Ontario Referendum Proportional Representation

[Argus]

I'm against it for all the reasons already stated - and one more. Cost. These kinds of interminable minority parliaments wherein deal-making with hordes of tiny one-issue parties goes on in the back rooms, where there is no security, where an election is always around the corner lead to government insecurity and lead to whomever is in power spending money to shore up their political positions.

And yes, of course that happens now, but it really goes into overdrive when an election is near. It doesn't matter if the government is Liberal, Tory or NDP, when an election is coming they forget the budget and start buying votes. We see it in Harper now, because his government is a minority they're spending on programs they never would have if they had a comfortable majority and years before the next election. We saw the same with Martin and Chretien when they were finally threatened with a real opposition. We certainly see it in Europe constantly. The pop rep countries a're all in deficits, they all have high taxes, they all have governments which are aloof and largely ignore the voters concerns.

And if anyone wants to see how the tail (tiny parties) wags the dog in prp rep countries they should have a look at Israel sometimes.

[cybercoma]

Bump.

I think this is the thread Michael Hardner was looking for.

[Argus]

Bump.

I think this is the thread Michael Hardner was looking for.

And my position has not changed in seven years.

[Boges]

With the governing Liberals getting a healthy Majority with only 38% of the popular vote, this won't addressed by the Ontario voters again, anytime soon.

[Argus]

With the governing Liberals getting a healthy Majority with only 38% of the popular vote, this won't addressed by the Ontario voters again, anytime soon.

Given only half the voters voted it's more lik 17%. :-P

[Boges]

Given only half the voters voted it's more lik 17%. :-P

I'm of the opinion that if people don't want to vote, they shouldn't. I don't want uniformed voters voting for people with cool names or nice hair (ahem Justin Trudeau)

Edited June 16, 2014 by Boges

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I'm of the opinion that if people don't want to vote, they shouldn't. I don't want uniformed voters voting for people with cool names or nice hair (ahem Justin Trudeau)

I agree. If you don't know enough about the issues that matter one way or another, are you helping the system by voting? I don't think surperficial politics helps us.

That being said, I am favourable to AV.

Alternative Voting

Alternative Vote keeps our current way of electing members by electing local MPPs. You rank as many, or as few candidates as you'd like. If your number 1 doesn't get in, they take all ballots who voted for #1 and add their vote to their #2 choice until a candidate achieves over 50% overall support.

Example 1: Party A has been in power for years and suffered from multiple misteps/scandals but maintains diehard support. You feel that Party B best represents your vote but, you would vote for Party C over Party A if B did not get in. Your ballot ranks Party B, Party C as #1 and #2, you do not rank Party A.

Example 2: You feel that a small party has brought a worthwhile issue to light and want to support that policy knowing that it is unlikely that they'll elect a representative. You can put that small party as #1 to show support of that policy, while knowing that small party member is not elected your vote will still count toward the overall political course of the province.

No list of "party favourites" that are guaranteed to be elected and technically respresent no one, and the people winning have a "run off" support of over 50% through "Alternative Votes".

Edited June 16, 2014 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Big Guy]

I am commenting on the following type of proportional representation;

“Proportional representation (PR) is a principle applied to voting systems to elect an assembly or council to ensure that the number of seats won by a party or group of candidates is proportionate to the number of votes received. For example, under a PR voting system, if 30% of voters support a particular party then roughly 30% of seats will be won by that party.”

Our current system is based on the idea that there are only three major parties so any special interests must find a home in one of those if it is to have any power. Under this new system, people can begin to form political parties based on minority views or religions or cultures.

What if we had a Christian Party and Protestant Party and Jewish Party etc. While individually they probably would never get enough support for a majority but they could find themselves in a position to be part of a coalition to gain power. i.e. The Liberal Party has 53 seats, the Jewish Party gets 3 seats. You need 55 seats for a majority. For certain “concessions”, the Jewish Party will join with the Liberal Party to create a majority. These “concessions” give the Jewish Party far more power than their 3 seats.

I would also assume that all elections would result in a need for coalitions on two or more parties to gain the number of seats needed to govern.

Is this what we want?

[Argus]

What I'd like to see is the existing system, but without any party leaders. You vote based on who is running in your riding, what you think of them, and the party's platform. It would then be up to the biggest party caucus (after election day) to get together to decide who their PM and cabinet is.

Without a single leader, the election coverage in your city/town would be more heavily focused on the individual candidates, as they explain their party's platform. And being able to elect their cabinet, including PM would presumably mean the PMO would be a lot more wary of stepping on caucus concerns and ignoring their wishes.

[The_Squid]

What I'd like to see is the existing system, but without any party leaders

Then it's not the "existing system"... it would be radically different actually... Probably as big of a change as the other systems proposed.

[jacee]

But under any scheme that I have seen proposed (for example PR), your single ballot will change nothing either. The end result will be the same whether you cast your ballot or not.

Not really.

EG my riding is NDP always, with over 60% of the vote. Hundreds of people, election after election, go to the polls and vote for another party knowing that their vote is wasted.

Under PR, their vote counts toward the provincial percentage for electing 'at large' or 'party list' candidates for their preferred party.

I'm not sure that a single vote would still make a difference, perhaps sometimes, but ALL votes count toward electing someone under PR.

.

.

[cybercoma]

I'm of the opinion that if people don't want to vote, they shouldn't. I don't want uniformed voters voting for people with cool names or nice hair (ahem Justin Trudeau)

Regardless, it's still amazing when you think that a party got a majority of the seats in the legislature with roughly 17% of the voters casting ballots for them.

[Big Guy]

Not really.

EG my riding is NDP always, with over 60% of the vote. Hundreds of people, election after election, go to the polls and vote for another party knowing that their vote is wasted.

..

I disagree with that sentiment. The fact that people in your area voted for who they wanted and that party did not gain power does not mean that their vote was wasted.

They exercised their right to vote - and sent a message to Queens Park that the people in your riding care. They also elected their choice to represent them at Queens Park.

I believe that the mere fact that you vote reinforces the fact that we are a democracy and the majority of those qualified to vote do take the opportunity to do so.

No one taking the time to vote should ever consider that their vote and the effort to do so is wasted.

[jacee]

No one taking the time to vote should ever consider that their vote and the effort to do so is wasted.

Obviously they agree since they keep doing it. However, those votes would be useful in a PR system.

.

[-1=e^ipi]

I agree. If you don't know enough about the issues that matter one way or another, are you helping the system by voting? I don't think surperficial politics helps us.

That being said, I am favourable to AV.

Alternative Voting

Alternative Vote keeps our current way of electing members by electing local MPPs. You rank as many, or as few candidates as you'd like. If your number 1 doesn't get in, they take all ballots who voted for #1 and add their vote to their #2 choice until a candidate achieves over 50% overall support.

Example 1: Party A has been in power for years and suffered from multiple misteps/scandals but maintains diehard support. You feel that Party B best represents your vote but, you would vote for Party C over Party A if B did not get in. Your ballot ranks Party B, Party C as #1 and #2, you do not rank Party A.

Example 2: You feel that a small party has brought a worthwhile issue to light and want to support that policy knowing that it is unlikely that they'll elect a representative. You can put that small party as #1 to show support of that policy, while knowing that small party member is not elected your vote will still count toward the overall political course of the province.

No list of "party favourites" that are guaranteed to be elected and technically respresent no one, and the people winning have a "run off" support of over 50% through "Alternative Votes".

This is the same thing as single transferable vote, right?

This has a number of issues.

The first is that it massively favors centrist parties (aka the liberals). Most conservative voters would prefer liberals over NDP, and most NDP would prefer liberals over conservatives. As a result, the liberals will pretty much win a majority for every election. STV is not that bad if the political parties were oriented more like in Australia (1 centre left party, 1 centre-right party, with a few minor fringe parties), but since Ontario has 3 major parties it basically gives indefinite political monopoly to the liberals.

The second is that small parties like the greens, libertarian, freedom party, etc. will still get 0 representation under this system. Sure the centrists and main-stream parties will get votes, but that doesn't mean that extremists & fringe parties should not get a vote in parliament to represent the segments of the population with strongly differing views.

The third is that both FPTP and STV over-promote regionalism since MPPs can only get elected by representing a single riding. This means that more provincial-national oriented candidates, or candidates with support less localized are at a severe disadvantage to candidates that are focused on getting the best deal for their riding (even if it is at the expense of the province as a whole).

[-1=e^ipi]

Our current system is based on the idea that there are only three major parties so any special interests must find a home in one of those if it is to have any power. Under this new system, people can begin to form political parties based on minority views or religions or cultures.

What if we had a Christian Party and Protestant Party and Jewish Party etc. While individually they probably would never get enough support for a majority but they could find themselves in a position to be part of a coalition to gain power. i.e. The Liberal Party has 53 seats, the Jewish Party gets 3 seats. You need 55 seats for a majority. For certain “concessions”, the Jewish Party will join with the Liberal Party to create a majority. These “concessions” give the Jewish Party far more power than their 3 seats.

I would also assume that all elections would result in a need for coalitions on two or more parties to gain the number of seats needed to govern.

Is this what we want?

Why not? If people want to form a Christian Heritage Party, a Jewish Party, or a Sharia Law party, then why not let them and let them have voice in parliament if they have sufficient support? I'd rather that these groups have support in parliament and feel that they can voice their concerns peacefully and democratically as opposed to have then resort to other methods (terrorism, rioting, etc.) because they feel like the political process gives them no representation.

[-1=e^ipi]

What I'd like to see is the existing system, but without any party leaders. You vote based on who is running in your riding, what you think of them, and the party's platform. It would then be up to the biggest party caucus (after election day) to get together to decide who their PM and cabinet is.

Without a single leader, the election coverage in your city/town would be more heavily focused on the individual candidates, as they explain their party's platform. And being able to elect their cabinet, including PM would presumably mean the PMO would be a lot more wary of stepping on caucus concerns and ignoring their wishes.

This is unfeasible (how could you prevent parties from having an unofficial leader?) and would promote regionalism even more than it does now.

Edited June 17, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[MiddleClassCentrist]

This is the same thing as single transferable vote, right?

This has a number of issues.

The first is that it massively favors centrist parties (aka the liberals). Most conservative voters would prefer liberals over NDP, and most NDP would prefer liberals over conservatives. As a result, the liberals will pretty much win a majority for every election. STV is not that bad if the political parties were oriented more like in Australia (1 centre left party, 1 centre-right party, with a few minor fringe parties), but since Ontario has 3 major parties it basically gives indefinite political monopoly to the liberals.

The second is that small parties like the greens, libertarian, freedom party, etc. will still get 0 representation under this system. Sure the centrists and main-stream parties will get votes, but that doesn't mean that extremists & fringe parties should not get a vote in parliament to represent the segments of the population with strongly differing views.

The third is that both FPTP and STV over-promote regionalism since MPPs can only get elected by representing a single riding. This means that more provincial-national oriented candidates, or candidates with support less localized are at a severe disadvantage to candidates that are focused on getting the best deal for their riding (even if it is at the expense of the province as a whole).

I think that would lead to a better system because the parties would be more likely to compete for the majority of voters interests than try to appeal to a staunch minority support. Isn't that what parties are supposed to try and do? Appeal to the will of the electorate?

There's also a lot of swing voters who move from PC to NDP and back.

I do not like the idea of fringe parties holding the balance of power because they have a few seats from proportional representation.

[Argus]

This is unfeasible (how could you prevent parties from having an unofficial leader?) and would promote regionalism even more than it does now.

It would promote people getting to know who they were voting for. And no leader means NO LEADER. The parties could not have a national spokesman for the media. The media would have to deal with local MPs.

[Argus]

It's mainly the Left wing parties who want PR, not because it would be more democratic, but because it would benefit them.

They're also mostly the people who want to make voting mandatory (ignorant, uncaring voters also benefit the Left).

Let's look at a 100 vote election using PR. First, acknolwedging that 30% of the voters don't pay any taxes we could be certain that 30 of those votes wouldn't even be up for grabs by any right wing party, by any party advocating fiscal conservatism or money management. So any conservative party would be going after the 70 remaining votes. But in order to win a majority, they'd need to get 51 of those 70, or almost 73% of the votes (excluding non-taxpayers). That would probably never happen. The Liberal party, on the other hand, would start out with 15-20 of those non-taxpayer votes. If they got 20, they would only need 44% of the remainder to form a majority. Even if they formed a minority (likely 95% of the time) they could almost certainly be able to pick up enough support to govern from the smaller parties. So PR would probably mean a Liberal Party government forever.

[The_Squid]

It's mainly the Left wing parties who want PR, not because it would be more democratic, but because it would benefit them.

They're also mostly the people who want to make voting mandatory (ignorant, uncaring voters also benefit the Left).

Let's look at a 100 vote election using PR. First, acknolwedging that 30% of the voters don't pay any taxes we could be certain that 30 of those votes wouldn't even be up for grabs by any right wing party, by any party advocating fiscal conservatism or money management. So any conservative party would be going after the 70 remaining votes. But in order to win a majority, they'd need to get 51 of those 70, or almost 73% of the votes (excluding non-taxpayers). That would probably never happen. The Liberal party, on the other hand, would start out with 15-20 of those non-taxpayer votes. If they got 20, they would only need 44% of the remainder to form a majority. Even if they formed a minority (likely 95% of the time) they could almost certainly be able to pick up enough support to govern from the smaller parties. So PR would probably mean a Liberal Party government forever.

Which "left wing parties" want PR?

To say PR means a Liberal gov't forever (in Ont.?) is total hyperbole.

Your little scenario is a bit bizarre... non-taxpayer votes? Do you have any studies that show any of this? What % don't pay any taxes? How do these people vote? Do they vote at all? Your scenario is pure conjecture with no basis in reality.

[overthere]

Which "left wing parties" want PR?

To say PR means a Liberal gov't forever (in Ont.?) is total hyperbole.

Your little scenario is a bit bizarre... non-taxpayer votes? Do you have any studies that show any of this? What % don't pay any taxes? How do these people vote? Do they vote at all? Your scenario is pure conjecture with no basis in reality.

The NDP used to wanrt PR, but only when it worked for them i terms of seats in legislative bodies. Several years back I reviewed all the NDP provincial and federal official websites to see their views on PR. They were all in favour(though one Maritime site had no commentary on PR and one proivince did not have a site at the time, forget which one)- with a couple of notable exceptions.

At the time , Sask and MB both had NDP governments. In Manitoba, they vaguely supported reviewing other forms of govt but did not mention PR specifically. Review of previous election results indicated there would be little change in MB if they'd had PR then.

In SK, their site made no mention at all of PR or any alternative. If they'd had PR in SK then, the NDP would have out of power.

Politics are much the same anywhere, pragmatism takes precendence over principle.

[The_Squid]

The NDP used to wanrt PR, but only when it worked for them i terms of seats in legislative bodies. Several years back I reviewed all the NDP provincial and federal official websites to see their views on PR. They were all in favour(though one Maritime site had no commentary on PR and one proivince did not have a site at the time, forget which one)- with a couple of notable exceptions.

At the time , Sask and MB both had NDP governments. In Manitoba, they vaguely supported reviewing other forms of govt but did not mention PR specifically. Review of previous election results indicated there would be little change in MB if they'd had PR then.

In SK, their site made no mention at all of PR or any alternative. If they'd had PR in SK then, the NDP would have out of power.

Politics are much the same anywhere, pragmatism takes precendence over principle.

I agree, the NDP has sort of, maybe, kind of flirted with the subject.

In BC the NDP hasn't supported electoral reform. And, from the sounds of it, the NDP is wishy-washy on the subject at best! So clearly they do not really want the changes based on principle...

So I have to ask Argus again... which left wing parties have PR as a party platform/electoral promise?

[-1=e^ipi]

I think that would lead to a better system because the parties would be more likely to compete for the majority of voters interests than try to appeal to a staunch minority support. Isn't that what parties are supposed to try and do? Appeal to the will of the electorate?

There's also a lot of swing voters who move from PC to NDP and back.

I do not like the idea of fringe parties holding the balance of power because they have a few seats from proportional representation.

It would be a better system than the current FPTP system, sure. But it wouldn't be better than mixed-member-proportional or pure proportional representation.

I disagree with your definition of what parties are supposed to try to do. They are supposed to represent the electorate, and that should include people who have non-mainstream or extremist view points. There is a lot of value in having extremists have a say in parliament because sometimes the majority opinion is wrong (example: funding terrorist groups in Syria by western governments) and giving representation to extremists will allow people with differing view points to challenge the policies of the government.

And how does proportional representation imply that fringe parties will have the 'balance of power'? What prevents 'mainstream parties' from forming a coalition?

[-1=e^ipi]

It would promote people getting to know who they were voting for. And no leader means NO LEADER. The parties could not have a national spokesman for the media. The media would have to deal with local MPs.

I don't disagree that a government doesn't need a leader to function, and I see the value of not having a leader. But despite that, I question how feasible it would be to implement a no-leader-policy since parties could still have unofficial leaders. The other problem is that regionalism is a huge problem with our current system, and your proposed changes do not try to address this and may make it worse.