Liberals want to change voting process?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by 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.

It's not unfair, you make the choice.

It encourages you to think critically about what you actually want and what you would be OK with. It gives power to parties that align more closely with the common Canadian than anyone on one side or the other. If you're conservative, thinking critically about who would be an acceptable alternative is crucial, but would become even more so because that thought now counts.

If you don't want a second choice, don't make one, but it's not "unfair" that you chose not to make one.

[PepsiFree]

And, just my humble opinion but any move towards proportional representation and away from plurality is incredibly positive.

STV isn't ideal, but sure, cue the fear mongering of a never ending Liberal power train to stir the conservatives up into another frenzy.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

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.

Originally Posted by Weitz

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.

So you're prepared to accept Quebec and Ontario's decision on this? That's the problem with a referendum; its majority rule whether the minority is vehemently against it or not. Do you accept it as 50% plus one?

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by 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.

So you want no say then in who becomes prime minister if your guy loses? I don't like Muclair, but I liked Haper even less so it wouldn't have been an issue for me to list NDP as my 2nd choice. Simply think of it as ranking the available candidates from most suitable to least, that way even if your preferred choice doesn't make it at least you have a say in avoiding whomever you think would be the worst case scenario

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It's not unfair, you make the choice.

It encourages you to think critically about what you actually want and what you would be OK with. It gives power to parties that align more closely with the common Canadian than anyone on one side or the other. If you're conservative, thinking critically about who would be an acceptable alternative is crucial, but would become even more so because that thought now counts.

If you don't want a second choice, don't make one, but it's not "unfair" that you chose not to make one.

But how does it change how a party leads? right now the 1st choice of the plurality of people wins the election. Under a ranked ballot the 1st or 2nd choice of the majority wins.

So to win an election the goal is to be the second best option. So what does this do to how parties campaign? Anything that could cause people to be against you you eliminate.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

So you want no say then in who becomes prime minister if your guy loses? I don't like Muclair, but I liked Haper even less so it wouldn't have been an issue for me to list NDP as my 2nd choice. Simply think of it as ranking the available candidates from most suitable to least, that way even if your preferred choice doesn't make it at least you have a say in avoiding whomever you think would be the worst case scenario

I think this is what worries right-wing voters though, because it's likely that the Liberals will shift further left to become the second choice of NDP voters rather than right to capture more Conservative voters because Conservative voters are more likely to not have a second preference.

[Cube Inmate]

The theory is that the STV system prevents strategic voting. For that reason (reduced strategic voting) I tend to agree with the concept. However, the point about Canada's (generally) 3-party system makes me question that. If second-choice votes gravitate to the mushy middle, then we'll never have a chance to throw out a government, in all likelihood.

I'd love to see a "fluid" voting period, where we see current results in real-time as votes are cast, and we have the opportunity to strategically change our vote (for, say, 24 hours) to try to change the overall outcome to one that more suits our preferences. E.g., I voted Liberal to reduce the chance of a Conservative majority, but I certainly didn't want a strong Liberal majority...so maybe I would choose to change my vote. As votes change, the real-time results change until, at some point (or after 24 hours), we might settle on an overall picture that actually reflects the "will of the voters," and not the statistical artifact that IS first-past-the-post.

Everyone still gets ONE vote counted in the end...and everyone has an equal opportunity to vote based on all the available information, right up to the end of the voting period. It only works if & when we get to 100% electronic, online voting, though. Sooooo not practical until the year 2278.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

So you're prepared to accept Quebec and Ontario's decision on this? That's the problem with a referendum; its majority rule whether the minority is vehemently against it or not. Do you accept it as 50% plus one?

Yes and yes

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

But how does it change how a party leads? right now the 1st choice of the plurality of people wins the election. Under a ranked ballot the 1st or 2nd choice of the majority wins.



So to win an election the goal is to be the second best option. So what does this do to how parties campaign? Anything that could cause people to be against you you eliminate.

Yes. I know you think it's the "mushy middle" but having strong, partisan leaders is not as valuable as having smart, moderate leaders.

There is a high value in a system that rewards moderate government and working together. Solely my opinion, but I see no value in strong leaders that sit on one side or the other. I'd like to know why they interest you though, for some perspective.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Slava

So you're prepared to accept Quebec and Ontario's decision on this? That's the problem with a referendum; its majority rule whether the minority is vehemently against it or not. Do you accept it as 50% plus one?

Yes, there is a problem with referendum. But perhaps, the referendum results would show a disproportionate support (or opposition) to the proposed changes among the provinces. This should be an important indicator to any ruling party. If you have vehement opposition among all provinces but two, should they ignore the strong dissent and proceed anyway? Not a slam dunk decision.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by GGG

Ranked ballot is just a race to the mushy middle.

Which is what's good about it... it encourages all parties to form a broad platform that's acceptable to the widest number of people rather then a platform that appeals strictly to your base plus a small micro-targeted population to make up the difference needed to get you to a majority.

My full preferred voting method would be MMPR with the district elections being determined by preferiential ballot.

[peter12]

This, obviously, must be a referendum. Most people forget the true greatness of FPTP. Electoral reform is a survey of flavour of the day ideas.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Which is what's good about it... it encourages all parties to form a broad platform that's acceptable to the widest number of people rather then a platform that appeals strictly to your base plus a small micro-targeted population to make up the difference needed to get you to a majority.

My full preferred voting method would be MMPR with the district elections being determined by preferiential ballot.

Thus destroying real debate, and destroying real perspectives.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by peter12

This, obviously, must be a referendum. Most people forget the true greatness of FPTP. Electoral reform is a survey of flavour of the day ideas.

What is that "true greatness" exactly?

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yes. I know you think it's the "mushy middle" but having strong, partisan leaders is not as valuable as having smart, moderate leaders.

I think the elections of Stelmach and Dion prove what you get with ranked ballots. In the absence of the rare rockstar candidate you get the least hated, bland, uninspiring choice.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Slava

What is that "true greatness" exactly?

It's old, therefore good.

- peter12

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I think the elections of Stelmach and Dion prove what you get with ranked ballots. In the absence of the rare rockstar candidate you get the least hated, bland, uninspiring choice.

Perfect.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by peter12

Thus destroying real debate, and destroying real perspectives.

Well now that would depend on what your definition of "real debate" and "real perspectives" are. I see nothing wrong with putting in a system that discourages demagogues and uncivilized discourse.

Frankly, I think it's silly to have both a multiparty system and FPTP.

[GGG]

Until someone can justify Stelmech of Dinning or even Morton. Redford being elected. The PCs getting rid of it because of poor results. The election of Dion.

I think the problem of most of these reform ideas is that it always asks how can we have a more representative government that feels more democratic.

Instead of the more important question does the current system result in good governance.
And does a new proposed system result in better governance.

So until someone can answer why do it beyond the colour of the seats in the house will more represent people's 1st or 2nd choices nothing should be done.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Slava

So you're prepared to accept Quebec and Ontario's decision on this? That's the problem with a referendum; its majority rule whether the minority is vehemently against it or not. Do you accept it as 50% plus one?

It truly depends on what the question is, what the criteria is, and how the process is structured. It doesn't have to be a 50%+1. It could need 75% support. It could need 40% support. It could need approval of 50%+1 overall vote + 50%+1 provinces/territories. There are many potentials.

You're making it sound like a referendum is a strict "must do it this way" structure... it hardly is.