Electoral reform: quorum

[Niflmir]

I am a big fan of electoral reform in Canada, usually making it my priority for voting. I am not a fan of the first past the post system, because as I see it, we don't end up with rule by the majority, we just end up with rule by the largest group of victors. People I talked to in Canada don't seem fond of coalitions or forms of proportional government however, so now I bring up quorum requirements.

The way quorum rules work in most countries, in order to be considered elected, either a certain proportion of the constituency must have voted for you, or a certain proportion of the constituency must have shown up and a certain proportion of that must have voted for you.

Since I ramble a lot, I will give in example. There are usually first and second election rounds. If in the first round, there was no candidate who received 50% of the votes, then a second election is held where only the top two candidates from the first election may run. In this case, the ultimate winner will always have received at least 50% of the votes. Although, maybe it is better to say that 50% of voters did not want the loser of the secondary elected...

Anyways, what are your thoughts on quorum requirements for candidates? Given that you may have voted for a person who came in third or lower (I'm looking at you Green Party (in most ridings)), does it seem fair to you at least to get a chance to pick between the 2 top candidates? This could maybe have allowed the Reform party and Conservative party to stay separate without dividing the conservative vote, for instance.

 

[damngrumpy]

I will make it simple, I am for first past the post, if my candidate didn't win, I must try harder
next time. Elections are about the message and to me they are really a civil war without guns.
Society lets people explore ideas and thoughts, and vent as well.
First past the post works for me always did, I have many friends who disagree but in the end
I think the interests of people are served as the sentiment of the people is reflected by the
outcome, not necessarily the party they want but the national sentiment.
For example forty percent wanted the Tories to win, yet about seventy percent of the people
wanted some kind of change, and they got it. I am not a Tory but then we got change and
those who don't like the conservatives will have to work harder next time.
These multiple ballots suck, I for one will only plump which means you vote for one name no
second and third chances, as it gives someone else the edge on a second round vote and I
only want one winner that is why I went to vote.
Same with municipal elections there might be 8 eligible candidates but I vote for one or two
that way I can keep those I don't want from getting in hopefully.

 

[JLM]

I will make it simple, I am for first past the post, if my candidate didn't win, I must try harder
next time. Elections are about the message and to me they are really a civil war without guns.
Society lets people explore ideas and thoughts, and vent as well.
First past the post works for me always did, I have many friends who disagree but in the end
I think the interests of people are served as the sentiment of the people is reflected by the
outcome, not necessarily the party they want but the national sentiment.
For example forty percent wanted the Tories to win, yet about seventy percent of the people
wanted some kind of change, and they got it. I am not a Tory but then we got change and
those who don't like the conservatives will have to work harder next time.
These multiple ballots suck, I for one will only plump which means you vote for one name no
second and third chances, as it gives someone else the edge on a second round vote and I
only want one winner that is why I went to vote.
Same with municipal elections there might be 8 eligible candidates but I vote for one or two
that way I can keep those I don't want from getting in hopefully.

This was looked into in depth several years ago (can't remember all the details) but when all was said and done "first past the post" was best and simpliest. :smile:

 

[Niflmir]

... in the end
I think the interests of people are served as the sentiment of the people is reflected by the
outcome, not necessarily the party they want but the national sentiment.
...

But that is exactly what you cannot say with first past the post. What we have is a majority government where a majority of the people did not vote for the current government. How can one say then that our government is a reflection of the national sentiment? With a quorum system, the only way that there could ever be a majority government is if at least half of the voters voted for that party, which would be a true reflection.

The only thing that can be said about first past the post is that it promotes a homogenization of view points and punishes a situation where there are many views. With quorum rules it would still in a sense be first past the post, but there might be a qualifying round before the main event.

As far as I know, quorum rules have never been looked at in elections in Canada. They have certainly looked at proportional representation, but never thought to make quorum rules.

 

[WLDB]

First past the post was designed in the 19th century for a 2 party system. This is the 21st century and we have five parties in the house. Electoral reform is needed. Yes, FPTP is extremely simple, thats about all it has going for it. Its also not representative of what voters want. The majority of people who dont vote dont because they dont think their vote will count, with FPTP that is often the case in some ridings. A person can win a seat sometimes with as little as 30% of the vote which is unacceptable.

I'm personally in favour of Mixed Member-Proportional. I doubt electoral reform will come up again anytime soon, but when it does it'll be fun to have it out. I'd be for pretty much anything that is an improvement over the current system.

 

[JLM]

But that is exactly what you cannot say with first past the post. What we have is a majority government where a majority of the people did not vote for the current government. How can one say then that our government is a reflection of the national sentiment? With a quorum system, the only way that there could ever be a majority government is if at least half of the voters voted for that party, which would be a true reflection.

The only thing that can be said about first past the post is that it promotes a homogenization of view points and punishes a situation where there are many views. With quorum rules it would still in a sense be first past the post, but there might be a qualifying round before the main event.

As far as I know, quorum rules have never been looked at in elections in Canada. They have certainly looked at proportional representation, but never thought to make quorum rules.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that in a situation where there may be as many as a dozen parties running, you very seldom going to a party in power that has over 50% support, no matter what voting system you have.

 

[L Gilbert]

I am a big fan of electoral reform in Canada, usually making it my priority for voting. I am not a fan of the first past the post system, because as I see it, we don't end up with rule by the majority, we just end up with rule by the largest group of victors. People I talked to in Canada don't seem fond of coalitions or forms of proportional government however, so now I bring up quorum requirements.

The way quorum rules work in most countries, in order to be considered elected, either a certain proportion of the constituency must have voted for you, or a certain proportion of the constituency must have shown up and a certain proportion of that must have voted for you.

Since I ramble a lot, I will give in example. There are usually first and second election rounds. If in the first round, there was no candidate who received 50% of the votes, then a second election is held where only the top two candidates from the first election may run. In this case, the ultimate winner will always have received at least 50% of the votes. Although, maybe it is better to say that 50% of voters did not want the loser of the secondary elected...

Anyways, what are your thoughts on quorum requirements for candidates? Given that you may have voted for a person who came in third or lower (I'm looking at you Green Party (in most ridings)), does it seem fair to you at least to get a chance to pick between the 2 top candidates? This could maybe have allowed the Reform party and Conservative party to stay separate without dividing the conservative vote, for instance.

FPTP sucks. I'm all for something more like direct democracy than anything in the way of elections in representative plutarchies (plutarchal oligarchies).

 

[taxslave]

How about pistols at dawn?

 

[SLM]

How about pistols at dawn?

I like that idea!

The voters get the pistols right?

 

[WLDB]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that in a situation where there may be as many as a dozen parties running, you very seldom going to a party in power that has over 50% support, no matter what voting system you have.

No. The idea isnt to get the ruling party to have over 50%, its to prevent those without a true majority from having 100% of the power.

 

[GreenFish66]

Democratically Speaking ; Either have go to a Proportional Representation(P.R.) or a Two party system...As it stands now, the electoral system never represents the Majority of the population.. It is a flawed system that works in Favor of Few/Who Favor Few..
The Few who know, how best, to game the Whole..

Realistically Speaking ; Is all B.S.

 

[JLM]

No. The idea isnt to get the ruling party to have over 50%, its to prevent those without a true majority from having 100% of the power.

I suppose there have been a few Gov'ts. in Alberta like that in the Social Credit days years ago, but then pretty well everyone in Alberta voted S.C. so that was probably a good thing.

Democratically Speaking ; Either have go to a Proportional Representation(P.R.) or a Two party system...As it stands now, the electoral system never represents the Majority of the population.. It is a flawed system that works in Favor of Few/Who Favor Few..
The Few who know, how best, to game the Whole..

Realistically Speaking ; Is all B.S.

Maybe, maybe not, but when you are only getting 50-60% voter turnout, who cares? 40 odd% of the people don't! :lol:

 

[WLDB]

Maybe, maybe not, but when you are only getting 50-60% voter turnout, who cares? 40 odd% of the people don't! :lol:

Countries with PR tend to have much higher voter turnouts as all of the votes actually count.

The people who do vote likely care. Taking into account the number of people who actually do vote you wind up with a government which only has about 23-24% of eligible voters supporting them.