Changing How We Vote

[hobbyguy]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-electoral-reform-politics-1.3577086

This is a key issue the Liberals have brought forward. It fundamentally affects our democracy.

Having poked around a bit, I am in favor of the kind of hybrid system that New Zealand uses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_New_Zealand

[alfred2]

removed. do not post in all caps.

[occasional thoughts]

B.C. had a referendum on this matter a few years back. The proposal then scared the sheet out of me, because it involved large constituencies electing multiple members. I remember provincial politics in my youth when various constituencies elected three members. It was as good a process for electing multiple Social Credit or Liberal members as even Texas at its gerrymandering best could come up with. Yet the naïve people working with Bill Gibson on the B.C. review opined that giving people two or three MLA to elect would encourage them to spare a vote for an also-ran. Gee whiz, tell this to the partisan organizers. If this federal initiative goes anywhere in that direction, I'll be shouting from the highest hills. Otherwise, we'll have to see what comes out on the merits.

[jimmy4321]

I trust the Liberals to get it right.

[hobbyguy]

Certainly an issue worth watching. I do like the kind of notion where you can vote once for a national proportional (i.e. for who you think should form the government), and then a second time for a local representative (who you think is the best of local candidates).

That would give independents a better shot through the local candidate route.

It won't go away, but the political party system limits our choices. A split system like that would most often result in minority governments, or coalition governments - either way it becomes more difficult for someone to get carried away with an agenda.

"First past the post' results in too many majority governments with less than 40% of the vote.

[Glacier]

I trust the liberals to pick the system that benefits the liberals the most. I'm guessing that will be MMP of some sort, but I don't think we'll see the determinant Liberal party governments that we all hope for. In New Zealand the National Party (conservative party has won 3 in a row, and in all those cases, they got less than 50% of the vote. Of course, that meant they had to form coalitions with minority parties, and that's okay, but it's quite easy for small parties to be far right or far left, and that means that the political extremes hold tremendous power.

[The Green Barbarian]

I trust the Liberals to get it right.

LOL. Yeah unless this is a sarcastic statement prepare to be sorely disappointed.

[GrooveTunes]

This is a key issue the Liberals have brought forward. It fundamentally affects our democracy.

and it should be decided by referendum only.

[Glacier]

and it should be decided by referendum only.

That's not an option. Politicians know better than voters.

[alfred2]

no matter what the changes are, ndp will never win a majority.

[occasional thoughts]

Yes, referendum, of course; no silly Alternate Approval Process dodges to tempt politicians here. Wasn't the last big federal referendum about Meech Lake? And it failed, and deservedly, or so I voted. The people can speak if they wish and if they are allowed.

[bob vernon]

I prefer proportional rather than a transferable vote. As long as it would prevent another right wing extremist like Harper from ever getting his hands on the levers again.

[alfred2]

as long as we do not get an idiotic ndp.

[hobbyguy]

Glacier has a good point, the proportional split system does give fringe parties a shot at disproportionate power.

However, that would depend on the degree of "lust for power" held by the larger partner in a coalition. It would also depend on whether or not the fringe party intended to be part of governing, or just firebrands.

Part of me thinks that the scenario of fringe, or single issue parties, having more of a shot at bringing their issues to the big stage is a good thing. Better to have the issues brought forward, discussed, and voted on than to have them smolder away in the background.

Issues like the inordinate "rights" granted to convicted and serial criminals. That one smolders, and no one, not Chretien, not Martin, not Harper, and I very much doubt JT, will really take it on. At some point, and that's the really contentious part, even a prolific petty thief gets to the point where you lock them up without regard to their well being - just as a protection for society. That would require a constitutional amendment - much too much like real work for our politicians, and they might lose political points one way or the other. Perhaps a fringe party could indeed goad action on such issues.

The other side of it, is that if the fringe parties fail to gain any seats, then perhaps (unlikely) they will realize that their "issues" are a non-starter.

So perhaps giving fringe parties a shot would be a valuable process.