On changing how Canadians vote

[CITIZEN_2015]

There are extreme left elements in the NDP and nobody is whining about them. Chretien won majorities with less than 50% of the vote and no one suggested that was illegitimate. So did Trudeau. The lefties just had this desperate, almost animal rage that someone is in power that has political opinions different from their own.

First off as starter I am not left. Not even center. I consider my political views as center right. I have voted for conservatives more often than Liberals especially during the 1988 when Free Trade was a big election issue I campaigned strongly for conservatives as a politically active student. Second, how do you know no one complained? I wasn't a member of this board when Chretien or Trudeau were in power but I never consider multi-party system totally a democracy. I always advocate a multi party election as the first phase of any election followed by a second round general election where only the top two parties would remain in competition and the rest would be eliminated from the race. This guarantees we will have a 50% votes for the winning party.

Edited October 4, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[nerve]

I think any changes are going to need the constitution to be changed and this is much more complex and costly than simply changing it.

It is much better to "dry run" this by setting up "alternative houses" to help propose legislation based on these new voting systems, while having no de jure power we can get a feel for how they would function. You know is it going to be vastly different than the current system?

I think the issue here is that if 60% of Canadians don't have representation that really isn't democracy, and the constitution says that canada is suppose to be free and democratic. Actually making Canada democratic is good, but this should not be by removing old institutions it should be by building representation and democracy into the system, and doing so legally by a constitutional amendment of the constitution based on the amending formula proposed by the supreme court.

At the end of the day, the more voices, the more sanity in process. The real issue though is partisan control of Canada, its really unfortunate that we can't protect the rights of political minorities and instead we are imposing law on people that shouldn't be infringed without consent, on arbitrary and completely unjustified grounds - legislation is just going way too far, and is going way off base from the charter. This needs to end, but sadly, the parties will keep on taking from the people for their own selfish goals instead of respecting people and pushing a model of small government, freedom, and power to the people.

Edited October 4, 2015 by nerve

[eyeball]

There are just too many variations of PR systems to make these kinds of sweeping statements.

Probably as many ways as there are for the process that determines which one we pick to be captured by special interests and even coalitions of interests'. These will just as soon drive the process off a cliff if they're thwarted from being able to park it in their own driveway. I'd commission a panel of civics experts from other countries where PR works just fine and get them to figure out the best possible solutions for us if I had anything to say about it. But there'd be way too many conflicting ego's in Canada - the old establishment and anyone really emotionally invested in either maintaining or changing the status quo - to go that far and in light of BC's attempt at PR it's obviously so easy to bugger it up it's ridiculous.

Speaking of driving I'm reminded of how a friend described driving in Southeast Asia. It looks chaotic and is but it works because it's almost entirely devoid of ego. Nobody comes unglued if they're cut-off and when the crowd that's waiting feels like it's turn to cross the intersection has come they just go, and nobody comes unglued. Here in Canada, we'd come unglued its just that simple.

I think maybe we govern ourselves too much the the way we drive.

[eyeball]

Ours works just fine. Many of theirs do not, and the fact neither 'leader' is willing to disclose exactly which form this new electoral system would take BEFORE we elect them is pretty telling.

Our's sucks baby barf.

Don't worry I'm sure we'll all be drooling old farts who can barely remember our own name's before we see PR in Canada. We'll fiddle and dork around this for at least as long as it's taken to see pot be re-legalized.

[nerve]

Ha! Yeah, we'll see about that. A conservative minority is the most likely outcome. The fool me once, fool me twice comment...yeah, if the Liberals do get in, shame on you.

The Liberals and NDP will overthrow that premise if they have more seats, i.e. "coalition"

IF.

Totally legal, deal with it.

Let the majority of Canadians decide not the conservative minority.

Election is still a couple weeks away so anything can happen, but just realize a coalition is perfectly legal and would be a more stable government than a minority conservative regime.

Lots of electioneering that can happen before then, vote is still anywhere.

If greens and bloc are let into that coalition it could be the most representative government in Canadian history.

Edited October 4, 2015 by nerve

[eyeball]

A stable coalition that delivers good government in spite of all the howling would be the best possible of all outcomes in terms of evidence PR coalitions would work. OTOH a bad outcome could put it off decades. I think there are enough people invested in the status quo that even within a minority coalition we may be heading for there will be those who just can't bring themselves to support it and over the cliff we'll go before we've even backed out the driveway.

[ReeferMadness]

At present, as most are aware, each riding has a separate vote, and whoever comes first in that vote gets to represent that riding. Obviously, whichever party wins the most ridings has the first chance to form a government. If they win the majority of ridings, they are in charge. For most of Canada's history, one party has managed to win a majority of ridings and so we have had majority government most of the time.

You mean a "majority" government - a majority of seats, not a majority of votes.

The NDP and Liberals want to change this to a proportional representation type of election. Neither party has been clear on how this will work. One of the types the NDP have mentioned involves lists of party candidates. Feel free to correct me as I'm not expert in this, but as the party wins X percent of the vote across the country, it is awarded X percent of the seats in parliament, and it fills those seats by using its list, starting at the top.

You're describing party list PR. To my knowledge, nobody has ever seriously proposed its usage in Canada.

The NDP supports mixed member proportional (MMP) voting. There are different ways to implement it but they all involve casting 2 votes, one for your local representative and one for your party of choice (you could vote for an NDP representative but the Conservative Party, for example). There are a number of 'top up' seats (usually deployed regionally) that are used to force the end result to be more proportional.

I prefer Single Transferable Vote (STV). It involves large, multi-member ridings (7 provides best proportionality but it will work with 5 or even 3). It allows you to vote not only for your party but for the best representative for your party in that riding.

Among the major problems with this style is that the new MP might not even come from the same province of the riding he or she is appointed to represent, probably knows little about them, and won't care much either. After all, it wasn't the people of that riding who elected him, so it's not those people he needs to take care of. He's a party man and it's the party he needs to take care of, because the party decides how high on the list he's placed, and thus what his chances of re-election are.

Again, you are describing party list PR and to my knowledge, nobody favors this. Both MMP and STV have local MP's.

Trudeau appears to sort of favour a 'preferential voting' method, where the voters choose first, second and third choices. If the first choice doesn't win a majority, the second choices are added in. Unsurprisingly, this would likely benefit the Liberals the most, since they would probably be the second choice of both Tory voters and NDP voters.

Trudeau likes alternative vote. It doesn't produce proportional results and yes, it would probably favor the Liberals.

Proportional Rep in Canada would give even more power to the larger provinces, and larger urban centres. Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver between them have over 12.5 million people, for example, a third of the population. Anyone who doesn't think their votes would be far more important than whatever people in widely dispersed regions want or think or do or say is kidding themselves. The biggest victims of this would likely be the Atlantic provinces, who would, for all intents and purposes, pretty much cease to exist as far as the parties are concerned. Basically it would be southern Ontario and southern Quebec and greater Vancouver, and screw everyone else.

The bigger centres already have most of the power (as they should because they have most of the people). I don't see a reason why PR would accentuate this )

[Topaz]

We have find that new Canadians will have more power of electing the PM over natural Canadians, especially when so many don't vote. They were talking about this the other day on TV, that Harper probably got in because of new Canadians, who probably believed everything HE said and now know different.

[CITIZEN_2015]

We have find that new Canadians will have more power of electing the PM over natural Canadians, especially when so many don't vote. They were talking about this the other day on TV, that Harper probably got in because of new Canadians, who probably believed everything HE said and now know different.

You mean those recently acquiring citizenships or new citizens voted for Harper conservatives? Not sure how accurate this assumption is. I personally doubt it not to mention that they mostly come from regions where governments lie. Hardly they believe what governments say.

[Argus]

Plenty of non lefties like myself deeply dislike the FPTP system. Andrew Coyne is a major advocate for change.

Here's the thing, I'm a small c conservative. That means I'm going to support a system which has worked pretty darn well for a century and a half over some sort of yet-to-be-worked out alternative which might, perhaps, lead to more equitable government in some respects, but is almost certain to lead to weaker and more unstable governments such as many of those we see in Europe.

[ToadBrother]

Here's the thing, I'm a small c conservative. That means I'm going to support a system which has worked pretty darn well for a century and a half over some sort of yet-to-be-worked out alternative which might, perhaps, lead to more equitable government in some respects, but is almost certain to lead to weaker and more unstable governments such as many of those we see in Europe.

Oh nonsense. The majority of PR countries are stable. It is nothing more than fear mongering. Countries like Germany have flourished under PR.

FPTP may work, but only by regularly disenfrenchasing an average of 60% of the votes and, so far as I'm concerned, depressing voter turnout precisely because the actual winner often has little correlation to voter totals.

The world won't end if we go to a ranked or PR system. The parties will adapt, there might even be a few new ones. Canada is not Italy or Israel, more like Australia, also a federal state like Canada, but using proportional system.

And, as I stated, political parties use runoff voting precisely because the winner should enjoy not just a plurality of support, but a majority. Why should the country be any different?

Edited October 4, 2015 by ToadBrother

[Michael Hardner]

FPTP may work, but only by regularly disenfrenchasing an average of 60% of the votes and, so far as I'm concerned, depressing voter turnout precisely because the actual winner often has little correlation to voter totals.

1. FPTP would permanently disenfranchise Conservatives in that they would effectively never have a majority government. The system today offers a majority government for 1/3 of the time, which correlates to their support in Canada roughly.

2. Low voter turnout is an effect of our collective design for democratic engagement, not voting. If people had a way to respond to individual issues that mattered to them, you would probably see engagement in that way increased even if voting levels didn't change.

[ToadBrother]

1. FPTP would permanently disenfranchise Conservatives in that they would effectively never have a majority government. The system today offers a majority government for 1/3 of the time, which correlates to their support in Canada roughly.

I think you meant PR, and as I have said elsewhere, if we move to another system, the obvious solution for the Conservatives is to split in two; a centrist Progressive Conservative style party, and a more hard right conservative/Libertarian party. Particularly in a preferential voting system, this would give conservatives every bit as much chance to win via forming a conservative coalition as the Tory party now. That's exactly how the Christian Democrats form governments in Germany, by creating coalitions with other right of center parties.

2. Low voter turnout is an effect of our collective design for democratic engagement, not voting. If people had a way to respond to individual issues that mattered to them, you would probably see engagement in that way increased even if voting levels didn't change.

I disagree. I think low voter turnout happens because the observation of many who do not vote is correct, their vote does not count. Once a candidate achieves a plurality in any riding, it is very much the case that the voters supporting other candidates might as well have not bothered showing up at the polls at all.

[angrypenguin]

1. FPTP would permanently disenfranchise Conservatives in that they would effectively never have a majority government. The system today offers a majority government for 1/3 of the time, which correlates to their support in Canada roughly.

2. Low voter turnout is an effect of our collective design for democratic engagement, not voting. If people had a way to respond to individual issues that mattered to them, you would probably see engagement in that way increased even if voting levels didn't change.

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.

[ToadBrother]

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.

I have a real ethical problem with forcing people to vote. What if a person really does not believe anyone deserves to win?

[angrypenguin]

I have a real ethical problem with forcing people to vote. What if a person really does not believe anyone deserves to win?

Well the Australians have two major parties. The labour party and the Tories (afaik). There's 3 other parties for Aussies to vote (much smaller parties). Voters are asked to stack rank them, so it forces voter engagement. Or you could just put down #1, 2, 3 as ones that you know have no chance in hell in winning.

My ethical issue is how some Canadians choose not to vote, and that is disrespectful to all the men and women who died to allow us to have a democratic society.

[ToadBrother]

Well the Australians have two major parties. The labour party and the Tories (afaik). There's 3 other parties for Aussies to vote (much smaller parties). Voters are asked to stack rank them, so it forces voter engagement. Or you could just put down #1, 2, 3 as ones that you know have no chance in hell in winning.

My ethical issue is how some Canadians choose not to vote, and that is disrespectful to all the men and women who died to allow us to have a democratic society.

My background is that I come from a rather peculiar religious order that viewed voting as a sin. Now obviously I no longer am a member, but while apathy and/or laziness may be largely responsible for not voting, there are conscientious objectors, as you might say.

[angrypenguin]

My background is that I come from a rather peculiar religious order that viewed voting as a sin. Now obviously I no longer am a member, but while apathy and/or laziness may be largely responsible for not voting, there are conscientious objectors, as you might say.

Well, then I guess you could mess up the vote? When asked to rank, rank all as 1? I mean how would they know?

The other option is to go to jail, and yes, there are Australians in jail due to their protest wrt voting.

I learned all of this by the way, by watching the hour long video about Lynton Crosby. Lots to learn about voting there.

[Big Guy]

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.

Great idea - Treat voting like filling out national census forms!

[ToadBrother]

Well, then I guess you could mess up the vote? When asked to rank, rank all as 1? I mean how would they know?

Well, obviously nothing can prevent a spoiled ballot.

The other option is to go to jail, and yes, there are Australians in jail due to their protest wrt voting.

I learned all of this by the way, by watching the hour long video about Lynton Crosby. Lots to learn about voting there.

My understanding, from a mate of mine in Australia, is that most people who don't want to vote just pay the fine. The number of people that actually actively challenge the mandatory vote is pretty small.

I regularly read Leonid Sirota's political blog at https://doubleaspectblog.wordpress.com/, and he's arguing that there is no duty to vote, and one of the arguments he makes is that a vote based on political ignorance is probably worse than not voting at all.

Believe me, I take the franchise very seriously, and have never missed an election since I was 18 years old and voted in my first provincial election. But I'm just not sure I like the idea of forcing people to vote.

[angrypenguin]

Great idea - Treat voting like filling out national census forms!

Yep! The only potential downside are those who really don't give a hoot, and they don't engage. Like Lynton Crosby said, the strategy for mandatory voting and optional voting is entirely different.

I mean, I think most people would at least engage though in the debate and choose sides.

[angrypenguin]

Well, obviously nothing can prevent a spoiled ballot.

My understanding, from a mate of mine in Australia, is that most people who don't want to vote just pay the fine. The number of people that actually actively challenge the mandatory vote is pretty small.

I regularly read Leonid Sirota's political blog at https://doubleaspectblog.wordpress.com/, and he's arguing that there is no duty to vote, and one of the arguments he makes is that a vote based on political ignorance is probably worse than not voting at all.

Believe me, I take the franchise very seriously, and have never missed an election since I was 18 years old and voted in my first provincial election. But I'm just not sure I like the idea of forcing people to vote.

Thanks for providing that. I'll take a look. and good on you for never missed voting!

I am guilty. I have only voted federally since I was 18, and this time it burned me because I didn't vote in the Ontario provincial election. NEVER again will I miss my duty to vote!

[ToadBrother]

Yep! The only potential downside are those who really don't give a hoot, and they don't engage. Like Lynton Crosby said, the strategy for mandatory voting and optional voting is entirely different.

I mean, I think most people would at least engage though in the debate and choose sides.

It's my understanding that mandatory voting in Australia has tended to help the incumbent slightly, but I can no longer find the reference.

[cybercoma]

I have a real ethical problem with forcing people to vote. What if a person really does not believe anyone deserves to win?

Put an "abstain" option on the ballot.

[ToadBrother]

Put an "abstain" option on the ballot.

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.