Liberals want to change voting process?

[FireGilbert]

After living in Australia I have nothing but positives to say about STV (or instant run off as I like to call it) for the House of representatives. Candidates cannot rely on their base to get elected and need to have a broader more inclusive platform. Also, there is no strategic voting, you just vote 1 for the candidate you like the most and put the one you like the least last.

Of course it is a disaster in the Senate however Canada wouldn't have that problem.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

After living in Australia I have nothing but positives to say about STV (or instant run off as I like to call it) for the House of representatives. Candidates cannot rely on their base to get elected and need to have a broader more inclusive platform. Also, there is no strategic voting, you just vote 1 for the candidate you like the most and put the one you like the least last.

Of course it is a disaster in the Senate however Canada wouldn't have that problem.

Isn't it a problem that campaigning becomes being out the least disliked candidate rather than the most liked?

What are the differences that make it work in the House? Vs not in the senate?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by GGG

Under representation of small parties -- is a pro keeps extremist views out

Ethnic Minorities -- this also assures areas with ethnic minorities are elected in their areas. In Canada I think this is a pro as it ensures native representation in native dominated areas and other ethnic representation in various majority areas.

Women -- if you note the end of the statement is that it is influenced by pro equality policies in areas with pr. I think you need to look into more detail before saying this is a defect of Ftfp. And it's likely you could develop policies to get more equal participation such as appointments by the parties in charge of mandatory quotas for major parties if this is a priority.

Regional/Racial fiefdoms -- outside of Alberta every other region in Canada is effective at regularly switching allegiances in between national and regional parties. This appears to be a defect in Albertans rather than the system. It is an item to watch though but in Canada it appears that with party renewal the regional parties lose support or moderate to appeal nationally with constituents desire to form government.

Wasted Votes -- not an issue. Disagree that it leads to anti system candidates. No evidence of this being an issue over 100 years in Alberta

Vote Splitting -- again I see this as a feature it discourages large numbers of similar parties and leads to renewal .

Unresponsive to sways in opinion -- this is also a feature. Stability in government amoung small swings in opinion is a good thing.

Boundaries-- agree with this being a significant issue but Canada handles it well.


The initial posted list contains a lot of criticisms of FTFP which are still present in the ranked ballot that is loosely proposed. The only items which are addressed are wasted votes and vote splitting. Both of which aren't significant enough to change a system.

The discussion of PR vs FTFP at least is more interesting then the ranked ballot.

A very fine post.

Sorry that I took my time in responding. I was down with the flu all weekend, and not in a good position to engage with some of the great responses here.

I would also add that every electoral system is as much a reflection of a country's cultural preferences. Too often people think that voting systems are some kind of technical problem. Hence, the abstract criticisms of FPTP based on some perfectly imagined theoretical model.

Our FPTP has weathered practically every storm that an electoral system could conceivably go through - constitutional crises, a staunch separatist movement, and increasing racial and cultural diversity. Through that it has replaced innumerable political parties, driving growth and innovation at every level in this country.

What is more is that I do not like how parties control the lists in both PR and STV.

[Jacks]

Looks like the Libs are ruling out a referendum, they know it will fail. There is 0% chance it gets through the Senate so that means they will have to push it through as a cabinet decision with no vote at all. Is this even constitutional?

Federal Liberals rule out referendum on electoral reform — despite recent precedent
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...gh-in-directly

Despite calls from both the left and right that any changes to how Canadians elect their government require the direct input of the people, Government House Leader Dominic LeBlanc said Sunday that’s not in the cards. “Our plan is not to have a national referendum, our plan is to use parliament to consult Canadians,” Leblanc said during an interview on CTV’s Question Period. “That’s always been our plan and I don’t have any reason to think that’s been changed.”
He said he would work with democratic reform minister Maryam Monsef to strike a committee to consult with Canadians and come up with a plan for reform.
But his dismissal that a referendum is required is also a negation of recent precedent. Three provinces have held recent referendums on electoral reform: Prince Edward Island in 2005, Ontario in 2007 and B.C., which has held two recent referendums on change the ballot, in 2005 and 2009. In all three, voters rejected a massive alteration to the status quo. In B.C. support for the status quo actually grew during those four years.

This from the people who claimed Harper was a dictator.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Looks like the Libs are ruling out a referendum, they know it will fail. There is 0% chance it gets through the Senate so that means they will have to push it through as a cabinet decision with no vote at all. Is this even constitutional?

This from the people who claimed Harper was a dictator.

Yeah, without a referendum the Liberals are basically Kim Jon-deau.

Dictators are definitely the type make democracy more representational.

[Slava]

Voting has changed before in Canadian history and it was without a referendum. This isn't the first time and likely won't be the last. What the Liberals are calling for is an all-party committee to gather public input and make a decision...which sounds fine to me. Why do I get the impression that a lot of the people calling for a referendum would be decrying the cost if they had said they were going that route?

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Slava

Why do I get the impression that a lot of the people calling for a referendum would be decrying the cost if they had said they were going that route?

I think the vast majority of people would consider a referendum money well spent when it comes to this issue.

[Slava]

Maybe, but it just doesn't change the fact that Trudeau and his government have a mandate here. They ran on this topic and committed to this during the campaign.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by zamler

I think the vast majority of people would consider a referendum money well spent when it comes to this issue.

I would disagree. I think a significant amount of people, certainly enough to dispel any notion of a "vast majority" on the other side, would consider it a waste of taxpayer dollars (normally a supposed concern for Conservatives but likely eager to spend our dollars on this issue).

A referendum isn't binding. If they're set on changing the system, would you prefer them put on some show to pretend like your opinion deeply matters?

The voters already spoke. The Liberals were voted in with election reform as one of their key platforms.

[rubecube]

Yeah, it'd be another thing if the Liberals hadn't made this a part of their election platform, but they did, so it's hard to say they don't have a mandate.

[CaptainCrunch]

I doubt that a change in the voting system wouldn't be challenged in the supreme court.

I don't know how they can change the voting system without opening the constitution, and if the constitution is opened it becomes a massive mess because all the provinces would want serious self interested amendments in order to support the change.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I doubt that a change in the voting system wouldn't be challenged in the supreme court.

I don't know how they can change the voting system without opening the constitution, and if the constitution is opened it becomes a massive mess because all the provinces would want serious self interested amendments in order to support the change.

Nah, there's precedence for changing things like the formula by which seats are allocated to the provinces that did not require amendments. There's nothing in the Constitution as far as I'm aware that relates to how elections are to be conducted.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

Maybe, but it just doesn't change the fact that Trudeau and his government have a mandate here. They ran on this topic and committed to this during the campaign.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The voters already spoke. The Liberals were voted in with election reform as one of their key platforms.

Maybe one of you could elaborate on what exactly they promised?
I'll save you the time, they didn't go into details, it was a blip during the election.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Nah, there's precedence for changing things like the formula by which seats are allocated to the provinces that did not require amendments. There's nothing in the Constitution as far as I'm aware that relates to how elections are to be conducted.

I'm willing to bet if the Liberals push for that placement style of voting with ranking candidates that the Conservatives will go to the supreme court and work to get it quashed as it will guarantee that the strategic voting people will ensure that the Conservatives won't be able to compete in an election.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Maybe one of you could elaborate on what exactly they promised?
I'll save you the time, they didn't go into details, it was a blip during the election.

I don't mind taking the time. I'm pretty Internet-capable.

We will make every vote count.

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.

So, exactly what they're doing it seems.

Might be a blip to you. A lot of other people were paying attention.

[LanceUppercut]

I'll pull out the old argument by a lot of liberals when the Conservatives had a majority: 60% of Canada didn't vote for the Liberals, why should they get carte blanche to change the voting system?

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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

So as one of the hundred or so election issues they offered no details about what changes they'd bring in but you claim that is a mandate, I disagree. If they truly mean getting a consensus from all parties that would be a step in the right direction but still not as good as letting the people decide. If "an all-party Parliamentary committee" means a majority of Liberals pushing through their preference then it's not so great.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jacks

So as one of the hundred or so election issues they offered no details about what changes they'd bring in but you claim that is a mandate, I disagree. If they truly mean getting a consensus from all parties that would be a step in the right direction but still not as good as letting the people decide. If "an all-party Parliamentary committee" means a majority of Liberals pushing through their preference then it's not so great.

I don't disagree entirely.

Framing this as some off-the-cuff move by a dictatorship? I do disagree.

As with many of the hundred or so election issues every party represents, there is always a shortage of precise details until a party has been elected. This is not new nor is it party specific.

Abolish FPTP, use an all-party committee to find a new system, introduce legislation within 18 months.

What other details would you want?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by LanceUppercut

I'll pull out the old argument by a lot of liberals when the Conservatives had a majority: 60% of Canada didn't vote for the Liberals, why should they get carte blanche to change the voting system?

Which is exactly why the electoral system ought to be changed of course...

[LanceUppercut]

Originally Posted by Slava

Which is exactly why the electoral system ought to be changed of course...

Sure, but here is the chance to whip out the Democracy and put it to the people. 50%+1 and we change.