MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Fuzz]

I wonder if it makes sense to look at instant-runoff voting for municipal elections. With 30 mayoral candidates, there are a lot fo ineffective votes going on. Same with indivdual wards, where you may have 2 or 3 conservative candidates, and same on the other side. That way, you actually get a representative that covers the leaning of the riding, rather than the one that benefited from a vote split.


Kinda thinking about Ward 7 here, but Ward 4 also suffered from it.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I wonder if it makes sense to look at instant-runoff voting for municipal elections. With 30 mayoral candidates, there are a lot fo ineffective votes going on. Same with indivdual wards, where you may have 2 or 3 conservative candidates, and same on the other side. That way, you actually get a representative that covers the leaning of the riding, rather than the one that benefited from a vote split.


Kinda thinking about Ward 7 here, but Ward 4 also suffered from it.

I'm not a fan of ranked-ballots for provincial or federal elections for a variety of reasons, but I would support introducing them for municipal elections.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I wonder if it makes sense to look at instant-runoff voting for municipal elections. With 30 mayoral candidates, there are a lot fo ineffective votes going on. Same with indivdual wards, where you may have 2 or 3 conservative candidates, and same on the other side. That way, you actually get a representative that covers the leaning of the riding, rather than the one that benefited from a vote split.


Kinda thinking about Ward 7 here, but Ward 4 also suffered from it.

I mentioned that in a thread earlier this month also. I mean I get that a lot of the 27 mayoralty candidates were not serious contenders. But if we cut that down until someone had 50% + 1 it might have been a better way to do this.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I wonder if it makes sense to look at instant-runoff voting for municipal elections. With 30 mayoral candidates, there are a lot fo ineffective votes going on. Same with indivdual wards, where you may have 2 or 3 conservative candidates, and same on the other side. That way, you actually get a representative that covers the leaning of the riding, rather than the one that benefited from a vote split.


Kinda thinking about Ward 7 here, but Ward 4 also suffered from it.

People voting for who they think is best (or whatever they want) is ineffective?

Wasn't voter turn out like 40%?. What would this new system get? 15%?

[CliffFletcher]

One of the merits of our municipal system is that it’s not party-based. I know that runs against the tenor of our times, but I don’t see how turning it into another team red vs team blue showdown will result in better government.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Weitz

People voting for who they think is best (or whatever they want) is ineffective?

Wasn't voter turn out like 40%?. What would this new system get? 15%?

The votes are ineffective because they end up not having representation. And this works both ways, it's not a left or right issue. If you look at the mayoral vote, a ranked ballot may very well have had Farkas win, in Ward 7, probably someone more progressive.

It's just about having the majority opinion of the members of a ward represented, given that the difference between platforms can be fairly small between candidates. On the extreme end, imagine 11 candidates, 10 of them supporting densification, and one wanting a ward to say the same with no change. So 90% of the votes could get split between 10 candidates, all representing a densification view, while the other person with 10% of the votes wins. You can see how the vast majority end up not being represented. Now, maybe you think that is just fine. I don't really think that's healthy democracy.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Slava

I mentioned that in a thread earlier this month also. I mean I get that a lot of the 27 mayoralty candidates were not serious contenders. But if we cut that down until someone had 50% + 1 it might have been a better way to do this.

Or do you end up with the ineffectual "everyone's second choice" types winning.

The poster boy in my mind for ranked ballots with runoff is Ed Stelmach.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The votes are ineffective because they end up not having representation. And this works both ways, it's not a left or right issue. If you look at the mayoral vote, a ranked ballot may very well have had Farkas win, in Ward 7, probably someone more progressive.

It's just about having the majority opinion of the members of a ward represented, given that the difference between platforms can be fairly small between candidates. On the extreme end, imagine 11 candidates, 10 of them supporting densification, and one wanting a ward to say the same with no change. So 90% of the votes could get split between 10 candidates, all representing a densification view, while the other person with 10% of the votes wins. You can see how the vast majority end up not being represented. Now, maybe you think that is just fine. I don't really think that's healthy democracy.

But then even more people just won't vote. The majority isn't as motivated as you.

The vast majority already aren't represented, I don't think your proposal fixes that.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Weitz

But then even more people just won't vote. The majority isn't as motivated as you.

The vast majority already aren't represented, I don't think your proposal fixes that.

I don't understand how it makes fewer people vote?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I don't understand how it makes fewer people vote?

Voter turnout is awful as is. Making it a ranked ballot or run-offs or what have you likely doesn't motivate more people. It makes them just stay home.

If I wanted to vote for Davison (or anyone but Gondek or Farkas) for example, why would I have even voted in this election?

[Slava]

I tend to feel like the election results are a good poll for the non-voters. That’s generally my opinion, regardless of the election (civic, provincial or federal).

[calgarygeologist]

I don't know what the solution is to improve the voting system and turnout but I think it would be great to see some sort mechanism in place to limit the number of candidates to a reasonable amount (5 or 6 for Mayor, 3 or 4 for Councillors.) 20+ for mayor and 6 to 10 in some wards is pretty ridiculous in my opinion.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I don't know what the solution is to improve the voting system and turnout but I think it would be great to see some sort mechanism in place to limit the number of candidates to a reasonable amount (5 or 6 for Mayor, 3 or 4 for Councillors.) 20+ for mayor and 6 to 10 in some wards is pretty ridiculous in my opinion.

Squid game ?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Voter turnout is awful as is. Making it a ranked ballot or run-offs or what have you likely doesn't motivate more people. It makes them just stay home.

If I wanted to vote for Davison (or anyone but Gondek or Farkas) for example, why would I have even voted in this election?

Under the current system, why would you have bothered to vote in this election if you knew you were supporting the likely 3rd place (or worse) candidate?

At least with a ranked ballot, if you were a Davison supporter but also a #FarkNo or #Nondek person, you'd be able to show your support for the guy you liked while also throwing your support behind the person you would prefer between the two front-runners.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by getbak

Under the current system, why would you have bothered to vote in this election if you knew you were supporting the likely 3rd place (or worse) candidate?

At least with a ranked ballot, if you were a Davison supporter but also a #FarkNo or #Nondek person, you'd be able to show your support for the guy you liked while also throwing your support behind the person you would prefer between the two front-runners.

Your vote for Davison has no relevance at all in the new model here. At least with the current model it does. I just wouldn't vote or fill the 2nd and 3rd ranks with joke ballots if ranked ballot was the case and I didn't want to vote for Gondek or Farkas.

All a ranked ballot does is expedite the push to a left and right option for every position.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Your vote for Davison has no relevance at all in the new model here. At least with the current model it does. I just wouldn't vote or fill the 2nd and 3rd ranks with joke ballots if ranked ballot was the case and I didn't want to vote for Gondek or Farkas.

All a ranked ballot does is expedite the push to a left and right option for every position.

Your position doesn't make any sense to me at all.

If I voted on a ranked ballot, I would've voted Gondek, Davison, Damery. Instead, I voted Gondek, though I would have been fine with Damery or Davison they didn't get any portion of my vote.

How does my vote for Gondek and only Gondek have more relevance than a first place vote for Gondek and 2nd/3rd votes for the other two? All it does is help the other two.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Your position doesn't make any sense to me at all.

If I voted on a ranked ballot, I would've voted Gondek, Davison, Damery. Instead, I voted Gondek, though I would have been fine with Damery or Davison they didn't get any portion of my vote.

How does my vote for Gondek and only Gondek have more relevance than a first place vote for Gondek and 2nd/3rd votes for the other two? All it does is help the other two.

I just think in a two horse race like this one was, why would anyone not voting Gondek or Farkas bother? I am just thinking about turnout. Turnout is awful as it is.

I was similar to you, just adjust Davison and Gondek (if we were doing a ranked ballot). But would I have even went to the poll to vote if it was indeed a ranked ballot? Probably not.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Why would a ranked ballot have any effect on likelihood to vote in a two horse race?

You don’t think Davison voter’s weren’t already disincentivized to vote as is knowing their candidate had no chance at winning?

If anything, some of those voters who wanted someone other than Farkas or Gondek would be more likely to come out if they knew they could vote their first choice but still have a say in the two horse race.

[tvp2003]

In case you’re wondering why there is a “new” councillor being sworn in on Monday for Ward 11:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1451572590854639618

[mrkajz44]

Originally Posted by getbak

I'm not a fan of ranked-ballots for provincial or federal elections for a variety of reasons, but I would support introducing them for municipal elections.

I'm curious of your reasons why you don't like ranked ballot? It seems like the best system where you can vote for who you want (in ranked manner), but still gives parties the ability to form majority governments (which I think it's important for larger policy measures to go through).

Sent from my VOG-L04 using Tapatalk