Canada Electoral Reform
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:16:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  International Elections (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Canada Electoral Reform
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Canada Electoral Reform  (Read 2858 times)
2952-0-0
exnaderite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,221


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 18, 2008, 12:46:55 AM »

This has been an on-and-off topic for a few years now, and already BC and Ontario have held referendums on whether to change the provincial elections. Both of them failed due to a lack of real interest, though it's obvious that we need to change from our current FPTP setup.

I am going to post my proposal for electoral reform in Canada.

Where appropriate, neighbouring districts with similar demographics/culture/etc will be combined to form multi member districts and a variation of STV would be used. Where it is necessary for a district to stand alone (territories, distinct identity, etc), the district will be left with a single member and preferential voting is used. This (to the best extent) ensures that all districts are treated equally. During a by-election in a multi member district, preferential voting is used.

Later I will post district maps (stolen from Wikipedia and Earl) and will make some changes to the districts.
Logged
Harry Hayfield
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,975
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 0.35

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 18, 2008, 04:55:50 AM »

This has been an on-and-off topic for a few years now, and already BC and Ontario have held referendums on whether to change the provincial elections. Both of them failed due to a lack of real interest, though it's obvious that we need to change from our current FPTP setup. I am going to post my proposal for electoral reform in Canada.

May I offer my suggestions as well?
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,403
Colombia


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 19, 2008, 07:37:32 AM »

This has been an on-and-off topic for a few years now, and already BC and Ontario have held referendums on whether to change the provincial elections. Both of them failed due to a lack of real interest, though it's obvious that we need to change from our current FPTP setup. I am going to post my proposal for electoral reform in Canada.

May I offer my suggestions as well?

Sure, why not?
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,978
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 19, 2008, 03:55:13 PM »

STV sucks, but it's better than FPTP.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 19, 2008, 05:18:38 PM »

IRV is cool. It's probably the only thing the big parties could support.

A Senate appointed by the provincial legislatures along Rajya Sabha-lines could also work, because of the separation of provincial and federal parties. Each province would be entitled to, say, the square root of its seats in the Commons.
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,403
Colombia


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 19, 2008, 05:59:31 PM »

Some people would like a Senate elected through direct PR, while keeping FPTP for the Commons. Saw that somewhere.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 19, 2008, 06:41:50 PM »

Some people would like a Senate elected through direct PR, while keeping FPTP for the Commons. Saw that somewhere.

Some people would like Triple E, which is completely undemocratic.
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 19, 2008, 07:59:38 PM »

What is Triple E?
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,403
Colombia


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 19, 2008, 08:01:51 PM »

"equal, elected, and effective"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-E_Senate
Logged
Smid
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,151
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2008, 08:27:24 PM »

I don't mind the Senate model used in Australia. Each State/Province has equal representation in the Senate (Territories less). The Senate is half the size of the Lower House. Half the Senate is elected each election. Senators are elected using STV.

It means that while the Lower House usually has a majority government of the strongest party and that constituencies are based on a geographic area, the Senate has a greater number of minor party representatives. It creates a bit more stability of government, while still ensuring a government doesn't have too much power through controlling both houses.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,978
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 20, 2008, 12:47:55 AM »

Some people would like a Senate elected through direct PR, while keeping FPTP for the Commons. Saw that somewhere.

like me
Logged
Harry Hayfield
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,975
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 0.35

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 20, 2008, 04:15:12 AM »

There are three methods of electoral reform that I am aware of (having been exposed to them since the advent of devolution in the UK). These are:

  • MMP (A combination of FPTP and d'Hondt PR
  • STV (Single Transferable Vote)
  • AV (Alternative Vote)

Of these methods I believe that the Alternative Vote Method would be the best for Canada as it allows all votes to count and keeps the MP / constituency link. The Alternative Vote method is otherwise known as the Supplemental Vote and means that no candidate is elected unless they poll 50% +1 of all votes cast.

Using an example in the UK to demonstrate the effect this could have:

Tight Three Way Marginal: Watford: (Lab 34% Lib Dem 31% Con 30%) becomes Lib Dem 59% Lab 41%
Main Government / Main Opposition Marginal: Crawley: (Lab 39% Con 39% Lib Dem 15%) becomes Lab 53% Con 47%
Main Government / Minor Opposition Marginal: Oxford East: (Lab 36% Lib Dem 35% Con 17%) becomes Lib Dem 56% Lab 44%
Main Opposition / Minor Opposition Marginal: Guildford: (Con 43% Lib Dem 43% Lab 10%) becomes Lib Dem 54% Con 46%
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 20, 2008, 12:49:28 PM »

A descriptive name of the "Alternative Vote" would be Dumbed-Down IRV (IRV = Instant Runoff Voting, ie STV with single member constituencies).
You get only two preferences.
If nobody has a majority, all but the top two candidates are eliminated, and those of the weaker candidates' voters whose second preference was for one of the top two candidates have their second preference counted.
In a situation where it's reasonably obvious who the top two finishers'll be, it works out much like (non-compulsory) IRV (unlike the Australian version, then). In a situation where that's not the case, expect the result to get down right screwy.
Logged
Smid
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,151
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 20, 2008, 06:03:40 PM »

In a situation where it's reasonably obvious who the top two finishers'll be, it works out much like (non-compulsory) IRV (unlike the Australian version, then). In a situation where that's not the case, expect the result to get down right screwy.

Sort of like Queensland and New South Wales state versions, then? Where it's optional preferential - in other words, you can number as many squares as you like?

We don't just take the two top finishers - we exclude the bottom finisher one by one until it's just the two remaining.
Logged
The Man From G.O.P.
TJN2024
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,387
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 20, 2008, 07:36:47 PM »

It seems most of these "reforms" would be quite toxic to the Tories.
Logged
ottermax
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,789
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -6.09

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 20, 2008, 10:11:59 PM »

It seems most of these "reforms" would be quite toxic to the Tories.

Well, it wouldn't completely knock out the Tories, but when 62% of Canadians are voting against the Tories, it might be more fair.
Logged
The Man From G.O.P.
TJN2024
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,387
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 20, 2008, 10:37:51 PM »

It seems most of these "reforms" would be quite toxic to the Tories.

Well, it wouldn't completely knock out the Tories, but when 62% of Canadians are voting against the Tories, it might be more fair.


Ah, "fair". Try getting a grip on a comprehensive policy in opposition? I remember not long ago it was the Conservatives fractured beyond repair... there was no clamor for "reform" then was there? (yeah, not much in the way of internets either I know)
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 20, 2008, 11:32:40 PM »

It seems most of these "reforms" would be quite toxic to the Tories.

To the party in power in general, actually.

SV sucks. It's dumbed down, and I still don't get it. IRV for me.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 21, 2008, 04:57:44 AM »

It seems most of these "reforms" would be quite toxic to the Tories.

Well, it wouldn't completely knock out the Tories, but when 62% of Canadians are voting against the Tories, it might be more fair.

If they'd all voted against the Tories, the Tories would be out of power now. They merely voted for parties that weren't the Tories.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 21, 2008, 01:13:59 PM »

In a situation where it's reasonably obvious who the top two finishers'll be, it works out much like (non-compulsory) IRV (unlike the Australian version, then). In a situation where that's not the case, expect the result to get down right screwy.

Sort of like Queensland and New South Wales state versions, then? Where it's optional preferential - in other words, you can number as many squares as you like?
Yeah. Except imagine a situation where lots of people actually do refuse to choose between Labor and the Liberals. There weren't a lot of those in Qld - I guess because Australians are used to checking all the boxes?
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Yes, of course. You're using real IRV. Thing is, it's usually obvious from the first count on who the final two will be, and in those cases it makes no difference.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.049 seconds with 12 queries.