Justin Trudeau vows to end 1st-past-the-post voting in platform speech

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

One other thing:

First-past-the-post has long been viewed as the primary culprit behind declining turnout, contributing to Canadians’ belief that their votes don’t count.


Does anyone really think that is the cause of declining turnout? Nothing to do with ever present scandals, lack of vision and leadership of the parties?

Main reason: voter suppression. Every party does it and it is generally quite effective.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Slava

Why is preferential voting bad for one party in particular? Could it be that they've poisoned themselves so badly that they won't be those voters second choice? If so, they've created their own problem there. I don't see how a voting system favours any party though.

I have come around a lot on the quotas personally. Being male I just think we don't appreciate the difficulty and discrimination that women feel. Its pretty easy as a white male to look and say "we don't need these things to even it out" but then we do continually see less representation by women and these minority groups.

I think it would generally benefit the Liberals because they are the middle party. So NDP supporters and Conservative supporters would have the Liberals as their second choice.

In a similar vein, a proportional representation system would somewhat favour the Liberal Party, again as the middle ground. They would never get majority governments again but would be able to sway policies to their liking by holding the key to each vote.

It is unfair to say that voting systems do not create winners and losers. Considering the current system drastically favours regional strongholds over national parties.

[GP_Matt]

Before they introduce first past the post I think they need to fix the huge disparity in the value of a vote. The largest riding has 170,000 people while the smallest has only 26,000.

A vote in Labrador is worth 6.5 votes in Brampton.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I hope I never hear you or any other Liberal/NDP supporter ever whine about vote splitting harming your side, ever again. Ever.



The solution to discrimination is not more discrimination. And that is what quota systems are.

They're not the same thing at all? Preferential ballot means that I rank my choices in order of preference. The fact that one party has no support as a "second choice" on a lot of ballots because they've poisoned themselves isn't an indictment of the voting system. Vote splitting is totally different.

Alright so you don't like the quota. What exactly do you put forward as a solution? I mean the quota seems silly, until you consider the fact that the parties in power already engage in this kind of thing by appointing Senators to sit in cabinets and make sure that certain areas get certain representation for purely political reasons. Why not have one of those reasons be simple equality?

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The solution to discrimination is not more discrimination. And that is what quota systems are.

If I were hired because I was the best candidate within a pool of a certain gender or ethnicity, I would be offended. Jobs should go to the candidate adjudged to be the best of the applicant lot. Let's discriminate against white males getting jobs, because of feelings. Right. Businesses that are racist or sexist by nature will fall by the wayside, why institute discriminatory practices?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Dagger

Businesses that are racist or sexist by nature will fall by the wayside

Haha, yeah, history has totally shown that this is the case.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The solution to discrimination is not more discrimination. And that is what quota systems are.

I don't necessarily like the idea of quotas, but affirmative action programs are unfortunately a necessary evil in a society in which systemic racism still exists.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I think it would generally benefit the Liberals because they are the middle party. So NDP supporters and Conservative supporters would have the Liberals as their second choice.

In a similar vein, a proportional representation system would somewhat favour the Liberal Party, again as the middle ground. They would never get majority governments again but would be able to sway policies to their liking by holding the key to each vote.

It is unfair to say that voting systems do not create winners and losers. Considering the current system drastically favours regional strongholds over national parties.

I think this is correct. If voters are voting based on platform (I know, a huge assumption), it would make sense that the middle ground party would pick up more of the 2nd votes. This system was suggested by Liberals because it is most likely to help the Liberals.

The fact that we have 3 legitimate national parties (PC, Libs and NDP), plus a few more fringe alternatives (Green), plus some regional parties (Bloc), means that it is highly unlikely that a single party will obtain more than 50% of the votes in a given riding. I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing or somehow anti-democratic. I would much rather see people really consider the vote and pick the one that best suits them. This isn't highschool, where you might think, "Gee, I like all of the candidates, how can I pick Emily over Sam?" Pick one, just do it.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

They're not the same thing at all? Preferential ballot means that I rank my choices in order of preference. The fact that one party has no support as a "second choice" on a lot of ballots because they've poisoned themselves isn't an indictment of the voting system. Vote splitting is totally different.

The multiple parties on the left is a problem they have created for themselves. It's the same argument you are making, but opposite face of the coin.

Alright so you don't like the quota. What exactly do you put forward as a solution? I mean the quota seems silly, until you consider the fact that the parties in power already engage in this kind of thing by appointing Senators to sit in cabinets and make sure that certain areas get certain representation for purely political reasons. Why not have one of those reasons be simple equality?

Because it isn't equality. It is still discrimination. And a quota system is made no less silly by providing other examples of things that may also be silly.

And the solution is to work at the party level to ensure as many qualified female and minority candidates as is reasonably possible get elected. But in terms of forming a cabinet, the public deserves the best candidates available to the government. Whether a person has a penis or vagina should never take precedence over their skills and ability.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I don't necessarily like the idea of quotas, but affirmative action programs are unfortunately a necessary evil in a society in which systemic racism still exists.

Are they a necessary evil in a society where two of our last three Premiers were female, as well as the leader of the opposition for much of the last legislature?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Are they a necessary evil in a society where two of our last three Premiers were female, as well as the leader of the opposition for much of the last legislature?

I'm not saying things aren't getting better, but there is always progress to be made. As I said, I don't think quotas are the solution. I also think that the focus should probably start to shift more heavily to ethnic minorities and aboriginals as opposed to gender, though women of colour often face much more obstacles than white women.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

First of all, I doubt its ever going to be implemented unless you put biometrics into it and the government stores that information. In terms of voting, they have to be sure its you that's voting.

Second of all, and this drives me crazy, most voting stations are within walking distance of your probable home, or within a 5 minute drive. Stating that the reason why people don't vote because they have to leave their house to vote is such a poor reason.

I don't believe in mandatory voting, frankly if a person doesn't want to vote then they don't vote, they have no say in the government and it makes then the ultimate sheep.

The last federal election it was a 25 minute drive for me to get to my polling station.

I went and voted but you are damn well sure if I had anything on the go that night I would have not went due to the hour commitment it took.

[FlamesAddiction]

I like it for the simple fact that people can vote for who they really want to form the government and not have to vote for a party they don't really like, but that will keep another party out of power.

For example, some Liberal supporters I know are more likely to vote for the NDP because they are under the impression that it is the best chance to keep the Conservatives out of power (who they dislike more). I might end of voting for the Conservatives for that exact reason even though I would prefer the Liberals. The fear of vote splitting shouldn't be an issue in a multiparty democracy, yet in Canada it always is. Honestly, how better would it be for everyone if the Right didn't have to unite for that exact reason?

Anything that increases the choice can't be a bad thing for democracy.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Weitz

The last federal election it was a 25 minute drive for me to get to my polling station.

I went and voted but you are damn well sure if I had anything on the go that night I would have not went due to the hour commitment it took.

365 x 24 x 4 = 35040 hours in a 4 year government

1/35040 = less then a molecule of a percentage point.

you had multiple months warning that the vote was happening.

Sorry I'm not seeing your point.

If you can't set aside a half an hour or an hour to put in the effort to take part in a fundamental part of your democratic rights then . . .

I applaud you that you took the time to vote, but taking an hour out of 2 or 3 or 4 years isn't a hardship.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I don't think the provincial election is going to have any impact on the federal election in Alberta, and the polls seem to be reflecting that.

The provincial election proved albertans are open to voting for parties other then the right. The fact 2 of the 3 federal parties are basically throwing alberta away is reflected in the polls.

I say this as someone who is planning on voting liberal.

As for diversity in the cabinet. Quotas to maintain diversity are a good idea for large companies with a large pool of all reasonably similarily qualified candidates to choose from. However, not a good idea in a small cabinet pulling from a small group of people who have vastly different or no qualifications. Bpa please. Best person available.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Dan02

The provincial election proved albertans are open to voting for parties other then the right. The fact 2 of the 3 federal parties are basically throwing alberta away is reflected in the polls.

I say this as someone who is planning on voting liberal.

I actually think Trudeau has been going pretty hard after Alberta, harder than any of the previous Liberal candidates have, and I say that as someone who probably won't vote Liberal.

As for diversity in the cabinet. Quotas to maintain diversity are a good idea for large companies with a large pool of all reasonably similarily qualified candidates to choose from. However, not a good idea in a small cabinet pulling from a small group of people who have vastly different or no qualifications. Bpa please. Best person available.

Totally agree. If there are two candidates that are equally qualified for the position and one happens to be a minority, I would prefer the minority get the position, but having a set quota is not a good idea.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I actually think Trudeau has been going pretty hard after Alberta, harder than any of the previous Liberal candidates have, and I say that as someone who probably won't vote Liberal.

Haha possibly true, I actually met him the weekend before last up at pride in Edmonton.

However, while not his fault and maintaining 0 consideration in my voting decision, we must admit that his name is somewhat tainted based on his fathers legacy in Alberta. But then again it's his name that put him in the position he's in right now so...

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Dan02

The provincial election proved albertans are open to voting for parties other then the right. The fact 2 of the 3 federal parties are basically throwing alberta away is reflected in the polls.

More Albertans voted for a Conservative party than NDP, there just happened to be two of them. This is not the case in the Federal elections.

For sure the provincial election showed a greater willingness to not vote right than in the past so it might bode for change in a few ridings but overall the province will be convincingly blue

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by edslunch

More Albertans voted for a Conservative party than NDP, there just happened to be two of them. This is not the case in the Federal elections.

For sure the provincial election showed a greater willingness to not vote right than in the past so it might bode for change in a few ridings but overall the province will be convincingly blue

true but the rural vote makes it seem more lopsided then it was. My point is that there are lots of seats in urban alberta which could be in play and it's not s foregone conclusion that it would go all blue anymore. My riding for example in the provincial election went 60% ndp/lib/ap and 40% pc/wildrose.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Haha, yeah, history has totally shown that this is the case.

Historically, you were allowed to discriminate. Nowadays, there would be an outcry if it emerged that some big box company had a "Whites only" policy. You're looking in the wrong direction.