On changing how Canadians vote

[Smallc]

When was the last time there was a specific issue which would radically change the basis of our democracy and political representation?

Changing the way our vote counts really isn't radical at all.

[TimG]

Personally, I believe that the ranked ballot system is MORE legitimate and more represents MY reasons for voting.

I kind of agree. My beef is with different variants of PR that distort the process to favour single issue or extremist parties.

I believe this issue was resolved in the last referendum - the last federal election.

Parties can't put 100+ items in the party agenda and claim that an election is mandate to implement every one of them. Such a tactic simply denies the complex trade offs that go into the decision to vote for a party.

That said: if the Liberals pass ranked ballots without a referendum them what stops the NDP from demanding PR has a requirement the next time a minority occurs? Or the conservatives from changing it back to FPTP?

It is a recipe for chaos. If we change the system it should be based on a referendum and there should automatically be a second referendum 1 year after the second election under the new rules so people can evaluate whether it is working for them.

Edited May 23, 2016 by TimG

[Big Guy]

I kind of agree. My beef is with different variants of PR that distort the process to favour single issue or extremist parties.

Parties can't put 100+ items in the party agenda and claim that an election is mandate to implement every one of them. Such a tactic simply denies the complex trade offs that go into the decision to vote for a party.

That said: if the Liberals pass ranked ballots without a referendum them what stops the NDP from demanding PR has a requirement the next time a minority occurs? Or the conservatives from changing it back to FPTP?

It is a recipe for chaos. If we change the system it should be based on a referendum and there should automatically be a second referendum 1 year after the second election under the new rules so people can evaluate whether it is working for them.

Personally, I do not think that electoral reform structure reaches the trigger for a referendum. The argument against the ranked ballot system from the Conservatives has been that it favors the Liberals. Why is that?

I believe the other parties are currently against it because ... they see their role to be against anything that a majority government suggests.

The NDP may well demand a more representative electoral process the next time a minority occurs. And if it leads to another election then so be it. Let the electorate decide.

I have been looking at the different options for years and agree that there a positive and negative aspects of each method. Some are quite complicated and allow the parties to choose their own reps - I do not agree with that from my philosophical bent.

What I am sure of is that this FPTP system was for a reason at the time. Times have changed. We now have computers and most Canadian voters are literate. I do not feel that the ranking system provides any advantage for any party but it does tend to keep the far left and the far right out of office. But more important for me, it would change party policies and procedures from trying to manipulate and target specific groups in specific electoral ridings and run on policies that the majority - not plurality - desire.

If any political party has concerns about a method of voting where the winner of any riding would have to be acceptable to the majority, not plurality, of the voters then I would ask - WHY?

BTW - The nature of a plebiscite is that there are only two choices. How would you word a question which would give you a clear answer with existing FPTP on one side and 5 other options on the other side?

Edited May 23, 2016 by Big Guy

[eyeball]

a referendum will pretty much guarantee the media will be full of information and commentary. we can't do anything more for those who refuse to get 'educated'. or what else did you have in mind?

If I had anything to say about it I'd probably hire experts in things like political science and constitutional law from countries where PR is successful to look at our situation and have them design our electoral system. To me it looks like we suck at it as badly as we suck at making decent coin and best use of our oil. I would have hired Norwegians for that.

[TimG]

BTW - The nature of a plebiscite is that there are only two choices. How would you word a question which would give you a clear answer with existing FPTP on one side and 5 other options on the other side?

Why not used ranked ballots for 3 choices? FPTP, Ranked Ballots and MMP? Seems appropriate.

[Big Guy]

Why not used ranked ballots for 3 choices? FPTP, Ranked Ballots and MMP? Seems appropriate.

An interesting proposal!

[SpankyMcFarland]

In a referendum, I can't see reform winning. We are stuck with the constitutional and electoral framework we have until something really dramatic happens.

Edited May 23, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland

[overthere]

In a referendum, I can't see reform winning. We are stuck with the constitutional and electoral framework we have until something really dramatic happens.

Why do you think there will be a referendum?

[Argus]

A while ago, the Conservatives passed the "Fair Elections Act" that made major changes to the electoral process and party funding.

They were extremely minor changes. There is no comparison to this.

[Argus]

I suggest that how drastic a change is viewed depends on your political affiliation.

No, it depends on how intelligent you are. Granted, if your a raving fanatic you can convince yourself of anything, but most reasonably intelligent people can easily see the vast difference between a few changes that tweaked regulations and the wholesale change on how Canadians elect MPs.

[Argus]

Changing the way our vote counts really isn't radical at all.

Oh really? Funny how so many people who aren't Liberal party zealots think otherwise.

In fact, the only people I've heard dismissing the importance of change in our system are people who would cry tears of joy and kiss the ground Trudeau walked on if he ever went near them.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Why do you think there will be a referendum?

I don't. I am saying that if there were one, which there should be, the status quo choice would have a big advantage. I can't see most people getting excited about it. Politics is increasingly irrelevant to most people.

[overthere]

I don't. I am saying that if there were one, which there should be, the status quo choice would have a big advantage. I can't see most people getting excited about it. Politics is increasingly irrelevant to most people.

Actually when I talk to people about what Trudeau is trying to do with 'electoral reform', I notice that they get very interested. I don't think he or the Liberal Party of Canada wanted that to happen. And why would the status quo have an advantage? Because people are stupid, lethargic, uninformed? Is that what the Liberals think of voters in Canada?

And why would you say politics is irrelevant? The last federal election had the highest % turnout in almost 25 years.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Actually when I talk to people about what Trudeau is trying to do with 'electoral reform', I notice that they get very interested. I don't think he or the Liberal Party of Canada wanted that to happen. And why would the status quo have an advantage? Because people are stupid, lethargic, uninformed? Is that what the Liberals think of voters in Canada?

And why would you say politics is irrelevant? The last federal election had the highest % turnout in almost 25 years.

I don't support ranked balloting. I do believe that any proposed change should be put to a referendum.

The status quo has a big advantage because people naturally fear what would be a big change and are busy. In any case, electoral reform is not exactly the most serious problem we face in the country.

The last federal election had a powerful motivator for turnout in the shape of the incumbent. To his credit, he was probably the most polarizing figure since PT. I doubt if we will see those numbers again for a nice while.

Around the world, politicians are unable to solve the big problems of the day. Ask any young person about what is happening to jobs, student debt and house prices.

Edited May 24, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland

[Big Guy]

I don't support ranked balloting. ...

...

Why not?

[overthere]

Around the world, politicians are unable to solve the big problems of the day. Ask any young person about what is happening to jobs, student debt and house prices.

well in Canada unemployment overall remains around 7% and a university education is cheap here by any measure in terms of return on investment. Except for a couple of places homeowners in Canada have disposable income from housing that much of the G8 envies. I have yet to see how anybody is obliged to buy a house in central Toronto or Vancouver. Elsewhere, housing ranges between cheap and affordable.

[SpankyMcFarland]

well in Canada unemployment overall remains around 7% and a university education is cheap here by any measure in terms of return on investment. .

That was true in the past but many non-traditional degrees are much less valuable now. Youth unemployment is considerably higher than 7% and job security has declined. Many of the smaller towns are being hollowed out once traditional industries leave so there is not much point buying property there unless you are retired.

Edited May 24, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland

[TimG]

I don't. I am saying that if there were one, which there should be, the status quo choice would have a big advantage. I can't see most people getting excited about it. Politics is increasingly irrelevant to most people.

What a self serving argument. The status quo has an advantage because it is the 'devil you know' but that is not a bad thing. Most people who think about these issues realize there is no perfect system and changing the system means a different set of flaws. Choosing to stick with the system with flaws you know is a perfectly rational response. Edited May 24, 2016 by TimG

[SpankyMcFarland]

What a self serving argument. The status quo has an advantage because it is the 'devil you know' but that is not a bad thing. Most people who think about these issues realize there is no perfect system and changing the system means a different set of flaws. Choosing to stick with the system with flaws you know is a perfectly rational response.

It's reasonable to be cautious. I will give you that.

Every system does have flaws. From the FPTP defenders, I just don't see enough thought devoted to remedying those flaws.

Edited May 24, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland

[overthere]

That was true in the past but many non-traditional degrees are much less valuable now. Youth unemployment is considerably higher than 7% and job security has declined. Many of the smaller towns are being hollowed out once traditional industries leave so there is not much point buying property there unless you are retired.

A BA with a major in the sonnets of John Donne won't make you rich, I agree. But nobody is forced to carefully select, then invest 4 years of their lives into something entirely worthless. It is totally voluntary. I'd also point out that , assuming you buy a future career and big income stream with a four year degree, a $50k debt is nothing, really. Try and start a lifetime business on that...... Better yet, try to get the public purse to pay for that business, when anybody can get a heavily subsidized uni degree.

People have choices in life, and career/debt choices are always made by adults.

The facts I stated still remain as facts.

[TimG]

Every system does have flaws. From the FPTP defenders, I just don't see enough thought devoted to remedying those flaws.

Ranked ballots seem like a reasonable compromise but, in practice, will favor the centrist party and may result in permanent government by one party which is worse than FPTP. Of course if the system changes voting patterns with change and it is impossible to know how ranked ballots would actually work.

[Argus]

It's reasonable to be cautious. I will give you that.

Every system does have flaws. From the FPTP defenders, I just don't see enough thought devoted to remedying those flaws.

What countries do you believe have had better overall government than Canada?

[poochy]

Ranked ballots seem like a reasonable compromise but, in practice, will favor the centrist party and may result in permanent government by one party which is worse than FPTP. Of course if the system changes voting patterns with change and it is impossible to know how ranked ballots would actually work.

Having the same party govern on a nearly full time basis is the desire of everyone who really loves democracy.

[SpankyMcFarland]

What countries do you believe have had better overall government than Canada?

Canada is well run, one of the best. That does not mean its voting system cannot be improved or is already perfect. I would say Norway has been better run for starters.

Edited May 24, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland

[TimG]

Canada is well run, one of the best. That does not mean its voting system cannot be improved or is already perfect. I would say Norway has been better run for starters.

Based on what metric? Norwegian complain about their government as much as we do. In any case, Norway is a suffocating homogeneous state with insanely high taxes. It is an example of an out of control government - not a well run one.