Jump to content

      



























Photo

Provincial NDP leadership race - 2014


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#41 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 03 April 2014 - 03:05 PM

I can guarantee that if "vote splitting" and "strategic voting" was hurting conservatives and helping the NDP they'd be champions of election reform and the NDP would be talking about "sore losers" and how expensive and confusing better systems are.  This is why we'll never see it, because it generally only helps smaller parties not in power.  Good for democracy, bad for those in power.  The reforms demanded and criticisms made to the government in power by the opposition have a strange way of suddenly reversing when the roles are switched.

 

I don't recall the PC and Reform Party, or even the Federal Liberal Party blaming their problems on the system when they finished in third place.



#42 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 12,702 posts

Posted 03 April 2014 - 06:27 PM

I can guarantee that if "vote splitting" and "strategic voting" was hurting conservatives and helping the NDP they'd be champions of election reform and the NDP would be talking about "sore losers" and how expensive and confusing better systems are.  This is why we'll never see it, because it generally only helps smaller parties not in power.  Good for democracy, bad for those in power.  The reforms demanded and criticisms made to the government in power by the opposition have a strange way of suddenly reversing when the roles are switched.

You do recall it was the Socreds/Liberals who tried to institute voting reform and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to accomplish it only to have it rejected by the "people"? I was all for it but it should have been passed by a simple majority since it was only a yes/no vote so it would by reason have to be democratic.


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#43 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 20,976 posts

Posted 03 April 2014 - 08:15 PM

We won't have true democracy until some sort of representational voting system is put in place. The "FPTP" (first past the post) system only works (fairly) if not more than 2 candidates are running.  

 

Here's a simplified example to illustrate: 100 candidates run for 1 seat. Only 100 people cast ballots. One candidate receives 2 votes; all remaining votes are cast for a different candidate, none of whom gets more than one vote each. In our current system this person wins the seat with 2% of the popular vote. 98% of the electorate wanted someone else. This is NOT good democracy in action.

 

Dude if there is only one seat then the person with 2 votes get elected in any system!



#44 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,409 posts

Posted 03 April 2014 - 08:23 PM

Dude if there is only one seat then the person with 2 votes get elected in any system!

You clearly don't understand the point I was trying to make. In my scenario 98% of the electorate did NOT want the winning candidate to get their vote, yet with only 2% of the popular vote he/she was elected. This is not democracy.



#45 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 13,115 posts

Posted 04 April 2014 - 06:21 AM

You clearly don't understand the point I was trying to make. In my scenario 98% of the electorate did NOT want the winning candidate to get their vote, yet with only 2% of the popular vote he/she was elected. This is not democracy.

 

Yes but that is not how our system works. We could debate this forever but the way our system works is NOT what percentage did not vote for a particular candidate, it is what percentage DID vote for a particular candidate. Obviously the other candidates received LESS than 2% of the popular vote so they loose.

 

The mathematics behind the transferable ballot system would confuse more than 2% of the electorate that show up at the polls.



#46 lanforod

lanforod
  • Member
  • 11,241 posts
  • LocationSaanich

Posted 04 April 2014 - 08:08 AM

While I have been generally happy with election results lately, I still think there are issues with the electoral system we have.

 

Sure, people may not understand a transferable ballot system, but they don't have to. Simple instructions to rank candidates in order of preference on the ballot. If a checkmark or X is used on one candidate as in the past, then that candidate is ranked as most preferable (highest possible score, as if ranked 1st), and all other candidates get a score of 0 for that ballot.

This way folks who are split between two candidates or more, can choose multiple candidates, rank them, and each candidate will get a score. Highest score wins.

 

The biggest issue with this is that there will likely be a far more fractured government. Small parties will get candidates in, minority governments will be much more likely.


  • Nparker and rjag like this

#47 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,409 posts

Posted 04 April 2014 - 08:12 AM

The mathematics behind the transferable ballot system would confuse more that 2% of the electorate that show up at the polls.

Maybe more people would show up at the polls if they thought their vote mattered.



#48 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,409 posts

Posted 04 April 2014 - 08:15 AM

....The biggest issue with this is that there will likely be a far more fractured government. Small parties will get candidates in, minority governments will be much more likely.

And this can only be a good thing IMHO; possibly meaning less exteme agendas from whomever forms the government and forcing cross-party cooperation.



#49 lanforod

lanforod
  • Member
  • 11,241 posts
  • LocationSaanich

Posted 04 April 2014 - 08:16 AM

And this can only be a good thing IMHO; possibly meaning less exteme agendas from whomever forms the government and forcing cross-party cooperation.

Yes, in that sense it is good. More democratic. In another sense, it can also mean it takes much longer for anything to get done.



#50 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 6,363 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 04 April 2014 - 08:16 AM

link screwed up so I deleted it


Edited by rjag, 04 April 2014 - 08:23 AM.


#51 lanforod

lanforod
  • Member
  • 11,241 posts
  • LocationSaanich

Posted 04 April 2014 - 08:19 AM

Maybe you meant this link: http://en.wikipedia....eferendum,_2009



#52 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 6,363 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 04 April 2014 - 08:21 AM

Somethings wrong with the link

 

Go to google

 

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform (British Columbia)

 

Theres a good article that shows the history of the study of the STV system in BC


Edited by rjag, 04 April 2014 - 08:25 AM.


#53 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 04 April 2014 - 01:58 PM

This is why most people I know don't bother to vote, they don't feel there's any party that represents them, or if there is, they are just "throwing away their vote".  Something like STV would allow smaller parties to get into government, if there's demand for them.  The winner-take all system is great for having a powerful decisive government, but it can often lead to a near majority of voters actual wishes being absolutely ignored.  Minority governments force compromises rather than extremism and cooperation rather than partisanship.  I'd love a BC where 5-6 parties had to work together.  I don't care if some Heritage Party folks get in there, if that's what enough people want, let them have their voice in government.

 

With STV I'd feel like my vote actually mattered.  Never again will you ever have to vote strategically, just actually vote for who you think is best without fear your wasted vote just split your "side" and helped the other guys.


  • Nparker likes this
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#54 eseedhouse

eseedhouse
  • Member
  • 1,288 posts

Posted 04 April 2014 - 04:37 PM

Every business I know is run to make the customer happy. A happy boss = happy customers. Happy customers = jobs. Jobs = employees. Employees = ...you get the point.

 

Luckily I'm not the only one who feels a bloated and inefficient government is bad business.

 

Show me a business of any size that isn't run as a quasi military operation where the higher ups tell the lower downs what to do and I'll show you a big exception to the general rule.

 

Calling a government bloated and inefficient is only name calling, not any kind of persuasive arguemtn, at least not to rational people.  Government is necessary, and we should try to avoid government that is "bloated and inefficient" (as well as many other bad things).  That doesn't mean government in and of itself is bad.  Policy based on name calling is apt to be poor policy.  Government should do what government does best or what is necessary and won't get done without government.


  • Nparker and tedward like this

#55 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 12,702 posts

Posted 04 April 2014 - 06:50 PM

While I have been generally happy with election results lately, I still think there are issues with the electoral system we have.

 

Sure, people may not understand a transferable ballot system, but they don't have to. Simple instructions to rank candidates in order of preference on the ballot. If a checkmark or X is used on one candidate as in the past, then that candidate is ranked as most preferable (highest possible score, as if ranked 1st), and all other candidates get a score of 0 for that ballot.

This way folks who are split between two candidates or more, can choose multiple candidates, rank them, and each candidate will get a score. Highest score wins.

 

The biggest issue with this is that there will likely be a far more fractured government. Small parties will get candidates in, minority governments will be much more likely.

If people can't understand it maybe they shouldn't be voting, same goes for the folks who vote for what ever name they last saw on a lawn sign.


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#56 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 12,702 posts

Posted 04 April 2014 - 06:53 PM

This is why most people I know don't bother to vote, they don't feel there's any party that represents them, or if there is, they are just "throwing away their vote".  Something like STV would allow smaller parties to get into government, if there's demand for them.  The winner-take all system is great for having a powerful decisive government, but it can often lead to a near majority of voters actual wishes being absolutely ignored.  Minority governments force compromises rather than extremism and cooperation rather than partisanship.  I'd love a BC where 5-6 parties had to work together.  I don't care if some Heritage Party folks get in there, if that's what enough people want, let them have their voice in government.

 

With STV I'd feel like my vote actually mattered.  Never again will you ever have to vote strategically, just actually vote for who you think is best without fear your wasted vote just split your "side" and helped the other guys.

Well if you don't like our democracy you would hate the American one. If you are an independent, i.e. not a registered Democrat or Republican, you can't even vote in the primary elections. In the general election you have to select either a Democratic or Republican ballot and that is who you get to vote for.


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#57 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 6,363 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 04 April 2014 - 07:27 PM

Show me a business of any size that isn't run as a quasi military operation where the higher ups tell the lower downs what to do and I'll show you a big exception to the general rule.

 

 

 

You can include any political party, government agency or union shop in that statement


  • AllseeingEye likes this

#58 bluefox

bluefox

    ex-Victorian

  • Member
  • 697 posts

Posted 04 April 2014 - 08:00 PM

I'm not a mod but I'm going to wager a guess that this conversation has deviated off-topic... ;)


  • rjag likes this
(Not the owner of, nor am I associated with, the Blue Fox Café, in any way.)

#59 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 13,115 posts

Posted 04 April 2014 - 09:25 PM

Sometimes the mods just enjoy a little chaos. :)



#60 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 05 April 2014 - 09:20 AM

And out of chaos comes order :)

@Eseedhouse, don't get me wrong, I value government, but not when government is inefficient, mired in red tape and costs far more money to sustain than is reasonable.

As a long time federal government worker high up the ladder recently told me, the goal of a government employee is to put himself or herself out of business through the improvements they are tasked with implementing. Cutting red tape and resolving kinks is a job cutting measure whether most see it that way or not. Despite lean and efficient government being a sensible and necessary goal, he also says many government employees and the unions who represent them, obviously, feel otherwise. And that right there is the root of our problem.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users