Ranked Ballot Voting In Ontario?

[Mighty AC]

Ontario is considering a proposal that would allow municipalities to adopt ranked ballot voting systems. Toronto city council had asked for the option, but the province may extend the choice to all municipalities. Premiere Wynne, is apparently in favour of the idea and the legislation could appear before Queen's Park as a private members bill.

Under a ranked-ballot system, voters number their choice of candidate. If no candidate wins a majority of number-one picks, then voters’ second and third choices are tabulated until a candidate achieves more than 50 per cent of the vote.

I certainly hope this happens and is actually adopted by many municipalities. This could be the first step towards eventual electoral reform at the provincial and federal levels as well.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ontario-proposal-would-let-municipalities-adopt-ranked-ballot-voting/article17061473/

[Peter F]

would a ballot without 2nd 3rd 4th ranked choices be accepted as valid?

[Michael Hardner]

What if there isn't a candidate with 50% in the end ?

[Boges]

would a ballot without 2nd 3rd 4th ranked choices be accepted as valid?

Which is why it would benefit parties from the crowded left.

I only want the CPC to win. I don't want the Liberals to potentially win because I'd rank them second. I'd put the most fringe party I could think of there if I had to.

This system allows the Liberals and NDP to gang up without having to merge.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Boges

[Michael Hardner]

1. I only want the CPC to win.

2. This system allows the Liberals and NDP to gang up without having to merge.

There's only one place for right-of-centres to vote so rather than having a conservative government 25% of the time, we'll end up with a Liberal/NDP government 100% of the time.

This is why such system redesigns are a bad idea.

[Boges]

It also works in very left ridings like in Downtown Toronto where the CPC aren't a factor. If I'm an NDP voter, am I going to put the Liberals second? No I'll put the CPC even though I really don't want them to win.

Or, say in Alberta, where the PCs and the Wildrose are the top two parties. Why would a Wildrose voter put the PCs second?

Edited February 24, 2014 by Boges

[Topaz]

Since we are going to online/computer voting by 2018 elections, why not bring it in early and see which party is the better hacker and steal the election.

[Shady]

Another dumb wasteful idea from our utter diaster of a premier. Doesn't she have taxes to raise, energy costs to increase, and businesses to drive out of the province to be worried about such voting proposals?

[August1991]

I generally favour such voting systems but let's be honest, no one really knows who they're voting for and putting such choices in order is more problematic.

If you lease a car for 4 years, you are paying about $300/month (including insurance fees etc). Most Canadians pay about $300/month in property/school tax.

Wisely (and rationally), most Canadians spend far more time checking out the car that they will lease than they do checking out municipal candidates. Yet, they will write the same cheque for both every month. We consider this as "normal".

Putting candidates (or cars) in order seems to miss the point.

Edited February 25, 2014 by August1991

[Boges]

I generally favour such voting systems but let's be honest, no one really knows who they're voting for and putting such choices in order is more problematic.

If you lease a car for 4 years, you are paying about $300/month (including insurance fees etc). Most Canadians pay about $300/month in property/school tax.

Wisely (and rationally), most Canadians spend far more time checking out the car that they will lease than they do checking out municipal candidates. Yet, they will write the same cheque for both every month. We consider this as "normal".

Putting candidates (or cars) in order seems to miss the point.

I think taking party politics out of municipal politics is a bad thing. You have to do some real research to figure out what a certain candidate believe. Of course not in Toronto, where for 8 months all we're going to hear about is the platforms of these people. But if you live in a town or a burb it's tough to know without a party label attached to the candidate.

[Mighty AC]

There's only one place for right-of-centres to vote so rather than having a conservative government 25% of the time, we'll end up with a Liberal/NDP government 100% of the time.

This is why such system redesigns are a bad idea.

Yeah, the will of the people is a horrible thing. Good thing we have a system that rewards a minority of the population a temporary dictatorship. I'd be shame to have our representative democracy actually represent the wishes of the majority.

Sarcasm aside that is short term thinking. The CPC is an unnatural alliance of varying right wing positions created by our flawed electoral system. Under a more democratic voting system the PCs and former reformers would be free to be themselves. Many Libs would support a PC policy long before a Dip or Green one. Similarly, PC types often have more in common with Libs than Reformers.

I can't wait for the awareness of electoral systems this will bring over time. Eventually, people will be asking for it at higher levels.

[Boges]

Many Libs would support a PC policy long before a Dip or Green one. Similarly, PC types often have more in common with Libs than Reformers.

You'd think that's how it would work, but it won't.

For example I consider myself a very centre-right person. I would be closer to the Liberals than say a far-right party like the CHP or Wildrose. But I'd never put the Liberals as second on my list because they're the biggest competition.

This system allows people to strategically de-rail other politicians.

I can see it working in municipal elections where party politics aren't involved so you can rank candidates but when the winning party decides the leader in provincial and federal elections the stakes are bit more important.

[Michael Hardner]

Yeah, the will of the people is a horrible thing. Good thing we have a system that rewards a minority of the population a temporary dictatorship. I'd be shame to have our representative democracy actually represent the wishes of the majority.

It was exactly this type of framing language that turned me against PR.

The idea that conservative voters never getting a government they want is somehow viewed as more democratic than what we have today. In truth, it's a problem of making numbers into something fair - there are a lot of ways to do that. The way we have today works well enough, and rolling the dice with a system that works perfectly well isn't acceptable.

I can't wait for the awareness of electoral systems this will bring over time. Eventually, people will be asking for it at higher levels.

This strikes me as one of those things that will end up forcing us down to two parties, which will mean a hard-right conservative option 50% of the time or so. It could happen.

[Mighty AC]

The success of the right wing merger designed to take advantage of a flawed voting system will eventually lead to two parties, not proportional rep.

Giving a minority of the people a turn to be dictator isn't democracy. According to your logic, the Bloc should get a turn 12% of the time, the Greens 5 years out of every 100. I get why Conservatives like First Past The Post, but don't pretend that it is somehow fair and democratic.

[Boges]

The success of the right wing merger designed to take advantage of a flawed voting system will eventually lead to two parties, not proportional rep.

Giving a minority of the people a turn to be dictator isn't democracy. According to your logic, the Bloc should get a turn 12% of the time, the Greens 5 years out of every 100. I get why Conservatives like First Past The Post, but don't pretend that it is somehow fair and democratic.

Not like the Liberals did anything to change the system when they benefitted from it.

The NDP seemed to like it as they achieved Official Opposition status by dominating one province.

[Mighty AC]

You treat politics like a team sport, I don't. I'm not a Liberal or a Dipper, just a voter. Chretien, Harper and Layton all vowed to push PR. They all lied. What was that saying about power corrupting?

[Moonlight Graham]

This system allows people to strategically de-rail other politicians.

Ya I think it would. I would do it. If anything, this system seems like it would really benefit fringe parties.

However, we should all look at how this system has worked in other countries in practice instead of us all talking about how it will work in theory.

[Mighty AC]

The ranked ballot system still only elects 1 person, so it won't help fringe candidates. It simply produces a victor that more people can live with by allowing voters to rank the candidates from 1 to n. If no candidate receives a majority of first place votes, second place votes are added to the tally, then third, etc. until one person achieves at least 50% + 1.

For a fringe candidate to win a large portion of the electorate would have to rank that person in the top 3 spots on their ballot, which means that they really weren't on the fringe.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Mighty AC

[Michael Hardner]

If no candidate receives a majority of first place votes, second place votes are added to the tally, then third, etc. until one person achieves at least 50% + 1.

Still wondering whether 50% is a requirement for this system...

[Mighty AC]

If I'm an NDP voter, am I going to put the Liberals second? No I'll put the CPC even though I really don't want them to win.

That is the exact point of a ranked ballot! If there is a candidate that you really don't want to win you should rank them last. That's your choice. Others may decide that if their preferred Dipper candidate doesn't win, a Green or Lib option has the most in common with their views and would be the next best choice. It's really up to the individual voter how they rank the candidates.

Also, strategic voting occurs now. Under FPTP many people are forced to strategically vote for a second or third favourite choice because they despise the front runner.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Mighty AC

[Mighty AC]

Still wondering whether 50% is a requirement for this system...

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you wondering if 50% + 1 should be a requirement? If not what other threshold would you propose for the ranked ballot? Simply add up all the votes with a weighting?

For example, in a 5 candidate mayoral race, first place votes are worth 5 points, second place worth 4, third place worth 3, etc. I suppose we could simply add up the total score and crown the winner.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Mighty AC

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you wondering if 50% + 1 should be a requirement? If not what other threshold would you propose for the ranked ballot? Simply add up all the votes with a weighting?

For example, in a 5 candidate mayoral race, first place votes are worth 5 points, second place worth 4, third place worth 3, etc. I suppose we could simply add up the total score and crown the winner.

Well, I bring it up because there's nothing in the system that guarantees any candidate will have 50% plus one.

The points system would be so open to gerrymandering that it's not worth considering IMO.

[Mighty AC]

Where did you see that a majority would not be required? The article linked in the OP mentions that choices will be considered until at least one candidate achieves 50%.

[Michael Hardner]

Where did you see that a majority would not be required? The article linked in the OP mentions that choices will be considered until at least one candidate achieves 50%.

No - a majority IS required, and that's the problem. There's a chance that you won't have a majority - so then what ?

If this still isn't clear let me know and I'll try to come up with an example.

[Mighty AC]

I think every vote ends in an eventual majority. From what I understand every round the lowest place candidate is dropped, hence they don't factor into subsequent rounds. I'm not positive on this, but I will look into later.