At the last election. the Tory won majority with only 40% of the vote, witch make them almost not legitimate. It is why i ask witch system is the best to replace the current one.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
At the last election. the Tory won majority with only 40% of the vote, witch make them almost not legitimate. It is why i ask witch system is the best to replace the current one.
I think it's something you will have to read up on and decide for yourself. However, I think that instant runoff/the alternative vote is much superior to two round runoff systems. Its problem is that it still delivers fake majorities. I think that proportional representation is by far the best solution, although it means that we have to expect minority or coalition governments. Most of the rest of the world gets along with them quite well.
You might want to look at
http://www.fairvote.ca
A couple of books to read are:
Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction
by David M. Farrell
Palgrave Macmillan, 2001
and
How Democracies Vote, 4th edition
by Enid Lakeman
Faber and Faber, 1974
They should both be readily available on inter-library loan, or see
http://www.bookfinder.com
Doug Woodard, St. Catharines, Ontario
By 'the two turn system", Lafauve do you mean term limits?
And I don't mean to do a spelling flame, but was "witch electoral system" a Freudian slip?
By 'the two turn system", Lafauve do you mean term limits?
And I don't mean to do a spelling flame, but was "witch electoral system" a Freudian slip?
I think he meant a system like France in which there is a first turn that happens just as in our system, but if no one has a majority, then the two candidates with the most votes get to go at it in another turn, another election basically but just with the two biggest vote-getters (or candidates above a threshold, like 20-25% of the vote). It's more frequently used to elect presidents and the like, to make sure the candidate who wins has majority support over any of his opponents.
Let's say there's an Ontario riding in which Conservatives get 40% of the vote, the Liberal gets 35%, the NDP 20% and the greens 5%. In our system, the Conservative is elected. In a two turn system, the Conservative and the Liberal go in a second round, if the NDP and Greens mostly flock to the Liberal or abstain, the result of this second round might be Conservative 45% Liberal 55%, the Liberal is elected.
However, that system results in even less proportional results than FPTP, since third parties that can get 30-40% of the vote, enough to win in some ridings, may face a united opposition on the second turn and thus be locked out of parliament. For example, in France, that uses this system, the Front National (extreme right) may get some locally good results, but never a majority and on the second turn, basically anyone who voted for another candidate in the first turn votes against them.
Such a system does make arguments for strategic voting pretty moot (well, in the first turn) and it favors parties that polarize less the electorate. A party that gets 40% of the vote but is hated by the other 60% of the population can easily get a majority in a FPTP system, but in a two-turn system, it is quite a bit harder. So parties have to avoid alienating the supporters of other parties.
I am certainly in favour of the "Witch Electoral System." All that running in circles around under the stars (maybe in the nude!), chanting, and brotherly/sisterly love. Sounds a lot more fun than our current boring-old electoral system. Though trying to deterimine the difference - never mind the meaning - of a two turn or proportional Witch Electoral System is beyond the scope of my limited intelect.
It would be better to refer to the "Two Turn" system as the Runoff system, since that'w effectively what it involves...a first round of voting in which anyone can compete, followed by a second round in which the two highest-polling candidates compete in each district or riding...unless someone wins more than 50% in the first round of their contest.
Personally, I like the Mixed Member Proportional system used in Scotland and Wales.
Well, a two-turn system was just rejected in the UK by a 69 to 31 margin today. Probably due at least partially to the unpopularity of the government, in particular the Liberal Democrats who campaigned for it, but have been knocked around for their flat out lies before the campaign.
I'm not sure that was actually a two-turn system, because it only involved a single round of voting. Also, since it would still have only elected a single candidate in each constituency, it wasn't really THAT proportional.
Unless I miss my guess, I think english is not Lefauve's first language, so quips on spelling and such are maybe uncalled for.
Making fun of my evocative spellerizin' and such is always fair game, however, as english is my one and only language, such as it is.
I like the runoff system, myself. Though it drags out the electoral process a bit, and it introduces complications. Maybe a preference ballot. I don't know what you call that system-- but you mark your first choice, then second, so runoffs are instantaneish.
But as I will allways say on this subject, getting bogged down in details is what kills campaigns for proportional representation.
We need to keep it simple. We should just be demanding democratic reform. No more First past the post, no more appointed senate.
A good start would be to make all the ridings of equal size. However many eggs would have to be cracked to make this omelette...
I truly meant no slight to Lafauve. I was just enjoying pondering the idea of Canada switching its electoral system to Wiccanocracy. I hope you take my post in the spirit intended.
A good start would be to make all the ridings of equal size. However many eggs would have to be cracked to make this omelette...
Equal population size or equal geographic size? There's a huge difference there.
Ha ha equal geographic size LOL! The Tories would LOVE that!
No equal by population... rep by pop!
The base formula would have to be PEI = 1.
Ha ha equal geographic size LOL! The Tories would LOVE that!
No equal by population... rep by pop!
Look at a map of this last election -- with Skeena, Churchill, Western Arctic, Abititi-Baie James-Nunavik-Eeyou, Manicouagan, Timmins-James Bay, the Thunder Bay ridings, Nickel Belt, Algoma, Pontiac, virtually everything on the north shore of the St. Laurent in Quebec - on a sheer physical territory basis, the NDP gave the Conseratives a real run for the money. If Desenthe-Churchill River and Kenora had come through, the map would look overwhelmingly orange.
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/maps
A good start would be to make all the ridings of equal size. However many eggs would have to be cracked to make this omelette...
Equal population size or equal geographic size? There's a huge difference there.
We have high unemployment so we could just make the PEI number the base and add the seats we would need.
They averaged a little under 27,000 voters per riding so that should give us about 888 MP's. My city of Burnaby would get 6 MP's instead of the 2 we get.
If we went down to Nunavits level of 17,000 voters then we would elect 1,410 MP's and Burnaby would have 10 MP's.
WitchesDidIt.com
By 'the two turn system", Lafauve do you mean term limits?
And I don't mean to do a spelling flame, but was "witch electoral system" a Freudian slip?
No dyslexia! Sorry!
Unless I miss my guess, I think english is not Lefauve's first language, so quips on spelling and such are maybe uncalled for.
Making fun of my evocative spellerizin' and such is always fair game, however, as english is my one and only language, such as it is.
I like the runoff system, myself. Though it drags out the electoral process a bit, and it introduces complications. Maybe a preference ballot. I don't know what you call that system-- but you mark your first choice, then second, so runoffs are instantaneish.
But as I will allways say on this subject, getting bogged down in details is what kills campaigns for proportional representation.
We need to keep it simple. We should just be demanding democratic reform. No more First past the post, no more appointed senate.
Don't worry abou me i got a good sence of humour! which can take a lot of crack!
thank you for the consern. And you guest right, my first language is french.
If you wonder why i don't use google translate try this enter a complex sentence and translate from a language to an other several time. Watch the end result. You will laffe
Still, i think a lot about this matter, and the proportionnal system got a big flaw: it allow unellected people to have seat.
To balance the flaw of each system i think the best is having the common elected by a runnoff and a senate elected by proportionnal each system having a veto over the other a bit like the american system!
Open-list proportional systems allow voters to vote for every candidate.
Electoral systems are a relatively complex subject that is not suited to being decided by referendum. It's like having a particular system of equalization payments decided by a referendum. These kinds of complex issues should be decided by our elected representatives who can weigh the myriad of pros and cons of different systems. And if the electoral system chosen is found to have some flaws further electoral changes can easily be made in the future by our elected representatives. Electoral changes can be easily altered. There's no need to view electoral reform as a one-time event.
The two-turn system is usually called the two-round system in English speaking countries.
It has a huge flaw shown by the 2002 election in France where France was left choosing between only two right-wing candidates, the conservative Chirac and the nationalist Le Pen.
The Instant Runoff Vote is a much better multi-party majoritarian system.
But why should we be stuck with a majoritarian system that excludes many viewpoints?
The best way to go might be open-list MMP for the House of Commons and STV for the Senate.
The two-turn system is usually called the two-round system in English speaking countries.
It has a huge flaw shown by the 2002 election in France where France was left choosing between only two right-wing candidates, the conservative Chirac and the nationalist Le Pen.
The Instant Runoff Vote is a much better multi-party majoritarian system.
But why should we be stuck with a majoritarian system that excludes many viewpoints?
Right, majoritarian systems are only appropriate for positions such as a national president, in republics. It does not produce a representative legislature any more than FPTP.
The two-turn system is usually called the two-round system in English speaking countries.
It has a huge flaw shown by the 2002 election in France where France was left choosing between only two right-wing candidates, the conservative Chirac and the nationalist Le Pen.
The Instant Runoff Vote is a much better multi-party majoritarian system.
But why should we be stuck with a majoritarian system that excludes many viewpoints?
It is why i propose to have two system at the same time on different level! which can compensate for the flaw of the other! The house of common is more oriented Around the deputy job. And the senate who each party got the number of senator acording to the proportion of the vote. Each level got a veto over the other. Il will result a senate who is more for national matter and the house of common for regionnal matter.
Why keep the region oriented system? It because Canadians don't have the same need resource according to each regions. A stricly nationnal risk to flavor a region again an other. Just think of the ethernal Quebec Ontario Alberta competitions
Unless I miss my guess, I think english is not Lefauve's first language, so quips on spelling and such are maybe uncalled for.
Making fun of my evocative spellerizin' and such is always fair game, however, as english is my one and only language, such as it is.
I like the runoff system, myself. Though it drags out the electoral process a bit, and it introduces complications. Maybe a preference ballot. I don't know what you call that system-- but you mark your first choice, then second, so runoffs are instantaneish.
But as I will allways say on this subject, getting bogged down in details is what kills campaigns for proportional representation.
We need to keep it simple. We should just be demanding democratic reform. No more First past the post, no more appointed senate.
Don't worry abou me i got a good sence of humour! which can take a lot of crack! thank you for the consern. And you guest right, my first language is french. If you wonder why i don't use google translate try this enter a complex sentence and translate from a language to an other several time. Watch the end result. You will laffe Still, i think a lot about this matter, and the proportionnal system got a big flaw: it allow unellected people to have seat. To balance the flaw of each system i think the best is having the common elected by a runnoff and a senate elected by proportionnal each system having a veto over the other a bit like the american system!
Oh God no! No two chambers each vetoing the other, this is a recipe for immobilism. If you make it too easy to block bills and ultrapartisan politicians get power, they can bring everything to a halt. Look at the US, everyone knows their health care system is crap, but no significant reform has been done because of the ease for the opposition to block any kind of reform.
I don't understand what you mean when you say that proportional systems allow unelected people to have seats. Do you mean that you disagree with people voting for parties only and not for the representatives themselves? Like people vote for party A which gets two seats and so the party decides who gets them?
There is an alternative that permits both people voting for the politicians and more proportionality, the Single Transferable Vote, it's like Alternative Voting but with more than one seat per riding. So basically, you have maybe 5 or 7 seats by "riding" (more like region) and people rank the candidates in order on their ballots, and according to people's choices, you attribute all the seats, with politicians who have little votes for them getting dropped. It's complicated to explain, but it works well in practice, see Ireland.
It is why i propose to have two system at the same time on different level! which can compensate for the flaw of the other! The house of common is more oriented Around the deputy job. And the senate who each party got the number of senator acording to the proportion of the vote. Each level got a veto over the other. Il will result a senate who is more for national matter and the house of common for regionnal matter.
It's a good idea to have a strong separation of powers. It reduces the dictatorial nature of our politics. As it is our Prime Minister is a dictator whether their name is Harper, Chretien, Mulroney, or Trudeau.
Reducing the PM's power is imparitive.
Canada's biggest deficit is our current democratic deficit. I'd reccomend things like:
- Proporional representation.
- Abolish confidence measures.
- Recall.
- Citizens' initiated bills.
- Prime Minister's appointments be approved by Parliamentary committees
- Peoples' Question period over the internet.
- Prime Mnisters' question time like they have in the UK.
- Private members' day - once a week.
ETA: I'd vote for any party that proposed these reccomendations, even the Conservatives!
Unless I miss my guess, I think english is not Lefauve's first language, so quips on spelling and such are maybe uncalled for.
Making fun of my evocative spellerizin' and such is always fair game, however, as english is my one and only language, such as it is.
I like the runoff system, myself. Though it drags out the electoral process a bit, and it introduces complications. Maybe a preference ballot. I don't know what you call that system-- but you mark your first choice, then second, so runoffs are instantaneish.
But as I will allways say on this subject, getting bogged down in details is what kills campaigns for proportional representation.
We need to keep it simple. We should just be demanding democratic reform. No more First past the post, no more appointed senate.
Don't worry abou me i got a good sence of humour! which can take a lot of crack! thank you for the consern. And you guest right, my first language is french. If you wonder why i don't use google translate try this enter a complex sentence and translate from a language to an other several time. Watch the end result. You will laffe Still, i think a lot about this matter, and the proportionnal system got a big flaw: it allow unellected people to have seat. To balance the flaw of each system i think the best is having the common elected by a runnoff and a senate elected by proportionnal each system having a veto over the other a bit like the american system!
Oh God no! No two chambers each vetoing the other, this is a recipe for immobilism. If you make it too easy to block bills and ultrapartisan politicians get power, they can bring everything to a halt. Look at the US, everyone knows their health care system is crap, but no significant reform has been done because of the ease for the opposition to block any kind of reform.
I don't understand what you mean when you say that proportional systems allow unelected people to have seats. Do you mean that you disagree with people voting for parties only and not for the representatives themselves? Like people vote for party A which gets two seats and so the party decides who gets them?
There is an alternative that permits both people voting for the politicians and more proportionality, the Single Transferable Vote, it's like Alternative Voting but with more than one seat per riding. So basically, you have maybe 5 or 7 seats by "riding" (more like region) and people rank the candidates in order on their ballots, and according to people's choices, you attribute all the seats, with politicians who have little votes for them getting dropped. It's complicated to explain, but it works well in practice, see Ireland.
Like i sait regional vote are important each region of canada must be reprensented at equally but for chosed among people of the party. It mean that the people of the region where come from the deputy will be flavor by more representative that the other. Example where will come from the proportional mp for the ndp? Most plausible answer is Ontario which will be over represented. The example given for the mixed mode work well with country with more homogenious intrest but for canada we are too different from a region to an other to rely only on proportionnal system each region must be represented as well as each political view.
For the political deadlock there is one autority who is supreme to both level. It us the people with referendum and the supreme court for case where a referendum won't do an ok job!
Still a deadlock is not alway a bad thing it will force each party to dialog for a compromise.
If anyone is unaware of MMP, it involves electing some proportion of MPs in the traditional FPTP way. Then additional seats are assigned based on how many seats the party has and howmany wovted the party received.
I'll use the example of Saskatchewan from this week's election. For the purposes of the election, I will assume that half the seats are FPTP and half MMP top up seats. I will also assume that the Conservatives won six seats and the Liberals one, with seven top up seats to be assigned. Usually MMP systems have two ballots - one for the FPTP and one for the MMP. For the purposes of the illustration, I will assume people would vote the same way.
From here on in, we're dealing with real numbers.
Seat results: Con 6 / Lib 1 / NDP 0 / Green 0
Popular vote: Con 256,004 / Lib 38,981 / NDP 147,084 / Green 12,062
STEP ONE - divide each party's MMP votes by the number of seats they hold + 1
NDP 147,084 / Con 36,572 / Lib 19,490 / Green 12,062
NDP has the largest number, so the first MMP seat goes to the NDP.
STEP TWO - Recalculate the NDP's number - 147,084 / 2 = 73,542
NDP 73,542 / Con 36,572 / Lib 19,490 / Green 12,062
NDP has the largest number, so the second MMP seat goes to the NDP
STEP THREE - Recalculate the NDP's number - 147,084 / 3 = 49,028
NDP 49,028 / Con 36,572 / Lib 19490 / Green 12,062
AND SO ON
As it works out, the first, second, third, fourth and seventh MMP seats go to the NDP, while the fifth and sixth go to the Conservatives.
The final result for Saskatchewan then is:
Recalculate
The district MPs need not be elected the FPTP way like they are in Germany. They could be elected by runoff, AV, STV, or whatever.
The district MPs need not be elected the FPTP way like they are in Germany. They could be elected by runoff, AV, STV, or whatever.
FPTP is simpler, but AV gives perhaps a better chance of getting rid of an unpopular district MP.
I truly meant no slight to Lafauve. I was just enjoying pondering the idea of Canada switching its electoral system to Wiccanocracy. I hope you take my post in the spirit intended.
Oh, I know Ken and I didn't want to make anyone feel uncomfortable. It's just we have a reputation for this being a difficult place for new people to find a comfort zone, and I've always tried to be aware of that, when I see it, and I happened to notice Lefauve's join date. Which is not meant to make anyone feel uncomfortable again..... Just one of those things where saying something is probably not right, but saying nothing runs certain risks, too.
And now is probably a good time for me to stop talking, as I feel I have written myself into a corner.....
The problem with MMP is that it really creates two class of representatives, there's no way around it. You have MPs that were elected in given ridings, and MPs that have been elected from the overall vote, without being voted for personally. I think it does create a question of diffeence of legitimacy. Are the MPs electe directly in FPTP elections more legitimate than those elected through the proportional seats? I think many would say they are, or would feel that way, even if they don't say it.
Of the details of MMP, the question of whether you have a second vote or not is important. The votes you use to determine proportionality, are they the votes for the party candidates or a separate vote? The MPs who win for proportionality, are they drawn from thee "losers" in riding races or from a party list? If a "loser" is elected, since he ran for a given riding, are we in effect doubling the representation of that riding, which will have in effect two MPs?
It also still enshrines strategic vooting, at least in the FPTP part.
So anyway, I find it interesting, but I do notice problems with it.
Yeah but if you look at the Ottawa living NDP candidate, how is that any worse. I am happy she won, but it is weird for her to say she looks forward to visiting her riding. How is MMP any worse than that. I used the NDP to show a non partisan view of it.
The experience in Scotland and Wales suggests that the distinction between constituency SMPs / WAMs is minimal in the public mind.
The reason for a second vote for the list is precisely to undo or minimize the possibility of "strategic" voting at the constituency level.
I believe that the Scottish and Welsh systems allow for candidates to be nominated both in a constituency and on a list. If they are elected ina constituency, their name is simply ddropped from the list. The Scottish Tories had the interesting idea of creating their list entirely from constituency candidates, in order of the number of votes received in their constituencies. This was apparently not allowed.
Yes, there is a way around it. Bavaria uses open-regional-list MMP, and the Law Commission of Canada recommended a similar model for Canada, so all MPs have been voted for personally. The DGE in Quebec also looked at that option.
Even with the more common closed-list version, the myth that the public in Germany sees them as different was demolished by Prof. Louis Massicotte in an excellent study. (The French text has been moved somewhere.)
Yes, the Law Commission recommended a second vote. (Unlike the Charest government's first attempt at a model, which used the one-vote version.)
The Law Commission recommended they be from a list of candidates nominated in a region. (The latest DGE model suggests regions averaging 15 MNAs.) The German province of Baden-Wurttemberg uses the "best loser" model with ridings twice the size of ours. It works fine, except as you say, some ridings have only one MP, most have two, some have three, one even has four. But the additional MPs beyond the first one have actually been elected owing to votes from acrosss the region (Baden-Wurttemberg uses four regions), so they work for more than just the voters in one riding. The biggest problem with the Baden-Wurttemberg model is that every candidate has been nominated one at a time in a single-member district. That's good for local accountablity, but parties cannot so easily nominate a balanced group of candidates, with fair representation of women and cultural minorities. Baden-Wurttemberg has fewer women in their legislature than anywhere else in Germany.
I believe that the Scottish and Welsh systems allow for candidates to be nominated both in a constituency and on a list. If they are elected in a constituency, their name is simply dropped from the list.
So do Germany and New Zealand. Massicotte cited above says that is the key to MMP's practical success.
I've posted an example of how the Law Commission model would work on the May 2 votes here, and examples of who might be elected here.
The German province of Baden-Wurttemberg uses the "best loser" model with ridings twice the size of ours.
Is their any indication which form of MMP is most popular/appreciated in Germany? They have the most experience with MMP and they've tried different forms, so their opinion should carry a lot of weight.
Are Baden-Wurtemberger's more/less satisfied then Bavarians or Saxons, etc...?
The German experience with MMP should be one of the major guideposts for electoral reform in Canada.