Would you support non-partisan democracy in your province?

[ReeferMadness]

I assume each candidate would get one toonie per vote cast in their favour? I naively assume that the candidate will need money to campaign... does it become a gamble that only the rich can afford to take?

STV sounds worse than proportional representation but better than first-past-the-post.

In fact, STV is one of the three main types of proportional representation, the other two being party list and mixed member proportional (MMP). The reason I prefer STV is that it allows much richer choice. With other types of PR, proportionality is forced by making you choose a party. With STV, proportionality is just a natural mathematical outcome.

The other thing I like is that STV allows you to vote for the best candidates, regardless of party. Second choices count so candidates are less likely to slag each other during the campaign. Parties tend to dislike STV because it puts more emphasis on the candidate and less on the party.

STV seemed a bit odd when I first heard about it but the more I learned, the more I liked it.

In terms of the campaign finance law and who gets the money. That's a good question. When an indepdent runs today, does anyone get money for the votes?

[ReeferMadness]

With pure proportional representation, you are aware that independent candidates are completely shut oout from running, aren't you? All you have on your ballot is a list of party names. No candidate name even appears in a pure list system. Under such a system, the party then chooses its MPs, thus making the MPs totally dependent on the party to get anywhere, essentially transforming them all into strict party hacks.

It sounds like you're talking about party list proportional representation. You're right in that the party puts together the lists. There are closed lists (where the party determine the order of who will get seats first) or open lists (where you can vote for both a party and a candidate).

List PR is used widely around the world but I haven't heard anyone proposing it for anywhere in Canada.

Mixed member proportional (MMP) is a hybrid of the current first past the post system and list representation. You have two votes - one for your representative and one for the party. The list seats are held aside to make the result proportional. MMP was proposed in Ontario and PEI but lost in both referenda.

All three types of proportional systems have lots of variations on the rules. What's happened in BC (and I understand the same thing happened in Ontario) is that established interests who are doing well by the problems with first past the post banded together and attacked the idiosyncracies in the proportional systems. Most people don't know a lot about voting systems and to people used to voting in first past the post, the PR systems can seem bizarre. In all three provinces, thresholds of 60% for the yes side were imposed. In BC at least, this has allowed the no side to simply campaign on fear, uncertainty and doubt.

BC votes again in 1 week and it looks like the result will be the same as last time: higher than 50% but lower than 60%.

[Machjo]

It sounds like you're talking about party list proportional representation. You're right in that the party puts together the lists. There are closed lists (where the party determine the order of who will get seats first) or open lists (where you can vote for both a party and a candidate).

List PR is used widely around the world but I haven't heard anyone proposing it for anywhere in Canada.

Mixed member proportional (MMP) is a hybrid of the current first past the post system and list representation. You have two votes - one for your representative and one for the party. The list seats are held aside to make the result proportional. MMP was proposed in Ontario and PEI but lost in both referenda.

All three types of proportional systems have lots of variations on the rules. What's happened in BC (and I understand the same thing happened in Ontario) is that established interests who are doing well by the problems with first past the post banded together and attacked the idiosyncracies in the proportional systems. Most people don't know a lot about voting systems and to people used to voting in first past the post, the PR systems can seem bizarre. In all three provinces, thresholds of 60% for the yes side were imposed. In BC at least, this has allowed the no side to simply campaign on fear, uncertainty and doubt.

BC votes again in 1 week and it looks like the result will be the same as last time: higher than 50% but lower than 60%.

Yes, I was referring to party list, which is probably the most exact proportional of all. But again, it makes the MP totally dependent on the party.

As for which system I prefr, that depends. Ideally, I'd prefer FPTP but with all candidates running as independents, or at the very least, with no party name appearing on the ballot, since that's unfairly misleading to voters, thus making it an ethical issue.

Second to that on my list of favourits would be STV, again with only candidate names on the ballot, for the same reasons as above.

Havig said that, however, I do believe that, to avoid misleading the public, one of the following ought to be done:

1. Remove party names from the ballot, keeping candidate names only, but making party membership a personal matter for the candidate only.

2. Add both the party name and candidate name on the ballot, but make it compulsory for the candidate to always vote with his caucus and never be allowed to withdraw from the party for the length of his term. Though there could be legal issues there infringing on the candidate's freedom of association and political freedom.

3. Have only party names on the ballot, we vote for the party, and the party chooses the candidate.

Any of these would be more in line with justice than what we have now, which is essentially that we have canddiate and party names on the balot, but are really voting for the candidate only, and he's free to walk across the floor, thus making the ballot dishonest at best.

If party names must be on the ballot, then I think I would support the list system over either FPTP or STV. I probably wouldn't be too interested in voting after that, either, but would at least agree that the ballot would be honest by including party name only, making us vote for the party, and giving power to the party, thus making the ballot honest in its impressions.

The worst of the 'honest' ballots that I could see would be to include both candidate and party names on the ballot, and make us vote for the canddiate, but require the candidate to remain a member of his party, reuiring a bi-election if he should vote againt his party. I do beleive in political freedom even for politicians, and freedom of association too. That's why I'd say that would be the worst of the 'honest' ballot systems. But the current ballot isn't even honest in the impression it gives, that we are somehow voting for a party when we're doing nothing of the sort.

[ReeferMadness]

Yes, I was referring to party list, which is probably the most exact proportional of all. But again, it makes the MP totally dependent on the party.

The proportionality of STV depends on the district magnitude (DM) which is the number of MLA's in a riding. With single member ridings, you get a system that isn't much different than FPTP. At the high end, you get quite proportional results. You still need significant support, however, to get elected.

In BC, the average DM is around 4.5, IIRC, which will give much better proportionality than FPTP.