Argus Posted December 30, 2015 Report Posted December 30, 2015 There is nothing magical about the voting system. Politicians make decisions that are much bigger and harder to reverse all the time. There is no decision bigger or harder to reverse than one which changes the way we elect our federal politicians. Your belief voters are too stupid to understand the basics of the methodologies under discussion should also imply they are too stupid to understand policies and priorities, and that there should be no elections. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Queenmandy85 Posted December 30, 2015 Report Posted December 30, 2015 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. This was the system used in BC in 1952. In that election, the Social Credit under Cec Bennett was elected. Bennett returned the province to FPTP before the next election. Quote A Conservative stands for God, King and Country
Queenmandy85 Posted December 30, 2015 Report Posted December 30, 2015 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! That would certainly be more efficient but not as much fun. Quote A Conservative stands for God, King and Country
ReeferMadness Posted December 30, 2015 Report Posted December 30, 2015 There is no decision bigger or harder to reverse than one which changes the way we elect our federal politicians. Your belief voters are too stupid to understand the basics of the methodologies under discussion should also imply they are too stupid to understand policies and priorities, and that there should be no elections. Fact: Polls run after the 2009 BC-STV vote showed that most voters didn't understand the basics of STV. Fact: A voting system can be changed without referendum and could be changed back by the next government. Fact: Many government decisions lock us in for decades, some even centuries. The Gordon Campbell government signed a 999 year lease. But hey. Don't let the facts get in the way of your deeply held views. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted December 30, 2015 Report Posted December 30, 2015 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. So you like the idea of forcing people to vote for crappy alternatives they don't like just to prevent the election of a really bad alternative they completely hate. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Argus Posted December 30, 2015 Report Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) But hey. Don't let the facts get in the way of your deeply held views. You're simply making excuses. The fact is you want what you want, and like the Liberals, you aren't much interested in what the will of the people is if it conflicts with what you want. The irony, of course, was that you were one of those who considered Harper's majority illegitimate because he didn't have a majority of the vote, yet now you're stating Trudeau's similar 'majority' gives him all the authority he needs to do anything he wants, and the people don't matter because they're idiots. Edited December 30, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
WestCoastRunner Posted December 30, 2015 Report Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) Fact: Polls run after the 2009 BC-STV vote showed that most voters didn't understand the basics of STV. Fact: A voting system can be changed without referendum and could be changed back by the next government. Fact: Many government decisions lock us in for decades, some even centuries. The Gordon Campbell government signed a 999 year lease. But hey. Don't let the facts get in the way of your deeply held views. The STV referendum was an absolute fiasco. It was cherry picked by the Premier. No doubt we need major improvements but of course individuals not using transit will vote no and yet the Massey Tunnel improvements were approved without a referendum.I guess this is off topic . Edited December 30, 2015 by WestCoastRunner Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
ReeferMadness Posted December 30, 2015 Report Posted December 30, 2015 You're simply making excuses. The fact is you want what you want, and like the Liberals, you aren't much interested in what the will of the people is if it conflicts with what you want. The irony, of course, was that you were one of those who considered Harper's majority illegitimate because he didn't have a majority of the vote, yet now you're stating Trudeau's similar 'majority' gives him all the authority he needs to do anything he wants, and the people don't matter because they're idiots. Unlike Harper Trudeau is offering all party involvement in the decision. If Trudeau implements Alternative Vote unilaterally, it will be seen as illegitimate. However, if all parties but the Conservatives agree to a PR implementation, they will represent over 2/3 of the voters Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted December 30, 2015 Report Posted December 30, 2015 The STV referendum was an absolute fiasco. It was cherry picked by the Premier. No doubt we need major improvements but of course individuals not using transit will vote no and yet the Massey Tunnel improvements were approved without a referendum. I guess this is off topic . Politicians use referenda when they're not committed enough in something to invest political capital. The referendum on transit vs a 10 lane (!!) bridge represent excellent examples of that. And don't forget Site C. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
TimG Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 If Trudeau implements Alternative Vote unilaterally, it will be seen as illegitimate. However, if all parties but the Conservatives agree to a PR implementation, they will represent over 2/3 of the votersAnd if a future coalition of 50%+1 decided to go back to FPTP it would be perfectly legitimate. Right? No referendum required. If that happened I am fairly sure you would be demanding a referendum. In any case, I think you are naive to assume that the Liberal rank and file will give up any hope of a future majority just to keep this promise. The most likely outcome is a deadlocked committee with the 3 parties unable to agree on a system. Quote
Argus Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 Unlike Harper Trudeau is offering all party involvement in the decision. If Trudeau implements Alternative Vote unilaterally, it will be seen as illegitimate. However, if all parties but the Conservatives agree to a PR implementation, they will represent over 2/3 of the voters As someone in the paper pointed out today, parliamentary consultation is simply a joke, since the party in the majority always gets its way and does what it wants. Any parliamentary committee will find whatever they're told to find, and the 'involvement' of others is simply noise. The NDP have already stated their are dead set against the 'weighted ballot' scheme that Trudeau favors, as it would hurt them as well as the Tories. It would only help the Liberals. Which, of course, is why they favour it. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Big Guy Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 So you like the idea of forcing people to vote for crappy alternatives they don't like just to prevent the election of a really bad alternative they completely hate. No, I like the idea of creating a system that is more representative than the one we currently use and one that most Canadians would understand. If a person chooses not to give a second choice then they do not complete the box. In that way, they can show that they want that candidate and no one else! But they would also remove themselves from supporting another party which only satisfies their some of their wishes. That would then allow those who give preferential rankings to choose a party who comes the closest to their vision. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
ReeferMadness Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 And if a future coalition of 50%+1 decided to go back to FPTP it would be perfectly legitimate. Right? No referendum required. If that happened I am fairly sure you would be demanding a referendum. If they campaign on it and get elected with it as part of their platform, why not? You Conservative supporters seem to be an issue understanding this thing called representative democracy. Not surprising, really, considering what you've seen and supported. In any case, I think you are naive to assume that the Liberal rank and file will give up any hope of a future majority just to keep this promise. The most likely outcome is a deadlocked committee with the 3 parties unable to agree on a system. Time will tell. If they use their majority and ram in alternative vote over the protests of everyone else, it probably won't last more than one election. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
TimG Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 You Conservative supporters seem to be an issue understanding this thing called representative democracy.The people who don't understand representative democracy are those arguing that FPTP needs to be replaced. If they use their majority and ram in alternative vote over the protests of everyone else, it probably won't last more than one election.They ran on a platform and they should be free to implement whatever they want according to you. What makes you think it would change again? Quote
ReeferMadness Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 As someone in the paper pointed out today, parliamentary consultation is simply a joke, since the party in the majority always gets its way and does what it wants. Any parliamentary committee will find whatever they're told to find, and the 'involvement' of others is simply noise. The NDP have already stated their are dead set against the 'weighted ballot' scheme that Trudeau favors, as it would hurt them as well as the Tories. It would only help the Liberals. Which, of course, is why they favour it. I don't know what a 'weighted ballot' scheme is. Perhaps you should educate yourself on voting systems. Trudeau has been reported to favor alternative vote which is not a proportional system and not supported by Fair Vote Canada, the other parties or by most people who want electoral reform. Big Guy seems to like it - you can argue with him if you care to fight over it. Personally, I don't support alternative vote and I believe that it would be a huge mistake for the Liberals to use their majority to ram it through. And if they do, I think they will be attacked by all sides and regret it. However, if they do the right thing, engage honestly and implement a form of proportional representation, the Conservatives (and their supporters) will find themselves lonely voices in the wilderness. Their are already lots of people tweeting at the likes of Rona Ambrose and Jason Kenny about how they used their majority to push through changes that were designed to benefit them. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
TimG Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) However, if they do the right thing, engage honestly and implement a form of proportional representationIt is pretty arrogant to claim that 'engaging honestly' means proportional rep is the only option. If Trudeau wants to 'engage honestly' he should hold a ranked ballot on the choices which should include FPTP. If no single system can do better than FPTP then we keep FPTP. I bet that FPTP is the best second choice for many Liberals and Conservatives who together make up over 50% of the population. Edited December 31, 2015 by TimG Quote
ReeferMadness Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 The people who don't understand representative democracy are those arguing that FPTP needs to be replaced. They ran on a platform and they should be free to implement whatever they want according to you. What makes you think it would change again? Lookit - you can be as angry and bitter about this as you like but if you can't acknowledge the nuances of what's going on, I'll leave you to cry in your beer with Argus. I've already said that if they push through a system that is expected to benefit them at the expense of the other parties (alternative vote), it would be a mistake and will probably be undone. No other party will support alternative vote. If, however, they do a proper job of consulting and come up with a consensus that includes parties that have attracted the support of over 50% of the population, that's already way more than Harper and his cronies did when they pushed through the 'Fair Elections Act'. If they do it right, they will bring in electoral system experts to help them design something good for Canada. If they do it in a transparent fashion (and not bury it in an Omnibus bill like Harper would have), then they have the right to implement it. To their credit, the BC Liberals did it right when they formed the citizens assembly and brought in experts to teach them about voting systems. Then they gave it to a population that didn't have any background to vote it down. You might as well ask the voters to vote on the design of the Site C dam. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
TimG Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) If, however, they do a proper job of consulting and come up with a consensus that includes parties that have attracted the support of over 50% of the population, that's already way more than Harper and his cronies did when they pushed through the 'Fair Elections Act'.Except that would require that the Libs accept a system they don't like. You can make the same argument that the Libs could work with the Conservatives to keep FPTP because the two of them represent more than 50% of the population. What you don't seem to understand that there is no consensus on a specific alternative to FPTP and FPTP may be a preferable second choice to many if not the majority of Canadians. If they do it right, they will bring in electoral system experts to help them design something good for Canada.You mean 'good for parties you support'. You have to stop conflating your personal interest with what is 'good for the country'. The only real way to determine what alternative to use is to let the people decide because there is no objective measure that can be used to determine what is "best". No panel of experts has any right to make a purely subjective decision for everyone else. Edited December 31, 2015 by TimG Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 STV is the way to go IMO. And I really think the crying in the beer thing RM mentions will be quite interesting for sure. Although it will get long, long winded. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 Except that would require that the Libs accept a system they don't like. You can make the same argument that the Libs could work with the Conservatives to keep FPTP because the two of them represent more than 50% of the population. Whoa. You think they should keep FPTP WITHOUT A REFERENDUM? How could you think that? What you don't seem to understand that there is no consensus on a specific alternative to FPTP and FPTP may be a preferable second choice to many if not the majority of Canadians. You don't seem to understand that we have a system of representative democracy where we elect representatives to make decisions on our behalf. You were perfectly happy to have Harper push through stuff without even adequate debate. It's a blatant double standard for you to insist that there needs to be a referendum. You mean 'good for parties you support'. You have to stop conflating your personal interest with what is 'good for the country'. The only real way to determine what alternative to use is to let the people decide because there is no objective measure that can be used to determine what is "best". No panel of experts has any right to make a purely subjective decision for everyone else. And yet they're going to do it anyway. Hey, here's an idea. Why don't you sue them? That's how a lot of Harper's unconstitutional nonsense was stopped. Ohhhh, wait. This is perfectly constitutional. heh heh heh Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
TimG Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) And yet they're going to do it anyway. Hey, here's an idea. Why don't you sue them? That's how a lot of Harper's unconstitutional nonsense was stopped. Ohhhh, wait. This is perfectly constitutional.SO you are saying that all the time you were complaining about Harper you really did not have a problem with the way he did things. You just didn't like the what he did. Well I guess that makes a lot of your complaints pretty silly. BTW: I would be fine with ranked ballots because my concern is keeping a system that rewards parties that target the center and allows for majorities. Any form of PR that leads to perpetual minorities is unacceptable from my perspective. Edited December 31, 2015 by TimG Quote
ReeferMadness Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 STV is the way to go IMO. And I really think the crying in the beer thing RM mentions will be quite interesting for sure. Although it will get long, long winded. Honestly, I don't get where the Libs are going with this. It's going to be interesting no matter what happens. I don't think they will use their majority to push through alternative vote - all the other parties would line up against them and it would look bad. If they go with a truly proportional system, they will have to share power with the NDP. Look for them to try to get NDP/Greens to support watered down, semi-proportional system like Stephane Dion's proposed P3 system. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 SO you are saying that all the time you were complaining about Harper you really did not have a problem with the way he did things. You just didn't like the what he did. Well I guess that makes a lot of your complaints pretty silly. k So now you've clearly demonstrated you're not paying attention so I'll invite you to join Argus and cry in your beer. Have fun with that. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
square Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 Just wondering what are the chances the Liberals break their promise to get rid of FPTP? Quote
eyeball Posted December 31, 2015 Report Posted December 31, 2015 50/50 Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.