Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

[ballz]

There is the Salisbury rule in the house of Lords where the house of Lords does not vote against anything that was in the governing party’s election promises.

That would apply to electoral reform here. It wouldn't apply to assisted dying as the liberals were mum on that during the campaign

They didn't campaign on a specific election system (aka "we will bring in the ranked ballot system"), they campaigned to get rid of FPTP. Don't think the Salisbury rule works for campaign promises like that. You're essentially saying they should have a blank cheque to bring in whatever election system they want just because they campaigned to do away with the current one.

 

[Altair]

They didn't campaign on a specific election system (aka "we will bring in the ranked ballot system"), they campaigned to get rid of FPTP. Don't think the Salisbury rule works for campaign promises like that. You're essentially saying they should have a blank cheque to bring in whatever election system they want just because they campaigned to do away with the current one.

do Canadian senators even adhere to the Salisbury rule?

Interesting note. From 1999 the house of Lords has sent 500 bills back to the Commons for amendments. During that time Canada's Senate has sent back 24.

 

[Kirkhill]

That is why, for example, when the budget is not adopted in the US, Government grinds to a halt, while in Canada (under Trudeau Sr. and Clark governments) we went for more than three years without a budget while not a single government function went unfilled and not a single dollar went unspent.

A chap name of Charlie Stewart had a really bad day because he did exactly that:  decided that he could govern without calling parliament.  As a result we have a convention that parliament must be called for the government to spend money.

With respect to tie-breaking:  the houses represent tribes in dispute.  When the tribes cannot resolve their differences someone will volunteer to do it for them.

British practice has been that the Commons arrogate to themselves the power to decide.  The fact that Walpole and every PM since has usurped the power of the Commons (and the Throne) is immaterial.

 

[jollyjacktar]

And he's back at the trough like a shot. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mike-duffy-returns-to-charging-taxpayers-for-ottawa-living-expenses-1.3713011

 

[jmt18325]

Well he was cleared of all wrongdoing.  There's no reason he shouldn't be claiming the expenses.

 

[Coffee_psych]

I am really happy to hear the other perspectives on this! (I'm new to the website, so bare with me in my n00bness). The reason I like the proposed voting reform is because I am an environmental conservative, so the Green Party has a platform (most of the time) that I can get behind, Elizabeth May has been a voice of reason and has worked tirelessly across party lines to try and end political gridlock.  Any system that gives the Greens, even a couple more seats, is something I have to support. 

However I acknowledge the concerns that I read in the first couple pages.  It will undermine certain MLA powers, maybe also because a Green Party constituent will now have more of a voice in parliament. 

If anyone can describe in more detail about how powers will change for better or for worse, I'm all ears! (I haven't had a discussion with anyone about this yet!!)

 

[Lightguns]

Well he was cleared of all wrongdoing.  There's no reason he shouldn't be claiming the expenses.

Exactly, well I dislike the disloyal SOB he is within the rules and continues to be within the rules.  The liberal government of PEI considers him a permanent resident.  All of which escapes of the commenters in CBC land. 

 

[ModlrMike]

What most of these reformers conveniently overlook is that while we have one general election, it is actually composed of 330 local elections. While FPTP has its issues, I think that most other forms actually work counter to the local electorates wishes. I will admit though, that I'm sufficiently cynical to think that any changes made to the current system will only be for the benefit of the current governing party. The end result will be that a large portion of the electorate will be perpetually unrepresented.

 

[Lightguns]

What most of these reformers conveniently overlook is that while we have one general election, it is actually composed of 330 local elections. While FPTP has its issues, I think that most other forms actually work counter to the local electorates wishes. I will admit though, that I'm sufficiently cynical to think that any changes made to the current system will only be for the benefit of the current governing party. The end result will be that a large portion of the electorate will be perpetually unrepresented.

The only thing needed to make FPTP effective is an end to party discipline.  Political parties are the most un-democratic power hungry institutions.  No political party should be allowed to usurp the will of the MP's local electorate.  There should be no such thing as a Free Vote as it should not be necessary and parties should not be allowed to discipline MPs for voting their voters wishes.  Parties should be earning the votes of their MPs not the other way around.  Fix that and democracy works. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Well said Lightguns.

The other major "innovation" I currently have problems with is the tendency to remove the Leader of the Party from the control of the Parliamentary Party and create a new constituency for the Leader outside of the House.

The net effect is that a Leader can campaign in a narrow geographic/demographic zone, sign up a useful number (200,000 for the British Labour Party) and then use their cadre of "Bolsheviks"* to keep the House and the rest of the party as his poodles.

* A reminder:  Bolsheviks means members of the majority.  Mensheviks are members of the minority.  In 1917 the Mensheviks were elected, ie they had the majority.  The Bolsheviks, the minority, claimed to represent a majority outside of the Duma and overthrew the majority claiming that the majority was the minority and the minority was the majority.  For a clearer understanding read George Orwell or Alice in Wonderland.

 

[George Wallace]

The only thing needed to make FPTP effective is an end to party discipline.  Political parties are the most un-democratic power hungry institutions.  No political party should be allowed to usurp the will of the MP's local electorate.  There should be no such thing as a Free Vote as it should not be necessary and parties should not be allowed to discipline MPs for voting their voters wishes.  Parties should be earning the votes of their MPs not the other way around.  Fix that and democracy works.

Agreed.

Some of the other proposals may sound good and give the public an impression that some of the smaller parties will benefit, but I am of the opinion that the opposite would be true; some may actually totally annihilate the smaller parties and fringe groups. 

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

What most of these reformers conveniently overlook is that while we have one general election, it is actually composed of 330 local elections. While FPTP has its issues, I think that most other forms actually work counter to the local electorates wishes. I will admit though, that I'm sufficiently cynical to think that any changes made to the current system will only be for the benefit of the current governing party. The end result will be that a large portion of the electorate will be perpetually unrepresented.

The concept behind the preferential ballot is that it better represents the wishes of voters in any riding since it allows for the discernment of a majority within each riding (Over 50%). For example, if the conservative candidate gets 40%, the Liberal Candidate gets 39%, and the NDP candidate gets 21% than no one has gained a true plurality of the vote. The NDP candidate, being the last place choice, then loses his ballots and his go to the second choice of the voter. So if 70% of the NDP candidates ballots go Liberal than the Liberal candidate is the winner with a total of 54% of the vote (39 +14.7). In theory this is a fairer system as the NDP voter got their wish represented through their second choice.

That said, I think that if we do go to a preferential voting system, there should only be 2 choices as a max. The assumption is that NDP voters would have the Liberal candidate as their second choice and vice versa. With the Liberals moving left, the NDP will be forced to move more left, so their voters may see the Green party as a better second choice, so the plurality may not come on the second ballot. Once the choices start getting down into the 3rd and 4th I don't think the preferential has credibility anymore as the voter likely doesn't have the knowledge of the other parties to make an educated decision.

Further, I would argue that if you think that, say, the Liberals are the third best party to govern than that doesn't represent a strong basis for election. Does a Green voter, who says NDP second and puts Liberals third since they just don't like conservatives, really want Liberals? Is that a satisfying end to the vote for them? And if not, than what did the vote stand for?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

What would stop a person from marking their party into all three spots? If everyone did so, would that not equate to FPTP? :dunno:

 

[Lumber]

I am really happy to hear the other perspectives on this! (I'm new to the website, so bare with me in my n00bness). The reason I like the proposed voting reform is because I am an environmental conservative, so the Green Party has a platform (most of the time) that I can get behind, Elizabeth May has been a voice of reason and has worked tirelessly across party lines to try and end political gridlock.  Any system that gives the Greens, even a couple more seats, is something I have to support. 

A little off topic:

Elizabeth May ponders future after Green Party's support for Israeli boycott policy
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/elizabeth-may-ponders-future-green-party-support-bds-1.3713262

Back on topic:

Personally, I don't have any issues with our electoral system, and I think it would be fine to leave it the way it is. Yes, party discipline sucks, and if there was one thing I would change, it would be that. However, while party discipline has turned Prime Ministers into near Autocratic Dictators when they have a majority, I think there's enough benevolence in Canadians and enough back room strings that our Dictators aren't as autocratic as they could be.

I prefer seeing leaders get stuff done over constant squabbling, even if the things they are getting done aren't exactly what I was hoping for.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Well he was cleared of all wrongdoing.  There's no reason he shouldn't be claiming the expenses.

Until the rules are changed and/or clarified - and if they have, I'm guessing they'll be followed this time.

The only thing needed to make FPTP effective is an end to party discipline. 

And as long as all parties want control, that'll continue to be the reason we're not likely to see much change, promises or not.

What would stop a person from marking their party into all three spots? If everyone did so, would that not equate to FPTP? :dunno:

My understanding (and I stand to be corrected/educated) is that under preferential voting, you'd get 3 slots if there are three parties running.  You should be able to only pick one position for each candidate - one check per box, no?

 

[McG]

What most of these reformers conveniently overlook is that while we have one general election, it is actually composed of 330 local elections. While FPTP has its issues, I think that most other forms actually work counter to the local electorates wishes.

I believe there is a deliberate effort by parties on both sides to paint electoral reform as a false dichotomy between the status quo or proportional representation.  For the NDP, Greens, and any other smaller party the desire to frame this debate in a false dichotomy is because only through proportional representation or large multi-representative constituencies will these parties see an increase in their share of Parliament's seats - these small parties would prefer we not look at other electoral reform options that retain our current single representative constituencies.  Conversely, those opposed to electoral reform are happy to employ the same false dichotomy because it is easier to use PR as a boogeyman around which to inspire fear and mistrust of any change - they would rather you not consider the existence of an option between single representative FPTP and Parliamentary anarchy.

The concept behind the preferential ballot is that it better represents the wishes of voters in any riding since it allows for the discernment of a majority within each riding (Over 50%). For example, if the conservative candidate gets 40%, the Liberal Candidate gets 39%, and the NDP candidate gets 21% than no one has gained a true plurality of the vote. The NDP candidate, being the last place choice, then loses his ballots and his go to the second choice of the voter. So if 70% of the NDP candidates ballots go Liberal than the Liberal candidate is the winner with a total of 54% of the vote (39 +14.7). In theory this is a fairer system as the NDP voter got their wish represented through their second choice.

That is one means of doing it, but there are others ways.  I would prefer a method that first gives victory to the condorcet winner.  The Condorcet winner is the candidate who would have beat every other candidate if the election were conducted as a 1 vs 1 round-robin.

Unfortunately, there is not always a Condorcet winner.  If you imagine a vote between rock, paper & scissors (or rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock if you prefer) then there is no Condorcet winner.

In cases without a Condorcet winner, pure Condorcet methods start doing weird things to assign a winner from the Smith set.  But with a two method system, we could then apply instant run-off voting to those candidates remaining in the Smith set (the smallest set of candidates who beat every candidate outside of the set).

What would stop a person from marking their party into all three spots? If everyone did so, would that not equate to FPTP? :dunno:

My understanding (and I stand to be corrected/educated) is that under preferential voting, you'd get 3 slots if there are three parties running.  You should be able to only pick one position for each candidate - one check per box, no?

It really depends on how the rules are written.  Ranked ballots may limit ranking to some number of candidates, it may allow ranking of all candidates, or it may require ranking of all candidates.  Likewise, it is possible to design a system where a voter has a number of points that can be collectively assigned to one candidate or shared across some member of candidates.  There are a vast number of options, and because of the vast number of options there is a requirement to get into details when presenting merits of any potential alternate system over our current FPTP system.

 

[The Bread Guy]

It really depends on how the rules are written.  Ranked ballots may limit ranking to some number of candidates, it may allow ranking of all candidates, or it may require ranking of all candidates.  Likewise, it is possible to design a system where a voter has a number of points that can be collectively assigned to one candidate or shared across some member of candidates.  There are a vast number of options, and because of the vast number of options there is a requirement to get into details when presenting merits of any potential alternate system over our current FPTP system.

Thanks for that - that makes it clearer that options have to be made a lot clearer.

For the NDP, Greens, and any other smaller party the desire to frame this debate in a false dichotomy is because only through proportional representation or large multi-representative constituencies will these parties see an increase in their share of Parliament's seats ...

:nod:

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

That is one means of doing it, but there are others ways.  I would prefer a method that first gives victory to the condorcet winner.  The Condorcet winner is the candidate who would have beat every other candidate if the election were conducted as a 1 vs 1 round-robin.

Unfortunately, there is not always a Condorcet winner.  If you imagine a vote between rock, paper & scissors (or rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock if you prefer) then there is no Condorcet winner.

In cases without a Condorcet winner, pure Condorcet methods start doing weird things to assign a winner from the Smith set.  But with a two method system, we could then apply instant run-off voting to those candidates remaining in the Smith set (the smallest set of candidates who beat every candidate outside of the set).
It really depends on how the rules are written.  Ranked ballots may limit ranking to some number of candidates, it may allow ranking of all candidates, or it may require ranking of all candidates.  Likewise, it is possible to design a system where a voter has a number of points that can be collectively assigned to one candidate or shared across some member of candidates.  There are a vast number of options, and because of the vast number of options there is a requirement to get into details when presenting merits of any potential alternate system over our current FPTP system.

I agree that there are a number of ways of implementing a preferential balloting system. I would suggest that the system needs to be kept as simple as possible or else there will be constant squabbling over results.

I think that a preferential system will force most parties into the "mushy middle" to try and take over traditional centrist areas with a SLIGHT appearance of Right/Left dynamic to appeal to some voters over others. As noted earlier, it will be interesting to see the dynamic of people who just put one person down. Do their votes then not count if their candidate doesn't win in the first round? People who vote for fringe parties such as the Marxist/Leninist, Libertarian, or Christian Heritage party are unlikely to have second choices, at least in terms of acceptable choices and not "least bad" ones.

Finally, if we go to a preferential ballot I would like to see an elected senate based on the FPTP to provide oversight to the new parliament. It's understood that that requires a referendum and charter ammendment, but it feels weird that we can overhaul the way we vote without any oversight but need oversight to change the way the senate is. An elected senate would at least give some say to provinces who may be left out in the political wilderness based on preferential and the location of the majority of Canada's population (ie- The west).

 

[Brad Sallows]

Whatever system is used must meet the following criteria: be executable with a paper ballot, countable within hours, and verifiable (re-count) within hours.

If it's too complicated, it's unsuitable.

 

[McG]

Whatever system is used must meet the following criteria: be ... countable within hours, and verifiable (re-count) within hours.

Why?

There are weeks after a general election before power is handed to a new government.

Aside from upsetting our collective want for instant gratification, what does it matter of CBC has to wait 24 hours as opposed to broadcasting counting live on election night?