Hi all,

I’ve been thinking about the pros and cons of proportional representation (PR) versus first-past-the-post (FPTP) systems, and one issue keeps coming up that I’d like to get your perspective on.

In large countries where populations are concentrated in a few big cities, PR systems can weaken the direct link between voters and a single local representative. Unlike FPTP, where each constituency elects one MP who directly represents that community.

FPTP allows voters to elect an MP who is accountable to their specific community and can be voted out if they don’t perform well. This local accountability and clear geographic representation seems as a major advantage.

So my question to the Fair Vote community is: how do you weigh this trade-off? Is the potential weakening of local representation in PR an acceptable downside given the gains in proportionality and inclusiveness? Or do you think there are ways to design PR systems that preserve strong local representation while also improving proportionality?

Would love to hear your thoughts and any examples or experiences you might share.

Thanks!

  • AlolanVulpix@lemmy.caMEnglish
    5·
    5 days ago

    I appreciate your question about the potential trade-off between proportional representation and local representation, especially in large countries like Canada where population is concentrated in a few cities.

    This concern about weakening the local representative link is one of the most common arguments against PR, but it’s based on a false premise. Both Single Transferable Vote (STV) and Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) are designed specifically to maintain strong geographic representation.

    Addressing large countries with urban concentration:

    In MMP, rural and less populated areas still have their own local representatives, just as they do under FPTP. The difference is that additional regional representatives ensure overall proportionality. This addresses the specific concern of urban-rural balance while maintaining local connections.

    With STV, while districts often elect multiple members, every voter is still guaranteed local representation. The key difference from FPTP is that under winner-take-all systems, only voters who supported the plurality winner get a representative aligned with their views. Under STV, virtually all voters get a local representative they actually voted for.

    The “one accountable representative” advantage of FPTP is largely illusory:

    You mentioned that FPTP allows voters to elect “an MP who is accountable to their specific community and can be voted out if they don’t perform well.” But this advantage exists only for the minority of voters who supported the winning candidate. In most ridings, 50-60% of voters end up with an MP they voted against.

    These voters have no effective local representation they can hold accountable. With PR systems, a much higher percentage of voters have representatives they actually supported.

    How PR systems actually enhance local representation:

    • MMP: Every voter has both a directly elected local MP (maintaining the geographic link) plus regional MPs who help create proportionality. This gives voters multiple representatives they can approach.

    • STV: Each voter has multiple representatives for their region. If one MP is unresponsive or doesn’t share your views, you can approach another who better represents your perspective.

    This multi-representative approach is actually more accountable than FPTP, not less. Under FPTP, if your local MP ignores your concerns, you have no alternative representation until the next election.

    The fundamental purpose of an electoral system is to ensure citizens have effective representation in government. Only proportional representation consistently delivers on this principle while still maintaining appropriate geographic representation.

    For visual explanations of how these systems maintain local connections, I’d recommend CGP Grey’s videos on STV and MMP.

  • observantTrapezium@lemmy.ca
    3·
    5 days ago

    This might be a good compromise: https://www.fairvote.ca/rural-urban-proportional/

    Here in downtown Toronto, ridings are tiny (in terms of area) and the borders are pretty arbitrary, with people on the same street sometimes represented by different MPs and MPPs. It’s honestly a bit ridiculous, myself and two friends who live within a couple of minutes walk have two MPPs and three MPs! (Federal and provincial borders are different this year) I’d really be much happier if the whole city becomes one multi-member riding. With Rural-Urban Proportional, rural areas keep local representation kinda like now (FPTP) but get the benefits of proportionality from the regional top-up. I think it’s a reasonable, if not perfect.