First Past the Post

[fitzgibbon]

And that right there is the mindset that bothered me. If you're going to complain about how many electoral/riding seats you're "entitled" to, you might as well scrap FPTP entirely, and just have a PR system.

As it is, it looks like people trying to sneak a PR system in, rather than addressing the issue forthrightly.

Again, why not a preferential ballot? That takes care of the Achilles Heal of FPTP and guarantees that the elected representative of a particular riding is as close to acceptable to the wishes of the majority of the electorate that voted plus it maintains the strength of local representation.

Fitz

 

[dudalb]

The main problem I have with PR is it gives too much power to the Political Party Insiders.Almost impossible for a newcomer to break in and challenge the powers that be in a party through the a primary.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The main problem I have with PR is it gives too much power to the Political Party Insiders.Almost impossible for a newcomer to break in and challenge the powers that be in a party through the a primary.

Could you elaborate? The only PR systems I know that effects primaries are the ones that have a sort of open ballot that does away with them entirely (these are sort of oddball). Or are you talking about List members?

We should note that the UK has strongly centralised parties compared to the US and they are FPTP. There are many other factors at play. Actually, my State is FPTP and I think it helps keep the Democratic Machine in power. But that is another story .

 

[Horatius]

Again, why not a preferential ballot? That takes care of the Achilles Heal of FPTP and guarantees that the elected representative of a particular riding is as close to acceptable to the wishes of the majority of the electorate that voted plus it maintains the strength of local representation.

Fitz

Well, that's another problem with how they went about it. If you're going to muck about with changing the electoral system, you really need to make an effort to get people involved, and consider all the possible systems. This referendum seemed to come out of nowhere, with only one option for the new system. It wasn't clear who it was who decided that this MMP system was the only other choice we'd have, and why they chose it.

Blindsiding the electorate really isn't the way to go about fixing things.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Blindsiding the electorate really isn't the way to go about fixing things.

Oh, I'm sure that some of the elderly in Mississauga South might consider themselves as having been 'blindsided' after decades of having done it the other way. But I'm sure that most other people would recognise its value. But as I say, I would think its adoption unlikely by whatever party is in power simply because a variation from what brought them to power would be fooling with electoral juju

Fitz

 

[PhantomWolf]

Well, that's another problem with how they went about it. If you're going to muck about with changing the electoral system, you really need to make an effort to get people involved, and consider all the possible systems. This referendum seemed to come out of nowhere, with only one option for the new system. It wasn't clear who it was who decided that this MMP system was the only other choice we'd have, and why they chose it.

Blindsiding the electorate really isn't the way to go about fixing things.

This is very true, when we changed there was a lot of frustration with the FPTP system as while many people were turning to vote for third parties, they weren't getting in and instead we had just been through three terms were Governments held majorities in the house but had way less than 50% (if I recall right about 35-40%) of the vote, and then proceeded to ram through things that the majority of the country opposed.

We had two referendums. The first, held on 19th September, 1992, asked a) did we want to change, and b) if we were to change, which system we would prefer to change too, and then a second. While only 55% of the country voted (referendum outside of elections tend to have low turnout) 85% of those that did (including me) said change, and the system that won that was MMP, which got 70% of the vote.

Previous to that there had been a lot of advertising and explanation of the systems, though some supporters of non-MMP systems felt that MMP had been given an unfair advantage by several lobby groups.

The second referendum was held at the same time as the 1993 election, so garnered a greater turnout, 85% of voters, and it asked for a straight preference between FPTP and MMP. MMP won 54% to 46%.

This was confirmed in an follow up referendum last year at our 2011 elections. Again there were two questions, should we retain MMP, and if not, which system would you rather have, This time (though voter turnout was lower) MMP gained 57.7% of the vote to retain, though FPTP was the favoured of the alternative systems (it got 46%.)

Again there was a lot of advertising, pamphlets, and even a website to help explain how they all worked.

For more info....

http://www.elections.org.nz/voting/mmp/history-mmp.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_voting_system_referendum,_2011

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Again, why not a preferential ballot? That takes care of the Achilles Heal of FPTP and guarantees that the elected representative of a particular riding is as close to acceptable to the wishes of the majority of the electorate that voted plus it maintains the strength of local representation.

For me, the issue is still that geographically dispersed ideas / philosophies / ideologies are underrepresented relative to geographically concentrated ones. So for example the Greens would still have a heck of a hard time under preferential balloting, despite being the top choice of some 10% of Canadians.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

The main problem I have with PR is it gives too much power to the Political Party Insiders.Almost impossible for a newcomer to break in and challenge the powers that be in a party through the a primary.

I don't know how FPTP gives newcomers any advantage in challenging the party establishment. This is more a reflection of how parties go about appointing candidates.

Regardless of internal party dynamics, under PR it is comparatively easy for newcomers to start a new party and achieve some electoral success if their message resonates with the public.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Well, that's another problem with how they went about it. If you're going to muck about with changing the electoral system, you really need to make an effort to get people involved, and consider all the possible systems. This referendum seemed to come out of nowhere, with only one option for the new system. It wasn't clear who it was who decided that this MMP system was the only other choice we'd have, and why they chose it.

Blindsiding the electorate really isn't the way to go about fixing things.

Actually there was a whole commission of individuals selected from the public who did months of expert consultations and engaged in a very open dialogue with the public. There were numerous town hall meetings and anyone could submit their idea on how best (if at all) to reform the electoral system. These submissions were all published.

Maybe there wasn't enough done to advertise that the process was happening, but there was definitely a very exhaustive and open process in place.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

three terms were Governments held majorities in the house but had way less than 50% (if I recall right about 35-40%) of the vote, and then proceeded to ram through things that the majority of the country opposed.

Sounds a lot like Canada!

 

[gumboot]

Personally, I think the main problem with all of our current democracies is the presence of formal political parties. They should be banned.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Personally, I think the main problem with all of our current democracies is the presence of formal political parties. They should be banned.

What? And put all those lawyers back into circulation? Have you not considered what that amount of competition would do to billing rates? Will you not think of the children's private school and tutors?

Fitz

 

[Horatius]

Maybe there wasn't enough done to advertise that the process was happening, but there was definitely a very exhaustive and open process in place.

An exhaustive and open process that virtually no one knows about isn't very useful.

 

[dudalb]

Personally, I think the main problem with all of our current democracies is the presence of formal political parties. They should be banned.

Good luck with that. Ban Political parties, you would have political clubs, associations, societies that would be parties in all but name.

 

[gumboot]

Good luck with that. Ban Political parties, you would have political clubs, associations, societies that would be parties in all but name.

That's fine. I would have no issue with informal associations. The point would be they wouldn't be able to promote or advertise associations during electioneering. An MP would represent their constituents, and if they sided with the wrong voting bloc on the wrong issue they would be voted out.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

That's fine. I would have no issue with informal associations. The point would be they wouldn't be able to promote or advertise associations during electioneering. An MP would represent their constituents, and if they sided with the wrong voting bloc on the wrong issue they would be voted out.

First, I've never understood the antipathy to organized political parties. It's an easy way to cast a vote for a basket of political positions that most closely resemble your own.

Secondly, if you elect MPs using FPTP, even without political parties, you still have a good chance of getting 'represented' by someone who doesn't represent you at all, just like how MPs from parties opposed by most of their constituents are often elected by pluralities today.