News   May 30, 2024
 354     0 
News   May 30, 2024
 658     0 
News   May 29, 2024
 1.6K     6 

Proportional Representation

Which voting system do you most prefer?

  • First-Past-The-Post (Current Voting System, Winner Take All)

    Votes: 3 13.0%
  • Mixed-Member Proportional (Larger Ridings with 1 Seat + Party List Seats)

    Votes: 4 17.4%
  • Single Transferable Vote (Larger Ridings with 3-7 Seats, Multiple Winner)

    Votes: 4 17.4%
  • Instant Runoff Vote (Same Ridings with 1 Seat, Ranked Ballot)

    Votes: 11 47.8%
  • Other (Specify)

    Votes: 1 4.3%

  • Total voters
    23

dunkalunk

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
1,216
Reaction score
64
Most people think that having a seat count that better reflects the popular vote, but can't agree on what system we ought to choose or how we should go about implementing it. This thread is to discuss the merits of different systems and how we can get PR implemented in Canada.
 
Last edited:
I am undecided, maybe leaning towards the current system since it has served us reasonably well over the years. I would have to see more arguments before I vote.

I know Australia uses the ranked ballot.

Ontario tried the Mixed-Member Proportional, without larger ridings, but it was turned down. It was probably turned down because people did not understand it. It was not even discussed since the referendum on switching to this system was at the same time as the general election, and the populace could not focus on two votes at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Because it's a limitation of the current forum infrastructure. Also, the idea is to provoke discussion.
 
I went with instant run-off, it would basically eliminate the issues surrounding vote splitting within the right or left wing parties (mostly NDP/Liberals currently). Although you might have some liberal votes who prefer conservatives to NDP, I think conservatives would be much less likely to win since more than 50% of the electorate seem to prefer the other two main parties. It would also encourage people to vote for even smaller parties that aren't really significant today.
 
If we have a by-election for mayor of Toronto, why don't use it as a test for ranked (instant runoff) ballot voting? Vote-splitting would become a non-concern. If a voter's pet candidate does not get in, the second or third choice may.
 
If we have a by-election for mayor of Toronto, why don't use it as a test for ranked (instant runoff) ballot voting? Vote-splitting would become a non-concern. If a voter's pet candidate does not get in, the second or third choice may.

Great idea, but not allowed under the Municipal Elections Act. LocalChoice.ca is a campaign to get the Ontario government to allow municipalities more flexibility in running local elections.
 
If we have a by-election for mayor of Toronto, why don't use it as a test for ranked (instant runoff) ballot voting? Vote-splitting would become a non-concern. If a voter's pet candidate does not get in, the second or third choice may.
Much as I disagree with the premise I also think it would be a bad time to try it out in Toronto given the City's penchant for studying everything to death the time frame required to implement such an experiment would likely extend into the 2020's and the cost would be astronomical.
 
I always think those who paid no income tax (or those who take more subsidy than tax paid) should not get to vote.

It may sound harsh, voting is essentially about how to spend money, and if it is not your money, you really don't care how to use it wisely but only care "How much I can take from the government".
 
I always think those who paid no income tax (or those who take more subsidy than tax paid) should not get to vote.

It may sound harsh, voting is essentially about how to spend money, and if it is not your money, you really don't care how to use it wisely but only care "How much I can take from the government".

You mean one gets to vote if one files an income tax?
 
The whole instant run-off idea will further polarize the electoral to be either 'with' one side, or against another.

It will provide less options for 'independent' individuals

Take Toronto's theoretical race for example: One will either have to choose Ford or Chow, neither of them are palatable to myself (or a good chuck of electorates.

Is that really the best system?
 
The whole instant run-off idea will further polarize the electoral to be either 'with' one side, or against another.

It will provide less options for 'independent' individuals

Take Toronto's theoretical race for example: One will either have to choose Ford or Chow, neither of them are palatable to myself (or a good chuck of electorates.

Is that really the best system?

Huh? How would Instant Runoff force that at all? It would allow you to choose whoever your want while giving you an opportunity to have a "backup" if you're concerned that your top choice isn't likely to get elected.

IRV only INCREASES options. I cannot understand how it could be interpreted to reduce options.
 
Huh? How would Instant Runoff force that at all? It would allow you to choose whoever your want while giving you an opportunity to have a "backup" if you're concerned that your top choice isn't likely to get elected.

IRV only INCREASES options. I cannot understand how it could be interpreted to reduce options.

I have to agree. Under the current system, I would not be able to vote for Uncle John as Mayor, because my vote would become a discarded vote. Under the IRV, I would be able to vote for Uncle John as my first choice, but then have a second option of who I would prefer to have a Mayor should Uncle John not get 50%+1.
 

Back
Top