Vancouver area municipal elections Oct 20, 2018

NorthReport wrote:

Give your head a shake Ray. Not a good idea!

https://www.straight.com/news/1061021/raymond-louie-and-others-want-run-...

I wonder if Ray supports STV that would reduce the need for candidates to drop out and for voters to vote strategically?

Quote:

The Ontario Medical Association is in damage-control mode after its governing council voted against a motion to open meetings with an increasingly cited acknowledgement that they were being held on traditional lands of Indigenous peoples.

What does electoral reform have to do with an election that doesn't feature parties or seats?

Is it that the Mayor could win with (say) 40% of the vote?  And that's not a "majority"?

Because I'd personally kind of rather that than someone else winning because they were 80% of the voters' third choice.  I think there's a world of difference between the first choice and the third.  Or probably even the second.

Just curious here:  is there any flavour of PR in which a voter can choose the same candidate for first, second and third?

So:

First choice:  Bob Smith

Second choice:  Bob Smith

Third choice:  Bob Smith

Because I think politics are such that your second choice is notable only for being even better than your third.

First choice:  Ice cream!

Second choice:  Okra!

Third choice:  Moldy Okra! 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

What does electoral reform have to do with an election that doesn't feature parties or seats?

Is it that the Mayor could win with (say) 40% of the vote?  And that's not a "majority"?

Because I'd personally kind of rather that than someone else winning because they were 80% of the voters' third choice.  I think there's a world of difference between the first choice and the third.  Or probably even the second.

Just curious here:  is there any flavour of PR in which a voter can choose the same candidate for first, second and third?

So:

First choice:  Bob Smith

Second choice:  Bob Smith

Third choice:  Bob Smith

Because I think politics are such that your second choice is notable only for being even better than your third.

First choice:  Ice cream!

Second choice:  Okra!

Third choice:  Moldy Okra! 

Ranked voting systems like single-member IRV and PR-STV can allow voters to rank as few or as many candidates as they want. If every voter ranked just one candidate in an IRV election, the election would be identical to an FPTP election. The only difference would be that it would be the voters choice to rank only one candidate. Like NR mentioned, if a voter ranks only one candidate, that candidate remains in every round of the election until that candidate wins or is eliminated. IRV is similar to having many rounds of FPTP until a candidate obtains a majority vote on the last round. All of our political parties don't use FPTP for their own elections but instead use some form of multi-round voting.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Ranked voting systems like single-member IRV and PR-STV can allow voters to rank as few or as many candidates as they want.

OK.  But if I go with "Bob Smith" as my first choice and elect not to specify anyone else as my second or third choice, is is implied that Bob Smith is my second and third choice, just as though I had that option and ticked his box three times?

Or does the calculus assume I simply have no second or third choice?  By choosing only Bob, am I recusing myself from the second and third round?  Or can I vote for him as my second and third choice the same way other voters can?

If you go with Bob Smith as your first and only choice it is implied that he is your second, third, forth choice, etc... If there are ten candidates in the race, Bob would be your choice for up to nine rounds.

The most fair system for a single position is to give people the option of dividing their single vote into whatever percentage you want.  If you really really want ice cream vote 100/% for ice cream, knowing if ice cream doesn't win you have abandoned any say on other choices. As long as you know your wishes, the vote will be a summation of all choices. The reason it never gets any mention in real life is that it is absolutely impossible to impliment.  So we are stuck with systems that attempt to find the summation of all choices while being logisically possible.  None will be perfect; sometimes we end up with the Mulroney/Clark/Crosby dilemma, and other times it will be something else.  Clearly though FPTP is a substandard choice.

Kennedy Stewart Announces Vancouver Mayoral Bid (Youtube Video)

Two takeaways from this for me.

1. On the subject of demovictions, which Kennedy Stewart mentions it his announcement. It should be noted that almost all of the demovictions in Metro Vancouver are in the Metrotown area of Kennedy Stewart's own Burnaby South riding, where 6,000 low and moderate income residents living in 2-3 story walk-up apartments are in the process of being mass demovicted to make way for highrise condos that virtually none of these folks can afford. This represents the largest stock of "affordable" housing in Metro Vancouver, in a rental market with a .5% vacancy rate (as of 2016, I think).

Of the already demovicted residents of this neighbourhood, those that have found other housing have faced on average a doubling of their rents, and significantly longer commutes. Other demovicted Metrotown residents have not been able to find alternative housing, and have wound up homeless.

The Burnaby Citizens Association (BCA) council which is facilitating these demovictions, is an NDP farm team (BCA members must also be members of the NDP). Kennedy Stewart has so far refused to critcize Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan and his BCA council on this issue, saying that he thinks they are 'doing a good job'.

2. Kennedy running as an independent rather than with Vision Vancouver (he reportedly considered running as a Vision mayoral candidate) is significant. Since most of the attention in the election is on the mayoral race, it denies Vision the opportunity to use Kennedy's candidacy to help them rebuild their brand which has been damaged since the last election due to the out of control housing crisis. As someone who believes that Vision needs to face the consequences of their responsibility in allowing the housing crisis to spiral out of control on their watch, this is positive.

This of course does not stop Vision from running their own mayoral candidate, which they have said they intend to do. It does, however, make this a riskier proposition on Vision's part, as a Vision candidate would compete with Kennedy for votes, and run the risk of electing the NPA mayoral candidate (as yet unknown) on a vote split.

While I have nothing good to say about Corrigan in regards to treatment of vulnerable populations, demovictions are not limited to Burnaby. When I think of this, my first thought is Little Mountain in Vancouver. In Richmond we had a tennant who was reno-evicted at least 6 times. Winning her appeal of the eviction only to come home to a new eviction (she did win in the end). 

While there is much to like about Kennedy Stewart, there sure seems to be a white knight syndrome for mayoral candidates on the left - outsiders coming in to the rescue. I don't know how many times you can pull that off.

Quote:

The most fair system for a single position is to give people the option of dividing their single vote into whatever percentage you want.

That's actually an interesting idea, and I wonder if it's represented by any particular electoral model. 

"I give 70% of my vote to Party A, and 20% to Party B, and 10% to be equally distributed amongst all other parties".

Would it be "proportional"?

If not, would it be unproportional by design, or just in (potential) outcome?

If nothing else, it could best mirror how our brains work on election day.  "I like this candidate this much, but I also kind of agree with this other candidate, but there's still other stuff..."

Quote:

Plumping is actually something else in the dark art of politics.

It refers to the practice of voting for fewer candidates than the number of positions up for grabs.

It's a way of concentrating votes around the one or two people you really want to win.

But Vision Vancouver is not going to allow any plumping to occur at its nomination meeting at the Creekside Community Centre on Sunday (July 8).

Any ballots that don't include votes for four council candidates and two park board candidates will be rejected.

That means if supporters of the seven council aspirants think it's a smart idea to vote only for their preferred candidate, their ballot will be tossed into the recycling bin. (After all, this is Vision Vancouver, where members try to keep as much refuse as possible out of the waste stream.)

Huh.  I always thought that in a PR vote, you could choose as many or as few candidates as you wish.

What's the story here?  What's the urgent need for more "X's"?  Why must someone submit a vote in a contest they don't have an interest in?

Plumping is used to break a slate.  If the election Team (grass roots good guys or evil back room manipulators) puts forward a list for all spots it is very hard for someone to battle without a team of their own.  The Team slate of A,B,C,D has the advantage that slate breaker E will have ballots with three other names and very a likely one of A to D.  The usual strategy to break slate is to target the weakest link, but it makes a simple Vote for E into a Vote for E and don't vote for D.

The logic for a slate is that it brings a cohesive group into the leadership that will be working together.  The contrary logic being that sometimes the ruling team needs to be stirred up with a contrary voice.