Ontario's coming referendum on voting reform

53 posts / 0 new
Last post
Eduard Hiebert
Ontario's coming referendum on voting reform

 

Eduard Hiebert

I salute Rabble for all the coverage on the vitally important topic of electoral reform and Ontario's MMP referendum. How disappointing however, (September 21, 2007 Rabble column "Ontario's no-brainer referendum", that Rick Salutin, despite all his capacities, would sink this all important debate to one of rhetoric and personalistic truths (source of truth is
internal) and not raise the calibre of discussion to one supported by propositional truths (external truths independently verifiable).

First, both FPTP and MMP can be assessed and compared rationally on the bases of propositional truths which like the fact that 'the earth is not flat but round', are true, regardless of what the masses or Rick Salutin might think or believe.

Second, Rick Salutin and a host of others must be reminded that change is not synonymous with progress. With certainty, choosing MMP over FPTP is like jumping from the political pot into the fire. The following will also disclose why.

Third, Ontario's MMP model does not replace nor fix the antidemocratic vulnerabilities of FPTP, only masks and covers them up and together with the MMP fix, makes MMP even less democratic than FPTP alone. Accepting for a moment the numbers 90 and 39, under MMP 90 MPs will continue to be elected by FPTP and 39 by what more properly should be called the 'party proportional fix'. That is, under MMP all of the 90 MPs could be as antidemocratic, even worse than Rick Salutin's example of an undemocratic outcome where "Mr. 10 wins..., although 73 per cent of voters didn't choose him". Absolutely nothing in MMP addresses this democratic hole and no one can say so differently and make it stick!

Fourth, MMP's 'party proportional fix' adds numerous insults to injury and I will only mention two. i) Mixed Member Proportionality would introduce to Canada and Ontario a new unexplained notion of representation more correctly called 'the party proportional fix'. And the parties, through their top down decision making process are the ones who create the 'party list'. Irrefutably, in Ontario's MMP proposal, the party hierarchy and not the citizens who vote will determine which of the party elite insiders will get the 39 positions. ii) Categorically and systemically, the only fix MMP addresses is this new and really unexplained notion that parties somehow deserve a 'party proportional fix' and this concept of proportionality is
not accorded to any group of citizens. True citizen based proportionality would at least have fixes that address the underrepresented like gender parity, minorities, economic and regional diversity, etc. Under MMP these very real issues of underrepresentation are only met incidentally and as a function of what is in the best interest of party politics, optics and spin. How is the advancement of party proportionality, above and before addressing the true proportionality of citizen representation a democratic step forward?

Summing up points three and four, FPTP is still as defective as before and with larger constituencies under MMP, this makes FPTP's defectiveness actually worse. Thus from a democratic perspective the makeup of MMP includes FPTP plus the party proportional fix (ie MMP) which added together will be more defective than FPTP alone.

Fifth, and lamentably so, Rick Salutin comes within a hair and then fails to pinpoint FPTP's deficiencies when he adds "There's no runoff or resolution." FPTP's vulnerability to splitting and dividing the will of the people into smaller pieces so that an elite minority appears as if the largest group arises from the fact that FPTP, even when there are more than two choices, is a single mark ballot with all the ballots than counted and compared using a relative majority system. Rick Salutin's example of an antidemocratic FPTP election could easily and simply be corrected by allowing people to vote preferentially, voting 1, 2, 3 and then insisting if no candidate gains an absolute majority (more than half) on the first pass, the second choices and if necessary the others will be counted until one candidate has a true majority. In this way each and every single ballot contributes exactly one vote to the final outcome, no votes are 'wasted' as 100% of the ballots are counted AND COUNT as a vote for or against the elected candidate, with the majority of those who voted having confidence in the one elected... Proponents of MMP may make similar claims but those statements are not supportable by propositional truths.

Sixth, and I will leave it here, Rick Salutin offered no propositional truths in support of his claim that MMP is "one small step for democracy". MMP requires that all of Ontario's 103 constituencies will be reshaped in order to arrive at 90 new constituencies. This reshaping of the constituencies is for party political insiders a perfect opportunity for further gerrymandering. Further, a part of the MMP election requires computerisation, and this as American elections display in spades, invites error and fraud that is not possible in a manual system.

In conclusion, moving from an FPTP voting system to voting 1, 2, 3... is truly one infinitesimally small step for the citizens to take administratively, but one huge step forward in democratic outcomes and all of this without increasing the perpetual annual cost of an enlarged MMP parliament, and without the costs (dollars and political) in rejigging 103 constituencies into 90.

The path that leads to genuine electoral reform means voting "no" in Ontario's referendum AND demanding as an interim step, FPTP be corrected by allowing people to vote 1, 2, 3 using the current ballot and if and only as necessary, in those constituencies where no absolute majority candidate is achieved, review as necessary the second and other preferences until a
majority supported candidate that at least meets the minimum test of "majority rule" is identified and selected as MR. or MS. 50%! And once we have more democratically elected MPs in parliament, then consider introducing true citizen based proportional fixes that are warranted and deserving!

For a more detailed analyses, please see the two papers on electoral reform available at [url=http://www.eduardhiebert.com/er]http://www.eduardhiebert.com/er[/url]

Sincerely,

Eduard Hiebert
St. Francois Xavier, MB

Brian White

I presume you mean using 1,2,3 in single member ridings until a candidate gets over 50%.
That is pretty old news and has been shown to be worse that fptp. You can shut out little partys even better with that system.
I am not a fan of mmp but definitely I believe it will get more voices into parliament. That is what we need. Not some skewed result.

Eduard Hiebert

Brian, my letter was posted here as I could find no way to make a reply to Rabble's September 21, 2007 article "Ontario's no-brainer referendum" by Rick Salutin. As a propositional truth, do you happen to know how a reader can post a reply to an article, as even the Rabble points of contact have failed so far to make any reply to my requests?

As to yours, would you mind leaving the rhetoric aside and spare me fallacious arguments like any alleged appeals to authority and give a brief concise factual example based on a few specific numbers where the preferential ballot system, beginning by voting 1, 2, 3 produces electoral outcomes that democratically speaking, are "worse that fptp"?

At its essence, your subsequently stated goal of "get(ting) more voices into parliament" is one of quantity. In addition to the correctives that I provided to Rick Salutin's article, of which you did not touch one of them, must I now also remind you that quantity is not synonymous with quality and that the rule by a majority supported candidate is qualitatively far superior to one by rule by a minority?

Eduard Hiebert

PS Brian,

I forgot to add, should your example be too large to reasonably post here, there is an excellent forum on different voting systems where you can enter your numbers and make ready comparisons. Entering them there and leaving a further link with your reply here might be the best way to move forward.

The just referenced site is found at [URL=http://www.votefair.org][/URL] Please note this ought not to be confused with FairVote, two entirely different sites and objectives.

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by Eduard Hiebert:
[b]And the parties, through their top down decision making process are the ones who create the 'party list'. Irrefutably, in Ontario's MMP proposal, the party hierarchy and not the citizens who vote will determine which of the party elite insiders will get the 39 positions.[/b]

False. Party members nominate candidates today, one at a time. This will continue for 70% of MPPs. For 30% party members will nominate and rank candidates several at a time. (New Zealand uses six regional nomination conventions, and then folds the six lists into one; while my guess is Ontario parties will want nine regional nominations.) This will produce more diverse nominations.

If you want citizens to have more control over the choices made by party members, then you should love the two-ballot model. Local MPPs are elected separately from the party vote. Strong local candidates can win seats while their party fails to win the riding. This in fact happened in 20% of local ridings in New Zealand's last election.

quote:

Originally posted by Eduard Hiebert:
[b]the only fix MMP addresses is this new and really unexplained notion that parties somehow deserve a 'party proportional fix'.[/b]

You mean voters for parties deserve fair representation in proportion to their votes. This "new" notion is the basis of all proportional representation systems used in Europe, since Belgium started it in 1899.

quote:

Originally posted by Eduard Hiebert:
[b]This reshaping of the constituencies is for party political insiders a perfect opportunity for further gerrymandering.[/b]

I have seen no evidence that Boundaries Commissions for Ontario have gerrymandered. They are staffed by expert professors and chaired by a judge.

quote:

Originally posted by Eduard Hiebert:
[b]Further, a part of the MMP election requires computerisation.[/b]

No, the results are totalled as today. Only the calculation of the proportion of the total seats requires any calculation, and it is a simple "highest remainder" that can be done by hand if you want.

quote:

Originally posted by Eduard Hiebert:
[b]voting 1, 2, 3 and then insisting if no candidate gains an absolute majority (more than half) on the first pass, the second choices and if necessary the others will be counted until one candidate has a true majority.[/b]

That's just another "winner-take-all" system which conduces to only two parties, and produces results even less fair than FPTP for those voters who support third or fourth parties. The Ontario Citizens' Assembly considered this option, but it got little support from OCA members.

[ 27 September 2007: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

Albireo

The first poster here has said many things about MMP that are inaccurate or misleading. For example:

quote:

Mixed Member Proportionality would introduce to Canada and Ontario a new unexplained notion of representation.

No, it is not new at all, and not unexplained. MMP and similar systems are in place in many countries around the world. New Zealand and Germany in particular are good comparisons, because they are developed countries with advanced democracies, and their MMP systems are almost identical to the one proposed in Ontario. New Zealand is an especially good example, because it is in the British parliamentary tradition (like Ontario and Canada), and moved from First-Past-the-Post to an MMP system just like the one before us. They are much happier with MMP than they were with FPTP, and they aren't going back.

And what happens with MMP in Germany and New Zealand? Nothing like what this poster and other critics of MMP say will happen in Ontario. Parties hold democratic nomination votes to determine their list order, and many parties make a point of balancing their list by region, gender, age and in other ways. The parties use the list to attract voters by putting their best face forward and including candidates who will appeal to a broad and diverse constituency. Parties that don't do this (say, if they arbitrarily appoint poor candidates, ignore a region, or put forward all middle-aged white males), will lose support as a result, or fail to gain it. Members who are newly elected via the list almost always work hard to establish support, open constituency offices, and serve citizens in an area where they will run locally, and try to knock off a local member of another party. The list provides a mechanism for parties to increase diversity and the number of women elected, that is exactly what has happened elsewhere. Women and candidates from various groups get elected via the party vote, and migrate to local constituencies.

quote:

... the notion that parties somehow deserve a 'party proportional fix' and this concept of proportionality is not accorded to any group of citizens.

People group themselves into parties to run for office. Most people decide their vote based on the party, leader or party policy, although a small percentage of voters pick the local candidate they like the most. MMP allows you to elect your individual representative (whether from the party you support, some other party, or an Independant). It also allows you to vote for the party you support, and ensure that the party standings will closely reflect the way citizens actually vote -- without the gross distortions of First-Past-the-Post. Governments are invariably formed by political parties, and to complain that MMP favours parties over any other group is like complaining that the NHL unfairly favours teams, because only teams can get points in the standings or win the Stanley Cup.

quote:

MMP requires that all of Ontario's 103 constituencies will be reshaped in order to arrive at 90 new constituencies. This reshaping of the constituencies is for party political insiders a perfect opportunity for further gerrymandering. Further, a part of the MMP election requires computerisation, and this as American elections display in spades, invites error and fraud that is not possible in a manual system.

This is desparate grasping to find a false reason to vote against MMP. Redistricting happens periodically anyway, no matter what, and will happen even if we keep FPTP. In fact, we *did* have blatant gerrymandering under FPTP in Ontario in the 70s, e.g. those long North-South strip ridings in downtown Toronto, designed to artifically inflate the number of ridings winnable by the party in power at the time. Avoiding gerrymandering is all about having a fair, open and impartial process to do the redistricting, but has little to do with whether or not we go with FPTP or MMP. If anything, MMP greatly *reduces* the temptation to gerrymander. Suppose one party rigs it so they get a few extra local members than they deserve. Well, MMP will make up for it by giving more of the list seats to other under-represented parties, so the offending party would gain nothing. FPTP, which doesn't have that fix, is more likely to encourage Gerrymandering. So this argument really directs people to vote for MMP, and against FPTP.

The point about computer fraud is equally absurd. Nothing prevents you from counting MMP ballots by hand. If anything, the system you propose makes computerization just as tempting, or more so, than MMP. In any case, there is nothing wrong with computerized counting, provided that there are proper safeguards, a paper backup for all votes, and the means of doing a recount of paper ballots. That is true under any system. The only example you allude to (electoral fraud in the US) is an example of alleged fraud under the First-Past-the-Post system, so I'm not sure how it counts as an argument in favour of FPTP and against other systems.

This poster uses terms "irrefutably" and "propositional truths (external truths independently verifiable)" -- but shows very little logic in his own very subjective and refutable arguments.

As for the system he proposes, variously called Alternate Vote, Preferential Ballot or Instant Run-off, I'll just quote myself from another thread:

quote:

Under that system you'd count the first preferences, and if nobody has at least 50%, drop the one with the least votes and distribute those votes to the next choice selected (if there is one). Repeat until somebody has 50%.

That is an excellent system in cases where you need to select only one winner, like a vote for Mayor, or President. It is such a good system for choosing ONE position that almost all Canadian political parties, federal and provincial, use it or something similar to select their leaders -- either preferential ballot among members, or the same process over multiple ballots among delegates. They wouldn't dream about using First-Past-the-Post for something as important as choosing their leader, because democracy within their parties is too important to throw in the garbage with a first-ballot winner with 30% support.

But preferential ballot is a poor system when citizens are electing a body of dozens or hundreds of legislators, like a national or provincial parliament, because the results will still be far from what people really want and really vote for. A party with a significant following (say, 10% of first choices province-wide) will still be unrepresented in the legislature. A somewhat larger party (e.g. with 18% of first-choice support) will still be under-represented. And the leading party, who has large minority support (say, 35-48% of first choices), can still get a big majority government with 100% of the power.

Even in a parliamentary election, this system is somewhat better than FPTP, because it allows you to vote for a "non-contender" candidate/party in your riding, without fear of letting Joe GuyThatYouHate to win with 40% of the vote, as long as you rank other main contender(s) ahead of Joe. But it is still vastly inferior to proportional systems like MMP or STV, because those systems allow the elected body to reflect what the voters really want: their first choices, in the proportion that they have really earned support among voters. In a good proportional system, the legislature is much closer to reflecting what people really voted for. Alternate vote doesn't do this. It can actually be even *less* proportional than the current FPTP system, as votes migrate from what many voters really want toward the blandest centre party that succeeded in pissing off the fewest people.


[ 27 September 2007: Message edited by: Albireo ]

Brian White

There is reams of material to enable you to be better informed.
Please stop wasting people's time.

quote:

Originally posted by Eduard Hiebert:
[b]Brian, my letter was posted here as I could find no way to make a reply to Rabble's September 21, 2007 article "Ontario's no-brainer referendum" by Rick Salutin. As a propositional truth, do you happen to know how a reader can post a reply to an article, as even the Rabble points of contact have failed so far to make any reply to my requests?

As to yours, would you mind leaving the rhetoric aside and spare me fallacious arguments like any alleged appeals to authority and give a brief concise factual example based on a few specific numbers where the preferential ballot system, beginning by voting 1, 2, 3 produces electoral outcomes that democratically speaking, are "worse that fptp"?

At its essence, your subsequently stated goal of "get(ting) more voices into parliament" is one of quantity. In addition to the correctives that I provided to Rick Salutin's article, of which you did not touch one of them, must I now also remind you that quantity is not synonymous with quality and that the rule by a majority supported candidate is qualitatively far superior to one by rule by a minority?[/b]


Rod Manchee

While we can argue about specific details of MMP vs FPTP vs other alternatives, the point is that we have been stuck in a system for the past 150-odd years, with roots almost 1000 years ago. It isn’t sacred, and the idea of investigating other systems is what’s important. The one thing this whole process lacks is an evaluation mechanism, namely some plan to see how this works in practice, identify problems, and implement a solution. Like reviewing this and having a confirmatory referendum in, say, 3 elections or around 2020.

Me, I don’t think the MMP approach is perfect, but it’s light-years better than the current one and this referendum promotes the important idea that it is the idea of representation that is important, and the method of achieving it is mutable and can be improved upon.

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by Rod Manchee:
[b]The one thing this whole process lacks is an evaluation mechanism, namely some plan to see how this works in practice, identify problems, and implement a solution. Like reviewing this and having a confirmatory referendum in, say, 3 elections or around 2020.[/b]

The CA did not specify this because no legislature can bind a future legislature, but that's the expectation. New Zealand reviewed their system after three elections and made no changes. Scotland reviewed theirs just before their third election and the Arbuthnott Commission recommended two changes: use the New Zealand ballot (done), and design an open-list system before the 2011 election (pending.)

Rod Manchee

Perhaps it would have made it a slightly easier sell - suggesting to people that they were testing out the water, rather that leaving room for some opponents to suggest that we would be walking over a precipice - to have publicly set up some small assessment mechanism, like tasking the AG with setting up a small(one person) office to do ongoing analysis and monitoring, or awarding a contract to some academic(like someone at U of T or OISE or the Governance people at Ottawa U), just so the whole issue continues to have some life, rather than be seemingly finally determined by the referendum results. I’m not talking big bucks, in fact probably small is beautiful, but having a reference point for the next kick at this can would probably save a lot of senseless bickering(there’ll be enough of that anyway.)

Albireo

BTW I guess this was a drive-by... the first poster fired a few "propositional truths" at us and fled.

Michelle

quote:


Originally posted by Eduard Hiebert:
[b]Brian, my letter was posted here as I could find no way to make a reply to Rabble's September 21, 2007 article "Ontario's no-brainer referendum" by Rick Salutin. As a propositional truth, do you happen to know how a reader can post a reply to an article, as even the Rabble points of contact have failed so far to make any reply to my requests?[/b]

This is the way! That's partially what babble's for. Welcome.

Happy Happy

I was listening to the CBC on Friday and I heard one of those free political spots for the Communist Party. It ended with a plug for electoral reform - something like "Vote Communist, vote for MMP." I thought "great, all we need is for listeners to think a vote for MMP is a vote for Communism."

Eduard W Hiebert

I make several initial replies to several posts, hoping for some fill in the blank information in order to then make a more complete reply.

Michelle, as a Rabble moderator, I thank-you now already for coming forward when you did and providing your note of welcome! The only kind words I have received so far. And despite previous requests for technical support and information, which so far have remained unanswered, I do note with appreciation, that you waded with your words of welcome within 1 hour and 8 minutes of Albireo wallowing in his own perceptions of how well they warded of some kind of perceived personal attack when he wrote "the first poster fired a few (drive-by) "propositional truths" at us and fled."

Albireo, I am of the view that political discourse, if it is real and relevant takes place between real people. I am not sure if I should even dignify yours with a reply. However you stated "the first poster fired a few "propositional truths" AT US (emphasis added".

In your use of the concepts "us" and "them", who all do you see as the "us" that you were making reference to? Do these others know who you are or is this but a "virtual" us?

More specifically, do I know you by another name, as I certainly do not know the Albireo as identified by your profile. Do humour me with whatever logic that you possessed at the time you made your latest reply, which claims rather definitively that when I first posted my critique of Salutin, that you Albireo were part of my targeted audience?

Moving on, perhaps you or someone else could also identify to me whether, and if so how, does one review how many and or who has reviewed this thread? And what does the number in the post column before this thread's name, signify?

Brian White, after you posted something after mine, I asked if you could "give a brief concise factual example based on a few specific numbers where the preferential ballot system, beginning by voting 1, 2, 3 produces electoral outcomes that democratically speaking, are (bases your claims) "worse that fptp""?

You dodged providing answer and further added to your claim that "There is reams of material..." on point!

I will ask you kindly one more time, to cough up a factual example, at your hand or among the reams that you are aware of, that shows how Vote 123 is worse than the single mark relative majority system FPTP.

Wilf Day, you posted your reply to mine within 42 minutes of when I turned attention to Brian. What prompted you to make reply when you did? Someone also kindly let me know that one Wilf Day also made posts at the National Post. I note one Wilf Day also coursed through the OCAER discussion forums.

Would you please confirm whether these are all one and the same Wilf Day? And while you are at it, might you explain how you got throught the National Post registration process as neither the contact who drew my attention to yours there, nor I can make it through the registration process at [url=http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/ontarioelection/archive... Post[/url]

Eduard

Agent 204 Agent 204's picture

At the all candidates debate in Kitchener-Waterloo on Thursday, run by the K-W [i]Record[/i] and a couple of other media outlets, the organizers of the debate refused to allow Fair Vote Canada to distribute their literature. I wrote this letter to the editor upon returning home from that, but to date it seems not to have been published:

quote:

To the Editors,

Firstly, I would like to commend the [i]Record[/i] and the other organizers for an excellent job in moderating the Kitchener-Waterloo all-candidates debate. The format was very good for keeping the debate civil- there were no shouting matches, though there were plenty of pointed questions- as there should be in a political debate.

However, I must condemn the decision to prohibit Fair Vote Canada from distributing their literature at the event. If fairness was the issue, it should be pointed out that the No campaign was presumably aware of the debate and could easily have set up a table, as Fair Vote wished to. Given how poorly publicized the upcoming referendum on electoral reform has been, it is unconscionable that the organizers of an election debate should exclude an organization running a campaign that is intimately tied with the election campaign.

I urge everyone to inform themselves of the issues surrounding electoral reform, so as to be able to make an informed decision on October 10.

Sincerely,
(me)


We'll have to see if they actually print the darn thing.

Achiever

Eduard,
You seemed all serious about debating this and you still claim to be, yet you seem pretty hesitant about engaging the critiques of your original post.
Both Albireo and Wilf have used quotations from your post and critiqued them. Why not have a go at what they had to say? I mean, don't worry about Brian when Wilf has already himself posted, what seems to be a valid criticism of the 1-2-3 system.
Also, chiding people for personal attacks when you yourself continually use a quotation from another poster that is obviously a typing error is, well...

Scott Piatkowski Scott Piatkowski's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Eduard W Hiebert:
[QB]IWilf Day, you posted your reply to mine within 42 minutes of when I turned attention to Brian. What prompted you to make reply when you did? Someone also kindly let me know that one Wilf Day also made posts at the National Post. I note one Wilf Day also coursed through the OCAER discussion forums.

Would you please confirm whether these are all one and the same Wilf Day? And while you are at it, might you explain how you got throught the National Post registration process as neither the contact who drew my attention to yours there, nor I can make it through the registration process at [url=http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/ontarioelection/archive... Post[/url]
/QB]


First, Wilf posts all over the place on electoral reform. He's interested in the topic. So what?

Second, I don't think you can post something on a discussion board (particularly something containing false assertions) and then try to decide who gets to respond to it.

Erik Redburn

Besides which, attacking another's position by attacking their character via supposed association with others who happen to share the same venue is a cheap rhetorical trick, and a feeble distraction from the actual arguments made. If this the best that anti-PR campaigners can do then it just might have a chance after all. The 1-2-3 alternative offered instead is only appropriate for leadership conventions where only one choice can win.

Albireo

quote:


Originally posted by Eduard W Hiebert:
[b]Do humour me with whatever logic that you possessed at the time you made your latest reply, which claims rather definitively that when I first posted my critique of Salutin, that you Albireo were part of my targeted audience?[/b]

The logic I possessed was this: you posted on a public message board, and I am a member of that message board, so I have the right to read your post and respond to it. Do I and other members not have the right to reply, especially when you have posted half-truths and mis-truths about an issue that we care about?

I made no division into "us" and "them", as you creatively claim. The "us" that I referred to are regular posters on babble, who often see new members show up with a big proselytizing post or two on a single issue, and soon disappear. I thought that was your case, and that you were not going to answer the substantive replies to your post. I was half wrong, and half right: you did reappear, but then, you completely ignored the many and valid arguments against your position.

You criticize me [i]only[/i] for my brief one-line second post, but have absoloutely nothing to say about my detailed first post, which carefully explained why you are wrong about MMP, why some of your arguments are invalid, and why your preferred system is a poor choice for a Legislature or Parliament. Wilf also directly addressed and rebutted some of your main points. But you have no response to these arguments. Instead, you come back with points like: [i]Why does "Albireo" not sound like a real name?[/i] (when 95% of posters on babble do not post under their real full name), and [i]Why did Brian White not address my points?[/i] (when others did, and you seem to have no response), and why Wilf chose to reply exactly 42 minutes after your post, and how nobody jumps right up to answer your questions about posting here.

And yet, Wilf's first post and mine were real rebuttals of your first post, but so far you have nothing to say in response.

Eduard Hiebert

To borrow a line, "My, how time flies! I haven't been back here for a while and I am way behind on reading the posts."

So said one Wendy Bergerud, in defence of her earlier post when she had burst upon and thrust herself into the midst of a forum when the Ontario Assembly Forum was still in operation, and having planted diversionary unsupportable thoughts, then stayed away for a considerable period of time.

When she did come back, she did confirm the quote I attributed to her in reply, namely that during her participation as an BC Citizen Assembly member she had advanced the rather insightful question "Would you agree that MMP mixes two of the worst systems together: constituency seats selected by plurality votes and closed-list PR where the party leadership chooses who is at the top and their list?"

I would add, that insight is a least as valid today as it was then or even earlier in BC and am appreciative that she could say so much with so few words!

Fyi, the line I borrowed above was posted by Wendy on April 24, 2007 with the full before and after context available at
[url=http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/forum-public/threadView.aspx?id=75... OCAER forum[/url]

To the extent I reviewed her posts there, I found no evidence of her ever disclosing her institutional interests in electoral reform. However, FairVote's site trumpets that Wendy Bergerud, is now a member of Fairvote's "15-person National Council... responsible for setting strategic direction and policies for Fair Vote Canada"!

I am posting this for several reasons. One, by posting something, this is the only way to find out if this post still allows further postings. Two, raise the contradiction that a high ranking member of FairVote formerly sees MMP for what a poor system it is but now unexplainedly has come, via FairVote to endorse MMP. Three, a Rabble poster accused me of a driveby, in that I initiated a post and did not respond as quickly as he would like for his ongoing sportive contributions... Maybe before you judge me too quickly, please consider extending to me the same measure of respect and patience I am sure you would extend without question and without reminder to Wendy.

Eduard

Bookish Agrarian

Why someone from Manitoba feels they can demand answers of officials in Ontario on an Ontario issue is beyond me. Be interested, follow the issues, even post opinions but you have no right to demand of anyone.

Eduard Hiebert

Dear Bookish Agrarian,

From the little that you self disclose of yourself, I will make a "stab in the dark" and address you further as Bruce.

So Again...

Dear Bruce and by way of parallel, to all the other partial or completely anonymous posters on this thread, including in part the Rabble moderator:

So Bruce, to what purpose in your attack of my person through your use of an adhominem attack? Are you fearful that your position is that weak that that is the only way you can deal with the substance of my posting?

By the way, according to the Rabble membership, by your actions you have just violated your promise made in becoming a member to deal with the argument and not the person. Furthermore, I am guessing, but if yours is in tandem with some of the other prior posters, I would urge you to review this site's policy on trolling.

I am also disappointed in Rabble's unidentified moderator, who in her previous post, except for one given name, in my view as you carry out your watchful ear, you have held back your punches when you interceded when the traffic clearly, as I read them, violated the stated policy of participation on this site. Instead of a deserved dressing down, their's were left unmodified, except to extend words of belated welcome.

Maybe that is all part of the hidden and non public rules of this site. When people of good faith with an alternative view from your's surface, it's as if the attack dogs come out and in the case of this thread, they even started to publicly lick the bones they thought they had taken hold of.

But again, all of this is diversion from the real substance of honest political debate and discourse of which I see so little on this site. Though to be sure I see bits and pieces of honest inquiring minds, but too often they are either ignored or if too warm for comfort, some form of insult is used instead of a logical and substantive argument.

So Bruce, I single you out for several reasons. In your case, more than the others, I would be willing to bet a dollar to a donut hole or two that your trite opinionated piece would never have been sent, if you knew that you could and would be held accountable. So I would like to give you an opportunity for an apology before I say more on the matter.

And through this, I would also like to give encouragement to those, who like me, see many pitfalls in the MMP option, please be encouraged not to be intimidated into silence, for of what I have seen so far, there is virtually no substance provided in support of MMP that would withstand the light of day beyond the many positive wishful things being said of MMP.

Now Bruce, let's assume even when properly identified you honestly felt I had no business making my post. However yours is only a slur with no shred of evidence to suggest there are any grounds behind your vitriolic attack.

Allow me one or two reasons to calm your insensitive outburst. First, it makes little difference where I come from physically in order to debate the lack of merit behind MMP. To be sure, I have self-identified myself as coming from Manitoba. You have not provided any location. So what right do you have, given the rule you have tried to advance? Hypocrite?

But through yours, I assume you have betrayed your anonymity that you in fact come from Ontario. Correct?

More seriously, Canadian law, both federally and provincially are quite interrelated and interwoven thanks as well through a fairly common legal system and one supreme court through which, what becomes legal precedent in one province, also becomes the law of the land in another province. Poster Wilf Day within this thread and whom I intend on redressing later as well, ought to be able to correct this, if I have erred a mite or too.

Thus in short, I am of the view that should Ontarians be tricked through a whole lot of buffoonery and empty logic into accepting MMP, it would only be a matter of time that Canada federally and many provinces like my own would follow.

So Bruce, I really do not understand why you with the stature I assume embraces your real identity, why here in this forum you act so provincially challenged?

May the honest but intimidated take heart and find your own feet and ground. Stay tuned! I will be back! And make one further reminder, in application of an agrarian metaphor that Bruce might want to explain if not understood, I really do not wish to chew my cud again and ask that you too provide the requested but still unanswered information.

Eduard

Le T Le T's picture

Dear Eduard,

It is completely inappropriate to behave the way that you are behaving in this form. It is also very annoying.

You came onto rabble like four posts ago and you have proceeded to lecture a number of long-time posters about completely irrelevant issues. You refuse to engage anyone in a discussion about ideas despite the fact that you started this thread. Many people have put a lot of thought into answering your posts and you can only respond with condescending bullshit and trying to "out" people by guessing their real names.

Please treat the members of this board with the respect that they have shown you.

Scott Piatkowski Scott Piatkowski's picture

Ditto

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by Rod Manchee:
[b] The one thing this whole process lacks is an evaluation mechanism, namely some plan to see how this works in practice, identify problems, and implement a solution. Like reviewing this and having a confirmatory referendum in, say, 3 elections or around 2020..[/b]

That should give our phony majority old line parties time enough to sign away Canada's economic sovereignty behind closed doors, and for the U.S. corporatocracy to fully entrench itself in our country. By then the authority of our elected governments will be reduced to collecting taxes and rent on behalf of absentee corporate landlords.

Eduard Hiebert

Fidel, I appreciate you getting back to something substantive and a very real concern whether we use MMP or FPTP. And in a way fptp is to MMP as the liberals are to the conservatives (at the federal level) they both have similar corportistic aspirations except the conservatives and MMP would get us there faster.

Between your post and info, I was prompted to want to send you an article I thought you might really enjoy but you accept no private mail.

Two alternatives, turn your switch on for a while and let me know via a private posting or better still send me a point of contact via [url=http://www.eduardhiebert.com/er]my posted site on electoral reform towards genuine reform that what help preclude the kind of future you forsee.[/url]

Eduard

Michelle

Eduard, your behaviour in this thread is quite inappropriate.

Here's how this discussion forum works:

1. When you post a topic, everyone on the forum is welcome to respond to it. You don't get to choose who responds to your posts. Everyone is allowed to respond to your posts.

2. People are allowed to use aliases here. You are not allowed to attempt to "out" people or demand that they divulge their identity, or make public "guesses" at their identity. Don't do it again.

3. People on babble often post on other forums. Wilf can post wherever he likes.

3. As a new person to this forum, you're joining a community of people who enjoy having discussions about political and other issues of the day. It's pretty rude of you to join the forum and, having clearly not read many of the threads here, claim that there is no political debate here (there have been umpteen threads on MMP and STV and other electoral systems with lots of substance in them), and demand that the forum be run to your specifications.

Maybe you should read through some of the threads and get a feel for how this community of people interact with each other before making judgements and demands. You need to show some respect for the community you've joined.

Wild Bill

First post, so please excuse any awkwardness with the mechanics of this board.

Last night I watched a repeat of the TVO debate about MMP, with Steve Paikin. This reinforced my belief that the real debate is not over electoral reform but rather who does or does not trust our "system" to honourably implement reform.

In virtually all such debates I've watched this past while the discussion always ends up with even the detractors of MMP agreeing we need reform but everything hangs up on the list method being controlled by the parties.

One side claims that list MPP's would be beholden to the party rather than voters, and would likely be just hacks and bagmen (like Senators!). The other replies that a party wouldn't dare do that for fear of driving voters away.

"Albireo" said as much in an earlier post:

"And what happens with MMP in Germany and New Zealand? Nothing like what this poster and other critics of MMP say will happen in Ontario. Parties hold democratic nomination votes to determine their list order, and many parties make a point of balancing their list by region, gender, age and in other ways. The parties use the list to attract voters by putting their best face forward and including candidates who will appeal to a broad and diverse constituency. Parties that don't do this (say, if they arbitrarily appoint poor candidates, ignore a region, or put forward all middle-aged white males), will lose support as a result, or fail to gain it. Members who are newly elected via the list almost always work hard to establish support, open constituency offices, and serve citizens in an area where they will run locally, and try to knock off a local member of another party. The list provides a mechanism for parties to increase diversity and the number of women elected, that is exactly what has happened elsewhere. Women and candidates from various groups get elected via the party vote, and migrate to local constituencies."

I just can't agree. I'm an older guy and I've seen many times how parties handle such things. As with pay raises, they just all do the same thing!

When they do, how do you protest? If you're unhappy with the list protest why switch to the Liberals when they did the same?

For that matter, what if only one party played fair with its list, like the NDP? If you were upset with the Tories are you likely to be able to switch your vote to the NDP? There's more at stake than just the list. There's an entirely different party platform! Could a Tory voter stomach voting NDP in protest over only the list process? Or an NDP voter to switch to Tory?

No, I predict that if the system were adopted we'd see a corrupt list system with disgusting speed!

It was also very interesting to hear Marilyn Churley talk of how the MMP system came from a panel chosen at large that worked on the MMP proposal over the past year. That apparently means that being given not just a point of discussion but a yes or no option to swallow their entire new plan is somehow both democratic and a done deal. When she said things in that vein my eyebrows climbed up over my head and all the way down to the back of my neck!

As I started, it always seems that those against MMP do so because they don't trust the parties to play fair with the implementation. Those in favour seem to be much more trusting and unable to understand that there are those who share in the distrust.

Me, I've seen enough over the years that I can never give blind faith again! I'm not against reforming our system but there's just no way I can vote in favour of what's being offered at this ballot.

Cueball Cueball's picture

It is already corrupt. And 96% of all voters already vote on the basis of party affiliation, not the candidate. The candidate is a secondary consideration, so the idea that having a list determined by the party adds to corruption is moot, since most people are voting for the party, itself.

This way you can vote for the party, and also a candidate, seperate from the party, moreover the party itself will be better represented in the legislature.

[ 09 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Eduard Hiebert

Michelle, Rabble Moderator Babbler # 560:

I acknowledge seeing your post directed to me dated yesterday.

Based on Rabble's code of conduct policy as used when I "signed-on" during the registration process, you and I are on two very different pages.

As a general statement, I would have thought a quiet private word, instead of publicly pronounced judgment would have been more appropriate, particularly in view of the following information of which you know or likely ought to have known.

However, before I begin making reply to yours, I will state equally publicly, should I have crossed the line on Rabble's written policy, based on specific actions to be identified to me and which contravene that policy, I will, without hesitation make public apology on this thread.

In case you missed it from my posts, even though you eventually made reply to one of mine earlier, I only entered the forum and started this thread when I could not find a place to leave a "letter to the editor".

Before posting, I had to "sign" a declaration regarding Rabble's code of conduct policy, which, based on Rabble's written policy, I am lead to believe this is current policy, which not only applies to me, but to all who have signed on before I did.

The following are selected extracts from the Rabble policy statement I received during the sign-on phase. I have enumerated them alphabetically:

a "You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this discussion board to post any material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory.

b "You agree to avoid personal insults, attacks and mischievous antagonism (otherwise known as "trolling").

c "You will not post material that is inaccurate, abusive, hateful, harassing, obscene, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy or otherwise violative of any law...

d "We reserve the right to suspend posters who have provided false information for their profile.

e "The moderators of this board routinely close threads for the following reasons: ...

The thread has become off-topic, abusive, or argumentative to the point that civil discussion cannot be resumed;"

Dear Moderator, since my first attempt to sign on, I have encountered several technical and other problems, as referenced in earlier posts along with a formal letter I sent to Rabble regarding Rabble's written code of conduct policy and cited several examples of behaviour within this thread which I see as having contravened that policy.

My formal letter, dated September 30, 2007, reads in part:
(a) "Rabble has a specific policy against trolling... and
(b) The ability for anonymous posts is also highly questionable (bases your policy) and I am also surprised that even your moderators can maintain virtually 100% anonymity."

Even now, I have not received even so much as an acknowledgment, much less answer to my letter.

1 Through your chain of command, will you please help expedite reply to my letter?

Now, without any hint or prior warning, you make a very public judgment of my behaviour and assert certain rules of conduct. They may be official Rabble policy, however I have not been able to find any reference to the ones you raise.

2 Would you please provide the complete paragraphs which support your claims, including public links to the whole document?
3 With reference to your #2 and the use of aliases, your assertions seem to be contradicted by Rabble's written policy as quoted in "d" above. Would you please explain?

4 With reference to your #1, your's sounds like anything goes but this seems to fly in the face of all of the quoted rules including even when a person is completely off topic, yet these assertions seem to contravene Rabble policy in "e" above.

My assumption is, if someone is lost or off topic, you would gently, preferably first privately than if necessary publicly, ask them to fall in line. My letter of September 30, raises such matters quietly and in a face saving manner for all concerned, yet I am still without reply. Would you please review and get back to me?

5 With reference to your #3, what in mine prompted yours? It goes without saying and I would agree, neither you, I, nor anyone else in this forum ought to try and restrict someone else from participating in some other forum. Such a request seems to be entirely none-sensical. Please clarify what in mine prompted yours?

6 By way of reference to another post
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=006811]On... Referendum Oct. 10th Appointed, not Elected?[/url]
you made the following statement and I quote:

"For those of us on the "yes" side,... QUITE A FEW OF US HERE are either very involved (like Wilf and I) (sic) or somewhat involved in the MMP campaign... and haven't heard our convincing counter-arguments. (emphasis added but not the reference to Wilf Day and you)".

None of your involvement on the "yes" side was disclosed by you in this thread. Seems to me this raises questions of bias and wondering whether this raises any questions in your mind whether it is even appropriate for you to be moderating this thread?

Please make reply relatively expeditiously so that this cloud may be addressed and once having done so, we can all move forward and be on the same page within the spirit of Rabble's policy on participating in these forums.

Eduard

Brian White

So you are happy with the corupt system you already have? good for you?
What about the green voter who never gets to elect anybody?
Or the NDP voter who is only half as likely to elect someone as a liberal or Tory?
You SHOULD be voting for MMP to enable these people. It has nothing to do with the corupt established partys.
It has everything to do with being fair to the little people.
Are you being fair?

quote:

Originally posted by Wild Bill:
[b]First post, so please excuse any awkwardness with the mechanics of this board.

Last night I watched a repeat of the TVO debate about MMP, with Steve Paikin. This reinforced my belief that the real debate is not over electoral reform but rather who does or does not trust our "system" to honourably implement reform.

In virtually all such debates I've watched this past while the discussion always ends up with even the detractors of MMP agreeing we need reform but everything hangs up on the list method being controlled by the parties.

One side claims that list MPP's would be beholden to the party rather than voters, and would likely be just hacks and bagmen (like Senators!). The other replies that a party wouldn't dare do that for fear of driving voters away.

"Albireo" said as much in an earlier post:

"And what happens with MMP in Germany and New Zealand? Nothing like what this poster and other critics of MMP say will happen in Ontario. Parties hold democratic nomination votes to determine their list order, and many parties make a point of balancing their list by region, gender, age and in other ways. The parties use the list to attract voters by putting their best face forward and including candidates who will appeal to a broad and diverse constituency. Parties that don't do this (say, if they arbitrarily appoint poor candidates, ignore a region, or put forward all middle-aged white males), will lose support as a result, or fail to gain it. Members who are newly elected via the list almost always work hard to establish support, open constituency offices, and serve citizens in an area where they will run locally, and try to knock off a local member of another party. The list provides a mechanism for parties to increase diversity and the number of women elected, that is exactly what has happened elsewhere. Women and candidates from various groups get elected via the party vote, and migrate to local constituencies."

I just can't agree. I'm an older guy and I've seen many times how parties handle such things. As with pay raises, they just all do the same thing!

When they do, how do you protest? If you're unhappy with the list protest why switch to the Liberals when they did the same?

For that matter, what if only one party played fair with its list, like the NDP? If you were upset with the Tories are you likely to be able to switch your vote to the NDP? There's more at stake than just the list. There's an entirely different party platform! Could a Tory voter stomach voting NDP in protest over only the list process? Or an NDP voter to switch to Tory?

No, I predict that if the system were adopted we'd see a corrupt list system with disgusting speed!

It was also very interesting to hear Marilyn Churley talk of how the MMP system came from a panel chosen at large that worked on the MMP proposal over the past year. That apparently means that being given not just a point of discussion but a yes or no option to swallow their entire new plan is somehow both democratic and a done deal. When she said things in that vein my eyebrows climbed up over my head and all the way down to the back of my neck!

As I started, it always seems that those against MMP do so because they don't trust the parties to play fair with the implementation. Those in favour seem to be much more trusting and unable to understand that there are those who share in the distrust.

Me, I've seen enough over the years that I can never give blind faith again! I'm not against reforming our system but there's just no way I can vote in favour of what's being offered at this ballot.[/b]


Eduard Hiebert

Wild Bill, I appreciate your post and draw to your attention how quickly an argument showed up that does not hold any water.

Turnging to Brian White's post after I initiated this thread and endorsed the vote 1, 2, 3... method as being superior to fptp, you wrote the following:

"I presume you mean using 1,2,3 in single member ridings until a candidate gets over 50%."

This indicates to me that you understood I was advocating a majority rule system, and not a fptp system that is very vulnerable to vote-splitting and endorsing minority rule or phony majorities.

You then continued:

"That is pretty old news and has been shown to be worse that fptp."

I then asked you to provide a simple mathematically example which supports your statement. You have refused to make reply because I believe you can't and two rather avid "yes" side supporters who saw you treading water came to your rescue by trying to divert attention to several other strawmen attacks of my post. However, since then I see you made the following post in the thread

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=001903]Does voting for MMP hurt democracy?[/url]

"40 voters should not be allowed to outvote 60 voters.
It is obscenely wrong.
Perhaps there could be a pledge.
I pledge to defend the rights of citizens to parity of voting.
Making 40 votes equal to 60 other votes is the same as keeping 50% as the
threshold but giving the 40 voters 1.5 votes each!
Nobody would accept it if it was written in those terms."

Seems to me you have some explaining to do that the others who jump in and divert attention know you can not have answer that would hold water.

And I wonder if you will be given an opportunity to answer, or if some other diversion appears out of nowhere again.

Fidel

I think people like Wild Bill forget that one of the most compelling cases for proportional systems in general is that addresses the tendency for phony majority autocratic governments to take voters for granted.

And, an estimated 2.5 million of about 4.5 million voters in Ontario will elect no one. That's a colossal waste of votes and an open invitation for a would-be phony majority government to ignore them and their concerns for four long years.

[ 09 October 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Eduard Hiebert

Fidel, I could not agree more with your intended goal that all phony majorities at the individual seat level and for all of parliament ought to be and can be eliminated.

However, you have made no case beyond wishful thinking that MMP can do what you and I both want.

If you but stop and think about the contents of MMP, it is really two fptp systems put together. If you don't believe me, a high ranking Fairvote person said almost that much when she was an assembly member in the BC assembly.

Her full quote and a logical argument showing how MMP is really fptp repackaged, please see the forum [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=31&t=000668&p... bad! MMP worse! Vote 1, 2, 3... eliminates vote-splits, overruns and phony majorities [/url]

Eduard

Bookish Agrarian

quote:


Originally posted by Eduard Hiebert:
[b]Dear Bookish Agrarian,

From the little that you self disclose of yourself, I will make a "stab in the dark" and address you further as Bruce.

Blah Blah Blah
[/b]


You have every right to post your views, within the boundaries of the board. You do not have the right to demand repsonses, or that others bend to your views and whims. That is not an ad hom attack that is pointing out manners.
You also do not have the right to attack people in Ontario who are working on an Ontario issue. I stand by that and will not apologize for suggesting that it is not your place to do that, just as it would not be my place to attack (which is what you are doing, not discussing) someone in Manitoba working on a Manitoba referendum or issue.
Disagree all you want, but you do not have the right to question good people's motives or ethics.

As for my identity it is none of your f-ing business. If I want you to know I will pm you. Many on here know my name as they have my trust and respect - you have not earned it. I am free to post my personal views, under whatever name I choose and those who do know me would tell you that I'm about as blunt in person as I was with you above. I really don't care who you are or who others are, except when we share on our own terms. In 3 years on babble I have never tried to 'out' anyone. For all I know you might be a 14 year old kid using someone elses name sitting in his parents basement being on babble between bouts of looking at ballon porn. If so, make sure you lock the door.

Eduard Hiebert

Bookish Agrarian, your latest post is rather dated. Did you not see the post addressed to the moderator of this post in which Babbles rules are cited?

You too are entitled to your opinion. Even the moderator who through self-disclosure in another post is very thick with the "yes" side knowing full well I was advocating a "no" vote after a few sticks and stones were thrown my way bid me welcome, so who are you to say I'm not?

More importantly I would encourage you to see how in law all of the provinces are interconnected. While it is correct you can vote in Ontario and I can't, which is as it should be, nonetheless including when the circumstances are reversed, if you have information that would enlighten Manitobans, would you hide it under a bushel?

Eduard

Albireo

quote:


Originally posted by Eduard Hiebert:
[b]1 Through your chain of command, will you please help expedite reply to my letter? ...
My letter of September 30, raises such matters quietly and in a face saving manner for all concerned, yet I am still without reply. Would you please review and get back to me?[/b]

Sir: your letters are currently being assessed by highly paid and otherwise idle staff at the palatial babble headquarters, as they are passed up the chain of command, from Michelle and oldgoat on to Rick Salutin, Judy Rebick, the ghost of Ernesto "Che" Guevara, and Mr Big. Once their response has been crafted by the letter-writing sub-committee, approved and amended by babble legal counsel and then passed unanimously by the babble collective, you will receive your response.

quote:

None of your involvement on the "yes" side was disclosed by you in this thread.

I can only agree with Mr. Hiebert here. Michelle should disclose every bias in every thread. If she is in favour of MMP, what other bias might she have? Maybe she is in favour of equal marriage, equal opportunities, public services, individual liberties, tasty desserts, and a damned good rock tune. What if she loves pickled garlic but hates pickled beets? Maybe she even works for a left-of-centre web site! All such bias should be disclosed in every single thread.

quote:

2 Would you please provide the complete paragraphs which support your claims, including public links to the whole document?

Furthermore, Michelle, please ensure that your response is thoroughly developed, well structured, free of typos, spelling errors, and with properly annotated references. Please use carbon paper to produce your thesis in triplicate.

quote:

Seems to me this raises questions of bias and wondering whether this raises any questions in your mind whether it is even appropriate for you to be moderating this thread?

You are right: after only 13 posts, you earned the right to dictate what the standards are here, and who should be moderating. After 24 posts, you'll be eligible to fire the babble staffer of your choice. After 100 posts, you get a free "MMP for me!" T-shirt.

Eduard Hiebert

This thread no longer appears on Babble's front page as a current site with activity. At least not when I look at it. Is this some kind of glitch and/or censorship?

And where is the little dohoo switch so that I get notices of any postings? Can't seem to find it?

Eduard

Albireo

quote:


Originally posted by Eduard Hiebert:
[b]This thread no longer appears on Babble's front page as a current site with activity. At least not when I look at it. Is this some kind of glitch and/or censorship?[/b]

The censorship just lifted, and this post is there on the front page right now!

Either that, or the front page lists the forums, and shows [i][b]the ONE most recent post in each forum[/i][/b].

You see, these are kinds of things that you can learn when you make the effort to actually observe a new place and figure out how it works, rather than just barging around like a bull in a china shop.

[ 10 October 2007: Message edited by: Albireo ]

Life, the unive...

It's a conspiracy man. I tell ya. The babble 'man' is trying to keep you down. Fight back. Spam the board, with argumentative comments without ever addressing the views of others that contradict yours. That'll make them stand up and take notice.

Michelle

Albireo is my new spokesperson. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Sorry, Eduard, I have no time to wade through all that right now. This is my moderating style, and I'm sure you'll get used to how the board works eventually.

[ 10 October 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Andrew Warren

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]I presume you mean using 1,2,3 in single member ridings until a candidate gets over 50%.
That is pretty old news and has been shown to be worse that fptp. You can shut out little partys even better with that system.
I am not a fan of mmp but definitely I believe it will get more voices into parliament. That is what we need. Not some skewed result.[/b]

Could someone please post one (or more) links to sites (or posts) that would explain this? Alternatively, could someone explain it here? I am unaware of the arguments for why preferential (aka 'ordinal') voting would be worse than 'First Past The Post' (FPTP)voting and how it shuts out little parties. I am an advocate for preferential voting especially as explained in [url=http://www.votefair.org,]www.votefair.org,[/url] but would love to know why it is considered worse than FPTP... if it is.

Agent 204 Agent 204's picture

Preferential voting (aka STV) is actually quite variable. It makes the tradeoff between proportionality and local representation quite stark. If you have single member ridings (this form is known as instant runoff voting) you lose out big time on proportionality; what tends to happen is that the party who occupies the centre (in Canada, the Liberals) usually does disproportionately well, because it tends to be everyone's second choice. With multi-member ridings (as proposed in BC) the proportionality works fairly well, at the expense of a degree of local representation.

Eduard Hiebert

Hello Andrew,

I myself am a recent participant to Rabble and wish to extend a special
welcome at several levels. Quite contrary to the written policy of Rabble,
most participants here hide behind aliases, including the moderator of this
thread (first name only, is no identifier and no assurance that even that is
correct information). You however have identified yourself which I will
take as your authentic proper name. Second, you have actually asked a
sensible question on topic to this thread.

I am also truly amazed that the next poster actually seems engaged to the
issue and is not diverting attention from the real issue at hand, which is
how do we get honest elections that give citizens the elected
representatives that are not a choice between mouse poison and rat poison,
but representatives of, by and for the people.

Turning to "Agent 204" I appreciate you advancing the discussion, not based
on empty opinion or wishful thinking as you clearly understand that Andrew
is addressing what you correctly clarify as "If you have single member
ridings (this form is known as instant runoff voting)"!

Compared to almost all the previous posts, you deserve a prize for advancing
discussion based on an earlier post that is "engaged" with subject matter at
hand.

Now further to yours and to set aside opinion in favour of fact, would you
please provide a simple electoral result that confirms your observations
that with IRV that a) "you lose out big time on proportionality; what tends
to happen is that the party who occupies the centre (in Canada, the
Liberals) usually does disproportionately well" and if necessary a second
example how you move to the following b) "because it tends to be everyone's
second choice."

Now "Agent 204", please don't take this the wrong way, but you at least
sound like you know what you are talking about, unlike Brain White earlier
who made a statement that simply can not be substantiated, and several
others, like clowns in a bull fight kept interrupting and letting Brian off
the hook.

In my books, facts replace opinion any day and if your example is to long to
post here, as I made offer to Brian earlier, there is a wonderful site which
is like ying to yang (sp?) of FairVote, where you can enter the data and
provide the results you are talking about. The site then translates your
date into different electoral outcomes, fptp, IRV etc. Please see [URL=http://www.votefair.org ]VoteFair[/URL]
and I look forward to further informed debate and
discussion.

Can someone tell me what went wrong earlier, as sometimes the urls come up correctly and others times not?

Eduard

Eduard Hiebert

I see the url again did not post correctly. What possibly is going wrong?

I'll try again. Please see [url=http://www.votefair.org]VoteFair[/url]

Andrew, another thread you might appreciate is

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=31&t=000668]FPTP bad! MMP worse! Vote 1, 2, 3... Stops vote-splits, overruns & phony majorities[/url]

I provide the full link, because noone has yet given me a credible answer why the front page (I signed up to get the display of the most recent 5 days) and not all most recent show up. And when I try and get a decent answer, well check it out and see how helpful some people hiding behind aliases are...

Eduard

Albireo

quote:


Originally posted by Andrew Warren:
[b]Could someone please post one (or more) links to sites (or posts) that would explain this? Alternatively, could someone explain it here? I am unaware of the arguments for why preferential (aka 'ordinal') voting would be worse than 'First Past The Post' (FPTP)voting and how it shuts out little parties. I am an advocate for preferential voting especially as explained in [url=http://www.votefair.org,]www.votefair.org,[/url] but would love to know why it is considered worse than FPTP... if it is.[/b]

Sure. That is an excellent system for choosing ONE POSITION only, like a mayor or a president. All of our political parties use some variant of it when choosing their leader (either ranked voting among members, or over subsequent ballots at a convention). There can only be one mayor, president or party leader, so taking people's 2nd (or even 3rd or lower) choices into effect makes sense.

But when you are electing a large governing body of legislators, like a parliament, it is important to represent people's FIRST choices well. A ranked voting system with only one winner per district (a system sometimes called "instant run-off" or "alternate vote" or "preferential ballot") will still squeeze out people who vote for a smaller party. If we had a system like that in place yesterday, the 8% of Green voters would still be completely shut out. The 17% of of NDP voters and 31% of PC voters would still be UNDER-represented, and the 42% of Liberal voters would still get a big majority of seats.

(Note that this system, with one winner per riding, should not be confused with STV, which has ranked voting and multiple winners per riding, and does a better job of including more choices, and more voices.)

This Instant Run-off system has even been used in general elections in Canada, having been imposed briefly in BC and (I believe) Manitoba, mainly as a scheme to keep the NDP out of power.

In some ways, this is better than pure FPTP, because it eliminates some strategic voting errors, but in other ways it is even worse, because it can amplify the distortions of FPTP, resulting in even bigger majorities for the blandest and most centrist party.

Proportional systems like STV and MMP do a much better job of representing what the voters really want, which is their first choice.

Albireo

quote:


Originally posted by Eduard Hiebert:
[b]I provide the full link, because noone has yet given me a credible answer why the front page (I signed up to get the display of the most recent 5 days) and not all most recent show up. And when I try and get a decent answer, well check it out and see how helpful some people hiding behind aliases are...[/b]

Just click on the forum that the thread is in, and look through that forum. It's not rocket science. No wonder you also have such a hard time with electoral systems.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

You sir are a pompous ass which is why you are being treated like one. But I will try to explain the workings of the board to you again (someone above tried).

STOP PRESSING THE "TODAY'S ACTIVE TOPICS BUTTON"

Now go top the main page and open any Forum and presto there will be the topics from the last 5 days.

Oh and by the way many of us have studied the issue for a long time so having someone like you tell us all generically that you are the source of all wisdom on PR is a bit of turn off to say the least.

Your comments that this board is supposed to be like facebook ie only real names are to be used is totally out to lunch. Do you always join groups and then tell them that the way they conduct their internal affairs is wrong wrong wrong?

Bookish Agrarian

I'm guessing yes

DonnyBGood

Someone pointed out that while 51% o the population voted for politicians 54% voted on the referendum issue. How is this possible or reasonable? You;d think there would be many more spoiled ballots onm the referendum than the election proper.

Is this true?

Pages

Topic locked