Rural–urban proportional representation

Canadian hybrid proportional electoral system

Rural-urban proportional is a combination of STV and MMP systems. A joint Politics and Economics series

Social choice and electoral systems

* Social choice
* Mechanism design
* Comparative politics
* Comparison
* List (By country)

Single-winner methods

Single vote - plurality methods

* First preference plurality (FPP)
* Two-round (US: Jungle primary)
* Partisan primary
* Instant-runoff
* UK: Alternative vote (AV)
* US: Ranked-choice (RCV)

* * *

Condorcet methods

* Condorcet-IRV
* Round-robin voting
* Minimax
* Schulze
* Ranked pairs
* Maximal lottery

* * *

Positional voting

* Plurality (el. IRV)
* Borda count (el. Baldwin)
* Antiplurality (el. Coombs)

* * *

Cardinal voting

* Score voting
* Approval voting
* Majority judgment
* STAR voting

Proportional representation

Party-list

* Apportionment
* Highest averages
* Largest remainders
* National remnant
* Biproportional
* List type
* Closed list
* Open list
* Panachage
* List-free PR
* Localized list

* * *

Quota-remainder methods

* Hare STV
* Schulze STV
* CPO-STV
* Quota Borda

* * *

Approval-based committees

* Thiele's method
* Phragmen's method
* Expanding approvals rule
* Method of equal shares

* * *

Fractional social choice

* Direct representation
* Interactive representation
* Liquid democracy
* Fractional approval voting
* Maximal lottery
* Random ballot

* * *

Semi-proportional representation

* Cumulative
* SNTV
* Limited voting

Mixed systems

By results of combination

* Mixed-member majoritarian
* Mixed-member proportional

* * *

By mechanism of combination

* Non-compensatory
* Parallel (superposition)
* Coexistence
* Conditional
* Fusion (majority bonus)
* Compensatory
* Seat linkage system
* UK: 'AMS'
* NZ: 'MMP'
* Vote linkage system
* Negative vote transfer
* Mixed ballot
* Supermixed systems
* Dual-member proportional
* Rural–urban proportional
* Majority jackpot

* * *

By ballot type

* Single vote
* Double simultaneous vote
* Dual-vote

Paradoxes and pathologies

Spoiler effects

* Spoiler effect
* Cloning paradox
* Frustrated majorities paradox
* Center squeeze

* * *

Pathological response

* Perverse response
* Best-is-worst paradox
* No-show paradox
* Multiple districts paradox

* * *

Strategic voting

* Lesser evil voting
* Exaggeration
* Truncation
* Turkey-raising

* * *

Paradoxes of majority rule

* Tyranny of the majority
* Discursive dilemma
* Conflicting majorities paradox

Social and collective choice

Impossibility theorems

* Arrow's theorem
* Majority impossibility
* Moulin's impossibility theorem
* McKelvey–Schofield chaos theorem
* Gibbard's theorem

* * *

Positive results

* Median voter theorem
* Condorcet's jury theorem
* May's theorem
* Condorcet dominance theorems
* Harsanyi's utilitarian theorem
* VCG mechanism
* Quadratic voting

* Politics portal
* Economics portal

Mathematics portal

* v
* t
* e

Example of a ballot under rural–urban proportional for a voter who lives in an urban or semi-urban area with multi-member STV electoral districts

Rural–urban proportional representation (RUP), also called flexible district PR,[1] is a supermixed electoral system[2] which combines the use of single- and multi-member constituencies in a lower tier and top-up seats in an upper tier to meet the different needs of both rural and urban areas, while protecting the objective of proportionality. The term was coined by Fair Vote Canada, which devised a rural–urban system with the intention of meeting the special challenges of Canada's geography, which includes wide-flung, sparsely populated areas.

Rural–urban proportional systems were first devised in Denmark and Iceland; Denmark's implementation used party-list proportional representation in urban areas, and a combination of first-past-the-post voting and regional leveling seats (which functioned similar to a mixed-member proportional system) in semi-urban and rural areas, alongside nationwide levelling seats; while Iceland's used party-list proportional representation in urban and semi-urban areas, pure first-past-the-post voting in rural areas, and nationwide leveling seats.

A version of rural–urban proportional was proposed in 2018 as one of three systems which could have been adopted in British Columbia if voters had decided to adopt a proportional voting system in a 2018 referendum in the province. This version of rural–urban proportional would have used single transferable vote (STV) in urban and semi-urban areas and mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) in rural areas.

Rural–urban proportional is the only proportional voting system proposed in BC's 2018 electoral reform referendum to include an approach previously used in Canada. Alberta and Manitoba used STV in major cities and single-member ridings in rural areas to elect provincial members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) for 30 years.

In a country like Canada, which already has some ridings of considerable geographic size, rural–urban proportional allows for the creation of smaller multi-member ridings, or even the retention of some single-member ridings, in rural areas. In more densely-populated areas, it gives voters more choice of candidates to choose from and ensures representation by a number of elected representatives from different parties or points of view, including independents. The use of ranked ballot under the single transferable vote allows voters to more fully express their preferences than otherwise.

## Background

[edit]

A rural–urban proportional representation system (though different from the one devised by Fair Vote Canada) was first used in the 1918 Danish Folketing election: in Copenhagen, MPs were elected by proportional representation in a single tier; outside of Copenhagen, most MPs were elected via first-past-the-post voting in single-member constituencies, and there were also 20 regional leveling seats which were intended to make the results more proportional, in addition to three national levelling seats.[3]

Iceland employed a rural–urban proportional system similar to the Danish one between 1946 and June of 1959. Under that system, twenty-one members of the Althing were elected in single-member constituencies via first-past-the-post voting, while the remainder were elected using D'Hondt method proportional representation: twelve members in two-member constituencies and eight members in Reykjavík, as well as eleven members elected for nationwide leveling seats.[4]

Fair Vote Canada devised its own rural-urban system in response to a suggestion made by former chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley to the House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform on July 7, 2016. He proposed the idea of having proportional multi-member ridings of 4 to 5 representatives in urban areas while retaining single-member ridings in rural areas.[5][6]

### Proposed usage in Canada

[edit]

A version of rural–urban proportional was proposed as one of three PR systems to be adopted in British Columbia (BC) had voters decided to adopt a proportional voting system in a 2018 referendum in the province.[7][8] It was the only proportional voting system proposed in BC's 2018 electoral reform referendum to include a proportional voting system previously used in Canada: Alberta and Manitoba used multi-member STV in major cities to elect provincial members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) for 30 years from the 1920s to the 1950s.[9] This approach produced proportional outcomes in the cities where STV was used, but not in rural areas, which used STV's non-proportional single-member equivalent, instant-runoff voting (IRV), in single-member ridings.[10] As a result, and because rural seats comprised a large proportion of the total, the overall election results under this system were not proportional. Rural–urban proportional as proposed for BC would have had similar combination of two electoral systems but would use mixed-member proportional in rural areas, which would ensure proportional results province-wide.[11][12]

## Comparison to other proportional systems

[edit]

As originally conceived by Fair Vote Canada, rural–urban proportional requires the incorporation of fewer top-up seats compared to MMP because the use of multi-member ridings would include a more proportional base to begin with.[13] It is estimated that only 10–15% top-up seats would be needed, versus 40% under MMP.[14][15]

The inclusion of the rural–urban proportional option in the BC referendum reflects lessons learned from previous referendums in British Columbia and other Canadian jurisdictions, particularly with respect to concerns about previously proposed systems requiring vast rural ridings to achieve proportionality.[16][17]

## Design and operation

[edit]

Rural–urban PR as envisaged for BC is a hybrid of two electoral options for achieving proportional representation: STV and MMP. Urban areas would use the single transferable vote for elections and rural areas would use the mixed-member proportional system.[18]

In urban and semi-urban areas using STV, existing urban ridings would join together to form multi-member ridings and typically electing 3–7 MLAs using ranked ballot. The candidates elected would reflect the popular vote of the voters in these larger, multi-member ridings. The use of a ranked ballot permits a high degree of voter choice by permitting voters to rank preferences for multiple candidates. For urban and semi-urban voters, this makes rural–urban proportional very similar to BC-STV.[19]

In rural ridings using MMP, voters would have two votes: one to elect their local MLA, and another that would be used to elect a regional MLA to ensure the proportionality of overall results in rural regions. Their first vote on the ballot would be used to elect a local MLA in the same way as the current first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system: the candidate with the most votes would be elected. The second vote would be used in either an open list or closed list system in which voters select either a candidate or party to represent them at a regional level. However, it is expected that only open list have any real likelihood of being implemented. These regional MLAs are used as "top-ups" so that overall proportionality is achieved in rural regional areas, given the lack of proportionality that results from first-past-the-post elections. Top-up MLAs would be elected using regional party lists. A commitment has been made that no region will lose ridings under any of the three proposed electoral systems in the 2018 electoral reform referendum.

## Support

[edit]

Rural–urban proportional was one of three "made-in-Canada" systems endorsed by Fair Vote Canada in its submission to the 2016 Special Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Reform. The other two were MMP and STV.[14] Fair Voting BC gave rural–urban proportional its highest ranking in its scorecard of proportional voting systems.[20] During the federal government's consultation on electoral reform at the federal level in 2016,[5] both the New Democratic Party of Canada and Green Party of Canada recommended Canada adopt either RUP or MMP.[21]

## References

[edit]

1. ^ "Rural–urban Proportional for BC". Fair Vote Canada. Retrieved August 8, 2018.
2. ^ Massicotte & Blais (1999). "Mixed electoral systems: a conceptual and empirical survey". Electoral Studies. 18 (3): 341–366\. doi:10.1016/S0261-3794(98)00063-8.341-366&rft.date=1999&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0261-3794(98)00063-8&rft.au=Massicotte+&+Blais&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Rural–urban+proportional+representation" class="Z3988">
3. ^ Saby, R. S. (1919). "Danish Parliamentary Elections of 1918". American Political Science Review. 13 (4): 656–662\. doi:10.2307/1944222. ISSN 0003-0554. JSTOR 1944222.656-662&rft.date=1919&rft.issn=0003-0554&rft_id=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1944222#id-name=JSTOR&rft_id=info:doi/10.2307/1944222&rft.aulast=Saby&rft.aufirst=R.+S.&rft_id=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S000305540001635X/type/journal_article&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Rural–urban+proportional+representation" class="Z3988">
4. ^ Renwick, Alan (2010). Helgason, Þorkell; Hermundardóttir, Friðný Ósk; Simonarson, Baldur (eds.). "Electoral System Change in Europe since 1945: Iceland" (PDF). Electoral system change since 1945. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 October 2021. Retrieved 4 October 2021.
5. ^ a b Special Committee on Electoral Reform (December 1, 2016). Strengthening Democracy in Canada: Principles, Process and Public Engagement for Electoral Reform (Report). Parliament of Canada. Retrieved June 21, 2018.
6. ^ Kingsley, Jean-Pierre (July 7, 2016). "In Committee from the House of Commons, Special Committee on Electoral Reform". Cable Public Affairs Channel. p. 37:24. Retrieved June 25, 2018.
7. ^ McElroy, Justin (May 30, 2018). "B.C. to choose between 4 systems for electoral reform referendum". CBC News. Retrieved June 5, 2018.
8. ^ Eby, David (May 30, 2018). "How We Vote 2018 Electoral Reform Referendum: Report and Recommendations of the Attorney General" (PDF). Government of British Columbia. Retrieved June 4, 2018.
9. ^ Pilon, Dennis (August 2007). The Politics of Voting: Reforming Canada's Electoral System. Emond Publishing. pp. 81–82.81-82&rft.pub=Emond+Publishing&rft.date=2007-08&rft.aulast=Pilon&rft.aufirst=Dennis&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Rural–urban+proportional+representation" class="Z3988">
10. ^ "The page has moved".
11. ^ McElroy, Justin (June 2, 2018). "Know your voting systems: three types of electoral reform on B.C.'s ballot". CBC News. Retrieved June 5, 2018.
12. ^ Zussman, Richard (May 30, 2018). "British Columbians will vote on our electoral system — Here are the 4 options". Global News. Retrieved June 5, 2018.
13. ^ Fair Vote Canada. "Appendix 12: Rural–urban Proportional Representation: Balancing Trade-offs for a Win-Win Solution". Fair Vote Canada submission to the Special Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Reform (ERRE). Retrieved 8 October 2016.
14. ^ a b Fair Vote Canada (2018). "Rural–Urban Proportional". Fair Vote Canada. Retrieved June 25, 2018.
15. ^ Dias, Megan (July 3, 2018). "BC's Options for Proportional Representation Explained". The Tyee. Retrieved July 3, 2018.
16. ^ Field, Shoni; Schreck, David (April 28, 2009). "Should BC Change the Way We Elect? Hear from Both Sides". The Tyee. Retrieved June 21, 2018.
17. ^ Dupuis, Braden (July 5, 2018). "Electoral reform campaign underway". Pique Newsmagazine. Retrieved July 5, 2018.
18. ^ "Rural–urban Proportional (RUP)". elections.bc.ca. Elections BC. Retrieved August 20, 2018.
19. ^ "Rural–urban Proportional: Proportional representation tailored for BC's geography". fairvote.ca. Fair Vote Canada. Retrieved August 14, 2018.
20. ^ Fair Voting BC (25 September 2016). "Scorecard". Fair Voting BC. Retrieved July 3, 2018.
21. ^ Wherry, Aaron; Tasker, John Paul (December 1, 2016). "Minister 'disappointed' as electoral reform committee recommends referendum on proportional representation". CBC News. Retrieved June 25, 2018.

## External links

[edit]

* How We Vote Consultation website

* v
* t
* e

Electoral systems

Part of the politics and Economics series

Single-winner|

* Approval voting
* Combined approval voting
* Unified primary
* Borda count
* Bucklin voting
* Condorcet methods
* Copeland's method
* Dodgson's method
* Kemeny–Young method
* Minimax Condorcet method
* Nanson's method
* Ranked pairs
* Schulze method
* Exhaustive ballot
* First-past-the-post voting
* Instant-runoff voting
* Coombs' method
* Contingent vote
* Supplementary vote
* Simple majoritarianism
* Plurality
* Positional voting system
* Score voting
* STAR voting
* Two-round system
* Graduated majority judgment

Proportional|

| Systems|

* Mixed-member
* Mixed single vote
* Party-list
* Proportional approval voting
* Rural–urban
* Sequential proportional approval voting
* Single transferable vote
* CPO-STV
* Hare-Clark
* Schulze STV
* Spare vote
* Indirect single transferable voting

|

Allocation|

* Highest averages method
* Webster/Sainte-Laguë
* D'Hondt
* Largest remainders method

Quotas|

* Droop quota
* Hagenbach-Bischoff quota
* Hare quota
* Imperiali quota

Mixed|

* Parallel voting
* MMP
* Additional member system
* Alternative vote plus
* Mixed single vote
* Mixed ballot transferable vote
* Scorporo
* Vote linkage mixed system

Semi-proportional|

* Single non-transferable vote
* Limited voting
* Cumulative voting
* Satisfaction approval voting

Criteria|

* Condorcet winner criterion
* Condorcet loser criterion
* Consistency criterion
* Independence of clones
* Independence of irrelevant alternatives
* Independence of Smith-dominated alternatives
* Later-no-harm criterion
* Majority criterion
* Majority loser criterion
* Monotonicity criterion
* Mutual majority criterion
* Participation criterion
* Plurality criterion
* Resolvability criterion
* Reversal symmetry
* Smith criterion
* Seats-to-votes ratio

Other|

* Ballot
* Election threshold
* First-preference votes
* Liquid democracy
* Spoilt vote
* Sortition
* Unseating

Comparison|

* Comparison of voting systems
* Voting systems by country

Portal — Project
*[US:]:
*[UK:]:
*[el.]:
*[NZ:]:
*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template