350 seat house with 42 at-large members 
Read John Bosson's comment in the Globe today. It's a proposal for a mixed PR / constituency voting system.
To show that a small reform is sufficient to eliminate regional shut-outs,
I will describe a "12-per-cent solution" in which not quite one-eighth of
federal MPs are elected at large. Using the newly elected Parliament as a
starting point, we have 308 MPs elected by constituencies (the members elected
June 28). Another 42 members would be elected at-large, resulting in a
Parliament of 350 members.
How would at-large members be allocated among
regions? And why regions, not provinces? The answer to the second question is
simple: Some provinces are too small. I assume the Atlantic provinces combined
into a single region to elect at-large members, with Manitoba and Saskatchewan
also combined. With this aggregation, no region has a population smaller than
two million, and so has no fewer than three at-large members.
at-large members would be allocated among regions in proportion to population.
Thus the Atlantic and Manitoba/Saskatchewan would each have three, Quebec 10,
Ontario 16, Alberta four and B.C. six, for a total of 42.
Nationally, this system would have resulted in additional seats for the
Liberals, Conservatives, NDP and Greens. In Quebec, the Bloc would not get extra
members, because it won more constituency seats than it would have obtained
under pure PR. The Liberals and Conservatives would each have won five at-large
Quebec seats. The total party standings still would have resulted in minority
government, with the Liberals winning 146 seats out of 350.

Current number of seats Additional
Liberal 135 11 146
Conservatives 98 14 112
NDP 20 15 35
Greens 0 2 2

Not sure if people would like Ontario getting 16 more seats - even though we deserve it. It would be nice to see the end of total regional shutouts (Liberals in Ontario in 97, 00 for example).

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?