Will ranked voting mean the end of conservative party?

[H10]

I strongly suspect the liberals are going to try to bring in ranked voting for all those years of conservative government winning because of vote splitting between the bloc, ndp and liberals and green party.

They realize it will be highly advantageous to them.

They have also seemed to reject proportional voting.

[Boges]

Ranked Balloting is easily hackable. Everyone who votes Conservative simply puts the Liberals at the absolute bottom of the rankings, below even the Communist Party and that one independent guy. 

I guess the only purpose of it is to allow NDPers to have the Liberals second and the Liberals to have the NDP second. But how many Liberals would actually, If being honest, would rather see the CPC win than the NDP? Same theory as to why uniting the left won't automatically work. 

It's certainly not a reliable way to gauge proportional support. 

[segnosaur]

24 minutes ago, Boges said:

Ranked Balloting is easily hackable. Everyone who votes Conservative simply puts the Liberals at the absolute bottom of the rankings, below even the Communist Party and that one independent guy. 

 

While in theory it would be possible for an individual conservative to do that, I don't think its realistic to expect all conservatives to employ such tactics.

I guess the only purpose of it is to allow NDPers to have the Liberals second and the Liberals to have the NDP second. But how many Liberals would actually, If being honest, would rather see the CPC win than the NDP? Same theory as to why uniting the left won't automatically work.

The other purpose is to potentially absorb votes from Conservatives who are more interested in policy than other factors (like personality).

If I were a conservative voter who wanted (for example) lower taxes and social spending, and I considered it a critical issue, I would be more likely to throw my second-vote to the Liberals, since even though they may not be as keen to cut taxes as the Conservatives, they'd also be less likely to raise taxes as the NDP.

 

[Boges]

6 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

While in theory it would be possible for an individual conservative to do that, I don't think its realistic to expect all conservatives to employ such tactics.

People try to employ strategic voting methods all the time. Don't want JT to win, don't make his party your second choice, in any circumstance. Vote for the Greens instead. 

The Liberals always appeal to NDP voters saying that a vote for them is the only way to stop a CPC win. In a ranked ballot system, making the NDP your 2nd choice may be the only way to stop the LPC winning because they take more second place votes. 

Quote

 

The other purpose is to potentially absorb votes from Conservatives who are more interested in policy than other factors (like personality).

If I were a conservative voter who wanted (for example) lower taxes and social spending, and I considered it a critical issue, I would be more likely to throw my second-vote to the Liberals, since even though they may not be as keen to cut taxes as the Conservatives, they'd also be less likely to raise taxes as the NDP.

 

But making the LPC your second choice is essentially a vote for them. If you're in a riding where only the CPC and the LPC are realistically going to win (which I believe are most ridings in English Speaking Canada) making the other option your second choice helps them win in the likely scenario they don't win more then 50%.  

Edited December 7, 2016 by Boges

[segnosaur]

34 minutes ago, Boges said:

People try to employ strategic voting methods all the time. Don't want JT to win, don't make his party your second choice, in any circumstance. Vote for the Greens instead. 

The Liberals always appeal to NDP voters saying that a vote for them is the only way to stop a CPC win. In a ranked ballot system, making the NDP your 2nd choice may be the only way to stop the LPC winning because they take more second place votes. 

 

Yes, but if you're opposed to the policies of the NDP, even giving them the chance of more representation in parliament (even if they may not form the government) is something you might not want to do.

But making the LPC your second choice is essentially a vote for them. If you're in a riding where only the CPC and the LPC are realistically going to win (which I believe are most ridings in English Speaking Canada) making the other option your second choice helps them win in the likely scenario they don't win more then 50%.

In the last election, there were 64 ridings where the NDP came in second, many of them won by less than a clear majority. In theory, under a ranked ballot some of those seats could have been won by the NDP.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-numbers-1.3281210

[Boges]

10 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

Yes, but if you're opposed to the policies of the NDP, even giving them the chance of more representation in parliament (even if they may not form the government) is something you might not want to do.

No one really thinks the NDP is ever going to form government, if it was a true 3-way race nationally, then perhaps you'd have a point. 

Quote

 

In the last election, there were 64 ridings where the NDP came in second, many of them won by less than a clear majority. In theory, under a ranked ballot some of those seats could have been won by the NDP.

 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-numbers-1.3281210 

Which presents the problem with the system. You could see the NDP winning not because they were the first choice by many people but they were the second choice of so many people because they didn't want the other party to get their second place vote. 

Perhaps you'd have to set a benchmark for first place vote at like say 30% first places votes inorder second place votes to be considered in your victory.  

 

 

 

[segnosaur]

55 minutes ago, Boges said:

No one really thinks the NDP is ever going to form government, if it was a true 3-way race nationally, then perhaps you'd have a point.   

And nobody ever expects the spanish Inquisition.

Sorry couldn't resist.

Its true, the chance of the NDP forming the government is remote, but its not an impossibility. (They have formed the government in various provinces before, and I believe they were in the lead in the polls at one point prior to the last election (I think they were anyways.)

And even if they don't win, if you are a conservative due to policy beliefs then you will still want the NDP to have as few seats as possible, since even if they're in opposition, the more seats you have the more you can push your own agenda.

Which presents the problem with the system. You could see the NDP winning not because they were the first choice by many people but they were the second choice of so many people because they didn't want the other party to get their second place vote.

I see the problem of the NDP potentially getting more seats, and a conservative (low tax, low spending) voter deciding "I don't want that to happen... better give my vote to the Liberals since, even though I have differences, they are still closer to my preferences than the NDP."

Perhaps you'd have to set a benchmark for first place vote at like say 30% first places votes inorder second place votes to be considered in your victory.

That's just tinkering, and I don't really think it would make much difference in what I see as the ultimate problem... that a ranked ballot would give the Liberals an advantage because of the largely 3-way split in our politics.

 

[poochy]

4 hours ago, hernanday said:

I strongly suspect the liberals are going to try to bring in ranked voting for all those years of conservative government winning because of vote splitting between the bloc, ndp and liberals and green party.

They realize it will be highly advantageous to them.

They have also seemed to reject proportional voting.

No kidding, the part in the middle will always be favored.

[cybercoma]

Ranked voting is useless. It's not proportional. The point is to move towards a system where the seats in the house are proportional to the votes cast. Ranked ballots don't do that. It's just a different form of First Past The Post.

[segnosaur]

1 hour ago, cybercoma said:

Ranked voting is useless. It's not proportional. The point is to move towards a system where the seats in the house are proportional to the votes cast. Ranked ballots don't do that. It's just a different form of First Past The Post.

On the other hand, some may say the 'point' is to have a political system and voting methodology that gives us governments that are as fair and efficient as possible.

People who prefer the first-past-the-post as compared to proportional representation or ranked ballots aren't doing so because they think fptp better allocates seats based on votes cast.... they typically prefer it because they see flaws in how those systems might work in practice.

[H10]

6 hours ago, Boges said:

Ranked Balloting is easily hackable. Everyone who votes Conservative simply puts the Liberals at the absolute bottom of the rankings, below even the Communist Party and that one independent guy. 

I guess the only purpose of it is to allow NDPers to have the Liberals second and the Liberals to have the NDP second. But how many Liberals would actually, If being honest, would rather see the CPC win than the NDP? Same theory as to why uniting the left won't automatically work. 

It's certainly not a reliable way to gauge proportional support. 

Even if they did that, it would not work, because ranked ballotting gives an advantage to the 2nd place person, not the one with the least last places. I don't think many liberals would want to see the cpc win, but there are some.

[H10]

2 hours ago, cybercoma said:

Ranked voting is useless. It's not proportional. The point is to move towards a system where the seats in the house are proportional to the votes cast. Ranked ballots don't do that. It's just a different form of First Past The Post.

A proportional system would be silly because you'd never have a majority government and constant instability.  Governments need the ability to get clear mandates so that they can govern effectively, we saw it with the whole harper minority governments, they were constantly going to the ballot box.

Ranked voting allows people to get what they want.

[eyeball]

Will ranked voting mean the end of conservative party?

It'll only mean less democracy so I don't really know why right-wingers are so worried about that.

[Newfoundlander]

The NDP, if things don't improve greatly for them, would probably be wiped out with a ranked ballot.

[The_Squid]

It certainly won't be the end of the Conservative Party...  it just means they will be relegated to perpetual minority status...   to stay relevant, they should select a leader with some integrity like Michael Chong to draw votes away from the centre...   they won't remain relevant if they stay on their current path.

[drummindiver]

19 hours ago, eyeball said:

 

 

It'll only mean less democracy so I don't really know why right-wingers are so worried about that.

Isn't less democracy a left wing thing? 

[eyeball]

I don't think so.  Classically, lefties eschew seats of power whereas righties like to rally around them. They may not like the individuals in charge of a government but they'll always cleave to it anyway.

Lefties have progressive and conservative flavours too but classical righties are rarely ever progressive. A left wing dictator for example is quite conservative about how much freedom they allow. A left-wing democrat OTOH is not.

Power and how it's handled is the only difference that really matters.

AFAIC any debate about the merits and differences between the left vs the right that isn't grounded in the original definitions of the terms coined in post revolutionary France is a waste of time, and especially as it pertains to governance.

[Benz]

Either I do not understand how the ranked voting works, or some of you don't.

If a conservative voter place the liberal candidate at the bottom of his voting list, it will NOT give more chances to the conservative candidate to win.

It only give the opportunities to the eliminated ones to decide who the prefer among the remaining challengers.

Let's say you have this outcome:

Cons 33%

Libs 30%

NDP 28%

Bloc 5%

Others 4%

There are two methods. one by one elimination or a direct two first place finalists.

One by one:

The system will take the second choice of the others, and apply it to the overall. after that, it will take the Bloc's second choice and apply it to the remaining choice. So what is means is, if the bloc and the others have all choosed the NDP as second choice, it means that NDP move first place up to 37%. The libs get eliminated and the their second choices are taken into account to decide who wins between Cons and NDPers.

Two finalists:

All the votes to NDP+Bloc+others are scratched and the system take the second, or third or fourth choice of those voters until it encounters one of the two challengers Libs or Cons. This system is almost similar to the France's system where they do 2 polls. Premier tour, second tour. The difference is in France, they do a second election with the two finalists.

Although it is true that the Cons have less chances to win than the liberals, it is not necessarely to the benefit of the Libs. I think the NDP would be the most advantaged one. Alot of people end up voting liberals because they fear the Conservatives, even if they prefer NDP. With such system, they could choose NDP in first place and then the Libs for second choice. So if NDP finishes third, their votes will be transfered to the liberals against the Cons. Maybe NDP would make it more often to the last round with such system. Maybe it would be their only chance to win.

 

Edited December 8, 2016 by Benz

[eyeball]

The one by one method seems to make too much sense to ever fly.

The two finalists method is still confusing. Perhaps you could flesh out a little more what you mean by; All the votes to NDP+Bloc+others are scratched and the system take the second, or third or fourth choice of those voters until it encounters one of the two challengers Libs or Cons.  It's not clear to me how are the NDP are advantaged once they've been scratched.

[Benz]

22 hours ago, eyeball said:

The one by one method seems to make too much sense to ever fly.

The two finalists method is still confusing. Perhaps you could flesh out a little more what you mean by; All the votes to NDP+Bloc+others are scratched and the system take the second, or third or fourth choice of those voters until it encounters one of the two challengers Libs or Cons.  It's not clear to me how are the NDP are advantaged once they've been scratched.

Of course, if NDP finishes third, he does not help them. However, my point is they might not finish third. Because I know that alot of people are doing strategic vote. NDP is their first choice but, because they fear the Cons, they end up voting liberals. Now if they can vote NDP in first place and take Libs as second, there is a strong possibility that NDP will rather finish 2nd and the Libs 3rd. If that happen, it's the second choice of Libs+Bloc+others that will weigh for the winner.

[eyeball]

I thought one of rather important points of electoral reform was to make people's votes matter according to who they want not who they don't want.

I'd go with the one by one method if ranked balloting is the only choice. My first choice is the single transfer-able vote system that the clear majority of British Columbians were denied.

Edited December 9, 2016 by eyeball

[-TSS-]

I'm not sure if I understood this correctly but based on what I think I understood I'll say it is rubbish. Namely, you may have a very good idea which is your first preference or even second preference but if there are, say, 10 options on offer can you really make a realistic decision which is 6th best and which is 8th best? In reality you would put those other meaningless alternatives just in a random order.

The problem is also, as someone pointed out, that in a tight race you put the rivals of your favourites at the bottom even though in reality you really wouldn't prefer some far extreme lunatic-fringe to the biggest rivals of your favourites, would you?

[H10]

19 hours ago, -TSS- said:

I'm not sure if I understood this correctly but based on what I think I understood I'll say it is rubbish. Namely, you may have a very good idea which is your first preference or even second preference but if there are, say, 10 options on offer can you really make a realistic decision which is 6th best and which is 8th best? In reality you would put those other meaningless alternatives just in a random order.

The problem is also, as someone pointed out, that in a tight race you put the rivals of your favourites at the bottom even though in reality you really wouldn't prefer some far extreme lunatic-fringe to the biggest rivals of your favourites, would you?

Would not matter because the libs and ndp votes along with green and bloc are largely intterchangeable, the conservatives will end up at the bottom of probbaly 60% of people's ballots. Around 30% will have them as #1, 10% will have them as second choice, and the rest of people are rabidly anti conservative.

[Benz]

On ‎2016‎-‎12‎-‎10 at 2:26 PM, -TSS- said:

I'm not sure if I understood this correctly but based on what I think I understood I'll say it is rubbish. Namely, you may have a very good idea which is your first preference or even second preference but if there are, say, 10 options on offer can you really make a realistic decision which is 6th best and which is 8th best? In reality you would put those other meaningless alternatives just in a random order.

The problem is also, as someone pointed out, that in a tight race you put the rivals of your favourites at the bottom even though in reality you really wouldn't prefer some far extreme lunatic-fringe to the biggest rivals of your favourites, would you?

I wonder if it is a good idea to rank all of them. I am just thinking out loud. Maybe only the first 5 pickups are enough. Too bad for you if none of the 5 choices are the finalists. You can still choose only one choice if you want. Basically what it means is, you do not care who wins if it is not your choice.

I doubt that every body would do as you say. You can bet that most of NDPers will put the Conservatives in the last position but, I doubt very much that all Liberal voters would do the same. I think there are alot of Liberal supporters that would rather like a conservative government than a Ndp one. Keep in mind that your other choices are taken in considerations only if your first choice si eliminated. So whatever who you put in second place or last place, it does not change anything to the fact that your party won't win. Same if your party is first place and goes to the final against your worst enemy, even if you place them very last in your list, it won't change anything. Because the eliminated ones will decide who are their second or third choice...

I think it would be a disadvantage for the conservatives but, not as worst as some think. I say that with alot of reserves because I do not pretend that I can predict people's choice.

If the last election would have been like that, I would have vote as follow: 1st BQ, 2nd NDP, 3rd Green, 4th PCC, 5th Liberals. That means that, if in my county the two finalists would have been the Liberals and the Conservatives, the Conservatives would have ended up with my vote even if they were my 4th choice.

That being said, I wonder if that can be well understood by the people and as you say, maybe some people would rather vote for an extreme lunatic-fringe instead of the biggest rivals, thinking that it can help them win. Such systems allow strategic votes that can be beyond the understanding of few voters.

 

[?Impact]

On 12/7/2016 at 6:40 PM, hernanday said:

A proportional system would be silly because you'd never have a majority government and constant instability.  Governments need the ability to get clear mandates so that they can govern effectively, we saw it with the whole harper minority governments, they were constantly going to the ballot box.

Ranked voting allows people to get what they want.

There is no daemon associated with proportional voting, that is something you created in your head. Many extremely stable governments around the world run very effectively with proportional voting. Next year will be the 19th parliamentary election of the German Bundestag since the war, during that same time we have already had 22 parliamentary elections in Canada.

Ranked voting only gets power hungry politicians what they want - absolute control.