Strategic Voting - It needs to be done

[ToadBrother]

You'd be fine with an MP who doesn't give a shit what happens to your riding, or how upset or angry the residents are? Because he won't. Your MP will be a complete tool of the party who doesn't need to worry in the least how unhappy you are with his or her performance.

Considering a goodly amount of an MP's defense of their riding happens behind closed door, and considering MP's first loyalty, indeed their only loyalty, is to people they don't even choose as leader, it is hard to see how you can describe most MPs as anything other than tools of the party.

MPs chosen from a list would make it worse, but we have a serious problem of political leaders wielding far too much power.

Edited October 4, 2015 by ToadBrother

[Michael Hardner]

You'd be fine with an MP who doesn't give a shit what happens to your riding, or how upset or angry the residents are? Because he won't. Your MP will be a complete tool of the party who doesn't need to worry in the least how unhappy you are with his or her performance.

Agreed. Think Mike Duffy and how well he represented PEI.

[eyeball]

Ok, so we're all agreed we don't want a PR system that gives us MP's that don't give a shit and makes everyone unhappy. Never mind it sounds pretty much like what we have at the moment....

Am I to believe we can't come up with a system that doesn't incorporate party lists?

[ToadBrother]

Ok, so we're all agreed we don't want a PR system that gives us MP's that don't give a shit and makes everyone unhappy. Never mind it sounds pretty much like what we have at the moment....

Am I to believe we can't come up with a system that doesn't incorporate party lists?

I like ranked systems, though as some point out, if they aren't formulated correctly they can lead to inequities.

Overall STV is probably best, completely maintaining geographical constituencies while introducing a high degree of proportionality. I'm in favor of instant-runoff voting, with a ranked ballot. It isn't really proportional, however.

[Wilber]

I like ranked systems, though as some point out, if they aren't formulated correctly they can lead to inequities.

Overall STV is probably best, completely maintaining geographical constituencies while introducing a high degree of proportionality. I'm in favor of instant-runoff voting, with a ranked ballot. It isn't really proportional, however.

We had two referendums on STV in BC and one almost passed, but in the end, we were too stupid to adopt it.

[Michael Hardner]

...we were too stupid to adopt it.

Disdain for voters in an attempt to ostensibly increase democracy ? I think that you should look at first principles and reconsider why you support PR.

[Evening Star]

STV sounds very good, based on the Wikipedia article.

[angrypenguin]

I would prefer a dictatorship, with me in charge.

[Smallc]

STV sounds very good, based on the Wikipedia article.

It actually does. I wouldn't be opposed to its introduction.

[Smeelious]

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEUQtwIwCGoVChMIwsrglbOryAIVxHc-Ch0OpAy6&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dl8XOZJkozfI&usg=AFQjCNGizrI3OXYeMcQ6Mu9VqSy8TvEzzw&sig2=ABqKARC_qMkkJ5tzOoxiuw&bvm=bv.104317490,d.cWw

The video that originally brought me on to STV.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Smeelious

[Machjo]

Here's an example of how strategic voting and pro-rep can be problematic.

My local NDP candidate has some very good ideas that she could present to Parliament (with my local Bloc candidate having shared some good policy ideas of he own too) while my local Liberal and Green candidates are mental midgets and my local CPC candidate does not even appear to have an e-mail address at which to contact him.

However, though I'm leaning towards voting for my local NDP candidate, I worry about the NDP's apparent hostility towards free trade. So essentially I might be voting for my local NDP candidate while hoping that the Libertarian Party gets as many candidates in as possible, followed by the Bloc and then the PCP, followed by the Greens and then the NDP.

As a party, the NDP ranks last on my list of preferred major parties, yet as a candidate, my local NDP candidate is ranking first right now.

One advantage with FPTP is that it does in fact allow me to vote for a candidate instead of a party. How would pro rep allow this if it forces me to vote for a party instead of a candidate?

[Machjo]

Now that I think about it, I might still vote for my BQ candidate. She does have some good ideas too, though in my riding everyone knows that strategically it's between the NDP and Liberal Parties.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Machjo

[waldo]

The video that originally brought me on to STV.

.

[ToadBrother]

One advantage with FPTP is that it does in fact allow me to vote for a candidate instead of a party. How would pro rep allow this if it forces me to vote for a party instead of a candidate?

In PR you still vote for candidates. In MMPR you vote for a candidate, which is no different than FPTP, but then, once the ballots are counted, parties get additional seats chosen from their party lists, based on their share of the popular vote.

In STV and instant runoff systems, you rank candidates based on most preferred to least preferred.

I know of no voting system where you only vote for a party.

[Evening Star]

In PR you still vote for candidates. In MMPR you vote for a candidate, which is no different than FPTP, but then, once the ballots are counted, parties get additional seats chosen from their party lists, based on their share of the popular vote.

The system that was proposed in ON was more complicated than this. Everyone would cast two votes: one for a local representative (who'd belong to a party) and one for a party. The 'additional seats' would be filled by party list members in proportion to the votes cast on the second ballot.

[Evening Star]

I believe that, in Sweden, voters can choose to either just vote for a party or to vote for party and and also specify the party candidate they want to vote for.

[Big Guy]

I have been trying to find impartial statistics on strategic voting in Canadian elections. I have been unable to find any. If you have found a source then please share.

[ToadBrother]

I have been trying to find impartial statistics on strategic voting in Canadian elections. I have been unable to find any. If you have found a source then please share.

I'm not sure how you would gather such statistics. In general, it's been pretty hard until recently because there wasn't a lot of riding-level polling done publicly, so strategic voting has often been more of a hypothetical than a reality.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Here's an example of how strategic voting and pro-rep can be problematic.

One advantage with FPTP is that it does in fact allow me to vote for a candidate instead of a party. How would pro rep allow this if it forces me to vote for a party instead of a candidate?

In STV you rank the candidates. So you could put your favourite on top and candidates from the parties you like next.

[ReeferMadness]

We had two referendums on STV in BC and one almost passed, but in the end, we were too stupid to adopt it.

Roger that.

It didn't help that the second "yes" campaign was run boy-scout style where idealistic volunteers tried to educate the population while the "no" campaign was run by experienced backroom party insiders who ran a completely negative campaign. It was a ridiculous display of how to undermine democracy.

[Smeelious]

I'd actually love to see stats on what % of votes were cast as strategic votes...I'd wager it would be low enough to be pointless in most ridings, and high enough in a very small number of ridings to make a difference

[angrypenguin]

I'd actually love to see stats on what % of votes were cast as strategic votes...I'd wager it would be low enough to be pointless in most ridings, and high enough in a very small number of ridings to make a difference

The Star had an article on this. Walkom? was it who mentioned that it's pointless.

[Machjo]

I'd like to see a statistical comparison of voters who vote for a party vs. those who vote for the best candidate.

As an example, I can't imagine myself voting for Steven Harper, but I could imagine myself voting for a competent CPC candidate if my riding had one.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Machjo

[dialamah]

I don't care for my local LPC candidate, but prefer the Libs plan overall. If my riding was close in terms of NDP and Cons, I'd vote NDP.

Edited October 6, 2015 by dialamah

[Smeelious]

The Star had an article on this. Walkom? was it who mentioned that it's pointless.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/10/04/why-stephen-harper-has-no-fear-of-strategic-voting-hepburn.html

This one?

It needs a giant "Citation(s) Needed" red stamp all over it. It does raise some good points about the "why" it doesn't work though.

I'd like to see a statistical comparison of voters who vote for a party vs. those who vote for the best candidate.

As an example, I can't imagine myself voting for Steven Harper, but I could imagine myself voting for a competent CPC candidate if my riding had one.

I *do* have a competent CPC candidate in my riding. He'll win without a doubt, and with good reason. I'm still not voting for him though. Especially in my riding I'd love to see the breakdown of candidate vs party