The Difference between a FPTP Party and a PR Party

[Smallc]

I'll agree that people should be voting no matter what. But I still disagree with why you think voters don't care. It's not that people aren't looking.

When it comes to many voters I know this to be a fact. They just don't bother to look. I have seen it with so many people, especially people my own age and slightly older. Yes, there is a lot of bickering, but CBC, CTV and Global had running tallies of the promises. thats policy, not bickering. There were numerous experts to listen to, to hear their opinions, on all of the national news cast.

That is actually a large part of the problem. People don't watch the news because they either think its all bad or they just don't care. I'm not saying people have to become like me and constantly follow politics and world events, but many have no idea whats going on in their community let alone their province country and world. People always talk about voter apathy, but in reality, many people have life apathy. They just don't seem to care enough to stay informed. I would bet that close 10% of the didn't even know there was an election going on last Tuesday. It is actually quite sad.

Edited October 19, 2008 by Smallc

[Wild Bill]

This discussion on this forum is indicative of the level of understanding that the public at large has of these election models. Ontarians had no idea, generally, what they were voting on except that it was either 'the way it is' vs. 'a new way'.

Once again, I disagree. I paid close attention to that question on the ballot and I think the problem was not that Ontarians didn't like the idea of PR. It was the way the question was asked!

First off, the initial question should have been to ask if folks wanted to reform the system at all! THEN later you could offer them choices about different systems!

What happened instead was that we had a year of some study group that nobody knew existed examining the idea of a new PR system. They picked THEIR favourite, mailed out a flyer about it to every citizen and the question on the ballot amounted to:

"Hey Ontario! You probably didn't know about this but some folks are unhappy with our present system of electing MPP's so we are offering you the chance to vote in a new system that WE dreamed up! When you fill out your ballot on this election day you will have the chance to vote on taking or leaving THIS new system! If you haven't heard about this before and the question appearing on the ballot is a big surprise to you then you obviously are ignorant and you should trust that if you just got a little more educated you would be in favour of this change."

I can hear the Vogons in the background saying "Don't start snivelling to us that you didn't know your planet was slated to be demolished for a hyperspatial bypass! It was clearly posted at the civic office on Alpha Centauri! If you're all too lazy to pay attention to civic activities then you deserve what you get!"

I say again more simply, what should have happened was that the initial idea of reform should have been raised in Queen's Park, given months of publicity and THEN put to some kind of plebiscite to see if Ontarians even wanted to explore the idea. NEXT, there should have been a highly visible process to find out what KIND of reforms Ontarians actually wanted!

We were given a take it or leave it surprise. No wonder it was voted down, in a landslide!

[drewski]

Once again, I disagree. I paid close attention to that question on the ballot and I think the problem was not that Ontarians didn't like the idea of PR. It was the way the question was asked!

while I'm sure there were a number of informed Ontarians against PR, from my experiences talking to people the majority of uninformed people were against PR an when I explained the system they typically changed their minds

[eyeball]

I think its fair to say the whole issue of electoral reform in Ontario was managed with failure in mind right from the get go. Its a classic example of the way special interests capture a process so they can drive it off a cliff. In this case it was politicians with a vested interest in maintaining an entrenched status quo.

The stepwise approach to the issue that Wild Bill mentions is probably the way to go. Unfortunately we don't have any sort of direct democracy or referenda process that allows for a timely resolution of the initial questions that need to be answered. If we try to answer one question per election cycle we'll never get anywhere.

I suspect we'll just have to wait until things deteriorate to the point where so few people bother to vote the turnout issue becomes just too ridiculous to ignore. In my lifetime would be nice but I'm not holding my breath.

[Riverwind]

I suspect we'll just have to wait until things deteriorate to the point where so few people bother to vote the turnout issue becomes just too ridiculous to ignore. In my lifetime would be nice but I'm not holding my breath.

As I have said before - changing the system to encourage more voters is complete waste of time because the lazy SOBs would just find another excuse to not vote. Besides, people who actually vote have no incentive to change the system to encourage more people to vote because a low voter turn out it means their vote counts for more. Edited October 19, 2008 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

As I have said before - changing the system to encourage more voters is complete waste of time because the lazy SOBs would just find another excuse to not vote.

There will always be a few who don't or won't or can't but mandatory voting would in fact result in millions more Canadians casting a vote, especially if not voting resulted in a penalty being applied to their next tax return.

Besides, conservatives know they wouldn't stand a chance in a mandatory vote.

Isn't that what you really meant to say?

[Riverwind]

There will always be a few who don't or won't or can't but mandatory voting would in fact result in millions more Canadians casting a vote, especially if not voting resulted in a penalty being applied to their next tax return.

People who need to forced to vote should not be voting and it is unlikely that such a law would stand up to a charter challenge.

[eyeball]

People who need to forced to vote should not be voting and it is unlikely that such a law would stand up to a charter challenge.

If that's the case an individual's obligation to file a tax return should be challenged on the same grounds.

[Riverwind]

If that's the case an individual's obligation to file a tax return should be challenged on the same grounds.

We are talking about a law intended to force people to vote - the mechanism is irrelevant. Someone could easily argue that the right to "not vote" is as fundemental as the right to vote. Edited October 19, 2008 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

We are talking about a law intended to force people to vote - the mechanism is irrelevant. Someone could easily argue that the right to "not vote" is as fundemental as the right to vote.

The intent of the law would be to require that people register to vote and cast a ballot. They would still have the right not to vote because they could always spoil their ballot. What they choose to put on their ballot is an entirely different matter and moot to boot because it would still be just as secret as it always was.

Registering to vote and casting a ballot would be no more of an infringement on your rights than forcing you to register your car's insurance or renew your licence to drive. If they were people would be challenging everything the government makes us do.

[cybercoma]

Perhaps we should look at the demographics of who is not voting when trying to determine how to address the problem. The highest group of people that do not vote are people under the age of 25 that have little education. Considering that, is low voter turnout really a problem?

[eyeball]

I'd say education or the lack thereof compounds the problem.

[eyeball]

We force new drivers or those who are just learning to carry a little N or L on their car. I don't know if that would be necessary in the case of a new voter though.

Some have proposed a simple issue comprehension test might be in order before a person is allowed to vote. This would be like a drivers test I guess.

[cybercoma]

Yeah, great idea. Make people pass a test before they're eligible to vote. That's sure to get the kids swarming to the polls.

[Riverwind]

Some have proposed a simple issue comprehension test might be in order before a person is allowed to vote. This would be like a drivers test I guess.

That would be political manipulators dream - carefully choosen questions designed to weed out voters with certain views.

For example:

Q1) Has it been proven the CO2 is the cause of climate change?

A1) No. It is an unproven hypotheses.

Q2) Canadian corporate tax rates are amoung the highest in the OECD.

A2) True. Only Germany, Japan and the US have higher rates.

[eyeball]

Ever notice how carelessly ballot questions are asked when it comes to electoral reform?

[OddSox]

Perhaps the right to vote and the right to citizenship could be tied together somehow? In Starship Troopers, Heinlein suggested that citizenship should only be available to those who had military service. I don't think that's the answer, although many countries do have compulsory military service, I'm not sure if any tie this to the right to vote. Perhaps public service or community service on a regular basis if you want to maintain your citizenship?

[PoliticalCitizen]

I can hear the Vogons in the background saying "Don't start snivelling to us that you didn't know your planet was slated to be demolished for a hyperspatial bypass! It was clearly posted at the civic office on Alpha Centauri! If you're all too lazy to pay attention to civic activities then you deserve what you get!"

I say again more simply, what should have happened was that the initial idea of reform should have been raised in Queen's Park, given months of publicity and THEN put to some kind of plebiscite to see if Ontarians even wanted to explore the idea. NEXT, there should have been a highly visible process to find out what KIND of reforms Ontarians actually wanted!

I agree with your remarks.

Having said that, I still believe that the system that was offered for voting is pretty good.

Let's say your a convinced Conservative who doesn't give a rat's ass about any fringe parties and who (obviously) doesn't have to vote strategically. You would have voted Con / Con with both your FPTP ballot and your PR ballot, giving more seats to your beloved Cons.

What's wrong with that?

[M.Dancer]

We are talking about a law intended to force people to vote - the mechanism is irrelevant. Someone could easily argue that the right to "not vote" is as fundemental as the right to vote.

Forcing people to vote would violate the charter.

I agree with Eyeball though, removing certain civic freedoms could possible bring about socialism.

[Wild Bill]

Perhaps the right to vote and the right to citizenship could be tied together somehow? In Starship Troopers, Heinlein suggested that citizenship should only be available to those who had military service. I don't think that's the answer, although many countries do have compulsory military service, I'm not sure if any tie this to the right to vote. Perhaps public service or community service on a regular basis if you want to maintain your citizenship?

The rationale behind Bob Heinlein's premise was that if you were willing to fight for your society you were more likely to make a considered vote. Not necessarily a smarter or better informed vote but at least you likely would take it more seriously and expend some brain sweat on your choice. Those with no stake in the system tend to be more frivolous or selfish in their choices.

Actually, that's the original way voting happened here in North America. The American Founders never even considered universal suffrage. Only those owning property or running a business got a vote. When I was a lad back before the last Ice Age here in Ontario that's the way it still was with municipal elections. The last big change was giving tenants the right to vote.

When you think about it, perhaps with some levels of government we should never have gotten quite so far away from this principle. I myself saw conflicts arise when renters were given the municipal vote in my town. Certain wards had far more apartment buildings than private homes and within a short time the votes tended to favour the needs of the tenants but the tax base came mostly from the private homes! There were quite a few sparks before that one got straightened out. Today it's true that a tenant does pay property taxes through his rent but that doesn't mean he pays as much as a private home or business owner. Also, if it's buried in his rent he may not even think about it! I remember when the OHIP medicare premium was taken off the worker and put onto the employers. It vanished as a deduction on your pay cheque and now today most workers are blissfully unaware of who pays for the health system. Since they never see any premium or charge they think it's free!

Something to think about, anyway. It just seems that if someone has to pony up to pay for the beer personally then he might think a bit more about choosing a decent brand...

[eyeball]

Forcing people to vote would violate the charter.

That's right, but forcing people to register and cast a ballot would be no more a violation of their rights than registering your vehicle insurance or renewing your licence to drive.

I suppose these might violate your feelings but not your rights.

[Riverwind]

That's right, but forcing people to register and cast a ballot would be no more a violation of their rights than registering your vehicle insurance or renewing your licence to drive.

People are already talking about launching a charter challenge against the requirement for id at polling stations.

The SCC ruled a number of years ago that a driver's license is a priviledge - not a right. So your comparison is a red herring.

Mandatory voting would violate the spirit and letter of charter.

Edited October 20, 2008 by Riverwind

[Wild Bill]

People are already talking about launching a charter challenge against the requirement for id at polling stations.

The SCC ruled a number of years ago that a driver's license is a priviledge - not a right. So your comparison is a red herring.

Mandatory voting would violate the spirit and letter of charter.

Moreover, in the words of Spider Robinson:

"You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her THINK!"

[eyeball]

People are already talking about launching a charter challenge against the requirement for id at polling stations.

The SCC ruled a number of years ago that a driver's license is a priviledge - not a right. So your comparison is a red herring.

Fair enough. I'll stick with the comparison to filing a tax return. Everyone is obliged to contribute to our country.

Mandatory voting would violate the spirit and letter of charter.

How? What section of the charter would you challenge in the event that casting a ballot was mandatory?

[White Doors]

Moreover, in the words of Spider Robinson:

"You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her THINK!"