“the population is so stupid, so we must slash public education. Clearly it is wasted on them!”
“Bah the printing press is so evil, we cannot have the peasants read the bible themselves”
I like a variation of the German system (not sure if it’s used everywhere in Germany though).
Keep the map as is, add seats to the chamber, once the results are in add MPs until the chamber is proportional, they’re selected by adding the party’s leader first then the candidates from their party that had the highest % of vote in their district then the next one and so on.
That means districts where first and second place were close would get two MPs which might swing the next election in the second place’s favour if they do a good job representing their district. It also means the party only gets to choose one of the MPs that are added this way, the other ones are chosen by the electors.
Also, does this mean the leader doesn’t have a district? That would be much more fair than having your MP advocating for local issues also at the same time acting as the leader making national policy. You wouldnt you want someone deciding to go against the good of the nation because they are the MP for Papineau, for instance.
That’s actually a good idea, I hadn’t even thought about that!
I prefer ranked choice as PR further cements party politics which are a big reason for our current problems. That said. Please let’s get PR because it would be infinitely better than what we’ve got now
Ranked choice is what’s best for the liberals not for Canada.
The Citizens assemblies have chosen proportional representation the most and research has shown that pr is more effective on government action and the system represents 95% of the vote.
The liberals are in no current position to make demands, they must compromise with the smaller parties,independents and disgruntled conservatives in order to get electoral reform done to fulfil the 2015 promise.
Ranked choice allows for people to vote for who they want AND who they don’t want. PR doesn’t do that. I don’t like the liberals for a variety of reasons, but sometimes what’s good for Canada will also benefit a specific party. That’s not a reason to dismiss it.
That makes the voting process more complicated than it needs to be, with proportional representation people use their share of votes for their preferred candidates. Voting for your favourite party is already inherently voting against a party you don’t want.
I don’t understand how “ranking” is making voting meaningfully more complicated. If I ask you what ice cream you want, you say, “Chocolate” and we’re all out of chocolate, it’s not complicated to give your second choice. And if you don’t like any of the options, you can say, “Chocolate or nothing.”
By your own argument, PR is waaay too complicated. You now have twice as many votes to make!
Ranked choice allows my opinion about every candidate to matter effectively allowing me to vote multiple times. PR only takes my opinion once or twice. I’m not concerned with how complicated it is. Voting should take thought.
the system represents 95% of the vote
What do you mean by this? Every election represents 100% of the vote.
That’s false as the votes for parties other than the big 2 in the riding are wasted. First-past-the-post often has parties winning all the power with 40% of the vote.
That’s not what you said the first time, which is why I asked for clarification. Maybe you meant, “the system represents 95% of the voters” because the votes are all totaled therefore represented? I was wondering if you were implying that some votes don’t count in the current system.
I think he means 95% of the votes result in representation in Parliament.
Ranked choice still favors more established politicians. I prefer mixed-member proportional voting. I’d rather primarily vote for a party instead of an individual
I respectfully disagree. I feel that party politics are bad for any country as at some point the party is more important than the country. That’s a matter of opinion though
I don’t remember if is was Canadian, but I heard an interview with an anti proportional representation guy. He said it’s confusing so they need to teach it in school and it needs to work it’s way into the electorate for it to work, which would take at least 20 years.
How dare you bring up something that you heard on a podcast.
I don’t get the downvotes, I don’t agree with him. I think it shows how unhinged you have to be to be against PR.
Gee maybe trudeau should promise to implement it if elected.
The fact that the main discussion in this thread is arguing about which non- FPTP voting system is better is a major demonstration of why Trudeau’s government dropped the whole idea…
Or maybe some of us don’t look at democracy from the perspective of a spreadsheet and understand power dynamics are more relevant.
Proportional representation gives too much power to political parties (the parties own the seats instead of representatives of communites) and results in backroom deals to form coalitions which can result in zero representation for minority groups.
See Israel for example. Right wing party has to keep far right crazies on their side to maintain power. Hooray for proportional representation!
The reality is a Community Representation system is the one that’s too difficult for the peasants to understand. Which is why some people want bad systems like Proportional Representation.
