The Political Consequences of the Alternative Vote: Lessons from Western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.The alternative vote (AV) is an increasingly popular proposal for electoral reform, largely due to Australia's success with it. This article considers the experiences of Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia with AV in past provincial elections. AV had little impact on proportionality and voter turnout, but did contribute to significantly higher rates of ballot rejection. AV was associated with an increase in the number of parties competing in elections, but this is more likely due to a changing social structure than electoral system change. AV facilitated coalitions where incentives to cooperate already existed, as in British Columbia, but it did little to encourage or induce coalitions in Alberta and Manitoba. On balance, it differed little from the single member plurality system. Résumé.Le vote préférentiel (PV) est une proposition de plus en plus populaire de réforme électorale. Son attrait s'explique en grande partie par son succès en Australie. Cet article étudie les expériences de VP lors d'élections provinciales au Manitoba, en Alberta et en Colombie-Britannique. Le VP a eu peu de répercussions sur la proportionnalité et sur la participation électorale, mais a contribué à augmenter considérablement le nombre de bulletins de vote rejetés. On observe, en association avec le VP, une augmentation du nombre des partis en présence, mais ceci était vraisemblablement dû à l'évolution des structures sociales plus qu'au changement du système électoral. Le VP a facilité les coalitions lorsque des raisons de coopérer existaient déjà, comme en Colombie-Britannique, mais n'a guère encouragé ni provoqué de coalitions en Alberta ni au Manitoba. En définitive, la différence avec le système majoritaire uninominal a été négligeable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".