Liberals want to change voting process?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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.

And the SCC will laugh and toss it out because the Conservatives don't have a constitutionally guaranteed right to be competitive in elections. The only ones who could likely challenge it on Constitutional grounds are the provinces, if the new system results in less seats for Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, or if individual citizens can demonstrate that the new system violates their right to vote.

[Jacks]

Well I would argue that the voting system really doesn't need to be changed and judging by the last 3 votes on the issue I'm not alone.

But .... if the public does want to make changes then a ranked ballot (which the Liberals prefer) would be the worst of all the options. The argument seems to be that the percentages aren't fair, the Liberals got 184 seats with slightly less than 40% of the vote, with a ranked ballot they would have got 30 to 40 more seats.

[Slava]

I just find the whole opposition to this strange. The current results aren't representative of what voters selected, but rather than let the government make changes to try to rectify that imbalance they want a referendum to see whether there is public will for this? Why? We already have a system that distorts voters choices, so why not change it?

And this idea that the Liberals are going to rig this so that they win every election is just as crazy. Maybe at this moment in political history they would win more seats under a different system, but surely that wouldn't have given them some super majority last election? Things change. Parties, opinions and everything else. The idea that we can't make things more representative of what voters actually select because some politicians and political parties are trying to get in the way should make people somewhat concerned.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Well I would argue that the voting system really doesn't need to be changed and judging by the last 3 votes on the issue I'm not alone.

But .... if the public does want to make changes then a ranked ballot (which the Liberals prefer) would be the worst of all the options. The argument seems to be that the percentages aren't fair, the Liberals got 184 seats with slightly less than 40% of the vote, with a ranked ballot they would have got 30 to 40 more seats.

This is exactly why I don't want a referendum. It becomes less about which system is most sensible and promotes better representation and more about "well the red team wants this and I vote blue, so I'm against it".

The last thing we need to do is politicize this decision.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Slava

I just find the whole opposition to this strange. The current results aren't representative of what voters selected, but rather than let the government make changes to try to rectify that imbalance they want a referendum to see whether there is public will for this? Why? We already have a system that distorts voters choices, so why not change it?

I'm okay with that what the Liberals are planning. However, it is pretty ironic that an initiative meant to encourage more Canadians to participate in the democratic process will be decided by a parliamentary committee.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

The last thing we need to do is politicize this decision.

If you truly mean that then you should want the decision taken away from the politicians. Let Elections Canada survey the people on whether they even want change and if so what they want.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by rubecube

And the SCC will laugh and toss it out because the Conservatives don't have a constitutionally guaranteed right to be competitive in elections. The only ones who could likely challenge it on Constitutional grounds are the provinces, if the new system results in less seats for Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, or if individual citizens can demonstrate that the new system violates their right to vote.

It would be hard for any new system to do that more than FPTP (where about half the votes don't count).

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

If you truly mean that then you should want the decision taken away from the politicians. Let Elections Canada survey the people on whether they even want change and if so what they want.

I would be in favour of a plan like this, as long as at the end someone has to make a firm decision on what to do. To me this is one of the issues with referendums. Let say we have a choice between preferential ballot and FPTP and everyone votes 'no' to a change. That's great, but then we're right back at square one. To me that's foolish. I know that shows my bias as thinking that the current FPTP is somewhat flawed, but I readily admit that. I want to see a change to a more representative system in general, and if that means that whatever the new system is ends up with some flaws I'm OK with that.

[Resolute 14]

At least you admit, Slava, your flaw in assuming no change is a "foolish" result. If you - and obviously Trudeau - believe that you can't convince a majority of Canadians to support a change in the process, then that speaks volumes about how little need there actually is to change the process. Which is why, of course, Trudeau is acting in an autocratic fashion.

[llwhiteoutll]

Referendum on this should be a no brainer. If the proposed change is as good as Trudeau says, then he will have no issue at all convincing a majority of Canadians to vote for it. Then he can say that the change is actually supported.

The reason he won't is because he knows it will lose and he doesn't want that. I think this kind of change has already been tried bybone of the provinces and was killed by voters.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

At least you admit, Slava, your flaw in assuming no change is a "foolish" result. If you - and obviously Trudeau - believe that you can't convince a majority of Canadians to support a change in the process, then that speaks volumes about how little need there actually is to change the process. Which is why, of course, Trudeau is acting in an autocratic fashion.

Well if you think that we need a change from FPTP, then someone has to step in and spend the political capital to make the change. There is no logical reason to oppose a more fair system really. Are there any good reasons for us to stick with FPTP aside from "its what we have now"?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Slava

There is no logical reason to oppose a more fair system really. Are there any good reasons for us to stick with FPTP aside from "its what we have now"?

FPTP ensure candidate have to stake out the middle ground. Proportional representation means candidates with platforms only a fraction of voters support will have representation in parliament, and could play kingmaker in minority governments.

I support some form of rep by pop, but there are legitimate concerns about the system.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

FPTP ensure candidate have to stake out the middle ground. Proportional representation means candidates with platforms only a fraction of voters support will have representation in parliament, and could play kingmaker in minority governments.

I support some form of rep by pop, but there are legitimate concerns about the system.

Sounds like a great thing to have a parliamentary committee examine and present the pros and cons to the Canadian public for implementation.

Does anyone feel like they are well versed enough the subject to cast a vote on it tomorrow? I'm a pretty plugged in guy about this sort of thing and I sure don't.

[Smartcar]

It's interesting that the public consultation hasn't even started and people are getting worked up over whether liberals are going to rig the result. Nobody is discussing mandatory voting or online voting which are also on the table and will likely have a far bigger impact on the outcome if implemented.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well if you think that we need a change from FPTP, then someone has to step in and spend the political capital to make the change. There is no logical reason to oppose a more fair system really. Are there any good reasons for us to stick with FPTP aside from "its what we have now"?

As CliffFletcher notes - FPTP forces candidates to play to the centre. Rep by pop pushes politics toward the extremes. Rep by Pop also eliminates the local representative.

And all of the systems (including STV) result in "wasted votes" - which, pretty much by definition, actually means "my party didn't win so my vote was wasted".

All systems have benefits, all systems have flaws. But don't sit there and preach about renewing democracy by using an anti-democratic process. That is just more of the very same cynical hypocrisy that you guys loved to bash Harper over.

And that doesn't touch things like what Smartcar notes. Mandatory voting, in particular, is an asinine idea.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

As CliffFletcher notes - FPTP forces candidates to play to the centre. Rep by pop pushes politics toward the extremes. Rep by Pop also eliminates the local representative.

And all of the systems (including STV) result in "wasted votes" - which, pretty much by definition, actually means "my party didn't win so my vote was wasted".

All systems have benefits, all systems have flaws. But don't sit there and preach about renewing democracy by using an anti-democratic process. That is just more of the very same cynical hypocrisy that you guys loved to bash Harper over.

And that doesn't touch things like what Smartcar notes. Mandatory voting, in particular, is an asinine idea.

Well its interesting to see that you have noted these drawbacks for rep by pop (which is the current system). Its clearly not eliminating local representation at this point or pushing candidates or parties to extremes.

And sure, all systems have flaws, but there are clearly more efficient systems. Look at Calgary Centre or Skyview in this latest federal election. The majority of voters there chose someone other than the Liberals. Why should we not acknowledge those votes in any way? Why do we run with a winner take all system even if that winner has a minority of the votes?

I just think that there are more efficient systems that will allow for greater representation of voters. If that means that voters are more diverse and we have more minority governments, that is fine. If we have 3 seats held by the Green party or whoever, that's also fine; its the wishes of the electorate and while I might personally not love our collective choices that's basically irrelevant.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

FPTP ensure candidate have to stake out the middle ground. Proportional representation means candidates with platforms only a fraction of voters support will have representation in parliament, and could play kingmaker in minority governments.

I support some form of rep by pop, but there are legitimate concerns about the system.

You can easily put in a threshold of votes required to get a seat to eliminate the super crazies (its 5% in Germany, New Zealand and Poland).

Now that does add 'wasted votes' in that the votes for the low supported parties won't count the same as voting for a well supported parties but would eliminate the risk of a crazy party getting 0.5% of the votes and getting a seat.

[Cappy]

The majority of people would most likely want a new election style.

The majority of people will never be able to agree on a suitable replacement.

Repeat.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

As CliffFletcher notes - FPTP forces candidates to play to the centre. Rep by pop pushes politics toward the extremes. Rep by Pop also eliminates the local representative.

Not saying your necessarily wrong, but this isn't really true when it comes to Canada. The parties have been pushing further to the right for close to three decades now, so you can't really say they're staking out the middle. Besides which, do we want all of our parties to occupy the same spot on the spectrum and become virtually indistinguishable from each other?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Not saying your necessarily wrong, but this isn't really true when it comes to Canada. The parties have been pushing further to the right for close to three decades now, so you can't really say they're staking out the middle. Besides which, do we want all of our parties to occupy the same spot on the spectrum and become virtually indistinguishable from each other?

It's easier for me to pick who I want to vote for if the only differences between them are physical.

And I just don't trust handsome people.