2019 Federal Election

[jamincan]

There's an Oraclepoll Research poll of 500 residents in Kitchener Centre out now that shows Liberals in the lead at 43%, Greens at 26% and Conservatives at 23%. Hopefully this means that those people voting Liberal strategically will consider voting how they want instead.

[jgsz]

There's an Oraclepoll Research poll of 500 residents in Kitchener Centre out now that shows Liberals in the lead at 43%, Greens at 26% and Conservatives at 23%. Hopefully this means that those people voting Liberal strategically will consider voting how they want instead.

It wouldn't be necessary to vote strategically if we had proportional representation.

[panamaniac]

I’d prefer a ranked ballot to PR, but the problems with FPTP will be very apparent in this election’s results nationally, I suspect.

[danbrotherston]

I’d prefer a ranked ballot to PR, but the problems with FPTP will be very apparent in this election’s results nationally, I suspect.

Why do you prefer ranked ballot to PR?

When you look at the statistics of it, ranked ballot does not achieve a proportional government, and instead still prioritizes major parties.  In fact, many US elections actually use ranked ballots (instant, or non-instant runoff).

[panamaniac]

For a variety of reasons, I don’t think PR works with Canada’s system of government and would result in chronically weak governments. I also don’t like seats allocated from party lists, which to some extent is inevitable in a PR system, as far as I know. I could contemplate it if the threshold for votes resulting in seats were relatively high and if a party were required to meet that threshold in at least two of Canada’s five regions to be eligible for seats (which of course is unlikely because Quebec). Not that I think FPTP always gives the best result - this election, if it produces a Conservative minority beholden to the Bloc to govern, would be the worst of a possible results, imo.

[ijmorlan]

I’d prefer a ranked ballot to PR, but the problems with FPTP will be very apparent in this election’s results nationally, I suspect.

Why do you prefer ranked ballot to PR?

I’ll answer for myself. I am not absolutely opposed to PR; but I think that first we should replace all FPTP elections with a ranked ballot, then later ask if our legislatures should use PR or a similar system. When I say “all” I mean everything — MPs, MPPs, mayors, councillors, school board, representatives on the University board of governors, student council president and councillors — everything. There is no scenario in which FPTP is an acceptable way of choosing democratically between alternatives, and the problem exists in many more places than just federal and provincial politics.

The other thing about a ranked ballot is that it really isn’t a change in the system; it’s just marking and counting the ballots in a reasonable way. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t change the system, but let’s start with a simple intervention.

When you look at the statistics of it, ranked ballot does not achieve a proportional government, and instead still prioritizes major parties.  In fact, many US elections actually use ranked ballots (instant, or non-instant runoff).

This is a circular argument: you’re basically assuming that representation in the Commons should be proportional to the popular vote share, which is pretty much the definition of proportional representation. While it is obvious to me that representation shouldn’t be wildly out of line with the vote (e.g., majority government from 33% support), it’s not at all clear that the representation needs to be exactly the vote share. Keep in mind that power is not proportional to representation. A couple of elections back the NDP went from holding the balance of power in a minority parliament with 37 seats to being the Official Opposition in a majority parliament with 103 seats; but this was a reduction in power. There are ways of allocating representation that keep the voting power in the assembly closer to the share of the vote in the election; maybe these should be considered as well. Also we should see if a ranked ballot gives us more appropriate representation before completely changing our system.

[ijmorlan]

For a variety of reasons, I don’t think PR works with Canada’s system of government and would result in chronically weak governments.  I also don’t like seats allocated from party lists, which to some extent is inevitable in a PR system, as far as I know.  I could contemplate it if the threshold for votes resulting in seats were relatively high and if a party were required to meet that threshold in at least two of Canada’s five regions to be eligible for seats (which of course is unlikely because Quebec). Not that I think FPTP always gives the best result - this election, if it produces a Conservative minority beholden to the Bloc to govern, would be the worst of a possible results, imo.

There are a wide variety of PR systems, not all of which suffer from the “party list” problem. Some systems have some members elected from each district, with additional ones appointed to make up the proportional totals. It’s also possible to take “extra” votes from ridings which elect someone overwhelmingly and use them to elect members of the same party from other ridings.

What I don’t like about PR is that it entrenches the concept of parties. My hope with ranked ballots is that it would make it much more likely for independents to get elected. If a popular member were to quit their party, or if a well-known local person were to run separately from any party, they might find it easier to attract votes if their voters can put a “2” next to one of the major parties. Similarly smaller parties would find it easier. How many current Liberal votes are really “2” votes from people who really want to vote Green or NDP?

[danbrotherston]

Why do you prefer ranked ballot to PR?

I’ll answer for myself. I am not absolutely opposed to PR; but I think that first we should replace all FPTP elections with a ranked ballot, then later ask if our legislatures should use PR or a similar system. When I say “all” I mean everything — MPs, MPPs, mayors, councillors, school board, representatives on the University board of governors, student council president and councillors — everything. There is no scenario in which FPTP is an acceptable way of choosing democratically between alternatives, and the problem exists in many more places than just federal and provincial politics.

The other thing about a ranked ballot is that it really isn’t a change in the system; it’s just marking and counting the ballots in a reasonable way. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t change the system, but let’s start with a simple intervention.

When you look at the statistics of it, ranked ballot does not achieve a proportional government, and instead still prioritizes major parties.  In fact, many US elections actually use ranked ballots (instant, or non-instant runoff).

This is a circular argument: you’re basically assuming that representation in the Commons should be proportional to the popular vote share, which is pretty much the definition of proportional representation. While it is obvious to me that representation shouldn’t be wildly out of line with the vote (e.g., majority government from 33% support), it’s not at all clear that the representation needs to be exactly the vote share. Keep in mind that power is not proportional to representation. A couple of elections back the NDP went from holding the balance of power in a minority parliament with 37 seats to being the Official Opposition in a majority parliament with 103 seats; but this was a reduction in power. There are ways of allocating representation that keep the voting power in the assembly closer to the share of the vote in the election; maybe these should be considered as well. Also we should see if a ranked ballot gives us more appropriate representation before completely changing our system.

As you pointed out, there are various electoral systems which are more proportional.

I do absolutely believe that everyone should get representation in the Commons.

As for a ranked ballot, we already know it won't, we aren't special, other countries have tried it, their results will generalize to here. I'm not in favour of a ranked ballot, the ONLY reason I would support it, is because it would mean we are no longer in a situation where it seems impossible to change electoral systems, and thus easier to continue to improve.

[tomh009]

There are a wide variety of PR systems, not all of which suffer from the “party list” problem. Some systems have some members elected from each district, with additional ones appointed to make up the proportional totals. It’s also possible to take “extra” votes from ridings which elect someone overwhelmingly and use them to elect members of the same party from other ridings.

What I don’t like about PR is that it entrenches the concept of parties. My hope with ranked ballots is that it would make it much more likely for independents to get elected. If a popular member were to quit their party, or if a well-known local person were to run separately from any party, they might find it easier to attract votes if their voters can put a “2” next to one of the major parties. Similarly smaller parties would find it easier. How many current Liberal votes are really “2” votes from people who really want to vote Green or NDP?

A popular independent could certainly get elected with PR, given a reasonable electoral district size -- maybe 10 or so seats per electoral district.

I would prefer PR, and I have no issue with coalition governments. But I would certainly accept ranked ballots, as pretty much anything is an improvement over FPTP. STV (multi-member ranked ballot) with, again, a reasonable electoral district size would not be terrible at all, I think.

Dan, when you say ranked ballots don't work, are you specifically referring to single-member constituency ranked ballots?

[panamaniac]

Not sure districts of 10 MPs would be feasible when we have a province with only 4 MPs, barring even more profound changes to the system.

[jgsz]

We live in a representative democracy.  So who does an “independent” representative represent?  

An independent representative is an oxymoron so far as I’m concerned.  So is “representative democracy.”  The ancient Greeks did not have representatives.  They voted directly.  In a complex society such as ours I realize we can’t vote directly.  And that’s probably a good thing because if we voted directly we’d probably end up with some kind of mob rule.  So it’s for some of these reasons that I favour a pure and simple, easy to understand, proportional representation.  I think that’s the closest we can get to the Greek ideal of democracy.  Mixed member or ranked ballots just doesn’t do it for me.  They only obfuscate the process and confuse the average voter.

[jwilliamson]

We live in a representative democracy.  So who does an “independent” representative represent?  

An independent representative is an oxymoron so far as I’m concerned.  So is “representative democracy.”  The ancient Greeks did not have representatives.  They voted directly.  In a complex society such as ours I realize we can’t vote directly.  And that’s probably a good thing because if we voted directly we’d probably end up with some kind of mob rule.  So it’s for some of these reasons that I favour a pure and simple, easy to understand, proportional representation.  I think that’s the closest we can get to the Greek ideal of democracy.  Mixed member or ranked ballots just doesn’t do it for me.  They only obfuscate the process and confuse the average voter.

An independent representative is a representative who isn't in a political party. They still represent their constituents, they just don't have formal ties to other representatives. I'm not sure why that is somehow inimical to representative democracy.

[jgsz]

We live in a representative democracy.  So who does an “independent” representative represent?  

An independent representative is an oxymoron so far as I’m concerned.  So is “representative democracy.”  The ancient Greeks did not have representatives.  They voted directly.  In a complex society such as ours I realize we can’t vote directly.  And that’s probably a good thing because if we voted directly we’d probably end up with some kind of mob rule.  So it’s for some of these reasons that I favour a pure and simple, easy to understand, proportional representation.  I think that’s the closest we can get to the Greek ideal of democracy.  Mixed member or ranked ballots just doesn’t do it for me.  They only obfuscate the process and confuse the average voter.

An independent representative is a representative who isn't in a political party. They still represent their constituents, they just don't have formal ties to other representatives. I'm not sure why that is somehow inimical to representative democracy.

But their constituents are not a monolithic block.  They have various diverse and conflicting views.  Which constitutes would the independent represent?

[ijmorlan]

An independent representative is a representative who isn't in a political party. They still represent their constituents, they just don't have formal ties to other representatives. I'm not sure why that is somehow inimical to representative democracy.

But their constituents are not a monolithic block.  They have various diverse and conflicting views.  Which constitutes would the independent represent?

All of them. That’s how it is supposed to work.

And an independent can do a better job of that than a party member. Not just is it not inimical, it’s actually better for representative democracy to have independent representatives. Right now we don’t really (de facto) vote for representatives — we just vote for somebody to do what their party leader tells them. Not quite, because sometimes MPs and MPPs have a spark of independence, sometimes even with consequences, but overall there is way too much of just doing what the party says. Remember, Parliament is supposed to hold the government (cabinet) to account. How often does that happen when there is a majority government?

[jgsz]

But their constituents are not a monolithic block.  They have various diverse and conflicting views.  Which constitutes would the independent represent?

All of them. That’s how it is supposed to work.
....

That's a rather fanciful and romanticised notion of what an independent representative can do.  I suspect those who favour independents are folks who are quite comfortable with the status quo.   I say that because a parliament full of independents (338 in the Canadian parliament) would, at best, accomplish absolutely nothing.  At worst, they would create chaos and anarchy.  

We have political parties to accomplish things.  Would it help if political parties were called "teams?"  We have political parties, or teams, if you prefer, because they are more effective than individuals.  That's why we have sports teams.  Can you imagine what would happen if the Kitchener Rangers were independents and not team players?  They would never win!  Same would be true in politics.  If independents is such a good idea why are there no democratic governments in the world made up of independents?  Because it's not a good idea.  That's why.

Regardless, I'd like to discuss the need for PR rather than political parties.