Multi-party vs. 2-party system

[Adriatik]

Canada's electoral system is a little complicated and are often criticized for its use of "1st past the post".

First of all the way our system works is that in a riding during an election, the party that receives the most votes wins the riding. A candidate doesn't necessarily have to win a majority of votes to win the riding.

Basically, what this means is that a candidate can win a riding while only receiving a minority of votes. Many advocate that this process is anti-democratic since certain parties can get over 10% of the popular vote but still fail to get MPs elected into the house.

The problem is not the 1st past the post system we have, it is the multi-party system we have that causes the issues.

The mere fact that 3, 4, or 5 parties can run in each riding divides the vote among Canadians, thus making it impossible for a candidate of any party to get more than 50% of the popular vote.

On the other hand, a 2-party system ensures everytime that the winning candidate gets a majority of votes. The fact that Canadians cannot even elect a single party to office with a majority of votes goes to show how divided we really are. If we cannot put our faith in 1 party, we clearly are not divided.

I think having a 2-party system in Canada would be a good idea, however will Canadians be able to do it?

 

[scratch]

Adriak,

Now on to `rep by pop` are we.

Still will not work.

scratch

 

[TenPenny]

A 2 party system guarantees two parties that compete for the middle ground, stifling new ideas or thought.

A multi party system allows for a wide range of viewpoints to be heard during election campaigns.

Our 'first past the post' system simply ensures that in each riding, the voters get the representative who got the most votes, out of all those who ran. It's a fair and rational system.

 

[scratch]

Good post, Ten Penny.

scratch

 

[Adriatik]

A 2 party system guarantees two parties that compete for the middle ground, stifling new ideas or thought.

A multi party system allows for a wide range of viewpoints to be heard during election campaigns.

Our 'first past the post' system simply ensures that in each riding, the voters get the representative who got the most votes, out of all those who ran. It's a fair and rational system.

I don't see the fairness in a candidate getting elected with only 38% of the popular vote....

 

[TenPenny]

I don't see the fairness in a candidate getting elected with only 38% of the popular vote....

It's fair, the person who gets the most votes wins. Simple.

To my mind, it's far superior to a system where a party gets x percent of the vote, so they get x number of seats, which they fill from some slate of candidates. In that system, my local MP is likely to be someone I've never heard of, from some other place.

I want my local MP to be my local representative.

 

[Scott Free]

Why don't we go back to only allowing male citizens who served in the military to vote?

This universal suffrage business obviously doesn't work.

Too many opinions split the vote.

 

[scratch]

Could work S.F.

 

[SonsOfWaldorf]

No keep the multi-party system. I hate the thought of only having two parties to vote for, you don't really feel like your values are represented so you just have to go with the lesser of two evils. Though I would like to see a new system like that MMP system they tried to pass in Ontario's last election.

 

[Adriatik]

It's fair, the person who gets the most votes wins. Simple.

To my mind, it's far superior to a system where a party gets x percent of the vote, so they get x number of seats, which they fill from some slate of candidates. In that system, my local MP is likely to be someone I've never heard of, from some other place.

I want my local MP to be my local representative.

It may be fair for the politicians who get elected, they got most votes so they won, yes... But it's not fair for voters in a riding to be represented by someone who did not get a mojority of votes. Why would a candidate be elected based on the values and opinions of a MINORITY of voters? Where do you see the fairness in that?

I understand that you want your local MP to be someone you know, but on the other hand, I don't want to be represented by an MP that got elected by less than half the voters of my riding, especially if I didn't vote for him...

 

[Ron in Regina]

It may be fair for the politicians who get elected, they got most votes so they won, yes... But it's not fair for voters in a riding to be represented by someone who did not get a mojority of votes. Why would a candidate be elected based on the values and opinions of a MINORITY of voters? Where do you see the fairness in that?

I understand that you want your local MP to be someone you know, but on the other hand, I don't want to be represented by an MP that got elected by less than half the voters of my riding, especially if I didn't vote for him...

I'm just pulling this out'a my backside here and I'm hoping someone can clean this
thought up into a workable idea...but how about an election kind of like a curling
Bonspiel????

If you have 5 parties running, you'll have four elections with an elimination of the
party with the lowest # of votes each time....you'll end up with the whole
population voting eventually (in this round-robin sort'a way) in the last vote for
an official opposition and a governing party.

That would be interesting. The Boyz in Vegas might even take interest and start
offering odds.

You'd start with a multi-party vote & boil it down to a two party vote...kind'a
like a Democratic version of musical-chairs. I know this is rough, but now it's
out there to be cleaned up or ripped apart. Have fun.

 

[fubbleskag]

Adriatik, you would restrict the voters' choices to sate your need for pedantics?

Ron, I could get behind your idea - but it'd require some back-end restructuring to keep it cost effective I imagine.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Adriatik, you would restrict the voters' choices to sate your need for pedantics?

Ron, I could get behind your idea - but it'd require some back-end restructuring to keep it cost effective I imagine.

I'm just chucking it out there...it's up to the truly Bright like yourself to work out
the semantics of making it into a workable and cost effective system.

 

[Ron in Regina]

[SIZE=+0]In 'musical chairs,' if you've got a big group (like the initial vote), you can [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]take out [/SIZE]more than one chair before the music stops...

 

[fubbleskag]

lol @ me being Bright

 

[Machjo]

Why so complicated?

Why not just get the parties off the ballot and have the names of candidates only? After all in a first-past-the-post system let's not fool ourselves into thinking that we're voting for the party. When we add party names to the ballot, we're just confusing people into thinking that they're voting for the party, so take party names off the ballot and have us vote for candidates. Simple as that. And scrapthe $1.95 for parties too, and let everyone run as an independent.

Or better yet, insist on voting for an independent or none of the above for next election.

Why do we complicate our lives over this?

And if we go to a proportional representation list tistem, that would just shut independent candidates out of the process altogether. So much for democracy.

So if we want true democracy, forget letting us get highjacked by a 2-party system, or even a multi-party system. How about a no-party system. Party's over folks.

 

[Tyler]

Adriatik, there's an inherent flaw in your argument. One that none of the responders have seemed to notice. Even in a two-party system like in the US, the winner may not have the popular vote. The problem is NOT whether there are two parties or multiple parties. The problem is the Constituency/Electoral District System.

I can elaborate in a later post if you need clarification of how they could (and has) happened in the states.

Secondly, your motivation for doing this is because it's 'complicated'??

If simplicity is your only goal, then you'll have to go with the reply 'Mahcho' provided, and simply have one party, or no party. A dictatorship is simple enough, no civic participation, things get done.

I'm extremely proud that Canada has multiple parties and NOT two-party. Yes, it has its flaws, but I'd prefer a system where there are more than 2 views on every issue. And most of the time, the two parties share the same view, then we're screwed.

I urge you to examine the problems with duo-party system before advocating it. It sounds like you have good intentions.

-Tyler
----------------------
Blables.com - Makes You Think

 

[Machjo]

Tyler, I don't know if I misunderstood you. Are you equating a no-party system with dictatorship?

If anything, I ould say that it would give MP's MORE, not LESS freedom in parliament to serve their constituents.

 

[scratch]

Tyler, I don't know if I misunderstood you. Are you equating a no-party system with dictatorship?

If anything, I ould say that it would give MP's MORE, not LESS freedom in parliament to serve their constituents.

In a `one party system the `big guy` would dictate what got done and where!

 

[Tyler]

Tyler, I don't know if I misunderstood you. Are you equating a no-party system with dictatorship?

If anything, I ould say that it would give MP's MORE, not LESS freedom in parliament to serve their constituents.

I don't want you to nit-and-pick the words. If you want to go into details, I'm sure there are differences between anarchy, no-party, dictatorship, and 1-party systems...

My point to Adriatik was that to 'simplify' the system should not be the goal of an electoral system. The goal should be to ensure basic human rights and protecting minorities, while letting the people who reside in the nation dictate how the nation operates.