The "Build a Better Democracy" Thread

[Weitz]

Haven't studies shown that mandatory voting in Australia has gotten whoever is listed at the top of the ballot more votes? Essentially meaning people just vote for the top one

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Haven't studies shown that mandatory voting in Australia has gotten whoever is listed at the top of the ballot more votes? Essentially meaning people just vote for the top one

Whether voting is mandatory or not, being the first name listed on a ballot is generally considered to be an advantage.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Ban political parties and block voting at all levels of government.

This has been my naive thought for a while. I can't stand the idea of teams and politicians arguing with each other instead of doing what's best for the country. Ideally, we would send 338 representatives to parliament. They would vote in a PM and other cabinet positions amongst themselves, and then they all work together on a non-partisan basis to make decisions. No governing party, no opposition, just 338 people running the country together. Probably not very feasible, but it's essentially what we do at a municipal level.

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Haven't studies shown that mandatory voting in Australia has gotten whoever is listed at the top of the ballot more votes? Essentially meaning people just vote for the top one

In Australia mandatory voting in combination with preferential (instant run off) voting results in some voters submitting a "donkey vote". This involves ranking the candidates in the order they appear on the ballot. In order to limit the impact of donkeys the candidate order is random.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_vote

Personally I hate mandatory voting but think preferential is the bee knees.

[Swift]

Reflecting on the trend towards nastiness in recent elections, I'm becoming disillusioned with the political process. My outlandish suggestion would be for each candidate to submit their platform to the elections body (here's what I'll do, here's what I won't do) They mail out a pamphlet to each household detailing the candidate's platforms a week before the election and then you go vote. No arguing, no campaigning, no attacking. Everyone just politely accepts the result and continues on with their life.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

Reflecting on the trend towards nastiness in recent elections, I'm becoming disillusioned with the political process. My outlandish suggestion would be for each candidate to submit their platform to the elections body (here's what I'll do, here's what I won't do) They mail out a pamphlet to each household detailing the candidate's platforms a week before the election and then you go vote. No arguing, no campaigning, no attacking. Everyone just politely accepts the result and continues on with their life.

I'd be all for it.

As I mentioned in the U.S. politics thread, Dan Carlin's most recent podcast covers this issue - the black/white morality, the hatred, the intense partisanship. A good point he raises, and one I've asked myself, is how representative the people who dominate political discourse - the journalists, party loyalists, bloggers, social media activists, and forum flame warriors - really are of the average citizen.

The most angry people dominate our politics. Our systems favour ideologues because of how our nomination process works and how few people participate. Moreover, public discourse today is driven by clicks, page-views, and re-tweets, and the more inflammatory the message the more clicks it gets. A friend who's a newspaper columnist has commented that his job is to have a strong or even extreme opinion, because people like to read columnists whose views they hate as much as ones they share.

So to me the bigger issue is finding a way for social discourse to be more representative of average people. Or at least rewiring our minds to able to put the furious rantings of 10 per cent of the population into context.

[powderjunkie]

I would make it illegal to publish the results of any private polls. IMO, the last few elections have been dramatically affected by reported 'poll results', where there was obvious room for bias and pushed messaging.

Stats Can would handle all polls on a set schedule; all results and methodology would be open and available to everyone.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I would make it illegal to publish the results of any private polls. IMO, the last few elections have been dramatically affected by reported 'poll results', where there was obvious room for bias and pushed messaging.

Stats Can would handle all polls on a set schedule; all results and methodology would be open and available to everyone.

I dont really understand why we need election prediction polls. The election is a poll.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I would make it illegal to publish the results of any private polls. IMO, the last few elections have been dramatically affected by reported 'poll results', where there was obvious room for bias and pushed messaging.

Stats Can would handle all polls on a set schedule; all results and methodology would be open and available to everyone.

The problem with this is multiple polls with multiple methodologies is more accurate than one poll.

For example the average of the mainstreet and the other 2 polls in the municipal election was more accurate than any of the polls by themselves.

The media and public need to be trained on how to interpret polling.

[northcrunk]

I think the best way to fix our democracy is to abolish the party system. It would make people focus on their local MP and we could do a popular vote for the PM. Not that it would be an easy change.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

Reflecting on the trend towards nastiness in recent elections, I'm becoming disillusioned with the political process. My outlandish suggestion would be for each candidate to submit their platform to the elections body (here's what I'll do, here's what I won't do) They mail out a pamphlet to each household detailing the candidate's platforms a week before the election and then you go vote. No arguing, no campaigning, no attacking. Everyone just politely accepts the result and continues on with their life.

That's fair, but the counter argument to that and its come up in the past is you release your platform and the other party steals it and takes credit for it, that's why opposition parties won't do it, and that's why incumbent parties campaign more on their track record and are vague going forward.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

That's fair, but the counter argument to that and its come up in the past is you release your platform and the other party steals it and takes credit for it, that's why opposition parties won't do it, and that's why incumbent parties campaign more on their track record and are vague going forward.

Harper was good at this move. Stealing the platform of the opposition to make it look like there are fewer differences between them causing people to vote for the incumbent.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

I think the best way to fix our democracy is to abolish the party system. It would make people focus on their local MP and we could do a popular vote for the PM. Not that it would be an easy change.

The problem with that would be grid lock for the leader getting anything done. The Prime Minister literally becomes one vote out of 300 and we get wacky coalitions of voting blocks that can blackmail the Prime Minister in order for him to get anything passed.

Its the old Simpsons thing where the leader wants to spend money evacuating springfield and some party demands an add on of funds for the perverted arts.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The problem with that would be grid lock for the leader getting anything done. The Prime Minister literally becomes one vote out of 300 and we get wacky coalitions of voting blocks that can blackmail the Prime Minister in order for him to get anything passed.

Its the old Simpsons thing where the leader wants to spend money evacuating springfield and some party demands an add on of funds for the perverted arts.

It would really slow down how fast legislation is passed. MPs would be accountable to their own ridings. Not just hand picked by the leadership of the party.

[CaptainCrunch]

So now we're putting the goods of the ridings ahead of the good of the nation?

I don't know if that works. Plus for example you would put even more power in the hands of Quebec so to speak then Alberta, because a Quebec block where its based on riding power would dominate

[The Coppernian One]

I did a road trip to Yellowknife this past summer and while there took a tour of the NWT Legislature (I recommend).

There is no party system. Each community elects a representative and those people form government. From among themselves they chose the Premier and Cabinet members. The remaining reps become the official opposition, although they all still caucus as one group.

The one thing of note is that the entire assembly is 19 representatives, so it's an easier group to work with than a much larger group.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

That's fair, but the counter argument to that and its come up in the past is you release your platform and the other party steals it and takes credit for it, that's why opposition parties won't do it, and that's why incumbent parties campaign more on their track record and are vague going forward.

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Harper was good at this move. Stealing the platform of the opposition to make it look like there are fewer differences between them causing people to vote for the incumbent.

This is only a problem if the goal is to form government. The goal is to govern Canada effectively. If a Party "steels" a policy everyone should be happy. The opposition for implementing their platform and the public and government for compromise rather than Dogma.

The system should not be about winning it should be about good governance. The problem is the incentives are built around winning.

[Tacopuck]

Anarchy is the only fair solution.