Liberal voter fraud?

[Smallc]

The NDP are in favour of electoral reform but you can bet your soul that does not include what the Liberals are about to bring. The NDP favour proprep because it gets them seats. Ranked ballots threatens their existence as a party.

Actually, they would get more seats under any system that isn't FPTP. They stand to gain from AV more than any other system, according to one analysis.

[eyeball]

So you would expect the current "illegitimate" Government to bring about "fair changes" on how we elect future Governments?

Not without cocking it up, no way.

Furthermore, if it was proven, that the Liberals were involved in election/voter fraud during our last election, you'd be good to go with the same bunch having carte blanche on how we "elect" future Governments?

No, I'd want another election.

I'd be quite content going into another election based on the need to reform how we elect and monitor governments, especially when an example of why we need to do so is so fresh in voters minds.

[Derek 2.0]

I'd be quite content going into another election based on the need to reform how we elect and monitor governments, especially when an example of why we need to do so is so fresh in voters minds.

Here's an idea.......keep our electoral systems as is, but add recall legislation for Federal MPs along the lines as a dozen or so States have down South for State Governments.

If enough of the voters in any given riding feel they made a mistake on their MP, they can force a (good)bye-election for their riding.......toss any bums out early and often.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[eyeball]

I'd go for just about anything that causes a politician or government to think twice before getting too full of themselves and doing something stupid. Even arming ourselves is an apparently reasonable option these days so...

I still think aiming cameras and microphones at them instead of guns is the better idea but apparently that's still too extreme for most people.

[overthere]

Actually, they would get more seats under any system that isn't FPTP. They stand to gain from AV more than any other system, according to one analysis.

No, they would not because the only second place votes they'd get would be from Liberals, who would already have won the seat.

I suggest that this system was not used in the past because we did not have computers to tally votes

We have not used it in the past because the Liberals never came as close to poltical oblivion as they did a decade ago. It scared the crap out of them, and FPTP seems to allow for other parties to gain power. Ranked ballots get them into majorities and keep them there. Oh, and the math was certainly within the capabilities of our species with or without computers.

I'm not surprised you approve of ranked ballots, there are 39.469999% of voters that agree with you.

[Smallc]

No, they would not because the only second place votes they'd get would be from Liberals, who would already have won the seat.

We have not used it in the past because the Liberals never came as close to poltical oblivion as they did a decade ago. It scared the crap out of them, and FPTP seems to allow for other parties to gain power. Ranked ballots get them into majorities and keep them there. Oh, and the math was certainly within the capabilities of our species with or without computers.

I'm not surprised you approve of ranked ballots, there are 39.469999% of voters that agree with you.

I didn't do the analysis. I can't find it at the moment.

[jacee]

I think the NDP's Niki Ashton made her case quite clear as to why she feels this to be so.

Certainly party links need to be investigated. However, even if it is an isolated issue by an individual, it needs to be exposed and censured: Such people should be banned from working elections forever.

There are a lot of wingy dingbats who get involved in politics who just don't comprehend how reprehensible such behaviour is. Working an election requires more functioning brain cells.

Likewise working the census, coming up soon. I had a census dingbat once who made judgemental comments about every response I made, and told me what responses "most people" were giving, and seemed to want me to change my answers to 'comply'!

.

[Derek 2.0]

I'd go for just about anything that causes a politician or government to think twice before getting too full of themselves and doing something stupid. Even arming ourselves is an apparently reasonable option these days so...

What better way to make sure the MPs are taking part in and expressing the wishes of their local ridings than having to answer to their voters at anytime.

With recall legislation in place, you could be certain whipping party votes would be a thing of the past.

[Derek 2.0]

Certainly party links need to be investigated. However, even if it is an isolated issue by an individual, it needs to be exposed and censured: Such people should be banned from working elections forever.

Without a doubt it should be investigated and with the same vigor as the robocall scandal.

[eyeball]

What better way to make sure the MPs are taking part in and expressing the wishes of their local ridings than having to answer to their voters at anytime.

Guns and cameras...all three would be even better.

[jacee]

Here's an idea.......keep our electoral systems as is, but add recall legislation for Federal MPs along the lines as a dozen or so States have down South for State Governments.

If enough of the voters in any given riding feel they made a mistake on their MP, they can force a (good)bye-election for their riding.......toss any bums out early and often.

How could that work?

In any riding the vote is split among 3 or more parties so there may always be a majority of voters who didn't vote for that MP.

If recall is a yes/no vote, all MP's could be recalled by a majority, but the by election would still yield the same result.

Money for nothing ...

Would recall be limited to those who voted for that MP?

How would we know? Votes are private by design.

Would the local Party members be the ones to recall?

Can they just install someone else?

Will we see a bunch of (expensive) recalls due to local party petty infighting?

How could it work?

.

[Derek 2.0]

Guns and cameras...all three would be even better.

I doubt you'd need either, if each MP across the country was a petition away from being tossed from office.

[On Guard for Thee]

What better way to make sure the MPs are taking part in and expressing the wishes of their local ridings than having to answer to their voters at anytime.

With recall legislation in place, you could be certain whipping party votes would be a thing of the past.

Look how bad recall elections have worked in the US before you go wishing for that.

[jacee]

What better way to make sure the MPs are taking part in and expressing the wishes of their local ridings than having to answer to their voters at anytime.

It's always good to remind ourselves that once elected, an MP (and a PM) are accountable to all Canadians, regardless of who they voted for or whether they voted at all.

.

[eyeball]

Guns and cameras just seem way more efficient.

[Derek 2.0]

How could it work?

.

Simple, if 50+1% (you could go further a require a "super majority of 60%") of the registered voters in a given riding wanted their MP recalled there would be another by-election.

Clearly in ridings where the the MP was elected with over 50% of the vote this would hardly ever be an issue, but in a riding where the MP was elected with ~40% of the vote, said MP would have to insure they appeal to at least 50% of voters, including voters that didn't vote for him/her, resulting in more cooperation by parties, and more importantly, MPs having to defer to the wishes of their riding as opposed to a party as a whole..........i.e they would be representing their constituents versus the party apparatchik, like they are suppose to.

[Derek 2.0]

It's always good to remind ourselves that once elected, an MP (and a PM) are accountable to all Canadians, regardless of who they voted for or whether they voted at all.

.

Sure, and what better way than a democracy that forces each MP to constantly curry favor with the majority of voters in his or hers riding out of the threat at being tossed at any given minute.

[ReeferMadness]

How do you know this? Have you considered said people weren't interested in changing how we vote?

In the wake of the BC-STV referendums, there was a poll conducted that showed most people still lacked a basic understanding of the system. This was after a public citizens assembly, 2 referendums and million dollars of public funding split between the yes campaign and the no campaign.

It's no wonder, really. The media do a horrible job on the topic - mostly it's covered by poorly informed columnists who are more interested in provoking debate than informing anyone. Almost all of the columns I've read have contained errors and many of them are really quite egregious.

For example, the media regularly refer to 'ranked ballots' as a system. It's not a system it's a type of ballot that can be used by majoritarian systems like alternative vote or proportional systems like STV.

[Derek 2.0]

In the wake of the BC-STV referendums, there was a poll conducted that showed most people still lacked a basic understanding of the system. This was after a public citizens assembly, 2 referendums and million dollars of public funding split between the yes campaign and the no campaign.

Source?

[TimG]

In the wake of the BC-STV referendums, there was a poll conducted that showed most people still lacked a basic understanding of the system.

Which is evidence why it is good thing it was voted down. If a electoral system requires that government do a "good job" explaining it then it is too complex and not worth it.

[Islander1]

Why do something unnecessary? It's not a requirement and we generally don't do referendums in Canada.

You do realize that we have had 4 referendums across 4 provinces and they have all failed. So much for being unnecessary and that we don't do referendums in Canada

[Smallc]

You do realize that we have had 4 referendums across 4 provinces and they have all failed. So much for being unnecessary

What about that fact makes a referendum necessary?

[ReeferMadness]

Source?

Here.

The full results of the poll weren't printed in this story but a significant percentage of the voters admitted they knew absolutely nothing about STV. This was after a million dollars in public funds had been spent by the yes and no campaigns.

But this didn't translate to big gains in knowledge; in fact, scores on a STV facts test were only slightly higher. More than one in three people admitted they knew absolutely nothing about it.

Others will lament that voters were still not very well informed about STV -- respondents scored an average 2.5 out of 6 questions correct on our 'test'

Additionally,

For Liberal voters, knowing more about STV didn't make a difference. For other voters, the more they knew, the more they liked it.

But for me, here's the kicker

There was a small drop in support for proportional representation, but three-quarters of the province still thinks it is unacceptable for a party to get a majority of the seats without a majority of votes.

Tell me how, if 3/4 think it's unacceptable to get a majority of the seats without a majority of the vote, 62% can vote against PR. It's simple. They don't understand STV and frankly, they don't even really understand FPTP.

[ReeferMadness]

What about that fact makes a referendum necessary?

Well, if you hate proportional representation and referendums have been shown to prevent it, then it only makes sense that referendums are necessary. Pretty obvious, I think.

[WestCanMan]

So one liberal mp committed fraud? It's a little hard to have so many candidates run and make sure that not a single one is a fraudster,> I don't think that can be held against the whole party.

The description in the news story sounds like similar kinds of mistakes, rather than deliberate fraud; even having more people voting than on the voting list might just be due to higher turnout of people who don't normally vote. Making mistakes is quite different from calls sending people to the wrong polling station.

When I voted my name got crossed off the list, and 300 extra votes is a lot in a station where there were less than 600 names of eligible voters on the list. Can they really be over by 50% from just "a few honest mistakes"?