Choice Voting: the next step in electoral reform.

Dan, when I first read this thread, I was wondering if it was a joke.  Or maybe some weird reverse psychology thing.

The electoral reform movement already suffers from the STV-MMP split.  Here's another proposal to further split the movement and confuse voters.

At best, alternative vote is modestly better in some ways than FPTP.  In other ways it's actually worse.  For example, it can produce results that are actually less proportional than FPTP, according to political scientist Antoine Bilodeau.

Here's what Dennis Pilon says about majority voting systems (of which AV is one):

Quote:

Majority voting is really a solution for the major parties and mostly serves to entrench their superior position in the system even further.  At least under plurality, a small party can hurt a larger party and sometimes force them acknowledge them and their issues.  This is not the case under a majority system because such parties will be eliminated in secondary rounds of voting or transfers of ballots.  Majority voting has the effect of funnelling support back to the major parties, requiring them to do little in the way of political horse-trading to get it 

Majoritarian systems produce artificial majorities.  Rather than chase poor systems that don't really address the issues with FPTP, reformers would better spend their efforts educating people on the problems with FPTP and analyzing the results of the past compaigns to determine what went wrong.

Stockholm wrote:

It doesn't "split" anything. Choosing an electoral system is not a multiple choice question.

Well, let's see.  There are multiple systems and we only get to choose one.  Exactly how is that not a multiple choice question?

Quote:

Moving to preferential voting could be donbe as a very simple act of parliament and then we would never have another Tory government again and parties would have to be nicer to each other in order to get each others secnd preferences.

Proportional representation "could be done as a very simple act of parliament".  Then we could move our voting system up to 20th century standards.

Stockholm wrote:

It doesn't "split" anything. Choosing an electoral system is not a multiple choice question. Moving to preferential voting could be donbe as a very simple act of parliament and then we would never have another Tory government again and parties would have to be nicer to each other in order to get each others secnd preferences.

That is what Stephan Dion said in his interview during the election last year. You know why? Libs are the secodn choice of the majority of canadians. Therefore perpetual liberal rule. All the while the chance to use con implements but saying they aren't. Bad idea and bad for us.

Second choice for NDP would be (for the most part) libs and greens,

for greens, libs and a small split for NDP/cons.

libs would probably split a bit but given how polls have shown more to the cons than other parties

cons=libs and small number to greens a few populists votes to NDP in the prairies

More vote concentration in the hand of those that already have it. Bad plan.

Stockholm wrote:

Of course if you believe that there is this mad conspiracy to keep the NDP out of power then having PR is not going to help since unless the NDP ever gets over 50% of the vote nationwide - we will just get perpetual Liberal/Conservative coalitions and alliances (kinda like what we have in Ottawa right now)

Its not a conspiracy theory Stock, it's been stated openly by supposedly respectable journalists, and it was once well known in BC that the whole political establishment, from WAC on, was formed around keeping the 'socialist hordes' out.  Laughable really, given how wishy washy the BC NDP has become, but the centre-right want another round of mega tax bonuses as reward for all the hard work of dumping their debt on us and downsizing everyone else.  That way social democracy can never become a reality in this country again, not even the mild Trudeau-Pearson sort.   If the NDp ever surpasses the Liberals federally, as they came within five points of doing last time under Dion at times (coincidently their most left-ish leader since Turner and coincidently the most dissed in the media) then the whole elite establishment is in danger.  That's all its about now, whether the average Green supporter is fully aware of their role in it or not.  I'm completely convinced of that now.

I don't know Wilf, we know Sterk is a Reformatory at heart, and wants the BC Liberals to govern in perprtuity so....

Daniel Grice wrote:

Although, I thank everyone for thinking so highly of me.  

Pardon me, that was not meant as a slight against you directly, who I know next to nothing about, but against the direction the Green party is going and how it seems to becoming more and more focused on winning a few seats alone, without thinking through the consequences or the reasons why your party was formed in the first place.  It wasn't just because Glen Clark made some stupid remarks about environmentalists and struggled to find some acceptable balance between conservation and jobs, I remember that much.  I think I have another alternative route anyhow, as the present path doesn't seem to be working, but that can wait.

skeiseid wrote:

Actually, what is in the works is a Charter Challenge in Quebec to have FPTP ruled unconstitutional. This wouldn't be accomplished on the basis of party fairness but on issues of freedoms, rights, fairness and equality for individual citizens. If they succeed then finding a replacement for FPTP will become much more than desirable -- it'll be a necessity. And the yardstick for determining the replacement will be built on the first principles of our Charter and democracy.

I highly doubt that'll succeed, as voter freedom, fairness and equality etc covers alot of still disputed territory, but good luck.

Quote:

I figure that MMP, which is merely a bandaid patch to FPTP and typically includes a large measure of SMP ridings, will be rejected out of hand by definition. This is a good thing. In fact typical PR solutions will find the going tough. No matter. When an electoral system is chosen that satisfies the needs of individual Canadian citizens, it will be inherently fair to parties.That's OK too.

This is our last best hope. Actually, in hindsight, it was always the best approach. Kudos to the prescient proponents.

No its not "our last hope", there are other ways, but I thank you for revealing your not-so latent hostility to other more equal and fair forms of PR like MMP, not to mention more proportional.  Unfortunately the legal mandate of the citizens assembly has officially run out, but we can thank the Liberals for making it almost impossible for any form to succeed as it was.

Don't be shy, Erik.You're up for a "Challenge" aren't you?

Actually, you all seem to be shy about expressing your ideas on the fundamentals.

It can't be because you don't know what you think, can it? 

I know this is less fun that the endless circular banter that has characterized these discussions over the years but we might actually help achieve something worthwhile...

No I would say the silence about Grice's proposal is because no one wants to waste time with more Green Party pie in the sky proposals.

"...as I feel that all Canadians should feel they have some sort of voice in government, and welcome any electoral system that improves cooperation, reduces negativity, and increases participation.  "

I agree with those sentiments too but I don't see how what your proposing would do any of the above.  More than likley it would do the opposite. 

Re Harper, I doubt he ever supported electoral reform beyond mouthing the words.  He was noted even in the Reform party to undermine any actual movement towards ER in pracrtice, and rewriting any motions by members that he didn't personally approve, but then his background in the National "citizens" colation has been friom the beginning to convince the populous that  corprations are the only citizens that need public support.

Your greater faith in Harper than any left-of-centre group makes me wonder again what your real agenda is too, did you ever really campaign to win over the centre or only use it to go after the NDP? 

IMO, the only decent chance left for PR is MMP -open list --where the Ontario Assembly messed up, allowing the opposition to paint it as nothing but "pro-party", translation to anti-socialists =pro-establishment.

Daniel Grice wrote:

4) Constitutional Challenge --

A lower court ruled against this, and it is to go before an appeals court.  However, I don't think the current constitutional challenge will be successful on mere disproportionate results.  However, if the Green Party or another smaller party identified with a certain segment of society could get a higher vote count 10-15% without seats, then perhaps the case could be made that if such a high percentage of people are denied any representation, that the current single member districts being the sole form of representation, do not allow a certain group to effectively participate in our political system.  It is hard to prove discrimination based on voting preferences alone, but if a voting preference could be shown to be higher amongst a certain demographic, then perhaps a section 15 argument could be successful.  That being said, all constitutional challenges will depend on a certain definition of the charter by a higher court, because as of now, precedence does not exist.

While, I would hope one of those may effect change, If in the meantime we can get some improvements, I'm there.

The challenge, if successful, should win on the basis of fairness of representation c/w equality of voice in parliament for voters -- for individual Canadians. It won't be won on the basis of disproportionate party representation. Canadians have charter rights. Parties don't.

It is my understanding that the lower court basically took a pass on the case in a judgement that made no argument for its negative decision. As you say, the higher courts are deciding these challenges and we've just got there now.Any help we can give these guys who are making the challenge the more likely we can win and really get somewhere with electoral reform. At this point in time I don't see many better options. People who see the stumbling blocks and care about electoral reform should contribute -- whoever they are.

S: "Goodness but some people have thin skins hereabouts."

What I was responding to:

S: "

Don't be shy, Erik.You're up for a "Challenge" aren't you?

Actually, you all seem to be shy about expressing your ideas on the fundamentals.

It can't be because you don't know what you think, can it? 

I know this is less fun that the endless circular banter that has characterized these discussions over the years but we might actually help achieve something worthwhile..."

That was insultingly arrogant to both me and others who take another view and your last answer does little to dispell the impression.

Re voters "rights", of course they are vested in individual citizens but most democratic rights were arrived at and expressed through their getting together to form parties to gain legislative majorities, thats just how it works and I know of no other idea that does.  These parties of course, also represents the prevailing views among members, their class or their shared interests, and so compete for votes in the first place etc.  This is well known and accepted and has been for sometime.

But to pit the individual voters together against the only known means of their expression, as I have seen repeatedly by STV supporters here (in hopes I assumed of appealing to both sides of the common disdain for all "establishment" parties as well as the libertarian views commonly expressed among STVs only immediate beneficiaries, Green party supporters) is less than honest, especially when youre now minimizing proportionality as well.   About the only thing the STV form you personally favour even goes halfways towards addressing, and about the only wedge you could realistically base this case on.  Not just our present system happens to work against the interests of one particular party, provincially.

I write this here again because I've seen how you have also consistently refused to allow any chance for other PR forms, specifically MMP, in earlier threads, and I still see nothing that alters that awareness.  And I note again that you've shown no interest in any other possible courses.  I am sorry but the Citizens Assembly no longer has any legal mandate, from the people or the elected politicians who gave them it, but the movement to make our electoral system more responsive to the majority will go on I'm sure.  If you want to argue your particular legal case further you'll have to take it up with someone who's either for it or against it.   I'm neither, I have my own ideas.

Well, I too agree that we have to sell PR to the centre-right as well to succeed, even if only a reasonable fraction, good.  I also support citizens right to choose any form they think best suited to their locale, thats important sales point to most.  I don't know about your latest particular proposal though, but I'll leave that to others now. 

I'm going into town tomorrow but when I'm back I'll make one last stab here at an idea I thnk can serve both MMP and STV favouring camps.  Like yours its a purely personal intiative and only in its first stage, trying to get other progressives to see its possibilities. Toughest stage of all I sometimes think...   Later. 

Daniel Grice wrote:

Skeiseid.  I haven't seen the exact decision regarding the constitutional challenge, as I've only read recaps from the organizers.  All I know is that in the past the supreme court's ruling has not been about equal representation but about effective participation under section 3.  "Equal" representation technically exist based on representation by population (as intended by George Brown) although the court ruled in favour of lower rural electoral quotas within a reasonable limit. I know past challenges (Russow's challenge which wasn't heard) tried to frame it on under representation of women and minorities, since section 15 bans laws that discriminate based on identifiable characteristics.

I was hoping to use a charter challenge to push STV through had the referendum gone over 50%.  We could have argued that since a majority of voters felt than the current system did not provide effective representation, then we would have a case as the courts would need to recognize having voters defining their expectations of effective representation.  However, I'm not yet a constitutional lawyer, so hopefully others can pull of a tighter case.  

 

Are you schooling to be a lawyer, then? I hope that works out for you.

We'll have to see what happens in Quebec. Effective participation... that's one way to couch it. With plurality elections a majority of Canadians lack effective participation in Parliament insofar as the debates and votes that occur there. Not every debate is begun or exhausted during an election. Therefore, there will be some that go forward during a sitting from which the voices of many Canadians are excluded. The votes too. This is pretty clear. This is clearly the crux of the "democratic deficit". Party disproportionality is an artifact of our deficit. It'll be remedied incidentally when voters are treated fairly and equally. Proportionality is a necessary but not sufficient condition for fairness. I'm not anti-propotionality. However, I do understand that proportionality is not the main objective here.

Erik Redburn wrote:

That was insultingly arrogant to both me and others who take another view and your last answer does little to dispell the impression.

Re voters "rights", of course they are vested in individual citizens but most democratic rights were arrived at and expressed through their getting together to form parties to gain legislative majorities, thats just how it works and I know of no other idea that does.  These parties of course, also represents the prevailing views among members, their class or their shared interests, and so compete for votes in the first place etc.  This is well known and accepted and has been for sometime.

But to pit the individual voters together against the only known means of their expression, as I have seen repeatedly by STV supporters here (in hopes I assumed of appealing to both sides of the common disdain for all "establishment" parties as well as the libertarian views commonly expressed among STVs only immediate beneficiaries, Green party supporters) is less than honest, especially when youre now minimizing proportionality as well.   About the only thing the STV form you personally favour even goes halfways towards addressing, and about the only wedge you could realistically base this case on.  Not just our present system happens to work against the interests of one particular party, provincially.

I write this here again because I've seen how you have also consistently refused to allow any chance for other PR forms, specifically MMP, in earlier threads, and I still see nothing that alters that awareness.  And I note again that you've shown no interest in any other possible courses.  I am sorry but the Citizens Assembly no longer has any legal mandate, from the people or the elected politicians who gave them it, but the movement to make our electoral system more responsive to the majority will go on I'm sure.  If you want to argue your particular legal case further you'll have to take it up with someone who's either for it or against it.   I'm neither, I have my own ideas.

It ain't up to me to "allow" for other forms of PR. However, I do see MMP as a non-starter and have since I first understood how it worked during the OCA meetings (based on the principles I hold for a democracy which included voter fairness and equality). I too have my own ideas, eh. And this is a forum for expressing and sharing ideas... and learning, right?

If you think I've been uninterested in other avenues of achieving fairness for voters then you haven't been paying attention.

I apologize if you think I've insulted you and the others when I merely wanted to be... provocative. But it is true that these discussions have been going on since the BCCA was commissioned and there's little difference between the posts made then and those now -- and we've not implemented a fair voting scheme by any initiative tried to date. These are just the facts. If I'm impolite for pointing them out, well, I guess that's how it is. No offence meant.

I hope we can start looking forward productively.The challenge is one avenue. Can't wait to hear Erik's.

MMP has always been a simplistic bandaid that seeks to use the argument of familiarity -- that most of MMP is just like what we have already -- to win acceptance. Of course that's just pandering, not addressing the issue. And it discounts the core notions of voter fairness and equality while limiting focus to the intermediate concerns of proportionality.

I'm afraid I'm dead centre in the camp that thinks that any half measures will mean that reform will just stop there. We should demand what is necessary and if necessary reluctantly accept -- as a temporary measure -- a lesser solution. Only that way will the path to what we need be clearly marked -- that we require more will be the first consideration when the half measures fail to deliver. This is basic strategy when dealing with people who don't want to do anything -- the inertials.

Fair Vote doesn't intend to be a champion -- they, like the Star, are looking for one; a Gandhi, a Martin Luther King,... someone.

By the way, you didn't answer my question about the route to reform. You can say "move to" such-and-such system.. but how do you see that happening? Who's gonna do it? And how??

Observe how difficult it is for Afghan warlords in Kabul to convince their US controllers of the need for proportional voting. While BC's bought and paid-for stoogeocracy demanded that STV be far more popular than support for their government in BC, the US-backed kleptocracy in Kabul is manouvering to ensure that S-N-TV continues as the very undemocratic voting method there. The struggle for democracy continues in Canada as well as for Ottawa's assigned colonial administrative task in Central Asia. It's a trickle-down stoogeocracy.

Erik Redburn wrote:

. . . the libertarian views commonly expressed among STVs only immediate beneficiaries . . .

Thread drift, but . . .

Those who assume Germans don't form libertarian parties may be surprised to learn that, in the Bavarian election held last September, a new party entered their legislature: the "Free Voters" movement, largely libertarian, which jumped into third place ahead of the Greens and the thatcherite-liberal Free Democrats. The "Free Voters" are an association of persons to participate in an election without having the status of a registered political party. They had gotten 4.0% in 2003. Last September they elected 21 MLAs: six in Upper Bavaria (Munich etc.), three in Lower Bavaria (Landshut etc.), three in Swabia (Augsburg etc.), three in Upper Palatinate (Regensburg etc.), two in Upper Franconia (Bayreuth etc.), two in Middle Franconia (Nuremberg etc.), and two in Lower Franconia (Würzburg etc.). They stole enough votes from the conservative CSU that it lost its majority (its worst result since 1954) and had to form a coalition with the Free Democrats. The "Free Voters" ran on a populist platform whose main slogan was that the local community is the nucleus of the state.

Under the Bavarian "open list" system, the FV's regional candidates who got the most votes in the region were elected; their rank position on the "Free Voters" list did not count.