On changing how Canadians vote

[segnosaur]

again! You and at least 2 other MLW members keep talking up the Liberals/Trudeau as favouring/wanting/positioning/etc., for a 'ranked ballots' alternative. As I've done now repeatedly, I'll keep asking for citation to that end - citation please! Hey maybe its the case and I've missed it... dazzle me with your googly prowess, yes?

.

You are right in that the Liberals haven't come right out and specifically said they want a "ranked ballot".

During the election, the liberals specifically mentioned 4 things: Ranked Ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting and electronic voting. Now, mandatory voting and electronic voting aren't necessarily a change that is inconsistent with first-past-the-post, so lets skip them here...

The fact that the liberals specifically mentioned ranked ballots as one of only 2 alternatives suggests that it is one that it is one that is being favored by them. And even if they decide to go with proportional representation instead, that itself is a flawed system.

https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/electoral-reform/

[Smallc]

Not sure what exactly you think they would need to do to "adjust'.

If your dealing with ranked ballots, the Liberals are in the political center, which makes them the most likely alternate vote, giving them an advantage. The only way that the conservatives or NDP would not have a disadvantage is for them to give up any sort of policies they have that make them different from one another.

Nobody claimed they did. But no party should be at a disadvantage.

Yup, first past the post is flawed. But so is Proportional Representation and Ranked Ballots (and probably every other alternative). So you're just replacing one flawed system with another.

At the very least, if Canada is going to do that, there should at least be a referendum on the issue.

I'm not necessarily in favour of changing our system. It creates stability. I simply feel that an argument based around the premise that the Conservatives can't win because they're not representative enough of Canadians is a poor one,

[segnosaur]

I simply feel that an argument based around the premise that the Conservatives can't win because they're not representative enough of Canadians is a poor one,

The Liberals would be the natural 'second choice' for any conservative or NDP voter who votes based on policy. This would give the Liberals an advantage in an election.

Why exactly do you think that is a poor argument?

And what exactly do you think the conservatives or NDP would need to do to adjust, without just throwing out all their policies, and just becoming "liberals with a different name"?

[waldo]

You are right in that the Liberals haven't come right out and specifically said they want a "ranked ballot".

During the election, the liberals specifically mentioned 4 things: Ranked Ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting and electronic voting. Now, mandatory voting and electronic voting aren't necessarily a change that is inconsistent with first-past-the-post, so lets skip them here...

The fact that the liberals specifically mentioned ranked ballots as one of only 2 alternatives suggests that it is one that it is one that is being favored by them. And even if they decide to go with proportional representation instead, that itself is a flawed system.

https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/electoral-reform/

I guess if you squeeze hard enough you can read anything into... anything! The actual wording in your cite from the election campaign reads, "such as"... phrasing that doesn't presume exclusiveness on listed examples. Within a Government of Canada website that I referenced/linked previously, the word "including" is used; again, a word that doesn't attach exclusiveness to the listed examples... notwithstanding the committee report/process will ensure all interested and participating Canadians/organizations will have opportunity to lobby for their "all inclusive" alternatives (or status quo).

Does the Government prefer a certain change to our electoral system?

The Government pledged to make 2015 the last election under the current first-past-the-post system and it is proposing that the special all-party committee study electoral reform - including preferential ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting and online voting - and assess options against the five key guiding principles that the Government has outlined. There is no consensus amongst experts as to a single best electoral system. The Government is proposing to engage all Canadians in a discussion on the balance that should be struck between different principles when it comes to changing how we vote. It is looking forward to receiving the special all-party committee’s final report and will carefully review its recommendations before deciding how to proceed with electoral system reforms.

even with your literal narrow interpretation, you've opted to arbitrarily assign preference to one of the two (non-exclusive) method alternatives mentioned... because you can?

as I highlighted previously, the process is intended to follow 5 key principles in arriving at an alternative to FPTP. I would suggest that your arbitrary preference assignment should also factor in the following 5 principles in arriving at your assignment:

...the Government is proposing that five principles should guide the parliamentary committee’s study in evaluating a wide range of reform options.

1. Restore the effectiveness and legitimacy of the voting by reducing distortions and strengthening the link between voter intention and the electoral result.

2. Encourage greater engagement and participation in the democratic process, including inclusion of underrepresented groups.

3. Support accessibility and inclusiveness to all eligible voters, and avoiding undue complexity in the voting process.

4. Safeguarding the integrity of our voting process.

5. Preserve the accountability of local representation.

.

[Smallc]

That the Liberals are the natural first and second choice of almost all Canadians, no matter the system, seems to speak to them being more representative. If the NDP and Conservatives have policies that don't appeal to a large number of Canadians, then arguably, they need to look at throwing them out.

Take me - someone who is traditionally Liberal. I was able to support the Conservatives because of Harper's pragmatism, and not because of some of the nonsense that eventually saw Canadians show them the door.

[waldo]

The Liberals would be the natural 'second choice' for any conservative or NDP voter who votes based on policy. This would give the Liberals an advantage in an election.

which is just you extending upon your arbitrary preferential assignment, vis-a-vis ranked ballots. Do you have any actual metrics that suggest the degree of your stated "natural second choice"... data good, speculation bad!

.

[Big Guy]

As has been mentioned before, at this time the Liberals would probably be the first or second choice of a majority of voters. So what? That tells you something about the policies of the other parties. Would it not be a lot more representative if any party which would be picked first or second by most voters be the party most acceptable to the electorate?

I would suggest that the Conservatives and NDP review their policies so that they might be the First or second choice of most Canadians. They have 3 years to do so with new leaders and new policies that could be more popular with most Canadians.

I support ranked ballots and I would also like us to go back to some public funding of political parties - based on the first choice of voters. I think my local Green party federal rep would best represent our riding but I did not want the local Conservative to win ( the Conservative got the plurality anyway and is now in Ottawa) so I voted Liberal. With the ranked ballot, I would have voted Green first (getting them the money they need) and Liberal as my second choice. Since the local Conservative candidate got about 47% on the first ballot, I am sure she would have gone over the 50% by the second choice if the system existed then.

The local candidates have yet to be chosen for the next election. I would like the flexibility of a ranked ballot system for that election.

[Big Guy]

I have seen some analysis on TV that if the ranked ballot system was in place during the last election that the Liberals would get far more seats etc. I challenge that. There were no post voting polls on that question so their conclusions are just wild speculations. How would they know what their second choice would have been?

[PIK]

We will have yrs of liberal and NDP collations. The conservatives party will die off, unless that is what people want, which I highly doubt it.

[Smallc]

We will have yrs of liberal and NDP collations. The conservatives party will die off, unless that is what people want, which I highly doubt it.

And Canada will burn in infinite hell fire.

[Big Guy]

We will have yrs of liberal and NDP collations. The conservatives party will die off, unless that is what people want, which I highly doubt it.

Why would that happen? The Conservatives would have to move towards the center as would the NDP. What is wrong with that if that is where the majority of Canadians stand? Is the government not supposed to reflect the views of the majority in a democracy?

I think the smaller parties would get more exposure since people would not be throwing away their vote by voting for them as first choice, and a party that has a chance as second choice.

[Big Guy]

Why is it OK that to-day, in any riding, that the person with the plurality (most votes) which could be as low as 30% depending on the number of candidates is declared winner and represents the riding under the FPTP system

BUT

In the leadership races of ALL parties, the eventual leader has to get over 50% of the vote. They all use a form of ranked balloting to get a leader.

Why is ranked ballot necessary for party leadership races but not for local riding races?

[Martin Chriton]

The Liberals won a majority with the minority of votes. The result disenfranchised the majority of voters in this country that didn't want Liberals or Junior to have a majority.

I'm show how doubtful they will craft legislation to prevent said majority in the future. Everything I've read indicates they will make the situation worse. :angry:

Very little positive coming from these bozos.

[Smallc]

The Liberals won a majority with the minority of votes. The result disenfranchised the majority of voters in this country that didn't want Liberals or Junior to have a majority.

I'm show how doubtful they will craft legislation to prevent said majority in the future. Everything I've read indicates they will make the situation worse. :angry:

Very little positive coming from these bozos.

That explains his 57% approval rating more than 6 months in.

[Vancouver King]

The Liberal solution to unfairness with FPTP is likely the issue to cause major damage to it's approval rating.

Stacking the parliamentary committee to avoid an obvious proportional representation answer in favor of a ranked ballot, threatens to bury Liberal credibility.

Trudeau is playing with fire.

[Big Guy]

I will repeat - for those who oppose a ranked ballot system:

If the ranked ballot like process, is what every political party wants and uses to eventually elect their leaders, why is it not good enough for the voters of a riding to choose their rep?

[poochy]

That explains his 57% approval rating more than 6 months in.

Tell us, how many of those people are paying attention?

You're too smart to be paying these petty games, or at least i thought you were. That number litterally means nothing.

[Smallc]

Tell us, how many of those people are paying attention?

You're too smart to be paying these petty games, or at least i thought you were. That number litterally means nothing.

Everything that we don't agree with is meaningless.

[Martin Chriton]

+That explains his 57% approval rating more than 6 months in.

Kim Jong-un's approval ratings are likely higher than both Obama's and Junior's (seriously).

A bounce after an election is also typical.

Doesn't change the fact that the majority of voters didn't want Trudeau with a majority during the election. Further, virtual certainty in the next election no party will crack 50% of the popular vote. A fair system therefore has no party with a majority.

I will repeat - for those who oppose a ranked ballot system:

If the ranked ballot like process, is what every political party wants and uses to eventually elect their leaders, why is it not good enough for the voters of a riding to choose their rep?

Does this scheme ensure that voters for minority parties such as Conversative are accurately reflected? If it results in an even larger majority for parties with a minority of the popular vote it only does damage.

How do we prevent re-occurrence of what happened this time where most of the voters voted against the Liberal agenda and they were given a majority?

Parties leaders are different where you have to choose only one leader. With legislatures we should ensure they reflect the voice of the people -- i.e.: make up consists of more than just one party.

I would *never* live in a country where I'm paying both outrageous taxes and my vote & voice marginalized, that would make us slaves. Pick one (or ideally none). I'm fine no voice or lesser voice if I don't have skin in the game (i.e.: no taxes), however, there is no way anyone should stick around to be financially abused without a voice.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Martin Chriton

[eyeball]

I will repeat - for those who oppose a ranked ballot system:

If the ranked ballot like process, is what every political party wants and uses to eventually elect their leaders, why is it not good enough for the voters of a riding to choose their rep?

If this is really about us and how we choose our leaders then rather than holding a referendum on a national process perhaps it should done to determine each ridings preference for electing its representatives, from a range of options including the status quo. Why is it not good enough for each riding to go its own way?

[-1=e^ipi]

I will repeat - for those who oppose a ranked ballot system:

If the ranked ballot like process, is what every political party wants and uses to eventually elect their leaders, why is it not good enough for the voters of a riding to choose their rep?

Because you can only have 1 leader, but there are over 300 MPs.

If we were just electing 1 pm or having a referendum where we can only have 1 outcome, ranked ballot makes sense.

But the point of a representative democracy is to represent the diverse political views of society. That's the point in having 300 MPs. If you have over 300 MPs, better to have some communists, some libertarians, some greens, etc. in the mix so that their voices are heard. Ranked ballot to elect MPs mean that fringe views don't get representation in parliament even if they make up a reasonable share of the electorate.

[Big Guy]

...

Parties leaders are different where you have to choose only one leader. With legislatures we should ensure they reflect the voice of the people -- i.e.: make up consists of more than just one party.

...

Because you can only have 1 leader, but there are over 300 MPs.

If we were just electing 1 pm or having a referendum where we can only have 1 outcome, ranked ballot makes sense.

But the point of a representative democracy is to represent the diverse political views of society. That's the point in having 300 MPs. If you have over 300 MPs, better to have some communists, some libertarians, some greens, etc. in the mix so that their voices are heard. Ranked ballot to elect MPs mean that fringe views don't get representation in parliament even if they make up a reasonable share of the electorate.

It appears that where we differ is that I look at an individual riding just like a leadership race. I would like the individual who would best represent my interests and those of our riding. Our riding is allowed only one leader. There is the best one, the second best one the third best etc. In a ranked system, we would guarantee that the individual elected has the confidence of the majority of voters in that riding.

While I agree that it is not as democratic as having a system which closely reflects the total vote it is a lot more representative than the FPTP system.

[TimG]

If you have over 300 MPs, better to have some communists, some libertarians, some greens, etc. in the mix so that their voices are heard. Ranked ballot to elect MPs mean that fringe views don't get representation in parliament even if they make up a reasonable share of the electorate.

The purpose of the 300 MPs is to provide local representation. If the plurality of people in a riding do not want communists to represent them then they don't deserve representation.

It is also wrong to say that people are not represented simply because the party they picked on one day every 4 years is not in government. Any group of voters with a significant following is going to be targeted by one of the major parties in the hopes of getting their vote the next time around.

Edited May 19, 2016 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

The purpose of the 300 MPs is to provide local representation. If the plurality of people in a riding do not want communists to represent them then they don't deserve representation.

The federal government is supposed to deal with federal issues, not local issues.

The idea that only regionalists should be elected to parliament is archaic, undemocratic and results in a less effective government.

You have municipal governments to deal with local issues.

Under a proportional system, you regionalists can still get representation, it will just be in proportion to the number of votes. So if you want to create a Toronto is #1 party or whatever, go ahead.

[Martin Chriton]

The federal government is supposed to deal with federal issues, not local issues.

Bingo.

I also believe voting reform should be looked at holistically, i.e.: include senate reform.

Consider something along the lines of:

1.) MPs - divided equally by popular vote

2.) Senators - divided equally per-province or per-region (and voted on). They become a good check and balance for regional issues -- and no longer just partisan hacks.

This prevents parties with minority of a support from its citizens from unilaterally ignoring the will of the majority. Parties then need to *compromise* and can compromise on a per-issue basis in the legislature. We don't need to give a party with a minority of votes absolute control when most of the people didn't want them to have a majority.

Some examples to demonstrate how awesome this would be. Consider Liberals getting 40% of vote for MPs, conservatives with 35% and NDP with 25%.

Example A.) Conservatives against large deficits, NDPs against large deficits, and Liberals for large deficits. Under this proposal Liberals need to compromise

Example B.) Both NDP and Liberals for some social thing, bill passes

The alternative being proposed where Conservative votes is marginalized is frankly outrageous. There is very little else as damaging as fundamentally undermining our democracy.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Martin Chriton