Jump to content

Help ensure a fair referendum in Ontario


Recommended Posts

We have a Winner Take All system which means that only one political viewpoint or party can be represented in each riding. All other voters, supposedly equal, get no parliamentary representation whatsoever. In the last federal election the winning MP in my riding received 40% of the total votes cast, which means that 60% of my riding has no representation for their views. 60% of the votes cast in my riding were wasted. On average our system wastes 50% of all votes cast. Proportional systems waste far fewer votes. New Zealand and Germany both use Mixed Member Proportional systems which basically use our first past the post system and then adjust parliamentary levels for the popular vote. Both nations had election in 2005, in Germany 4% of the votes were wasted and in New Zealand only 1% were wasted. I'd say that's a big improvement.

I disagree with the term 'wasted votes'. The votes were cast, not wasted. By that logic, votes for anyone but the winner of the election are wasted. The system guarantees you have a say, not that you get a representative that shares your views.

If you extend your argument, you could say that representative democracy is unfair in itself because you're forced to elect someone with whom you're virtually guaranteed to disasgree on many issues.

If a party has more than 50% of the seats in parliament they in effect have 100% of the power. Provided MPs vote along party lines any bill they present cannot be defeated. Why do you agree with a system that gives a party 100% of the power with far less than 50% of the vote. Chrétien won 3 consecutive majority governments without ever receiving more than 42% of the vote. Shouldn’t a party only receive 42% of the available seats if the win 42% of the vote?

Not quite 100%. There are still many checks on power. And your system will effectively guarantee a left-wing bloc rules Canada in perpetuity. There's a good dhance Conservatives will not ever govern in the foreseeable future. Does that sound fair ?

In the 2004 federal election the Bloc received 1 seat for every 32,000 Bloc votes cast. The Liberals received 1 seat for every 37,000 Liberal votes cast. The Conservatives received 1 seat for every 40,000 Conservative votes cast. It took 111,000 NDP votes for each seat won by the NDP and nearly 500,000 Green votes elected nobody. That's what I mean by not equal.

Understood.

This process has not been almost immediate or appeared out of the blue. Plus PR systems are not being touted as the only solution. A citizens committee is currently dealing with the issue. First they will decide if we need change. If so they will research various systems and recommend one for Ontario and that choice will appear on the ballot in October 2007. In the year ahead the public will be educated about the potential new system. Then hopefully a simple 50% + 1 majority will be allowed to decide if it passes or not.

Well, I might be in favour of whatever system they propose if it's not PR.

I recommend reading about proportional systems; my favourite is the Mixed Member Proportional system. It basically combines our current First Past the Post system with a correction for the popular vote. Considering your love for the current system you may actually like. Here is the wikipedia page for MMR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_member_proportional

All of the idealistic arguments aside, such a system works against Conservatives in this country. Let's see now, they've been in power twice since the early 1960s now. It will almost certainly make it more difficult for them to get into government, and if they do it will make it hard for them to govern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mike, it sounds to me like you are defending a system you know to be flawed simply because it could help your party of choice.

With our current system our elected government does not reflect the way Canadians vote. That's a problem.

PR systems do not favour left wing parties. Considering current poll numbers and the fact that a PR systems produce governments in the same proportion as the votes received the federal Conservatives should do very well.

PR systems do not favour fringe parties. In fact they punish localized parties. The Bloc would actually receive fewer seats under a PR system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, it sounds to me like you are defending a system you know to be flawed simply because it could help your party of choice.

It sounds like that, hm ? Well, I suppose I could say the same thing to you. Instead, let's try to be objective about this. We should be able to discuss changes to the system without bringing our preferences into it.

The system you propose will bring some new representation to 10% of the voters, and will be advantageous to the 50% of voters or so that vote Liberal and NDP but will be disadvantageous to those who vote right of centre. Those voters are already under-represented in the time they spend in office.

So, I don't see how this new system is 'fair' to them. You're ostensibly giving some minor representation to a tiny number, while taking representation at the government level from about 30% of right-of-centre voters. You can discount that if you like, but isn't this new system supposed to be about fairness ?

With our current system our elected government does not reflect the way Canadians vote. That's a problem.

I don't think that it is. Canadians vote, generally, centre left and that's generally what rules. They vote Conservative about 30% of the time, and they spend about 30% of the time in office.

It's better to give each side a 'turn' at running the whole show than to have us perpetually in minority governments. Look at Italy and Israel to see how that works.

PR systems do not favour left wing parties. Considering current poll numbers and the fact that a PR systems produce governments in the same proportion as the votes received the federal Conservatives should do very well.

I don't see how. The continuous deal brokering and compromise takes too much focus away from governing IMO. Again, look at the results.

We have a fine social safety net - not as good as Europe, but better in some respects - as well as an excellent business environment.

PR systems do not favour fringe parties. In fact they punish localized parties. The Bloc would actually receive fewer seats under a PR system.

As a percentage, yes, you're right. That could be another sore point with Quebec, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The system you propose will bring some new representation to 10% of the voters, and will be advantageous to the 50% of voters or so that vote Liberal and NDP but will be disadvantageous to those who vote right of centre. Those voters are already under-represented in the time they spend in office.

So, I don't see how this new system is 'fair' to them. You're ostensibly giving some minor representation to a tiny number, while taking representation at the government level from about 30% of right-of-centre voters. You can discount that if you like, but isn't this new system supposed to be about fairness ?

What? Do you understand how any PR system works? They are almost completely fair. They simply give each party the same percentage of the available seats as they received in votes. If the Conservatives receive 30% of the votes they will receive 30% of the seats. If the Liberals receive 30% of the vote they would receive 30% of the seats. The same goes for the NDP, Greens, Bloc, Family Coalition, Communits, etc.

That's fair.

In our current system there is no direct relation to the popular vote. A great example is the 1993 federal election. Kim Campbel's Conservatives only won two seats despite receiving over 2 million votes. That's 1 million votes per seat. Jean Chretien's Liberals received 1 seat for every 32,000 votes.

That's unfair.

With our current system our elected government does not reflect the way Canadians vote. That's a problem.

I don't think that it is. Canadians vote, generally, centre left and that's generally what rules. They vote Conservative about 30% of the time, and they spend about 30% of the time in office.

It's better to give each side a 'turn' at running the whole show than to have us perpetually in minority governments. Look at Italy and Israel to see how that works.

Let's just give one of the two largest parties a turn? Why should we even vote then? The Liberals can just run the country for 7 years and the Cons can rule for 3. :wacko:

To your comment about Italy and Israel... there are many different systems of PR. Look at New Zealand, Germany or Scotland for great exampels of how the Mixed Member Proportional system works.

Your comments seem very surprising to me. I'm not sure if you're just yanking my chain for your own fun or if you really believe that our government should not reflect the way Canadians vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? Do you understand how any PR system works? They are almost completely fair. They simply give each party the same percentage of the available seats as they received in votes. If the Conservatives receive 30% of the votes they will receive 30% of the seats. If the Liberals receive 30% of the vote they would receive 30% of the seats. The same goes for the NDP, Greens, Bloc, Family Coalition, Communits, etc.

That's fair.

That's how a 'pure' PR system works, which hasn't been proposed in Canada as far as I know.

Again, you use the word 'fair' but it's subjective. I would say it's not 'fair' to give 10% of people more representation at the expense of 30% of the people, who will lose representation.

In our current system there is no direct relation to the popular vote. A great example is the 1993 federal election. Kim Campbel's Conservatives only won two seats despite receiving over 2 million votes. That's 1 million votes per seat. Jean Chretien's Liberals received 1 seat for every 32,000 votes.

That's unfair.

The PR system switches out the 'taking turns' approach in favour of a pervasive ruling party coalition situation. The current system, as I said, gives each side a chance 'at bat' as it were, roughly along the lines of the popular vote. The Conservatives rule for about 30% of the time, the Liberal/NDP about 70%.

You may think it's more 'fair' to have the Liberals/NDP/Green rule in minority for 100% of the time, but I don't.

Let's just give one of the two largest parties a turn? Why should we even vote then? The Liberals can just run the country for 7 years and the Cons can rule for 3. wacko.gif

Why should you vote ? Because you want the party you vote for to gain power. There's no difference there.

To your comment about Italy and Israel... there are many different systems of PR. Look at New Zealand, Germany or Scotland for great exampels of how the Mixed Member Proportional system works.

Your comments seem very surprising to me. I'm not sure if you're just yanking my chain for your own fun or if you really believe that our government should not reflect the way Canadians vote.

You keep repeating the same things about 'fairness' without addressing my points about gerrymandering. Do you deny that the Conservatives would be left the odd man out in such a situation or not ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you use the word 'fair' but it's subjective. I would say it's not 'fair' to give 10% of people more representation at the expense of 30% of the people, who will lose representation.

Who is loosing representation? If an electoral system gives each party the same percentage of seats as the popular vote they received everyone gets the representation they deserve.

The PR system switches out the 'taking turns' approach in favour of a pervasive ruling party coalition situation. The current system, as I said, gives each side a chance 'at bat' as it were, roughly along the lines of the popular vote. The Conservatives rule for about 30% of the time, the Liberal/NDP about 70%.

You may think it's more 'fair' to have the Liberals/NDP/Green rule in minority for 100% of the time, but I don't.

I think it's fair to have a government that reflects the views of Canadians in the same proportions as Canadians actually vote.

You keep repeating the same things about 'fairness' without addressing my points about gerrymandering. Do you deny that the Conservatives would be left the odd man out in such a situation or not ?

Yes I deny it. In the last election the Conservatives still received the largest share of the vote (36%) and still would have formed the government....assuming Canadians would have still voted the same under a different system. The Liberals, NDP and the Greens do not agree on all issues, just as the Bloc and Conservatives do not agree on all issues. Each party would form different alliances on each issue. Thus all Canadians are represented in the house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is loosing representation? If an electoral system gives each party the same percentage of seats as the popular vote they received everyone gets the representation they deserve.

Everybody might get an MP but a large chunk of the population will no longer be represented as well by a sitting government.

I think it's fair to have a government that reflects the views of Canadians in the same proportions as Canadians actually vote.

And a centre-left coalition that will rule in perpetuity....

Yes I deny it. In the last election the Conservatives still received the largest share of the vote (36%) and still would have formed the government....

That's not for sure.

My math tells me that under pure PR, in the 2006 election would have turned out this way.

The CPC would have won 13 seats LESS - 111 seats

The Bloc would have won 20 seats LESS - 31 seats.

The Liberals would have won 11 seats LESS - 92 seats.

The NDP would have won 23 seats MORE - 52 seats.

22 seats would have gone to (mostly) the Green party.

The CPC can barely manage to keep their majority now, with 124/308. They can make deals with the Bloc , NDP and Liberals to pass bills.

Under a pure PR election, the option of dealing with the Bloc goes away. In addition, Harper might not even be able to form a government - a Liberal/NDP/Green coalition could govern with 166 seats. That could not happen today.

And this is an election in which the Conservatives fared better than usual. In a typical election, they would not have even this much power.

assuming Canadians would have still voted the same under a different system. The Liberals, NDP and the Greens do not agree on all issues, just as the Bloc and Conservatives do not agree on all issues. Each party would form different alliances on each issue. Thus all Canadians are represented in the house.

And Canadians are robbed of the vision of different visions of how the country should run. Whether or not you like or dislike the Conservatives, they have brought in significant changes in direction (the FTA, for example or the GST) that have stayed with us. Conservative governments aren't in power for very long, so they tend to have to make big changes that the other parties are more gun-shy about. In Chretien/Martin's long government, I don't think we saw anything as big as the Free Trade Agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to applaud Premier Lord from New Brunswick for allowing a democratic simple majority. I just hope Dalton follows his lead and not that of Premier Campbell form BC.

Yesterday, Premier Lord became the first Canadian political leader to announce he would accept a simple majority referendum decision on whether to adopt a new voting system based on proportional representation.

While Premier Lord said he would also require a 50 per cent voter turnout, he stated that "Fifty percent has been the traditional number for democratic decisions. . . we're just satisfied with fifty percent."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I"m guessing that Gordon Campbell in BC did not want to change the system as his government benefitted from a false majority created by our current flawed electoral system. Part of his campaign pledge was to allow a referendum on electoral reform, but when in power changing the system is no longer a benefit to him so he added the undemocract threshold of 60%. It must have scared the crap out of him when it still almost passed.

At least he had the largest percentage of the popular vote. The last NDP government won a majority with a smaller percentage of the popular vote than the Liberals. That was more obscene.

Why then did he commit himself to another referendum based specifically on the fact that the last one was so close and that he feels the electorate should be better informed regarding the options before the next one? I don't know what he wants personally but I think it is one of the gutsier things I have seen a Canadian politician do for some time. A leader with a large majority and a 17 point lead in the polls allowing two votes on a system that would probably restrict his and successive Premier's powers forever if it passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least he had the largest percentage of the popular vote. The last NDP government won a majority with a smaller percentage of the popular vote than the Liberals. That was more obscene.

I agree that his winning a majority with less than half the popular vote is not the worst distortion ever, but it is still a distortion. Sadly, there are still people who defend our current flawed voting system that so drastically distorts the way Canadians vote.

Why then did he commit himself to another referendum based specifically on the fact that the last one was so close and that he feels the electorate should be better informed regarding the options before the next one? I don't know what he wants personally but I think it is one of the gutsier things I have seen a Canadian politician do for some time. A leader with a large majority and a 17 point lead in the polls allowing two votes on a system that would probably restrict his and successive Premier's powers forever if it passed.

I'd say Bernhard Lord's move to allow a democratic simple majority vote is much gutsier. I applaud politicians that make decisions that can potentially hurt their own political careers simply because it is the right thing to do. I give Gordon Campbell credit in that he at least got the electoral reform ball rolling. However, I am angry that he setup a Minority Rule situation by allowing 42% of voters to defeat 58%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, there are still people who defend our current flawed voting system that so drastically distorts the way Canadians vote.

Yes, I support it and it ISN'T FLAWED. I have shown you how the system would be a disadvantage to conservative voters in Canada and you haven't come back with anything substantial. You claimed that the current government would still have been formed if elected under PR and I showed you that that is not necessarily the case.

Rather than throwing around value-laden words like 'fair' and 'flawed', and calling into question my voting practices, why don't you address what I have written here ? The fact that you haven't makes me think that you have less to back up your arguments than you think you do.

Cheers,

mh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I support it and it ISN'T FLAWED.
You have not explained why 60% is valid as a threshold. why not 59% ? why not 61% ?

What if 58% was only necessary to give the "disadvantaged conservative voters" a win? would you still ask for 60% ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 2-1 count in favour would be hard to argue against.
There are more than 3 people in Canada.

I know, I know, it sounds like a snarky smart-aleck come back but I am being serious.

How do you define democracy? I want to hear it from your mouth.

If you accept democracy involve any senses of "majority rule" than you must accept that if there are 30 people in Canada, 16 makes a majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are more than 3 people in Canada.

I know, I know, it sounds like a snarky smart-aleck come back but I am being serious.

I guess I should have said 2-1 ratio.

How do you define democracy? I want to hear it from your mouth.

If you accept democracy involve any senses of "majority rule" than you must accept that if there are 30 people in Canada, 16 makes a majority.

Pure democracy would mean that each of us vote issue-by-issue with a clear majority passing. Since that's impractical, we use a representative democracy, first-past-the-post parliament with lower and upper houses - a mix of mechanisms designed to create a system that is, on the whole, fair and practical.

To say 'PR is more fair' is fair, I suppose. But it's too much to say it's 'fair'. That kind of black-and-white description is persuasive but incorrect. Anything short of pure democracy could be depicted as unfair, and flawed but what it really is, is more practical.

As such, I don't think PR will help our system of government in practice. A pure PR system would give us perpetual minority governments, and potentially cause all kinds of unintentioned results. When I look at the balance of governments we've created, and the well balanced system I ask "why does this need such an overhaul ?".

The answer seems to be that we need to change the system for everybody so that the 10% who vote Green or somesuch have representatives in parliament. Since the CPC is the only right-of-centre party that gets any kind of significant vote, they would have no other like party to form a coalition with, should they get less than 50% of the vote. I don't remember Conservatives in Canada ever getting 50%, so...

You would, in effect, be designing a system that's "Fair" to the 10% of Green voters, but would tak epower away to the 30% or so Conservative voters out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I should have said 2-1 ratio.
I understood that perfectly. I was pointing out that 16 out of 30 is a 50%+1 result. I should have said:

"If you accept democracy involves any sense of "majority rule" than you must accept that if there are 30,000,000 people in Canada, 15,000,001 makes a majority."

with a clear majority passing.
A 50%+1 count is the first count that qualifies as a majority. That is clear. Anything above that threshold is not "majority rule" it is convenience rule.
You would, in effect, be designing a system that's "Fair" to the 10% of Green voters, but would tak epower away to the 30% or so Conservative voters out there.
I read that and I think: what could be more clear than 30% of the population getting 30% of the power in a democratic election? what could be more fair?

I understand that democracy may be impractical and expensive or inefficient. Forgive me, but all that I see in your posts is that your justifications use democracy as a method with which to acquire power over other people. You construct the rules (in effect, a different kind of gerrymandering) to get the results to suit your preferred result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that democracy may be impractical and expensive or inefficient. Forgive me, but all that I see in your posts is that your justifications use democracy as a method with which to acquire power over other people.

I don't see how you could possibly read that in my posts. Read my last post again.

Following your tack, it seems that you want the most fair and balanced democracy, however impractical. Is that correct ?

If so, then PR is far less fair and balanced than direct democracy. Perhaps that's what we should be discussing.

If, however, you accept the premise that democracy has to make some concessions to practicality then PR and the current system are more closely related than PR is to pure democracy.

You construct the rules (in effect, a different kind of gerrymandering) to get the results to suit your preferred result.

Again, there's no basis for that allegation in my arguments. I haven't said that I'm a Conservative supporter. I'm arguing for a system that gives the most people the most chance to have their viewpoint heard in a practical way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Procedural or Constitutional changes regularly require a "super-majority" in modern democratic systems because of their importance. They aren't flavour-of-the-month legislation; they are intended to be long-term and consequently require a greater measure of agreement for their implementation.

Furthermore, we're talking about a referendum here, aren't we? As in, a non-binding plebiscite to determine public opinion? Does it really matter what arbitrary rules the government chooses to apply to a glorified opinion poll?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it really matter what arbitrary rules the government chooses to apply to a glorified opinion poll?

Maybe not. The Harris government re-districted Ontario (under a majority) to align with the Federal boundries for reasons of efficiency which were never clear. The end result was that many left-liberal districts were split and the sitting government ended up with an advantage - surprise, surprise.

McGuinty could conceivably call for a PR referendum with a 50%+1 pass rate, and implement a system of his own design after its success. The end result could be set up to whatever end result the Premier wanted, within certain limits of public acceptability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, there are still people who defend our current flawed voting system that so drastically distorts the way Canadians vote.

Yes, I support it and it ISN'T FLAWED. I have shown you how the system would be a disadvantage to conservative voters in Canada and you haven't come back with anything substantial. You claimed that the current government would still have been formed if elected under PR and I showed you that that is not necessarily the case.

Rather than throwing around value-laden words like 'fair' and 'flawed', and calling into question my voting practices, why don't you address what I have written here ? The fact that you haven't makes me think that you have less to back up your arguments than you think you do.

Cheers,

mh

I have pointed out with numerous examples that our current system produces a government that does not match how the people voted. That is flawed. In one of your examples you pointed out that in our last federal election the NDP and Green parties were robbed of seats and the Bloc received several bonus seats. On average with our first past the post system 50% of the votes cast do not lead to any representation and are therefore wasted votes. I've made several points as to why the system is "flawed", you simply choose not to accept the arguments.

In defense of our current system you argue that if the government actually reflected the way Canadians vote then parliament would most likely be perpetual coalition governments with a majority of the seats filled by centre-left parties. 1) The political preference of the country changes over time 2) If that is the way Canadians vote that is the government they should receive.

Our system will give 10,000 voters in one riding a seat in parliament but ignore 1,000,000 voters across the country. Why should people have to live in the same neighbourhood to count?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have pointed out with numerous examples that our current system produces a government that does not match how the people voted. That is flawed. In one of your examples you pointed out that in our last federal election the NDP and Green parties were robbed of seats and the Bloc received several bonus seats. On average with our first past the post system 50% of the votes cast do not lead to any representation and are therefore wasted votes. I've made several points as to why the system is "flawed", you simply choose not to accept the arguments.

Actually, I have addressed them with point of my own that you haven't responded to.

Measuring how many votes aren't represented is certainly one metric, but there are other considerations. And, as my point to Charles explains, I could turn your arguments back on you and say if you want to waste 0% of the vote then go for 100% PR, or (even better) direct democracy.

In defense of our current system you argue that if the government actually reflected the way Canadians vote then parliament would most likely be perpetual coalition governments with a majority of the seats filled by centre-left parties. 1) The political preference of the country changes over time 2) If that is the way Canadians vote that is the government they should receive.

Point 1) - see my point to Charles above. The Conservatives haven't had 50% of the vote in recent memory, if that has ever happened.

Point 2) - can you see how you're contradicting your own PR arguments here ? You're saying that if 70% of the voters are left-liberal, then that government should rule in perpetuity. In other words 30% of the voters will never see their preferred philosophy of government come to rule.

Our system will give 10,000 voters in one riding a seat in parliament but ignore 1,000,000 voters across the country. Why should people have to live in the same neighbourhood to count?

Is it fair that PEI should get more seats per capita than Ontario ? Is it fair that the Senate is appointed ?

There are many ways that the system doesn't appear fair, but on the whole it has produced a workable compromise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read my last post again.
You do not justify 66% as opposed to 65% or 67% other than practicality. Practical for creating a rotation.

I could say that it is more practical for everybody to stay home on election day and that we let the raging socialists take turns at bat with the evil capitalists on a rotating 10 year cycle. All of the money that was spent on the election would be translated into tax cuts or hand outs to every potential voter every 4 years. If my proposal was put to a vote, it would have the biggest turn out and it will be the last election we ever see.

Following your tack, it seems that you want the most fair and balanced democracy, however impractical. Is that correct ?
If we must be ruled by a democracy, yes. That is correct. I prefer that because it is the only counting method that removes subjectivity in determining the winner.
If so, then PR is far less fair and balanced than direct democracy. Perhaps that's what we should be discussing.
Perhaps.

My personal views of democracy can be more closely represented by somebody before me. However, my views of democracy are even more extreme....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe not. The Harris government re-districted Ontario (under a majority) to align with the Federal boundries for reasons of efficiency which were never clear. The end result was that many left-liberal districts were split and the sitting government ended up with an advantage - surprise, surprise.

McGuinty could conceivably call for a PR referendum with a 50%+1 pass rate, and implement a system of his own design after its success. The end result could be set up to whatever end result the Premier wanted, within certain limits of public acceptability.

This calls to mind a second and somewhat more important question: does a change in election procedure require a change in the Charter? If so, do the Liberals have the authority to make that change? Could the change then be subject to an SCC challenge?

I took the time to breeze over the Elections Act for the Province of Ontario. It appears to assume that the first-past-the-post system is a given, and merely regulates the nuts and bolts of holding elections under that system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to offer a halfway solution at this point, to see if this resolves some of the issues raised.

Out of 308 Seats, what if we added, say, 3 seats that were to go to any party that got 5% of the vote or more, but wasn't represented in parliament ? That would give the Greens a voice providing they can push past 5% and might address some concerns about representation.

What do you think ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to offer a halfway solution at this point, to see if this resolves some of the issues raised.

Out of 308 Seats, what if we added, say, 3 seats that were to go to any party that got 5% of the vote or more, but wasn't represented in parliament ? That would give the Greens a voice providing they can push past 5% and might address some concerns about representation.

What do you think ?

Now this is the type of debate I hoped we'd get to.

What about this? Each voter receives 2 votes.

With vote 1 we vote for our local representative. The person receiving the most votes in a riding wins the seat, just like we do now.

With vote 2 we vote for the party we'd like to govern the Country or Province. The votes are totaled and the popular vote is determined. Any party that has fewer locally won seats than they are owed by the popular vote is given seats until their representation is proportional. These added MPs will come from a predefined list created by the party. They will not represent a riding but instead represent supporters of the party. There will have to be a threshold so that we are not trying to find a half of a seat for a fringe party and I think your 5% figure is fair.

In the end every riding will have a local rep and government will match the way Canadians vote. Plus a maximum of 5% of the votes cast will be unrepresented or wasted which is much better than the 50% we waste now. Additionally, a voter can vote for the best person locally no matter what party they represent and still vote for the party they'd like to govern. For instance I may like the local Conservative but want to see more NDPers in Ottawa. Also, I would think the fact that almost every vote would count for something would help increase voter turn out.

This is the Mixed Member Proportional system. New Zealand recently switched to it; PEI and New Brunswick are proposing it. Germany and Scotland among others also use it.

There is currently all sorts of debate on the details as well. For instance should the party be able to choose its own list of MPs to fill added seats or should those spaces go to MPs received the most local votes in a loosing cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...