10-16-2015, 11:09 AM
I agree that single-transferable vote is the way we should go. Being able to rank candidates at the local level would achieve proportionality, while still retaining the notion of members representing communities.
Ultimately, you are putting your 'x' down next to an individual's name. We've allowed party discipline to become so strong that these single individuals' influence in the house is arguably very small. It doesn't have to be that way, but it has been for a long time. I think there's a lot of value in the "constituent service" aspect of the job of members, though, and strategic voters seem to often not consider this at all. I expect this is the reason they tend to be young- many people who have turned to their MPs after lengthy difficulties with things like CPP can tell you the value of an MP who is, and who has staff who are, very responsive and serious about constituent assistance.
Anyway, we could retain both with STV, and I agree with you that I see no need to muddy the debate by opening it up to an almost-infinite number of alternatives.
Ultimately, you are putting your 'x' down next to an individual's name. We've allowed party discipline to become so strong that these single individuals' influence in the house is arguably very small. It doesn't have to be that way, but it has been for a long time. I think there's a lot of value in the "constituent service" aspect of the job of members, though, and strategic voters seem to often not consider this at all. I expect this is the reason they tend to be young- many people who have turned to their MPs after lengthy difficulties with things like CPP can tell you the value of an MP who is, and who has staff who are, very responsive and serious about constituent assistance.
Anyway, we could retain both with STV, and I agree with you that I see no need to muddy the debate by opening it up to an almost-infinite number of alternatives.