• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Election Day 2019 Thread

Electoral reform was never real high on my anxiety list. We had a referendum here (BC) and I voted to keep the first-past-the-post status quo mostly because the options as presented looked too open to manipulation.

Bruh.

Proportional representation more exploitable than the FPTP that is domineered by vote splitting and routinely produces wildly undemocratic results? On what planet?
 
Bruh.

Proportional representation more exploitable than the FPTP that is domineered by vote splitting and routinely produces wildly undemocratic results? On what planet?

These were the options offered. From Wikipedia...

The referendum asked voters to rank three proportional representation voting systems in order of preference: Voters ranked one, two, or all three systems.[26]

dual-member proportional representation (DMP)
mixed-member proportional representation (MMP)
rural–urban proportional representation (RUP)

Dual-member proportional is an electoral system designed to produce proportional election results across a region by electing two representatives in each of the region's districts.[52][53] The first seat in every district is awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes, similar to first-past-the-post voting. The second seat is awarded to one of the remaining district candidates so that proportionality is achieved across the region, using a calculation that aims to award parties their seats in the districts where they had their strongest performances.[54]

Mixed-member proportional is a mixed electoral system in which voters get two votes: one to decide the representative for their single-seat constituency, and one for a political party. Seats in the legislature are filled firstly by candidates in local ridings, and secondly, by party candidates based on the percentage of nationwide or region-wide votes that each party received.[57]

Rural–urban proportional is a hybrid-proportional system designed by Fair Vote Canada to meet the challenges of Canada's geography.[64][11] As put forward for the BC referendum, it would use mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) in rural areas and the single transferable vote (STV) in urban and semi-urban areas.[51][65][66] Sweden, Denmark and Iceland use voting models with similar hybrid approaches. In Canada from the 1920s to the 1950s, the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba used a hybrid rural–urban system where STV was used in large cities and the alternative vote was used in single-member rural districts.[2]:81–82[64][67]

Maybe you know a better alternative, or maybe you can explain how one of those offered was better than the status quo.
 
These were the options offered. From Wikipedia...

The referendum asked voters to rank three proportional representation voting systems in order of preference: Voters ranked one, two, or all three systems.[26]

dual-member proportional representation (DMP)
mixed-member proportional representation (MMP)
rural–urban proportional representation (RUP)

Dual-member proportional is an electoral system designed to produce proportional election results across a region by electing two representatives in each of the region's districts.[52][53] The first seat in every district is awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes, similar to first-past-the-post voting. The second seat is awarded to one of the remaining district candidates so that proportionality is achieved across the region, using a calculation that aims to award parties their seats in the districts where they had their strongest performances.[54]

Mixed-member proportional is a mixed electoral system in which voters get two votes: one to decide the representative for their single-seat constituency, and one for a political party. Seats in the legislature are filled firstly by candidates in local ridings, and secondly, by party candidates based on the percentage of nationwide or region-wide votes that each party received.[57]

Rural–urban proportional is a hybrid-proportional system designed by Fair Vote Canada to meet the challenges of Canada's geography.[64][11] As put forward for the BC referendum, it would use mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) in rural areas and the single transferable vote (STV) in urban and semi-urban areas.[51][65][66] Sweden, Denmark and Iceland use voting models with similar hybrid approaches. In Canada from the 1920s to the 1950s, the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba used a hybrid rural–urban system where STV was used in large cities and the alternative vote was used in single-member rural districts.[2]:81–82[64][67]

Maybe you know a better alternative, or maybe you can explain how one of those offered was better than the status quo.

I've generally been a fan of MMP, because it retains local representation, while also allocating power in proportion to the popular vote.

Having said that, literally every last one of those options would be better, less exploitable (again, aiming to provoke vote splitting is huge in electoral strategy; especially among Conservatives) and vastly more democratic than FPTP (we repeatedly and routinely hand over absolute power to parties with less than 30% of the popular vote).

CGPGrey has a pretty good summation of it here, along with why it's superior to FPTP:

 
I've generally been a fan of MMP, because it retains local representation, while also allocating power in proportion to the popular vote.

Having said that, literally every last one of those options would be better, less exploitable (again, aiming to provoke vote splitting is huge in electoral strategy; especially among Conservatives) and vastly more democratic than FPTP (we repeatedly and routinely hand over absolute power to parties with less than 30% of the popular vote).

CGPGrey has a pretty good summation of it here, along with why it's superior to FPTP:



My problem with it is it can seat people in Parliament who weren't voted in. I recognize the problems that fptp can cause but I don't like a party seating a member because they got lots of votes elsewhere in losing causes. The way the referendum was worded here didn't offer me a better choice.
For one thing, and I know this is a quibble but I don't completely buy that the party system needs to be entrenched by electoral law, for one thing independent candidates are short-changed. If there was enough votes for independent candidates to qualify for a seat under MMP there would be no way to fill that seat.

Edit- I don't open video links. My access is by satellite and I pay for bandwidth.
 
Last edited:
My problem with it is it can seat people in Parliament who weren't voted in. I recognize the problems that fptp can cause but I don't like a party seating a member because they got lots of votes elsewhere in losing causes. The way the referendum was worded here didn't offer me a better choice.
For one thing, and I know this is a quibble but I don't completely buy that the party system needs to be entrenched by electoral law, for one thing independent candidates are short-changed. If there was enough votes for independent candidates to qualify for a seat under MMP there would be no way to fill that seat.

Well let's face it, FPTP or not ultimately you're voting for people selected and curated by the party, and in a majority of cases, you're in practice voting for your party over the individual. Further, the party will always have absolute power over which of its members will sit in parliament. Ultimately, that you don't to reject the party's specific pick in the case of the party vote is at worst a minor flaw compared to a system that again, routinely affords absolute power and control to a sub 30% proportion of the popular vote. To me the decision is a complete no-brainer.

Also it should be noted that MMP actually affords you more room to vote in an individual you like, even if he isn't from the party you prefer, due to the two seat ridings; you can vote for the party you prefer, and the individual you prefer, rather than being forced to choose between the two in FPTP (where the party will almost always win in practice).

As to independent candidates, it would be easy enough to have them count as a 'de facto' party for the purposes of both types of votation.
 
Well let's face it, FPTP or not ultimately you're voting for people selected and curated by the party, and in a majority of cases, you're in practice voting for your party over the individual. Further, the party will always have absolute power over which of its members will sit in parliament. Ultimately, that you don't to reject the party's specific pick in the case of the party vote is at worst a minor flaw compared to a system that again, routinely affords absolute power and control to a sub 30% proportion of the popular vote. To me the decision is a complete no-brainer.

Also it should be noted that MMP actually affords you more room to vote in an individual you like, even if he isn't from the party you prefer, due to the two seat ridings; you can vote for the party you prefer, and the individual you prefer, rather than being forced to choose between the two in FPTP (where the party will almost always win in practice).

As to independent candidates, it would be easy enough to have them count as a 'de facto' party for the purposes of both types of votation.

Under that system, MMP, Jody Wilson-Raybould's victory in Vancouver-Granville would be halved and the Liberals, because they were close seconds there and elsewhere, would be rewarded.
Like I said, none of this is high on my anxiety list but I need something that sounds more fair in practice to me before I can get behind it. And compensating political parties that lose ridings by margins not reflected in the national vote doesn't cut it for me.
I vote Liberal, if I vote (until yesterday) but if I don't like the Liberal leader or the party performance I don't vote. Until yesterday. That's how unimportant party politics is to me.
 
Under that system, MMP, Jody Wilson-Raybould's victory in Vancouver-Granville would be halved and the Liberals, because they were close seconds there and elsewhere, would be rewarded.

I mean not necessarily; as a pseudo-party it's possible to win both seats, though you'd probably have to make an adjustment to accommodate that sort of outcome.

Like I said, none of this is high on my anxiety list but I need something that sounds more fair in practice to me before I can get behind it. And compensating political parties that lose ridings by margins not reflected in the national vote doesn't cut it for me.
I vote Liberal, if I vote (until yesterday) but if I don't like the Liberal leader or the party performance I don't vote. Until yesterday. That's how unimportant party politics is to me.

Well, I would say that not voting on the basis of party is probably the exception to the rule overall.

Having said that, MMP is not about compensating losers under FPTP so much as it is making sure parliament more accurately reflects the actual wishes of the voter, which it clearly and objectively does. You will never have 30% or less of the population dictating the next 5 years for the remaining 70%+, and that by itself is compelling enough for me, especially when you still get to vote for individuals and do not have to choose between a party and a candidate.
 
I mean not necessarily; as a pseudo-party it's possible to win both seats, though you'd probably have to make an adjustment to accommodate that sort of outcome.



Well, I would say that not voting on the basis of party is probably the exception to the rule overall.

Having said that, MMP is not about compensating losers under FPTP so much as it is making sure parliament more accurately reflects the actual wishes of the voter, which it clearly and objectively does. You will never have 30% or less of the population dictating the next 5 years for the remaining 70%+, and that by itself is compelling enough for me, especially when you still get to vote for individuals and do not have to choose between a party and a candidate.

Good exchange. Thanks.
 
Just a 'Thank you' for this thread. A Staten Islander, I've long been interested in Canada. Reading your comments gives me, an outsider, a peek at how you view events in your country. We [My Lady and I] visit Canada when we can. We'll be on a cruise to some Canadian ports in May next year. I'll look forward to it in the winter months ahead.

Regards.
 
Just a 'Thank you' for this thread. A Staten Islander, I've long been interested in Canada. Reading your comments gives me, an outsider, a peek at how you view events in your country. We [My Lady and I] visit Canada when we can. We'll be on a cruise to some Canadian ports in May next year. I'll look forward to it in the winter months ahead.

Regards.

Enjoy! The dust from this election should be settled by then... ;) :)
 
Back
Top Bottom