What woudl be your thoughts on a voting system that allowed partisan voters to vote for a party and non-partisan voters to vote for a candidate?
Here's a proposal I have and would like to know your ideas on it.
1. On election day, each voter would need to choose either a partisan or non-partisan ballot, and his choice of ballot would be recorded (reason to be explained below).
2. Those who choose a non-partisan ballot would receive a ballot with the list of local candidates, but with no party names. It would essentially be a non-partisan plurality-at-large voting system of some kind; and those who choose the partisan ballot would receive a ballot with all registered political parties listed.
3. All plurality-at-large constituencies would send the winning candidate to Parliament, while all party votes would send the party leader of each party to Parliament.
4. Each non-partisan candidate's votes would be equal to that of each other non-partisan candidate, and the value of all non-partisan candidates' votes combined would be equal to the total percentage of non-partisan votes cast nationwide; while each party-leader's vote would be worth the percentage of al votes cast nationwide for that party.
5. Except for the party leaders, Parliament as a whole would function as a non-partisan Parliament.
6. In a bi-election for a non-partisan riding, all Canadians residing in that riding who'd either not voted in the main election or who'd voted non-partisan would get to vote in the bi-election; and in the event of a party leader leaving his position, he'd be replaced by an election of those who'd voted for that party or those who'd not voted in the main election.The reason for this is to ensure no double dipping. Those who vote for a non-partisan candidate have no representation in any party, while those who vote for a party have their representation in the party leader, whom they are free to change within the party at any time. Of course at easch new general election, we all start on a clean slate again, free to choose to vote party or candidate.
In such a system, assuming that most still vote party, it's reasonable that the vote of the party leaders in Parliament would be very powerful, worth a large percentage of the Parliamentary vote. However, there would be some controls. First off, those who'd voted for the party in the previous election, along with those who hadn't voted but then want to register with that party, could vote to change leader at any time, thus replacing the party MP representing the party. The reason I don't see the need for so many party members in Parliament is because they all vote the same anyway, so to save on salaries and pensions for MPs who all vote the same anyway, why not just roll them all into one person who casts the party vote, with the party deciding who that will be.
Though Parliament as a whole would elect Cabinet, it's reasonable to suppose that party MP would in many cases cast the deciding vote owing to the sheer power of their vote.
One advantage I'd see with such a system though is that, with many people feeling queezy about iving parties so much power, many would likely turn away from party votes over time, thus reducing the power of the party MPs at least somewhat.
I could see this as a means of giving both sides what they'd want: non-partisan voters would still get to vote for their MP, while partisan voters woudl still get to vote for their party. This way, each side gets what it wants.
Here's a proposal I have and would like to know your ideas on it.
1. On election day, each voter would need to choose either a partisan or non-partisan ballot, and his choice of ballot would be recorded (reason to be explained below).
2. Those who choose a non-partisan ballot would receive a ballot with the list of local candidates, but with no party names. It would essentially be a non-partisan plurality-at-large voting system of some kind; and those who choose the partisan ballot would receive a ballot with all registered political parties listed.
3. All plurality-at-large constituencies would send the winning candidate to Parliament, while all party votes would send the party leader of each party to Parliament.
4. Each non-partisan candidate's votes would be equal to that of each other non-partisan candidate, and the value of all non-partisan candidates' votes combined would be equal to the total percentage of non-partisan votes cast nationwide; while each party-leader's vote would be worth the percentage of al votes cast nationwide for that party.
5. Except for the party leaders, Parliament as a whole would function as a non-partisan Parliament.
6. In a bi-election for a non-partisan riding, all Canadians residing in that riding who'd either not voted in the main election or who'd voted non-partisan would get to vote in the bi-election; and in the event of a party leader leaving his position, he'd be replaced by an election of those who'd voted for that party or those who'd not voted in the main election.The reason for this is to ensure no double dipping. Those who vote for a non-partisan candidate have no representation in any party, while those who vote for a party have their representation in the party leader, whom they are free to change within the party at any time. Of course at easch new general election, we all start on a clean slate again, free to choose to vote party or candidate.
In such a system, assuming that most still vote party, it's reasonable that the vote of the party leaders in Parliament would be very powerful, worth a large percentage of the Parliamentary vote. However, there would be some controls. First off, those who'd voted for the party in the previous election, along with those who hadn't voted but then want to register with that party, could vote to change leader at any time, thus replacing the party MP representing the party. The reason I don't see the need for so many party members in Parliament is because they all vote the same anyway, so to save on salaries and pensions for MPs who all vote the same anyway, why not just roll them all into one person who casts the party vote, with the party deciding who that will be.
Though Parliament as a whole would elect Cabinet, it's reasonable to suppose that party MP would in many cases cast the deciding vote owing to the sheer power of their vote.
One advantage I'd see with such a system though is that, with many people feeling queezy about iving parties so much power, many would likely turn away from party votes over time, thus reducing the power of the party MPs at least somewhat.
I could see this as a means of giving both sides what they'd want: non-partisan voters would still get to vote for their MP, while partisan voters woudl still get to vote for their party. This way, each side gets what it wants.