When there was no vote splitting and there was a coalition of Liberals, Greens and the Bloc the argument that kept on being passed around (that a coalition government should take control) was that if you add up all the popularity of the coalition by seats or popular vote then it is greater than the conservatives. While that addition is true the coalition was not part of what Canadians were voting for.
If Canadians were to have voted on Harper vs. Dion (and the non vote splitting coalition) Harper would have won by a landslide. At the peak of the coalition popularity Harper was at 67% which is more than Trudeau had. (Globe) .
I don't say this because I want to argue politics over Harper, Dion or Iggy. Just that the way things worked out, was the way how things should have worked out (Minority Conservative).
Hence I conclude the voting system seems to be working well (given past experience) even at complicated times. To elaborate on why we shouldn't change... I got two reasons.
1) It keeps the parties from becoming too fractured. There was a Conservative Reform split, and now there is a Liberal - NDP - Green split. It forces the fractured to work together under some new party or old - moderating policies. That's good.
2) Voting needs to be simple. Very simple. As simples as possible. One person - one vote - for one person. It is something anyone with no education can understand and be happy about. Since people with no education can vote in this country, so they should be able and capable of understanding the voting system. Our current system, to find the winner, one only needs to understand counting. Proportional Rep. requires division and addition and algebra too.
Imagine, we proportional rep., and change it to a slightly different system, a bit more complicated, and again, and again. If it ever becomes so complex that the people don't understand why one government is chosen over another, a mathematical proof won't stave off civil discontent (or war).
Should we expect our citizens to add and divide numbers so they can vote? (understand the system of Proportion Rep. and tallying the vote). I say no. I say no because I have a degree in engineering and apparently I can't add and subtract the numbers already given to me in boxes for my taxes. Rev. Can. always adds them differently, and I always get something back, or have to pay something. Many people can't even fill their own taxes. Accounting math seems to be very different than actual mathematics.
So I think the maximum level of mathematical complication for much of our government system should be; counting.
It's different from the plain as day system we have... I got 10 votes and you got 12. You win. Everyone can see that.
The States only has two parties, so they have no reason to change. I'm comfortable with our voting system, even if we are the only ones. It pushes us to a two (or three) party system. I think we need that, being so diverse a country, multicultural and all.
OK, well, whatever wikipedia says, here's how the STV being proposed in BC works:
1)You'll be presented with a ballot that has all candidates in your riding on it.
2) You are asked to mark your first, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th choice. (BTW, if this is too complicated for you, or you feel strongly about one party/candidate, you can only mark one choice)
Then it works basically like a leadership race for a political party.
Count all the "first choice" votes. If no candidate has 50%+1, then drop the person who finished last, start counting 2nd choices.
Wikipedia might have all kinds of stuff that looks very complicated and confusing, but it's actually pretty simple.
Oh, and, if this whole business of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, choices confuses you, you could always just mark one party/candidate as your first and only choice.
I don't argue our voting system has to be efficient. I am arguing that it has to be simple. Counting pebbles simple.
'too fractured' / 'factually incorrect' It can't be factually incorrect, it's a subjective statement. (the word 'too') I see 7 parties as too fractured, and 4-5 as fine. Our system of voting makes any party that wants to get a majority have to work with or join another party to get majority, until there are about 3 or 4 or 5. Which is how it always eventually boils down too.
100% wrong. It's still just counting. Here is the formula: (from wiki) There is indeed division.
People like France and Germany have a very common culture throughout their nation. We in Canada are different and have many many cultures (like a Europe already, not a single nation of Europe). We have some German, some British, some French, some Chinese... Arabian... to the extent that a large part of our culture is from recent immigration culture. It's not a bad thing, but I think there should be a unification under single political parties, Liberal and Conservative and one or two more. That would be how we all mash ideas together.
If we had proportional rep, then perhaps a non majority could vote in Sharia law. Smaller, less popular groups get represented. I like not having them represented.
If a smaller group has a good idea, then they can tell someone, and it spreads, to the larger (or to form a larger) group. Then the idea gets implemented. There are more checks bounds, negotiation, and filters as an idea goes through an political party policy review, even before it is introduced.
"I don't argue our voting system has to be efficient. I am arguing that it has to be simple. Counting pebbles simple."
Um, the only thing that's the slightest bit complicated is the counting. But there's no compelling reason why we have to have election results counted in a matter of hours. If it took a couple of days, that wouldn't be the end of the world.
And, again, um, if STV is too complicated for you, this business of marking first, 2nd, 3rd, choices, you can just mark your first and only choice.
OK, so you don't like STV. (To me, it seems like you're ignoring the down sides of first-past-the-post, but anyway...) Let me ask you this - do you think we need SOME KIND of proportional representation?
Do you realize if we had proportional representation the green party might have a seat or two? Armies of seals would have take over our cities. They last of the cod, massacred.
Actually I don't mind a form of proportional representation. Technically speaking, you asked why someone wouldn't want it.
but I don't find it an embarrassment. I do stand by may previous arguments too, I think we are unique amongst the western nations. I think our voting system does us a good service.
We don't have a small segment of the population that's a violent separatist Basque group for example. Proportional representation is way Spain can deal with that. Canada is different.
"but I don't find it an embarrassment. I do stand by may previous arguments too, I think we are unique amongst the western nations. I think our voting system does us a good service."
Yeah, well, if you're OK with 33% of the vote turning into 70% of the seats in the House, then, sure, there's nothing wrong with our voting system.
There is something profoundly fucked up about a government getting a majority of the seats in Parliament when only about 1/3 of the voters actually voted for that government.
"We don't have a small segment of the population that's a violent separatist Basque group for example. Proportional representation is way Spain can deal with that. Canada is different."
They won't ever get a representation cause they, as a group, are based being born into that group. You won't get a bunch of non Basque people voting for Basque just like the Bloc won't get any support in BC, or Alberta or Manitoba, or PEI.
In Europe as a whole (for a second example) Luxembourg would always be overwhelmed in votes by the Germans.
Proportional rep. will allow peoples of a smaller group to have a say within the whole. It is important when the group is based on being born into that group. In Canada, I could vote Liberal, or Conservative or something else and it is (almost) not based on where I live or whom my parents were.
I can live with the 33% too. It is representative as a whole. Voter turn out is low but I tell you this, if some party were to introduce a you-can't-be-Jewish policy like the Nazis then voter turnout would become a lot more. Apathy we have now is not as bad as they say (IMO) because it shows everyone is pretty much on the same page as far as policy goes. Some are on the left part of that page, some are on the right. But if someone has a really bad idea (usually the case) or a really good idea they will lose / gain the votes. When people don't care, then they don't care within the context of that page.
So you get 33% of people say. I want this guy/girl in charge. but there is another 40% that is not opposed to having this guy/girl in charge. That 33% pro person A, could be expressed as 25%(from person B and C) oppose the current government. (Those numbers and letters are abstract, not representative of whatever the current standings are with which political party, which I don't know.)
Don't you think it's a little bit much to assume that the 30-40% who didn't vote "aren't opposed" to the party who got a majority?
And either way, if you didn't vote, you don't count. We have zero information about what the non-voting population might do or feel or whatever, so any conclusions you might draw about them are purely speculation.
No. A lot of politics doesn't affect a lot of people. What I am concerned about is they CAN vote. If we are ordering ice cream, and I don't vote on a flavour then I'm with you - I can't whine about the flavour you choose. However the context is still getting ice cream. So if you choose to order hamburgers, then I get a right to complain again.
To go back to politics, if I have to choose between Conservatives and Liberals then I might say one is as good as the other, I will still be at my $5/hour dish washing job. if the conservative party got in and then they turned into the Bush administration.. well, that's completely different context. I get the right to complain again.
There is a style or flavour or party that is a six/half dozen choice. But there is also a context or larger set of flavours or political ideas that said options have to stay within.
Now of course, if I like the prosecute-Incite-users idea, but the Greens are promoting the don't-prosecute-Incite-users idea. It's a policy they have published ahead of time, I should have done a little research voted for not-Green.
You know why I really like STV? It takes power away from the party whips and premiers and prime ministers.
What we have is a de facto dictatorship for 2 or 4 or 5 years. If you don't like the party line, if you don't vote how we say, the premier/PM has final say on your party nomination next election.
So PMs and premiers have way too much power.
STV would make it a lot easier for an independent to win his election if he just got kicked out of the party. And i think that's a very good thing.
Also, it means no more voting strategically. Voters can vote their conscience.
Look, I agree with the provincial green party on basically every single issue of their platform. But I fear that they will do nothing more than deliver 4 more years of Gordon "gulp, gulp, vroom vroom" Campbell.
As a consequence, I find myself voting for someone OTHER THAN a party who's ideas I support.
That's not how it's supposed to be. An election should not be a gated community.
If Canadians were to have voted on Harper vs. Dion (and the non vote splitting coalition) Harper would have won by a landslide. At the peak of the coalition popularity Harper was at 67% which is more than Trudeau had. (Globe) .
I don't say this because I want to argue politics over Harper, Dion or Iggy. Just that the way things worked out, was the way how things should have worked out (Minority Conservative).
Hence I conclude the voting system seems to be working well (given past experience) even at complicated times. To elaborate on why we shouldn't change... I got two reasons.
1) It keeps the parties from becoming too fractured. There was a Conservative Reform split, and now there is a Liberal - NDP - Green split. It forces the fractured to work together under some new party or old - moderating policies. That's good.
2) Voting needs to be simple. Very simple. As simples as possible. One person - one vote - for one person. It is something anyone with no education can understand and be happy about. Since people with no education can vote in this country, so they should be able and capable of understanding the voting system. Our current system, to find the winner, one only needs to understand counting. Proportional Rep. requires division and addition and algebra too.
Imagine, we proportional rep., and change it to a slightly different system, a bit more complicated, and again, and again. If it ever becomes so complex that the people don't understand why one government is chosen over another, a mathematical proof won't stave off civil discontent (or war).
Should we expect our citizens to add and divide numbers so they can vote? (understand the system of Proportion Rep. and tallying the vote). I say no. I say no because I have a degree in engineering and apparently I can't add and subtract the numbers already given to me in boxes for my taxes. Rev. Can. always adds them differently, and I always get something back, or have to pay something. Many people can't even fill their own taxes. Accounting math seems to be very different than actual mathematics.
So I think the maximum level of mathematical complication for much of our government system should be; counting.
Reply
I don't think much of the argument that democracy has to be "efficient", which is what you seem to be arguing above.
But let me say this - do you know how many OECD countries DO NOT have some form of proportional representation?
Canada and the USA.
"Should we expect our citizens to add and divide numbers so they can vote?"
Um, how exactly do you think that STV works?
Reply
Aside: To be efficient we would randomly sample a thousand people and ask them to vote.
Here: check it out: Here is how you count:: Wiki
and more on the differing counting methods: Wiki
It's different from the plain as day system we have... I got 10 votes and you got 12. You win. Everyone can see that.
The States only has two parties, so they have no reason to change. I'm comfortable with our voting system, even if we are the only ones. It pushes us to a two (or three) party system. I think we need that, being so diverse a country, multicultural and all.
Reply
1)You'll be presented with a ballot that has all candidates in your riding on it.
2) You are asked to mark your first, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th choice.
(BTW, if this is too complicated for you, or you feel strongly about one party/candidate, you can only mark one choice)
Then it works basically like a leadership race for a political party.
Count all the "first choice" votes. If no candidate has 50%+1, then drop the person who finished last, start counting 2nd choices.
Wikipedia might have all kinds of stuff that looks very complicated and confusing, but it's actually pretty simple.
Oh, and, if this whole business of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, choices confuses you, you could always just mark one party/candidate as your first and only choice.
Reply
Well, then what exactly are you arguing with this:
"1) It keeps the parties from becoming too fractured. "
Also, this part here is factually incorrect:
" Proportional Rep. requires division and addition and algebra too. "
Nope. 100% wrong. It's still just counting.
Reply
I am arguing that it has to be simple. Counting pebbles simple.
'too fractured' / 'factually incorrect'
It can't be factually incorrect, it's a subjective statement. (the word 'too')
I see 7 parties as too fractured, and 4-5 as fine. Our system of voting makes any party that wants to get a majority have to work with or join another party to get majority, until there are about 3 or 4 or 5. Which is how it always eventually boils down too.
100% wrong. It's still just counting.
Here is the formula: (from wiki) There is indeed division.
People like France and Germany have a very common culture throughout their nation. We in Canada are different and have many many cultures (like a Europe already, not a single nation of Europe). We have some German, some British, some French, some Chinese... Arabian... to the extent that a large part of our culture is from recent immigration culture. It's not a bad thing, but I think there should be a unification under single political parties, Liberal and Conservative and one or two more. That would be how we all mash ideas together.
If we had proportional rep, then perhaps a non majority could vote in Sharia law. Smaller, less popular groups get represented. I like not having them represented.
If a smaller group has a good idea, then they can tell someone, and it spreads, to the larger (or to form a larger) group. Then the idea gets implemented. There are more checks bounds, negotiation, and filters as an idea goes through an political party policy review, even before it is introduced.
Reply
I am arguing that it has to be simple. Counting pebbles simple."
Um, the only thing that's the slightest bit complicated is the counting. But there's no compelling reason why we have to have election results counted in a matter of hours. If it took a couple of days, that wouldn't be the end of the world.
And, again, um, if STV is too complicated for you, this business of marking first, 2nd, 3rd, choices, you can just mark your first and only choice.
OK, so you don't like STV. (To me, it seems like you're ignoring the down sides of first-past-the-post, but anyway...) Let me ask you this - do you think we need SOME KIND of proportional representation?
Reply
Do you realize if we had proportional representation the green party might have a seat or two? Armies of seals would have take over our cities. They last of the cod, massacred.
Actually I don't mind a form of proportional representation. Technically speaking, you asked why someone wouldn't want it.
Reply
It's an embarrassment that we're the only developed country that doesn't have some form of prop. rep.
Reply
but I don't find it an embarrassment. I do stand by may previous arguments too, I think we are unique amongst the western nations. I think our voting system does us a good service.
We don't have a small segment of the population that's a violent separatist Basque group for example. Proportional representation is way Spain can deal with that. Canada is different.
Reply
Yeah, well, if you're OK with 33% of the vote turning into 70% of the seats in the House, then, sure, there's nothing wrong with our voting system.
There is something profoundly fucked up about a government getting a majority of the seats in Parliament when only about 1/3 of the voters actually voted for that government.
"We don't have a small segment of the population that's a violent separatist Basque group for example. Proportional representation is way Spain can deal with that. Canada is different."
Well, not anymore, we don't.
Also, I don't understand what you mean here. How does prop. rep. help Spain with the problem of Basque separatists or terrorists?
Reply
They won't ever get a representation cause they, as a group, are based being born into that group. You won't get a bunch of non Basque people voting for Basque just like the Bloc won't get any support in BC, or Alberta or Manitoba, or PEI.
In Europe as a whole (for a second example) Luxembourg would always be overwhelmed in votes by the Germans.
Proportional rep. will allow peoples of a smaller group to have a say within the whole. It is important when the group is based on being born into that group. In Canada, I could vote Liberal, or Conservative or something else and it is (almost) not based on where I live or whom my parents were.
I can live with the 33% too. It is representative as a whole. Voter turn out is low but I tell you this, if some party were to introduce a you-can't-be-Jewish policy like the Nazis then voter turnout would become a lot more. Apathy we have now is not as bad as they say (IMO) because it shows everyone is pretty much on the same page as far as policy goes. Some are on the left part of that page, some are on the right. But if someone has a really bad idea (usually the case) or a really good idea they will lose / gain the votes. When people don't care, then they don't care within the context of that page.
So you get 33% of people say. I want this guy/girl in charge. but there is another 40% that is not opposed to having this guy/girl in charge. That 33% pro person A, could be expressed as 25%(from person B and C) oppose the current government. (Those numbers and letters are abstract, not representative of whatever the current standings are with which political party, which I don't know.)
Reply
And either way, if you didn't vote, you don't count. We have zero information about what the non-voting population might do or feel or whatever, so any conclusions you might draw about them are purely speculation.
If pigs had wings they'd fly. So fucking what.
Reply
No. A lot of politics doesn't affect a lot of people. What I am concerned about is they CAN vote. If we are ordering ice cream, and I don't vote on a flavour then I'm with you - I can't whine about the flavour you choose. However the context is still getting ice cream. So if you choose to order hamburgers, then I get a right to complain again.
To go back to politics, if I have to choose between Conservatives and Liberals then I might say one is as good as the other, I will still be at my $5/hour dish washing job. if the conservative party got in and then they turned into the Bush administration.. well, that's completely different context. I get the right to complain again.
There is a style or flavour or party that is a six/half dozen choice. But there is also a context or larger set of flavours or political ideas that said options have to stay within.
Now of course, if I like the prosecute-Incite-users idea, but the Greens are promoting the don't-prosecute-Incite-users idea. It's a policy they have published ahead of time, I should have done a little research voted for not-Green.
Reply
What we have is a de facto dictatorship for 2 or 4 or 5 years. If you don't like the party line, if you don't vote how we say, the premier/PM has final say on your party nomination next election.
So PMs and premiers have way too much power.
STV would make it a lot easier for an independent to win his election if he just got kicked out of the party. And i think that's a very good thing.
Reply
Look, I agree with the provincial green party on basically every single issue of their platform. But I fear that they will do nothing more than deliver 4 more years of Gordon "gulp, gulp, vroom vroom" Campbell.
As a consequence, I find myself voting for someone OTHER THAN a party who's ideas I support.
That's not how it's supposed to be. An election should not be a gated community.
Reply
Leave a comment