News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 2.7K     8 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 1.1K     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.9K     0 

Time for Ranked Ballots

FutureBuilder said:
I think I was pretty clear. In Provincial and Federal Elections I support Proportional Representation. This forces coalitions and it works well in Europe and other places. It makes people work together and compromise.

In elections where it is one person against another (i.e. Toronto's mayoral elections) I support the European style "run off elections".

I do not support ranked ballots. And I think FPTP - although it provides a certain measure of political stability - it gives parties with 35-40% of the vote a majority in parliament. And that just isn't right in my eyes.
Click to expand...

You've articulated well why you think proportional representation is better at the provincial and federal levels. You haven't explained why you think ranked ballots (aka "instant runoff") are a bad idea at the municipal level and inferior to a runoff election.
 
FutureBuilder said:
In elections where it is one person against another (i.e. Toronto's mayoral elections) I support the European style "run off elections".

I do not support ranked ballots.
Click to expand...

But ranked ballots AKA the "Instant Runoff Vote" is exactly the same mathematically as "European style run off elections", but more efficient, since the voter provides their second, third, etc. choices on the same ballot, instead of requiring separate rounds of balloting after the lowest-ranked candidate in each round is eliminated. I do not understand your objection.
 
Last edited:
My personal favourite electoral method, given the existence of a party system, would be one with a given number of Instant Runoff Vote ridings, and an equal number of ridings filled to satisfy proportional representation.

For example, let's say there are 100 ridings in total. Each ballot has a list of local candidates (either independent or affiliated with a party) and a list of all the parties running in that election. The voter ranks the candidates on their ballot and selects one party from the list. 55 of the ridings are won by candidates representing party "A", 35 by party "B" and 10 by party "C". Party "D" is shut out. But the total number of votes for party "A" was 40% of the total, for party "B" was 30% of the total, for party "C" was 20% of the total, and for party "D" was 10% of the total.

So in the 200-seat assembly, party "A" would have 80 seats, 55 filled by the elected candidates and the other 25 filled from the party list. For party "B" the numbers would be 45 and 15, for party "C" the numbers would be 10 and 30, and party "D" would have 0 and 20. If two independent candidates are elected, then the parties split the remaining 198 seats proportionately. It is mathematically possible for a party to have more candidates be elected than their proportional share of the twice-as-large assembly would dictate, but in practice it never happens. If it ever did, then a German-style "overhang" could be allowed.

In this system, every riding would have a locally-elected representative looking out for that riding, plus the total distribution of seats would match the total popular party vote.
 
Last edited:
Mongo said:
My personal favourite electoral method, given the existence of a party system, would be one with a given number of Instant Runoff Vote ridings, and an equal number of ridings filled to satisfy proportional representation.

For example, let's say there are 100 ridings in total. Each ballot has a list of local candidates (either independent or affiliated with a party) and a list of all the parties running in that election. The voter ranks the candidates on their ballot and selects one party from the list. 55 of the ridings are won by candidates representing party "A", 35 by party "B" and 10 by party "C". Party "D" is shut out. But the total number of votes for party "A" was 40% of the total, for party "B" was 30% of the total, for party "C" was 20% of the total, and for party "D" was 10% of the total.

So in the 200-seat assembly, party "A" would have 80 seats, 55 filled by the elected candidates and the other 25 filled from the party list. For party "B" the numbers would be 45 and 15, for party "C" the numbers would be 10 and 30, and party "D" would have 0 and 20. If two independent candidates are elected, then the parties split the remaining 198 seats proportionately. It is mathematically possible for a party to have more candidates be elected than their proportional share of the twice-as-large assembly would dictate, but in practice it never happens. If it ever did, then a German-style "overhang" could be allowed.

In this system, every riding would have a locally-elected representative looking out for that riding, plus the total distribution of seats would match the total popular party vote.
Click to expand...
You should tell Colin GP Grey (CGP Grey) about this. He would love to make a video about this.
 
Mongo said:
My personal favourite electoral method, given the existence of a party system, would be one with a given number of Instant Runoff Vote ridings, and an equal number of ridings filled to satisfy proportional representation.

For example, let's say there are 100 ridings in total. Each ballot has a list of local candidates (either independent or affiliated with a party) and a list of all the parties running in that election. The voter ranks the candidates on their ballot and selects one party from the list. 55 of the ridings are won by candidates representing party "A", 35 by party "B" and 10 by party "C". Party "D" is shut out. But the total number of votes for party "A" was 40% of the total, for party "B" was 30% of the total, for party "C" was 20% of the total, and for party "D" was 10% of the total.

So in the 200-seat assembly, party "A" would have 80 seats, 55 filled by the elected candidates and the other 25 filled from the party list. For party "B" the numbers would be 45 and 15, for party "C" the numbers would be 10 and 30, and party "D" would have 0 and 20. If two independent candidates are elected, then the parties split the remaining 198 seats proportionately. It is mathematically possible for a party to have more candidates be elected than their proportional share of the twice-as-large assembly would dictate, but in practice it never happens. If it ever did, then a German-style "overhang" could be allowed.

In this system, every riding would have a locally-elected representative looking out for that riding, plus the total distribution of seats would match the total popular party vote.
Click to expand...

That is Mixed-Member Proportional, which Ontario voters rejected in a referendum back in 2007.
 
I'm happy council endorsed electoral reform. There is no perfect system but I for one say why not experiment?

The one thing I do know is that the current political system in Canada just doesn't work well. Canada is a great country with some useful traditions and advantageous cultural oddities but in terms of government we aren't that effective.

Considering "good government" is in our motto something needs to change. The only way change can occur is through experimentation.
 
Mongo said:
My personal favourite electoral method, given the existence of a party system, would be one with a given number of Instant Runoff Vote ridings, and an equal number of ridings filled to satisfy proportional representation.

For example, let's say there are 100 ridings in total. Each ballot has a list of local candidates (either independent or affiliated with a party) and a list of all the parties running in that election. The voter ranks the candidates on their ballot and selects one party from the list. 55 of the ridings are won by candidates representing party "A", 35 by party "B" and 10 by party "C". Party "D" is shut out. But the total number of votes for party "A" was 40% of the total, for party "B" was 30% of the total, for party "C" was 20% of the total, and for party "D" was 10% of the total.

So in the 200-seat assembly, party "A" would have 80 seats, 55 filled by the elected candidates and the other 25 filled from the party list. For party "B" the numbers would be 45 and 15, for party "C" the numbers would be 10 and 30, and party "D" would have 0 and 20. If two independent candidates are elected, then the parties split the remaining 198 seats proportionately. It is mathematically possible for a party to have more candidates be elected than their proportional share of the twice-as-large assembly would dictate, but in practice it never happens. If it ever did, then a German-style "overhang" could be allowed.

In this system, every riding would have a locally-elected representative looking out for that riding, plus the total distribution of seats would match the total popular party vote.
Click to expand...

Johnny Au said:
You should tell Colin GP Grey (CGP Grey) about this. He would love to make a video about this.
Click to expand...

Already done:

[video=youtube;QT0I-sdoSXU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU[/video]

Everyone should subscribe to him. There's lots to be learned on his channel.
 
Mongo said:
But ranked ballots AKA the "Instant Runoff Vote" is exactly the same mathematically as "European style run off elections", but more efficient, since the voter provides their second, third, etc. choices on the same ballot, instead of requiring separate rounds of balloting after the lowest-ranked candidate in each round is eliminated. I do not understand your objection.
Click to expand...


How is it the "same mathematically"? I don't understand.

Where in the world do the used ranked ballots? And compare to how many other places use the "run off elections".

And how did you come up with the assertion it is "more efficient"? Based on what?
 
FutureBuilder said:
How is it the "same mathematically"? I don't understand.

Where in the world do the used ranked ballots? And compare to how many other places use the "run off elections".

And how did you come up with the assertion it is "more efficient"? Based on what?
Click to expand...

In North America, they are used in San Francisco, Oakland, Minneapolis, and Saint Paul. As well as for some awards, political party nominations, etc..
 
W. K. Lis said:
In North America, they are used in San Francisco, Oakland, Minneapolis, and Saint Paul. As well as for some awards, political party nominations, etc..
Click to expand...

The leaders of European countries (and countries all over the world) are elected using a "run off" system. Ranked ballots are used for "some awards, political party nominations, etc.". Ummm, yeah, I prefer the run off system.
 
Let's say the next election in Toronto offers 3 candidates for Mayor, Bob, Bill and Susy.

My choice is Bob, I hate everything Bill stands for and Susy is an airhead so I mark my ballot with Bob as 1st, 2nd and 3rd choices. If most other voters vote the same way for the same reason possibly no candidate may win 50% plus one of the vote total.

Then what?
 
FutureBuilder said:
The leaders of European countries (and countries all over the world) are elected using a "run off" system. Ranked ballots are used for "some awards, political party nominations, etc.". Ummm, yeah, I prefer the run off system.
Click to expand...

You still haven't articulated why you think it's a bad idea or inferior.

If we all just kept repeating our opinions while taking no effort to justify them and convince others, we may as well just shut the forum down.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top