Help ensure a fair referendum in Ontario

[geoffrey]

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).

I smell a scandal. Too much subjectivity... people have a trouble with an X.

[gc1765]

I smell a scandal. Too much subjectivity... people have a trouble with an X.

I think that ranking the candidates would be similar to a PR system, for example the STV that was proposed in B.C. would rank the candidates. Hopefully, the people voting and the people counting the votes can count to five (or however many parties there are) and can write legibly. If that's too much trouble, you could have 1 column for each candidate with the numbers 1, 2, 3 etc... on top. You would simply put an "X" in the number 1 box for your favourite candidate etc...

In that case, The ballot would like sort of like this:

Link Except that the number of columns would be equal to the number of candidates, and you would only put one "X" per candidate.

I just learned that this is currently being used in Australia and Ireland Link

[geoffrey]

If it's good enough for the Irish, it's good enough for me. Now that you've explained it in a simplier fashion... perhaps it would work.

But how would I mark my ballot?

Unknown Party I'm going to support now that CPC screwed me: 1

Liberal: 2

CPC: 3

Green: 4

NDP: 5

Eww, I have to support the Greens and NDP?

Can I not grade them all, and only support say 2? What if an atheist is stuck between the "Jesus Domination" and "Mohammed will kill the Infidels" parties?

[gc1765]

If it's good enough for the Irish, it's good enough for me. Now that you've explained it in a simplier fashion... perhaps it would work.

But how would I mark my ballot?

Unknown Party I'm going to support now that CPC screwed me: 1

Liberal: 2

CPC: 3

Green: 4

NDP: 5

Exactly.

Eww, I have to support the Greens and NDP?

Can I not grade them all, and only support say 2? What if an atheist is stuck between the "Jesus Domination" and "Mohammed will kill the Infidels" parties?

I don't see why you would have to mark all the choices, you could even still choose only one if you wanted. If your first choice is eliminated, it would go to your second choice. If that choice is eliminated, I guess your vote would no longer be considered. Fringe parties won't be elected unless they can get 50% of the vote in a riding, not likely for a party called "Mohammad will kill the Infidels" The cost of getting your name on the ballot would likely keep most fringe parties away, similar to how it is now.

[bradco]

-if someones intelligence only allows for them to be able to vote if it only requires marking an "X" they obviously dont have the intelligence required to make an informed decision. Built in comptency test is a good thing.

"The size of the ridings under MMP are smaller than STV thus MPs would represent a much more specific area."

The STV riding would not be significantly large enough to be any worries. In an urban area 4-7 ridings might merge into one because of their proximities. Rurally the maximum would be three which I dont think makes it significantly large enough to be a problem. I would advocate possible two MP ridings in especially sparse areas (ie the north).

One benefit from STV you dont necessarily get from any other system is the increased likelihood of true representation. When an MP wins a riding on 30% support 70% of the riding does not have a representative that they truly feel represents their interest. In cases like this the ridings would split between parties so that a much larger proportion of people have meaningful representation.

To me it will always be unacceptable that a party list chooses the MP's. Granted you could have a system where the MP's taken to make the results proportional are chosen in order of how many votes they got. But this leaves the problem of how these MP's would be spread across the country. In a country as diverse as Canada regional representation is tooimportant to risk the negative effects of list top up systems.

-Im not convinced that this system is more open to gerrymandering. The fact that it is proportional and ridings elect multiple MP's makes it harder to gerrymander for specific partisan advantage. The results, since they are roughly proportional, will end up pretty much the same no matter where you draw borders. One MP ridings are easier to manipulate by drawing borders that keep some groups that are prone to vote for a specific party always in the minority. In an STV system even if they're always in the minority they are likely to get an MP.

-under an STV ranking system if you dont want to support a party at all you simply dont rank them. You have the option of not "transferring" your vote to anyone.

[geoffrey]

I don't see why you would have to mark all the choices, you could even still choose only one if you wanted. If your first choice is eliminated, it would go to your second choice. If that choice is eliminated, I guess your vote would no longer be considered. Fringe parties won't be elected unless they can get 50% of the vote in a riding, not likely for a party called "Mohammad will kill the Infidels" The cost of getting your name on the ballot would likely keep most fringe parties away, similar to how it is now.

Do we run the risk of getting a third choicer in though by 'accident'?

For example:

49% CPC first choice, Bloc Quebecois 2nd

49% Liberal first choice, Bloc Quebecois 2nd

2% Bloc first choice, Green 2nd

Despite the Bloc having very little strong support, they could be elected on a compromise. Questionable what this would mean mandate wise. The argument would be no one voted for the winner.

Obviously a real example would be much more complex... but this one illustrates a flaw.

[bradco]

I don't see why you would have to mark all the choices, you could even still choose only one if you wanted. If your first choice is eliminated, it would go to your second choice. If that choice is eliminated, I guess your vote would no longer be considered. Fringe parties won't be elected unless they can get 50% of the vote in a riding, not likely for a party called "Mohammad will kill the Infidels" The cost of getting your name on the ballot would likely keep most fringe parties away, similar to how it is now.

Do we run the risk of getting a third choicer in though by 'accident'?

For example:

49% CPC first choice, Bloc Quebecois 2nd

49% Liberal first choice, Bloc Quebecois 2nd

2% Bloc first choice, Green 2nd

Despite the Bloc having very little strong support, they could be elected on a compromise. Questionable what this would mean mandate wise. The argument would be no one voted for the winner.

Obviously a real example would be much more complex... but this one illustrates a flaw.

All of the ranking systems in practise that I know of would not allow for this to happen. For starters a vote is only "transferred" if it isnt used to elect a member. If your second choice is for the Bloc but your first vote is needed to elect a CPC or a liberal than the Bloc doesnt get your vote. It gets complicated though. If a Liberal has 1000 more votes than he/she actually needs to get elected each person who chose the liberal first has their second vote transferred on an appropriate ratio scheme. All these ranking electoral system have mulit-member ridings as for as I know. In your example I dont think it would be possible to get a Bloc MP. If, for example, it was a 4 MP riding the CPC and Liberals would each win 2 seats and nothing would transfer to the Bloc because there wouldnt actually be any unused or "wasted"vote. Now if it was an odd number of MP riding I think it might get complicated and the Bloc could take ONE seat. This would probably be fair though because they have fairly large support even if only 2% pick them as their first choice. These systems take into account intensity of feeling, allow you to vote strategically etc. Very fun for politic nerds

[gc1765]

Do we run the risk of getting a third choicer in though by 'accident'?

For example:

49% CPC first choice, Bloc Quebecois 2nd

49% Liberal first choice, Bloc Quebecois 2nd

2% Bloc first choice, Green 2nd

Despite the Bloc having very little strong support, they could be elected on a compromise. Questionable what this would mean mandate wise. The argument would be no one voted for the winner.

Obviously a real example would be much more complex... but this one illustrates a flaw.

Using this example:

Look at the first choice first. In this example, the greens did not get any votes, they would be eliminated. There are no choices to transfer because no one voted green. The next lowest is the bloc with 2% of the vote. They would then be eliminated. Their votes would be transferred to their second choice, in this case the green party, but they've already been eliminated, so it would go to the third choice. That would depend on whether those 2% of bloc supporters voted for CPC or Liberals as their third chioce, and that party would be the winner (Not the bloc).

I can't think of any examples where this would be flawed.

[Figleaf]

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).

That system could work, and would ensure that each member has broad support among her constituents.

We should avoid any system that involves party lists, multi-member districts, more than one method of election, or quotas.

[MightyAC]

We should avoid any system that involves party lists, multi-member districts, more than one method of election, or quotas.

I can understand resistance to systems that elect MPs that do not represent a specific riding...I don't agree with the arguments, but I understand.

Why do you oppose multi-member districts?

[Figleaf]

We should avoid any system that involves party lists, multi-member districts, more than one method of election, or quotas.

I can understand resistance to systems that elect MPs that do not represent a specific riding...I don't agree with the arguments, but I understand.

Why do you oppose multi-member districts?

1. Members end up not representing a whole definite set of people, they represent a special interest group within a district.

2. The people are deprived of the advantage of having a unique voice to speak for them.

3. The district is perforce a larger one and so members are more remote from individual constituents.

[MightyAC]

1. Members end up not representing a whole definite set of people, they represent a special interest group within a district.

The term special interest is a little misleading but I agree with that statement...I disagree that it is a problem though. First of all the idea that MPs represent the entire riding right now is rubbish. Garth Turner is one of the few bright spots in politics in terms of a politician representing constituents instead of the party, yet he still only represents those that agree with his platform. The average MP in Canada represents about 40% of their riding...which means the majority of people in each riding are without representation.

Let's say a mega riding has 10 MPs in it. Let's also say that Garth still won the riding for the Cons with 40%, a Liberal came in second with 30%, a Greener received 20% and an NDP candidate grabbed 10% of the vote. The Cons would get 4 seats, Libs 3, Greens 2 and the NDP would receive 1 seat. Assuming all those politicians keep their word and vote as they campaigned much more of that riding is now represented than was before.

2. The people are deprived of the advantage of having a unique voice to speak for them.

I'm not sure what this means...and I'm not sure what advantage 1 voice has. Right now each federal MP is simply 1 vote out of 308...that's it. I don't see any advantage to having 1 person speak for an entire district considering they likely only represent of the people anyway. Using the simple example I gave above most of the riding has a voice. The Conservative and Liberals that represent most of the population have multiple voices as they should and the smaller segments of the population have fewer…

3. The district is perforce a larger one and so members are more remote from individual constituents.

I would guess that that very few people physically drop into to a constituency office to pay a visit and most communicate electronically and by mail. So in terms of communicating with an MP I don't see a problem. Also, in more heavily populated areas I don't see a problem as districts would not have to grow significantly. However, I agree that districts in rural areas would have to become very large which introduces the possibility that geographic representation could be lost. The number of MPs in rural ridings could be reduced to keep the district size down but then some of the proportionality is lost and those ridings would be stuck with the same BS lack of voice we have now.

That's why I prefer mixed member PR. The single MP in a district would still only represent a plurality of voters as they do now…However those without a local voice sill help to elect list MPs, in the correct proportion, that then represent them by voting along the lines of the party platform. I think it's the best way to achieve proportional rep, without sacrificing geographic representation in a sparsely populated country.

[Michael Hardner]

AC:

The term special interest is a little misleading but I agree with that statement...I disagree that it is a problem though. First of all the idea that MPs represent the entire riding right now is rubbish. Garth Turner is one of the few bright spots in politics in terms of a politician representing constituents instead of the party, yet he still only represents those that agree with his platform. The average MP in Canada represents about 40% of their riding...which means the majority of people in each riding are without representation.

Let's say a mega riding has 10 MPs in it. Let's also say that Garth still won the riding for the Cons with 40%, a Liberal came in second with 30%, a Greener received 20% and an NDP candidate grabbed 10% of the vote. The Cons would get 4 seats, Libs 3, Greens 2 and the NDP would receive 1 seat. Assuming all those politicians keep their word and vote as they campaigned much more of that riding is now represented than was before.

The end result of that arrangement is that no party can implement their vision of what has to be done, and gridlock results.

I'm not sure what this means...and I'm not sure what advantage 1 voice has. Right now each federal MP is simply 1 vote out of 308...that's it. I don't see any advantage to having 1 person speak for an entire district considering they likely only represent of the people anyway. Using the simple example I gave above most of the riding has a voice. The Conservative and Liberals that represent most of the population have multiple voices as they should and the smaller segments of the population have fewer…

I would guess that that very few people physically drop into to a constituency office to pay a visit and most communicate electronically and by mail. So in terms of communicating with an MP I don't see a problem. Also, in more heavily populated areas I don't see a problem as districts would not have to grow significantly. However, I agree that districts in rural areas would have to become very large which introduces the possibility that geographic representation could be lost. The number of MPs in rural ridings could be reduced to keep the district size down but then some of the proportionality is lost and those ridings would be stuck with the same BS lack of voice we have now.

That's why I prefer mixed member PR. The single MP in a district would still only represent a plurality of voters as they do now…However those without a local voice sill help to elect list MPs, in the correct proportion, that then represent them by voting along the lines of the party platform. I think it's the best way to achieve proportional rep, without sacrificing geographic representation in a sparsely populated country.

If you're looking for a 'voice' for people who aren't represented now, why not just add a single MP for any party that received 5% (or some number) of the vote as an MP with a geographical constituency. That MP would speak on the party's behalf and achieve this goal without completely restructuring the way our democracy works.

[Figleaf]

2. The people are deprived of the advantage of having a unique voice to speak for them.

I'm not sure what this means...and I'm not sure what advantage 1 voice has.

In single member situation, one member says "The people of my district say NO to Resolution 16". In a multi-member sutuation, one member says "The people of District Alpha say NO to resolution 16" and another member says 'The people of District Alpha say YES to resolution 16." Two voices cancel and the people of District Alpha end up having no say.

History provides a good bloody example of this when the Tribunes of ancient would be played off against eachother by the Senate. The plebians ended up without a clear voice and their interests were defeated.

3. The district is perforce a larger one and so members are more remote from individual constituents.

I would guess that that very few people physically drop into to a constituency office to pay a visit and most communicate electronically and by mail.

Indeed and multi-member ridings will only excacerbate that problem.

[MightyAC]

The end result of that arrangement is that no party can implement their vision of what has to be done, and gridlock results.

The end result is some parties work together to pass shared parts of their vision and oppose one another where they disagree. I believe a coalition is preferable to one party imposing its vision on the entire country because it has the support of 40% of it.

If you're looking for a 'voice' for people who aren't represented now, why not just add a single MP for any party that received 5% (or some number) of the vote as an MP with a geographical constituency. That MP would speak on the party's behalf and achieve this goal without completely restructuring the way our democracy works.

I'm not looking for an arbitrary voice for anyone not represented. I'm looking for the appropriate number of voices for the amount of votes received. If a party receives 5% of the vote they should receive about 5% of the seats. If we use our current total of 308 then that would equate to about 15 seats.

[MightyAC]

In single member situation, one member says "The people of my district say NO to Resolution 16". In a multi-member sutuation, one member says "The people of District Alpha say NO to resolution 16" and another member says 'The people of District Alpha say YES to resolution 16." Two voices cancel and the people of District Alpha end up having no say.

Let's say only 40% of District Alpha oppose resolution 16. How is democracy served by one vote representing 100% of the population being cast against it? In my 10 member district example, the 4 Cons would vote no to resolution 16. Let's say the remaining 6 candidates all vote yes. In this example the all voices were heard in the proper proportion and the result is quite different that what our current system would deliver.

Let's use the example of SSM. According to a poll in the local paper my riding is evenly split on the issue. My lap dog CPC MP will/did vote against SSM. How was democracy served on that issue? It wasn’t. Nor would it be served if I had a Liberal or NDP member vote in favour of SSM.

The result of having a voice is quite profound. More people show up at the polls as their vote will actually help create representation. Fewer people are pissed off at the government because someone is actually fighting for their views. Can you imagine how frustrating it would be to be a Liberal in Calgary or a Conservative in Toronto? Under PR those people would still be heard in the appropriate proportions.

[Michael Hardner]

The end result is some parties work together to pass shared parts of their vision and oppose one another where they disagree. I believe a coalition is preferable to one party imposing its vision on the entire country because it has the support of 40% of it.

I'm not looking for an arbitrary voice for anyone not represented. I'm looking for the appropriate number of voices for the amount of votes received. If a party receives 5% of the vote they should receive about 5% of the seats. If we use our current total of 308 then that would equate to about 15 seats.

AC - I think the first paragraph is the best summation of your argument yet.

I still disagree but...

1 ) The fact that the current minority government seems to be as productive as the previous majority government gives me enough pause to consider that you might be right. ie. Maybe permanent minority government in Canada can work.

2 ) My fear is that, once this is implemented, it would be impossible to de-implement if it was failing. I would submit that pending a referrendum a limited term experiment be tried, with an expiration date, after which a second referrendum on whether to extend the system.

How's that sound ?

[MightyAC]

1 ) The fact that the current minority government seems to be as productive as the previous majority government gives me enough pause to consider that you might be right. ie. Maybe permanent minority government in Canada can work.

2 ) My fear is that, once this is implemented, it would be impossible to de-implement if it was failing. I would submit that pending a referrendum a limited term experiment be tried, with an expiration date, after which a second referrendum on whether to extend the system.

How's that sound ?

In theory I have no problem with that provided a suitable trial length was implemented. I wouldn't want people to vote on system in transition. An example would be rating the new NHL before the players and coaches fully learned to play within and get the most out of the rule changes. Just like players who trained under an old system for 20 years plus and then are forced to use another looked sloppy at first, I expect old politicians to be slow to warm up to team work and deal making.

In the end I'm all for democracy. If the citizen's assembly suggests we need a new system great. Let's educate the masses and vote on it. If 50% or more of the public says yes, let's implement it. I have no problem allowing the public to vote it out with a simple majority as well.

I’m not sure what the ideal trial period would be. Maybe two terms, so eight years…any thoughts?

[Michael Hardner]

AC,

I would say one term should suffice.

And the second referrendum should not be optional. If the system turns out to favour the majority too much, as it seems destined to do, that majority shouldn't have the option of cancelling the follow-up referendum.

[MightyAC]

AC,

I would say one term should suffice.

And the second referrendum should not be optional. If the system turns out to favour the majority too much, as it seems destined to do, that majority shouldn't have the option of cancelling the follow-up referendum.

Would any one term be sufficient to rate our current system? I doubt it.

I agree that if a second referendum was proposed before votes were cast for the first one that it absolutely must take place. People would be more apt to vote in favour of change if they knew it was a trial. Politicians should not be able to manipulate the process for political gain, kind of like what is being done with the 60% threshold in Ontario and BC. However, if the motion for electoral reform passes even with a ridiculous threshold the same ridiculous threshold should be applied to return to the status quo. Wouldn't you agree?

On a new topic I would also suggest that the ability of the opposition to topple a coalition government should be abolished. If Canadians vote in a coalition government then it should be forced to work on behalf of the voters for the full 4 years.

[Figleaf]

I'm not looking for an arbitrary voice for anyone not represented. I'm looking for the appropriate number of voices for the amount of votes received. If a party receives 5% of the vote they should receive about 5% of the seats. If we use our current total of 308 then that would equate to about 15 seats.

I don't see why people who can't win in a district should be given special dispensation because their party manages pull a small spackle of votes across the country.

[Figleaf]

In single member situation, one member says "The people of my district say NO to Resolution 16". In a multi-member sutuation, one member says "The people of District Alpha say NO to resolution 16" and another member says 'The people of District Alpha say YES to resolution 16." Two voices cancel and the people of District Alpha end up having no say.

Let's say only 40% of District Alpha oppose resolution 16. How is democracy served by one vote representing 100% of the population being cast against it? In my 10 member district example, the 4 Cons would vote no to resolution 16. Let's say the remaining 6 candidates all vote yes. In this example the all voices were heard in the proper proportion and the result is quite different that what our current system would deliver.

Let's use the example of SSM. According to a poll in the local paper my riding is evenly split on the issue. My lap dog CPC MP will/did vote against SSM. How was democracy served on that issue? It wasn’t. Nor would it be served if I had a Liberal or NDP member vote in favour of SSM.

The problem there is that the members are not responsive to their constituents. PR won't solve that, and for the reasons I've already listed multi member districts won't solve that either. In this case I agree there's a real problem, but its one PR won't solve. What we need is Recall.

[MightyAC]

I'm not looking for an arbitrary voice for anyone not represented. I'm looking for the appropriate number of voices for the amount of votes received. If a party receives 5% of the vote they should receive about 5% of the seats. If we use our current total of 308 then that would equate to about 15 seats.

I don't see why people who can't win in a district should be given special dispensation because their party manages pull a small spackle of votes across the country.

Why should concentrated local support be favoured over national support? For example six hundred thousand Green voters produce zero representation as is...but if they all lived in the Maritimes they'd win 20 seats. Does that make sense? Why do like minded voters have to be neighbours to receive a voice?

Also, like I mentioned previously on average districts are being won with 40% of the vote. Which means a majority of Canadians are not receiving representation. We're not talking about a “small spackle of votes across the country”.

[MightyAC]

In single member situation, one member says "The people of my district say NO to Resolution 16". In a multi-member sutuation, one member says "The people of District Alpha say NO to resolution 16" and another member says 'The people of District Alpha say YES to resolution 16." Two voices cancel and the people of District Alpha end up having no say.

Let's say only 40% of District Alpha oppose resolution 16. How is democracy served by one vote representing 100% of the population being cast against it? In my 10 member district example, the 4 Cons would vote no to resolution 16. Let's say the remaining 6 candidates all vote yes. In this example the all voices were heard in the proper proportion and the result is quite different that what our current system would deliver.

Let's use the example of SSM. According to a poll in the local paper my riding is evenly split on the issue. My lap dog CPC MP will/did vote against SSM. How was democracy served on that issue? It wasn’t. Nor would it be served if I had a Liberal or NDP member vote in favour of SSM.

The problem there is that the members are not responsive to their constituents. PR won't solve that, and for the reasons I've already listed multi member districts won't solve that either. In this case I agree there's a real problem, but its one PR won't solve. What we need is Recall.

Currently MPs are tied to a district but very few actually put their constituents before their party so I don't see the point in your objection to list MPs. Under MMPR every district would have 1 MP, plus all voters would receive representation by having the appropriate party numbers in Ottawa. Best of both worlds.

I realize that mixed member PR isn't for everyone, however I believe I have also handled your exceptions to multi member districts.

Recall doesn't solve anything. In fact it is a hindrance. Recall simply prevents politicians from doing anything that may be considered unpleasant...and sometimes tough decisions have to be made.

[geoffrey]

I don't agree with recall either. It's a big waste of time. Recall in our system is called an election.