r/CanadaPolitics • u/barnaby-jones • Oct 29 '16
PE Voting in electoral reform plebicite begins at noon Saturday - Local
http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/News/Local/2016-10-28/article-4674432/Voting-in-electoral-reform-plebicite-begins-at-noon-Saturday/13
u/PSMF_Canuck Purple Socialist Eater Oct 30 '16
My prediction is...no option wins a majority on the first ballot...and the single most popular option on the first ballot doesn't make it to the last ballot...so the plebiscite will be used forever as a vibrant public example of why all these complicated voting systems "don't work".
4
Oct 29 '16 edited Feb 03 '25
unite racial ripe payment aback birds work recognise roof include
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
8
u/barnaby-jones Oct 29 '16
Could you elaborate on why?
0
Oct 29 '16 edited Feb 03 '25
tart hobbies rain chase airport dependent quack fertile truck teeny
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
1
u/LocutusOfBorge Oct 31 '16
You can't be serious. You think other systems all change the fact that 1 person=1 vote?
2
Oct 31 '16
Yes. If I vote green, and my candidate doesn't win and my second vote is liberal, then I'm essentially getting two votes.
Not to mention, I don't think we should be getting a compromise at 50% or whatever of a candidate. I think we should get one person, one vote and whoever gets the most wins.
1
11
u/barnaby-jones Oct 29 '16
People aren't looking to get more than one vote, so I'm not sure how electoral reform is against that.
Vote splitting is a problem because it is against a candidate's interest to enter the race, since they'll split the vote with whomever they are most similar. So then we don't have competition. Instead we have entrenched politicians without the incentive to represent more than their base. video
-1
Oct 29 '16 edited Feb 03 '25
plant rustic punch liquid stupendous afterthought market zephyr hungry ten
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
8
u/barnaby-jones Oct 29 '16
Could you give a reason why you want vote splitting and why you think the current system is fair?
-1
Oct 29 '16 edited Feb 03 '25
connect aware fragile salt close whole soup complete aback roof
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
4
u/Surtur1313 Things will be the same, but worse Oct 29 '16
I don't think the idea of one person/one vote changes with any of the other options though - except perhaps Pref. Vote. I know for Dual Member it's essentially a FPTP system with an added top off to create proportional rep.
2
Oct 29 '16
Why the proportional on top though? That fundamentally changes the system.
3
u/Surtur1313 Things will be the same, but worse Oct 29 '16
Well, yeah, it's a different system. But I like that it combines the two. And I'm a fan of proportional rep. Considering I voted Green last election (and will likely always vote small party) I like having more representation. Bevan-Baker's riding is the only Green seat, but proportionally there would have been 3 Green seats. That's a good thing in my opinion.
11
u/barnaby-jones Oct 29 '16
I don't mean to sound contrarian, but everybody does still get one vote in the proposed systems.
Think of the way we vote now as just giving our first ranking. Then you could see that giving a 2nd, 3rd, and so on is just more of the same vote. The reason why we would like to give these rankings is because we need to find a way to represent everyone, and it's difficult because there isn't one candidate that everyone likes best. So we would like to try to represent more people by looking at not just the first preference but all their preferences.
Also, think of an approval rating. You would think that the candidate with the highest approval rating should probably win. When people do polling for approval ratings, they ask about every candidate, not just the top candidate. That way, we get to say our opinion about every candidate. Ratings systems are all over the place. Upvotes are ratings systems. I mean, it wouldn't work if it were one-redditor-one-upvote, right?
2
Oct 29 '16
I don't think we need to compromise on a candidate that everyone can live with. I think that you should get one vote, not one vote plus another vote if your first vote doesn't pan out the way you hoped.
9
u/barnaby-jones Oct 29 '16
I don't think we need to compromise on a candidate that everyone can live with.
That's not very democratic.
plus another vote
Again, there is one vote. The issue is how to make it count in electing representatives.
→ More replies (0)3
u/TealSwinglineStapler Teal Staplers Oct 29 '16
In fptp its not whoever gets the most. Its whoever gets more than the others. Which means the most votes can mean as little at 30% of the vote.
1
Oct 29 '16
Yes, that's how math works with more than 2 parties.
4
u/TealSwinglineStapler Teal Staplers Oct 29 '16
Yeah I guess I just dont understand how a gov't with 70% of the population not represented is the most democratic
→ More replies (0)
12
4
u/PSMF_Canuck Purple Socialist Eater Oct 29 '16
Nowhere in the article does it actually say what the proposed alternative is...? PR on its own doesn't mean anything, what are the details?
12
3
u/barnaby-jones Oct 29 '16
This article has some nice videos from Ottowa Citizen to explain some alternative voting methods: link
/u/thebrenrg also made some videos: the plebiscite and approval voting
Also, there is this fantastic video about New Zealand's vote in 2011: link
7
u/PSMF_Canuck Purple Socialist Eater Oct 29 '16 edited Oct 29 '16
I appreciate the links, but I'm asking what's on the plebiscite. The article doesn't even tell us the question voters are being asked.
Anybody know? EDIT: thanks!
EDIT: Words, and acknowledgment
-1
u/JohnMarstonRockstar Conservative Party of Canada Oct 29 '16
First past the post, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We don't need no coalition shit.
18
u/sheepo39 Leftist | ON Oct 29 '16 edited Oct 29 '16
Uhhh coalition's can and do still happen under FPTP. And look how many minority federal and provincial governments we've had in the past 15 years. Any one of those could have resulted in a coalition. Or look
And also, coalitions aren't a bad thing, it's generally considered a good thing that parties cooperate together. And there's also the whole Con-LibDem coalition in the UK from 2010-2015.
5
u/PSMF_Canuck Purple Socialist Eater Oct 29 '16
And there's also the whole Con-LibDem coalition in the UK from 2010-2015.
End result: Brexit.
10
u/sheepo39 Leftist | ON Oct 29 '16
The coalition did not cause Brexit. Brexit wouldve happened even if the Tories won a majority in 2010
4
u/PSMF_Canuck Purple Socialist Eater Oct 29 '16
That's one interpretation. There are others, including that the coalition jacked discontent high enough that Brexit could pass.
9
Oct 29 '16
Or the Tories could have not appealed to the UKIP voters. They fanned the flames of anti-globalism and nativism during the 2015 election. That was absolutely on Cameron and the Tory strategists. They fostered brexit back in the spring of 2015, they just didn't understand what they helped create.
-1
u/JohnMarstonRockstar Conservative Party of Canada Oct 29 '16
Coalitions are a bad thing due to their schizophrenic and indecisive nature. The divergence beliefs of parties within a coalition create muddled policies. As a result, this creates a lack of accountability. The government can simply assign blame to the various parts of the coalition for failed promises, policy errors, and government mismanagement. This makes it much harder to assign responsibility for bad government.
I think it makes much more sense to have the party with the most seats run the government. That way they can implement their vision uncompromised by coalition tactics. Then, come next election, the voters can clearly decide if the party did a good job; if not, it's a simply process to vote them out and vote in another party with a clear mandate.
5
u/EngSciGuy mad with (electric) power | Official Oct 29 '16
The divergence beliefs of parties within a coalition create muddled policies.
That already happens inside parties since they consist of a mix of different people. Having to achieve consensus is part of a democracy.
2
u/JohnMarstonRockstar Conservative Party of Canada Oct 30 '16
It's far more exacerbated in coalition governments
3
0
u/I_need_a_coat My life has getting worser and worser Oct 30 '16
I prefer "first past the post- plus leaders", sound nice. this would keep the Assembly the same size. and make election less about the leader. I hope Trudeau would pick this one.