Very good analogies, Fidel! I plan to use them myself (but will give due credit )!
Elections, gerrymandering and the expression of electoral will
Sun, 2007-02-11 16:25
#52
Sun, 2007-02-11 17:53
#53
If it takes a 60% YES vote for Ontario to get PR, I think it makes sense to declare that only a 60% YES vote will be good enough for Quebec to ever separate.
Sun, 2007-02-11 18:20
#54
No, because Ontario doesn't have jurisdiction over Quebec democracy.
Sun, 2007-02-11 18:33
#55
quote:
Originally posted by clockwork:
[b]
With the single transferable vote system, I pick NDP but put Liberal second.... and I'll wager the Liberal candidate would still win. Why is the second (hypothetical case) morally superior to the first when the outcome is the same?
[/b]
I think you're actually describing an "alternative vote" system rather than a "single transferable vote" system. In STV each district elects multiple members. You'd (probably) rank an NDP candidate first, another NDP candidate second, ... and so forth. After ranking your NDP candidates, then you might rank the Liberals or whoever else.
With each district electing maybe 5 - 7 members, the NDP would be able to get someone elected with 12 - 17 % of the vote -- its share of the seats would roughly correspond to its share of the vote. That's why it's a better system.
Sun, 2007-02-11 19:03
#56
quote:
jeff house: The truth is that the first-past-the-post system is a historical anomaly, having been imported from England because England had a two-party system. In such a system, and NO OTHER, first past the post is fair.
Is this an implicit endorsement of the American political system for the American people?
editted to also add: This is a curious summation because the criticism I've read of FPTP systems is that they will always tend toward a two party state. Yet here I read that our FPTP system has sustained a third (some might also say forth) party with the rising of a fifth (or sixth). Maybe I should transfer this question to my new thread too... because....
I want to post more but I fear the grim thread reaper.
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=001719&p=]I'm redirecting here[/url]
edit: I don't understand the graphic, Fidel.
edited also again: the grey, I thought STV, as I understood it's use in New Zealand and elsewhere was a single constiuent system?
[ 11 February 2007: Message edited by: clockwork ]
Sun, 2007-02-11 19:48
#57
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]It was pretty clear to me that the Liberals are setting up the Citizens' Commission to fail.[/b]
Which is puzzling.
McGuinty didn't have to promise a Citizens' Assembly; I doubt if that promise got him large numbers of votes. It was a Liberal Party position, because Harris had won two "manufactured majorities" in a row. Then, after they won, they maintained that position, instead of following the usual pattern where reformers instantly forget what they were mad at once the skewed system elects them. Then, when they agreed to hold Select Committee hearings as demanded by the PCs, the Liberal members became enthusiasts for PR which, from clues in their report, they not only believed would help women, but may also have assumed that a strong centre party would almost always be part of a governing coalition under PR. The Select Committee didn't recommend a 60% referendum threshold, which must have been cleared with the Premier's office if I know the Liberal Party.
So why did they change? I don't know and I don't care: I think we'll carry the referendum with around 70%.
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]While several members of the Citizens' Commission were excellent, a few thought that they could defend the Liberals' ridiculous requirement that a new system has to win a 60% majority in order to become policy.[/b]
There was no point asking Citizens' Assembly members that, because it's outside their jurisdiction. Whether some of them personally agreed with it is largely irrelevant, unless it gives you a clue that those members are against change. Which ones were they?
Sun, 2007-02-11 23:15
#58
Problem is quebec separating IS a really important decision. So trying to make each no vote worth 1.5 yes vote will not be tolerated there.
Quebecers are not stupid.
Anyone who accepts a 40% superminority is either
1. stupid,
2. doesn't believe in one person one vote,
or
3. is a no voter who wants to win at all costs.
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]If it takes a 60% YES vote for Ontario to get PR, I think it makes sense to declare that only a 60% YES vote will be good enough for Quebec to ever separate.[/b]
Sun, 2007-02-11 23:25
#59
I think the idea that quebec would ever allow a 60% supermajority (or whatever you want to call it) is dangerously flawed.
It so obviously gives no voters 1.5 times the voting power of yes voters.
Either you accept one person one vote and (therefore 50% being the threshold) or you dont accept one person one vote.
one person one vote and 60% thresholds are mutually exclusive.
If you accept 60% thresholds, you have lost the fight for democracy.
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]The Law Union held a forum on Saturday concerning the processes which may or may not lead to a different method of choosing our representatives.A second argument was that if they allowed for a 50% threshold, then this would give Quebeckers an argument for a 50% Referendum majority! So we have to lose our equal voting rights because otherwise Quebec might split away.
[/b]
Sun, 2007-02-11 23:39
#60
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]Very good analogies, Fidel! I plan to use them myself (but will give due credit )![/b]
"The force" is yours to use wisely with no obligation to me, Luke JeffHouser. I'm pretty sure that generosity is part of your nature as well. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
Originally posted by clockwork:
[b]
edit: I don't understand the graphic, Fidel.[/b]
It will come to you in a dream, young jedi. Use the force the force the force the ...
[ 11 February 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Sun, 2007-02-11 23:50
#61
quote:
Brian White: It so obviously gives no voters 1.5 times the voting power of yes voters.
Wow... I've... actually never thought of it that way. I've... I see things slightly differently now (in that I wondered about the 50%+1 deabte).
I might quibble about the 1.5 figure but I like your point.
Sun, 2007-02-11 23:51
#62
quote:
Fidel: It will come to you in a dream, young jedi. Use the force the force the force the ...
Look, it's an honest question. I would like an honest answer (I'm not familiar all that much with New Zealand politics).
Mon, 2007-02-12 00:15
#63
quote:
Originally posted by clockwork:
[b]Look, it's an honest question. I would like an honest answer (I'm not familiar all that much with New Zealand politics).[/b]
The graphic simply illustrates that with a proportional system, more MP's would be elected for greater representation than was true of the old system. The old system wasted votes in each electoral riding after one candidate won a majority of votes, however slim the majority may have been. As you may recall, someone above mentioned that there were six million wasted votes in the last federal election.
So, for example, after a candidate wins a majority of votes, let's say 35 percent of the popular vote, the candidate with the next largest number of votes would be elected as well. This assigning of remaining votes over and above the first vote limit to listed candidates continues until the maximum number of MP's are elected for a particular riding, and until the last candidate manages to win a certain threshold percentage of the popular vote ie. 2-3 percent or whatever is decided by democratic choice. I'm not sure what happens to the small percentage of votes which might be under the threshold, but perhaps they can be pooled in an overall count to fill remaining vacant seats.
In the case that a candidate is very popu;lar and wins over 51 percent of the popular, then the remaining votes are examined for second, third and so on selections from a list of all parties candidates and tallied accordingly in electing the remaining quota of MP's for a particular electoral region. If the region does cast a true majority of votes for the same party, then two or more MP's from the same party may be elected proportionally up to the MP quota number for the region, and all the while dueling with the other parties for the remaining vote count. At least, this is my rudimentary understanding of it. And don't ask me what the diffs are between List PR, STV, and MMP, because I don't know. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 12 February 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Mon, 2007-02-12 00:53
#64
Oh, I'm well aware of the wasted votes and where it was said (and who said it... I actually have a fairvote.ca essay that I want to bring up later... but later ain't now). It's just I'm a bit of a political flyer-o-phile.
I was looking more for the context: I know the New Zealand legislature now has 120 seats. I assume the old one had 99. I assume the flyer came out in 1996 or just before (was the electoral change a popular vote before the election?). You linked it from Wikepedia and I thought I combed it pretty well but the pic is unfamiliar. I was wondering if it was a coalition (ie nominally citizen based) flyer or a poitical party flyer. What I'm really looking for is the use of terms: 99 is a dictatorship (assuming old FPTP) while 120 is PR (or multi-member...). From my perspective, there is a lot of cultural, uh, memes, that I'm missing for the flyer to make a lot of sense to me (hence why I asked).
What was the link you got it from?
Mon, 2007-02-12 02:53
#65
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_voting_method_referendum%2C_199... reform in New Zealand[/url]
Mon, 2007-02-12 11:09
#66
quote:
A pro-MMP poster from the 1993 referendum campaign. In contrast to the first poll in 1992, the second referendum was accompanied by an intense propaganda war between the Electoral Reform Coalition (ERC) and the pro-FPP Campaign for Better Government (CBG).
Haha... Campaign for the Existing Government is probably more apt...
quote:
Few of Labour's leaders welcomed the Commission's recommendations, however, and the government tried to sideline the issue. Although National's leadership also disliked the idea of MMP, they saw an opportunity to embarrass the government over its failure to respond to the Commission's proposals. As each party tried to outmanoeuvre the other, both entered the 1990 election campaign promising to hold referenda on electoral reforms that they did not really want.
[url=http://www.elections.org.nz/study/history/history-mmp.html]Brief history of electoral reform in New Zealand[/url]
editted: Actually, after browsing the site, I found out that everybody gets a standard party list to choose from. I could finally vote for the Bloc!
[ 12 February 2007: Message edited by: clockwork ]
Mon, 2007-02-12 16:14
#67
quote:
Originally posted by clockwork:
[b]
edited also again: the grey, I thought STV, as I understood it's use in New Zealand and elsewhere was a single constiuent system?
[/b]
I'm not aware of New Zealand using STV -- it uses MMP. The recent BC proposal was for STV. All STV models I've seen discussed involve ranking individual candidates in multimember districts. When it's ranking individual candidates in single member districts, I've usually seen it call AV (alternative vote).
Wikipedia on [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Transferable_Vote]STV[/url].
Wikipedia on [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting]Instant-runoff voting (aka AV)[/url].
Mon, 2007-02-12 21:04
#68
[ 13 February 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Tue, 2007-02-13 01:01
#69
quote:
the grey: I'm not aware of New Zealand using STV
Well, I have figured out that by now. But I'm not backing down from my understanding that New Zealand is a single constiuent system. The Wikepedia reference says STV is a multi-seat constiuent system and that means my understanding of the BC STV proprosal is... lacking.
Anyway, my understanding is that New Zealand is still a SMC. You have two votes. One for the electoral candidate, one for the party. The party vote isn't for another person in the constieuency so therefore there is only one [edit] elected [end edit] candiate per riding. I admit I mischaracterized the New Zealand intiative as STV. And I admit I may be wrong about this, too. Being wrong is one of life's little quirks.
quote:
Fidel: Ok, mister smarty, I'll eat my tuque if you can come up with a point form list of major differences between the three systems. haHA!
Fidel: I take it back. You're posts are no longer intersting to me. In the least.
What's with the bold?? And what's with the 'smarty' label?? I thought I made it painfully obvious in this thread that I don't espouse my own posts yet this is the second time I've been labeled with a derogatory "smart". If you think I'm a troll, you haven't seen a true troll.
I don't see why Stockholm can post counterpoints but I can't without getting heat.
Anyway, couple of points:
1. Your question has no bearing on what you quote me as saying.
2. I thought I made it obvious I have access to google and wikepedia. Hence it's pretty easy to answer your question.. yes, I've gotten things wrong before but your question can be deflected with a simple cut and paste answer. So if I don't answer, I still expect you to "eat your toque" (and if you insist, I'll answer... you just need to tell me which three systems you want differences for).
But agian, the reason I am posting is for an [i]interactive[/i] response. I have a hundred books in front of me now but I'll be damned if I can regurgitate the contents of any given one because reading somehting isn't the way I learn.
I might add, I'm much more informed now than I was two weeks ago about electoral systems. That is my goal. I don't understand why people can't accept that. ANd for those that keep responding to me, I say thanks.
3. [i]You're[/i] the one who couldn't commit to your own descrption of the voting system in New Zealand. Here, let me quote you:
quote:
posted 12 February 2007 12:15 AM, Fidel: And don't ask me what the diffs are between List PR, STV, and MMP, because I don't know.
How can you even begin to demand such an answer from me? How can I accept that you can even intellegently rate my response? I can say, "ajkdfhskdjgshfsueyrksguf" and you know what? You [i]can't[/i] comment on it because you don't even know the differences yourself. You admitted it!
4. If you question is actually related to my quote where I said I can vote for the Bloc under the New Zealand MMP (if applied to Canada) and think I'm a dunce for saying that statement, [url=http://www.elections.org.nz/cgi/quiz.cgi]take the test[/url].
Q6: How many of these statements are true?
The party votes cast in all electorates are used in the allocation of seats.
All voters have the same choice of parties for their party vote.
Orange party hats sell out on election day.
Possible Answers:
None
One
The first two
All
Enter in your pick. I picked the third one. Go ahead and pick just that answer and click "test me". I suspect you'll get 1 out of 9 right.
Guess what? If [i]all[/i] voters have the [i]same[/i] choice of parties I [i][b]can[/b][/i] vote for the Bloc under a New Zealand system if it was implemented here.
Haha, indeed.
editted for a lot of spelling, too
[ 13 February 2007: Message edited by: clockwork ]
Tue, 2007-02-13 01:47
#70
Ok here's the deal, I won't be replying to your little notes in future. And I don't want you replying to me either.
ta
Tue, 2007-02-13 02:01
#71
For those not browsing in the wee hours of the morning and don't know what I'm railing against in the above post, here is Fidel's now deleted post:
post start:
quote:
[b][clockwork:] Actually, after browsing the site, I found out that everybody gets a standard party list to choose from. I could finally vote for the Bloc![/b]
Ok, mister smarty, I'll eat my tuque if you can come up with a point form list of major differences between the three systems. haHA!
Post end:
He might not have quoted me in that entirety but that was the quote he made, in entirety or partially..
editted (after I saw the above post): No deal, my friend. No deal.
[ 13 February 2007: Message edited by: clockwork ]
Tue, 2007-02-13 08:03
#72
If you want to understand how the Mixed Member Proportional system works, the Quebec proposal has a simple website:
[url=http://www.institutions-democratiques.gouv.qc.ca/publications/fiche_1_ch... THAT EACH VOTE WILL COUNT – MIXED PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION[/url]
[url=http://www.institutions-democratiques.gouv.qc.ca/publications/fiche_2_de... AND THEIR MNAS[/url]
[url=http://www.institutions-democratiques.gouv.qc.ca/publications/fiche_3a_d... DISTRICT MNAS[/url]
Quebec was proposing closed lists in 27 little five-MNA districts. The Ontario Citizens' Assembly is more likely, I expect, to choose open lists in 10 or so districts with a range of sizes, maybe typically 13 MPPs per district (maybe 8 elected in a local riding, plus 5 regional). Still, the basic concept is the same.
[ 13 February 2007: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
Tue, 2007-02-13 14:37
#73
Wilf, I think I asked in another thread (?) but I'm not sure I ever saw an answer...
MMP was the apparent consensus in Quebec, supported by all 3 elected parties. There was a very specific proposal and talk of implementing it without even a referendum. Yet here we are about to see another FPTP Quebec election. What happened? What is supposed to happen? [And if the PQ gets another "wrong win" with a majority government while losing the popular vote, how could they ever bring themselves to change the system that gives them such a big bonus? ]
[ 13 February 2007: Message edited by: Albireo ]
Tue, 2007-02-13 22:56
#74
Quebec has a history of PR flirtation:
quote:
Quebec: A Broken Promise to Adopt PRAs far as the provinces are concerned, the situation has been no different -- except in Quebec, where the appearance of the Parti Quebecois (PQ) at the end of the 1960s changed the equation. A mass party committed to Quebec independence, the PQ could not ignore the injustice inherent in an electoral system that allowed it only a handful of seats in the Quebec assembly despite its winning 24 and 30 percent of the vote in the 1970 and 1973 election campaigns respectively.
[url=http://www.fairvote.org/reports/1995/chp7/milner.html]Fair Vote essay[/url]
Wilf, I'm still wrapping my head around that site:
The system described may better approximate the vote but the New Zealand system strikes me as more PR-like (but given I'm still learning, this isn't a statement I'm yet willing to strongly defend). So if I get this straight, you vote for a district seat and a division seat? The language is ambiguous in the link:
quote:
"the number of districts would range from 24 to 27. Except in special cases, each of them would be made up of 3 divisions plus 2 district seats;"
A district is subdivided into two more... districts? I'll refer to the top district as "district A" and the subdivided district seats as "district B"
Does a party need to create a single list or does it need to create 24 to 27 different lists? Or does it need to create (24 to 27) * 3 divisions lists? If a division MP drops dead, and the district A is highly competitive (vote counts are close), what happens if an opposite party candidate is elected? Shouldn't that influence the district B seat as well (since they overlap). Why does a vacated division seat go to byelection but a vacated district B seat refer back to a previous election to appoint the next party list member? And does this mean parties will put multiple candidates into one district B seat? Does that mean I can pick between, say, five NDP candiates in my district (B)? Isn't that what the riding constiuentency association is for (under FPTP system, anyway)?
edited:The Mixed Proportional Representation (in Wilf's link) is a form of MMP, yes? And I back track.. I called New Zealand a single member constiuent system but New Zealand is listed by Wikepedia under the Mixed Member Proportional... er.... okay, I'm lost. Is a MMP, mixed member, system necessarily a multiple constiuent system? I'm starting to lose track of the terminology, to be quite frank.
edited: sorry Wilf, you posted three links and I have only looked at the first one... maybe my post is superflous... I'll try and find out.
[ 13 February 2007: Message edited by: clockwork ]