Comment 46578

By C. Erl (registered) - website | Posted August 29, 2010 at 13:12:23

First, thanks to everyone for the comments. You're all much too kind and I fear all the compliments will merely embolden me to continue writing!

@Larry Gordon - I completely agree with the sentiment that IRV and STV do leave many voters without representation. My proposal of Instant Runoff Voting was merely to improve upon the non-partisan, ward based system we have in place today.

If Hamilton were to adopt a party system, I would certainly favour Proportional Representation, particularly the Open Party List variant. Using OPL-PR, we would have accountability, proportionality, and local representation. Sadly, the complexity of said system might be a hard sell.

@Hamilton_hopeful - The at-large system might go well if coupled with a ward-based system, but scrapping one for the other might just be proverbially robbing Peter to pay Paul. San Francisco is a good example of this, having elected their municipal representatives at-large for many years before determining that system was unworkable and shifting to a ward system. Their ward system allowed concentrated campaigning efforts, and allowed for the election of the first black female, the first single mother, the first Chinese-American and the first openly gay city councillor in San Fran's history.

All that said, I would really like to see a discussion about this system occur during the 2010 campaign, and in the years that follow. Simply adding wards will not correct the democratic imbalance that we face, if those ward's councillors are chosen the same way that gave us 2006's results.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools