Electoral Reform

[Columba]

Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, "No problem can be solved from the same awareness that created it."

All of the discussions which I have read about electoral reform seem to be stuck in the concept that the "one person, one vote" system is the only fair system, and they try to manipulate this system with all kinds of complicated proportional representation schemes which all seem to lead to permanent minority governments without any firm and consistent direction.

Well, I don't think it is fair that the vote of an educated, informed citizen who is concerned about the future of Canada can be nullified by the vote of a poorly educated, poorly informed crackhead whose primary concern is how he can get his next fix. I suggest that it is time for us to start to consider the quality of votes, as well as the quantity of votes.

Back in the early days of democracy, the privilege of voting was limited to a relatively small percentage of the population. During the 20th century, the privilege of voting was extended to women, to First Nations (Canadian Indian) people, and to people of younger age. Since the majority of these new voters seem to think that a policy that assures to each member of society an equitable share of goods, services and welfare benefits, means that everybody should be treated the same regardless of what contributions they make to society, the popular vote has skewed our politics in one direction and lessened the value of self-responsibility in our society. I suggest that it is time for us to give people, who make commendable contributions to our society, an opportunity to have a greater say in who gets elected to govern our country.

The purpose of the proposed "Earned Votes" system is to enhance the balance of votes between the majority of the electorate and the minorities who have demonstrated values and behaviours, in manners which are readily measurable, which are desirable in the selection of Members of Parliament.

BASIC: Each Canadian citizen, who is of the age and standing as defined in the Canada Elections Act, is entitled to one vote.

During the registration process for each election, a citizen is entitled to apply for additional votes, as outlined below, with submission of evidence of qualification.

EDUCATION: Each Canadian citizen, who has acquired a degree from a recognized university, or who has acquired an officer's commission in the Canadian armed servcies, is entitled to an additional vote.

FOREIGN SERVICE: Each Canadian citizen, whose primary family income has been earned while serving outside of Canada for a minimum of two years, is entitled to an additional vote. This includes members of Canada's diplomatic, military and information gathering services.

FAMILY: Each Canadian citizen, as a spouse in a legally constituted marriage, who has raised at least two children to the age of fourteen years, without having a divorce or legal separation, is entitled to an additional vote.

ENTERPRISE: Each Canadian citizen who, as an owner, senior partner or majority shareholder of a profitable Canadian business, has employed at least ten people for a period of five years, is entitled to an additional vote.

AWARD: Each Canadian citizen who receives the Order of Canada for outstanding achievement and service to the country or to humanity at large.

The system of voting and of counting votes would be the same as now. The polling clerk would give each elector the number of ballots to which they are entitled and confirm that the marked ballots are deposited in the ballot box.

May I please have your comments and suggestions concerning this proposal. If you think that the proposal is worthy of consideration by your Member of Parliament, then please tell him about it.

[geoffrey]

So rule of the rich over the poor.

I kind of like it. But I couldn't be morally ok with it. It ain't democracy.

[August1991]

FOREIGN SERVICE: Each Canadian citizen, whose primary family income has been earned while serving outside of Canada for a minimum of two years, is entitled to an additional vote. This includes members of Canada's diplomatic, military and information gathering services.

Information gathering services?

Why don't you just say that spies get to vote twice.

This is dumb, dumb, dumb. And it doesn't solve the fundamental problems of a democratic vote: One voter's research work to discover the best candidate provides a free ride to non-voters. A single ballot does not allow an expression of intensity of feeling.

In the political arena, we don't have an effective mechanism to make collective decisions and I'm sure balloting will not provide a solution.

[bradco]

I disagree with anything that moves away from "one person, one vote". None of the things listed that would result in an extra vote guarantee someone is more informed. It is arguably likely that the people who meet these requirements are more likely to be informed but thats no guarantee. It is also entirely possible and likely that many very well informed voters dont satisfy any of these requirements. As far as Im concerned there isnt a problem of uninformed people voting. Those who dont care and are not informed usually just dont vote. There is really no way to measure how informed a voter is, therefore,we ought to stick to one person, one vote.

"And it doesn't solve the fundamental problems of a democratic vote: One voter's research work to discover the best candidate provides a free ride to non-voters."

How can we counter the free-rider problem? Im not sure there really is anything that can effectively stop this. Mandatory voting is the worst solution because the winner is pretty much chosen randomly by those who dont wish to become informed. As far as Im concerned this isnt much of a problem anyways. Someone free loading off my knowledge doesnt bother me cause Im getting what I want. In fact the more people who freeload the more power my one vote gets. The effort involved in voting that results in lower turnouts is a way of weeding out those who shouldnt be voting because they arent informed enough or care enough to become informed. Lower turnouts arent inherently a bad thing. They are only troublesome, for example, if its because there arent good candidates.

"A single ballot does not allow an expression of intensity of feeling.""

I encourage you to learn about the British Columbia single transferable vote system (its a type of PR). It was recently proposed for use in BC and failed by just 3% to reach the necessary 60% in a referendum (we will be voting on it again I believe....with this time money being given to both yes and no sides to run a campaign which will likely result in its passing).

Under this system ridings consists of multiple representatives. This allows for the system to automatically make itself more proportional. It is important to note that the system does not result in exact proportionality but is close. This system is superior to other forms of PR because all representatives must represent a geographical riding which is an important principle of our democracy in my opinion. It also has a built in "5% clause" because it is not directly proportionate and by its nature requires a certain level of support. Therefore, fringe parties are left out which is in my opinion beneficial.

Basically the ballot allows you to rank candidates in order of your preference. The ballot consists of more than one candidate for each party which offers voters more choice (this is allowed since each riding elects multiple representatives). Where intensity of feeling comes in is that instead of only one vote you get to rank candidates using numbers, 1 meaning your first choice. This eliminates the "wasted vote" scenario of our current system as if your first choice is not selected or does not require your vote to be elected all or a portion of your vote is "transferred" to your other choices. Note, you can ensure that a candidate cannot recieve any of your vote by not assinging a number beside their name (you can rank as few or as many candidates as you wish).

This system is complicated which is a good thing. Its like a built in "test". If you cant bother to learn how to vote you clearly are not bothering enough to be informed.

[Topaz]

The only thing I want Canada to have IF Harper decides to move to computer voting is ALL computers must have a paper trail, so the voter can prove who they voted for. I can't see why we should move to that, unless the it the speed of results. The US is still having problem with them and I don't trust the software not being hacked or controlled.

[Canuck E Stan]

All of the discussions which I have read about electoral reform seem to be stuck in the concept that the "one person, one vote" system is the only fair system, and they try to manipulate this system with all kinds of complicated proportional representation schemes which all seem to lead to permanent minority governments without any firm and consistent direction.

Changing the voting structure to the method you suggest will not change having a minority government.

As long as we have more than two parties vying for the votes the odds of minority governments will always be present,even if you had 110% of the population voting.

If you don't vote, you can't bitch about the government in power.

An incentive to vote might help get people out to vote, like a $100 fine or a tax break,but if people don't care, they just don't care,and there is little one can do about it.

[Figleaf]

BASIC: Each Canadian citizen, who is of the age and standing as defined in the Canada Elections Act, is entitled to one vote.

During the registration process for each election, a citizen is entitled to apply for additional votes, as outlined below, with submission of evidence of qualification.

While I understand the impetus, I cannot agree with this proposal either in principle or in specifics....

EDUCATION: Each Canadian citizen, who has acquired a degree from a recognized university, or who has acquired an officer's commission in the Canadian armed servcies, is entitled to an additional vote.

I have a handful of degrees. My wife has not yet completed her first (she is a mature part-time student in a B.A. program). I certainly do not feel that her sense of right and wrong, her analysis of her interests, or the interests of society are any less worthy than mine (and I'm and arrogant SOB).

Furthermore, I have met many military officers and while I respect them all, some-but-decidely-not-all of them demonstrate a better political grasp than the average high-school student.

FOREIGN SERVICE: Each Canadian citizen, whose primary family income has been earned while serving outside of Canada for a minimum of two years, is entitled to an additional vote. This includes members of Canada's diplomatic, military and information gathering services.

Foreign service is just another job. There's no reason they should get more votes than other people because they happen to have occupied a certain employment.

FAMILY: Each Canadian citizen, as a spouse in a legally constituted marriage, who has raised at least two children to the age of fourteen years, without having a divorce or legal separation, is entitled to an additional vote.

What does raising a family tell you about someone's effort or ability to pay attention to politics? MANY parents are imbeciles. And why two kids? Why age 14? This idea makes no sense.

The other points suffer from similar problems. And what about other claims to merit? Who's to say that the one's you've listed exhaust the categories of merit?

I'd say you'd be better off disqualifying unfit people from voting rather than trying to make arbitrary selections as to who deserves more votes.

[geoffrey]

The only thing I want Canada to have IF Harper decides to move to computer voting is ALL computers must have a paper trail, so the voter can prove who they voted for. I can't see why we should move to that, unless the it the speed of results. The US is still having problem with them and I don't trust the software not being hacked or controlled.

OMG OMG!!! HARPER CHANGING TO US STYLE COMPUTERS!!! OMG OMG!!!

Give me a break. Election's Canada decides the methods, the government has nothing to do with it really.

[Argus]

EDUCATION: Each Canadian citizen, who has acquired a degree from a recognized university, or who has acquired an officer's commission in the Canadian armed servcies, is entitled to an additional vote.

Okay, so, like, you have some guy who worked hard to pull himself up from his boostraps, is self-educated, and made a good life for himself. He gets no bonus. But a drunken frat boy sent to school by his parents (and who went because it meant another four years of partying before he'd have to try and get a job) gets an extra vote?

Don't get me wrong here. I sort of agree with what you're trying to do. But you have to consider things more carefully. I admire education, but I've met plenty of university grads who know little or nothing about politics. They can tell you all about computers, mind you, or medieval literature, or accounting formulas, but they haven't picked up a newspaper in ten years, and their political beliefs can be as ignorant as someone just out of junior high.

I agree with giving credit for military service, but nothing else here because it doesn't really mean anything that you've fathered a few kids. Wife beaters stay with their wives as long as they can too! And your plan would give extra votes to a wife beater and his crack whore wife who'd been on welfare with their six kids the last twenty years, and none to the hard-working couple who were merely living together happily. The order of Canada is given out to political suckups and as a popularity prize. And how do you know the owner of a business didn't just inherit it and isn't in the process of running it into the ground?

Once upon a time, you could vote only if you were landed. That is, if you owned land, and generally a certain amount of land worth a certain amount of money. There was a sense to this. First, it meant you had a "stake" in how things were decided, and second, at least in north American, it tended to limit voting to people who were old enough to acquire land, or in other words, had a certain level of maturity. That didn't mean you were wise, however.

To my mind, you could fairly limit voting privilages to those who are net taxpayers, then further limit it to those taxpayers who are willing to take the time and effort - and who have the knowledge, to pass a test. What kind of test? I don't pretend to be qualified to answer that. There are all kinds of psychological tests out there which demonstrate an agile and capable mind. Every government test, for example, for hiring or promotion, contains a number of "what would you do if", and "how would you handle this" questions. Perhaps some of these combined with basic knowledge about politics, the political parties, maybe a bit of economics. We could even have free courses for those fail, who want to brush up on things before retaking the test.

This would have the benefit of ensuring (pesuming the test was reasonably good) an intelligent, knowledegable electorate, who, I would imagine, would value their vote enough so that the turnout would be pretty close to 100% (and if you failed to vote without a good reason you'd lose your right to vote again until you passed the test again.)

[M.Dancer]

The purpose of the proposed "Earned Votes" system is to enhance the balance of votes between the majority of the electorate and the minorities .................

The only thing stupider than this proposal is the one I thought of last night.

One vote for every $10 paid in taxes. One vote for every $10 given to a benevolent charity (minus 1 vote for every $10 given to political parties), one vote for every one hour of time donated to benevolent charities.

So this is how it would work.....the rich would get the most votes because they pay the most in taxes....they would legislate tax relief, thereby cutting their votes....the poor would win and tax the rich, The rich would get the most votes abd would legislate tax relief.......

[geoffrey]

So this is how it would work.....the rich would get the most votes because they pay the most in taxes....they would legislate tax relief, thereby cutting their votes....the poor would win and tax the rich, The rich would get the most votes abd would legislate tax relief.......

So we end up with the same left-right switcheroo that we have now... interesting.

[M.Dancer]

I never said it was an intellegent idea....

[geoffrey]

I never said it was an intellegent idea....

Neither is democracy really, you may be one step ahead of the game.

[Slavik44]

The only thing I want Canada to have IF Harper decides to move to computer voting is ALL computers must have a paper trail, so the voter can prove who they voted for. I can't see why we should move to that, unless the it the speed of results. The US is still having problem with them and I don't trust the software not being hacked or controlled.

OMG OMG!!! HARPER CHANGING TO US STYLE COMPUTERS!!! OMG OMG!!!

Give me a break. Election's Canada decides the methods, the government has nothing to do with it really.

Well if you look he actually didn't say that Harper is trying to make us more like America (maybe it was implied, I don't know) as well who is doing the implementation is also largely irrelavent. As whenever change is being made to something as important as counting the ballots, it is generally a wise Idea to look and see if there are any problems happening, or the possiblity of problems that could be exploited. If this is the case it might be advisiable to take extra pre-cautions or rethink the change.

http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/

For instance watching that video might indicate that these machines are far from fail safe. Now I don't know about you, but I like the idea of taking extra precautions with electoral security. Is there a reason why you are opposed to taking precautions?

-----------------------------------------------------------

As for the original poster

The NDP in British Columbia have been a bit of a disaster as far as most are concerned, it is party that extended special voting privledges to unions. Whenever an inordinate amount of power is extended to an individual or a united group of individuals it must be expected to be abused. I mean what your dong is reviving a very poor NDP policy of extending extra power to certain groups. You are absolutely right that you cannot use the same level of thinking that got you into the problem to get you out. So why would you want to copy a bad policy from a bad party and apply it to the whole country?

Anyways I like Minority governments, I feel better represented when we are in such situations. Why? Well no party specifically matches my beliefs or ideals. For a minority government to work it does require some compromise. And even though the lifespan is shorter, we do get the compromise. We also get a check on the excersize of power. Again think Einstien; Majority governments got us into a situation where political power was abused and the average Canadian was hurt. Don't you think maybe it would be counter productive to try and put us back in that same situation? I like minority goverments, I like knowing that one party can't simply run wild though the government. I don't like having to wait for a government to be found of stealing from the taxpayers to change the politicians in power. Politicians like diapers need to be checked and changed regularly, or they get real dirty.

It is interesting that for so long supporters of the CPC complained about all the power Liberals had, and for how long they had it, and how that was hurting this country. But now when the tables are turned I notice alot of conservatives are thinking, hey how can we get ourselves into the same situation as the Liberal dictatorship. It is time to stop thinking as a supporter of a political party and time to start thinking as a Canadian and a concerned citizen. Who values acountability over abuse.

[bradco]

"It is time to stop thinking as a supporter of a political party and time to start thinking as a Canadian and a concerned citizen. Who values acountability over abuse."

Excellant post. Lets start debating thing on their merits not on their partisan advantages.

[Michael Hardner]

I disagree with anything that moves away from "one person, one vote". None of the things listed that would result in an extra vote guarantee someone is more informed. It is arguably likely that the people who meet these requirements are more likely to be informed but thats no guarantee. It is also entirely possible and likely that many very well informed voters dont satisfy any of these requirements. As far as Im concerned there isnt a problem of uninformed people voting. Those who dont care and are not informed usually just dont vote. There is really no way to measure how informed a voter is, therefore,we ought to stick to one person, one vote.

Bradco - I agree.

Especially with this: "It is time to stop thinking as a supporter of a political party and time to start thinking as a Canadian and a concerned citizen. Who values acountability over abuse."

I'm a centre-left voter but I think our country's political system is far more pressing than any left-right issues right now. If we don't have a healthy political process, we won't elect the right people to solve all the other problems.

It seems to many of us that democracy was healthier in the past somehow. From Neil Postman's book "Amusing Ourselves To Death", he paints an interesting portrait of early American townhall democracy as a place where right and left confronted each other and were forced to hash out best-fit compromises.

Of course, that's not practical on a national level but even so there are elements of townhall democracy that should exist on the national level, and currently do not. What we have, instead of healthy debate amongst the citizenry, are remotely programmed television-based marketing campaigns directed at a barely sentient mass audience.

So, here are som ebasic roots to the problems we have:

* Life is too short for most people to waste good time looking into complex issues of government.

Sure, we MapleLeafers look into issues all the time, because it's our "thing", but seriously how many people are as informed as we are ? In case I sound arrogant, look to those polls that are constantly showing how many people can't name the PM, etc.

Early democracy in North America didn't have universal sufferage - they only let male (Christian ?) landholders vote. My sense is that such a person looked more like a MapleLeafer than an average voter.

* There's no way to get information because it makes more sense for political parties (or brands) to spend their time on advertising campaigns than policy specifics.

Again, early NA political discussion took place largely in the print media, which is more conducive to ideas. We can't turn back the clock, though.

Here are some solutions I've written about in the past:

Instead of making politics more restrictive by assigning 'extra votes', requiring a degree or making voting mandatory, why not just direct the information to come from better sources ?

If we eliminated political advertising entirely (as Postman suggests) that would go a long, long way to eliminating misinformation. A next step after that would be to somehow shame television networks into making all political discussion more town-hall-like, ie. moderated, solid ground rules, no soundbytes or unreasonable timelines. Print is a good way to present factual ideas, and reasoned debate is a good way to air them.

This is a tall order, though.

Also, we could also go a long way to making government more understandable by fighting against the mundane complexities that sprout from bureaucracy. Such forces are self-serving and help no one. Simpler government would make discussions more accessible - just witness how much general political interest is piqued by easier to understand issues.

In conclusion, alienation and disinvolvement are indeed a problem, but fighting these problems with more of the same (more complexity, more rules, forced involvement) will not improve matters.

[jbg]

So rule of the rich over the poor.

I kind of like it. But I couldn't be morally ok with it. It ain't democracy.

It isn't undemocratic either. I think a very strong argument can be made that the people who contribute to society should have a bit more to say about how (basically their) tax money is spent than people who need society's help. Society's door should always be open to help the less fortunate; those people should not have an equal voice in how the system's run with the people who create the wherewithal to help them.

[Columba]

Thank you all for responding to this "earned vote" proposal.

My first experience with an "earned vote" system was my first experience at voting: the election of a student council, when I entered Grade 9 at Jarvis Collegiate Institute, in downtown Toronto. Because the Grade 9 and 10 students outnumbered the Grade 11, 12, and 13 students, the candidates who had themselves carried into the auditorium, throwing candies to the students on either side of the centre aisle and accompanied by musicians and dancing girls, garnered the majority of the popular vote. The school staff was not pleased with the outcome of the election and re-valued the votes, giving Grade 9 students one vote for each ballot cast, Grade 10 students two votes for each ballot cast, Grade 11 students three votes for each ballot cast, Grade 12 students four votes for each ballot cast and Grade 13 students five votes for each ballot cast. The adjusted vote counting resulted in a much more mature and conscientious student council and was not disputed by any of the classes.

I am confident that there were some students in Grade 9 who were more mature and conscientious than some of the students in Grade 13. And I'm sure that Grade 13 had its share of mean, bullying students. But the result of the overall "earned vote" valuation was a better student council.

In our current society, the only officially recognized ways to evaluate a person's potential contribution to our society is through the achievement of qualifications such as are outlined in this proposal. There are bound to be people with these qualifications whose attitudes and behaviours are unacceptable to some of us. But my observations, experiences and faith in humanity lead me to believe that the overall "earned vote" process will result in a better parliament. The extremely rowdy and disrespectul behaviour of our Members of Parliament during Question Period is an embarrassment to Canada and certainly indicates that there is lots of room for improvement in the election of mature and conscientious MPs.

[Figleaf]

So rule of the rich over the poor.

I kind of like it. But I couldn't be morally ok with it. It ain't democracy.

It isn't undemocratic either. I think a very strong argument can be made that the people who contribute to society should have a bit more to say about how (basically their) tax money is spent than people who need society's help. Society's door should always be open to help the less fortunate; those people should not have an equal voice in how the system's run with the people who create the wherewithal to help them.

We keep hearing this notion that the rich 'contribute' more to society than others.

Actually, it should be obvious that the rich BENEFIT more from society than others.

The school staff was not pleased with the outcome of the election and re-valued the votes, ...

Wow. They gave you a great lesson in power politics and the violation of democracy.

Sort of reminds me of the West's response to the recent elections in Palestine.

[White Doors]

So rule of the rich over the poor.

I kind of like it. But I couldn't be morally ok with it. It ain't democracy.

It isn't undemocratic either. I think a very strong argument can be made that the people who contribute to society should have a bit more to say about how (basically their) tax money is spent than people who need society's help. Society's door should always be open to help the less fortunate; those people should not have an equal voice in how the system's run with the people who create the wherewithal to help them.

We keep hearing this notion that the rich 'contribute' more to society than others.

Actually, it should be obvious that the rich BENEFIT more from society than others.

The school staff was not pleased with the outcome of the election and re-valued the votes, ...

Wow. They gave you a great lesson in power politics and the violation of democracy.

Sort of reminds me of the West's response to the recent elections in Palestine.

Wow, are you ever anti-Israel man. That was hardly the reponse. Not even close actually. With democracy comes responsibility.

[MightyAC]

Wow, are you ever anti-Israel man. That was hardly the reponse. Not even close actually. With democracy comes responsibility.

Hold on...how is that anti-Israel? The parallel drawn by Figleaf between the school election and what the west did to Palestine isn't far off the mark. We, the west, didn't install a different government but we did immediately render a democratically elected government powerless. I will refrain from further comment on Israel as there are other active threads for that.

On the topic of this thread, anything different than one vote for one person is ridiculous. It's nice to think about though, as I'm sure we all believe our own political reasoning is more sound than all others.

If we really want electoral reform let's push for a system that treats every vote equally, improves voter turnout and actually elects MPs according to the way Canadians vote.

[Figleaf]

So rule of the rich over the poor.

I kind of like it. But I couldn't be morally ok with it. It ain't democracy.

It isn't undemocratic either. I think a very strong argument can be made that the people who contribute to society should have a bit more to say about how (basically their) tax money is spent than people who need society's help. Society's door should always be open to help the less fortunate; those people should not have an equal voice in how the system's run with the people who create the wherewithal to help them.

We keep hearing this notion that the rich 'contribute' more to society than others.

Actually, it should be obvious that the rich BENEFIT more from society than others.

The school staff was not pleased with the outcome of the election and re-valued the votes, ...

Wow. They gave you a great lesson in power politics and the violation of democracy.

Sort of reminds me of the West's response to the recent elections in Palestine.

Wow, are you ever anti-Israel man. That was hardly the reponse. Not even close actually. With democracy comes responsibility.

I'm not anti-Israel! I resent the implication.

It's not anti-Israel to note that the West demanded Palestinians hold elections and the moment the did it the whole Western world crapped all over them because they didn't like the results.

It was a shocking inconsistency, practically perverse.

[jbg]

Wow. They gave you a great lesson in power politics and the violation of democracy.

Sort of reminds me of the West's response to the recent elections in Palestine.

Hold on...how is that anti-Israel? The parallel drawn by Figleaf between the school election and what the west did to Palestine isn't far off the mark. We, the west, didn't install a different government but we did immediately render a democratically elected government powerless. I will refrain from further comment on Israel as there are other active threads for that.

You mean the West "owed" aid to Palestine? It's a debt? No, it's a gift.

One gives "aid" to a country that is doing basically what the donor wants it to do with the money.