News   Jul 15, 2024
News Roundup for July 15, 2024
 281     0 
News   Jul 15, 2024
Twilight Glow
 419     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1.9K     1 

PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

Last edited:
That is a rather standard threshold where such systems are used. Not good enough for us though, apparently. Or, rather, we're not good enough for it, apparently.
 
The beauty of the current first-past-the-post system is its simplicity: the candidate who receives the most votes wins. Is it fair? Absolutely. The team that gets the most goals in a game wins. Is it representative or equitable? Not particularly. But it is simple. For an electorate that is not particularly engaged or informed, it is simple to understand and simple for it to understand what its vote does. Previously proposed alternatives often felt like my ballot had to be cast with my left hand only on a full moon and possibly resulted in electing half a candidate.
I don't like alternatives that create more politicians, or politicians that do not have a constituency We already have parts of our constitutional system that are appointed (judiciary, the Senate and the Head of State), I don't favour a system that sees MPs appointed by a party in response to a percentage of votes received (and no, I don't favour voting for any of the previously mentioned three). Until such time as somebody can propose a system that is simple, definitive and takes place 'on the day', I'll continue to favour our current system thank you.
 
Fair? It's a tyranny of the minority.
Simple? Yes, I'll give you that. Please warn me next time you'll be calling it fair though....I spit tea all over me tablet. :p
You do realise that MPs in our current system are also appointed by parties through electoral district nominations.
Then get foisted on us with minority votes. Seems fair.
Simplicity is a great argument for FPTP; fairness is not.
 
MTown said:
That is a rather standard threshold where such systems are used. Not good enough for us though, apparently. Or, rather, we're not good enough for it, apparently.
Click to expand...

When Trudeau was defending his decision to not change the electoral system, he referenced the "Kellie Leitch Party" gaining representation. I don't think they would with that threshold.
 
lenaitch said:
Until such time as somebody can propose a system that is simple, definitive and takes place 'on the day', I'll continue to favour our current system thank you.
Click to expand...
You might like Single-Transferable Vote (STV) then.

In practice, that system would do something like this:

Take three ridings in Hamilton Center and merge them into one riding that elects 3 seats. The top 3 candidates in that super-riding would be appointed. Since Hamilton is typically split 30/30/30 demographically, they might elect 1 Con, 1 Lib and 1 NDP.

Another location might elect 2 Cons and 1 Lib, or 2 Libs and a Con.

This system ensures that most votes are not wasted (either through underrepresentation or overrepresentation), and has the added benefit of now granting everyone 3 representatives where before they had just one.

I prefer MMP to STV still, but I would gladly take STV over either Ranked Ballot or FPTP.
 
WislaHD said:
You might like Single-Transferable Vote (STV) then.

In practice, that system would do something like this:

Take three ridings in Hamilton Center and merge them into one riding that elects 3 seats. The top 3 candidates in that super-riding would be appointed. Since Hamilton is typically split 30/30/30 demographically, they might elect 1 Con, 1 Lib and 1 NDP.

Another location might elect 2 Cons and 1 Lib, or 2 Libs and a Con.

This system ensures that most votes are not wasted (either through underrepresentation or overrepresentation), and has the added benefit of now granting everyone 3 representatives where before they had just one.

I prefer MMP to STV still, but I would gladly take STV over either Ranked Ballot or FPTP.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying but I wonder how that would work in remote ridings that are already geographically huge.

The problem I have with MMP is that it either increases the size of ridings to accommodate 'party' MPs, or increases the number of total MPs. Also, I simply do not like the concept of MPs whose sole constituency or interest lies in their party as opposed to the residents of a riding (although as I write this I do appreciate the naive irony of my statement).
 
lenaitch said:
I understand what you are saying but I wonder how that would work in remote ridings that are already geographically huge.
Click to expand...
Some of the more remote ridings can remain single representative ridings potentially, rather than merged with adjacent ridings. I don't think that would be bad, though maybe there is another solution I am not thinking of.

The problem I have with MMP is that it either increases the size of ridings to accommodate 'party' MPs, or increases the number of total MPs. Also, I simply do not like the concept of MPs whose sole constituency or interest lies in their party as opposed to the residents of a riding (although as I write this I do appreciate the naive irony of my statement).
Click to expand...

Under MMP, we may only need to increase the total number of MPs by a dozen or two. We do not need perfect proportionality, just rather, get it to a somewhat reasonable. Fifteen or so extra MPs distributed proportionately could get representation within a percent of the popular vote.

I too appreciate the importance of politicians being tied to a constituency to which they are held accountable to. Though, it comes back to the question about representation for smaller parties who cannot gain plurality of support within a riding but have cross-Canadian minority support.

Perhaps one could make some kind of restriction. MPs elected through party-list and not by a riding constituency, cannot hold position as cabinet minister?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top