I have no idea why people would oppose a preferential ballot. I understood why people were opposed to STV because it was somewhat complicated.
Right now people are complaining that 60% of voters opposed Stephen Harper. But his 40% this time is no different than any election since 1968 except for the Mulroney 50+% in 1984. 40% usually gives a majority. In fact, Joe Clark got a minority in '79 with 35% - 5% less than the second place Liberals.
A preferential ballot allows us to ensure that the person with the most support (not necessarily most votes) will represent each riding. Were the Conservatives the last choice of every voter? Probably not, I am guessing that several supporters of the fringe parties (Christian Heritage for one)and even many Liberals would have had the Conservatives as their second or third choice.
My best guess would be that the Conservatives would have ended up with a minority government which more closely reflects the wishes of the majority of voters. It would also have prevented the need for strategic voting. We could still vote for the party we support knowing that our second choice would support somebody we can tolerate if our first choice lost.
because in BC when they proposed it, they made it so complicated nobody wanted it, instead of voting for a single MLA we here in the north would have voted for 3 or 4 MLA’s and then they would have divided the amount of votes cast after one person got elected for the other MLA’s, now if your talking about voting for just one MLA or MP then preferential makes sense not the proportional crap they proposed in BC
I am talking about a preferential ballot like they use at leadership conventions. It is simple. You are electing one person per riding. You put your choices in order. If your first selection is eliminated and there is no candidate with more than 50% of the vote then your second choice would be counted.
In our riding there is no question that Nathan Cullen represents the viewpoint of most of the people. but in other ridings that is not clear. In three way races, it would be nice to know where the supporters of the third place candidate would throw their votes. It does not mean we would end up with proportional representation, but we would definitely know that the person representing the riding has, if not 50% first ballot support at, least has 50% approval.
We might actually see more proportional representation as I can see many people voting for the Greens or the Christian Heritage when they know that their vote would not be a total waste. While that may not result in seats right away, it would give those parties a clearer understanding of their support. Under our strategic voting system many people cast their ballots for a candidate that has the best chance of winning not necessarily for the candidate that best represents their viewpoint.
If people are doing that it’s their fault, not the system’s.
I voted for a guy I knew had no chance at all in our riding, but that was the candidate I thought would best represent me. What’s the point of voting at all if you’re not voting for someone you actually want to see in government?
If people are doing that it’s their fault, not the system’s.
I voted for a guy I knew had no chance at all in our riding, but that was the candidate I thought would best represent me. What’s the point of voting at all if you’re not voting for someone you actually want to see in government?[/quote]
I still think the system is wrong. We can decide that the Canadian government should be a two party system in which case it doesn’t really matter what method we use or we can opt for a multi-party system that results in vote splits and a government that may not be truly representative.
In a multi-party system there will be parties that we fully support, parties that we can live with and parties that we loathe. I think we should be allowed the opportunity to show that preference.
Here’s one example.
In Etobicoke Michael Ignatieff lost to the Conservative by 21997 to 19128. The NDP candidate received 11046, the Green 2159 and the Marxist-Leninist 190. For Ignatieff to win he would have needed 8133 out of the 13395 other votes (about 60%) to win the riding. Now that may or may not have happened. Many NDP voters might have not given Ignatieff any consideration at all giving preference to only the Green or none at all. But I am guessing that he would have been able to win the riding with a preferential system.
While the Conservative does have the most votes, there are probably a majority of voters who are unhappy with that result. The NDP supporters may not be ecstatic at Ignatieff being elected, but they would prefer him over the conservative.
I don’t know how many ridings would have changed hands, but my guess is that the Liberals are under represented and that a minority government would have been the result if we used a preferential ballot.
I still maintain STV is the best method.
You actually get to vote for the representatives in your area
In losing one guy to represent your tiny area, you get several who’ll compete to gain your support.
You can cast just one vote, or several
If it’s too complicated you shouldn’t be voting, you should be in night school going for your Grade Nine…
DWhite problem is every time someone brings up proportional voting the hated STV is brought up, your right the simple one with one MP or MLA per riding with your 1 2 3 4 picks being counted if your first one has the lowest vote and so on would be the better system
I don’t mind this idea… popular vote should mean more than it does now.
I could see that it would lead to more minority governments which - although they might reflect the diverse views of the public also lead to some problems in decision-making.
Is there any support for this from any of the parties? I would suspect the Liberals would be all for it.
There is much bigger problem here, and that is how to get more people out to vote. Voter turnout was I believe barely 50% an all time low? Please correct me if I’m wrong here.
This is apathetic, and I think getting more of those that can’t be bothered to vote out to do so would also provide a much more representative outcome without electoral reform which I just don’t see getting enough support anytime soon to actually happen.
[quote=“chaos”]There is much bigger problem here, and that is how to get more people out to vote. Voter turnout was I believe barely 50% an all time low? Please correct me if I’m wrong here.
This is apathetic, and I think getting more of those that can’t be bothered to vote out to do so would also provide a much more representative outcome without electoral reform which I just don’t see getting enough support anytime soon to actually happen.[/quote]
I’ve always thought that maybe a participation tax credit idea might work.
Those that vote in a general election would receive a credit to be used on the following year’s income tax return. Those that don’t vote wouldn’t receive the credit.
No payout cheque or anything, just a reduction on your income tax at your next return filing.
Since the folks at Elections Canada know who did and didn’t vote after each election, it wouldn’t be that hard to transfer the info to Revenue Canada, might add a bit of incentive to vote.
Provincial or Municipal governments could do the same, offering rebates on municipal taxes or provincial taxes as well.
There really is no valid reason not to participate, if you don’t like the idea of a crowded polling station on election day, you could always have voted at an advance poll.
[quote=“enviroguy”]I don’t mind this idea… popular vote should mean more than it does now.
I could see that it would lead to more minority governments which - although they might reflect the diverse views of the public also lead to some problems in decision-making.
Is there any support for this from any of the parties? I would suspect the Liberals would be all for it.[/quote]
I am not sure if any of the parties are for any kind of electoral reform. Depending on circumstances, supporters might like to see changes, but I don’t know of any party that has a policy statement that says they are in favour.
The federal Liberals of the '90s had massive majorities because the right wing vote split. The BC NDP of the '90s won two elections (the second with less votes than the Liberals) because the right wing vote split. I will be very surprised if the NDP win the next election without a strong Conservative party presence.
The Harper Conservatives got their majority because of vote splits.
I have almost given up on proportional representation but I see no reason why a preferential ballot cannot work. I have no idea why it failed in the United Kingdom.
This is the theory. In a democracy, if Candidate A is more popular than Candidate B, then Candidate A should win the election. But in a multi-party system like ours, that does not always happen. Candidate B can win because Candidate C and D take away votes from Candidate A.
It would appear that many prefer a strong majority government to ensure that things get done and that our government is thinking about the economy etc. instead of the next election. But a preferential ballot does not necessarily mean minorities. It would just mean that the candidate that wins a riding definitely has the support of a majority of the voters. Then when a party does get a majority, they can legitimately say they have the support of a majority of Canadians.
And I wouldn’t be surprised if voter turnout would increase. Our votes would be more meaningful.
Hoorah Smurfette!
I’ve been pushing the vote credit for years. Instead of punishing those who don’t vote (like in Australia), they stamp a receipt portion of the ballot when they see it deposited in the ballot box and you get a $100 tax credit.
Mad at the process? Spoil your ballot and still get a credit.
That makes two of us for the idea.
On a + for Mr. Harper, now that he’s not afraid of pissing off Quebec, they’re going to re=introduce the Bill to add 30 more seats. BC get 7, Alberta 5, Ontario the rest. A step towards fairness.