Loadsa "independents" on the Ballot Discussion (split from PP by-election)

[Colin Parkinson]

Poilievre calls for law to block long ballot protests that 'abuse'…

National Newswatch: Canada's most comprehensive site for political news and views.

nationalnewswatch.com

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-rule-changes-longest-ballot-1.7590948

Seems reasonable enough as far as solution to this issue.

This was certain one of the concerns I raised upthread:

Bonnie Critchley — who is running as an Independent and pitching herself as an alternative to the Conservative leader, who she argues pushed Kurek out — said she's facing a "backlash" from voters who are worried that she is a "fake out" candidate.

"I don't have a massive team, I don't have backing from millions of people. I have to go door to door within my community and explain to my neighbours that I have nothing to do with you," she wrote on her campaign website.

Michael Harris, who is running for the Libertarian Party, called the protest a "mockery of the democratic process" that "actively hurts serious Independent and third-party candidates."

 

[brihard]

This was certain one of the concerns I raised upthread:

Bonnie Critchley — who is running as an Independent and pitching herself as an alternative to the Conservative leader, who she argues pushed Kurek out — said she's facing a "backlash" from voters who are worried that she is a "fake out" candidate.

"I don't have a massive team, I don't have backing from millions of people. I have to go door to door within my community and explain to my neighbours that I have nothing to do with you," she wrote on her campaign website.

Michael Harris, who is running for the Libertarian Party, called the protest a "mockery of the democratic process" that "actively hurts serious Independent and third-party candidates."

Critchley’s complaint is absolutely a valid one. It does tend to drown out ‘non-party’ candidates.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I think only allowing people to sign a single nomination is reasonable, as put forth by the Chief Election officer. PPs suggestion for 0.5% of the ridings numbers is silly though, and would absolutely restrict small independent candidates as they won't even have a chance to get on the ballot.

 

[brihard]

I think only allowing people to sign a single nomination is reasonable, as put forth by the Chief Election officer. PPs suggestion for 0.5% of the ridings numbers is silly though, and would absolutely restrict small independent candidates as they won't even have a chance to get on the ballot.

One nomination per agent, one candidate form signature per nominator. The very individual candidate needs their own agent and slate of nominator signatures. That would be pretty easy and a justifiable limitation on the process.

 

[Navy_Pete]

One nomination per agent, one candidate form signature per nominator. The very individual candidate needs their own agent and slate of nominator signatures. That would be pretty easy and a justifiable limitation on the process.

For sure, and 100 people seems pretty small, but having assisted a relative run for town council many years ago getting that kind of support required a lot of door to door, so it's not just a throw away. Some people are already committed to a candidate, but most people just couldn't be arsed.

 

[The Bread Guy]

For the record, here's his letter (posted on FB) with the changes he's asking for.

 

[PMedMoe]

I get that the long ballot can be annoying, but I don't see how it's confusing voters. I'm pretty sure most people go to the polls knowing who they're going to vote for. Just look for the name and check the box. Ignore the rest.

It ain't rocket science.

 

[Remius]

I get that the long ballot can be annoying, but I don't see how it's confusing voters. I'm pretty sure most people go to the polls knowing who they're going to vote for. Just look for the name and check the box. Ignore the rest.

It ain't rocket science.

Mitigations exist so yeah. I don’t think it’s as disruptive to the voter as some believe.

But these guys doing this for their cause aren’t really doing themselves any favours. It’s supposed to be about changes to the system and has now become a bit of a farce. It just looks like the goal is to annoy and take advantage of a carefully watched by election

 

[PrairieFella]

Its time for PR electoral reform. Even you hardline conservative types should be on board, as it'll ensure there is never a Liberal majority ever again, beyond a tiny hope. You'll be better represented and you'll ensure politicians actually have to work together.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Its time for PR electoral reform. Even you hardline conservative types should be on board, as it'll ensure there is never a Liberal majority ever again, beyond a tiny hope ...

Team Blue may not be keen on ensuring there is never a Conservative majority ever again, beyond a tiny hope, though

 

[GR66]

Its time for PR electoral reform. Even you hardline conservative types should be on board, as it'll ensure there is never a Liberal majority ever again, beyond a tiny hope. You'll be better represented and you'll ensure politicians actually have to work together.

With regard to the highlighted portions:

1) With FPTP you have a direct representative/represented relationship with your MP. He/She is specifically accountable to your specific riding. You don't like the way that she/he is representing your interests you can vote them out in the next election. In a Proportional Representation model the MP's are determined by the overall percentage of the votes their party receives. They are no longer directly accountable to a specific group of voters so no, you will not be better represented. If your concern is vote splitting causing candidates winning a riding with only a plurality of the votes then a much better alternative is a ranked ballot. That will ensure that any MP will be the preferred candidate of at least a majority of the electors in a riding without breaking the fundamental MP/electorate direct accountability.

2) If you think that PR will actually force politicians to work together you've obviously never seen it in action in places like Italy and Israel.

Where I do see PR working in a Canadian context would be in the Senate where Senators are meant to represent the interests of their Province as a whole rather than represent the electors in a specific riding.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In the PR model, I also suspect it will result in coalitions and fringe groups having the ability to be king makers. This is what has been happening in Israel with the Settlers and the ultra-Orthodox groups having undue influence.

 

[ArmyRick]

Its time for PR electoral reform

It has plenty of merits and faults.

I as one of 41,000,000+ stake holders won't support PR for parliament.

I still support FPTP system. Yup, I said it. I say this as a guy who watched his party NOT WIN the last election (or the 3 prior) on FPTP.

I would support a senate that was reformed every time based on PR of the general election. So on the popular vote last election, we would have seen a 43% Liberal senate, 41% Conservative senate, the bits and pieces going to the other parties. Or we can just simply elect our Senators. I still don't like an unelected senate.

 

[PrairieFella]

With regard to the highlighted portions:

1) With FPTP you have a direct representative/represented relationship with your MP. He/She is specifically accountable to your specific riding. You don't like the way that she/he is representing your interests you can vote them out in the next election. In a Proportional Representation model the MP's are determined by the overall percentage of the votes their party receives. They are no longer directly accountable to a specific group of voters so no, you will not be better represented. If your concern is vote splitting causing candidates winning a riding with only a plurality of the votes then a much better alternative is a ranked ballot. That will ensure that any MP will be the preferred candidate of at least a majority of the electors in a riding without breaking the fundamental MP/electorate direct accountability.

2) If you think that PR will actually force politicians to work together you've obviously never seen it in action in places like Italy and Israel.

Where I do see PR working in a Canadian context would be in the Senate where Senators are meant to represent the interests of their Province as a whole rather than represent the electors in a specific riding.

You can control for that by instituting MMPR. Make it 60 or 70% regional and 40 or 30% list. Better than FPTP.

 

[ArmyRick]

MMPR.

Sorry, what this please?

 

[PrairieFella]

It has plenty of merits and faults.

I as one of 41,000,000+ stake holders won't support PR for parliament.

I still support FPTP system. Yup, I said it. I say this as a guy who watched his party NOT WIN the last election (or the 3 prior) on FPTP.

I would support a senate that was reformed every time based on PR of the general election. So on the popular vote last election, we would have seen a 43% Liberal senate, 41% Conservative senate, the bits and pieces going to the other parties. Or we can just simply elect our Senators. I still don't like an unelected senate.

Personally I have the unpopular opinion that the Senate should be non-elected, at least directly. Look at some of the morons in the House, itd simply be a repeat of that but now with the legitimacy to push back more than they do. I think there is wisdom from our founders in sober second thought by technocrats, experts and the august. What I'd personally do to reform senate is make the provincial legislatures nominate their senators by unanimous consent following certain metitocratic criteria, thus giving them the legitimacy they need by being unanimously sent to Ottawa by their province but avoiding the inevitable party politicking and popularity contests.

 

[HavokFour]

Sorry, what this please?

Mixed-member proportional representation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Condensed (and Canadianize) into video:

 

[PrairieFella]

Sorry, what this please?

Basically it combines FPTP and PR. You still elect a regional MP but you also vote for a Party. Your party vote counts towards the general seats in Parliament and your regional vote is for your local MP. You could realistically vote for two Parties depending on your opinions. Common middle ground in large, federalized countries where pure PR isn't practical.

 

[ArmyRick]

Basically it combines FPTP and PR. You still elect a regional MP but you also vote for a Party. Your party vote counts towards the general seats in Parliament and your regional vote is for your local MP. You could realistically vote for two Parties depending on your opinions. Common middle ground in large, federalized countries where pure PR isn't practical.

OK thanks for the info. I will not offer any more opinions until I watch the video above and read up on it. Sounds interesting

 

[dapaterson]

If we're going for electoral reform, remember that Canada is bicameral. Maintain a FPTP House, and leverage the Senate to provide regional representation via some method of proportional representation (perhaps half the seats are up for grabs every provincial election, with seats apportioned among the provincial parties).