Is including party names on a FPTP ballot misleading?

[kimmy]

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.

You can't possibly believe that the situation you've described would be *improved* by removing party names from ballots.

The major parties *do* have comprehensive positions about most major topics. Electing a candidate who promises bone-deep loyalty to his constituency matters little if his own position is out of step with his party's position on that platform.

Rural Liberal candidates in the past federal election, for example, probably deeply appreciate the importance of gasoline in their daily lives; that would have mattered little in the overall context of Stephane Dion's "Green Shit" platform.

People are best served by choosing the party whose positions most match their own views on issues they feel are important. There might be exceptions, where a high profile MP or MLA can bring particular attention to a cause, for example, but generally in our system of government things get done by parties, not by individuals.

While that might not be an optimum answer for people whose needs fall outside the mainstream, that's not a situation that can be remedied by removing party names from ballots.

-k

[Wild Bill]

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.

I haven't heard such arrogance in a long time. When I do, somehow it always seems to come from those who support the smaller parties.

Canadians have a right to vote for the person or the party, or both. Who are you or anyone else to TELL them how they should make their choice? Much less support changing the system to FORCE them to abide by YOUR concept of what's proper!

It's elitist and it's arrogant, pure and simple. One of the main planks of our system is that EVERYONE gets to vote, no matter whether they're smart or stupid, old or just turned age of majority, a businessman or an employee, a simple labourer or a poli-sci grad fresh out of university!

I think the smaller parties can't resist making changes in the system because they know that it's they're only route to power. They just can never get enough people to agree with them to compete with the larger parties! If they can change the system they can garner more seats. Maybe not enough to form the government but certainly enough to hold a balance of power to force sitting governments to dance to their tune if they want to STAY in power!

When someone starts to talk about how people SHOULD be allowed to vote and HOW they SHOULD base their decisions I start to feel a little afraid.

Then I start to get a little angry!

I have no desire to see my children grow up in such a county, no matter what voting system we have in place. Once you set a precedent of having small lobby groups becoming successful in changing the system to suit their own ends it just gets easier and easier every time, until the majority opinion is so diluted as to be ineffective.

At least in BC the option is on the ballot. Not the choice to investigate making changes, unfortunately. That also is what happened here in Ontario. People were not asked "Would you like a new system that would be more representative" and if passed we could start a debate as to what new system the people wanted. No, we were offered one new system, take it or leave it! When people looked at it they saw many things they did not like, such as party lists of "standby" candidates with little or no connection to any particular riding. If they didn't like that then they had no choice but to vote no against the entire idea, even if they weren't 100% happy with FPTP.

When the average person sees how he's been given only limited choices, he's usually smart enough to see that it's a rigged game.

I suspect that most of the people supporting changing our electoral process would really like to have a way to avoid having a popular vote on the matter at all!

After all, if people SHOULD think a certain way then why not just make the choice for them?

[Molly]

You can't possibly believe that the situation you've described would be *improved* by removing party names from ballots.

-k

I can and I do. Anything that takes even such a miniscule amount of power away from parties, and puts it back in the hands of representatives (and thus their constituencies) is worth consideration.

Parties are an artificial construct, and have no bottom-line committment to anything except self perpetuation. They are not a worthy body to control so much, without having an effective counterbalance.

[Machjo]

I haven't heard such arrogance in a long time. When I do, somehow it always seems to come from those who support the smaller parties.

Canadians have a right to vote for the person or the party, or both. Who are you or anyone else to TELL them how they should make their choice? Much less support changing the system to FORCE them to abide by YOUR concept of what's proper!

It's elitist and it's arrogant, pure and simple. One of the main planks of our system is that EVERYONE gets to vote, no matter whether they're smart or stupid, old or just turned age of majority, a businessman or an employee, a simple labourer or a poli-sci grad fresh out of university!

I think the smaller parties can't resist making changes in the system because they know that it's they're only route to power. They just can never get enough people to agree with them to compete with the larger parties! If they can change the system they can garner more seats. Maybe not enough to form the government but certainly enough to hold a balance of power to force sitting governments to dance to their tune if they want to STAY in power!

When someone starts to talk about how people SHOULD be allowed to vote and HOW they SHOULD base their decisions I start to feel a little afraid.

Then I start to get a little angry!

I have no desire to see my children grow up in such a county, no matter what voting system we have in place. Once you set a precedent of having small lobby groups becoming successful in changing the system to suit their own ends it just gets easier and easier every time, until the majority opinion is so diluted as to be ineffective.

At least in BC the option is on the ballot. Not the choice to investigate making changes, unfortunately. That also is what happened here in Ontario. People were not asked "Would you like a new system that would be more representative" and if passed we could start a debate as to what new system the people wanted. No, we were offered one new system, take it or leave it! When people looked at it they saw many things they did not like, such as party lists of "standby" candidates with little or no connection to any particular riding. If they didn't like that then they had no choice but to vote no against the entire idea, even if they weren't 100% happy with FPTP.

When the average person sees how he's been given only limited choices, he's usually smart enough to see that it's a rigged game.

I suspect that most of the people supporting changing our electoral process would really like to have a way to avoid having a popular vote on the matter at all!

After all, if people SHOULD think a certain way then why not just make the choice for them?

You make a few false assumptions. I don't necessarily support any individual party, either big or small, and I'm all for people casting an informed vote. But when you put the candidate's party affiliation under his name when in fact we're voting for the candidate no matter of his party affiliation, that's just plain dishonest and misleading. I have a right to votel without being misled. I have a right to know how my vote goes. If I put an X next to a candidate with a party neme under his name, what does that mean exactly? Does it mean that if he withdraws from the party, that he'll step down as MP and the party will fill the seat with another party member? If not, then if I'm not so highly educated, I could come to believe that that's how it is when it isn't. Ina democracy, the ballot shold be easy for all to understand, regardless of educational attainment. If we put a party name under the candidate's name, the voter's choice is not a real free choice sinse it's a choice based on false pretense.

If he wants to vote party, then he has a right to make sure that that vote sticks with the party even if his candidate crosses the floor. If he wants to vote candidate, then he should have a right to make his vote stick to the candidate even if that candidate crosses the floor. Under the current system, it's confusing. If the candidate crosses the floor, does the vote go to the candidate or the party? If both names are there, then all legitimacy is lost because no one knows who really voted for what.

[Machjo]

I can and I do. Anything that takes even such a miniscule amount of power away from parties, and puts it back in the hands of representatives (and thus their constituencies) is worth consideration.

Parties are an artificial construct, and have no bottom-line committment to anything except self perpetuation. They are not a worthy body to control so much, without having an effective counterbalance.

Well put. I'd add to that that a choice made in ignorance is no choice at all. A person who votes party X because his parents voted party X could just as easily vote for the party that least represents his beliefs. We owe it to such voters to break that cycle and give them the true freedom to vote for a candidate who truly represents his beliefs, and making it more difficult to blindly follow family tradition can liberate him from such slavery of the mind to traditionalism.

It may sound arrogant, but the political system is too serious an institution to let it fall to such blind traditionalism. If you want to wear your granddad's cowboy hat as a matter of tradition, fine. But if you're going to vote for a party you know nothing about just because your granddad did, then you're putitng the rest of the country, including your own best interests, in peril. Anyone who takes democracy and government and voting seriously can see that voting for party X for the sole reason that grandpapa did is not a worthy reason to vote. Any half intelligent fool can see that.

[Machjo]

And just another point about my 'arrogance'. Voting and a FAIR election is the cornerstone of democracy, not something to take lightly. Misleading ballots are therefore a travesty of democracy. I can be open to FPTP or proportional representation, voting for candidate or party, party list, STV, etc. Of course I have my preferences which I'd mentioned before (non-party system), but more important that my personal preferences is ensuring that the ballot presents an honest portrayal of how the vote will really count. Some may see that as arrogant. I see it as defending an honest ballot. We have honesty in adertising, with laws to back it up. How can a ballot afford to be any less stringent in its 'advertising'?

[Wild Bill]

You make a few false assumptions. I don't necessarily support any individual party, either big or small, and I'm all for people casting an informed vote. But when you put the candidate's party affiliation under his name when in fact we're voting for the candidate no matter of his party affiliation, that's just plain dishonest and misleading. I have a right to votel without being misled. I have a right to know how my vote goes. If I put an X next to a candidate with a party neme under his name, what does that mean exactly? Does it mean that if he withdraws from the party, that he'll step down as MP and the party will fill the seat with another party member? If not, then if I'm not so highly educated, I could come to believe that that's how it is when it isn't. Ina democracy, the ballot shold be easy for all to understand, regardless of educational attainment. If we put a party name under the candidate's name, the voter's choice is not a real free choice sinse it's a choice based on false pretense.

If he wants to vote party, then he has a right to make sure that that vote sticks with the party even if his candidate crosses the floor. If he wants to vote candidate, then he should have a right to make his vote stick to the candidate even if that candidate crosses the floor. Under the current system, it's confusing. If the candidate crosses the floor, does the vote go to the candidate or the party? If both names are there, then all legitimacy is lost because no one knows who really voted for what.

You've mixed up a couple of points. First off, some people don't care about the individual candidate. There's a good argument to be made for that, considering how Canada has always practiced rigid party solidarity, making an MP essentially just a trained seal. Nonetheless, there are citizens who feel having a particular party in power is most important. Letting them know which candidate runs for which party is simply more information. It would be the WITHHOLDING of information that would be a false pretense! I fail to see how making it a bit harder for a citizen to know which candidate is with which party is the same as making it EASIER for all to understand!

Seems to me you've got it backwards!

Meanwhile, floor crossing is not a common thing. You would throw the baby out with the bath water. Virtually 99.99% of successful MP's stick with "the party that brung you!", to paraphrase Mr. Mulroney. It is never a popular thing. I agree with you that it is a betrayal of those who voted for a particular party. At least, I think that is what you meant. If you want to make people fend for themselves to find out which party the candidate is with then I'm not so sure. Or jump through some hoops to prove they are a competent enough voter, according to some definition YOU dreamed up!

Anyhow, it may not be popular but it IS legal! We had many voices telling us that a coalition ousting a minority government with no election is perfectly legal and therefore should be casually accepted. I guess by that logic they would also be quite comfortable with MP's crossing the floor.

So that is a separate issue. The Elections Act could be amended to disallow floor crossing unless there was an immediate byelection to allow the constituents of the riding a new vote.

Edited May 10, 2009 by Wild Bill

[Machjo]

So that is a separate issue. The Elections Act could be amended to disallow floor crossing unless there was an immediate byelection to allow the constituents of the riding a new vote.

If a party name appears under a candidate's name, thus giving the impression to the voter that he is in fact voting for the party, then prohibiting candidates from withdrawing party membership or, in the case of independent candidates, from joining any party, would certainly be more fair than what we have now. It's not the direction I'd like to move in, but as I've mentioned before, if party names must be on the ballot, then let's make it true in reality too, either by removing candidates' names altogether from the ballot and going to the list system, separating candidate names from party names on the ballot, thus making it absolutely clear whether a voter is voting for the party or the candidate (which is as clear as mud when both names are to be checked in the same box), or, as you recommend, take away the candidate's freedom of association and force him to call a bi-election whenever he should change his party membership status.

As for floor-crossing being uncommon, that's irrelevent, It's the principle that matters here. Again, though I'd prefer going in the opposite direction by diluting party power, I could still agree with the recommendation you've made above as a means of ensuring consistency between the impression given on the ballot, and the reality in the legislature. If both party and candidate name appear on the ballot to be checked in the same box, thus making it impossible to be sure what exactly the voters are voting for, then to be sure that the vote remains faithful to the ballot, certainly the candidate must accept suspending some of his freedom of association for the duration of his mandate. And yes, that wold still be fairer than what we have now.

[Machjo]

some people don't care about the individual candidate.

I fuly agree with that. And if that's the case, then he should be free to vote for the party and not the candidate. Why could we not include parties on the ballot separately from candidates? This way, a voter who wants to vote for the party can do so, and in the event that his MP withdraws his party membership before the end of his mandate, the ballots could be recounted while clearly distinguishing between votes cast for candidates and votes cast for parties. That's not possible in a clear-as-mud system as we have now.

[Smallc]

I really don't understand this. At the time of voting, the name of the party that the candidate belongs to appears with their name. There is nothing misleading about it. If they choose to cross the floor, which happens rarely, they will have to face an electorate that knows they did so in the next election. There is nothing wrong with the party name being under the ballot and there is nothing wrong with floor crossing in our system. Banning floor crossing would simply negatively affect the few people who feel that there are compelling enough reasons for them to cross the floor.

[Machjo]

I really don't understand this. At the time of voting, the name of the party that the candidate belongs to appears with their name. There is nothing misleading about it. If they choose to cross the floor, which happens rarely, they will have to face an electorate that knows they did so in the next election. There is nothing wrong with the party name being under the ballot and there is nothing wrong with floor crossing in our system. Banning floor crossing would simply negatively affect the few people who feel that there are compelling enough reasons for them to cross the floor.

That's the whole point; can't you see the contradiction in what you're saying? If he's allowed to cross the floor, then his party affiliation is irrelevent on a ballot. And if his party affiliation is relevent on the ballot, then the candidate is expected to honour that. How can we say that party affiliation is relevent on the ballot and that he is free to cross the floor at the same time? Clearly it's got to be one or the other. His party affiliation is either guaranteed on the ballot, or it isn't. Which is it?

[Smallc]

The party affiliation is relevant because it reflects things as they currently are. Whether or not someone chooses to cross the floor later is irrelevant. There's no contradiction, and there's no reason to change the way that things are done. It makes perfect sense to have a candidates name along with their current party affiliation.

[Molly]

As much as I'd like to see the affiliations removed, Machjo, your argument is based in 'ad absurdum'. Party affiliation is far from irrelevant, even if it can change.... just as party policy is far from irrelevant, even if it may be ignored.

Consistency is not a virtue, to be sought at any cost, for its own intrinsic value. (ie... consistently WRONG.) It is very nearly the opposite of pragmatism, compromise....

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Edited May 10, 2009 by Molly

[Wilber]

I think they should just put the name of the party leader and his affiliation on the ballot. The name of the candidate is largely irrelevant after the election.

[Smallc]

The name of the candidate is largely irrelevant after the election.

There are people that vote for the candidate simply for the constituency work they've done in the past. Putting the party leaders name would imply somehow that they are more important than any other member of parliament, which isn't the case.

[Wilber]

There are people that vote for the candidate simply for the constituency work they've done in the past. Putting the party leaders name would imply somehow that they are more important than any other member of parliament, which isn't the case.

You must be kidding, an MP crosses the leader and they are booted from caucus. "MP's are nobodies 50 yards off the hill" Pierre Trudeau. Nothing has changed.

[Machjo]

I think they should just put the name of the party leader and his affiliation on the ballot. The name of the candidate is largely irrelevant after the election.

This could be fair if the party leader then gets to choose the members of his caucus as a percentage of the popular vote, and it would be more consistent than what we have now. However, it would give that party leader a tremendous amount of power. And he coudn't be removed nor could he change his party affiliation to stay in tune with the ballot.

[Machjo]

There are people that vote for the candidate simply for the constituency work they've done in the past. Putting the party leaders name would imply somehow that they are more important than any other member of parliament, which isn't the case.

This is true. I tend to vote candidate myself too. But he does have an argument as far as consistency is concerned. If a person is voting for the party leader in his mind, then ot be fair to that voter, the ballot should reflect that. Not the direction I'd want to go in, but his argument is indeed valid.

[Machjo]

You must be kidding, an MP crosses the leader and they are booted from caucus. "MP's are nobodies 50 yards off the hill" Pierre Trudeau. Nothing has changed.

Again, there are many ways of changing the ballot to reflect the reality of how voters really vote, and tere have been many valid arguments for different systems presented in the thread. The main thing is, whatever system is adopted, we must ensure that it reflects the reality of how voters vote, and I think anyone can agree that the current ballot doesn't reflect that.

[Wilber]

Again, there are many ways of changing the ballot to reflect the reality of how voters really vote, and tere have been many valid arguments for different systems presented in the thread. The main thing is, whatever system is adopted, we must ensure that it reflects the reality of how voters vote, and I think anyone can agree that the current ballot doesn't reflect that.

There are ways to move in that direction, STV is one of them but there is not going to be a perfect system. I'm not a lover of a purely proportional system but I think STV is a reasonable compromise between that and the FPTP system we have now.

[Machjo]

There are ways to move in that direction, STV is one of them but there is not going to be a perfect system. I'm not a lover of a purely proportional system but I think STV is a reasonable compromise between that and the FPTP system we have now.

Either way, as long as the ballot makes it crystal clear to the voter what he's really voting for.