How Trudeau will work very hard on dumping FPTP

[overthere]

And replacing it with ranked ballots

Why?

Because it virtually ensures we'll have Liberal Governments for a very very long time.

His campaign promise says that this was the last FPTP federal election. People think that means proprep, but it ain't so, not exactly. In the next year or two, there will be somber and sober parliamentary committees, Senate studies, citizen committees and forums coming out the yinyang. Plenty of newsprint and pixels will be expended in a show of studying the options.

But ya heard it here first- the decision has been made. The change will be to ranked ballots for electing MPs. Via party lists, large riding slates or whatever- it will be ranked ballots.

Trudeau knows that proprep means there will probably never be a majority govt of any stripe again. He'd be picking PC and NDP cabinet members right now today if we had proprep, because nobody is likely to win clear majorities for the foreseeable future.

But ranked ballots.......

In practical terms, you vote your first second and third choice of preference of the candidates on the ballot. The third place(and lower) votes are dropped. The second place votes are added to the first place votes. The candidate who gets to 50% wins the seat.

In very practical terms......the Liberals win resoundingly. Always.

PC voters pick PC first, always Liberal second, never NDP.

NDP voters pick NDP first. always Liberal second, never PC.

Liberal voters pick Liberal first, and split between NDP and PC second.

Note the trend?

Wait for it, appearing at your ballot box in 2019.

You'll get a chance to vote for Xavier Trudeau in about 2045.

[The_Squid]

We already have this topic....

[Boges]

I don't think you'd see a scenario where CPC would never vote the NDP as second choice and vice versa. This system will produce a complex system of strategic voting.

For example if I wanted JT to lose next time, I'd rank the Liberals below the Communist party, The Christian Heritage Party, Every Write In Candidate on the ballot. You won't be ranking the parties you "maybe" OK with winning second if you really wants a specific party to win. People may run for office just to provide a name that supporters can use to drown out the major party candidate you DON'T want to win.

It'll be a bad representation of democracy.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Boges

[ToadBrother]

I don't think you'd see a scenario where CPC would never vote the NDP as second choice and vice versa. This system will produce a complex system of strategic voting.

For example if I wanted JT to lose next time, I'd rank the Liberals below the Communist party, The Christian Heritage Party, Every Write In Candidate on the ballot. You won't be ranking the parties you "may" be OK with winning second if you really wants a specific party to win. People may run for office just to provide a name that supporters can drown out the major party candidate you DON'T want to win.

It'll be a bad representation of democracy.

You do realize that pretty much every PR system requires a party to reach a threshold before they can actually send representatives to the elected assembly. You're objection seems more like an invented scenario than a real objection.

[Boges]

You do realize that pretty much every PR system requires a party to reach a threshold before they can actually send representatives to the elected assembly. You're objection seems more like an invented scenario than a real objection.

The goal wouldn't be to be elected. It's just to block a certain candidate from being a 3rd, 4th or 5th choice of anyone who doesn't want that person to win. That's what I'd do if this system was implemented.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Boges

[ToadBrother]

The goal wouldn't be to be elected. It's just to block a certain candidate from being a 3rd, 4th or 5th choice of anyone who doesn't want that person to win. That's what I'd do if this system was implemented.

First of all, that would require an incredible amount of organization and a large number of voters to even work. Why would anyone take part in this? If it's just you alone, it would be about as effective as voting for some fringe candidate in FPTP. It's not a serious objection, as it flies in the face of pretty much all experience with any voting system. It's almost as if you just pulled it out thin air and then decided "Hey, this is gonna happen!!!!"

[Boges]

First of all, that would require an incredible amount of organization and a large number of voters to even work. Why would anyone take part in this? If it's just you alone, it would be about as effective as voting for some fringe candidate in FPTP. It's not a serious objection, as it flies in the face of pretty much all experience with any voting system. It's almost as if you just pulled it out thin air and then decided "Hey, this is gonna happen!!!!"

It is a hypothetical. But it'll also to counter OT's assumption that all NDP and CPC voters will automatically make the LPC their second choice because of where they land on the political spectrum. It'll increase strategic voting.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Boges

[biotk]

For example if I wanted JT to lose next time, I'd rank the Liberals below the Communist party, The Christian Heritage Party, Every Write In Candidate on the ballot.

It seems it would be simpler for you to just not rank the Liberals at all.

[overthere]

You don't get to rank anybody seventh, there will be only three choices that are counted. - first second third.

Anything else is a spoiled ballot.

First one to 50% wins.

[ToadBrother]

It is a hypothetical. But it'll also to counter OT's assumption that all NDP and CPC voters will automatically make the LPC their second choice because of where they land on the political spectrum. It'll increase strategic voting.

It's not merely hypothetical, it's completely implausible. Can you point me to any jurisdiction with ranked voting (instant runoff or STV) where this has ever happened? I can't even sort out why anyone would do it, and how exactly you would get a sufficiently large number of people to successfully game the system.

[Smallc]

I think he's saying that it doesn't guarantee the Liberals anything at all.

[ReeferMadness]

You do realize that pretty much every PR system requires a party to reach a threshold before they can actually send representatives to the elected assembly.

That's not exactly true. Under STV, you can elect a representative simply by getting the quota in a given multi-member riding. So, in a 7 member riding, you can elect a member with 12.5% (+1) of the voters - even if you get no votes at all in the rest of the country. And under MMP, you can elect a local representative by achieving a plurality of votes, same as FPTP. It's only under a pure party list system (and the party list component of MMP) that you need to hit a popular vote threshold before sending any representatives.

[ReeferMadness]

In very practical terms......the Liberals win resoundingly. Always.

PC voters pick PC first, always Liberal second, never NDP.

NDP voters pick NDP first. always Liberal second, never PC.

Liberal voters pick Liberal first, and split between NDP and PC second.

Note the trend?

You're not wrong but you are overstating things. A lot of PC voters will chose NDP or something else second, same with NDP voters.

And if Canadians care enough to get informed and involved in this issue, Trudeau will think twice. Go get involved with Fair Vote Canada.

[overthere]

You're not wrong but you are overstating things. A lot of PC voters will chose NDP or something else second, same with NDP voters.

And if Canadians care enough to get informed and involved in this issue, Trudeau will think twice. Go get involved with Fair Vote Canada.

I'd like to hear your reasoning why either of those things would happen- PCs going NDP or NDP going PC?

For both, the Liberals are much closer to their base ideology.

And for those who do choose to think about it, I very much doubt they would vote NDp first, Rhino second so as to deny an actual contender a chance. I think they would think " if it cannot be my candidate, who is least worse"?

I am also interested in why you think that Canadians would bother to get informed. Very few of them do now, what would shift the majority of Canadians in the next 2 years into an examination of complex and somewhat arcane electoral choices?

Nope, the Liberals will not risk another debacle like they had under the latter days of Chretien, followed by Martin, Ignatieff, Dion. They have an opportunity now to crush the opposition both NDP and CPC for generations with ranked ballots. They won't pass this one by.

[ReeferMadness]

I'd like to hear your reasoning why either of those things would happen- PCs going NDP or NDP going PC?

For both, the Liberals are much closer to their base ideology.

Not everyone looks at politics left to right. Different people have different reasons. Look here and flip to page 7 of the slide deck. It shows second voting preferences. There is certainly a tendency for people to switch as you indicated but it's not absolute. And there is a large tendency for people to have no second choice. If you change the voting to a ranked ballot, it remains to be seen how they wlll vote.

I am also interested in why you think that Canadians would bother to get informed. Very few of them do now, what would shift the majority of Canadians in the next 2 years into an examination of complex and somewhat arcane electoral choices?

I didn't say I thought they would bother to get informed. I said that if they did get informed and involved, it will make it much more difficult for the Liberals just to do what they want.

So, anyone who wants to see an honest process should get involved.

[ToadBrother]

One of the big mysteries is how exactly a ranked (IRV or STV) vote might look. We can reasonably model an MMP election from an FPTP, to a point at least, but where voters have multiple choices on one ballot, we can only guess in vague terms.

It might be interesting if one of the pollsters were to do a poll with a decent national and regional sample with a hypothetical three or four choice question; rating the Tories, Liberals, NDP and Greens in order of preference. That might give us some idea as to how the last election could have played out for STV and IRV voting.

[ReeferMadness]

One of the big mysteries is how exactly a ranked (IRV or STV) vote might look. We can reasonably model an MMP election from an FPTP, to a point at least, but where voters have multiple choices on one ballot, we can only guess in vague terms.

It might be interesting if one of the pollsters were to do a poll with a decent national and regional sample with a hypothetical three or four choice question; rating the Tories, Liberals, NDP and Greens in order of preference. That might give us some idea as to how the last election could have played out for STV and IRV voting.

I doubt you could reasonably infer the long term results of any voting system change. Parties would split and evolve; and voter behavior would change as well.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Politicians evolve faster than bacteria. In an STV system, you could see a Conservative-NDP coalition after a prolonged period of Liberal rule.

Edited November 5, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[ReeferMadness]

Politicians evolve faster than bacteria. In an STV system, you could see a Conservative-NDP coalition after a prolonged period of Liberal rule.

You could see anything but I doubt that combination would last long.

[Michael Hardner]

I doubt you could reasonably infer the long term results of any voting system change. Parties would split and evolve; and voter behavior would change as well.

I agree with you, however it's too tempting not to imagine what one thinks *could* happen.

My take on it is that Canada would end up far more right-wing than it has been in 50 years. I believe this would happen because our current precarious left-right balance has resulted in generous social programs, liberal outlook and relatively conservative fiscal management. The first steps of a PR-supported Canada would involve Liberal+NDP coalitions outspending our means for years or decades until we face Greece-like austerity options. After that, Canada's natural conservatism would prevail.

Be careful what you wish for.

[socialist]

I agree with you, however it's too tempting not to imagine what one thinks *could* happen.

My take on it is that Canada would end up far more right-wing than it has been in 50 years. I believe this would happen because our current precarious left-right balance has resulted in generous social programs, liberal outlook and relatively conservative fiscal management. The first steps of a PR-supported Canada would involve Liberal+NDP coalitions outspending our means for years or decades until we face Greece-like austerity options. After that, Canada's natural conservatism would prevail.

Be careful what you wish for.

Wouldn't happen here. More fear mongering on your part.

[Michael Hardner]

Wouldn't happen here. More fear mongering on your part.

What steps in my progression do you see NOT happening if PR were instituted ? You think the Liberal + NDP coalition would be fiscally responsible ? Really ? Are you actually turning left-wing once again ?

[socialist]

What steps in my progression do you see NOT happening if PR were instituted ? You think the Liberal + NDP coalition would be fiscally responsible ? Really ? Are you actually turning left-wing once again ?

Unlike you, Mike, I'm non-partisan. I see things for what they are. Many Liberals are as close to the CPC as others are close to the NDP. This country has no had a truly conservative government. I would like to see what one could do. You can't believe everything you hear from the CBC, Mike.

Edited November 5, 2015 by socialist

[Michael Hardner]

Unlike you, Mike, I'm non-partisan. I see thongs for what they are.

Parties have positions on thongs ?

You can't believe everything you hear from the CBC, Mike.

Very strange... the CBC is trumpeting PR as "fairness", which is exactly the NDP party line. If you're non-partisan then I guess that includes the CBC ? Or.... very strange...

[ToadBrother]

I agree with you, however it's too tempting not to imagine what one thinks *could* happen.

My take on it is that Canada would end up far more right-wing than it has been in 50 years. I believe this would happen because our current precarious left-right balance has resulted in generous social programs, liberal outlook and relatively conservative fiscal management. The first steps of a PR-supported Canada would involve Liberal+NDP coalitions outspending our means for years or decades until we face Greece-like austerity options. After that, Canada's natural conservatism would prevail.

Be careful what you wish for.

Could you actually cite a nation that became MORE right wing after a PR system? New Zealand certainly hasn't. Germany has remained centrist. I suppose Israel, to some extent, although it's easy to confuse Israel's hawkish foreign policy with its domestic policies.

I don't see CAnada becoming more right wing at all, mainly because fiscal Conservatism and social Conservatism have really been cut in two over the last decade. This seems like nothing more than fear mongering, and not even very logical fear mongering.