A possible option for electoral reform?

[Machjo]

Given the disagreement on electoral reform, some like me preferring open non-partisan plurality-at-large voting (which is even less proportional than first past the post), some perhaps preferring a party-list system at the opposite extreme, with some preferring the present first past the post sysstem, single transferable ballot, or other in-between solutions, could we not just have two Houses of Parliament each elected according to extreme opposite systems, with no law passing without the support of both houses?

As an example, imagine that one House is elected according to open non-partisan plurality-at-large voting, and that the other is elected according to a party list. Imagine too that voters can choose between two non-partisan plurality-at-large ballots, two party-list ballots, or one of each.

Since no law would pass without being adopted by both houses anyway, one's votes not lost whichever he chooses.

What I mean by open is that one could write the name of any eligibal voter on the ballot. As for non-partisan,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy

And plurality-at-large,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality-at-large_voting

The fact that the two Houses would be elected according to two diametrically opposite systems would also mean that they would tend to comprise radically different memberships. The first would comprise less partisan members who would not necessarily have even run for office since they would have been elected on an open ballot. Also, the fact that they would have been elected through plurality-at-large voting would tend to lead to them being mostly like-minded and representing the plurality of voters.

The second House would comprise mostly partisans who would have actively run for office and who would have been chosen by their respective parties. It would also tend to comprise different groups in opposition to one another and representing various disparate segments of society.

At least this way those looking for a less partisan House would get that, and those looking for a more partisan House would get their wish too.

A plurality-at-large ballot could probably allow one to vote for at least nine candidates easily, with each large electoral district having at least nine MP s representing it.

The party-list system could still have one MP representing one small electoral district as is,presently the case.

So while the MP's of one House would share large districts, those of the other would each represent their own small individual ridings.

[overthere]

The decision has been made: preferential ballots.

Now let's move on Canada.

[TimG]

The decision has been made: preferential ballots.

Now let's move on Canada.

Why don't we have a preferential ballot referendum on several electoral systems?

My bet is FPTP would win based on second choices.

[Machjo]

Though FPTP is a terrible system in a partisan environment as is now the case, it does have advantages in a non-partisan environment.

The question then becomes, do we remove the partisanship so FPTP can work better or do we adapt the system to the present partisan reality.

My first choice would be to keep FPTP (or adopt plurality-at-large voting) while having all candidates run as independents in a non-partisan system.

My second choice, should we refuse to abandon our present partisan system, would be a party-list as the best way to manage such a system.

That said, I agree that as long as candidates run for parties, FPTP is one of the worse systems we can have which, let's be honest, was designed to function in a non-partisan environment.

[TimG]

My first choice would be to keep FPTP (or adopt plurality-at-large voting) while having all candidates run as independents in a non-partisan system.

This would lead to a system where every MP would be available for sale to the highest bidder because they would need to raise a lot of money themselves to get elected each time. It would also result in much worse legislation because nothing could get passed without pork handed out to various MPs that need to 'prove their worth' to voters.

The same forces lead to large chains dominating many market segments also lead to a party system because it is much cheaper to develop a national brand and sell it rather than expecting 308 local operators to build their own brands.

Edited December 29, 2015 by TimG

[Machjo]

This would lead to a system where every MP would be available for sale to the highest bidder because they would need to raise a lot of money themselves to get elected each time. It would also result in much worse legislation because nothing could get passed without pork handed out to various MPs that need to 'prove their worth' to voters.

An open ballot could solve the first problem. Since it would be an open ballot allowing voters to write in the names of any eligible voter they wish to elect, no one would actually need to run a campaign anymore. A person could be elected based on what people know of gim. The plurality wins.

As for the second point, given that plurality-at-large voting tends to promote a landslide majority (even more so than in a FPTP system) in a partisan environment, it's therefore reasonable to conclude that it will tend to lead to more like-minded MP's being elected according to the will of the plurality.

This would tend to promote cohesion even in the absence of a political party.

[Queenmandy85]

An open ballot does not take into consideration that many people do not wish to make the sacrifices involved in becoming a Member of Parliament. It could also be hijacked by political parties. It could also lead to minority governments.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Queenmandy85

[Machjo]

An open ballot does not take into consideration that many people do not wish to make the sacrifices involved in becoming a Member of Parliament. It could also be hijacked by political parties. It could also lead to minority governments.

Yes, one problem is that a person who does not want the job ends up being elected. Then it starts to look like jury duty.

Should the person have a valid reason to turn the offer down, then we just go to the next one who'd won the most votes.

As for it being high jacked by political parties, that would be next to impossible. If anything, parties can hijack a closed ballot far more effectively through strategic voting from among those on the ballot. In an open ballot, whoever wins the plurality among the electorate gets the seat. With that, no one could know who will win ahead of time, and so strategic voting becomes impossible.

Remember, most Canadians don't belong to a political party and aren't that partisan.

The very concepts of majority and minority Government don't exist in a non-partisan system.

Plus, plurality-at-large voting would encourage the election of like-minded MPs.

[ReeferMadness]

The decision has been made: preferential ballots.

Now let's move on Canada.

A preferential ballot is a mechanism, not a voting system. Alternative vote, STV and other systems all use preferential ballots.

[ReeferMadness]

Though FPTP is a terrible system in a partisan environment as is now the case, it does have advantages in a non-partisan environment.

The question then becomes, do we remove the partisanship so FPTP can work better or do we adapt the system to the present partisan reality.

My first choice would be to keep FPTP (or adopt plurality-at-large voting) while having all candidates run as independents in a non-partisan system.

My second choice, should we refuse to abandon our present partisan system, would be a party-list as the best way to manage such a system.

That said, I agree that as long as candidates run for parties, FPTP is one of the worse systems we can have which, let's be honest, was designed to function in a non-partisan environment.

You can elect a bunch of members through a non party FPTP but what about cabinet? FPTP was devised hundreds of years ago in a time when only rich white men could vote. It's time to look at something for the 21st century.

[Machjo]

You can elect a bunch of members through a non party FPTP but what about cabinet? FPTP was devised hundreds of years ago in a time when only rich white men could vote. It's time to look at something for the 21st century.

The members would elect their cabinet, as they do in Nunavut.

Also, I don't buy into the idea that newer is always better. Partisan politics, though relatively new, merely divides society. One might perceive Numavut's sysyem as too old fashioned, but there is something to be said for a less confrontational and more consensus-based system that represents Canada as not as divided among warring camps but rather as united.

[ReeferMadness]

The members would elect their cabinet, as they do in Nunavut.

Also, I don't buy into the idea that newer is always better. Partisan politics, though relatively new, merely divides society. One might perceive Numavut's sysyem as too old fashioned, but there is something to be said for a less confrontational and more consensus-based system that represents Canada as not as divided among warring camps but rather as united.

Sure. Let's do everything exactly like they did in the 15th century. Forever.

[Machjo]

Sure. Let's do everything exactly like they did in the 15th century. Forever.

Nunavut's system is modern while retaining traditional values like consensus over confrontational models. Modernization should not mean abandoning principles.

The only way the Westminster system has modernized has been in the worst way possible: cutthroat hyperpartisanship.

[TimG]

The only way the Westminster system has modernized has been in the worst way possible: cutthroat hyperpartisanship.

Stop blaming the system for the society. If parliament is hyperpartisan it is simply reflecting the society that elected it and changing the system won't change that. However, changing the system to one that gives more power to extreme views will only make governance worse. Edited December 29, 2015 by TimG

[Argus]

The decision has been made: preferential ballots.

Now let's move on Canada.

I would hope that if the Liberals ram through a self-serving change in voting regulations without a referendum the Senate would refuse to pass it, and if they did the GG would refuse to sign it.

[ReeferMadness]

The interesting thing about voting reform is how public discourse seems to be dominated by people who have little background in or understanding of voting systems. So, while experts like Dr Dennis Pilon find it hard to get scholarly articles published in the MSM, guys like Ray Argyle, (who appears to have no background that would convey relevant expertise) are published in the Globe and Mail. Let's take a look at a couple of Mr Argyle's statements:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is widely believed to favour preferential voting, or a single transferable vote (STV), rather than full proportional representation (PR) that would assign seats based on each party’s share of the popular vote.

One study, done after Oct. 19, suggests that under STV, the Liberals would have bolstered their majority, with fewer Conservatives and more NDP members being elected.

There is almost no chance that under STV, The Liberals would have gotten more seats. It would appear that Mr Argyle is confusing STV, which is a form of PR, with alternative vote, which is not. So, people who read this column will likely come away less informed than when they started.

This is why I don't favor a referendum. Voting systems are almost endlessly variable and very complicated but most people don't seem to get that. That's why we see imbecilic statements like if Canada adopts a form of PR, it will turn into Italy. Or Greece. Or whatever. In the wake of the STV referendum, despite the fact that the BC Government awarded a million dollars to the yes and no campaigns, polls showed that most BC voters didn't understand STV.

I hope that the Liberals engage some experts. I hope they consult the other parties. I hope they solicit the views of Canadians. Then, they should make a decision and implement it.

[Smoke]

This is why I don't favor a referendum. Voting systems are almost endlessly variable and very complicated but most people don't seem to get that. That's why we see imbecilic statements like if Canada adopts a form of PR, it will turn into Italy. Or Greece. Or whatever. In the wake of the STV referendum, despite the fact that the BC Government awarded a million dollars to the yes and no campaigns, polls showed that most BC voters didn't understand STV.

I hope that the Liberals engage some experts. I hope they consult the other parties. I hope they solicit the views of Canadians. Then, they should make a decision and implement it.

So you don't favor a referendum, yet you want to solicit the views of everyone.....makes complete left wing sense.

[Machjo]

Stop blaming the system for the society. If parliament is hyperpartisan it is simply reflecting the society that elected it and changing the system won't change that. However, changing the system to one that gives more power to extreme views will only make governance worse.

Plurality-at-large voting actually favour the plurality, which usually tends to be moderate.

In that sense, the system I am proposing would discourage extreme ideologies even more so than FPTP would.

[Machjo]

To put it another way, supposing that we'd had partisan plurality-at-large voting over the last many decades, every majority government would have simply had an even larger majority, and the party with the most seats in minority governments would have had even more seats.

Plurality-at-large is even less pro-rep than FPTP!

This why plurality-at-large voting is the worst system (FPTP the second-worst) in a partisan environment, yet ideal in a non-partisan one so as to ensure in the absence of parties and vote whipping that we don't end up with gridlock.

[Queenmandy85]

The only drawback to FPTP is the continued existence of splinter parties such as the NDP, Social Credit / Reform, and the Greens. If voters would make up their mind between Liberals and Progressive Conservatives, we wouldn't need to be having this conversation.

[ReeferMadness]

So you don't favor a referendum, yet you want to solicit the views of everyone.....makes complete left wing sense.

Politicians use a variety of means to solicit input all the time - and only rarely does it involve referendums. Sorry if that's difficult for you to wrap your head around.

[ReeferMadness]

The only drawback to FPTP is the continued existence of splinter parties such as the NDP, Social Credit / Reform, and the Greens. If voters would make up their mind between Liberals and Progressive Conservatives, we wouldn't need to be having this conversation.

Yeah. And then if we could just get those last two parties to merge into one, we wouldn't need to bother with elections either!

[Argus]

There is almost no chance that under STV, The Liberals would have gotten more seats. It would appear that Mr Argyle is confusing STV, which is a form of PR, with alternative vote, which is not. So, people who read this column will likely come away less informed than when they started.

Given this, why should we even have elections? I mean, the voters are clearly not going to understand things anyway. Shouldn't we simply have a permanent ruling elite, and not let the ignorant voters influence public policy at all?

[ReeferMadness]

Given this, why should we even have elections? I mean, the voters are clearly not going to understand things anyway. Shouldn't we simply have a permanent ruling elite, and not let the ignorant voters influence public policy at all?

Voters choose people who best reflect their own views and values and expect them to make decisions. Most voters don't have the time or energy to understand complex issues in depth. For the BC-STV vote, the government gave each side a half million dollars to campaign (and put out educational material). The result was a gong show. The no side sewed confusion about STV and after the vote, polls showed that people lacked a basic understanding of the system.

There is nothing magical about the voting system. Politicians make decisions that are much bigger and harder to reverse all the time. We're being locked into trade deals that last essentially forever and can't be reversed for decades. Christy Clark has committed to Site C. It will permanently remove some of the best farmland in BC, affect electricity rates from now to the time of my great great grandkids and alter the map of BC. If we're going to vote on something, there are more important things out there.

[Big Guy]

I would support a ranked ballot system where the person votes on one ballot for their first choice, second choice and so on one ballot.

When the votes are counted, the leader keeps those votes but the candidate with the fewest votes is dropped and the second choice of the candidate with the fewest votes now goes to the remaining contenders.

This continues until one candidate gets over 50% of the votes.

While this is not a proportional representative system it is more representative of the wishes of the electorate. If this system was in place many years ago, Chretien would not have gotten his majority governments nor would Harper. There would have been no need to amalgamate the Reform/Alliance/Progressive Conservatives.

I believe out three major party system works best without fringe parties having any major influence. What we do not need is a majority government which represents one end of the political spectrum but with the confidence of only 40% of the electorate.