Would you support a Plurality-at-Large Open Ballot?

[Machjo]

For those who aren't familiar, here is a brief intro to plurality-at-large voting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality-at-large_voting

By open ballot, I mean one in which no names appear.

So for example, if in a multi-member riding there are three seats to fill, then the ballot would simply have three lines on it, on which you'd write the names of three people with voting rights in your riding.

Some might criticize this saying that many would write in the names of family members, friends, and other insignificant people in the community. My guess is though that the vast majority would choose to vote for locals who are well known and well-respected in the community.

Another problem I could see with this would be that the winners do not want the position. Again, I think one solution would be to view it like jury duty, whereby it would be viewed as one's civic duty to lead if called upon to do so unless he has valid reason to turn down the position.

I think such a system would rid us of egomaniacs, seeing that by definition you pretty well have to be an egomaniac to actively seek out office.

And as for maintaining unity in Parliament in the absence of party control, bear in mind that plurality-at-large voting encourages landslides, so it increases the chances that the persons chosen will share similar views, and so this ought to help counter the lack of party discipline to some degree. On the one hand there would no longer be party discipline, but on the other it would be more likely that the MPs cold find points in common.

Any thoughts on this?

[M.Dancer]

I definately support the idea of other countries beta testing it...

[Machjo]

I definately support the idea of other countries beta testing it...

Could it not be tested at the local level initially?

[Shady]

I think such a system would rid us of egomaniacs, seeing that by definition you pretty well have to be an egomaniac to actively seek out office.

I disagree with your premise.

[M.Dancer]

Could it not be tested at the local level initially?

Yes...I volunteer Poland

[Machjo]

Yes...I volunteer Poland

Locally?

[Machjo]

You can't deny such a system would crush the parties.

[M.Dancer]

Locally?

Sure...let them beta test it locally in Poland..

[ToadBrother]

You can't deny such a system would crush the parties.

Yes, but at what expense? Solving a problem but creating a system that seems destined to be awkward and destabilizing hardly sounds like a solution to me.

[Machjo]

Yes, but at what expense? Solving a problem but creating a system that seems destined to be awkward and destabilizing hardly sounds like a solution to me.

How would it be awkward and destabilizing?

You could even have electronic voting booths whereby you just enter the three or however many names, ensure their spellings are correct, perhaps be required to enter some voting ID number of theirs or something of the wort, and the computer would do the rest.

Without a doubt the winners would be people who are well respected in the community, people the community trusts. We'd finally have some class in Parliament.

And again, people who can gain genuine respect are usually people who can work as a team too. With no parties anymore, there'd be no more partisan circus in Parlaiment.

[Michael Hardner]

More suggestions for addressing some problem that hasn't been identified...

It's funky and new, though, so why not ?

[Machjo]

More suggestions for addressing some problem that hasn't been identified...

It's funky and new, though, so why not ?

The problem I see is political parties hijacking the political process. The idea is to create a system that removes parties from the picture. Or are you a party hack yourself?

[ToadBrother]

How would it be awkward and destabilizing?

You could even have electronic voting booths whereby you just enter the three or however many names, ensure their spellings are correct, perhaps be required to enter some voting ID number of theirs or something of the wort, and the computer would do the rest.

Without a doubt the winners would be people who are well respected in the community, people the community trusts. We'd finally have some class in Parliament.

I love this. It's a great system, because, of course, only good people would get their names on the ballot.

What I can see is that you would increase the odds of single issue politicians. There would be no meaningful platforms, no sensible way to judge candidates other than "I like Bob, he's an honest pharmacist/doctor/lawyer/pizza deliver boy."

That's not even considering the possibility that Bob would say no.

And again, people who can gain genuine respect are usually people who can work as a team too. With no parties anymore, there'd be no more partisan circus in Parlaiment.

You do realize there was a time (prior to Canada of course) when Parliament didn't have political parties as we understand them, and it wasn't exactly a paradise. It was, in fact, very chaotic, and it often took an incredible amount of effort to pass key legislation. I'd argue major pieces of legislation from the Victorian period, like the various Reform Acts which steadily increased the franchise of voting, would probably have been impossible fifty or sixty years before when political parties as we know them did not exist.

[eyeball]

If Morris is against it, I'm for it. He fear's a good thing when he sees it.

[Michael Hardner]

The problem I see is political parties hijacking the political process. The idea is to create a system that removes parties from the picture. Or are you a party hack yourself?

And ... why ?

[Peter F]

The problem I see is political parties hijacking the political process. The idea is to create a system that removes parties from the picture. Or are you a party hack yourself?

So all these good folks would arrive in parliament and for the next four years not form voting blocks to pass what's good for the country or not form voting blocks to block other blocks from passing legislation detrimental to the country.

I suggest the voting blocks would form (because they would have to - assuming they would actually want to acomplish something) and such blocks would be given nicknames (whigs, tories, bolsheviks etc) and would form actual parties to achieve their goals.

It wasn't through some weird unnatural course of events that parties formed in a parliamentary system.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Peter F

[ToadBrother]

So all these good folks would arrive in parliament and for the next four years not form voting blocks to pass what's good for the country or not form voting blocks to block other blocks from passing legislation detrimental to the country.

I suggest the voting blocks would form (because they would have to - assuming they would actually want to acomplish something) and such blocks would be given nicknames (whigs, tories, bolsheviks etc) and would form actual parties to achieve their goals.

It wasn't through some weird unnatural course of events that parties formed in a parliamentary system.

Indeed. The chief innovation in our system since 1689 was the formalizing of the voting blocs in Parliament around a fixed leadership, allowing for greater focus in policy. While I think political parties have gone too far in the direction of one-man rule, it does appear that the rise of the political party in the UK correlates to the major decline in the monarch's direct executive power and the Cabinet being dominated by Parliamentarians.

George Washington thought political parties were inevitable (though he didn't like them).

[Remiel]

I have said before and I will say it again: There is consensus among political scientists, people whom, I believe, would be disinclined to like political parties, that they [the parties] are in fact necessary to modern democracies.

Even if you take a look at recent "democratic" systems, like the Russian parliament, and you will see that while for years they had a chaotic and unstable party system, it is finally settling down and blocs are staking out their territory. If not having solid parties worked so well, they would probably not be moving towards them now.

[Machjo]

I have said before and I will say it again: There is consensus among political scientists, people whom, I believe, would be disinclined to like political parties, that they [the parties] are in fact necessary to modern democracies.

Even if you take a look at recent "democratic" systems, like the Russian parliament, and you will see that while for years they had a chaotic and unstable party system, it is finally settling down and blocs are staking out their territory. If not having solid parties worked so well, they would probably not be moving towards them now.

There is a difference between a formalized party system and an informal one. An informal one is more flexible, and that's ideally what we ought to be aiming for. Even the US one is far superior to ours with its much weaker sense of party discipline. We have gone way too far in ours.

[Michael Hardner]

There is a difference between a formalized party system and an informal one. An informal one is more flexible, and that's ideally what we ought to be aiming for. Even the US one is far superior to ours with its much weaker sense of party discipline. We have gone way too far in ours.

What are the specific differences - those that you are looking to de-institutionalize (?) ?

Edited June 12, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[William Ashley]

Thoughts:

1. It is a better options than first past the post.

2. Why not just create an organized system for the public to vote. This is a good first start. I.E. people can support someone to vote for them, and each vote from a person counts - but can be added to a group vote with as many votes as members. These could be organized into "larger voting consortiums" eg. a large party like the liberal party and its members. These large voting blocks would have the most say, but still in some issues where the major parties were split the 30+% of the population who doesn't vote in elections could sway a vote, especially in votes where there is only a short margain of pass or fail, with the major parties. Also these votes could be done monthly or seasonally - except in case of emergency, with a list of bills to consider and the public passing or rejection of the bills.

And before you say it is unfeasible.

1. Ask do we have the means to get feedback from the public? Or have our representatives gauge public opinion - or conduct a vote in their riding?

2. Does the technology exist to make this more feasible.

Is more public input in the form of voting or gauging public lobbies really a bad thing.

I think no public representation is a good thing - we need to move away from the oligarcratic destructive cult mentality.

3. How much change do our laws do we really need? Its been going on for hundreds of years, why keep moving the line?

Is there no forumula such as the courts common law / case law to address social issues?

Two problems are 1.

1. Legislators erode the constitution with new laws.

2. Law becomes more complex and less in touch with the lay through complicating public order so much, making it non representative.

We have come a long way from the long parliament and months of travel to reach Ottawa - we have more a means to gauge voting today - the capacity exists for more representative democracy - so why not make it available - and involve the public in their government -rather than convince them to give away their rights.

Edited June 12, 2010 by William Ashley