Change how we vote them in

[whitedog]

One of the ways we could vote folk into office could be a two stage process. We hold a vote, and unless the winner actually receives 50% plus 1, we have a second vote. The second vote would be between first and second place. This would ensure that the majority elects the next mp.

For example, in riding a, the results were, 1000 CPC, 400 NDP, 300 LIB and 100 other. In that case the CPC candidate gets in, more than 50%. In riding B, results were, Lib 600, CPC 525, NDP 375. In that case, the Lib did not get 50%, so a run off vote is held. And only the Lib and CPC are the choices. Kind of like the party convention votes.

By doing so, ultimately, someone is elected by the majority. As it stands, in the case of riding B, in my example, the lib gets into office with 600 votes, yet 60% didn't vote for the lib, 60% didn't want the liberal to win. Having a run off would allow the majority to decide who gets in.

Thoughts?

 

[taxslave]

Been done. Costs a lot more money for not much results. And you still are not necessarily getting a majority in favor of a candidate, rather an elimination of least wanted. It can also be done on one vote by numbering your choices and letting the counters figure it out. Same result but less waste of money.

 

[whitedog]

Been done. Costs a lot more money for not much results. And you still are not necessarily getting a majority in favor of a candidate, rather an elimination of least wanted. It can also be done on one vote by numbering your choices and letting the counters figure it out. Same result but less waste of money.

if numbering works, then i'm ok with it. i just dont believe someone should get in without a majority. and as for the proportional voting, well I'm not opposed to it, so long as no more people are elected. Rather than allow a party to pick several additional folk to office based on the percentage of votes, why not just give the party that many more votes in the house, ex., if there are an additional 100 "seats" up for grabs, and the cons get 60% of popular vote, then they get an additional 60 seats in the house. Only they don't need 60 bums to fill those seats. Rather the party, when voting in the house, gets to use the additional 60 votes. Why pay some mp to vote for a bill, when the party can do it without paying anyone. Kind of like stockholder meetings, ! share, 1 vote. And lets face it, if the party leader appoints, from proportional voting, 60 mps, you think they are gonna vote contrary to the party? Afterall, their constituents in that case are the party - they would't have a riding to represent - at least, not one that elected them.

 

[darkbeaver]

One of the ways we could vote folk into office could be a two stage process. We hold a vote, and unless the winner actually receives 50% plus 1, we have a second vote. The second vote would be between first and second place. This would ensure that the majority elects the next mp.

For example, in riding a, the results were, 1000 CPC, 400 NDP, 300 LIB and 100 other. In that case the CPC candidate gets in, more than 50%. In riding B, results were, Lib 600, CPC 525, NDP 375. In that case, the Lib did not get 50%, so a run off vote is held. And only the Lib and CPC are the choices. Kind of like the party convention votes.

By doing so, ultimately, someone is elected by the majority. As it stands, in the case of riding B, in my example, the lib gets into office with 600 votes, yet 60% didn't vote for the lib, 60% didn't want the liberal to win. Having a run off would allow the majority to decide who gets in.

Thoughts?

And when the clear majority decides the voting you expect a positive qualitative change I expect. This of cours is out of the question for the simple reason the clear majority in every case dosn't know WTFing issues are or where to find them thanks to modern education. Democracy has had it's day, and I do mean a single day, somewhere. Will your plan eliminate the lobbies and special interest bums?

Only educated people like myself should be allowed to vote, I suggest an IQ test with blood samples at the very minimum.

 

[whitedog]

And when the clear majority decides the voting you expect a positive qualitative change I expect. This of cours is out of the question for the simple reason the clear majority in every case dosn't know WTFing issues are or where to find them thanks to modern education. Democracy has had it's day, and I do mean a single day, somewhere. Will your plan eliminate the lobbies and special interest bums?

Only educated people like myself should be allowed to vote, I suggest an IQ test with blood samples at the very minimum.

Well no, I don't really expect positive change from a majority vote. Lobby and special interest should have no place. An educated electorate would be nice, but more so, something akin to accountability/consequence would also be nice. They don't even bother to resign anymore, let alone accept full responsibility (followed by, "pass the butter please"). But given the ****ty parameters I have to work with, I would at least like to see something close to majority decides - what ever that may be.

 

[darkbeaver]

Well no, I don't really expect positive change from a majority vote. Lobby and special interest should have no place. An educated electorate would be nice, but more so, something akin to accountability/consequence would also be nice. They don't even bother to resign anymore, let alone accept full responsibility (followed by, "pass the butter please"). But given the ****ty parameters I have to work with, I would at least like to see something close to majority decides - what ever that may be.

We all would I think agree with you. Holding the elected to account is supposed to be the function of the electorate but that electorate is far behind understanding the machinations of government, almost completely ignorant of the complexities of economics and kept that way for the purpose of rendering their decisions regarding their choice of candidate and or party and policy an exercise in futility this is borne out amply by the present miserable economic conditions present in the west and the unfolding disaster of global war. all because of those same elected officers of governments easily co-opted by the permanent entrenched wealth. The promise of democracy has not been realized nor will it be until education is designed for that purpose.

 

[WLDB]

I've been in favour of such a system for quite some time. I'd take just about anything over first past the post.