Petition for voting system reform

[taxslave]

Didn't we already have a referendum about this? Or maybe that was provincial.

That was provincial and it got voted down twice. Partly because the process that was pushed is quite complicated so few voters could understand it. All the systems I have looked at have pros and cons. ElliMay has been pushing PR for years because she could never win a seat with FPP. Now that she won her seat I wonder if she will be so keen on PR.

 

[Tonington]

Now that she won her seat I wonder if she will be so keen on PR.

Why wouldn't she?

1/308 does not equal the 3.91% the party got nationally. If it was truly proportional, the greens would have 12 seats.

 

[JLM]

Why wouldn't she?

1/308 does not equal the 3.91% the party got nationally. If it was truly proportional, the greens would have 12 seats.

It doesn't work that way Tonington and it never will....................as long as the votes are spread out through most of the ridings. The only way the Greens would get 12 seats is if the votes were concentrated in 12 ridings and none of the other ridings got votes. How would you change the system and still keep the individual ridings as closed units?

 

[taxslave]

Why wouldn't she?

1/308 does not equal the 3.91% the party got nationally. If it was truly proportional, the greens would have 12 seats.

And what about the other fringe parties like Christian Heritage, Communist etc? Should they get seats as well?

The problem is whose ridings would they get. I certainly don't want anyone of them representing my riding. We would have to change the entire structure of representation and I think that is why it was rejected twice in B.C. because you did not know who represented your area. Its not like I particularly loke my rep but at least I know who it is.

 

[JLM]

And what about the other fringe parties like Christian Heritage, Communist etc? Should they get seats as well?

The problem is whose ridings would they get. I certainly don't want anyone of them representing my riding. We would have to change the entire structure of representation and I think that is why it was rejected twice in B.C. because you did not know who represented your area. Its not like I particularly loke my rep but at least I know who it is.

Or have a Rhinoceros snorting around the riding! :lol:

 

[Tonington]

It doesn't work that way Tonington and it never will....................as long as the votes are spread out through most of the ridings. The only way the Greens would get 12 seats is if the votes were concentrated in 12 ridings and none of the other ridings got votes. How would you change the system and still keep the individual ridings as closed units?

Of course it doesn't work that way, that's kind of the point of this thread...proportional representation (PR) is just one form of electoral reform.

I was simply using basic math to illustrate to taxslave why May is probably still very much in favour of PR.

And what about the other fringe parties like Christian Heritage, Communist etc? Should they get seats as well?

Christian Heritage with PR would get 0.4 MP's. So no, even with rounding they don't get one seat.

And I'm not advocating any particular reform, though I think we need something. Again, I was just trying to give you some numbers to show why May would still benefit from PR. The point of PR in their platform wasn't to elect a single MP...that much should be obvious.

 

[JLM]

Why wouldn't she?

1/308 does not equal the 3.91% the party got nationally. If it was truly proportional, the greens would have 12 seats.

That should read MIGHT have 12 seats, but probably wouldn't.

 

[PoliticalNick]

I have actually been a supporter of voting reform for a long time. 38-40% of the popular vote is by no means a mandate to govern from the people no matter how you try to slice it. It still means 60%+ want someone other than the ruling party in power and if you think about it in a system with 5 candidates in every riding a majority govt can be formed with as little as 21% of the popular vote. This is just wrong and in no way resembles any kind of true democracy.

I happen to think the IRV (instant run-off vote) is probably better than any of the others but the one thing discussed by the commitee that looked into it in BC (obviously I am transferring this to national) was also to have a similar system to the US whereby the leaders would run on their own ballot nationwide and then each riding would elect a representative. This way you could have some very interesting political structure, Cons could win the majority of seats but have a LIB or NDP as the PM. The job of the PM would then be to lead the house, not the party and all cabinet positions would need to be voted for approval by the house.

 

[JLM]

I have actually been a supporter of voting reform for a long time. 38-40% of the popular vote is by no means a mandate to govern from the people no matter how you try to slice it. It still means 60%+ want someone other than the ruling party in power and if you think about it in a system with 5 candidates in every riding a majority govt can be formed with as little as 21% of the popular vote. This is just wrong and in no way resembles any kind of true democracy.

I happen to think the IRV (instant run-off vote) is probably better than any of the others but the one thing discussed by the commitee that looked into it in BC (obviously I am transferring this to national) was also to have a similar system to the US whereby the leaders would run on their own ballot nationwide and then each riding would elect a representative. This way you could have some very interesting political structure, Cons could win the majority of seats but have a LIB or NDP as the PM. The job of the PM would then be to lead the house, not the party and all cabinet positions would need to be voted for approval by the house.

Nick- Tell us who should be representing the riding if 38% isn't good enough. What you don't seem to understand is that it doesn't matter what system you use, in all likelihood like - 99% the same guy is going to get in albeit possibly with different numbers. If you are going to have "rep by pop" you can not have rep by jurisdiction. It's not a difficult concept, Nick. What might be difficult is getting voters to pick their second and third choices.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Nick- Tell us who should be representing the riding if 38% isn't good enough. What you don't seem to understand is that it doesn't matter what system you use, in all likelihood like - 99% the same guy is going to get in albeit possibly with different numbers. If you are going to have "rep by pop" you can not have rep by jurisdiction. It's not a difficult concept, Nick. What might be difficult is getting voters to pick their second and third choices.

You are right that in a lot of instances the same person would be elected, but there will also be instances wher they would not. I think of some of the ridings in ONT where the votes were split in such a way as the big 3 were within 1-2% of each other. If the libs were eliminated as the lowest vote getters and 70% of their votes went to NDP as second choice the Cons would have not got as many seats. Conversely if that 70% of the lowest party went to the Cons they would have a great majority in that riding and have a true mandate. You always seem to argue that 38% could be everyone's second choice so it is valid, I am saying lets see by having a system that allows us to find out.

I don't think it would be that hard at all to get people to give a 2nd and 3rd choice, those with leftist views would move to the left or closer to the center and those with more right-wing views would move to the right or closer to the center depending on where they started with their votes. There is of course always the option in an IRV to only mark 1 choice and then your ballot never gets used except by that candidate.

Think about it, right now Harper can claim he has a mandate to govern but we all know that 39.5% is nowhere close to a majority of the votes and therefore not a true mandate from the masses. You can claim he might have been the second choice of the majority but we will never know. A change in the system would allow him to either have that true mandate or put someone else in charge that has it and that is what I am for. Putting the person in power witha majority of the votes and a real mandate from the masses.

 

[JLM]

Many people don't care about "left" and "right"- they care more about the competence and trust of their local candidate and the party leader.

 

[damngrumpy]

Preferred balloting and proportional representation have been bantered about for decades
they have even been tried from time to time. I prefer the present system and I will not
change my view. If we had preferred balloting, I would plump vote for one choice on the
ballot. If it were proportional representation I would support an ideology whether that was
my feeling at the time or not. I prefer head on party politics it makes for the best scraps,.
and this last time I went with Jack Layton, if he does a good job he will have my support
if not I will support someone else. The Conservatives right now are being run by the
social conservatives and the religious crowd bent on a specific ideology and I can't support
that. Years ago when Audrey McLaughlin took over the NDP I wouldn't give them the time
of day they were Ideolog's and reality had no place in their world.
This time for example the Liberal Party forced its leadership and ideas on its own membership
and stifled debate, they began to read their own press clippings and look where it got them.
We need to have responsible people in charge with a thin majority or nothing gets done like,
many countries in Europe, it ranges from coalitions in Britain to Italy where any two Italians
make up a political party and I don't think that is good for the country. Have more parties if
you want to get the points of view out there, but I think we have the right mix and winners end
up with the most seats. So be it.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Many people don't care about "left" and "right"- they care more about the competence and trust of their local candidate and the party leader.

I actually see that as one of the biggest problems with our system. Unless I happen to live in the riding of the leader they should really be irrelavant to me. It is by the use of the whipped vote that we lose that sense of local representation and are forced to vote for a national party. I actually liked our local conservative candidate this time but disagree so much with the stance of Harper on everything but gun control I had to vote for someone else. If I could have trusted that the local candidate would vote in the house with the best interest of the riding in mind instead of along party lines (Harper's will) he would have got my vote.

Face the facts, hardly anyone votes on the competency or trust of their local rep because he/she is always beholden to the will of the party leadership. Until we remove this big downfall of our political system we might as well have a national vote for a party and let them send reps to each riding without all the bother of local campaigns.

Preferred balloting and proportional representation have been bantered about for decades
they have even been tried from time to time. I prefer the present system and I will not
change my view. If we had preferred balloting, I would plump vote for one choice on the
ballot. If it were proportional representation I would support an ideology whether that was
my feeling at the time or not. I prefer head on party politics it makes for the best scraps,.
and this last time I went with Jack Layton, if he does a good job he will have my support
if not I will support someone else. The Conservatives right now are being run by the
social conservatives and the religious crowd bent on a specific ideology and I can't support
that. Years ago when Audrey McLaughlin took over the NDP I wouldn't give them the time
of day they were Ideolog's and reality had no place in their world.
This time for example the Liberal Party forced its leadership and ideas on its own membership
and stifled debate, they began to read their own press clippings and look where it got them.
We need to have responsible people in charge with a thin majority or nothing gets done like,
many countries in Europe, it ranges from coalitions in Britain to Italy where any two Italians
make up a political party and I don't think that is good for the country. Have more parties if
you want to get the points of view out there, but I think we have the right mix and winners end
up with the most seats. So be it.

All party leaders are elected by IRV both nationally and provincially, how bad can it be?

 

[petros]

Party politics is the biggest defect of democracy.

 

[Tonington]

That should read MIGHT have 12 seats, but probably wouldn't.

No, it shouldn't. If the system was truly proportional, the greens would have 12 seats. Not might, they would. What justification do you have for saying probably wouldn't?

 

[Chiliagon]

good luck with this.. never gonna happen. not ever.

 

[Cliffy]

Proportional representation would guarantee perpetual minority government, a really bad idea!
Harper's 40% means that more Canadians voted for him than for any other party. That's good enough for me with they system we have.
I would like to see a system of elimination like the political paries use. When one candidate doesn't get at ;least 50% of the vote, the second and third place candidate must give their votes to another party, and so on until one party has a majority of 51% or more.

I bet you bitched when the Liberals got a majority with 40% of the votes.

Didn't we already have a referendum about this? Or maybe that was provincial.

It was in BC. We had something like 59% vote in favour but Campbell put a 60% ceiling on it so it failed. He did promise to revisit it but then reneged. Seems the will of the people means nothing in politics.

 

[JLM]

Face the facts, hardly anyone votes on the competency or trust of their local rep because he/she is always beholden to the will of the party leadership. Until we remove this big downfall of our political system we might as well have a national vote for a party and let them send reps to each riding without all the bother of local campaigns[/U].

You got that part right!

No, it shouldn't. If the system was truly proportional, the greens would have 12 seats. Not might, they would. What justification do you have for saying probably wouldn't?

Because it probably wouldn't, unless you are going to ignore the count within the individual ridings.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Because it probably wouldn't, unless you are going to ignore the count within the individual ridings.

That is actually the basic model for PR. Also why I don't support it as much as IRV. With PR the number of seats is directly related to the amount of the popular vote basically eliminating indivdual ridings electing a candidate.

The issue in BC was STV (single transferrable vote) which was very complicated and hard for most to understand and allowed for votes to be split apart and used multiple times which was why it failed.

I support the IRV system and even, as I said earlier, the removal of the party leaders to a separate national ballot to elect the PM. I believe the combination of these 2 reforms gives the result of allowing people to vote locally for the rep of their choosing without concern for the party while still having a say in who will be PM and because of IRV each and every riding will have a rep that has more than 50% of the vote and a true mandate.

 

[Tonington]

Because it probably wouldn't, unless you are going to ignore the count within the individual ridings.

The individual riding votes aren't ignored, they add to the total, and based on the tallies, the MP's are selected...they mention in their platform how the system is unequitable:

Nearly one million Canadians voted for the Green Party in the last federal election without electing a single Green MP. Our electoral system unfairly punishes Conservative voters in cities, Liberal and NDP voters in the west, and Green voters throughout Canada.
​

And let's be real, the majority of what Ottawa does has very little impact on individual ridings, so far as policy goes. Except when they spread pork around, like in Tony Clement's riding.