Wish Lists
Is the current NDP vision or plan for the future adequate or detailed enough for you? What would you like to see changed or added to the list?
I'd like to see the party use some of its resources to educate Canadians on our lack of democracy and the benefits of proportional rep.
From Fair Vote Canada:
If people voted the same way on Oct 14, 2008 but the results tabulated using a proportional voting system, Parliament would have looked something like this:
-Cons, 38% of popular vote: 117 seats (not 143)
-Grits, 26% of popular vote: 81 seats (not 77)
-Dippers, 18% of popular vote: 57 seats (not 37)
-Bloc, 10% of popular vote: 28 seats (not 49)
-Green, 7% of popular vote: 23 seats (not 0)
The resulting government likley would have been a majority coalition led by the Liberals, with support from the NDP and Greens.
Of course people vote strategically under our current winner take all, first past the post system so it is possible that the NDP would grab some of the Liberal vote. Though they may also loose some support to the Greens.
Actually, Canapathy one would see an actual shift in voting behaviour as some folks do strategic voting in that they prefer another party but vote otherwise as they feel their vote does not count when it is caste.
A while ago an MA student did their masters on this and noted that their are a lot of NDP leaning liberal voters who would vote NDP and not liberal if we had a proportional voting system. It is for this reason that both the Liberals and conservatives do not entertain electorial reform, or if they must would go with STV, thinking that works best for them -keep the two old line parties and the power elites who support them forever in power.
I would also suspect that the Green vote would go up to; however, at the time of this thesis, GREENS weren't really anywhere on the electorial map.
It is a mistake to believe that STV would result in maintining the status quo -- old-line party-wise.
STV can provide a significant degree of proportionality while also affording voters the much-needed opportunity of choosing the best candidates for the job -- real voter choice.
It ain't necessarily the optimal system but it's a lot better than most flavours of MMP -- the NDPs policy "answer".
What the NDP needs to promise is to accomplish electoral reform with a process of investigation, deliberation and choice.
Darn. I was hoping this thread was about personal wishes. My wish is for world peace.
I'm for that!
Sneakers reference?
Me too and I want to be Ms. USA!!
I would wish for the media to actually have some morals and accountability, we might get a long way towards to peace and fair voting if such was the case.
Me too and I want to be Ms. USA!!
So do I!!!
I wish that before the next leader's debate, some enterprising waiter spikes the coffee with truth serum.
I'm not a fan of STV but prefer it over FPTP.
Since, PR would obviously benefit the NDP and Jack promised to make support for PR a prerequisite to gaining his support, why has it dropped off the radar?
Some say Canadians don't care, which is true but mostly because they don't understand PR. Actually, most Canadians don't understand our current FPTP system either. Sure there are a lot of issues that Canadians don't understand and should be educated about but few will have such a positive impact on the party as PR will.
I get semi-frequent ten percenters from Jack in my mailbox, why not use some of those to start telling people that their vote likely doesn't create any representation for them in Ottawa?
If the NDP made made its support for one of the "major" parties conditional on effecting (not just investigating) electoral reform I would vote for the NDP regardless of the candidate they ran in my riding (that's a big compromise for me).
Really and truly I'd only accept MMP as a "starter system" and provided that there was a review complete with broad discussion and deliberation in the near future.
What's not to like about STV?
What if the NDP candidate had absolutely no chance of winning your riding, wouldn't you just be wasting your vote?
I like MMP. I think a country as geographically large and regionally diverse needs local representation, but with a proportional parliament in Ottawa.
I guess I'd have to be more specific since STV is actually a family of voting systems. I don't like the idea of STV being used to determine 1 winner of a riding and then creating parliament based on the sum of the riding winners. I'm less opposed to larger multi-member districts with STV being used to decide the 5 or 10 members that would represent the district. However, in Canada I think MMP does a better job of creating local representation but with a proportional parliament.
I think STV (Droop Quota) would be a great way to determine the local riding winner under a MMP system though.
Nobody's wishing for more wishes?? Wasn't anyone ever six years old?
Me too and I want to be Ms. USA!!
So do I!!!
You realize if this is granted, you both will have to have been colonized in the first place? Careful what you wish for.
I guess I'd have to be more specific since STV is actually a family of voting systems. I don't like the idea of STV being used to determine 1 winner of a riding and then creating parliament based on the sum of the riding winners. I'm less opposed to larger multi-member districts with STV being used to decide the 5 or 10 members that would represent the district. However, in Canada I think MMP does a better job of creating local representation but with a proportional parliament.
Actually, you have it exactly backwards; MMP is a very large and diverse family of systems.
STV is quite simple and straightforward, easy to design and very rich in desirable features. STV is inherently a multi-member-per-district system.
Nobody's wishing for more wishes?? Wasn't anyone ever six years old?
Holy smokes! You mean there are no rules?
Unfortunately a majority of people in Canada want to keep FPP system we now have in place. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Unfortunately a majority of people in Canada want to keep FPP system we now have in place. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
That's a misaprehension too. Not enough Canadians are versed enough to know what they want. But you're right about the timeframe for change.
STV is quite simple and straightforward, easy to design and very rich in desirable features. STV is inherently a multi-member-per-district system.
STV has variants and can be applied in different ways...look it up.
For example Instant Runoff is the STV system using Droop Quota with 1 seat.
I would be opposed to using STV to determine the winner of each current riding and then simply send the winners to Ottawa...though that would still be a very slight improvement over what we have now.
I also don't like the idea of replacing our current ridings with multi-meber super ridings that are much larger in area. Though it would be better than what we have now. As the area of the riding grows local areas lose representation. Canada is large and sparesly populated, some current single member ridings are already massive in area, creating even larger ridings could mean that representatives are completely out of touch with large portions of the district.
I'm for that!
Sneakers reference?
No - it's from Miss Congeniality.
I agree with the loss of representation. I know that as a school trustee, and sometimes there is "noise" in changing how we are elected or even appointed (yikes), and it is always about loss of the local and accountability.
Wikipedia isn't always the best source of information and in this case it's somewhat misleading.
Try the proceedings of the BC and Ontario Citizens' Assemblies or Farrell.
STV, while poorly named, is always assumed to be a multi-member-district system that uses the single transferrable method of tallying votes as aggregations of list votes. By rights what we generally call "STV" is a system that could use any other method of aggregating list votes and still work the way "STV" is intended. I admit it might be confusing. But in common usage, STV is just one particular system.
Technically, stv is a method of counting list votes as aggregates rankings.
.
Multimember STV is great but more suited to provincial or municipal politics. (In Ireland and Malta, they don't have a "provincial level")
It is good when you want to encourage local concerns to be raised and have regional politicians competing against each other for local support.
While is could work federally, federal politics shouldn't be "local" in the same sense that a provincial or municipal election would be and it makes it much harder for voters to differentiate between politicians. It would probably only work federally with a small DM (1, 2 or 3 DM) tops due to our geography, and another mechanism would be needed to enhance proportionality.
Federally, you are much more voting for an ideology - foreign policy, national policies -- and any local initiatives are probably unconstitutional which really defeats one of the central benefits of STV in that it delivers effective local representation.
MMP could have some advantages, (particularly if it was AV+), but of course it probably would mean the same parliament we have now, with a few more list NDP, and Greens predominantly winning the list seats.
A parallel system, where you have a small governing council elected via strict PR, put the party leaders and cabinet in one room, and have local politicians serving as much more independent voices for their community would probably be ideal..
Other WISHES..
AN END TO THE WAT ON DRUGS
HIGH SPEED LIGHTRAIL IN URBAN CONNECTS
Allowing inexpensive mid speed electrics and light flex diesel vehicles onto the roads.
Protecting farmland
Better density legislation in developments.
...lots more. But I should stop quoting my own platform..
[quote=skeiseid
I'm for that!
Sneakers reference?
No - it's from Miss Congeniality.
But Sneakers too!
When the team hands over the decryption device they each ask for rewards from the government types...
Whistler: I want peace on earth and goodwill toward men.
Bernard Abbott: Oh, this is ridiculous.
Martin Bishop: He's serious.
Whistler: I want peace on earth and goodwill toward men.
Bernard Abbott: We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Martin Bishop: You're just gonna have to try.
Bernard Abbott: All right, I'll see what I can do.
Whistler: Thank you very much. That's all I ask.