Now that the election is settled I wanted to discuss one of the promises made by the Liberals that could prove interesting for Canadians come next election.
We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.
We will convene an all-party Parliamentary committee to review a wide variety of reforms, such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting.
This committee will deliver its recommendations to Parliament. Within 18 months of forming government, we will introduce legislation to enact electoral reform.
What do you think would be the best system to use to ensure the fairest representation of Canadians? Do you think that the Liberals will come through on this election promise?
Here is what the government would currently look like with straight proportional representation (the percentage of votes = percentage of seats):
I think ranked ballots are an excellent idea and will help ensure a much better representation of what people actually want. For the uninitiated, essentially when you vote you rank the candidates (1, 2, 3, 4, etc) in your order of preference. From there, there is an instant runoff system where a candidate must have 50% or more of the vote to win, so if no candidate has 50% of the 1st choice votes, then you eliminate the candidate with least votes in the 2nd round of voting and check the 2nd choice for those who voted for them - if still no one has 50% then you go to the 3rd round and eliminate the new lowest candidate and count the 2nd choice votes for them, etc.
__________________
Huge thanks to Dion for the signature!
Last edited by Nehkara; 10-21-2015 at 08:43 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Nehkara For This Useful Post:
Absolutely no chance they meet an 18 month timeline, nor should they. Most Trudeau promises were pandering to an irate voter based and lacked any real thought. I agree with Harper - anything that fundamentally changes how we elect representatives should reqiuire more than an act of a majority parliament.
I don't know that we need election reform at all. Monday was a perfect example. We had a government that used it's majority to enact legislation and fight court battles that was not in line with the values of the majority of Canadians. And they were thrown out on their ass. This means the system functioned perfectly. I want strong leadership. I want a variety of choices. I do not want all parties stumbling over themselves to appease everyone, and wind up probably appeasing no one - and not running on strong policy that differentiates one from another.
I will be really interested to hear/read more viewpoints on other voting methods in a thread that is devoted entirely to the topic. I am open to changing my mind.
The Following User Says Thank You to EldrickOnIce For This Useful Post:
Ranked ballot is a bad idea. That's what got AB PC in trouble by electing Stalmach and Redford as their leaders. I have no problem with first past the post system. Let's say PC is supposed to have more than 99 seats in this election by popular vote and let's give PC 10 more seats in the new system. Would it change anything? Hardly. The Grits are still going to govern anyway.
Same with you give Libertarian one seat under the new system, what difference will it make? Nothing.
In the sports world, it has always been first past the post. If the one team beats the other in 4 games each of which is by one run, they win the series. It doesn't matter if the losing team out scores the winning in total or not.
Last edited by darklord700; 10-21-2015 at 09:13 AM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to darklord700 For This Useful Post:
Seems disingenuous for an elected party to change the voting system that got them elected, doesn't it? Especially if its a ranked ballet which probably benefits the liberals even more.
I don't like proportional representation. It assumes that a country is homogenous. The needs of the people in a country as large as Canada are shaped by geography and resources. Proportional representation only works well in small, less diverse countries. A proportional system will be the worst thing to happen to federalism as smaller special interest parties will pop up representing every regional interest.
Ranked balloting is ok, but not ideal. What you will usually end up with is not the candidate that throws it all on the line to be the best, but rather the ones that do just enough to "not lose".
I don't know what the solution is for people who don't like the FPTP system, unless you tear it all down and make Canada a republic (or a federation of republics). That would take an all out revolution though.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 10-21-2015 at 09:19 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
Seems disingenuous for an elected party to change the voting system that got them elected, doesn't it? Especially if its a ranked ballet which probably benefits the liberals even more.
Exactly.
As a centrist party the Liberals would be everyone's second choice if they weren't the first. I'm not going to call it a blatant power grab by the Liberals since they havent proposed it yet, but if enacted that's what it would be.
Also I think the run-off is a bad idea, we have a hard enough time getting 60% of the population to vote once, and now you want to make them vote 3+ times?
I think in straight PR you have more co-operation and the country is governed with more moderate values instead of ever swinging too far right or too far left. The fringe ideas that a majority party could enact are generally eliminated, as the actual majority in a PR system would likely vote it down. It basically creates minority governments forever, which have actually been really successful and beneficial to all Canadians in the past.
That's my preference.
Also, it's not true to say it benefits Liberals as a party. They would also likely never have a majority government again.
I don't think the 'wouldn't change this particular election outcome' argument isn't really what it's about. The question is how it shapes politics long-term? Does it create more fringe or special interest parties, as a result of those parties actually being able to elect MPs? Does it create more likelihood of minorities? Does it create the necessity for formal coalitions? Does it increase or reduce the quality of candidates that get elected? I don't have answers to those questions, but I'm interested in hearing opinions on them.
Right now the experimentation is going on at a municipal level. The Toronto 2018 municipal election will use ranked ballots. But even then, it'll be difficult to apply the performance at a municipal level (individual, non-party-affiliated candidates) up to national level, just as it's hard to apply its use in party leader elections up to the national level.
I do think we'll see significant electoral reform in Canada in our lifetime, but it's not something we need to rush.
As a centrist party the Liberals would be everyone's second choice if they weren't the first. I'm not going to call it a blatant power grab by the Liberals since they havent proposed it yet, but if enacted that's what it would be.
Also I think the run-off is a bad idea, we have a hard enough time getting 60% of the population to vote once, and now you want to make them vote 3+ times?
I don't think that's necessarily true. Harper was the extremely unpopular with left-wing voters but there isn't always going to be a Harper in every election. I think a lot of NDP and Green voters would be putting those two parties as 1 and 2 on their ballots. I still don't particularly like the ranked ballot idea but it's not the worst idea I've heard.
Also interesting that in Australia, which has mandatory voting and ranked ballots, that 1 in 5 people eligible to vote doesn't make their vote count anyway, either by paying the fine and not voting, or by spoiling the ballot (informal voting). This does not include 'donkey voting' (marking 1-2-3-4-5 from top), which some have estimated to be as high as another 5% of ballots cast, which actually count.
That doesn't seem like a great answer.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Harper was the extremely unpopular with left-wing voters but there isn't always going to be a Harper in every election. I think a lot of NDP and Green voters would be putting those two parties as 1 and 2 on their ballots. I still don't particularly like the ranked ballot idea but it's not the worst idea I've heard.
Yeah I guess I forgot about the Greens, good point. I haven't looked at how the vote broke down across the country but I would assume the main hotspots for NDP/Green battling for that slice of the vote would be probably be focused on the Island and not as much elsewhere.
I just can't get past the muddled, middle of the road, try to please everyone approach that ballot ranking creates, as others have mentioned that's how the Frankenstein Stelmach and Redford monsters were created.
I am not against electoral reform, but I don't see what it accomplishes exactly.
Proportional representation seems very strange, where the part chooses who will actually get seats, the people just get to choose how many of those choices are actually put into office. This means I have less say in who I elect than I do now.
On the other hand, it means that is 5% of the population supports a fringe party, then they have 5% of the say in what goes on in the country (which won't mean much, but its something). I like this idea very much, even if it will mean more compromise is needed in the HoC.
Just need to figure out how to get around the first point.
edit: Ranked ballots seem like a bad idea, unless it can work with only a single ballot, which as I understand it isn't really possible for an accurate result. Feel free to correct me on that though.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
If we were to do away with FPTP, Mixed-Member Proportional is probably the way to go. Tries to have the advantages of both FPTP and pure Proportional
I would still have 338 seats, but halve the number of ridings.
In any proportional system, I would think a high threshold - say 5% national support should be needed to get any representation. This could help weed out purely regional-based, extremist or issue-specific parties from any sort of power.
__________________
Trust the snake.
Last edited by Bunk; 10-21-2015 at 10:03 AM.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
If we were to do away with FPTP, Mixed-Member Proportional is probably the way to go. Tries to have the advantages of both FPTP and pure Proportional
I would still have 338 seats, but halve the number of ridings.
In any proportional system, I would think a high threshold - say 5% national support should be needed to get any representation. This could help weed out purely regional-based, extremist or issue-specific parties from any sort of power.
Thanked for your use of a politics in the animal kingdom video!
The problem I have with PR is the inevitable fact that there will be a few single issue parties. With minority governments you could end up with two parties with 45% of the vote each and three single issue parties at 3% each. That means that the governing party will have to partner with two of the single issue parties to pass anything. What happens if one of those single issue parties is the "Super right wing religious zealots party"? How would you feel if every single bill had an unrelated religious rider tacked on?
The Following User Says Thank You to GP_Matt For This Useful Post:
Electoral Reform
