Liberals want to change voting process?

[bizaro86]

FPTP is like the old Churchill quote about democracy. It's the worst system except for everything else.

Any type of proportional representation will end up with party lists, which are terrible. You end up with political elites getting pork barreled onto lists, and it removes the accountability for an individual representative. If you think Rob Anders was hard to get rid of under the current system, what happens when he's #2 on the CPC list as one of their longest serving MPs?

STV is just as bad, you end up with the least objectionable candidate winning. I don't see how anyone who witnessed the Ed Stelmach/Alison Redford years (when there were multiple better choice to both of them in each leadership race) can not see that.

Maybe you can design some sort of Franken-system that addresses some of these flaw (multi-representative ridings with a PR overlay from losing candidates with the most votes) or something. But I also think having a system the average Canadian can understand has value.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

FPTP is like the old Churchill quote about democracy. It's the worst system except for everything else.

Any type of proportional representation will end up with party lists, which are terrible. You end up with political elites getting pork barreled onto lists, and it removes the accountability for an individual representative. If you think Rob Anders was hard to get rid of under the current system, what happens when he's #2 on the CPC list as one of their longest serving MPs?

STV is just as bad, you end up with the least objectionable candidate winning. I don't see how anyone who witnessed the Ed Stelmach/Alison Redford years (when there were multiple better choice to both of them in each leadership race) can not see that.

Maybe you can design some sort of Franken-system that addresses some of these flaw (multi-representative ridings with a PR overlay from losing candidates with the most votes) or something. But I also think having a system the average Canadian can understand has value.

The only thing that got rid of Anders is the riding boundaries being changed. If he had been nominated again, very likely we would have won again. The method of the general election had nothing to do with him losing his seat.

No idea how it would play out in reality, but if a party lists a terrible candidate on their list I suspect it would hurt their votes across the country instead of a situation where the Cons could nominate a bag of potatoes in some Alberta ridings and still win going away.

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by GGG

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?

Just noticed this thread again, should have responded to this post 2 weeks ago.

In leadership campaigns, such as the PCs in Alberta, I agree run offs can produce a least disliked "everyone's 2nd choice" winner but I have not found that applies in a federal election with preferential voting. Instead it promotes moderation and building consensus as you cannot rely on your base alone and need to attract enough 2nd, 3rd, etc. place votes to garner over 50% support. It also gives greater enfranchisement as you can vote for the party of your choice while still voting strategically with your rankings.

The issues with the senate is that it is combined with proportional representation and the larger number of candidates makes it impractical for a voter to rank each one. This results in a system where the major parties basically get to appoint party hacks while the remaining seats are filled by minor parties/independents who no one actually votes for but get lucky on preference deals. Still better than Canada's non-Triple E Senate of course but still not a great system.

[Resolute 14]

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?

No, you are confusing the entire scale - which shifts over time with the general changes and movement of society - with the individual parties/candidates as they fit within that scale.

[Jacks]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/02...n_9195046.html

According to Insights West, however, 65 per cent of Canadians think a referendum is needed to change the current system, while 17 per cent think a vote in the House of Commons suffices.Supporters of Elizabeth May's Green Party are most likely to support a referendum. The Greens have long advocated shifting to a system of proportional representation that would see a party's share of seats better reflect its popular vote. Eighty-six per cent of Green voters endorse the idea, as do 76 per cent of Tories.
However, 68 per cent of Liberal supporters and 58 per cent of NDP voters also want a referendum.
Insights West also found that three in five Canadians are satisfied by the existing first-past-the-post-system, in which the candidate with the most votes wins.