Help ensure a fair referendum in Ontario

MightyAC · July 5, 2006

Measuring how many votes aren't represented is certainly one metric, but there are other considerations. And, as my point to Charles explains, I could turn your arguments back on you and say if you want to waste 0% of the vote then go for 100% PR, or (even better) direct democracy.

0% wastage is a great goal but tough for a large country like Canada. The Dutch get less than 1% wastage because their country is just one large riding with over 100 seats.

We could do the same in Canada but due to the size and geographic and political diversity of the various regions I believe somewhat local representation is important. That's why I'm a fan of the Mixed Member Proportional system. It provides local representation and proportional representation with only 5% of the votes wasted.

Michael Hardner · July 5, 2006

Well, if you're willing to waste 5% then why not just go straight to 0% ?

Now this is the type of debate I hoped we'd get to.
What about this? Each voter receives 2 votes.

With vote 1 we vote for our local representative. The person receiving the most votes in a riding wins the seat, just like we do now.

With vote 2 we vote for the party we'd like to govern the Country or Province. The votes are totaled and the popular vote is determined. Any party that has fewer locally won seats than they are owed by the popular vote is given seats until their representation is proportional. These added MPs will come from a predefined list created by the party. They will not represent a riding but instead represent supporters of the party. There will have to be a threshold so that we are not trying to find a half of a seat for a fringe party and I think your 5% figure is fair.

In the end every riding will have a local rep and government will match the way Canadians vote. Plus a maximum of 5% of the votes cast will be unrepresented or wasted which is much better than the 50% we waste now. Additionally, a voter can vote for the best person locally no matter what party they represent and still vote for the party they'd like to govern. For instance I may like the local Conservative but want to see more NDPers in Ottawa. Also, I would think the fact that almost every vote would count for something would help increase voter turn out.

This is the Mixed Member Proportional system. New Zealand recently switched to it; PEI and New Brunswick are proposing it. Germany and Scotland among others also use it.

There is currently all sorts of debate on the details as well. For instance should the party be able to choose its own list of MPs to fill added seats or should those spaces go to MPs received the most local votes in a loosing cause

I'm only using the word 'waste' in order to play along. Anyone who voted Conservative in downtown Toronto is considered a 'wasted' vote, yet the CPC is in government so...

With regards to your system, am I correct when I say that the final numbers in the HofC will represent the national vote then ? It seems that way.

If so, then my problems with the system have already been stated. The Conservatives of Canada are poorly represented by such a system. Whether or not you like Conservative governments and policies, you have to realize that a place such as Alberta (staunchly Conservative) that only gets to see a government they like every ten years or so, will possibly never see a Conservative government. This bodes poorly for national unity. Likewise, Quebec will see the Bloc reduced in power.

I'm ok with tinkering with the system, but a vast reinvention such as this seems to only serve a minority of voters who never get their way.

MightyAC · July 6, 2006

Well, if you're willing to waste 5% then why not just go straight to 0% ?

Like I said I'm willing to sacrifice 5% for some regional representation and 5% is much better than our current 50%. Our country is so big and so different from region to region I think it is a worthwhile trade off.

I'm only using the word 'waste' in order to play along. Anyone who voted Conservative in downtown Toronto is considered a 'wasted' vote, yet the CPC is in government so...

Most of Toronto is Liberal. In a Liberal riding anyone that voted CPC is now represented by a Liberal MP. The fact that the CPC is in government does not represent members of that riding. How will the CPC voters of the Liberal Toronto ridings feel when their MP votes in favour of same-sex marriage on their behalf? Also what about all the NDP and Green voters in Toronto Liberal ridings; their votes counted for nothing.

In my riding the winning MP received 40% of the vote, which means 60% of all people that cast votes will now be represented by a viewpoint they do not agree with.

With regards to your system, am I correct when I say that the final numbers in the HofC will represent the national vote then ? It seems that way.

Yes. Every local MP gets a seat but seats are added for each party to match the popular vote.

If so, then my problems with the system have already been stated. The Conservatives of Canada are poorly represented by such a system. Whether or not you like Conservative governments and policies, you have to realize that a place such as Alberta (staunchly Conservative) that only gets to see a government they like every ten years or so, will possibly never see a Conservative government. This bodes poorly for national unity. Likewise, Quebec will see the Bloc reduced in power.

A Mixed Member Proportional system will give Canadians the exact (within 5%) government they vote for. Every political view is represented in the correct proportion.

This system does not give any party undeserved seats but it does not steal seats either. Conservative votes in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver would actually receive representation which is nice. Similarly Liberal and NDP votes in Saskatchewan and Alberta would be represented.

Any non-national party or party that doesn't run in every riding in a province will be hurt by the system, which is fair considering our government represents the whole country or entire province.

This system will almost always produce coalition governments. One other measure I'd like to see implemented is the removal of the ability of the opposition to topple the government. If Canadians elect coalition governments we should keep them for the full four year term. That way we can end the perpetual campaigning and take away the threat of election as a tool to force an outcome.

I'm ok with tinkering with the system, but a vast reinvention such as this seems to only serve a minority of voters who never get their way.

A proportional system does not serve a minority of voters. It makes every vote equal so it serves 100% of voters.

In my riding 60% of voters are represented by a voice they disagree with. On average half of our country is represented by an opposing point of view. I want a system that makes every vote equal and makes every vote count. I know there is debate over the meaning of democracy but the fact that one Bloc vote is worth a hell of a lot more than an NDP vote is undemocratic.

Michael Hardner · July 6, 2006

A proportional system does not serve a minority of voters. It makes every vote equal so it serves 100% of voters.
In my riding 60% of voters are represented by a voice they disagree with. On average half of our country is represented by an opposing point of view. I want a system that makes every vote equal and makes every vote count. I know there is debate over the meaning of democracy but the fact that one Bloc vote is worth a hell of a lot more than an NDP vote is undemocratic.

Well, I have expressed my concerns about how the results will impact national unity, conservative minded voters, and the system as a whole. In general, you don't seem to empathize with conservatives or the regional mindset and continually portray this new system as objectively fair.

This is politics, though, and it's all about compromise. The people who try to implement this will have to be more sensitive to other voices and viewpoints than you are.

MightyAC · July 6, 2006

Well, I have expressed my concerns about how the results will impact national unity, conservative minded voters, and the system as a whole. In general, you don't seem to empathize with conservatives or the regional mindset and continually portray this new system as objectively fair.
This is politics, though, and it's all about compromise. The people who try to implement this will have to be more sensitive to other voices and viewpoints than you are.

Harper was a proponent of electoral reform before he had a chance to win a false majority. I guess he isn't worried about a fair voting system hurting his support. Chretien was also in favour of it as well. I guess power corrupts.

Michael Hardner · July 6, 2006

smile.gif Harper was a proponent of electoral reform before he had a chance to win a false majority. I guess he isn't worried about a fair voting system hurting his support. Chretien was also in favour of it as well. I guess power corrupts.

Well, good on them for that. I did think that the party leaders did some good work when they reformed election finances. And... PR would be good - maybe even better - if it led to true dialogue and compromise between the federal parties. I have, in the past, advocated de-politicizing large aspects of government business, and maybe this is a good way to achieve that end. If it happens through PR, I'll be very happy to admit I was wrong about it.

Wilber · July 7, 2006

I agree that his winning a majority with less than half the popular vote is not the worst distortion ever, but it is still a distortion. Sadly, there are still people who defend our current flawed voting system that so drastically distorts the way Canadians vote

It's not unusual for a party to win a majority with less than half the popular vote in a system where there are more than two parties. The last NDP majority in BC was formed by a party which got a smaller percentage of the popular vote than the party which wound up in opposition. That is a screwed up system.

MightyAC · July 7, 2006

I agree that his winning a majority with less than half the popular vote is not the worst distortion ever, but it is still a distortion. Sadly, there are still people who defend our current flawed voting system that so drastically distorts the way Canadians vote

It's not unusual for a party to win a majority with less than half the popular vote in a system where there are more than two parties. The last NDP majority in BC was formed by a party which got a smaller percentage of the popular vote than the party which wound up in opposition. That is a screwed up system.

Right...but in Canada we use the same First Past the Post system federally as well as in every province. The screwed up system you're referring to is our only system right now. Also, most democracies around the world have changed to one of the various PR systems, so it's not common for a party to win a majority with less than half the popular vote is most countries.

MightyAC · November 1, 2006

So the McGuinty Libs announced that the threshold for electoral reform in our upcoming referendum will be a very undemocratic 60%. Plus at least 60% of the ridings will have to vote with majority support.

So much for democracy. No political party in Ontario has ever won 60% of the vote yet they have no problem instituting major changes to public policy. A 60% threshold means minority rule. 40% + 1 can tell 60% of the population what to do. That is absolutely ridiculous...it is disgusting in fact. Our soldiers are fighting and dying to force democracy on a nation and the McGuinty Libs blatantly abuse democracy here at home.

People all have a different ideas of what would be the ideal electoral system in Ontario, but I'm sure we can all agree that for democracy to be effect the majority must rule. A system will be proposed and the people will get to vote. Purposely setting an almost unreachable condition on the vote is a slap in the face to voters. The McGuinty Liberals have told us that the people do not matter.

If anyone would like to help tar and feather the Ontario premiere let me know.. I'll rent a bus and bring the tar and feathers. :angry:

bradco · November 1, 2006

a few comments:

-I am a big supporter of changing to PR but even I realize that more than a 50% plus 1 threshhold is necessary. You cant make fundamental changes on low thresholds because you could be changing the fundamental way we operate our democracy every year or two (two fundamentals in the same sentence....reminds me of someone). Major changes to constitution, electoral system etc need more than 50 plus 1. Yes, this is a practical argument. I remind people though that doing something solely because it is "democratic" is a little silly.

-Seen some love for the German mixed system in here. I dont support such a system since some MP's would not represent a geographical location. Regional representation is a good and fundamental part of our system and we shouldnt deviate from it. Check out the proposed BC-STV system. It cant be beat . The failure of it in the lkast referendum was because nobody knew what the hell it was (I worked the election so trust me this is true).The next time around the yes/no campaigns will be funded. The campaigns were non-existant last time around. I never once saw a yes or no sign during the campaign. Statistics show that people who know the system overwhelmingly support it.

-The argument that any party would be disadvantaged by PR rests on the fact that they are currently advantaged by our system. PR is about correcting current advantages.

-Why couldn't conservatives work with another party to keep a government going? The liberals and conservatives could work just as good or better than the liberals and ndp.

-Generally I see majority governments as a problem. They are nothing more than elected distatorships that completely ignore usuallymore than half of our population. Minority governments aren't necessarily a bad thing. The reason they dont function well in our system is because politicians are concerned about posturing to win a majority next time out instead of cooperating to govern effectively. Take away the hope of getting amajority and see how they act. Cooperation, not competition is what the true meaning of democracy is.

MightyAC · November 1, 2006

I agree with most of what you said about majorties and the advantages of PR. I do have some exceptions though..

-I am a big supporter of changing to PR but even I realize that more than a 50% plus 1 threshhold is necessary. You cant make fundamental changes on low thresholds because you could be changing the fundamental way we operate our democracy every year or two

Making the threshold 50% + 1 does not mean there we’d be changing the system every year or two. The threshold has nothing to do with the frequency of change. The government itself decides whether or not there will be a referendum in the first place.

Major changes to constitution, electoral system etc need more than 50 plus 1. Yes, this is a practical argument.

Why? Any threshold is an arbitrary number. Anything other than 50% + 1 simply means that a minority voice has more power than a majority. Plus governments make major changes that affect our lives all the time based on a 50% + 1 vote in parliament. Why is majority rule fine for government votes but we, the people, require higher thresholds?

-Seen some love for the German mixed system in here. I dont support such a system since some MP's would not represent a geographical location. Regional representation is a good and fundamental part of our system and we shouldnt deviate from it. Check out the proposed BC-STV system. It cant be beat

I like both the Mixed Member Proportional system and the Single Transferable Vote, but I prefer MMP. Under MMP most MPs come from a riding and a few list MPs represent their party in order to balance out the popular vote. The size of the ridings under MMP are smaller than STV thus MPs would represent a much more specific area. Also the percentage of wasted votes tends to be smaller under MMP than STV, depending on the number of MPs in each riding.

The greater the number of candidates in an STV system means fewer wasted votes. However unless the size of parliament is dramatically increased the ridings have to grow much larger. This is fine in small countries or provinces but for large relatively sparse areas this system doesn’t work that well. STV would be fine in the South Western Ontario as it well populated. In Northern Ontario 1 riding would have to encompass such a vast area that geographical representation is lost anyway.

I find MMP a great compromise. It gives better geographical rep than STV in most cases, (STV would suite PEI, NS and NB perfectly), it limits the amount of wasted votes very well and it still correctly represents how people vote.

Figleaf · November 1, 2006

ll

Edited July 19, 2007 by Figleaf

Remiel · November 1, 2006

First of all, I think that your statements about the parties who would become more or less represented ignores two important factors: 1. If we were to change to a proportional representation system, it is possible that the entire dynamic between parties would also change, especially if parties splinter. If we had had proportional representation before the Alliance and PC merged, wouldn't the right have been better off then? 2. The right is also represented to a degree by the most powerful, right wing, obnoxious country in the world, the U.S., which exerts rightwards pressure on our system. There is no such counterpart for the left, and thus the left almost needs more actual representation in order to counter that influence.

Canadian Blue · November 1, 2006

The right is also represented to a degree by the most powerful, right wing, obnoxious country in the world, the U.S., which exerts rightwards pressure on our system. There is no such counterpart for the left, and thus the left almost needs more actual representation in order to counter that influence.

The US has the left wing democrats and the right wing republicans, who shift power all the time. Were probably going to see more democrats in Congress and the Senate after Nov 8. As well the left wing is strong enough in this country because of fears of Canada becoming the 51st state. Usually the right wing gets around 40% of the vote with the left getting 40% and usually 20% swing voters.

Remiel · November 1, 2006

The Democrats are not left wing. They are centre, at their most left, and compared to us, they are right. In other words, in the U.S. their is right and more-right. This little foray aside, let's try to stay on track here. Canadian politics.

iamcanadian2 · November 2, 2006

This is all a moot point. Politicians have no power in Canada and it really does not matter what level of fake democracy we apply.

MightyAC · November 2, 2006

This is all a moot point. Politicians have no power in Canada and it really does not matter what level of fake democracy we apply.

Great if it doesn't matter why not switch to a system that actually elects the government Canadians vote for?

In the 2006 federal election, more than 650,000 Green Party voters across the country elected no one. Meanwhile, fewer than a half-million Liberal voters in Atlantic Canada alone elected 20 MPs. In the prairie provinces, Conservatives won three times as many votes as the Liberals, but were given nearly ten times as many seats. But more than 400,000 Conservative voters in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver couldn't elect a single MP. The NDP attracted a million more votes than the Bloc, but the voting system gave the Bloc 51 seats and the NDP 29.
What about majority rule? Canadians are usually ruled by majority governments that the majority voted against. In some provincial elections, parties coming in second in the popular vote have won majority control of the legislature. In other cases, the opposition is sometimes reduced to a seat or two (and in one case, none at all) despite representing forty percent of the electorate.

There are many people like iamcanadian that are too apathetic to care... Even worse there are some that think like Figleaf who support are winner take all system that produces results like those in the quote above. Like Figleaf most people don't really understand PR. Figleaf doesn't like the idea of list MPs. Great, many forms of PR don't use list MPs. Bradco is a proponent of STV which uses none at all. However, most people like Figleaf simply oppose PR because they have an agenda. Over the last 15 years Liberal supporters have been served very well by our lack of democracy. Chretien won 3 majorities without ever receiving more than 42% of the vote. Most people aren’t even aware that parties can receive dictatorial majority power with less than 50% of the vote…but in Canada it is not only possible but very common. Bloc supporters routinely get a huge bonus simply because their supporters are concentrated in one area.

Oh well ridiculous threshold or not the ball is now rolling. Votes have and are taking place in BC, PEI, NB and Ontario. It is just a matter of time before we join the many other nations that have switched to newer much more democratic systems. Self serving politicians and greedy party supporters like Figleaf will fight for their advantaged situation but in time they'll loose.

The 60% threshold is likely too high for a change to take place right now but in the process people will be educated about various electoral systems. As more people realize that in Canada every vote is not equal and the majority does not rule, they will be amazed and disgusted. They will wonder how a country like Canada can call itself democratic when some votes are worth more than others...They'll ask why it only takes 30,000 votes to elect a Bloc MP but over 100,000 to elect someone from the NDP. Education will start to kill apathy and eventually we'll get democracy.

Remiel · November 2, 2006

I don't think I would say getting 60% is impossible. I mean, they did manage 58% in BC without even running a serious campaign in favour of the the electoral reform. It may be improbable, but if we fight rabidly, tooth & nail, we can probably manage it. It's a matter of making sure you talking about it with every single person you have the opportunity to. Encourage them to encourage their friends. Give them the numbers, tell them it may be very well the most important and relevant vote they may ever get the chance to participate in, and that either way, their vote absolutely counts. We're not voting for politicians, we're voting for a political process. If you can get that point across, I think you could rally a lot of people who normally don't vote in elections.

Figleaf · November 2, 2006

... Even worse there are some that think like Figleaf who support are winner take all system that produces results like those in the quote above.

People who disagree with stupid ideas? Shocking!

Like Figleaf most people don't really understand PR. Figleaf doesn't like the idea of list MPs. Great, many forms of PR don't use list MPs. Bradco is a proponent of STV which uses none at all.

Clearly it's you who doesn't understand PR. It means 'proportional representation', and pure STV (single transferable vote) is not, in fact a PR system.

However, most people like Figleaf simply oppose PR because they have an agenda.

And what, pray tell, is my "agenda"? (BTW, don't PR advocates have an agenda?)

Self serving politicians and greedy party supporters like Figleaf...

Oh, bugger off. How 'bout dealing with my criticisms instead of spewing (manque) ad hominems?

...ask why it only takes 30,000 votes to elect a Bloc MP but over 100,000 to elect someone from the NDP.

And YOU accuse ME of having an agenda to support a particular party!?! Sleazy knee-dip special pleading will be the end of that party, and good riddance.

Michael Hardner · November 2, 2006

Figleaf,

Read the thread and you'll see that AC is a feverish supporter of PR. He even talks about soldiers dying for demcracy etc. etc. He's very passionate about it.

I also was basically accused in this thread of opposing PR because I'm right wing, even though I have campaigned for and voted for the NDP pretty consistently throughout the years.

PR will result in endless coalitions, and more politics in a system that is dying for less politics.

AC thinks that people who are put off by the system now will somehow be brought inside the fold if more gerrymandering, politicking, and backslapping is added.

I don't.

geoffrey · November 3, 2006

Random lists of people that representatives can be picked from frightens me.

What frightens me even more is quotas for women and minorities. The last place I want to see affirmative action is in the HoC.

Figleaf · November 3, 2006

Gerrymander certainly describes the goofball system they rejected in B.C. It was rigged to produce 'proportionality' even if people voted another way.

Canadian Blue · November 3, 2006

I'm in favor of electoral reform, lets face it the current system isn't really democratic. I think we need to have a bicameral elected House of Commons, and have a mixed member proportional system similar to Germany.

I would also support a measure that would see candidates needing 50%+1 in order to represent their seat instead of the current system.

geoffrey · November 3, 2006

I'm in favor of electoral reform, lets face it the current system isn't really democratic. I think we need to have a bicameral elected House of Commons, and have a mixed member proportional system similar to Germany.
I would also support a measure that would see candidates needing 50%+1 in order to represent their seat instead of the current system.

Run-offs? You MIGHT have something there, but I don't know. The turnout by round 5 would be about 2% so it defeats the entire purpose.

gc1765 · November 3, 2006

Run-offs? You MIGHT have something there, but I don't know. The turnout by round 5 would be about 2% so it defeats the entire purpose.

My favourite idea would be to rank the candidates all on the same ballot. No need for more voting. Keep crossing of the lowest on the list until you get > 50%. It would still be more 'proportional' by allowing people to vote for 3rd, 4th parties etc. without wasting a vote. I guess the only disadvantage is it would take a lot of ballot counting, and could get complicated (but probably no more so than PR).