NB Election Results and Why FPTP is Outdated

[Michael Hardner]

We have that system federally already. It's called bicameralism. You have regional representation in the upper chamber and proportional representation in the House. That's why I think the Lieutenant Governors should appoint Senators for their regions and not the Governor General, but that's a whole other issue (one which I strongly disagree with the NDP on).

Good point, but the Senate is pretty powerless overall. I don't think making a regional senate with power to counteract a PR house of commons is a reasonable approach either - it's a huge change. Nobody knows what would come out of such a power shift.

[cybercoma]

I don't think the provinces need to return to bicameralism, but I do think something needs to be done about the disparity between people's voting intentions and the makeup of the governing bodies in this country. I don't know if that means proportional representation or single-transfer or run-off voting or what. I just don't think it's good that the legislative bodies can be so unrepresentative of the people's wishes.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think the provinces need to return to bicameralism, but I do think something needs to be done about the disparity between people's voting intentions and the makeup of the governing bodies in this country. I don't know if that means proportional representation or single-transfer or run-off voting or what. I just don't think it's good that the legislative bodies can be so unrepresentative of the people's wishes.

I have compromised my position in the past few years to say that minority parties that surpass some threshold should be given representation in parliament. That would ensure that, say, Greens that receive 12% (for example) across Canada be given seats in parliament.

That, to me, would address one of the points in favour of PR without remaking the entire system.

[cybercoma]

I mean, 12%. Think about that. That means more than 1 in every 10 voters you walk past in a day are voting for them. They now have 2 MPs, but they went with nothing for so long. Every 10th Canadian without representation in the House. It's a serious issue, I think.

Edited September 24, 2014 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

Sure. So if we added some number of MPs to the total that allowed for, say, 2 MPs minimum for PR. To pick a number, let's say 20 PR MPs, so that a minimum of 10% would guarantee 2 MPs.

10% is a minimum threshold, I would think. 5% would be too low - you would get joke parties, and the like.

[cybercoma]

Sure. So if we added some number of MPs to the total that allowed for, say, 2 MPs minimum for PR. To pick a number, let's say 20 PR MPs, so that a minimum of 10% would guarantee 2 MPs.

10% is a minimum threshold, I would think. 5% would be too low - you would get joke parties, and the like.

Even then I think 5% is a significant number of voters. In 2011, there was about 24 million eligible voters with 60% turnout. That's 14.4 million voters. Five percent of this turnout is 720000 votes cast for that particular "fringe" party. That's roughly the entire population of New Brunswick.

Edited September 25, 2014 by cybercoma

[jbg]

The Conservatives lost by a total of 450 votes across 6 ridings. The makeup of the legislature does not at all represent the wishes of the electorate.

Let's say I formed the "JBG Party" whose motto and platform is "everybody must get stoned." (apologies to Bob Dylan) If I can get 3$ of the vote of people out on a lark or looking for fun on Election Day should I perhaps get the role of a kingmaker?

[Bryan]

I mean, 12%. Think about that. That means more than 1 in every 10 voters you walk past in a day are voting for them. They now have 2 MPs, but they went with nothing for so long. Every 10th Canadian without representation in the House. It's a serious issue, I think.

It's not 12% nationally. Last election they got 3.91% of the total votes. Most of that is regional. They won the seat where they had enough support to represent those people. In other regions they simply didn't have the support. A few scattered protest votes is not sufficient support to even consider changing an electoral system in the way you're suggesting.

A serious issue, would be if we had everyone who wants to talk be allowed at the table. Things are chaotic enough as it is, the last thing we need is that kind of cluster-f***.

[Mighty AC]

So, the local candidate that wins is elected, however regions still do not get power if they aren't well populated. For example, cities would have more power than they do today. Agricultural issues, and such would receive much less attention.

Under MMP why would rural regions have less power?

Other potential problems: the creation of a new class of representative that is not tied to a local region, the complexity of the system, endless coalition governments built on compromise, gridlock.

Currently, 50% of votes cast do not create any local representation. Additionally, 'List MPs', who are those without a home riding, are assigned to ridings not won by their party.

Gridlock is a concern right now because of our experience with minority governments. Currently they are seen as a temporary situation needing to be resolved and thus become political battles. Under MMP majorities are rare hence parties must work together on an issue by issue basis. When parliament is proportional every bill is passed by politicians representing an actual majority of Canadians. The way representative democracy is supposed to work.

And the main problem: this solution has no problem. The real problem is that the NDP needs more seats.

What? No. The main problem is FPTP produces parliaments that do not represent the way the population votes. Under FPTP a group of voters living in the same neighbourhood have power and achieve representation. The exact same group has no power if they are spread across town. Hence, the power of a single ballot changes based on the location of voters. Under proportional systems the power of a vote is equal regardless of your neighbour's political views.

MY main problem is when people call this "the fairness system" or somesuch tripe. It's a thoughtless piece of propaganda that indicates if you're not willing to engage in a risky re-do of our entire electoral system, then you support unfair practices.

The term fair voting practices, with respect to PR, generally relates to the fact that the power of each vote is equal regardless of locale. When our current system distorts the will of the people and leaves half the country without local representation, I don't see changing the system as a risk.

[cybercoma]

Let's say I formed the "JBG Party" whose motto and platform is "everybody must get stoned." (apologies to Bob Dylan) If I can get 3$ of the vote of people out on a lark or looking for fun on Election Day should I perhaps get the role of a kingmaker?

3%, probably not. However, I would say 5% is a good benchmark. If you can get the equivalent to an entire province voting for you, then I would say your concerns are valid enough to have a seat at the table.

[cybercoma]

It's not 12% nationally. Last election they got 3.91% of the total votes. Most of that is regional. They won the seat where they had enough support to represent those people. In other regions they simply didn't have the support. A few scattered protest votes is not sufficient support to even consider changing an electoral system in the way you're suggesting.

A serious issue, would be if we had everyone who wants to talk be allowed at the table. Things are chaotic enough as it is, the last thing we need is that kind of cluster-f***.

More than half a million Canadians voted for the Green Party in the last federal election at 3.91% of the popular vote. That's significantly more than a few scattered protest votes. That's roughly the population of London, ON and Windsor, ON combined. Every single person too, not just the voting population. That's a substantial number of people that agree enough with the policies to vote for that party, "protest" or not.

No one is calling for "everyone who wants to talk [to] be allowed at the table." However, alienating over half a million voters from the conversation is absurd.

Edited September 25, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Currently, 50% of votes cast do not create any local representation.

Technically, an MP is supposed to represent his/her entire constituency, not just the people they think voted for them. This is why the current stranglehold on MPs is so ludicrous. Backbencher MPs from the Conservatives have just as much responsibility to keep the executive branch accountable as the opposition does. Caucus is absolutely NOT the executive branch. So when an MP gets a plurality of votes, it doesn't work like it would when a party gets a plurality of votes in the House. It would be nice if a constituency operated the same way as the House of Commons with "majorities" and "minorities," but when an MP gets elected there's no accountability for four years. They sure as hell aren't interested in being accountable to the majority of their constituents either. So frankly, I think all of this stuff about local representation is moot. In many ridings there is no local representation. The MP represents less than half the voters.

Edited September 25, 2014 by cybercoma

[Mighty AC]

Technically, an MP is supposed to represent his/her entire constituency, not just the people they think voted for them. This is why the current stranglehold on MPs is so ludicrous. Backbencher MPs from the Conservatives have just as much responsibility to keep the executive branch accountable as the opposition does. Caucus is absolutely NOT the executive branch. So when an MP gets a plurality of votes, it doesn't work like it would when a party gets a plurality of votes in the House. It would be nice if a constituency operated the same way as the House of Commons with "majorities" and "minorities," but when an MP gets elected there's no accountability for four years. They sure as hell aren't interested in being accountable to the majority of their constituents either. So frankly, I think all of this stuff about local representation is moot. In many ridings there is no local representation. The MP represents less than half the voters.

In 2004 a CPC MP won my riding, at the time, with less than 40% of the vote. During that Paul Martin minority government a vote on SSM was held. Despite a newspaper poll showing that over 60% my riding supported SSM, our MP voted against it. That's just a single example, but statistically speaking more than half the ballots cast are for losing candidates and it seems that more often than not elected members support the party not the riding.

[Michael Hardner]

Under MMP why would rural regions have less power?

Because they have less people. They are overrepresented in parliament. At one point, North York had one MP, and some arctic riding with a fraction of the population had one MP.

Currently, 50% of votes cast do not create any local representation. Additionally, 'List MPs', who are those without a home riding, are assigned to ridings not won by their party.

You could also say that a canadidate for president could receive 49% of the vote and receive zero percent of the power. You're just describing the basic logic of winning and losing.

When parliament is proportional every bill is passed by politicians representing an actual majority of Canadians. The way representative democracy is supposed to work.

Where does it say that that's how it's "supposed to work", ie. a majority of Canadians should have their will represented in every bill that's passed ?

What? No. The main problem is FPTP produces parliaments that do not represent the way the population votes.

That's not a problem unless people feel that the system as a whole doesn't work for them. Isn't it more of a problem if women or minorities are under represented ? What about political influence with those who have the power to influence democracy ?

Why is the mathematical symmetry of the house of commons vs. the overall vote a concern to anyone other than obsessive compulsives ?

Under FPTP a group of voters living in the same neighbourhood have power and achieve representation. The exact same group has no power if they are spread across town.

Again, that's a feature of the basic math behind representation. If all the white supremecist voters moved to one riding, they too would have their own MP.

Hence, the power of a single ballot changes based on the location of voters. Under proportional systems the power of a vote is equal regardless of your neighbour's political views.

So, conversely if say a rural constituency wanted to elect an independent to represent their interests, they would have no ability to do so under pure PR.

That doesn't sound fair to me.

The term fair voting practices, with respect to PR, generally relates to the fact that the power of each vote is equal regardless of locale.

Ok, that's about the mechanics of a representative system, not about fairness. To use the term 'fair' as a black & white denouncement of the current system really means that anything other than exact representation (matching the popular vote) is unfair.

[cybercoma]

Tying this back into the OP, in the New Brunswick election 52% of voters cast ballots for losing candidates. Think about that.

[Michael Hardner]

Tying this back into the OP, in the New Brunswick election 52% of voters cast ballots for losing candidates. Think about that.

It's not that shocking. I think people have won majorities with less than 48% in the past.

[cybercoma]

It's not that shocking. I think people have won majorities with less than 48% in the past.

That's not what I'm saying. It's not just about the low percentage majority.

52% of people who voted cast their ballots for candidates who did not win their ridings.

Edited September 25, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Said differently, the entire legislature is filled with people elected by a minority of voters.

[Mighty AC]

Because they have less people. They are overrepresented in parliament. At one point, North York had one MP, and some arctic riding with a fraction of the population had one MP.

Sure, but that is also happening now. Why do feel rural areas deserve to be overrepresented?

Where does it say that that's how it's "supposed to work", ie. a majority of Canadians should have their will represented in every bill that's passed ?

Well, it is supposed to be a representative democracy. Though it is hard to achieve that when the electoral system doesn't produce the parliament Canadians actually voted for.

That's not a problem unless people feel that the system as a whole doesn't work for them. Isn't it more of a problem if women or minorities are under represented ? What about political influence with those who have the power to influence democracy ?

Shouldn't women, minorities or anyone else be able to choose the party they identify with, regardless of reason? Incidentally, under PR systems the slate of candidates tend to match the race and gender demographics of the actual population more closely, than under 'winner take all' systems like FPTP.

Why is the mathematical symmetry of the house of commons vs. the overall vote a concern to anyone other than obsessive compulsives ?

Why endorse a system that does anything other than mirror voter intention in parliament?

Again, that's a feature of the basic math behind representation. If all the white supremecist voters moved to one riding, they too would have their own MP.

When parliament represents an entire province or nation, why should X number of voters have more power if the live close together than if spread apart? Shouldn't every single vote be worth the same regardless of where an individual lives?

So, conversely if say a rural constituency wanted to elect an independent to represent their interests, they would have no ability to do so under pure PR.

Under a Mixed Member Proportional system it is easier for independents to win local ridings, because the electorate casts two ballots. One for the local candidate and one for the party they wish to govern. More people are willing to vote for independents when it doesn't prevent them from having a say about the PM or Premiere. Plus, an local rep, unencumbered by party politics, is far more likely to put the wishes of the riding first.

[Bryan]

More than half a million Canadians voted for the Green Party in the last federal election at 3.91% of the popular vote. That's significantly more than a few scattered protest votes. That's roughly the population of London, ON and Windsor, ON combined. Every single person too, not just the voting population. That's a substantial number of people that agree enough with the policies to vote for that party, "protest" or not.

No one is calling for "everyone who wants to talk [to] be allowed at the table." However, alienating over half a million voters from the conversation is absurd.

Half a million is WAY too small to even begin to think about giving someone an artificially inflated voice. They aren't all located in Windsor, or London, they're scattered throughout the country. There is only ONE riding that actually had enough to elect a representative. What they got is an accurate measure of their actual support.

[Michael Hardner]

Sure, but that is also happening now. Why do feel rural areas deserve to be overrepresented?

I'm not sure. You can bet that they won't like losing power though.

Well, it is supposed to be a representative democracy. Though it is hard to achieve that when the electoral system doesn't produce the parliament Canadians actually voted for.

Representative democracy means that you elect representatives, not that the percentage of representatives matches the vote percentage exactly.

Shouldn't women, minorities or anyone else be able to choose the party they identify with, regardless of reason? Incidentally, under PR systems the slate of candidates tend to match the race and gender demographics of the actual population more closely, than under 'winner take all' systems like FPTP.

But it's not mandated. You could call a system that doesn't mirror gender and race of the electorate as unfair too.

Why endorse a system that does anything other than mirror voter intention in parliament?

Because it works well enough for most, and because people aren't anxious to change it, and because nobody has any idea how such a large change would affect things.

When parliament represents an entire province or nation, why should X number of voters have more power if the live close together than if spread apart? Shouldn't every single vote be worth the same regardless of where an individual lives?

Because there's something called a regional interest.

Under a Mixed Member Proportional system it is easier for independents to win local ridings, because the electorate casts two ballots. One for the local candidate and one for the party they wish to govern.

That won't result in an exact proportional match in parliament, though. Therefore it's unfair by definition of 'fair voting'.

More people are willing to vote for independents when it doesn't prevent them from having a say about the PM or Premiere. Plus, an local rep, unencumbered by party politics, is far more likely to put the wishes of the riding first.

So are we doubling the number of MPs then ? Over 600 MPs ?

[ReeferMadness]

I'm not necessarily calling for PR. We could have a single transferable vote system or something. But it's simply not representative of how people vote.

Single Transferable Vote is a form of PR.

[Mighty AC]

Single Transferable Vote is a form of PR.

Not really. It is still a winner take all type system that potentially finds a single candidate that more people can live with.

[ReeferMadness]

Politics is local. FPTP is by far the most egalitarian, most representative system. Each region gets the person that the most people in that region selected as their representative.

Even run-offs are a needless extra step. If the second place guy is "good enough" for you, and you know damn well that they guy you are voting for won't win, why even have the "first ballot"? Just consider the advance polls the first ballot, and the actual election the run-off and vote for the "good enough" guy in the first place.

I'm sure you have a point to make but don't worry - nobody will ever figure out what it is. You start with a pointless buzz phrase, add an unsupported (and unsupportable) opinion, put in an obvious factoid and finish off with a non-sequitur.

[ReeferMadness]

Not really. It is still a winner take all type system that potentially finds a single candidate that more people can live with.

Sorry but you don't know what you're talking about . Proportional Voting Systems.