On changing how Canadians vote

[Michael Hardner]

I think you meant PR

Yes, oops.

, and as I have said elsewhere, if we move to another system, the obvious solution for the Conservatives is to split in two;

The only way this would make sense to me would be if the centre-right version went a little bit left.

... their vote does not count.

I don't think an adjusted system as discussed will change the views of people who think that way.

[Michael Hardner]

To fix #2, I'm all for doing what Australia does = mandatory voting with fines if people don't show up. And if they don't pay the $50? fine, they go to jail.

This is an even stupider idea IMO. Mandate people who don't care, and don't think about voting to show up and influence the result.

[cybercoma]

From my personal experience (many members of my family were members of a religious group that viewed voting as a sin), even attending a poll was viewed as wrong.

It's a clash of rights and responsibilities. They ought to be able to mark a ballot indicating that they "abstain" from voting, which in effect says "I refuse to vote." But it's something that could be discussed when implementing such a system. Perhaps they would make an exception for this kind of religious observance. I don't know. Perhaps they would deem voting more important than religious freedom on this topic, particularly if there's an option where the individuals get to say they refuse to vote. Regardless, I wouldn't reject the idea outright for some small religious sect that has this belief and actively practices it.

[ToadBrother]

It's a clash of rights and responsibilities. They ought to be able to mark a ballot indicating that they "abstain" from voting, which in effect says "I refuse to vote." But it's something that could be discussed when implementing such a system. Perhaps they would make an exception for this kind of religious observance. I don't know. Perhaps they would deem voting more important than religious freedom on this topic, particularly if there's an option where the individuals get to say they refuse to vote. Regardless, I wouldn't reject the idea outright for some small religious sect that has this belief and actively practices it.

First off, I think my family's views are absolute nutty. But who are we to say what is a legitimate reason for refusing to vote, or what constitutes a violation of someone's conscience on the matter. And really, I still question if forcing people who have no particular interest in politics (I've known my fair share of the willfully ignorant) into a voting booth.

[cybercoma]

That would be the argument that I think is more important to make. Someone who's not at all interested in politics, doesn't follow anything, doesn't know about the issues, is going to go into the voting booth and just tick a box at random. It's meaningless at best and could actually be dangerous depending on who's running.

[angrypenguin]

That would be the argument that I think is more important to make. Someone who's not at all interested in politics, doesn't follow anything, doesn't know about the issues, is going to go into the voting booth and just tick a box at random. It's meaningless at best and could actually be dangerous depending on who's running.

That would be a con. But let's say I wasn't into politics, and you asked me to vote for someone. I argue that I would at least briefly figure out which party aligns to my values simply for patriotism reasons.

[Evening Star]

Well the Australians have two major parties. The labour party and the Tories (afaik).

(Liberals and Labor fwiw)

[ToadBrother]

That would be a con. But let's say I wasn't into politics, and you asked me to vote for someone. I argue that I would at least briefly figure out which party aligns to my values simply for patriotism reasons.

And you probably would. But I personally know people who would probably just put an X beside the top name on the ballot.

[Evening Star]

- I'm generally left-of-centre, but I think that right-of-centre voters need to have a voice. Canada has had two majority Conservative PMs since the 1960s, but with this system it seems that there would never again be a right-of-centre majority government. That seems unfair to me.

Why is that unfair, if that's not who the majority vote for? 'Right' and 'left' are just relative terms anyway; I'm sure there will be some options that are further right than others. It seems like a bizarre consideration to want to ensure that one ideological group gets a chance to form a majority government x% of the time. Should environmentalists, Christian fundamentalists, and communists also get similar entitlements?

Edited October 4, 2015 by Evening Star

[angrypenguin]

And you probably would. But I personally know people who would probably just put an X beside the top name on the ballot.

Fair point. The ability though to vote to abstain on the ballot is a good compromise. At least people are forced to go to the ballot boxes.

[Evening Star]

I can barely even understand the rationale for mandatory voting. Why on earth should it be an obligation, backed up with a penalty? Who is hurt if someone chooses not to vote?

[angrypenguin]

I can barely even understand the rationale for mandatory voting. Why on earth should it be an obligation, backed up with a penalty? Who is hurt if someone chooses not to vote?

I would argue the general public is the one hurt.

[Evening Star]

I would argue the general public is the one hurt.

How, in concrete terms?

[angrypenguin]

How, in concrete terms?

Well, let's pick Canada, a system as we all know = optional voting.

The Lefties are usually not happy that the Righties show up more often to vote. If you forced a leftie to vote, the Lefties would be more happy at the election outcome.

I mean, if you're one of those voters who couldn't care less about NDP/Liberal, but you were forced to show up, you'd vote. Versus the...yeah I guess I'm liberal but whatever, I don't care - mentality.

[Big Guy]

Or give the voter a $100 receipt for "donating to democracy" which he/she can use as a deduction on his/her income tax return for the year.

[Michael Hardner]

Why is that unfair, if that's not who the majority vote for?

The majority never votes for a party. In the current system 1/3 of the people get a majority 1/3 of the time, and centre-left 2/3 representation get governments 2/3 of the time.

[Evening Star]

Well, let's pick Canada, a system as we all know = optional voting.

The Lefties are usually not happy that the Righties show up more often to vote. If you forced a leftie to vote, the Lefties would be more happy at the election outcome.

I mean, if you're one of those voters who couldn't care less about NDP/Liberal, but you were forced to show up, you'd vote. Versus the...yeah I guess I'm liberal but whatever, I don't care - mentality.

This is how the public is hurt so badly that it is justified to penalize people for not voting? 'Lefties' don't feel happy after elections?

[Evening Star]

The majority never votes for a party. In the current system 1/3 of the people get a majority 1/3 of the time, and centre-left 2/3 representation get governments 2/3 of the time.

You're speaking about a multi-party system as though it is a two-party system (and lumping 'centre' and 'left' together into one category, which will always give a disproportionate result). The NDP are not the Liberals. An NDP voter could just as easily argue that, under the current system, they have never got to lead the federal government even though they get 20-33% of the vote, and that this is unfair. In fact, that's what they do argue iirc.

Edit: Anyway, under a more proportional system, what's to stop a centrist party from forming a coalition with a right-leaning party?

Edited October 4, 2015 by Evening Star

[Michael Hardner]

An NDP voter could just as easily argue that, under the current system, they have never got to lead the federal government even though they get 20-33% of the vote, and that this is unfair. In fact, that's what they do argue iirc.

I think that's valid in the framework of this discussion, but if they're asking for PR then they're asking to propagate unfairness back the other way IMO.

[cybercoma]

That would be a con. But let's say I wasn't into politics, and you asked me to vote for someone. I argue that I would at least briefly figure out which party aligns to my values simply for patriotism reasons.

Some would, others wouldn't. It's a valid argument against mandatory voting.

[Evening Star]

I think that's valid in the framework of this discussion, but if they're asking for PR then they're asking to propagate unfairness back the other way IMO.

Not necessarily. One conception of a fair voting system is that if a party gets 1/3 of the vote, it would be fair for that party to get 1/3 of the seats. It would be in a very strong position to become a coalition partner, in a system where it is very hard for any individual party to get a majority of the seats. Edit: there is no reason why that party should be guaranteed to form majority governments 1/3 of the time, just because it gets 1/3 of the vote.

NB: I dislike party-list PR systems.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Evening Star

[Michael Hardner]

... there is no reason why that party should be guaranteed to form majority governments 1/3 of the time, just because it gets 1/3 of the vote.

Nevertheless - if the goal is to enfranchise people, then PR will have the opposite effect for right-of-centre voters.

[Evening Star]

Nevertheless - if the goal is to enfranchise people, then PR will have the opposite effect for right-of-centre voters.

How would they be disenfranchised? Their votes would get counted and would be reflected in the makeup of the House. Not exactly the situation of women pre-1916.

I see no reason to believe that i) our current party system would continue as is under PR or that ii) A centrist or centre-left party and a centre-right or right party couldn't form some sort of right-leaning coalition.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Evening Star

[cybercoma]

NB: I dislike party-list PR systems.

I had my objections to them too, but I really like Eric Grenier's suggestion about them.

[ToadBrother]

Nevertheless - if the goal is to enfranchise people, then PR will have the opposite effect for right-of-centre voters.

Can you cite anywhere where PR voting is used that right wing voters are disenfranchised. The CDU has held power in Germany many times since the post-war period.

All it means is you have more than one right wing party, and the dominant party (in our case probably the Tories) would have to forge alliances with them.