Is including party names on a FPTP ballot misleading?

[Machjo]

In my opinion, under the current FPTP system, since my MP is free to cross the floor or change parties at any time, and since I'm technically voting for the candidate and not the party, do you think that including party names on a FPTP ballot is misleading, or perhaps even dishonest?

[Smallc]

It would be dishonest not to include the party name.

[Machjo]

It would be dishonest not to include the party name.

Well, to take an example:

I go to the ballot box intending to vote for party X. I see a candidate's name with party X under it, so I vote for him thinking I'm voting for the party.

A month later, this MP votes against his party, or starts to create a rift within the party, or resigns from the party altogether.

Now if I'd voted for that candidate because of the party name under his, then my party vote would be wasted. In fact, if he crosses the floor, I could very well find myself having voted for party Y!

Seeing that there is no guarantee that a candidate will stay with a particular party, and that our vote under the current system does in fact stay with the canddiate and not his party, is it not misleading to give the impression that voting for that candidate guarantees a vote for that party for the length of the following mandate?

[Smallc]

It's not misleading at all. At the time of the vote, he belongs to the party. Because parties play such a large roll in our democracy, it almost has to be included.

[Pliny]

This is an interesting premise.

Seeing as the conservatives and liberals are so similar I don't think it is that important. There is not much difference in governance although there may be a shift in importances.

Taxation and spending generally remains the same. I don't think there has been an instance of either a conservative or a liberal crossing the floor to join the NDP. Now that would be a reason to better know your candidate.

[eyeball]

Another way around this would be to simply allow people to vote directly on policies, but I guess that would give people who are fearful of democracy or change even more gas.

[M.Dancer]

Another way around this would be to simply allow people to vote directly on policies, but I guess that would give people who are fearful of democracy or change even more gas.

Don't get your ducks out of order.

First you elect the people who propose the policies....unless you somehow feel that voting 357 times a day on conflicting ideas and redundent proposals a good investment and a sound use of our time.

[segnosaur]

Well, to take an example:

I go to the ballot box intending to vote for party X. I see a candidate's name with party X under it, so I vote for him thinking I'm voting for the party.

A month later, this MP votes against his party, or starts to create a rift within the party, or resigns from the party altogether.

First of all, while it is possible for MPs to change party affiliations post-election, in reality it is not a very common event. For example, between the 2004 and 2006 elections, 5 MPs either crossed the floor, yet there were over 300 MPs in the house of commons. So roughly 98% of all MPs stuck with the party that elected them.

Secondly, your rule would be assuming that indivuduals making the selection would be educated enough to know what a particular candidate believed in, but not educated enough to know what party they belong to. (In other words, how many voters on election day would say "I don't know if Candidate X is a liberal or conservative, but I like what he said on issue Y".) Usually, the party is the FIRST thing that a voter learns about a candidate, not the last. (I doubt if anyone who voted for, for example, Belinda didn't know at the time she was running as a conservative candidate in 2004, so even though she eventually switched parties it probably wouldn't have effected the initial election results.

[Machjo]

First of all, while it is possible for MPs to change party affiliations post-election, in reality it is not a very common event. For example, between the 2004 and 2006 elections, 5 MPs either crossed the floor, yet there were over 300 MPs in the house of commons. So roughly 98% of all MPs stuck with the party that elected them.

Secondly, your rule would be assuming that indivuduals making the selection would be educated enough to know what a particular candidate believed in, but not educated enough to know what party they belong to. (In other words, how many voters on election day would say "I don't know if Candidate X is a liberal or conservative, but I like what he said on issue Y".) Usually, the party is the FIRST thing that a voter learns about a candidate, not the last. (I doubt if anyone who voted for, for example, Belinda didn't know at the time she was running as a conservative candidate in 2004, so even though she eventually switched parties it probably wouldn't have effected the initial election results.

But this leads to another question:

Do voters know more about a candidate's party-membership than his own ideas because they know his party name will be on the ballot; or did we add the party name to the ballot because voters know more about a candidate's party affiliation than they did about the candidate himself?

I suspect it's a little of both. However, adding the party name simply further encourages such ignorant voting habits. If we removed party names from ballots, then at the very least, voters would have to go out of their way to at least find out what parties their candidates belong to. The hope would be that they might learn somethig else about the candidate in the process, thur raising the knowledge level of the average voter at least a notch. With party names on the ballot, we're actively encouraging voters to vote without thought.

[August1991]

In my opinion, under the current FPTP system, since my MP is free to cross the floor or change parties at any time, and since I'm technically voting for the candidate and not the party, do you think that including party names on a FPTP ballot is misleading, or perhaps even dishonest?

I think that it is misleading to provide only the family name and the party affiliation.

In certain European countries, each voting station posts prominently a photograph, name, party affiliation and brief biography of each candidate. How can one disagree with having more information?

[M.Dancer]

I think that it is misleading to provide only the family name and the party affiliation.

In certain European countries, each voting station posts prominently a photograph, name, party affiliation and brief biography of each candidate. How can one disagree with having more information?

Having a photo would give Ruby Dhalla an unfair advantage.

[Machjo]

I think that it is misleading to provide only the family name and the party affiliation.

In certain European countries, each voting station posts prominently a photograph, name, party affiliation and brief biography of each candidate. How can one disagree with having more information?

There's a difference between a voting booth and a ballot. If at the voting booth a complete biography of the candidate appears, but on the ballot only his name, that makes it clear that whatever affiliations the candidate may currently have, be they party, religious, ethnic, linguistic, or otherwise are only current and the candidate has no obligation to maintain any of these ties once elected.

But if we include his entire biography on the ballot, then it would imply that we're voting for him as is, that that all the information about him on the ballot is fixed and goes as part of the package, in that he's not allowed to change anything about hmself once elected.

To put info about him at the booth could be useful. But to put all his info on the ballot could be misleading. One suggests current status only, the other suggests that he's promissing not to chane anything about himself.

[Machjo]

Just another point. If the voter simply has to raise his eyes to a board in front of him to see the party affiliation of each candidate, for one thing it forces him to look at eachbiography to find the party affiliation he's looking for, thus making him at least somewhat familiar with the other candidates. And secondly, once he finds the candidate with the desired party affiliation from the board, and then goes to put an x next to the name of that candidate, the fact that no party name appears on the ballot adds emphasis to the fact that he is voting for the candidate and not his party, and that that candidate does reserve the right to change party. This could also lead him to think more seriously about whom to vote for.

[Molly]

I'd prefer to see no information beyond the candidates name. If voters are so poorly informed that they don't know which one they want to vote for (whether their reason is party affiliation, or charming good looks) then better that their votes be completely random, leaving the real decision making to the folks who've informed themselves and devoted a moments thought to it.

Machio... while you are proposing scenarios... how about the circumstance where folks elect someone based on an assumed understanding of the principles of the party, AND their official platform, only to have the elected PARTY do the opposite. In such a circumstance, a representative who crosses the floor is 1) betraying that party but 2) keeping faith with the folks who voted for him.

I lived in a provincial constituency where exactly those events occurred. (Glen MacPherson, NDP/Lib, Sask.). For him to have faced the choice between continuing to support the NDP (completely unacceptable to his consitituents) or resigning (leaving his constituents with no voice at all, while they were being gutted by their provincial government) would have been unfair to them IN THE EXTREME.

[Molly]

Anyway, I call inclusion of party names 'misleading', because it suggests that folks are electing a party, or even a policy package, rather than a representative... but they are not.

[madmax]

Anyway, I call inclusion of party names 'misleading', because it suggests that folks are electing a party, or even a policy package, rather than a representative... but they are not.

More people tend to vote for the "party" then the Representative. And quite frankly, IIRC the Ontario Ballots don't list the party and the Federal ones do.

I prefer that they are listed. Particularly when you have two John Smiths.

[Machjo]

More people tend to vote for the "party" then the Representative. And quite frankly, IIRC the Ontario Ballots don't list the party and the Federal ones do.

I prefer that they are listed. Particularly when you have two John Smiths.

Well, if people vote party, shouldn't we go to the party list then, if we're truly honest? To stick to FPTP while misleading people to believe they're voting party, is the most dispicable form of political manipulation. If we insist that they vote Party, then let's at least be honest about it and take the candidates' names off the ballot. After all, some people just look at the party name and don't even look at the candidate's. So let's make a decision already. Are we voting candididate or party. If candidate, then let's have the moral decency to remove the party names form the list. If party, then let's remove the candidates' names. It's just a mtter of honesty either way.

[Machjo]

Or let's look at it another way. I put a check in a box on my ballot. Does this check go to a candidate or a party. if candidate, then be honest and remove the party name. If party, then be honest and remove the candidate's name. If the candidate crosses the floor, does he keep his seat or does he get booted out and the party can choose someone else? If he keeps his seat, then remove the party name form the ballot. If the seat must then go to another MP of the party's choosing, then remove the name. What's so difficult to understand about honety on a ballot?

[Machjo]

In fact, I'm shocked that people are defending such misleading practices.

[Machjo]

Now the other way I could see a FPTP ballot being more honest and less misleading would be that there be a separate box for candidates and parties. So for example:

If John (Party A), Mary Party B ), Marc (Party C) and Suzy (Party D) were on the ballot, you'd have the following options to vote for:

John

Mary

Marc

Suzy

Party A

Party B

Party C

Party D

All votes for John and Party A would be added together, and so on along the line. Let's say John gets the most votes for both himself and Party A, then he becomes the new MP. In the event that he should withdraw his memebrship from Party A at any point within his mandate, all votes cast for Party A would have to be subtracted from his total votes. Now let's say he chooses to become an independent MP. In that case, if Mary, though not an MP, is still a member of Party B, and she got more votes for herself and her party than John did for himself, John could be booted out of Parliament and Suzy takes his place, assuming she got more votes than all the others.

Now let's say John withdraws from Party A but decides to join Party B. Then though party A votes would be subtracted from his total votes, all party B votes would be added to his total votes. If with that he still has more votes than Mary, then he remains the MP for his riding. If Mary is still a member of Party B, then the Party B votes could legitimately be counted twice for both John and Suzy since clearly they dont' care what candidate they want anyway, as long as it's a member fo Party B. This would be a much more honest way to count the votes so as to not mislead anyone into thinking they're voting for a party when they clearly are not.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Machjo

[Machjo]

But I just think that having but one box to check candidate and party together is just plain dishonest. They're two separable entities, so how can you possibly be voting for both. You're clearly voting for one or the other.

[Nat]

If people had read there ballots in the Vancouver civic election several years ago Sam Sullivan would never have been mayor. The independant James Green was the spoiler for Jim Green the Vision candidate: http://thetyee.ca/News/2005/11/15/JimOrJamesGreen/

[kimmy]

People have the right to vote for someone based on their party affiliation, if they so choose. In fact, most Canadians (of all political stripes) do choose to do so.

I believe that the objections being offered here are disingenuous and that the real hope is that removing the party names from the ballot would reduce the dominance of the mainstream party candidates, and improve the chances of smaller-party candidates.

Most Canadians *choose* to vote for candidates based on party affiliation. Removing this information from the ballot would be a disservice to the voter and to the intent of the system.

-k

[Machjo]

People have the right to vote for someone based on their party affiliation, if they so choose. In fact, most Canadians (of all political stripes) do choose to do so.

I believe that the objections being offered here are disingenuous and that the real hope is that removing the party names from the ballot would reduce the dominance of the mainstream party candidates, and improve the chances of smaller-party candidates.

Most Canadians *choose* to vote for candidates based on party affiliation. Removing this information from the ballot would be a disservice to the voter and to the intent of the system.

-k

Like I said a few posts above, if a person wants to vote for the party instead of the candidate, then to be honest, split the boxes on the ballot between candidate and party. If you want to vote for Suzy Smith, then put a check next to her name. And if you want to vote for Party A, then put a check next to its name. But they should be separate boxes, and if Suzy Smith withdraws from Party A after becoming the local MP, then the ballots must be recounted removing Party A votes from her total.

After all, if people want to vote for the party instead of the candidate, then their vote should always remain with the party. If the candidate resigns at any time during the mandate, the votes should be recounted, with party votes being counted separately from personal votes, and then distributed according to candidates' party affiliations. Anything else is dishonest, unless of course we're just out to give mainsteam parties an unfair advantage? Besides, if one really wants to know a candidate's party membership, can't he read it from another course besides his ballot? But if we insist on including party name, then at least separat it from teh candidate on the ballot if we're honest.

[Molly]

I believe that the objections being offered here are disingenuous and that the real hope is that removing the party names from the ballot would reduce the dominance of the mainstream party candidates, and improve the chances of smaller-party candidates.

-k

That's a completely incorrect guess where I'm concerned, Kimmy. Utterly, and entirely wrong.

Giving votes to parties, not individuals, defeats the purpose of representation, and defeats accountability.

Voting on a purely party basis is a luxury that can only be afforded by those living in constituencies whose basic interests are top-of-mind to the majority... because any harm to them is unlikely, regardless of what party wins or how incompetent or dishonest they might be, and the benefits to those constituencies will be well-looked after. Dare be in a less than universal position... (rural or northern, for instance), or be dependent on a non-standard income source (seal hunting, or grain production, for instance, instead of manufacturing or oil production) then you can't afford to be represented by some random party hack , regardless of the party, or that party's policy package. You MUST have a competent representative, with a bone-deep loyalty to constituency over party, or you may as well not bother to vote, or elect any representative at all.