2007 Ontario Election: MMP Referendum

[unimaginative2]

Afransen, that's why I support preferential balloting. You could have listed Greenwood-Speers as your first choice, then Fife, then Ervin. Alternatively, if you loved Witmer you still had the choice of voting only for her.

 

[afransen]

You claim that it is a bad argument, but you don't explain why. Individuals will vote for their own reasons, regardless of what you happen to think of those reasons. People vote because they think its important to do so. Maybe they like a party. Or maybe they like the candidate. Maybe they voted Conservative because Mom and Dad did do. Or maybe they voted Green because students all voted Green. Maybe they choose not to vote because they are uninterested, or don't understand the politics, issues or parties. Maybe they don't vote because they don't care. Maybe they didn't vote because they see no need to because, in their opinion, there is nothing really wrong. You simply can't assume or prove that changing the system will affect voting patterns or the desire to vote. You can't disprove that it might turn people off from voting. Choices for voting are always going to be subjective.

Similarly, you can't prove that what I say is untrue. Thankfully, empirical evidence and political scientists say much the same things as I do, while I'm not familiar with any that espouse your point of view.

While the MMP system offered up has to do with how the votes are balanced out, this need not always appear automatically satisfactory to a voter because you think it is. For example, in MMP, I might really like a candidate, I may even be able to live with the fact that he belongs to a party I really don't like, but my vote will be weighted to the party he belongs to anyway.

You obviously don't understand the system. If the candidate you liked was running in your riding, you could vote for him locally, while not voting for their party at the provincial level. Nonetheless, what you're complaining about is an artifact of the party system, not the electoral system. Don't confuse the two.

Call it bullshit all you want. You don't have any special claims on how or why people vote in the manner that they do.

Perhaps, but I certainly have special claims on knowledge of how I voted. You claimed that the electoral system doesn't necessarily affect how people vote, and I disproved your statement by counter example.

There's a significant population in B.C. that votes NDP provincially and Conservative federally. You may not like that, or even agree with it, but that type of voting exists.

What's your point? This is their right. Perhaps they think the NDP represents their interests best in terms of provincial policy, while the Conservatives federally. I really don't see what your point is, and contrary to what you imply, I don't much care either way.

As for voting on MMP, I'll tell you MY reasons so as you do not confuse your arrogance for my thinking. I voted against MMP by putting a vote for FPTP. That's how the ballot was presented. I decided to weigh my selection that way in order to stop what I think is a flawed plan that would put too much power in the hands of political parties. I voted strategically. Clearly you don't like that. Too bad for you.

You voted for FPTP, and therefore FPTP is your preferred electoral system of those presented. You didn't vote strategically in any meaningful way. You wanted Ontario to retain its present system over the alternative, and you voted sincerely. No gaming. This is why FPTP works just fine when there are only two candidates.

 

[Hydrogen]

Similarly, you can't prove that what I say is untrue. Thankfully, empirical evidence and political scientists say much the same things as I do, while I'm not familiar with any that espouse your point of view.

You obviously don't understand the system. If the candidate you liked was running in your riding, you could vote for him locally, while not voting for their party at the provincial level. Nonetheless, what you're complaining about is an artifact of the party system, not the electoral system. Don't confuse the two.

Perhaps, but I certainly have special claims on knowledge of how I voted. You claimed that the electoral system doesn't necessarily affect how people vote, and I disproved your statement by counter example.

What's your point? This is their right. Perhaps they think the NDP represents their interests best in terms of provincial policy, while the Conservatives federally. I really don't see what your point is, and contrary to what you imply, I don't much care either way.

You voted for FPTP, and therefore FPTP is your preferred electoral system of those presented. You didn't vote strategically in any meaningful way. You wanted Ontario to retain its present system over the alternative, and you voted sincerely. No gaming. This is why FPTP works just fine when there are only two candidates.

On the first point, maybe you should talk to people rather than just read political science texts. You will find amazing things if you look beyond only things you want to see.

On the second point, I understand the system. As I stated earlier in this thread (or was it the other) I chose to stick with the devil I know. I am not particularly thrilled by FPTP, but I saw this version of MMP as putting too much power in the hands of the parties. You can disagree with that all you want. You voted for your reasons, I voted for mine. That seems to really upset you.

On the third point, you can't prove that people would do anything differently in a different voting system. I think the results of the referendum speak for themselves, what with the underwhelming support for it.

On the fourth point, what my point was is that people vote for their own reasons. Those reasons are subjective in nature. People will do things that may not seem reasonable to others. So what. To each their own. I don't care about how other people vote; there's actually nothing I could do about it anyway. What they do with their ballot is their own decision - and sometimes it will not even reflect what they had otherwise been saying they would do. You might be surprised at how many "last minute" voters there are out there. But then you don't care, anyway (so then why ask questions of me?)

On the fifth point, go back to the notion of subjectivity in voting. I voted for FPTP because that was how the ballot was presented. I voted for it because I thought MMP was not a better replacement. I voted strategically because I wanted to make sure a system like this version of MMP would not be brought in. It does not appear strategic to you because you did not get what you wanted.

 

[CDL.TO]

Hydrogen,

I've said before in this thread that my main concern is that people understand the system and that I didn't really care about the outcome of the vote. Based upon that, I just want to be sure that you're clear on a couple of definitions. It can be painful to watch a debate where two parties have differing understandings of what is being debated.

You state that:

in MMP, I might really like a candidate, I may even be able to live with the fact that he belongs to a party I really don't like, but my vote will be weighted to the party he belongs to anyway.

If you're referring to a local candidate, this simply isn't true as the vote for the candidate and the vote for the party are separate. If you're referring to a list candidate, this may be true but the point is pretty moot because under FPTP you couldn't vote for non-local candidates who you support anyway.

You also state that:

I decided to weigh my selection that way in order to stop what I think is a flawed plan that would put too much power in the hands of political parties. I voted strategically.

"Strategic voting" is a term that means that "a voter supports a candidate other than his or her preference in order to prevent an undesirable outcome". Such as when a NDP supporter votes Liberal in order to prevent a Conservative from being elected. As such, "strategic voting" is impossible when there's only two options being presented (such as MMP vs FPTP).

Hopes this helps clear up a couple points.

 

[afransen]

Thanks CDL.

Hydrogen: I think the source of our disagreement stems from the fact that as a mathematician, I take terms to have fairly specific meanings given the context, while you seem to be relying overmuch on the connotation of words. As CDL said, you can't vote strategically when there are two alternatives, in the vernacular of electoral/voting schemes. So whatever you think of the connotation of the word 'strategic', doesn't make your statements true (opinion doesn't make fact).

Please also understand that the only thing I am getting a bit passionate about here is your refusal to acknowledge rational arguments. You seem to think I'm upset about the outcome of the referendum or whatever, but that's not the case. I'm disappointed perhaps, but not surprised. I'm frustrated when people say, in Stephen Colbertesque fashion, "Statistics, facts or scientific consensus be damned... you have to go with anecdotal evidence from your immediate peers, or even better, your gut." Good ole truthiness.

 

[Hydrogen]

I am not refusing to acknowledge rational arguments - mathematical or otherwise. You don't like what I have to say, and that is the difference. Politics is not mathematics.

Here's a word of advice, just because you disagree with someone does not mean that they are wrong. This one simple fact will not make your life easier, but it will reduce your stress levels. You invoke the word rational from the perspective of a student of mathematics. But that is not politics or political activity. That is shaped by points of view, by feelings, by reasoned arguments and by abstractions that engage with words in order to give life to ideas. There are many points of view and perspectives on the issues and ideas of the times. One can never assume that only one can be useful or right.

There are many ways to re-organize or restructure the electoral system. Some will be better than others, some worse; but people will have different points of view on these things. If you believe that every vote counts, then you really have no choice but to accept the idea that every different point of view has weight as well - whether you agree with it or not.

 

[afransen]

Oh Hydrogen, please don't patronise me. If you want to feel like to brotherly figure giving me some life lessons, go ahead. Don't assume I don't already know such things about people and their preferences. The fact is, we weren't discussing people, but rather electoral systems. We can state certain facts about electoral systems, given certain assumptions about the agents in them, which may or may not be reasonable. Given those assumptions, you really have to realise that your opinion doesn't matter. You can quibble with the assumptions all you want, but not the argument.

"There are many ways to re-organize or restructure the electoral system. Some will be better than others, some worse; but people will have different points of view on these things. If you believe that every vote counts, then you really have no choice but to accept the idea that every different point of view has weight as well - whether you agree with it or not."

Translation: some people will prefer some systems over others based on their value system.

True enough. But it is entirely fair to say that if we take value X (fairness, representativeness, effectiveness, etc.) to be the deciding characteristic of electoral systems, you have to admit that some will be objectively better than others. The subjectivity enters into things when we choose what our objective is, but not in terms of assessing electoral systems in terms of those objectives. Can you at least agree on that?

I am not refusing to acknowledge rational arguments - mathematical or otherwise.

You are, actually. You disagreed with the definition of strategic voting because you didn't like the connotation of the term, regardless of its definition given the context. That is irrational. Again, you dislike that term because of the connotation. You bring up anecdotal evidence in an attempt to refute statistics. This is irrational.

Abstractions are necessary for anyone to interact with the world. If you didn't use abstractions in your everyday life, you couldn't function in response to the dizzying array of sensory information. You couldn't make decisions without the simplifying assumptions that abstractions allow. Whether you like it or not, abstractions are vital to everything humans do, including voting systems. While it's true that no abstraction or model perfectly predicts the behaviour of humans in any particular way, good models do a pretty good job. Whether you like it or not, you and I are both talking about abstractions of the way in which people vote. Don't draw any lines between you and I here, just because my arguments are based on models that are better defined in terms of assumptions than yours doesn't mean I'm some clueless academic locked away in the reality I create in my own mind. Well, that is no more true of me than you, at least.

As far as giving equal weight to people's opinions, as nice as that sounds, it just isn't a very good idea. If you had an illness, would you poll your friends and family to ask them what was wrong with you, or would you consult a doctor? Same goes for anything in life that requires expertise in some form of modelling.

Same goes with an army of climatologists saying that given the evidence they present and the models they employ, they consider global warming to be a significant threat that is currently happening. You might think that we had a couple of cold days last winter means that global warming isn't happening, but frankly, your anecdotal analysis is given far less weight than those who are experts in the field. May not fit into your warm and fuzzy view of the world, but that's how it is.

 

[Hydrogen]

I wouldn't patronise you, not in any sense of the word.

The fact is, we weren't discussing people, but rather electoral systems.

The electoral system is really all about people. That's who is doing the electing, thinking about the electing, constructing the electoral system, and getting elected in order to do things for people. You're a little too wound up about structure. This is all about people.

You disagreed with the definition of strategic voting because you didn't like the connotation of the term, regardless of its definition given the context. That is irrational. Again, you dislike that term because of the connotation. You bring up anecdotal evidence in an attempt to refute statistics. This is irrational.

It's an expansive connotation. Your description of strategic voting is limited because you have selected specifically how it is to be limited. There are many ways in which to execute a strategy, and many different types of strategies, and while it can include the description that CDL provided, it is not restricted to that alone. I voted with a strategy in mind. That's what I did. Get it? Beyond that, it does not matter one bit to me what you think about it. Clearly the only reason why you find it irrational is because you disagree with it, because you didn't get what you want. Life can be tough in that way.

As for your use of "irrational" you clearly have no sense as to what the word means. As it is not being employed with respect to mathematics, you are suggesting that I am not endowed with the power of reason. I can assure you that you are incorrect. If you don't like an argument, it does not automatically mean that it is irrational.

Abstractions are necessary for anyone to interact with the world. If you didn't use abstractions in your everyday life, you couldn't function in response to the dizzying array of sensory information. You couldn't make decisions without the simplifying assumptions that abstractions allow. Whether you like it or not, abstractions are vital to everything humans do, including voting systems. While it's true that no abstraction or model perfectly predicts the behaviour of humans in any particular way, good models do a pretty good job. Whether you like it or not, you and I are both talking about abstractions of the way in which people vote. Don't draw any lines between you and I here, just because my arguments are based on models that are better defined in terms of assumptions than yours doesn't mean I'm some clueless academic locked away in the reality I create in my own mind. Well, that is no more true of me than you, at least.

No shit this is about abstractions. You, however, appear to be locked into this notion that everyone who diagrees with you is irrational. With respect to the model you invoke (and I can only assume you mean electoral) the structure of the system does not control its content or outcome. Changing electoral systems does not produce better governments in any exclusive objective measure. It just might satisfy some opinions on that issue.

Same goes with an army of climatologists saying that given the evidence they present and the models they employ, they consider global warming to be a significant threat that is currently happening. You might think that we had a couple of cold days last winter means that global warming isn't happening, but frankly, your anecdotal analysis is given far less weight than those who are experts in the field. May not fit into your warm and fuzzy view of the world, but that's how it is.
Today 01:01 AM

What has climate change got to do with electoral systems? Nothing, except that it is yet another thing that leaves you upset because not everyone cows to your point of view. An army of climatologists? That's anecdotal, isn't it. Significant threats don't currently happen; that's a meaningless phrase. As for computer models of climate, given all the meteorological variables necessary for one thunderstorm to happen, it is impossible to predict exactly when or where that storm would form, how much energy it would possess, how much rain it would produce, where that rain would fall, or how long the storm would last. That's one thunderstorm. And you believe that people can model the entire global climate, with accuracy out to one-hundred years in the future with accuracy? Whatever.

I suppose this will upset you as well, but so be it. I don't really care. Beyond this, the referendum is over and the results are in, and no complaining or passionate desires to tell everyone what you think they ought to do will change that. It's over. Move on.

 

[CDL.TO]

Your description of strategic voting is limited because you have selected specifically how it is to be limited. There are many ways in which to execute a strategy, and many different types of strategies, and while it can include the description that CDL provided, it is not restricted to that alone.

Geez, you're debating the meaning of what is essentially an accepted dictionary definition. When the National Post had a headline during the election declaring "Strategic voting doesn't worry Hampton" it's about a specific acknowledged phenomenon. It's just so confusing to me; why even bother debating an issue if you can't even accept the terminology used to describe that issue? Next you're going to argue that a "conservative party" can be a party dedicated to protecting trees and water and "vote splitting" can mean ripping your ballot in half.

 

[afransen]

I'm starting to agree with you, CDL. In his attempts to not give up any ground, he's just blowing smoke in every direction. Next he'll be saying "It depends on what the definition of is, is."

I mean Hydrogen, do you even listen to what you're saying:

"the structure of the system does not control its content or outcome."

This means (and no redefining terms according to your opinion) that differences in structures between two systems has no effect on its outcome. This is complete nonsense...

Why are you even debating here? I'm talking about models, but then, you have your opinion of what a model is, what rational means, strategic means, etc. over which my view of their meanings is powerless. There is essentially no point in discussing anything with you, as your opinion is shored up by whatever meaning is most convenient for you to assign these terms. The meanings I'm using are the canonical ones given the context, I'm not the one inventing new meanings for strategic voting.

"As for computer models of climate, given all the meteorological variables necessary for one thunderstorm to happen, it is impossible to predict exactly when or where that storm would form, how much energy it would possess, how much rain it would produce, where that rain would fall, or how long the storm would last. That's one thunderstorm."

Difference is macro versus micro scale. If you put a pot of water on a lit stove, you know it will heat and eventually come to a boil. You haven't a hope in hell of predicting what will happen on a micro scale in terms of how that water heats and boils and where the bubbles of water vapour will form. At a low level, the system is chaotic. At a sufficient scale, the behaviour is quite predictable (you can predict within a few seconds how long it will take for the water to boil if you have sufficient knowledge of the parameters). In other words, what you describe above is a fallacy: just because thunderstorms are hard to understand, it doesn't necessary mean that the system is more or less complicated at a higher scale.

By the way, this is rich: "I wouldn't patronise you, not in any sense of the word." What stops me from declaring my preferred definition of patronisation? Your opinion of what the term means has no bearing on whether I think the term applies, after all .

 

[Hydrogen]

Geez, you're debating the meaning of what is essentially an accepted dictionary definition. When the National Post had a headline during the election declaring "Strategic voting doesn't worry Hampton" it's about a specific acknowledged phenomenon. It's just so confusing to me; why even bother debating an issue if you can't even accept the terminology used to describe that issue? Next you're going to argue that a "conservative party" can be a party dedicated to protecting trees and water and "vote splitting" can mean ripping your ballot in half.

I'm using two words together: "strategic" and "voting." It made reference to my strategy for doing so. Is that so terribly difficult for you to understand?


Afransen, as I mentioned earlier if you don't agree with a point of view, it doesn't mean its wrong. The same goes for the idea that if you don't understand something, it doesn't mean its wrong.

As for debating, you don't have to answer. Then there is no debate. Besides, the referendum is over and the people have voted. The outcome has been decided.

 

[afransen]

Why, may I ask, is the issue of electoral reform suddenly dead because the referendum was unsuccessful? If that were the case, you better inform the BQ/PQ!

"I'm using two words together: "strategic" and "voting." It made reference to my strategy for doing so. Is that so terribly difficult for you to understand?"

The problem is that you're overloading an accepted meaning for the term in the context. When you're discussing said issue with other people, you're not allowed to take what they say out of the context of the discussion and overload terms they described. Strategic voting [d]does not[/d] mean what you say it means, regardless of how much you wish it so. Look it up in a dictionary, or a encyclopedia. Find me one that backs you up! No splitting the term up, either... we're talking 'strategic voting', not 'strategic' strung together with 'voting'. The distinction is important, and if you disagree, you aren't worth debating with (yes, just in my opinion).

"Afransen, as I mentioned earlier if you don't agree with a point of view, it doesn't mean its wrong. The same goes for the idea that if you don't understand something, it doesn't mean its wrong."

My reply is, I guess, that just because you have an opinion doesn't make you right. I think it's more important that you learn that lesson.

 

[Hydrogen]

As you don't want to leave this topic alone...

No one said that the issue of electoral reform is dead. It's not quite alive, either; but this referendum is over.

As for "the term," I'll say it again, I was using two words of my choice. It's you who can't (or more aptly, don't want) to see the difference. The problem is that you are reading too much into it. As I am the one who put the words down, I think I got to choose the context.

If you are so terribly concerned about accuracy, then why call yourself a mathematician when you are just an undergraduate student? And if you believe so heavily in electoral reform, then why take up the leadership of a student society based on such poor voter turnout?

My reply is, I guess, that just because you have an opinion doesn't make you right. I think it's more important that you learn that lesson.

And the same goes for you afransen: just because you have an opinion does not mean it's right. I think that is an important lesson for you too.

 

[afransen]

Did some digging have we?

Do you know what a mathematician is? Look it up here:

math·e·ma·ti·cian (măth'ə-mə-tĭsh'ən) pronunciation
n.

A person skilled or learned in mathematics.

Are you going to argue that someone who has spent thousands of hours studying high level mathematics can't call themselves skilled or learned in mathematics? Or shall you invent your own definition there?

And if you believe so heavily in electoral reform, then why take up the leadership of a student society based on such poor voter turnout?

So said student society doesn't deserve leadership unless large numbers vote in their elections? I'd like to see you justify this...

Funny you should mention it, I just finished a draft revision to our elections policy today, which should be coming up for ratification shortly.

And the same goes for you afransen: just because you have an opinion does not mean it's right. I think that is an important lesson for you too.

I defend my positions with more than just opinion. You can think that defense is invalid, but at least I'm making an attempt to provide useful evidence. I don't resort to obfuscating the meaning of words and googling my opponent (who hides behind a pseudonym) in order to contrive jabs at his person.

 

[Hydrogen]

Thousands of hours? Uh huh.

You blow your own horn a little too hard, not having even achieved an undergraduate degree. That's why you hide behind a dictionary definition.

Deserve leadership? Less than one-hundred votes out of many possible thousands? With that turn out, I don't think they care about leadership - let alone your leadership (since you imagine yourself that way).

As for your draft policies, they'll apply to someone else, not to you. That's convenient.

Your position is your opinion. You just refuse to see it that way. As for contrived jabs, hardly. Based on the evidence, I think they are deserved.