Liberals want to change voting process?

[GoinAllTheWay]

I'll be the first to admit I'm not great at understanding politics or the voting process as a whole but this sounds rather unsettling:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...-power-forever

I'd be interested in hearing the opinions of others far more knowledgeable than I but the gist seems to be you would mark ballets on first, second and third choices instead of one vote per person?

[FlamesAddiction]

The funny thing is, this is exactly what a lot of non-Liberals wanted before they thought about and realized that it would benefit the Liberals more than anything. And this was part of their platform, so it's not like they are pulling it out by surprise.

Personally, I don't support it. Not because it would keep the Liberals in power, but because it will favour the party that plays it the safest, and I don't think playing it safe is the right approach all the time. You will end up with the party winning because "they aren't the worst choice", which will just lead to mediocre leadership.

[The Yen Man]

The fact that both Stelmach and Redford were able to win and become premier based on a similar voting system tells you all you need to know about how well this would work.

[rubecube]

Actually the biggest beneficiaries of this are likely to be the NDP and possibly the Greens. Although I do agree that it's pretty funny that the crowd who were probably in favour of this type of reform 15 years ago is drastically different than the ones pushing for it now.

[rubecube]

All that said, I would much prefer MMP to a ranked ballot.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

The fact that both Stelmach and Redford were able to win and become premier based on a similar voting system tells you all you need to know about how well this would work.

Do you mean an internal vote for party leader or provincial vote?

[The Yen Man]

Yah, sorry, I meant the internal party vote. But both times, the weakest of the 3 candidates went on to win the party leadership. In theory, ranked ballots may mean the weakest of the 3 parties wins, especially if the two strong parties really hate each other.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Yah, sorry, I meant the internal party vote. But both times, the weakest of the 3 candidates went on to win the party leadership. In theory, ranked ballots may mean the weakest of the 3 parties wins, especially if the two strong parties really hate each other.

I think a ranked ballot likely means we end up with largely what we have now. The Harper years really skewed the Liberal/Conservative dynamic, but if the CPC are able to rid themselves of the uglier segments of their party, we're likely not going to be as adversarial as a country down the line.

[Weitz]

I think the ranked ballot is stupid.

If I want to vote conservative and have no second choice, my vote only gets counted once? While other votes get funneled to the other candidates? That seems really unfair.

[CaptainCrunch]

Don't change the system.

If anything adjust the dynamic so that Ontario and Quebec don't hold such a large hammer in decided on a NATIONS government.

But ranked ballets are really stupid.

[Jacks]

Any change needs to go to a referendum.

It seems ridiculous that we can't do anything about the senate without near unanimous support but the government can change the way we elect governments with a stroke of a pen. Surely the Supreme Court will have something to say?

[puckedoff]

I think the sitting Prime Minister should just appoint the next Prime Minister. With a two-term limit of course, to keep things fair.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Don't change the system.

If anything adjust the dynamic so that Ontario and Quebec don't hold such a large hammer in decided on a NATIONS government.

But ranked ballets are really stupid.

The problem isn't as much Quebec and Ontario as it is the Maritime provinces. They don't hold the hammer, but their votes definitely count more than votes in BC and Alberta.

[Canuck-Hater]

Well I think Canada needs electoral reform but I'm not sure the Liberal plan is what I had in mind.

[rubecube]

I'm not a huge fan of direct democracy, so I don't know that I'd be down with a referendum. I also don't think the Liberals would run into any Constitutional issues as long as they didn't do anything that messed with the current levels of representation afforded to the provinces, but the New Zealand system is definitely the one that appeals to me the most.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electo...in_New_Zealand

[GGG]

Ranked ballot is just a race to the mushy middle. Give me a strong leader I disagree with over a leader Im indifferent about.

I prefer elected dictatorship. And would love just an elected dictator who builds cabinet out of the best qualified Canadians and a house which purpose is to advocate for its constituents and help create legislation but have no real power

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Any change needs to go to a referendum.

It seems ridiculous that we can't do anything about the senate without near unanimous support but the government can change the way we elect governments with a stroke of a pen. Surely the Supreme Court will have something to say?

No it doesn't. We elect governments to make decisions. Some decisions we like and some we don't. The last thing we need to do is politicize this and turn it into a spectacle.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

No it doesn't. We elect governments to make decisions. Some decisions we like and some we don't. The last thing we need to do is politicize this and turn it into a spectacle.

So you're saying we should just shut up and go with what Justin tells us is best? A decision on how our governments are formed shouldn't be decided in the party back rooms, sorry. If we are going to change the election process it shouldn't be any less involved than making changes to the Senate.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Slava

No it doesn't. We elect governments to make decisions. Some decisions we like and some we don't. The last thing we need to do is politicize this and turn it into a spectacle.

You can't have an elected government change the election process. That's ridiculous.

This absolutely should go to referendum, as it did in provinces.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

No it doesn't. We elect governments to make decisions. Some decisions we like and some we don't. The last thing we need to do is politicize this and turn it into a spectacle.

Usually I would agree with no referendum but unless these recommendations come from a unanimous decision of an all party committee any decision will be gerrymandered.

A referendum would force open debate on the issue.