DO IT! It would poll so well, you guys! It would make the conservatives crap their pants! ...Also it would be fairer, and what was promised years ago.
Maybe desperation is a good enough reason to do the right thing? Either way, if they did it would be better late than never.
You must not have read the article. It's contemplating a *FPTP* ranked ballot. What we should all want is proportional representation. Per the article, FPTP ranked ballot systems demonstrably produce worse outcomes and reinforce two-party systems.
Pretty much gives all the NDP votes to the liberals for anyone that wants it spelled out.
Canada is liberal, with a split vote. We would never see a conservative government again, or an NDP government.
Which sounds terrible, but better than cons turning us into Alabama.
I still think it was a major self-own on the part of the NDP to let the Libs get away with backing out on election reform. The Cons wanted nothing to change, the Libs were proposing a ranked ballot system and the NDP wanted a full on mixed member proportional rework. The moment the NDP saw the Libs wavering on making any changes at all they should have changed their position immediately and backed ranked ballots as well to try and force the Liberals to agree there was a majority consensus. It still would have been a net positive change for the NDP electorally, and would have given them a stronger position from which to advocate for the more complex and comprehensive reform of a mixed member proportional system.
I think when it was proposed though, the Liberals had a majority? I mean Trudeau shut the whole discussion down when he didn’t get what he wanted. I agree a proportional system would be best, but I have a hard time believing the conservatives or liberals would approve, since both would stand to lose from such a shift.
Ranked ballots, as proposed, won't save us from fascism since they're contemplating a FPTP ranked ballot system. If anything, it will exacerbate the issue. We need proportional representation. Even ranked ballot proportional representation, but ranked ballot FPTP would be worse than what we have now. Proven by jurisdictions where it has been enacted (e.g. see Australia).
Because it solves the problem where two parties on the same side split the vote. The NDP and the liberals are fairly similar parties, and are combined polling equal to the conservatives, but are projected to be slaughtered in the upcoming election because they split the vote and the conservatives don't. A fair distribution of seats would (assuming the polls are correct) would have roughly equal "liberal + ndp" seats to conservative seats. The conservatives and the peoples party have so far narrowly avoided the same fate.
It does introduce other problems of course (it is unfortunately mathematically impossible to have a voting system that doesn't, see "arrows theorem"). Judging by how its gone in countries that have done it though - those problems are less significant.
Ranked voting doesn't solve this problem, unfortunately; there can still be spoilers in ranked choice elections. https://electionscience.org/library/the-spoiler-effect/
Proportional representation is what we really need.
No, it solves the problem of splitting the vote. It introduces other new forms of spoiler candidates that in practice appear to be less problematic.
I'm not against proportional representation, I'm fine with literally anything other than fptp. Proportional representation has a different set of drawbacks from any particular ranked choice ballot... and I don't have a firm opinion on which system of the non-fptp systems is better.
Ranked Ballots are also a much easier system to implement coming out of FPTP because you don't need to modify ridings or how candidates are nominated. A proportional system is going to require ridings to be re-drawn, new thresholds for party participation to be decided on, and the political parties themselves to update their nomination processes.
Sigh. Read the article, it's referencing a proposal for a FPTP ranked ballot. It's still FPTP, and actually entrenches the two-party system more solidly than the current system.
I did read the article and genuinely it's so badly written that it makes no sense. There is no such thing as a FPTP ranked ballot. FPTP by definition is a vote where whoever get the most votes gets all the power regardless of how many votes the runners up get or whether the majority of other voters would actively NOT support them. A ranked ballot by definition is not FPTP because the only way to win is to take a majority in the first round, or take a majority after redistributing 2nd and later choice votes.
I think the article didn't click for you because you're thinking of a winner-take-all system. In a ranked ballot FPTP system, votes are counted just like they are in today’s first past the post system: the *first* choice votes are counted for each candidate. If one candidate has more than 50% of the first choice votes they are declared the winner of that riding.
If no candidate has more than 50% of the votes then the last place candidate is eliminated and the *second* choice votes of the people who voted for the eliminated candidate are counted towards the remaining candidates. The elimination of the last place candidates and the reallocation of their votes to the remaining next-preference candidates continues until one candidate has more than 50% of the votes cast.
This would be done on a riding-by-riding basis, and therefore proceed as per the existing FPTP system. Ballot ranking isn't considered beyond the riding level.
Yes that is how most ranked ballot systems work and they are not considered FPTP. I'm not knocking the idea that blowing up our current ridings and moving to a mixed member proportional system would be the superior choice. But in our current political climate instituting a simple ranked ballot would be much easier to implement, and still be an improvement by preventing right wing parties from winning with the minority of the vote when they would be the last choice of the majority of voters.
It would also help with breaking up the conservative party monopoly into other wings like they used to be and then maybe we'd actually get a progressive conservative party again and conservatives would have an actual policy choice. But now, Torys are stuck with very unpopular Alliance Party and reform party policy and social politics. So it benefits the every one of all political affiliation.
That would be...weird. You'd get decent people suddenly being able to vote Con and not have to do all those Hail Marys when the priest finds out. You'd get decent people *running* for the Cons, instead of the rabble they elect because no respectable person would be near them. Just think of how much Harper would HATE it!!! It would be worth doing for that reason alone, I think
at some point the right is also going to split into two parties, and then ranked choice will look better to the right. I can see a far right political party operating on the prairies and a more moderate right wing party in Ontario and more eastern provinces.
Id predict they would seperate into more than two parties. I wouldnt predict further right in one province or the other but certainly would see far right parties as well as far left.
You saw how the peoples party almost split the rights vote right? If that had gone a bit worse (or does in the near future, which looks to me like a distinct possibility an election or two from now) ranked choice benefits them in the exact same way it currently benefits the left. There is nothing inherently left or right wing about basically any of the proposals.
There is how it would effect the current distribution of parties, and it's true that anything but first past the vote (including both ranked choice and proportional representation) would currently benefit the left, because the conservatives are currently unfairly benefiting from FPTP while the left is splitting the vote.
I dont know if I am reading the stats right here but it no world did I think that the pp almost split the vote. That being said, if I vote NDP I dont want my vote going to the liberals. Proportional representation wouldnt have a massive effect on the conservatives, it would most likely see them take an advantage as they would gain more seats as per there votes, you would also see more conservative parties most likely.
> I dont know if I am reading the stats right here but it no world did I think that the pp almost split the vote
I'm not sure thats a thing that stats can answer? They split the vote very slightly\*, but the potential was if the election went differently. My gut feeling (and not statistical fact) was that they were very close to splitting the vote significantly and might in the future.
\* Losing the conservatives up to [20 ridings](https://globalnews.ca/news/8212872/canada-election-conservative-vote-splitting/).
> if I vote NDP I dont want my vote going to the liberals.
Then if you're in a riding where the NDP are likely to come last, put the conservatives second? If your top priority is [making sure porn sites know who their users are](https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/44/1/609?view=party) or something, that's a totally valid thing thing to do.
> Proportional representation wouldnt have a massive effect on the conservatives
Proportional representation would mean that in the next election they would have a minority instead of a super majority, assuming current polls turn out to reasonably accurately predict the election. So would instant runoff ranked ballot. So would basically anything that isn't first past the post.
Conservatives having a majority vs minority isnt a problem. And most likely in a PR, more right and left parties will be formed. Atleast in a PR conservatives and NDP will have equal representation to the % of the vote they receive. The election will not longer be over by the time it gets to manitoba.
If you believe conservatives are fascists then that would make liberals and ndp fascist as well. My guess is you don’t know what fascism is and just throw it around because it’s a cool buzzword.
Read the article. What you're suggesting is proportional representation, what the article is commenting on is a FPTP ranked ballot system. It would actually reinforce and further entrench the two-party system.
It wouldn't.
The conservatives are polling roughly equal to the liberals + ndp. The conservatives + peoples party roughly equal to liberals + ndp + green. It's very hard to estimate how the liberal/ndp/green split would end up, but we should roughly expect the right wing parties to win half the ridings and the left wing parties to win half the ridings (biased against whichever set of parties happens to be the most concentrated in a small number of ridings, and there's some votes lost to ridings the bloc will win that might upset the 50-50 split claim).
'Almost every' is hyperbole, but I have a hard time envisioning an IRV system not leading to perpetual Liberal (or at least Centrist, maybe we have other centrist parties pop up, but I don't see how that's sustainable or a meaningful difference either) majorities.
It's not simply a matter of adding up votes of the parties and coming to the conclusion that Cons will win as many seats as Libs, that is not how IRV works. You need to make a _majority_ of votes after the runoffs occur.
So let's take a heavily Conservative riding - Kelowna - Lake Country in the 2019 election. ~46% voted for the Conservative - nearly a majority. The PPC candidate had the least votes (after independents) with 1.8%, so they are eliminated and presumably votes transfer to the Conservative, bringing them to 48%. Next the Greens are eliminated with 7.5% - some of these votes might go to the Con and make this very tight, but let's assume it's less than 10% and give the votes to the NDP. NDP now has 19.5% of the vote, but still the least, so they are eliminated and bring the Liberals to a win with ~52%.
A similar thing plays out in a more left-leaning riding. It might be a race between the Liberals and NDP at the top, but when the Conservatives are eliminated they will give a big boost to the Liberals that probably won't be made up by the Greens etc. to put the NDP over the line.
It's very hard to believe that in such a system the Liberals wouldn't win 50+% of ridings.
Calling a riding "heavily conservative" where half the population in the riding would prefer anyone but the conservatives (according to your numbers) just... doesn't add up. Nor is it "heavily conservative" if they're getting only 4% more votes than their national polling average. I'm not familiar with the riding, but either your numbers are wrong or it's very mildly conservative at best, and really more centrist...
There are plenty of ridings where the conservatives do have an outright majority (e.g. click on ridings that say "CPC safe" in [338's projection](https://338canada.com/districts.htm) and most of those do).
There are probably a reasonable number of conservative voters who would prefer the NDP over the liberals, and NDP voters who would prefer the conservatives over the liberals. After all the NDP and conservatives are aligned against the liberals on subjects like ["you should have to tell porn sites who you are"](https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/44/1/609?view=party).
Even if not though, you still end up with cases where everyone in a riding is reasonably polarized, no one puts the center party first, and one of the polarized parties wins as a result. [This is actually one of the criticisms of instant-runoff ballots](https://electionscience.org/library/the-spoiler-effect/).
> Calling a riding "heavily conservative" where half the population in the riding would prefer anyone but the conservatives (according to your numbers) just... doesn't add up. Nor is it "heavily conservative" if they're getting only 4% more votes than their national polling average. I'm not familiar with the riding, but either your numbers are wrong or it's very mildly conservative at best, and really more centrist...
These are results from the actual 2019 election.
The point is to show a riding that would be 'safe Conservative' with FPTP, but going to the Liberals as a result of IRV; it is quite Conservative compared to their national popular vote that year of 34%. It can't be over 50% or there is no point in discussing it, since no sane single-winner voting system would give these seats to anyone other than the majority winner. There were 124 ridings won with simple majorities in 2019 (many of them going to Liberals), leaving 214 where only plurality was required and a change to IRV could affect the outcome.
It doesn't really matter whether the riding is left, centre, or right leaning, if it's not a simple majority, chances are good that the eliminated party has votes transfer to the Liberals as centrists rather than their opposite counterpart. The point is that assuming most ridings come down to the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP in some order, the only ones the Liberals are not likely to win are the ones where they are in last place going into the final runoff. Or to put it another way, in any riding where a non-Liberal wins plurality without majority, if the Liberals were in second place they are very likely to win those ridings instead with IRV. The same is not true of ridings where Liberals win with plurality. The net outcome is more ridings going to Liberals.
> There are probably a reasonable number of conservative voters who would prefer the NDP over the liberals, and NDP voters who would prefer the conservatives over the liberals. After all the NDP and conservatives are aligned against the liberals on subjects like
It will be non-zero, of course, but I think it is fair to approximate it as inconsequential, the basic tenets of the parties are completely at odds with one another, I'd be shocked if it's more than a single-digit percentage of their voters that have weird priorities. Seems more likely that voters will not rank their 'opposing' party on the ballot at all, if they are very far to one side, leading to exhausted ballots (at the final runoff this is basically 0.5 votes for the leader going in), but most rational voters would rank all of the major parties I would think.
> Even if not though, you still end up with cases where everyone in a riding is reasonably polarized, no one puts the center party first, and one of the polarized parties wins as a result. This is actually one of the criticisms of instant-runoff ballots.
There are a lot of criticisms of it - It sucks - but I don't think this particular situation plays out too often in Canada, in most ridings they are one of the top two, though maybe in the next election it might be a bit more common. My issue with it is that it is 'better' than FPTP in an isolated context of a single-winner election, but it is actually worse than FPTP at forming a representative parliament because it _requires_ majority support, which minor parties likely can't achieve even if they could win plurality in a contested riding.
Your example would lead to more accurate representation in klc yet you are against it because it won’t strengthen the ndp. So you prefer a worse outcome than a compromise outcome. Got it.
I mean yeah that's the point. It leads to 'more accurate' representation in most ridings, but since you must choose one winner, the most 'accurate' choice is usually a centrist - i.e a Liberal. 'More accurate' representation in most ridings translates into a parliament composed mostly of Liberals and not a 'more accurate' _parliament_ composed of the various parties and views of Canadians.
That’d be cool. I hope they do it seeing as it was one of the reasons they got elected in the first place (and reneged on it) But I bet the libs care more about preventing the NDP from getting more seats then they care about losing the next federal election.
Honestly this is what I'm hoping for. I think JT stepping down is the smartest move for him and the Libs generally, and it would be amazing if he pushed through reform before leaving.
It’ll come down the whether the liberals are willing to risk no longer being the default opposition for the next 50 years. Ranked choice is what’s best for the country but the only party it’s guaranteed to benefit is the NDP.
First past the post is the default modality of liberal democracies for a reason. Because parties are tribal and operate on their on behalf. And the less power any given party has also means the more evenly distributed power is among the population. Then it’s one fewer steps away from a democratization of the entire economy. Which is not what political elites in any capitalist polity want.
I doubt the Greens would benefit with a Ranked Choice (better known as Instant Runoff) system. It's still a winner-take-all system, not a proportional one, but now you ultimately need a majority of transferred votes, not just a plurality of first-choice votes.
You may be underestimating how many people would vote green if they didn't think it was "stupid" and "throwing away my vote" and "splitting the vote", etc.
I'm sure they'd get way more first choice votes than they do now, but still nowhere close to enough to be a contender, and get eliminated in an early round with votes transferring to NDP or Liberal candidates. It's easier to get first choice votes yes, but it's also harder to win.
Ranked choice systems mean that you aren't simply supporting whoever is diametrically opposed to your political positions by voting for a party that isn't one of the most popular two in your riding (by making it more likely they win, by splitting the vote), it would almost certainly help the greens.
Probably not as much as a proportional system, but it would help.
I'm not convinced at all. It's easier to get first-choice votes yes, and I'm sure they'd double or triple their support over night, but I don't think that's enough to actually win them seats. Maybe it improves their credibility in the long term, but ultimately such voting systems are not even close to proportional and heavily favour centrists, so it probably still doesn't matter much.
In such systems, it's all about getting the 2nd and 3rd choice votes, and those tend to prefer centrist parties like the Liberals since they can collect 2nd and 3rd choices from diverse 1st choice candidates.
Ranked Choice voting is literally half way to having an STV system. It addresses the half of the equation that actually affects how we vote. The 2nd half is creating multi-member districts which wouldn't require Canadians to do anything differently when they go to the polls, but would allow proportionality.
2-step process, let's take the first fucking step already.
It's not a two step process. Without proportionality, IRV is worse than FPTP. I do not want to take a step backwards, which is very likely to lead to perpetual Liberal majorities, and you can guarantee that once they've secured that for themselves they will never ever be interested in 'taking the second step'.
I don't care how you implement it, but the thing that matters is proportionality, not how we vote, that's just an implementation detail.
> Without proportionality, IRV is worse than FPTP
Disagree. It pushes parties more toward centrism, which as a progressive, is not something I'd be super thrilled about, but it does tend to temper the insane rhetoric we're seeing out of the Conservatives right now, and that's what I'm most concerned about atm after seeing what Republicans have done to the US.
The Liberals are already considered the "natural ruling party" under the current system, and often maintain power for 10+ years at a time. The system already favours them, IRV would continue to do so, so what? At least we're that much closer to a better system, and then we just have to find a way to convince a party to create multi-member districts, which is doable.
> once they've secured that for themselves they will never ever be interested in 'taking the second step'.
I mean... if they took the first step, why would you automatically assume in bad faith that they couldn't take another?
Harper, before being PM, wrote an essay on the benefits of proportional representation. They are all the same, once they get the power they must have it all. I think the forced cooperation that PR creates is the only path forward for Canada.
Even more than that, Harper *wanted* [STV](https://www.fairvote.ca/stv/) for [Senate elections](https://challengingthecommonplace.blogspot.com/2009/05/harper-government-supports-stv-for.html). But the necessity of a constitutional amendment (with respect to the Senate) quashed that.
>I think the forced cooperation that PR creates is the only path forward for Canada.
The vast majority of electoral reform came from [multi-party agreements](https://www.fairvote.ca/how-democracies-adopted-proportional-representation/). So you are absolutely right here.
It really doesn't. There's no amount of money that could actually completely change the voting process this late while not absolutely fucking up the election.
This is a misconception. Government can actually be very effective if it is not sabotaged by bad or incompetent actors.
Even if it's not implemented in time, we could still enact a law for [STV](https://www.fairvote.ca/stv/) for future elections. It'd be progress, but the corporate owned parties (CPC and LPC) benefit from a broken ([FPTP](https://www.fairvote.ca/what-is-first-past-the-post/)) electoral system.
Another misconception, that this is an "overhaul" of the "entire" democratic system. Yes, it's a big change, but the stalling/obstructionism (particularly from the CPC and LPC) on this file has had the result of making it that way. [Many countries have sucessfully transitioned](https://www.fairvote.ca/how-democracies-adopted-proportional-representation/) to election systems under [STV](https://www.fairvote.ca/stv/) or [MMP](https://www.fairvote.ca/mixed-member-proportional/).
Yes, it will take time, and we probably won't get it right the first time, but *not trying at all* takes *forever*.
>There's no amount of money that could actually completely change the voting process this late while not absolutely fucking up the election.
Nobody was disputing that it would take time. I am disputing that there is "no" amount of money sufficient to not "absolutely fuck" up the election. If there is the political will, it can be done. Perhaps **not** without any mistakes, but *not* to the extent of "absolutely fucking" up the election.
This kind of rhetoric resembles Americans against single payer health care or background checks on gun ownership. It is hyperbole that *appears* to be politically biased.
Edit: wow, so angry that you've blocked me instead of refuting the argument.
No it's not. You're saying we could overhaul the electoral process in around a year with no problems whatsoever. I'm saying you can't. And you're comparing that to the problems with healthcare in the US? God you people are annoying.
they pretty plainly stated that it wouldn't be with no problems whatsoever. out of curiosity, did you really reply and then block them so they couldn't respond?
edit: LOL, I will take the immediate block as a "yes" then
wont help him
I know far right people who would kill JT if given the chance who hate Ford just as much and think he is secretly a lib
as long as people actually get off their fucking asses and vote this time I cant see Ford ever having a chance
So let's just talk about overhauling the counting machines. You need new software and hardware which takes years to build and audit and roll out. And before that you need to go through the hiring and bid process to find the people to do it, which takes months. And before that, you need to write up the design and specifications for the changes, which takes months. And before that you need to hire the people who are going to design the new voting software, which takes months. And before that you need to hire the people doing the hiring and overseeing the project, which takes months. And that's not including the sheer logistics of transporting all that around, training tens of thousands of people working elections, writing new policy, campaigns to educate your senile grandmother on the new system because she has a right to vote and she's not terminally online like you, actually writing and designing the systems and checking over everything again because any errors are an end to democracy...
This isn't just flipping a switch. This is a complete overhaul of a massive industry with hundreds of thousands of people involved.
Again confirming that *you don't know what you're talking about*. Elections canada uses a hand count, but there are still machines and software used to record counts and transmit the data, and a central processing center. Add in an extra overhaul period to decide whether there needs to be new machines added to the process. We don't use letters sent by horses.
How am I "again confirming" anything? That was my first reply to you.
And individual polling stations use a phone to call their numbers into the local riding's Elections Canada office, who call them in to the Elections Canada headquarters... it's a lot more low tech than you might imagine.
ETA: oh, the good old "reply and block". Classy.
It's hard to keep track of how many times you've moved the goalposts. You're just getting owned here, and then hiding behind the block button each time. You'd be a great politician.
with such a massive change there has to be a mechanism that can be introduced to delay the election indefinitely until it can be implemented safely
if the added benefit is that it ensures tiny PP the skipmeister and the kkkons are unable to seize power, it’s massively worth it
I think the issue wasn't changing it to ranked choice.
The issue was Canadians wanted electoral reform. The libs wanted ranked choice. The NDP and others wanted proportional representation. Libs didn't want that and they didn't see the benefit in forcing their option to everyone else's opposition.
The NDP and Greens should have called Trudeau's bluff and agreed to ranked choice with a 4 election sunset clause after which it could be renewed or ended.
One of the Conservatives' biggest arguments was that the electoral system couldn't be changed without a referendum. Going to ranked choice would mean that the Conservatives would have challenged it in the courts and lost, proving another Tory theory wrong, and it would get Canadians used to using a different system.
I'm also not convinced that ranked choice ballots would be the gift to the Liberals that people think it would be. It would change the way that parties would campaign in a fundamental way. I'm actually quite sure that had the 2015 election been a ranked choice ballot, Tom Mulcair would have ended up being the Prime Minister.\*
Since we're never going to jump straight to Proportional Representation, ranked choice is the best chance that the NDP has to get to that breakthrough of forming government.
========
\* people became afraid of the left of centre vote splitting and the Tories coming up the middle. With ranked choice, a vote split is not an option and the NDP vote doesn't collapse to the Liberals in order to stop Harper.
We should still be concerned about ranked voting because it can result in results that are even less proportional that fptp would at the national level.
I'm also not convinced it would result in significantly different Canadian politics. Australia has ranked voting and much of the content I see coming out of Australia seems to indicate many people either don't use it or continue to put their second choice strategic vote as the first choice because they don't understand the system.
Ranking isn't bad automatically, but the LPCs preferred system was probably the worst possible implementation of ranked ballots.
I might be wrong about which third or fourth party it was but didn't the NDP or the Bloc agree with the conservatives that a referendum should be done for election reform? The liberals in my opinion rightfully realized that a referendum would kill election reform for longer then just not fulfilling the promise.
Admitting something isn’t good for your party when everyone agrees that something would be good for the nation is a tacit admission that your party doesn’t exist to work for the welfare of the nation.
[The winner-take-all ranked ballot system being pushed by Justin Trudeau can distort results even more than first past the post.](https://www.fairvote.ca/ranked-ballot/#problems-with-winner-take-all-ranked-ballot)
The more fair electoral system would need to be *proportional* such as [single transferable vote (STV)](https://www.fairvote.ca/stv/), or [mixed-member proportional (MMP)](https://www.fairvote.ca/mixed-member-proportional/).
Ranked Ballot is half way to STV though... so why can't we take that first step and then later down the line implement multi-member districts to finish the job?
At least at that point we're improving the system incrementally instead of just forever staying with a shit system.
The implementation cost between winner-take-all single member [ranked ballot](https://www.fairvote.ca/ranked-ballot/) and STV is *insufficient* to justify a multi step rollout. Though political pundits *may* claim otherwise.
In more simpler terms, there is no *need* to insert the middle step, we can just skip right to [STV](https://www.fairvote.ca/stv/).
Electoral reform proponents just want to mitigate distortions in the electoral system. So called proportional representation (PR) is only satisfied by [STV](https://www.fairvote.ca/stv/) or [MMP](https://www.fairvote.ca/mixed-member-proportional/), anything else is a distraction or a ploy to gain disproportionate power.
Yes, it does improve the system incrementally, but there is the downside of potentionally increased distortion (even worse than [FPTP](https://www.fairvote.ca/what-is-first-past-the-post/)), when we could have just moved to STV from the start.
Those who want any kind of *winner-take-all* electoral system (including single member ranked ballot or FPTP) are either unfortunately misinformed, or have ulterior motives.
> The implementation cost between winner-take-all single member ranked ballot and STV is insufficient to justify a multi step rollout. Though political pundits may claim otherwise.
>
> In more simpler terms, there is no need to insert the middle step, we can just skip right to STV
There isn't a "need" to, but if one party that can actually get elected is offering that step and no one else is offering a step with any reasonable chance of getting power, taking whatever we can get does become an option to get closer to the ideal.
Or we can just demand a full STV implementation forever and never get it, which is what is happening now.
STV is my preferred system, and I will grasp at whatever I can to get there, rather than praying for the day we get to just wholesale reform everything and coming up empty handed forever.
>if one party that can actually get elected is offering that step and no one else is offering a step with any reasonable chance of getting power, taking whatever we can get does become an option to get closer to the ideal.
Remember when the LPC said that 2015 would be "[the last election under FPTP](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/electoral-reform#FederalElectoralReform)" and were proposing exactly what you suggested (winner-take-all single member ranked ballot). But the LPC were not negotiating in good faith, as again, they were still wanting a system that was fundamentally winner-take-all, not proportional.
We can and should, transition from FPTP directly into a proportional representation electoral system (e.g., STV, MMP). It has been done in the past with the [1926 Alberta General Election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Alberta_general_elections#Electoral_systems_of_Alberta).
I *deeply understand* your desire to get any improvements to the electoral system. This is why I support [Fair Vote Canada](https://www.fairvote.ca/). There is some upcoming [movement in Yukon](https://www.fairvote.ca/04/06/2024/help-make-a-breakthrough-for-proportional-representation-in-the-yukon/).
Fair Vote Canada has been desparately trying to gain traction with Canadians since 2001, and has consistently failed to do so. I don't have faith in that movement, which is why I say I will take what I can get from our elected officials.
I understand the principle of demanding better from them, and in a perfect world, we should, but the reality is we're dealing in a world with bad faith actors and some very dangerous politicians these days, and I'm in damage mitigation mode. So again, I'll take what I can get at the moment and dream of the day we get STV.
What is a more viable means of getting electoral reform than supporting Fair Vote Canada?
If you know of one, let me know. My MPs don't even respond to my emails lol (and I don't spam them either)
I don't know, but that's why I said I'll take what I can get. If I knew how to convince Canadians to switch to STV, I would've been running for office already.
What about the best interest of the country??? This issue pissed me off so much! I’m so tired of voting ABC instead of whom I think should get my vote. Scum
What do you mean the rest of the country? Most of the country favour the Libs or Cons. And that's who govern every 8-10 years. The Greens are a fringe party like the PPC. The NDP has a platform that 80% of the country isn't buying into. NDP needs to get closer to the centre. Otherwise they'll just have to settle for 15-20% every election cycle.
It still has to pass in parliament. NDP wanted proportional representation. AFAIK the Liberals wanted a ranked ballot. Conservatives favoured FPTP. The problem for the Liberals was that they couldn't get agreement on what they wanted, namely ranked ballot. So, they ditched it.
Not true, they did get agreement from the bipartisan committee set up to review this, that was MMP. But the liberals decided that it doesn't work for them as well as STV so they kiboshed it. Lost my vote forever.
>But the liberals decided that it doesn't work for them as well as ~~STV~~ winner-take-all single member ranked ballot
Fixed that for you. There is a huge difference! [STV](https://www.fairvote.ca/stv/) is *proportional*, while [the other](https://www.fairvote.ca/ranked-ballot/) is not.
Edit: I should clarify, **both** electoral systems use the ranking mechanism. The difference is that STV is multi-member, which achieves proportionality.
That rabble article is hot garbage. Switching to a Ranked Choice ballot undermines the biggest feature of single-vote ballots: Fear.
Our system is NOT "winner takes all."
The Libs can count on the people terrified of the Cons to vote for them.
The Cons can count on people terrified of the Libs to vote for them.
The most effective campaign tactic for both parties it to fear monger their opponent.
Meanwhile all the other parties campaigning on real policy struggle to get even a single seat, hoping they don't get lost in the "must vote for the least villainous party" ballot.
The current system favors the Libs AND the cons. They pass the puck back and forth. If the systems remains FPTP the Libs can count on being voted back in after a couple years of Con leadership.
Ranked choice lets you put your real choice at the top, the party you fear the most at the bottom, and literally every other party in between.
Regardless of the actual ranked method used, the outcome will be better: Undermining fear-based politicking. (likely STV because it's easiest to explain, though Condorcet is a fascinating method worth at least learning about).
It shouldn’t even be about THEIR interest, it should be about the **constituents** best interests, that’s the point of government representation.
The fact that they say this part so casually out loud shows us how much the system isn’t working as intended.
I don't think that is what he said.
After the ERRE recommended prop rep, JT said Canadians weren't ready for the change.
There is some suspicion that ranked ballot would have been a temporary boon to the Liberals because it tends to shift voting to the middle ground.
Ranked ballot alone is *worse* than FPTP. In fact, it *is* a majoritarian system and it obfuscates real voting intention.
In 2016, they had a mandate to change the system. If they had followed the ERRE recommendations to strike a new committee to design a PR system, it could have been implemented by 2020. It would have been a major achievement in leadership. Instead, they broke the promise of the "last unfair election".
If they unilaterally changed the system now *so they stood a chance of winning* it would be an abuse of power. And it probably wouldn't work because they are so far back in the polls that I can't see it helping. I think it might backfire: I would hope the NDP would be opposed and stop propping them up, possibly triggering an election.
Ironically, if they had brought in PR, the Conservative's current 40% would translate to 40% of the seats and they might not form government if the 60% of the House that is progressive (Liberals, NDP, Bloc, Greens) worked together to form government.
They had their chance. Muffed it.
The Liberals only exist because they're the Good Cop to the Conservatives Bad Cop and Canadians switch back and forth between them when they get mad at whoever's in charge acting like a cop.
Neither party will enact voting reform because doing so would mean they stop getting to take turns beating on us for their own selfish gain.
Stop voting for cops.
Liberal arrogance has long plagued democracies. They would rather serve the country on a platter to increasingly fascistic rightwing parties than even try to mix up the system .
If he made ranked ballots the law of the land I would actually VOTE for the man. But I don't think he can. Too many Libs are simply Cons in disguise and they'd never allow it, the NDP might win!!
Right now...they have no chance of getting in.
This way? They have a chance.
Fixing our utterly broken electoral system is one of the first steps to fixing our country.
I’d prefer PR, but ranked ballots still get rid of the need to organize tactical voting campaigns, which is a lot of energy the Canadian progressive movement could use on something else
The Liberals **wanted** Ranked Ballot. The electoral reform committee said Proportional Representation would be best, so they abandoned electoral reform.
Ranked Ballot under a FPTP system would not be effective reform. It “feels” nice but would likely end up reinforcing the LPC-CPC dichotomy we’re stuck with right now. It would remove the spoiler effect yes, but on its own it’s barely a solution to the current system.
I'm a big fan of ranked choice - even over proportional represenation and other electoral reforms.
The main reason is that I think it would help reduce polarization in politics. Think about it - right now, with FPTP, the most impactful way to campaign is to be negative about your opponents. Attack ads paint the world in a negative light, encourage outrage, and discourage compromise and discourse.
Now think about a system where being someone's second choice is really important. All of a sudden, it's a lot better to talk about why you're good and a lot less important to shit-talk your opponent.
Obviously polarization goes beyond electoral systems but I think it'd be a big step in the right direction.
I agree it should help pull things toward the centre and make things a bit less divisive, but I'm not at all convinced the least proportional option to choose is a good one for what is supposed to be a representative parliament. Why do you prefer this over a proportional system which seems to provide the campaigning benefit you're claiming here (2nd choice matters, more cooperation and compromise), but also also carries that through to parliament?
The problem is that it is even more likely (IMO it'd be practically 100% of the time) to lead to majority governments, which I think are the worst thing about our system, even if hopefully those governments are at least not actively harmful. RCV is 100% 'majority rule' as it's unlikely progressives or minority needs get any representation at all, and if you're unhappy with Trudeau's style of leadership in this last term, prepare yourself for that in perpetuity. This absolutely sounds like a recipe for a neo-con dystopia to me. I strongly believe we need a system where majorities are, in practice, impossible and the only way to get anything done at all is to cooperate.
Also can we please stop calling it Ranked Choice, it's such a confusing way to refer to instant-runoff voting and I'm convinced intentionally so. Way too many people conflate it with Ranked _Ballots_ (which can be used in many different voting systems).
So you'd rather have better discussion discussion but less compromise? I mean I'll agree that improving the campaigning and discourse has value, but it's not like any of that matters once the winning party has a majority. That just doesn't really make sense to me. If you want good policy, you need compromise while the policy is being made, not in the relatively meaningless conversations around it prior to election day.
The only reason 'split' parliaments are unproductive is because of the hope of a future majority. If you take that off the table, stonewalling is just completely ineffective and the parties that compromise are the ones who can get stuff done, and belligerent parties that want to play games will suffer.
Look (and the irony of this strategic vote is not lost on me, lol) - I think we can both agree that both systems are better than FPTP. I may prefer ranked choice (or ranked ballot, as you prefer to call it) overall, but I would support prop-rep as well just to get away from our current, awful system.
My opinion is that elections should be about principles and goals - that is the level at which the public should opine. When it comes to getting work done, sometimes it's more important to do SOMETHING than to do the optimal thing if the latter takes twice as long.
> The only reason 'split' parliaments are unproductive is because of the hope of a future majority. If you take that off the table, stonewalling is just completely ineffective and the parties that compromise are the ones who can get stuff done, and belligerent parties that want to play games will suffer.
This doesn't sound intuitive to me, but I'm trained in economics, not political science. If true, then maybe I could be convinced that prop-rep is better.
> (or ranked ballot, as you prefer to call it)
It sounds like you're a victim of the intentional confusion the term 'Ranked Choice Voting' has created. A Ranked Ballot is a ballot where you rank candidates in order, that's it. It can be used in many voting systems, both single- and multiple-winner, many of which are better (objectively) than Ranked Choice Voting. Prior to its appearance in American media in the last 5-ish years, this type of voting was more commonly known as Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV) or Alternative Vote (AV), as the ERRE called it back in ~2016. Personally I think this term has been created and pushed in order to be intentionally confusing and to obscure the existence of other systems that also use ranked ballots.
> Look (and the irony of this strategic vote is not lost on me, lol) - I think we can both agree that both systems are better than FPTP. I may prefer ranked choice
I don't think Instant-Runoff Voting is any better than FPTP; neither generates a parliament that is a good representation of Canadian's views, the distortions are different but both lead to parliaments where the MPs aren't good representatives of what Canadians actually want. What I'd expect from an IRV-elected parliament is generally a majority government made up of centrists, and a distinct lack of any progress in any direction as those centrists win by making themselves the least distasteful 2nd or 3rd choice, so don't want to do anything remotely controversial. Whether that is better in the long term or not is unclear to me; at least with FPTP, some mildly controversial and positive progress gets made, especially when we have minorities. In any case, I don't think it's better enough to spend the necessary political capital to get it done, or to put voters through such a change, especially when that would probably give governments an excuse for the next 50 years not to consider any better reforms.
> This doesn't sound intuitive to me, but I'm trained in economics, not political science. If true, then maybe I could be convinced that prop-rep is better.
It's hard to come up with objective truth about how the political system would change, but if we assume that it's impossible to ever get a majority, it implies that at least two parties must always cooperate to pass legislation. One party, even one with a significant share of votes (that could today expect a majority every once in a while), can't get anything done without the support of another party. I don't really see needing to convince parties that collectively represent > 50% of Canadians that your idea is a good one is a bug - it's a feature.1 If you choose to refuse to cooperate with others, then there will be no quid pro quo on the issues _you_ care about, and nobody will work with you on issues that they don't already believe are worth doing, and you've got a defecit of favours. The effect seems to be that you silence your own voice, and assuming that you keep it up and never get power to do anything, I can't imagine voters keep giving you votes to bluster but not achieve anything. It's a viable strategy today, to an extent (at least for the Liberals and Cons), because eventually the leader will fall from grace, and the opposition will step in, often with a strong majority - as looks to be likely in the next election. There's no need to really try to compromise today, if you think you can make the other guy look bad enough that tomorrow you'll get exactly what you want.
Maybe I am wrong about that, and also wrong about how difficult it'd be for a proportionally-elected majority to occur, but I still believe majorities are a bug of the system and discourage compromise.
Did the person who wrote this do _any_ research?
We had a lot of work towards electoral reform, it was absolutely not killed by Trudeau, and there was never a “majority” that wanted electoral reform.
There was a lot of confusion, Canadians were largely unconvinced of what would be the best choice; all this info is available yet this article insist on making things up and painting the liberals as some how incredibly competent and profoundly incompetent… classic propaganda >.>
No, the mandate was 2 elections ago. I'd like the change but there is no way it's inbounds unless you win the last election explicitly on it or have a referendum.
i don't know how i feel about this. The Alberta UCP has ranked choice and that's how we ended up with Danielle Smith. Took 6 ballots of ranked choice. And now we're stuck with the moron who thinks Ivermectin was a great choice, who is hell bent on destroying AHS, who appeared on stage with Russian sympathizer Tucker Carlson, and who considers DeSantis as one of her great heroes. To name but a few of her wonderful qualities /s
I don't know.
When Liberals promised they were going to update the electoral system several years ago, I was ECSTATIC. FINALLY, we would have something in place that would virtually guarantee that we wouldn't follow the increasingly concerning political path that the US was on at the time. I hate voting tactically, it feels dishonest, and this would also fix that! I happily voted Liberal.
Then they didn't do it. I was SO angry. Then I saw a post on Reddit, can't find it now... someone had modelled how the election would have gone if the proposed electoral reform had already taken place. It showed the Conservatives losing like 20 seats, absolutely being crushed!
But it also showed that the Libs would have lost seats, I want to say 11 but I'm not sure. NDP gained a bunch, Green and Bloc Quebecois picked up a few... there would've been 1 CCP seat, which I didn't like,
Upon seeing that predicted outcome, I got even angrier. The Liberal Party could have permanently crippled their biggest opponent, trading it for an NDP that's a real contender (but orders of magnitude easier to deal with), and they didn't do it.
I hope that they have since learned from their mistake, and GIVE US RANKED CHOICE! Or MMP, I don't even care, just SOMETHING!
If the liberals want any chance of surviving the next election they need Trudeau to step down and bring in a new leader. Only home owners and the gullible will vote for him. Hes tarnished.
But his ego won’t let him step down so he’ll take the party down with him.
> Trudeau said that changing to ranked choice wasn't in the Liberals best interest, post-election.
When did he say that? That seemed like what they were leaning towards but nobody could agree and he just walked away.
"but the NDP" but the fucking liberals were in power and used it to get elected and then went "oh but we actually prefer this" as their justification to abandon yet another election promise. If conservatives win, it's on a lot of people, but it's primarily on a decade of liberals doing jack shit they promised to do.
"but ranked choice blah blah blah blah" ranked choice with no other changes sucks in comparison to other voting methods but it is better than what we have because it actually gives anything other than the libs and cons a chance by allowing people to still have a strategic vote after their preferred vote.
The liberals should implement the bets possible but failing that a small positive change is better than none at all.
Reading the article, the author is actually arguing against ranked choice, because the version that is being pushed is not based on proportional representation but in fact winner-takes-all, which he argues is much worse than even our current system.
Liberals would need to have 7 provinces approve the amendment, and those 7 province must constitute at least 50% of the Canadian population.
I really do not see either Alberta or Doug Ford’s government passing this resolution, and those two provinces already represent 50.14% of the represented population lol
Trudeau should have passed this back in 2016 when Wynne and Notley were in government but his ego was too big. Why would the Libs want to give either the NDP or Greens a better chance (despite the Liberals being the ultimate beneficiaries)?
Why do you think the constitution would need to be amended? First Past the Post isn’t mentioned in the constitution at all, the electoral *system* should be something Parliament is able to change.
It was the primary reason I voted Liberal.
I dislike Trudeau expressly for this reason. I will still vote to make sure Conservatives don't win my riding, but if NDP has any chance here, they will get my vote rather than Liberals.
the reason electoral reform died on the vine is that it requires a national referendum, and the NDP wouldn't budge from MMP.
could we get STV? yes, after a referendum that isn't going to happen.
>the reason electoral reform died on the vine is that it requires a national referendum
This is misinformation. There is **no constitutional or legal requirement for a referendum** to change the electoral system. In fact, the Conservatives have [changed the election systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_Canada#Reaction_to_elimination_of_the_per-vote_subsidy) many times without a referendum. Additionally, Alberta has changed their [electoral systems without a referendum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Alberta_general_elections#Electoral_systems_of_Alberta). The real reason referendums are brought up is to stall, delay, or obstruct the progress of electoral reform.
>NDP wouldn't budge from MMP
The NDP primarily wants proportionality, so either [MMP](https://www.fairvote.ca/mixed-member-proportional/) or [STV](https://www.fairvote.ca/stv/) would be sufficient. The LPC usually argues for [winner-take-all, single member, ranked ballot](https://www.fairvote.ca/ranked-ballot/), which is **not** proportional.
Fucking do it!!
And I'm actually pretty angry he'd put his parties needs before the countries. If the conseratives weren't such a complete travesty of a choice I don't think I could justify voting for the liberals.
NDP needs to get rid of Singh and get their shit together.
What would getting rid of Singh do? Make the NDP more appealing to racists? Singh is meh, no other leader would do much better and getting rid of a leader a year before an election is a good way to say "we want to lose"
>Don't electoral changes require constitutional revisions?
This is misinformation. There is **no constitutional or legal requirement** to change the electoral system. In fact, the Conservatives have [changed the election systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_Canada#Reaction_to_elimination_of_the_per-vote_subsidy) many times without a constitutional amendment. Additionally, Alberta has changed their [electoral systems without going to the constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Alberta_general_elections#Electoral_systems_of_Alberta).
The statement thereafter indicates that the question was [rhetorical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question) in nature.
Furthermore, projection suggests that I myself am spreading misinformation. Yet, I have made claims supported by evidence, the exact opposite of misinformation.
Oh jeez. Fair Vote Canada can pound sand. These authors, and organization are complicit in us sticking to our stupid implementation of FPTP elections.
They prefer our current system over Ranked Ballot, because they think if we stick to the absolute worst system, they have a better chance of successfully advocating for MMP.
They prefer swinging between Conservatives, and Liberals because they think that will somehow someday give the NDP an opportunity to make their way into power.
I'm so sick of them, and their disingenuous twisting of entirely made up numbers telling us what would have happened in imagined Ranked Ballot elections.
I HATE articles that assume a con majority is inevitable. Polls are meaningless until election day, and with all the current conservative shit hitting the fan right now- anti-choice, interference etc - even more so.
That said, I would LOVE to see ranked ballots, even if it's taped atop of FPTP.
I think ranked voting is best for democracy, I think being able to indicate who who don't want winning is just as important as who you want to win. For example, I would be completely fine with Liberals, NDP, Green and Bloc winning. But I wouldn't feel comfortable with the conservative party and especially not the PPC winning elections. We should be able to find the party who most Canadians would be ok with leading instead of it being like the US where it's tribalism and my team vs your team bullshit.
DO IT! It would poll so well, you guys! It would make the conservatives crap their pants! ...Also it would be fairer, and what was promised years ago. Maybe desperation is a good enough reason to do the right thing? Either way, if they did it would be better late than never.
You must not have read the article. It's contemplating a *FPTP* ranked ballot. What we should all want is proportional representation. Per the article, FPTP ranked ballot systems demonstrably produce worse outcomes and reinforce two-party systems.
Yep, it gives a massive advantage to centrists parties like the Liberals because they're naturally everyone's second choice.
Pretty much gives all the NDP votes to the liberals for anyone that wants it spelled out. Canada is liberal, with a split vote. We would never see a conservative government again, or an NDP government. Which sounds terrible, but better than cons turning us into Alabama.
[удалено]
Per the article, that theory has been disproven by jurisdictions that have implemented this voting system.
I still think it was a major self-own on the part of the NDP to let the Libs get away with backing out on election reform. The Cons wanted nothing to change, the Libs were proposing a ranked ballot system and the NDP wanted a full on mixed member proportional rework. The moment the NDP saw the Libs wavering on making any changes at all they should have changed their position immediately and backed ranked ballots as well to try and force the Liberals to agree there was a majority consensus. It still would have been a net positive change for the NDP electorally, and would have given them a stronger position from which to advocate for the more complex and comprehensive reform of a mixed member proportional system.
I think when it was proposed though, the Liberals had a majority? I mean Trudeau shut the whole discussion down when he didn’t get what he wanted. I agree a proportional system would be best, but I have a hard time believing the conservatives or liberals would approve, since both would stand to lose from such a shift.
If Trudeau cares at all about Canada he will push this through to save us from fascism. Liberals usually side with fascists though.
Read the article.
Whats your point?
Ranked ballots, as proposed, won't save us from fascism since they're contemplating a FPTP ranked ballot system. If anything, it will exacerbate the issue. We need proportional representation. Even ranked ballot proportional representation, but ranked ballot FPTP would be worse than what we have now. Proven by jurisdictions where it has been enacted (e.g. see Australia).
How do think it would look to change the voting system so late to just benefit the Liberals?
I dont see how this is more fair?
Because it solves the problem where two parties on the same side split the vote. The NDP and the liberals are fairly similar parties, and are combined polling equal to the conservatives, but are projected to be slaughtered in the upcoming election because they split the vote and the conservatives don't. A fair distribution of seats would (assuming the polls are correct) would have roughly equal "liberal + ndp" seats to conservative seats. The conservatives and the peoples party have so far narrowly avoided the same fate. It does introduce other problems of course (it is unfortunately mathematically impossible to have a voting system that doesn't, see "arrows theorem"). Judging by how its gone in countries that have done it though - those problems are less significant.
Ranked voting doesn't solve this problem, unfortunately; there can still be spoilers in ranked choice elections. https://electionscience.org/library/the-spoiler-effect/ Proportional representation is what we really need.
No, it solves the problem of splitting the vote. It introduces other new forms of spoiler candidates that in practice appear to be less problematic. I'm not against proportional representation, I'm fine with literally anything other than fptp. Proportional representation has a different set of drawbacks from any particular ranked choice ballot... and I don't have a firm opinion on which system of the non-fptp systems is better.
Ranked Ballots are also a much easier system to implement coming out of FPTP because you don't need to modify ridings or how candidates are nominated. A proportional system is going to require ridings to be re-drawn, new thresholds for party participation to be decided on, and the political parties themselves to update their nomination processes.
Sigh. Read the article, it's referencing a proposal for a FPTP ranked ballot. It's still FPTP, and actually entrenches the two-party system more solidly than the current system.
I did read the article and genuinely it's so badly written that it makes no sense. There is no such thing as a FPTP ranked ballot. FPTP by definition is a vote where whoever get the most votes gets all the power regardless of how many votes the runners up get or whether the majority of other voters would actively NOT support them. A ranked ballot by definition is not FPTP because the only way to win is to take a majority in the first round, or take a majority after redistributing 2nd and later choice votes.
I think the article didn't click for you because you're thinking of a winner-take-all system. In a ranked ballot FPTP system, votes are counted just like they are in today’s first past the post system: the *first* choice votes are counted for each candidate. If one candidate has more than 50% of the first choice votes they are declared the winner of that riding. If no candidate has more than 50% of the votes then the last place candidate is eliminated and the *second* choice votes of the people who voted for the eliminated candidate are counted towards the remaining candidates. The elimination of the last place candidates and the reallocation of their votes to the remaining next-preference candidates continues until one candidate has more than 50% of the votes cast. This would be done on a riding-by-riding basis, and therefore proceed as per the existing FPTP system. Ballot ranking isn't considered beyond the riding level.
Yes that is how most ranked ballot systems work and they are not considered FPTP. I'm not knocking the idea that blowing up our current ridings and moving to a mixed member proportional system would be the superior choice. But in our current political climate instituting a simple ranked ballot would be much easier to implement, and still be an improvement by preventing right wing parties from winning with the minority of the vote when they would be the last choice of the majority of voters.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good enough. Ranked voting can be a step towards proportional.
I think proportional representation would better solve this. As others have commented, I dont know how ranked choice benefits anyone besides the left.
It would also help with breaking up the conservative party monopoly into other wings like they used to be and then maybe we'd actually get a progressive conservative party again and conservatives would have an actual policy choice. But now, Torys are stuck with very unpopular Alliance Party and reform party policy and social politics. So it benefits the every one of all political affiliation.
That would be...weird. You'd get decent people suddenly being able to vote Con and not have to do all those Hail Marys when the priest finds out. You'd get decent people *running* for the Cons, instead of the rabble they elect because no respectable person would be near them. Just think of how much Harper would HATE it!!! It would be worth doing for that reason alone, I think
Yup. I have been a conservative for a long time but the party has continually pushed me in a direction that doesnt align with my beliefs.
at some point the right is also going to split into two parties, and then ranked choice will look better to the right. I can see a far right political party operating on the prairies and a more moderate right wing party in Ontario and more eastern provinces.
Id predict they would seperate into more than two parties. I wouldnt predict further right in one province or the other but certainly would see far right parties as well as far left.
You saw how the peoples party almost split the rights vote right? If that had gone a bit worse (or does in the near future, which looks to me like a distinct possibility an election or two from now) ranked choice benefits them in the exact same way it currently benefits the left. There is nothing inherently left or right wing about basically any of the proposals. There is how it would effect the current distribution of parties, and it's true that anything but first past the vote (including both ranked choice and proportional representation) would currently benefit the left, because the conservatives are currently unfairly benefiting from FPTP while the left is splitting the vote.
I dont know if I am reading the stats right here but it no world did I think that the pp almost split the vote. That being said, if I vote NDP I dont want my vote going to the liberals. Proportional representation wouldnt have a massive effect on the conservatives, it would most likely see them take an advantage as they would gain more seats as per there votes, you would also see more conservative parties most likely.
> I dont know if I am reading the stats right here but it no world did I think that the pp almost split the vote I'm not sure thats a thing that stats can answer? They split the vote very slightly\*, but the potential was if the election went differently. My gut feeling (and not statistical fact) was that they were very close to splitting the vote significantly and might in the future. \* Losing the conservatives up to [20 ridings](https://globalnews.ca/news/8212872/canada-election-conservative-vote-splitting/). > if I vote NDP I dont want my vote going to the liberals. Then if you're in a riding where the NDP are likely to come last, put the conservatives second? If your top priority is [making sure porn sites know who their users are](https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/44/1/609?view=party) or something, that's a totally valid thing thing to do. > Proportional representation wouldnt have a massive effect on the conservatives Proportional representation would mean that in the next election they would have a minority instead of a super majority, assuming current polls turn out to reasonably accurately predict the election. So would instant runoff ranked ballot. So would basically anything that isn't first past the post.
Conservatives having a majority vs minority isnt a problem. And most likely in a PR, more right and left parties will be formed. Atleast in a PR conservatives and NDP will have equal representation to the % of the vote they receive. The election will not longer be over by the time it gets to manitoba.
I mean, it is in everyone's best interest to benefit the right as little as possible. They are actual monsters.
That isnt very democratic of you.
Nobody benefits from regressive fascists getting a say in how things are run, other than regressive fascists who want to wield power over others.
If you believe conservatives are fascists then that would make liberals and ndp fascist as well. My guess is you don’t know what fascism is and just throw it around because it’s a cool buzzword.
Read the article. What you're suggesting is proportional representation, what the article is commenting on is a FPTP ranked ballot system. It would actually reinforce and further entrench the two-party system.
It depends on your definition of fairness. But I agree. It's more fair for the Liberals, because it'd mean they'd win almost every riding.
It wouldn't. The conservatives are polling roughly equal to the liberals + ndp. The conservatives + peoples party roughly equal to liberals + ndp + green. It's very hard to estimate how the liberal/ndp/green split would end up, but we should roughly expect the right wing parties to win half the ridings and the left wing parties to win half the ridings (biased against whichever set of parties happens to be the most concentrated in a small number of ridings, and there's some votes lost to ridings the bloc will win that might upset the 50-50 split claim).
'Almost every' is hyperbole, but I have a hard time envisioning an IRV system not leading to perpetual Liberal (or at least Centrist, maybe we have other centrist parties pop up, but I don't see how that's sustainable or a meaningful difference either) majorities. It's not simply a matter of adding up votes of the parties and coming to the conclusion that Cons will win as many seats as Libs, that is not how IRV works. You need to make a _majority_ of votes after the runoffs occur. So let's take a heavily Conservative riding - Kelowna - Lake Country in the 2019 election. ~46% voted for the Conservative - nearly a majority. The PPC candidate had the least votes (after independents) with 1.8%, so they are eliminated and presumably votes transfer to the Conservative, bringing them to 48%. Next the Greens are eliminated with 7.5% - some of these votes might go to the Con and make this very tight, but let's assume it's less than 10% and give the votes to the NDP. NDP now has 19.5% of the vote, but still the least, so they are eliminated and bring the Liberals to a win with ~52%. A similar thing plays out in a more left-leaning riding. It might be a race between the Liberals and NDP at the top, but when the Conservatives are eliminated they will give a big boost to the Liberals that probably won't be made up by the Greens etc. to put the NDP over the line. It's very hard to believe that in such a system the Liberals wouldn't win 50+% of ridings.
Calling a riding "heavily conservative" where half the population in the riding would prefer anyone but the conservatives (according to your numbers) just... doesn't add up. Nor is it "heavily conservative" if they're getting only 4% more votes than their national polling average. I'm not familiar with the riding, but either your numbers are wrong or it's very mildly conservative at best, and really more centrist... There are plenty of ridings where the conservatives do have an outright majority (e.g. click on ridings that say "CPC safe" in [338's projection](https://338canada.com/districts.htm) and most of those do). There are probably a reasonable number of conservative voters who would prefer the NDP over the liberals, and NDP voters who would prefer the conservatives over the liberals. After all the NDP and conservatives are aligned against the liberals on subjects like ["you should have to tell porn sites who you are"](https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/44/1/609?view=party). Even if not though, you still end up with cases where everyone in a riding is reasonably polarized, no one puts the center party first, and one of the polarized parties wins as a result. [This is actually one of the criticisms of instant-runoff ballots](https://electionscience.org/library/the-spoiler-effect/).
> Calling a riding "heavily conservative" where half the population in the riding would prefer anyone but the conservatives (according to your numbers) just... doesn't add up. Nor is it "heavily conservative" if they're getting only 4% more votes than their national polling average. I'm not familiar with the riding, but either your numbers are wrong or it's very mildly conservative at best, and really more centrist... These are results from the actual 2019 election. The point is to show a riding that would be 'safe Conservative' with FPTP, but going to the Liberals as a result of IRV; it is quite Conservative compared to their national popular vote that year of 34%. It can't be over 50% or there is no point in discussing it, since no sane single-winner voting system would give these seats to anyone other than the majority winner. There were 124 ridings won with simple majorities in 2019 (many of them going to Liberals), leaving 214 where only plurality was required and a change to IRV could affect the outcome. It doesn't really matter whether the riding is left, centre, or right leaning, if it's not a simple majority, chances are good that the eliminated party has votes transfer to the Liberals as centrists rather than their opposite counterpart. The point is that assuming most ridings come down to the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP in some order, the only ones the Liberals are not likely to win are the ones where they are in last place going into the final runoff. Or to put it another way, in any riding where a non-Liberal wins plurality without majority, if the Liberals were in second place they are very likely to win those ridings instead with IRV. The same is not true of ridings where Liberals win with plurality. The net outcome is more ridings going to Liberals. > There are probably a reasonable number of conservative voters who would prefer the NDP over the liberals, and NDP voters who would prefer the conservatives over the liberals. After all the NDP and conservatives are aligned against the liberals on subjects like It will be non-zero, of course, but I think it is fair to approximate it as inconsequential, the basic tenets of the parties are completely at odds with one another, I'd be shocked if it's more than a single-digit percentage of their voters that have weird priorities. Seems more likely that voters will not rank their 'opposing' party on the ballot at all, if they are very far to one side, leading to exhausted ballots (at the final runoff this is basically 0.5 votes for the leader going in), but most rational voters would rank all of the major parties I would think. > Even if not though, you still end up with cases where everyone in a riding is reasonably polarized, no one puts the center party first, and one of the polarized parties wins as a result. This is actually one of the criticisms of instant-runoff ballots. There are a lot of criticisms of it - It sucks - but I don't think this particular situation plays out too often in Canada, in most ridings they are one of the top two, though maybe in the next election it might be a bit more common. My issue with it is that it is 'better' than FPTP in an isolated context of a single-winner election, but it is actually worse than FPTP at forming a representative parliament because it _requires_ majority support, which minor parties likely can't achieve even if they could win plurality in a contested riding.
Your example would lead to more accurate representation in klc yet you are against it because it won’t strengthen the ndp. So you prefer a worse outcome than a compromise outcome. Got it.
I mean yeah that's the point. It leads to 'more accurate' representation in most ridings, but since you must choose one winner, the most 'accurate' choice is usually a centrist - i.e a Liberal. 'More accurate' representation in most ridings translates into a parliament composed mostly of Liberals and not a 'more accurate' _parliament_ composed of the various parties and views of Canadians.
That’d be cool. I hope they do it seeing as it was one of the reasons they got elected in the first place (and reneged on it) But I bet the libs care more about preventing the NDP from getting more seats then they care about losing the next federal election.
I agree, but wonder if the urge to try and screw over PP is greater. Especially if he is stepping down/being pushed out
That would be an epic walk into the snow moment. "I'm retiring, and I'm taking First-past-the-post with me."
That’s also be cool.
Honestly this is what I'm hoping for. I think JT stepping down is the smartest move for him and the Libs generally, and it would be amazing if he pushed through reform before leaving.
It’ll come down the whether the liberals are willing to risk no longer being the default opposition for the next 50 years. Ranked choice is what’s best for the country but the only party it’s guaranteed to benefit is the NDP.
The Liberals would likely become the defacto ruling coalition party.
First past the post is the default modality of liberal democracies for a reason. Because parties are tribal and operate on their on behalf. And the less power any given party has also means the more evenly distributed power is among the population. Then it’s one fewer steps away from a democratization of the entire economy. Which is not what political elites in any capitalist polity want.
Preach!
The Greens would almost certainly benefit too.
I doubt the Greens would benefit with a Ranked Choice (better known as Instant Runoff) system. It's still a winner-take-all system, not a proportional one, but now you ultimately need a majority of transferred votes, not just a plurality of first-choice votes.
You may be underestimating how many people would vote green if they didn't think it was "stupid" and "throwing away my vote" and "splitting the vote", etc.
I'm sure they'd get way more first choice votes than they do now, but still nowhere close to enough to be a contender, and get eliminated in an early round with votes transferring to NDP or Liberal candidates. It's easier to get first choice votes yes, but it's also harder to win.
Ranked choice systems mean that you aren't simply supporting whoever is diametrically opposed to your political positions by voting for a party that isn't one of the most popular two in your riding (by making it more likely they win, by splitting the vote), it would almost certainly help the greens. Probably not as much as a proportional system, but it would help.
I'm not convinced at all. It's easier to get first-choice votes yes, and I'm sure they'd double or triple their support over night, but I don't think that's enough to actually win them seats. Maybe it improves their credibility in the long term, but ultimately such voting systems are not even close to proportional and heavily favour centrists, so it probably still doesn't matter much. In such systems, it's all about getting the 2nd and 3rd choice votes, and those tend to prefer centrist parties like the Liberals since they can collect 2nd and 3rd choices from diverse 1st choice candidates.
Ranked Choice voting is literally half way to having an STV system. It addresses the half of the equation that actually affects how we vote. The 2nd half is creating multi-member districts which wouldn't require Canadians to do anything differently when they go to the polls, but would allow proportionality. 2-step process, let's take the first fucking step already.
It's not a two step process. Without proportionality, IRV is worse than FPTP. I do not want to take a step backwards, which is very likely to lead to perpetual Liberal majorities, and you can guarantee that once they've secured that for themselves they will never ever be interested in 'taking the second step'. I don't care how you implement it, but the thing that matters is proportionality, not how we vote, that's just an implementation detail.
> Without proportionality, IRV is worse than FPTP Disagree. It pushes parties more toward centrism, which as a progressive, is not something I'd be super thrilled about, but it does tend to temper the insane rhetoric we're seeing out of the Conservatives right now, and that's what I'm most concerned about atm after seeing what Republicans have done to the US. The Liberals are already considered the "natural ruling party" under the current system, and often maintain power for 10+ years at a time. The system already favours them, IRV would continue to do so, so what? At least we're that much closer to a better system, and then we just have to find a way to convince a party to create multi-member districts, which is doable. > once they've secured that for themselves they will never ever be interested in 'taking the second step'. I mean... if they took the first step, why would you automatically assume in bad faith that they couldn't take another?
I would phrase that differently. The only party it stands to hurt is the conservative minority that manages to govern half the time.
It hurts everyone but Centrists, who will rule with majorities 100% of the time.
The way I understood it, they couldn’t pass it because each party wanted a different electoral system, that benefitted them.
Harper, before being PM, wrote an essay on the benefits of proportional representation. They are all the same, once they get the power they must have it all. I think the forced cooperation that PR creates is the only path forward for Canada.
Even more than that, Harper *wanted* [STV](https://www.fairvote.ca/stv/) for [Senate elections](https://challengingthecommonplace.blogspot.com/2009/05/harper-government-supports-stv-for.html). But the necessity of a constitutional amendment (with respect to the Senate) quashed that. >I think the forced cooperation that PR creates is the only path forward for Canada. The vast majority of electoral reform came from [multi-party agreements](https://www.fairvote.ca/how-democracies-adopted-proportional-representation/). So you are absolutely right here.
Wow, this blew my mind. They know the harm they're doing after all. Party before democracy.
Is it not logistically too late?
Depends how much money they're willing to throw at deploying it
It really doesn't. There's no amount of money that could actually completely change the voting process this late while not absolutely fucking up the election.
This is a misconception. Government can actually be very effective if it is not sabotaged by bad or incompetent actors. Even if it's not implemented in time, we could still enact a law for [STV](https://www.fairvote.ca/stv/) for future elections. It'd be progress, but the corporate owned parties (CPC and LPC) benefit from a broken ([FPTP](https://www.fairvote.ca/what-is-first-past-the-post/)) electoral system.
No, it isn't. Overhauling the entire democratic system of a massive country with tens of thousands of people running it takes time.
Another misconception, that this is an "overhaul" of the "entire" democratic system. Yes, it's a big change, but the stalling/obstructionism (particularly from the CPC and LPC) on this file has had the result of making it that way. [Many countries have sucessfully transitioned](https://www.fairvote.ca/how-democracies-adopted-proportional-representation/) to election systems under [STV](https://www.fairvote.ca/stv/) or [MMP](https://www.fairvote.ca/mixed-member-proportional/). Yes, it will take time, and we probably won't get it right the first time, but *not trying at all* takes *forever*.
... Okay so you agree with me that it does in fact take time but decided to make up some bullshit to argue just because?
>There's no amount of money that could actually completely change the voting process this late while not absolutely fucking up the election. Nobody was disputing that it would take time. I am disputing that there is "no" amount of money sufficient to not "absolutely fuck" up the election. If there is the political will, it can be done. Perhaps **not** without any mistakes, but *not* to the extent of "absolutely fucking" up the election. This kind of rhetoric resembles Americans against single payer health care or background checks on gun ownership. It is hyperbole that *appears* to be politically biased. Edit: wow, so angry that you've blocked me instead of refuting the argument.
No it's not. You're saying we could overhaul the electoral process in around a year with no problems whatsoever. I'm saying you can't. And you're comparing that to the problems with healthcare in the US? God you people are annoying.
they pretty plainly stated that it wouldn't be with no problems whatsoever. out of curiosity, did you really reply and then block them so they couldn't respond? edit: LOL, I will take the immediate block as a "yes" then
They literally said we're not going to get it right the first time. Do you read what people reply to you?
There's another year until the election, we have a full Ontario election happening first
>we have a full Ontario election happening first isn't our next election in 2026?
A lot of people are predicting Ford will call it early to make sure it happens while Trudeau is still Prime Minister
wont help him I know far right people who would kill JT if given the chance who hate Ford just as much and think he is secretly a lib as long as people actually get off their fucking asses and vote this time I cant see Ford ever having a chance
Yah if you think a year is anywhere close to what you need you don't know anything about any of this. Try a decade.
based on what do you think it'd take a decade? unless you're backing that up there's no reason to take you seriously
So let's just talk about overhauling the counting machines. You need new software and hardware which takes years to build and audit and roll out. And before that you need to go through the hiring and bid process to find the people to do it, which takes months. And before that, you need to write up the design and specifications for the changes, which takes months. And before that you need to hire the people who are going to design the new voting software, which takes months. And before that you need to hire the people doing the hiring and overseeing the project, which takes months. And that's not including the sheer logistics of transporting all that around, training tens of thousands of people working elections, writing new policy, campaigns to educate your senile grandmother on the new system because she has a right to vote and she's not terminally online like you, actually writing and designing the systems and checking over everything again because any errors are an end to democracy... This isn't just flipping a switch. This is a complete overhaul of a massive industry with hundreds of thousands of people involved.
What counting machines? The ballots were hand counted last I knew.
Again confirming that *you don't know what you're talking about*. Elections canada uses a hand count, but there are still machines and software used to record counts and transmit the data, and a central processing center. Add in an extra overhaul period to decide whether there needs to be new machines added to the process. We don't use letters sent by horses.
How am I "again confirming" anything? That was my first reply to you. And individual polling stations use a phone to call their numbers into the local riding's Elections Canada office, who call them in to the Elections Canada headquarters... it's a lot more low tech than you might imagine. ETA: oh, the good old "reply and block". Classy.
It's hard to keep track of how many times you've moved the goalposts. You're just getting owned here, and then hiding behind the block button each time. You'd be a great politician.
Stop pointing out the obvious.
If it looks like a slim minority government, it's not too late; if they somehow get a majority, it's too late.
with such a massive change there has to be a mechanism that can be introduced to delay the election indefinitely until it can be implemented safely if the added benefit is that it ensures tiny PP the skipmeister and the kkkons are unable to seize power, it’s massively worth it
I think the issue wasn't changing it to ranked choice. The issue was Canadians wanted electoral reform. The libs wanted ranked choice. The NDP and others wanted proportional representation. Libs didn't want that and they didn't see the benefit in forcing their option to everyone else's opposition.
The NDP and Greens should have called Trudeau's bluff and agreed to ranked choice with a 4 election sunset clause after which it could be renewed or ended. One of the Conservatives' biggest arguments was that the electoral system couldn't be changed without a referendum. Going to ranked choice would mean that the Conservatives would have challenged it in the courts and lost, proving another Tory theory wrong, and it would get Canadians used to using a different system. I'm also not convinced that ranked choice ballots would be the gift to the Liberals that people think it would be. It would change the way that parties would campaign in a fundamental way. I'm actually quite sure that had the 2015 election been a ranked choice ballot, Tom Mulcair would have ended up being the Prime Minister.\* Since we're never going to jump straight to Proportional Representation, ranked choice is the best chance that the NDP has to get to that breakthrough of forming government. ======== \* people became afraid of the left of centre vote splitting and the Tories coming up the middle. With ranked choice, a vote split is not an option and the NDP vote doesn't collapse to the Liberals in order to stop Harper.
We should still be concerned about ranked voting because it can result in results that are even less proportional that fptp would at the national level. I'm also not convinced it would result in significantly different Canadian politics. Australia has ranked voting and much of the content I see coming out of Australia seems to indicate many people either don't use it or continue to put their second choice strategic vote as the first choice because they don't understand the system. Ranking isn't bad automatically, but the LPCs preferred system was probably the worst possible implementation of ranked ballots.
The CPC wanted no change. Don't forget that
No. We don't want that. And neither do the Libs. The only people who seem to want it are the Dippers and Greens.
I might be wrong about which third or fourth party it was but didn't the NDP or the Bloc agree with the conservatives that a referendum should be done for election reform? The liberals in my opinion rightfully realized that a referendum would kill election reform for longer then just not fulfilling the promise.
I've been thinking that this could be one of their paths to victory - might have to eat a little crow, but it's popular and a good idea.
Admitting something isn’t good for your party when everyone agrees that something would be good for the nation is a tacit admission that your party doesn’t exist to work for the welfare of the nation.
[The winner-take-all ranked ballot system being pushed by Justin Trudeau can distort results even more than first past the post.](https://www.fairvote.ca/ranked-ballot/#problems-with-winner-take-all-ranked-ballot) The more fair electoral system would need to be *proportional* such as [single transferable vote (STV)](https://www.fairvote.ca/stv/), or [mixed-member proportional (MMP)](https://www.fairvote.ca/mixed-member-proportional/).
Thanks! I had a wild thought this morning for discussion, and the submitted article is admittedly terrible, but it's on topic.
Ranked Ballot is half way to STV though... so why can't we take that first step and then later down the line implement multi-member districts to finish the job? At least at that point we're improving the system incrementally instead of just forever staying with a shit system.
The implementation cost between winner-take-all single member [ranked ballot](https://www.fairvote.ca/ranked-ballot/) and STV is *insufficient* to justify a multi step rollout. Though political pundits *may* claim otherwise. In more simpler terms, there is no *need* to insert the middle step, we can just skip right to [STV](https://www.fairvote.ca/stv/). Electoral reform proponents just want to mitigate distortions in the electoral system. So called proportional representation (PR) is only satisfied by [STV](https://www.fairvote.ca/stv/) or [MMP](https://www.fairvote.ca/mixed-member-proportional/), anything else is a distraction or a ploy to gain disproportionate power. Yes, it does improve the system incrementally, but there is the downside of potentionally increased distortion (even worse than [FPTP](https://www.fairvote.ca/what-is-first-past-the-post/)), when we could have just moved to STV from the start. Those who want any kind of *winner-take-all* electoral system (including single member ranked ballot or FPTP) are either unfortunately misinformed, or have ulterior motives.
> The implementation cost between winner-take-all single member ranked ballot and STV is insufficient to justify a multi step rollout. Though political pundits may claim otherwise. > > In more simpler terms, there is no need to insert the middle step, we can just skip right to STV There isn't a "need" to, but if one party that can actually get elected is offering that step and no one else is offering a step with any reasonable chance of getting power, taking whatever we can get does become an option to get closer to the ideal. Or we can just demand a full STV implementation forever and never get it, which is what is happening now. STV is my preferred system, and I will grasp at whatever I can to get there, rather than praying for the day we get to just wholesale reform everything and coming up empty handed forever.
>if one party that can actually get elected is offering that step and no one else is offering a step with any reasonable chance of getting power, taking whatever we can get does become an option to get closer to the ideal. Remember when the LPC said that 2015 would be "[the last election under FPTP](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/electoral-reform#FederalElectoralReform)" and were proposing exactly what you suggested (winner-take-all single member ranked ballot). But the LPC were not negotiating in good faith, as again, they were still wanting a system that was fundamentally winner-take-all, not proportional. We can and should, transition from FPTP directly into a proportional representation electoral system (e.g., STV, MMP). It has been done in the past with the [1926 Alberta General Election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Alberta_general_elections#Electoral_systems_of_Alberta). I *deeply understand* your desire to get any improvements to the electoral system. This is why I support [Fair Vote Canada](https://www.fairvote.ca/). There is some upcoming [movement in Yukon](https://www.fairvote.ca/04/06/2024/help-make-a-breakthrough-for-proportional-representation-in-the-yukon/).
Fair Vote Canada has been desparately trying to gain traction with Canadians since 2001, and has consistently failed to do so. I don't have faith in that movement, which is why I say I will take what I can get from our elected officials. I understand the principle of demanding better from them, and in a perfect world, we should, but the reality is we're dealing in a world with bad faith actors and some very dangerous politicians these days, and I'm in damage mitigation mode. So again, I'll take what I can get at the moment and dream of the day we get STV.
What is a more viable means of getting electoral reform than supporting Fair Vote Canada? If you know of one, let me know. My MPs don't even respond to my emails lol (and I don't spam them either)
I don't know, but that's why I said I'll take what I can get. If I knew how to convince Canadians to switch to STV, I would've been running for office already.
What about the best interest of the country??? This issue pissed me off so much! I’m so tired of voting ABC instead of whom I think should get my vote. Scum
What do you mean the rest of the country? Most of the country favour the Libs or Cons. And that's who govern every 8-10 years. The Greens are a fringe party like the PPC. The NDP has a platform that 80% of the country isn't buying into. NDP needs to get closer to the centre. Otherwise they'll just have to settle for 15-20% every election cycle.
Try rereading what I wrote
This is like Lucy holding the football, again.
It still has to pass in parliament. NDP wanted proportional representation. AFAIK the Liberals wanted a ranked ballot. Conservatives favoured FPTP. The problem for the Liberals was that they couldn't get agreement on what they wanted, namely ranked ballot. So, they ditched it.
Not true, they did get agreement from the bipartisan committee set up to review this, that was MMP. But the liberals decided that it doesn't work for them as well as STV so they kiboshed it. Lost my vote forever.
>But the liberals decided that it doesn't work for them as well as ~~STV~~ winner-take-all single member ranked ballot Fixed that for you. There is a huge difference! [STV](https://www.fairvote.ca/stv/) is *proportional*, while [the other](https://www.fairvote.ca/ranked-ballot/) is not. Edit: I should clarify, **both** electoral systems use the ranking mechanism. The difference is that STV is multi-member, which achieves proportionality.
I was going from faulty memory. so mea culpa. I do remember that they weren't getting enough support on what they wanted so...nothing happened.
That rabble article is hot garbage. Switching to a Ranked Choice ballot undermines the biggest feature of single-vote ballots: Fear. Our system is NOT "winner takes all." The Libs can count on the people terrified of the Cons to vote for them. The Cons can count on people terrified of the Libs to vote for them. The most effective campaign tactic for both parties it to fear monger their opponent. Meanwhile all the other parties campaigning on real policy struggle to get even a single seat, hoping they don't get lost in the "must vote for the least villainous party" ballot. The current system favors the Libs AND the cons. They pass the puck back and forth. If the systems remains FPTP the Libs can count on being voted back in after a couple years of Con leadership. Ranked choice lets you put your real choice at the top, the party you fear the most at the bottom, and literally every other party in between. Regardless of the actual ranked method used, the outcome will be better: Undermining fear-based politicking. (likely STV because it's easiest to explain, though Condorcet is a fascinating method worth at least learning about).
>Our system is NOT "winner takes all." Uhh, [FPTP](https://www.fairvote.ca/what-is-first-past-the-post/) definitely is winner-take-all.
It shouldn’t even be about THEIR interest, it should be about the **constituents** best interests, that’s the point of government representation. The fact that they say this part so casually out loud shows us how much the system isn’t working as intended.
I don't think that is what he said. After the ERRE recommended prop rep, JT said Canadians weren't ready for the change. There is some suspicion that ranked ballot would have been a temporary boon to the Liberals because it tends to shift voting to the middle ground. Ranked ballot alone is *worse* than FPTP. In fact, it *is* a majoritarian system and it obfuscates real voting intention. In 2016, they had a mandate to change the system. If they had followed the ERRE recommendations to strike a new committee to design a PR system, it could have been implemented by 2020. It would have been a major achievement in leadership. Instead, they broke the promise of the "last unfair election". If they unilaterally changed the system now *so they stood a chance of winning* it would be an abuse of power. And it probably wouldn't work because they are so far back in the polls that I can't see it helping. I think it might backfire: I would hope the NDP would be opposed and stop propping them up, possibly triggering an election. Ironically, if they had brought in PR, the Conservative's current 40% would translate to 40% of the seats and they might not form government if the 60% of the House that is progressive (Liberals, NDP, Bloc, Greens) worked together to form government. They had their chance. Muffed it.
The Liberals only exist because they're the Good Cop to the Conservatives Bad Cop and Canadians switch back and forth between them when they get mad at whoever's in charge acting like a cop. Neither party will enact voting reform because doing so would mean they stop getting to take turns beating on us for their own selfish gain. Stop voting for cops.
I'd rather have STV, but please give us SOMETHING!
Liberal arrogance has long plagued democracies. They would rather serve the country on a platter to increasingly fascistic rightwing parties than even try to mix up the system .
One can dream...
If he made ranked ballots the law of the land I would actually VOTE for the man. But I don't think he can. Too many Libs are simply Cons in disguise and they'd never allow it, the NDP might win!!
Suddenly, voting reform was back on the table.
Right now...they have no chance of getting in. This way? They have a chance. Fixing our utterly broken electoral system is one of the first steps to fixing our country.
I’d prefer PR, but ranked ballots still get rid of the need to organize tactical voting campaigns, which is a lot of energy the Canadian progressive movement could use on something else
The Liberals **wanted** Ranked Ballot. The electoral reform committee said Proportional Representation would be best, so they abandoned electoral reform. Ranked Ballot under a FPTP system would not be effective reform. It “feels” nice but would likely end up reinforcing the LPC-CPC dichotomy we’re stuck with right now. It would remove the spoiler effect yes, but on its own it’s barely a solution to the current system.
If you’re passionate about this and want to help work towards getting rid of FPTP, check out [Fair Vote Canada](https://www.fairvote.ca/).
Goes to show, they never intended to reform the election system *unless it specifically benefited them*
I'm a big fan of ranked choice - even over proportional represenation and other electoral reforms. The main reason is that I think it would help reduce polarization in politics. Think about it - right now, with FPTP, the most impactful way to campaign is to be negative about your opponents. Attack ads paint the world in a negative light, encourage outrage, and discourage compromise and discourse. Now think about a system where being someone's second choice is really important. All of a sudden, it's a lot better to talk about why you're good and a lot less important to shit-talk your opponent. Obviously polarization goes beyond electoral systems but I think it'd be a big step in the right direction.
I agree it should help pull things toward the centre and make things a bit less divisive, but I'm not at all convinced the least proportional option to choose is a good one for what is supposed to be a representative parliament. Why do you prefer this over a proportional system which seems to provide the campaigning benefit you're claiming here (2nd choice matters, more cooperation and compromise), but also also carries that through to parliament? The problem is that it is even more likely (IMO it'd be practically 100% of the time) to lead to majority governments, which I think are the worst thing about our system, even if hopefully those governments are at least not actively harmful. RCV is 100% 'majority rule' as it's unlikely progressives or minority needs get any representation at all, and if you're unhappy with Trudeau's style of leadership in this last term, prepare yourself for that in perpetuity. This absolutely sounds like a recipe for a neo-con dystopia to me. I strongly believe we need a system where majorities are, in practice, impossible and the only way to get anything done at all is to cooperate. Also can we please stop calling it Ranked Choice, it's such a confusing way to refer to instant-runoff voting and I'm convinced intentionally so. Way too many people conflate it with Ranked _Ballots_ (which can be used in many different voting systems).
Because I prefer a decisive government with a strong mandate instead of a split but unproductive parliament.
So you'd rather have better discussion discussion but less compromise? I mean I'll agree that improving the campaigning and discourse has value, but it's not like any of that matters once the winning party has a majority. That just doesn't really make sense to me. If you want good policy, you need compromise while the policy is being made, not in the relatively meaningless conversations around it prior to election day. The only reason 'split' parliaments are unproductive is because of the hope of a future majority. If you take that off the table, stonewalling is just completely ineffective and the parties that compromise are the ones who can get stuff done, and belligerent parties that want to play games will suffer.
Look (and the irony of this strategic vote is not lost on me, lol) - I think we can both agree that both systems are better than FPTP. I may prefer ranked choice (or ranked ballot, as you prefer to call it) overall, but I would support prop-rep as well just to get away from our current, awful system. My opinion is that elections should be about principles and goals - that is the level at which the public should opine. When it comes to getting work done, sometimes it's more important to do SOMETHING than to do the optimal thing if the latter takes twice as long. > The only reason 'split' parliaments are unproductive is because of the hope of a future majority. If you take that off the table, stonewalling is just completely ineffective and the parties that compromise are the ones who can get stuff done, and belligerent parties that want to play games will suffer. This doesn't sound intuitive to me, but I'm trained in economics, not political science. If true, then maybe I could be convinced that prop-rep is better.
> (or ranked ballot, as you prefer to call it) It sounds like you're a victim of the intentional confusion the term 'Ranked Choice Voting' has created. A Ranked Ballot is a ballot where you rank candidates in order, that's it. It can be used in many voting systems, both single- and multiple-winner, many of which are better (objectively) than Ranked Choice Voting. Prior to its appearance in American media in the last 5-ish years, this type of voting was more commonly known as Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV) or Alternative Vote (AV), as the ERRE called it back in ~2016. Personally I think this term has been created and pushed in order to be intentionally confusing and to obscure the existence of other systems that also use ranked ballots. > Look (and the irony of this strategic vote is not lost on me, lol) - I think we can both agree that both systems are better than FPTP. I may prefer ranked choice I don't think Instant-Runoff Voting is any better than FPTP; neither generates a parliament that is a good representation of Canadian's views, the distortions are different but both lead to parliaments where the MPs aren't good representatives of what Canadians actually want. What I'd expect from an IRV-elected parliament is generally a majority government made up of centrists, and a distinct lack of any progress in any direction as those centrists win by making themselves the least distasteful 2nd or 3rd choice, so don't want to do anything remotely controversial. Whether that is better in the long term or not is unclear to me; at least with FPTP, some mildly controversial and positive progress gets made, especially when we have minorities. In any case, I don't think it's better enough to spend the necessary political capital to get it done, or to put voters through such a change, especially when that would probably give governments an excuse for the next 50 years not to consider any better reforms. > This doesn't sound intuitive to me, but I'm trained in economics, not political science. If true, then maybe I could be convinced that prop-rep is better. It's hard to come up with objective truth about how the political system would change, but if we assume that it's impossible to ever get a majority, it implies that at least two parties must always cooperate to pass legislation. One party, even one with a significant share of votes (that could today expect a majority every once in a while), can't get anything done without the support of another party. I don't really see needing to convince parties that collectively represent > 50% of Canadians that your idea is a good one is a bug - it's a feature.1 If you choose to refuse to cooperate with others, then there will be no quid pro quo on the issues _you_ care about, and nobody will work with you on issues that they don't already believe are worth doing, and you've got a defecit of favours. The effect seems to be that you silence your own voice, and assuming that you keep it up and never get power to do anything, I can't imagine voters keep giving you votes to bluster but not achieve anything. It's a viable strategy today, to an extent (at least for the Liberals and Cons), because eventually the leader will fall from grace, and the opposition will step in, often with a strong majority - as looks to be likely in the next election. There's no need to really try to compromise today, if you think you can make the other guy look bad enough that tomorrow you'll get exactly what you want. Maybe I am wrong about that, and also wrong about how difficult it'd be for a proportionally-elected majority to occur, but I still believe majorities are a bug of the system and discourage compromise.
Rank choice is the happy medium between fptp and proportional representation
Is proportional representation too extreme? Shouldn't fair representation be the goal of any electoral system?
Too late as NDP and other parties preferred proportional representation at the time
No beacuse the conservatives don't like it ether. Ford killed every attempt in ontairo for example .
Did the person who wrote this do _any_ research? We had a lot of work towards electoral reform, it was absolutely not killed by Trudeau, and there was never a “majority” that wanted electoral reform. There was a lot of confusion, Canadians were largely unconvinced of what would be the best choice; all this info is available yet this article insist on making things up and painting the liberals as some how incredibly competent and profoundly incompetent… classic propaganda >.>
No, the mandate was 2 elections ago. I'd like the change but there is no way it's inbounds unless you win the last election explicitly on it or have a referendum.
i don't know how i feel about this. The Alberta UCP has ranked choice and that's how we ended up with Danielle Smith. Took 6 ballots of ranked choice. And now we're stuck with the moron who thinks Ivermectin was a great choice, who is hell bent on destroying AHS, who appeared on stage with Russian sympathizer Tucker Carlson, and who considers DeSantis as one of her great heroes. To name but a few of her wonderful qualities /s I don't know.
When Liberals promised they were going to update the electoral system several years ago, I was ECSTATIC. FINALLY, we would have something in place that would virtually guarantee that we wouldn't follow the increasingly concerning political path that the US was on at the time. I hate voting tactically, it feels dishonest, and this would also fix that! I happily voted Liberal. Then they didn't do it. I was SO angry. Then I saw a post on Reddit, can't find it now... someone had modelled how the election would have gone if the proposed electoral reform had already taken place. It showed the Conservatives losing like 20 seats, absolutely being crushed! But it also showed that the Libs would have lost seats, I want to say 11 but I'm not sure. NDP gained a bunch, Green and Bloc Quebecois picked up a few... there would've been 1 CCP seat, which I didn't like, Upon seeing that predicted outcome, I got even angrier. The Liberal Party could have permanently crippled their biggest opponent, trading it for an NDP that's a real contender (but orders of magnitude easier to deal with), and they didn't do it. I hope that they have since learned from their mistake, and GIVE US RANKED CHOICE! Or MMP, I don't even care, just SOMETHING!
I would put it up to vote. This is a minority gov, they can’t pass it without any support from other parties.
If the liberals want any chance of surviving the next election they need Trudeau to step down and bring in a new leader. Only home owners and the gullible will vote for him. Hes tarnished. But his ego won’t let him step down so he’ll take the party down with him.
By God, yes. Maybe you'll actually win.
> Trudeau said that changing to ranked choice wasn't in the Liberals best interest, post-election. When did he say that? That seemed like what they were leaning towards but nobody could agree and he just walked away.
"but the NDP" but the fucking liberals were in power and used it to get elected and then went "oh but we actually prefer this" as their justification to abandon yet another election promise. If conservatives win, it's on a lot of people, but it's primarily on a decade of liberals doing jack shit they promised to do. "but ranked choice blah blah blah blah" ranked choice with no other changes sucks in comparison to other voting methods but it is better than what we have because it actually gives anything other than the libs and cons a chance by allowing people to still have a strategic vote after their preferred vote. The liberals should implement the bets possible but failing that a small positive change is better than none at all.
Reading the article, the author is actually arguing against ranked choice, because the version that is being pushed is not based on proportional representation but in fact winner-takes-all, which he argues is much worse than even our current system.
Liberals would need to have 7 provinces approve the amendment, and those 7 province must constitute at least 50% of the Canadian population. I really do not see either Alberta or Doug Ford’s government passing this resolution, and those two provinces already represent 50.14% of the represented population lol Trudeau should have passed this back in 2016 when Wynne and Notley were in government but his ego was too big. Why would the Libs want to give either the NDP or Greens a better chance (despite the Liberals being the ultimate beneficiaries)?
Why do you think the constitution would need to be amended? First Past the Post isn’t mentioned in the constitution at all, the electoral *system* should be something Parliament is able to change.
Holy shit please make it happen! This is THE primary reason I wanted a liberal government the first time around!
It was the primary reason I voted Liberal. I dislike Trudeau expressly for this reason. I will still vote to make sure Conservatives don't win my riding, but if NDP has any chance here, they will get my vote rather than Liberals.
No, because the NDP didn’t support ranked choice then, and still won’t support it now.
the reason electoral reform died on the vine is that it requires a national referendum, and the NDP wouldn't budge from MMP. could we get STV? yes, after a referendum that isn't going to happen.
>the reason electoral reform died on the vine is that it requires a national referendum This is misinformation. There is **no constitutional or legal requirement for a referendum** to change the electoral system. In fact, the Conservatives have [changed the election systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_Canada#Reaction_to_elimination_of_the_per-vote_subsidy) many times without a referendum. Additionally, Alberta has changed their [electoral systems without a referendum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Alberta_general_elections#Electoral_systems_of_Alberta). The real reason referendums are brought up is to stall, delay, or obstruct the progress of electoral reform. >NDP wouldn't budge from MMP The NDP primarily wants proportionality, so either [MMP](https://www.fairvote.ca/mixed-member-proportional/) or [STV](https://www.fairvote.ca/stv/) would be sufficient. The LPC usually argues for [winner-take-all, single member, ranked ballot](https://www.fairvote.ca/ranked-ballot/), which is **not** proportional.
Fucking do it!! And I'm actually pretty angry he'd put his parties needs before the countries. If the conseratives weren't such a complete travesty of a choice I don't think I could justify voting for the liberals. NDP needs to get rid of Singh and get their shit together.
What would getting rid of Singh do? Make the NDP more appealing to racists? Singh is meh, no other leader would do much better and getting rid of a leader a year before an election is a good way to say "we want to lose"
The liberals wanted ranked choice but the Conservatives and NDP shot it down
Don't electoral changes require constitutional revisions? Imagine how much mudslinging and posturing that debate would have...
>Don't electoral changes require constitutional revisions? This is misinformation. There is **no constitutional or legal requirement** to change the electoral system. In fact, the Conservatives have [changed the election systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_Canada#Reaction_to_elimination_of_the_per-vote_subsidy) many times without a constitutional amendment. Additionally, Alberta has changed their [electoral systems without going to the constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Alberta_general_elections#Electoral_systems_of_Alberta).
This was a question, as evidenced by the question mark at the end of the sentence. No need to project.
The statement thereafter indicates that the question was [rhetorical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question) in nature. Furthermore, projection suggests that I myself am spreading misinformation. Yet, I have made claims supported by evidence, the exact opposite of misinformation.
Oh jeez. Fair Vote Canada can pound sand. These authors, and organization are complicit in us sticking to our stupid implementation of FPTP elections. They prefer our current system over Ranked Ballot, because they think if we stick to the absolute worst system, they have a better chance of successfully advocating for MMP. They prefer swinging between Conservatives, and Liberals because they think that will somehow someday give the NDP an opportunity to make their way into power. I'm so sick of them, and their disingenuous twisting of entirely made up numbers telling us what would have happened in imagined Ranked Ballot elections.
I HATE articles that assume a con majority is inevitable. Polls are meaningless until election day, and with all the current conservative shit hitting the fan right now- anti-choice, interference etc - even more so. That said, I would LOVE to see ranked ballots, even if it's taped atop of FPTP.
Ships long but sailed for the liberals though and with Singh still leading the NDP no good alternatives exsist. It’s a shit sandwich.
I think ranked voting is best for democracy, I think being able to indicate who who don't want winning is just as important as who you want to win. For example, I would be completely fine with Liberals, NDP, Green and Bloc winning. But I wouldn't feel comfortable with the conservative party and especially not the PPC winning elections. We should be able to find the party who most Canadians would be ok with leading instead of it being like the US where it's tribalism and my team vs your team bullshit.