Single non-transferable vote?

[Machjo]

Single non-transferable vote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your thoughts on this voting system?

A few advantages I see with it are:

1. Like FPTP and unlike party-lists, it doesn't block independent candidates from runnig.

2. Like FPTP and unlike many other systems, it's easy for the average person to understand.

3. Unlike FPTP, it does allow for more proportional representation along party lines for those who do vote party.

4. unlike most other systems, it gives voters a choice not only between candidates from different parties, but also between candidates from the same party, since candidates might run not only against those of other parties, but of their own party too. This way if, for example, you like red Tories and blue Liberals, you could in fact check off the more progressive of the CPC candidates and the more conservative of the LPC candidates if it were a two-member constituency for example. Or likewise if you were a moderate social democrat you could check off the more progressive LPC member and more moderate NDP member, etc.

It could be interesting too to witness a debate in which two candidates of the same party could be running against each other. It would certainly help counter partisanship.

Your thoughts on such a system?

Sory, I was confusing SNTV with Limited Voting (LV)(Limited voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

 

[AnnaG]

STV is what we almost got in BC. The stopper was the amount of nervous and paranoid old folks that voted "no" in the referendum.
I like STV; can't stand the archaic and unfair FPTP.

 

[taxslave]

There is tons of info on it in BC government sites if you dig around. Vote counting is somewhat confusing which is what scared most people off. It can be hard to determine exactly who your rep. is. And like everything new it just scares a lot of luddites. There are some parts of it I don't like such as having bigger ridings and you don't exactly get to vote for the person in your area because of the parties getting seats based on percentage of vote. It could also help wingnut parties like the greens get a seat by default and it could be in your area.

 

[Machjo]

Actually, as I read more on the Limited voting system, it turns out that it's not necessarily proportional. Since it pits parties against not only each other but themselves too, it essentially forces people to vote candidate. As a result, it could become more than proportional and even progressively in favour of the minority party if it decides to strategically field fewer candidates so as to not split the vote while the stronger party overextends itself by fielding more candidates and so splitting its vote among itself.

Inversely, if a majority party manages to exercise party discipline among its voters themselves, then it can achieve the same results as FPTP, or even give the stronger party even more advantage than FPTP if it can distribute the ote evenly. Mind you it would be extremely difficult for a party to impose party discipline among the voting public.

But what really appeals to me in this system is the way it pits parties not only against each other as is the case now, but against themselves too.

STV is what we almost got in BC. The stopper was the amount of nervous and paranoid old folks that voted "no" in the referendum.
I like STV; can't stand the archaic and unfair FPTP.

STV is different from SNTV and LV.

But as I read up on it, LV sounds really good. I'd love to see two members of the same party at an all-candidates debate scrapping amongst themselves:lol:.

 

[AnnaG]

There is tons of info on it in BC government sites if you dig around. Vote counting is somewhat confusing which is what scared most people off. It can be hard to determine exactly who your rep. is. And like everything new it just scares a lot of luddites. There are some parts of it I don't like such as having bigger ridings and you don't exactly get to vote for the person in your area because of the parties getting seats based on percentage of vote. It could also help wingnut parties like the greens get a seat by default and it could be in your area.

Yeah. But the net effect would be to the benefit of BCers.
These guys (average citizens) spend a few years developing the BC-STV model:

Vote for Fairness | BC STV Electoral Reform Referendum: May 12

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC-STV

The "no STV" side:

http://www.strategicthoughts.com/record2005/voteno.html

http://www.nostv.org/

 

[Machjo]

There is tons of info on it in BC government sites if you dig around. Vote counting is somewhat confusing which is what scared most people off. It can be hard to determine exactly who your rep. is. And like everything new it just scares a lot of luddites. There are some parts of it I don't like such as having bigger ridings and you don't exactly get to vote for the person in your area because of the parties getting seats based on percentage of vote. It could also help wingnut parties like the greens get a seat by default and it could be in your area.

That's one problem with STV. for the voter it's not too complicated (you rank the candidates in order of preference). But for the vote counters, it must be hell on earth. And so it increses the risk of errors, etc.

LV is very straightforward. To take an example:

Two ridings are combined into one two-member riding. As a result, parties are tempted to field two candidates to win both seats. Some parties like the Green Party, knowing they don't stand a chance to win both seats, might choose to field one candidate so as to not split the vote. Confident parties like the Liberals and Conservatives might run two candidates each.

On your ballot, you simply check off the two candidates you prefer. You don't even have to rank them in order of preference. You just check the two best ones and that's it. For the voter counters too, it's just a matter of addin up the votes and not any complicated mathematical formulae like STV.

But again what I'd love with LV would be to see all-candidates debates with members competing against their own party.

There is tons of info on it in BC government sites if you dig around. Vote counting is somewhat confusing which is what scared most people off. It can be hard to determine exactly who your rep. is. And like everything new it just scares a lot of luddites. There are some parts of it I don't like such as having bigger ridings and you don't exactly get to vote for the person in your area because of the parties getting seats based on percentage of vote. It could also help wingnut parties like the greens get a seat by default and it could be in your area.

As it turns out, LV's been around since the 1800s, and not just as an idea but in practice in some jurisdictions, so it's not exactly an untested system:

Limited voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And yes I agree that one drawback with LV is the bigger ridings, but since you also have more candidates representing that riding, it compensates to some degree.

 

[AnnaG]

SNTV leaves room for a large degree of tactical voting.
I think there's a reason why only a handful of countries use it.

 

[Machjo]

What I don't like about STV though is because it's based on ranking candidates, it risks giving a false impression that some MPs votes are worth more than those of others becuase of their voter ranking, when in reality they must be considered equals in parliament.

LV does not rank them.

SNTV leaves room for a large degree of tactical voting.
I think there's a reason why only a handful of countries use it.

It has its flaws, and like I'd said, I'd confused it with LV. They're identical except for the fact that under SNTV you can only check off one candidate, whereas with LV you check off X number of candidates as specified on the ballot. But still, you can't deny it would be fun to see two candidates of the same party scrapping against each other on the debate floor, no?:lol:

And as for tactical voting, people are doing that already under FPTP anyway, so what would that change?

LV would give voters more choices of candidates to select from.

 

[AnnaG]

There's also cumulative voting which is quite proportional but also allows for a large degree of tactical voting. And plurality at large voting, which is about the same in effect as FPTP, IMO..

What I don't like about STV though is because it's based on ranking candidates, it risks giving a false impression that some MPs votes are worth more than those of others becuase of their voter ranking, when in reality they must be considered equals in parliament.

LV does not rank them.

It has its flaws, and like I'd said, I'd confused it with LV. They're identical except for the fact that under SNTV you can only check off one candidate, whereas with LV you check off X number of candidates as specified on the ballot. But still, you can't deny it would be fun to see two candidates of the same party scrapping against each other on the debate floor, no?:lol:

And as for tactical voting, people are doing that already under FPTP anyway, so what would that change?

LV would give voters more choices of candidates to select from.

We don't have a large degree of tactical voting. It's more moderate.

 

[Machjo]

Granted LV is not necessarily proportional. In fact, from what I've read on it, it can be darn right unpredictable. But then again, it's unpredictability is a good thing in its own right since after all, in a true democracy you don't want parties to be able to strategically try to control the election. Thus a system that's as difficult to predict as LV would certainly keep all parties on their toes.

 

[JLM]

First past the post is best and simplest hands down.

 

[Machjo]

First past the post is best and simplest hands down.

LV is not much more complicated. To take an example:

FPTP:

You have let's say 5 candidates to choose from an you have to check one.

LV:

You have let's say 10 candidates to choose from and you have to check let's say two.

How complicated can that be?

 

[gerryh]

Last time that STV came to a vote in BC, my mother called me and asked what she should do since she didn't understand it at all. I told her to vote no, as all it would do is comlicate matters, and allow the fly by nighters and fringe party's(read nut jobs) to gain undeserved seats with the very real possibility that we could end up with minority or coalition governments all the time.

 

[Machjo]

Last time that STV came to a vote in BC, my mother called me and asked what she should do since she didn't understand it at all. I told her to vote no, as all it would do is comlicate matters, and allow the fly by nighters and fringe party's(read nut jobs) to gain undeserved seats with the very real possibility that we could end up with minority or coalition governments all the time.

Actually, STV is not particularly complicated for the voter, since it's just a matter of ranking your candidates numerically in order of preference, though I guess that can be seen as a complication since it's no longer a matter of just picking out the best but ranking them in your mind too. Where STV really gets ugly is when the ballots are counted, as that gets more complicated and thus increases the chances of error.

LV is easier on two fronts:

1. You don't need to rank your selected candidates in order of preference (you just have to check off the ones you like), and

2. The ballot is counted just like a regular FPTP ballot (i.e. one check, one vote).

Yet it does have an advantage by adding more choices of candidates on the ballot.

 

[Bar Sinister]

I really don't see any advantage over proportional representation which had proven itself to be the most democratic system of voting.

First past the post is best and simplest hands down.

It may be the simplest, but it is certainly not the most democratic.

 

[Machjo]

I was looking into plurality-at-large voting (Plurality-at-large voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), and it's quite attractive too.

It does have the disadvantage of being the exact opposite of proportional representation in that it's more likely to create a landslide victory for the most popular party than even FPTP, and that is one disadvantage (though one who prefers minority governments could counteract that by simply voting more for independents than he used to if he opposes majority governments so much). An advantage though, is that since you get as many votes as there are members to be elected in the district, you're guaranteed more voting options. So if there are x members to be elected in that district, then you are entitled to x votes. It's still a easy system in that it essentially functions like FPTP except that the ridings are bigger and you check off more than one candidate on your ballot.

Though it does have the disadvantage of encouraging landslide victories, it also has the advantage of giving voters more choices of candidates to choose from.

Also, to counter the risk of landslide victories, we could always simply remove party names from ballots so as to remove some of the unfair advantage candidates from major parties might have owing to undeserved brand recognition.

 

[JLM]

I was looking into plurality-at-large voting (Plurality-at-large voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), and it's quite attractive too.

It does have the disadvantage of being the exact opposite of proportional representation in that it's more likely to create a landslide victory for the most popular party than even FPTP, and that is one disadvantage (though one who prefers minority governments could counteract that by simply voting more for independents than he used to if he opposes majority governments so much). An advantage though, is that since you get as many votes as there are members to be elected in the district, you're guaranteed more voting options. So if there are x members to be elected in that district, then you are entitled to x votes. It's still a easy system in that it essentially functions like FPTP except that the ridings are bigger and you check off more than one candidate on your ballot.

Though it does have the disadvantage of encouraging landslide victories, it also has the advantage of giving voters more choices of candidates to choose from.

Also, to counter the risk of landslide victories, we could always simply remove party names from ballots so as to remove some of the unfair advantage candidates from major parties might have owing to undeserved brand recognition.

Absolutely correctemente- With a popular candidate/party you are almost bound to get the majority of 2nd choices (who didn't favour him as first choice) go the the popular candidate.

 

[Machjo]

Then again, the increased chance of landslide victories could also have an advantage in ensuring more stability in Parliament too.

Also, let's consider this: in a minority capacity, a government can always blame its minority status for not getting things done,thus legitimizing its failures and so getting elected again and again and again in an attempt to give it a majority.

With bloc voting, since it's more likely to form a landslide majority government, it's essentially forced to face up to its failures come the following election, thus increasing the chances of its domplete destruction come the following election, thus giving another party a chance at government, and again preventing it from blaming a 'minority government' status for its failures since it too is likely to form a majority.

And again, for those who fear that this would just give political parties too much power, just removing party names from the ballots could help with that to some degree.

Absolutely correctemente- With a popular candidate/party you are almost bound to get the majority of 2nd choices (who didn't favour him as first choice) go the the popular candidate.

I have to admit though that the idea of a system that actually increases the chances of landslide majorities each election does scare me a little.

That said, I can't help but be attracted at the increased options that would be available to me on that ballot, and add to that a ballot that would be easy to understand and count.

My guess is most of the ones I'd vote for would lose in such a system (I usually do vote for fringe candidates as it is, and if they lose in FPTP, they'd be even more likely to lose in this system if it's party dominated). That said, if you removed party names from the ballot, some of these fringe candidates might be able to win on account of their good ideas once the party hacks have their pretty party logo ripped away from them.

I realize I'm dreaming in technicolour here since in reality even if you did remove party names from the ballot, people would still find out who's with what party and vote party anyway.

In spite of that though, I can't deny I'm still attracted to plurality at large owing to its greater range of choices.

 

[YukonJack]

Many countries have "RUN-OFF" election when the outcome of the regular election did not produce a clear winner. In Canada the leadership of ALL political parties are decided the same way, if the first ballot did not produce a clear winner.

That is called separating the wheat from the chaff.

Chaff like the NDP, Green Party, Bloc and the rest of the fringe idiots do not belong in the national scene, unless they earn it.

 

[Machjo]

Many countries have "RUN-OFF" election when the outcome of the regular election did not produce a clear winner. In Canada the leadership of ALL political parties are decided the same way, if the first ballot did not produce a clear winner.

That is called separating the wheat from the chaff.

Chaff like the NDP, Green Party, Bloc and the rest of the fringe idiots do not belong in the national scene, unless they earn it.

The Queen proved much wise than the governor general here. She'd given the parties an ultimatum to come up with a majority coalition to which she'd give the government. It turned out to be Liberal Democrats and conservatives. The Governor General gave the government to a minority party, leading to instability. Had she done the same as the queen, saying she'll give it to a majority government, I'm sure either two parties including the Conservatives or three if not including the Conservatives would have formed a coalition. I doubt very much the Bloc would agree to a coalition government in which it would take part as it had refused to do so las time too, so it would most likely have ended up being a Conservative Liberal majority.

But that's beside the point. The point is she should not have given the government to a minority as she had done. The again, the Queen has more experience too.