more MLAs).
The Irish political system is considered to be a textbook case of STV in practice, and Irish members of the Dáil are well-known for their emphasis on local issues. In fact, strengthening the geographical links between voters and their representatives was one of the most important reasons why the BC Citizen's Assembly selected STV as it's prefered system.
In summary, the argument that PR necessarily inhibits geographical representation is incorrect.
2. That more MLAs is necessarily bad.
Why are you opposed to having more members elected to Alberta's legislature? I can only imagine that you come from the same neo-con camp that saw the passing of the 1996 "Fewer Politicans Act" in Ontario under Mike Harris. If you can get past the narrow ideological predisposition that more government=bad, there are really quite a few desirable results that stem from having larger legislative assemblies.
Canada's Westminister system is the least democratic of all the Westminister systems because it has the highest levels of party discipline/cohesion and the least experienced MPs. Both of these realities reinforce the concentration of power within the hands of party leaders (incidentally Canada's prime minister is regarded by observers as having the most relative power of all democratic first ministers/heads of state).
This derives in large part from the size of our legislatures. When there are more MLAs, politicians are forced to accept the fact that there is a good chance they will never become a cabinet minister (the ultimate goal for most Canadian representatives, currently). This awareness reduces the incentive for extreme loyalty to the party leader and in turn, facilitates a reduction of party discipline/cohesion. If geographic representation is your main concern, than this would be ideal for you.
Second, were most MLAs to realize that the backbench was the end of the line, we would see the establishment of so-called 'career MLAs.' These are people who invest a lot of time and effort into their roles on committees, in caucus, and above all in their constituencies. These MLAs are then in turn rewarded by their constituents for their hard work and build safe seats for themselves. This is a positive development for legislatures because it leads to much more experienced elected members.
By comparative standards, Canada has very small legislatures. For example, the UK (the mother of all Westministers) has 646 members. It's so many that not all of them can fit into the actual assembly at the same time. While New Zealand only has 120 members, they serve a population of only 4.2 million.