Which voting system do you prefer?

[Glacier]

Could you name one compelling argument in favour of FPTP? One which would out-weigh the fact that a party can get in with considerably less than 50% of the popular vote because of factors such as vote splitting?

Vote splitting is highly exaggerated if not a myth entirely.

Why FPTP? Because it keeps out fascists, helps throw out the bums in power, and reduces the power of the party over picking your local candidate.

Under proportional representation governments that deserve to get booted hard just get a gentle nudge as the 5 to 10% of swing voters merely shift the results lightly so that the new party in power is only slightly ahead of the bums they replaced.

I also like the idea of a run-off to ensure 50% for the winning candidate. Maybe I like that one better, but to me I think that an area like say the Yukon with a single MP, it would be foolish to make the area even bigger so that the local candidate ends up being from Yellowknife. That's the downfall of proportional representation. The problem is how do you deal with independents. Vicki Huntington was elected twice now as an independent because the government refused to listen to the concerns of the people of Delta. If the ridings were larger, their voices would have been drowned out by the wider area.

Instead of changing the voting system, I think that changing how much power the party leaders have would be a lot more effective. But maybe we need to change the voting system, so let's hear the good arguments for that. I suppose the most powerful argument is that it's unfair that my local candidate won with 40% of the vote. I'm not entirely convinced that 50% should be the bench mark, but that aside, let's assume we go proportional, and the entire province gets 25MPs by proportional representation. 4% is required to get an MP, but since the Green riding gets watered down by the rest of the province, they now get nothing. In addition, the parties all pick their candidates out of Vancouver, and no local Okanagan MPs get picked. Now who do you go to when you have a concern?

[Ptolemy Soter]

A simple, all-must-attend-and-throw-paper-ballots-into-boxes vote for a monarch practicing benevolent absolutism, of course. To end the party system, among other things.

Different voting systems are for unwashed yokels!

[JLives]

I chose other. I think it's going to be archaic soon to be voting on people, and certainly for voting on parties. I don't care what the party wants for the country, I care what the people want. We're voting them in to carry out our agenda, not their own. We should be debating and voting on issues and doing it via the internet.

[The Green Barbarian]

I chose other. I think it's going to be archaic soon to be voting on people, and certainly for voting on parties. I don't care what the party wants for the country, I care what the people want. We're voting them in to carry out our agenda, not their own. We should be debating and voting on issues and doing it via the internet.

yes, until a vote is held and the electorate decides that man-made climate change is a fairy tale and no more government money should be spent "fighting" it, at which point you demand that we go back to first past the post. As soon as you don't get the result you want, you''ll want something else. Bank on it.

[OREZ]

Vote splitting is highly exaggerated if not a myth entirely.

Interesting article but I'm not convinced. In a FPTP system, a political party could possibly lose every riding by one vote such that, despite being widely supported by Canadians all across the country, they still could have zero representation in government. Does that make sense to you?

The arguments in the article which you posted not withstanding, I still think it's more likely to happen when more than two parties are running but I don't think that a two party system is what we want. Anyway, a two party system still couldn't ensure the possibility of the outcome being that 49% of the population would receive zero representation couldn't happen in a FPTP system.

Popular vote matters - or at least it should.

[JLives]

yes, until a vote is held and the electorate decides that man-made climate change is a fairy tale and no more government money should be spent "fighting" it, at which point you demand that we go back to first past the post. As soon as you don't get the result you want, you''ll want something else. Bank on it.

I think voting on issues and knowing your vote will lead to action will lead to more informed and conscientious voters. There is a lot of laziness and apathy now because people feel their voice doesn't matter as the politicians will just do what they want anyway. I also don't think the general public is stupid enough to ignore what the vast majority of scientists are telling us, even now there is large support to fight climate change. I see it only growing through Direct Democracy. One thing I would add is a hard core, no taksies backies, ban on voting on human rights prior to the change in system. Voting on issues is fine, voting on rights is not.

[The Green Barbarian]

I think voting on issues and knowing your vote will lead to action will lead to more informed and conscientious voters. .

I know you think that. But reality is that what is going to happen is that if a result occurs that you don't like, you will want to change to yet another system. It's no secret as to why all of the radical leftists and enviro-nuts want to get rid of FPTP, because they can't ever win, because there just aren't enough emotionally driven non-reality based people in Canada to elect a truly awful leftist government into power (though you do see anomalies in provincial elections like Alberta). You don't want to admit that your ideology is wrong, flawed, and failed, and so you blame the voting system, rather than yourself. That's way easier than to face reality, and that your belief system is just plain screwy.

[GordonH]

Looking at the last Federal Election numbers:
Liberals got 39.47% of the vote which = 54.4% of the seats in House of Commons
Conservatives got 31.89% of the vote which = 29.3% of the seats in House of Commons

etc..... etc

[JLives]

0

I know you think that. But reality is that what is going to happen is that if a result occurs that you don't like, you will want to change to yet another system. It's no secret as to why all of the radical leftists and enviro-nuts want to get rid of FPTP, because they can't ever win, because there just aren't enough emotionally driven non-reality based people in Canada to elect a truly awful leftist government into power (though you do see anomalies in provincial elections like Alberta). You don't want to admit that your ideology is wrong, flawed, and failed, and so you blame the voting system, rather than yourself. That's way easier than to face reality, and that your belief system is just plain screwy.

Sorry GB, I've been a Direct Democracy supporter since I was 17. I don't have an ideology or belief system but do have different opinions on different issues and make evidence based decisions. I have never supported one political party over another in my voting life but have gone with whichever was the better choice in that particular election.

You can't say what "the reality" is when people vote on issues instead of people because it only happens in referendums right now and is not a system used fully in practice anywhere in the world so there are no real statistics to draw from. I am capable of disagreeing with a decision without wanting to burn the world down, it's called being an adult.

[flamingfingers]

rustled wrote:

I've always thought there was something to be said for a non-party system in which we vote for the person we feel would make the best MP in our riding, and the elected MPs choose a leader from among themselves.

This is a system I have long advocated. It eliminates the 'toe the party line' and enhances each MP's ability to TRULY represent the particular issues of the riding he/she lives in.

It ALSO eliminates the ability of corporations/unions to 'get the best government (their) money can buy!!!

[The Green Barbarian]

Sorry GB, I've been a Direct Democracy supporter since I was 17. .

Awesome. I've been a hater of communism and socialism since I was 5. I guess we both chose early on in our lives what we wanted to support.

[JLives]

Awesome. I've been a hater of communism and socialism since I was 5. I guess we both chose early on in our lives what we wanted to support.

Good for you but Direct Democracy, Socialism and Communism are 3 totally different things. Would you like some links to get information on what those words actually mean and what they represent so you understand? I would be happy to educate you.

[flamingfingers]

Awesome. I've been a hater of communism and socialism since I was 5.

At the age of 5, you didn't form that opinion on your own.

[Glacier]

Interesting article but I'm not convinced. In a FPTP system, a political party could possibly lose every riding by one vote such that, despite being widely supported by Canadians all across the country, they still could have zero representation in government. Does that make sense to you?

The arguments in the article which you posted not withstanding, I still think it's more likely to happen when more than two parties are running but I don't think that a two party system is what we want. Anyway, a two party system still couldn't ensure the possibility of the outcome being that 49% of the population would receive zero representation couldn't happen in a FPTP system.

Popular vote matters - or at least it should.

I agree that poplar vote matters to a certain degree, but I'm not convinced that it makes up for the cons of proportional representation. The popular vote is not as meaningful as we often assume, in part because the political opinions within each party vary from province to province, and even within each province. For example, rural NDPers were against the long gun registry while urban NDPers were in favour. Who decides which NDPers get to represent us? Since this issue is more an urban-rural one than a left-right one, it's quite conceivable that proportional representation becomes less representative of Canadian opinions than FPTP.

But overall, I would say that elected officials would probably more closely reflect Canadian values with proportional representation, which again, might not be ideal when it's at the expense of smaller voices. PR is good at giving voice to the minorities, but not the minorities/individuals within minorities.

[The Green Barbarian]

Good for you but Direct Democracy, Socialism and Communism are 3 totally different things. .

Socialism and communism really aren't much different, kind of like dying of hunger and thirst vs just shooting yourself in the head. In the end you are still dead.