Canadian Money Forum banner

41 - 60 of 72 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,659 Posts
I think most people will find that ranked ballot will favour the Liberals. The only party that overwhelmingly benefits FPTP is the Conservative party.

If you didn't know, Trudeau favours ranked ballot and it would have put the Liberals in power for perpetuity unless there was a big change where every party worked together to vote them out. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-electoral-reform-1.3976345

You only have to look at the Conservative leadership results as an example of what would likely happen, in a ranked ballot, or instant runoff type voting system. Basically, the least offensive choice will win out in the long run as being the perpetual second choice. Assuming that most ridings have 3 main contenders (Conservatives, NDP, Liberals), when it comes down two it, would most Conservative voters rank NDP above Liberals? Or would most NDP voters rank Conservatives above Liberals? I'm sure there are some exceptions, and only in an extreme case where the Liberal party has universally alienated the whole population, where it is unlikely that the Liberals are the preferred 2nd choice.

As for PR, it's more likely you'd get a pizza-style parliament like in most European countries rather than coalescence into 2 parties.

Edit: An article where they simulated a ranked vote result in 2019 election based on a survey of preferred 2nd choice. The Liberals and NDP would have gained while Conservatives and Bloc lost seats. Who wins Election 2019 under a ranked-ballot system - Macleans.ca
Regarding PR, there is no reason for the Liberals to support it. There is a good chance it will go to parties heavily controlled by the leader, which is bad.

As far as Ranked ballot, many people vote Liberal as a protest against the Conservatives.
I think that, after an adjustment period, there will be more groups and candidates with more nuanced positions.
Given the choice between the Liberal party, and a party with the same policies, just less racist, I can imagine that former Liberal party voters would be glad to put that new party as 1, with the old party as 2.

That's the real risk to the established parties.
Look at the US, sure there are real Trump supporters, but really 2020 will be a repeat of 2016, where most people were just voting "against" the other guy.
On Ranked ballot they could have easily put in someone who wasn't as bad as Trump or Clinton (now Biden), and they would have gathered a LOT of #1 votes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,600 Posts
Ranked ballots would turn into political strategies. The parties would tell their supporters to leave the 2nd and 3rd choices blank.
All that would mean is that your vote would be thrown away if your first choice doesn't make the cut. So if your first choice comes in 3rd, then it is no longer counted for subsequent rounds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,600 Posts
Given the choice between the Liberal party, and a party with the same policies, just less racist, I can imagine that former Liberal party voters would be glad to put that new party as 1, with the old party as 2.
You're assuming that the Liberal party would split just like the Conservative party did. The problem is that there already is a split for the most part: NDP, Liberals, and the Greens in there somewhere. There are already 3 parties that lean somewhat to the left. There's only 1 party that represents the right and that's the Conservatives. The Bloc is somewhat inbetween the two, but is fairly regional.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,699 Posts
The ideology opponent for Liberals is the Conservatives...........but.

The predominance of progressive (left leaning) voters makes me think the "enemy" in many ridings is the siphoning off of votes from the one progressive party to another.

If all the progressives voted for one party, that party would win. (Progressive parties capture about 70% of the vote).

Liberals are the middle of the road "progressive" party, and a more acceptable alternative to NDP/Green voters. They may place Liberals as a 2nd choice.

By social engineering each riding could be analysed and the progressives informed the best way to vote to ensure that a progressive won.

In the election in 2016, I met the NDP candidate and was impressed and going to vote for him. Then a group started an online website that calculated that if the Liberal and NDP vote split the left, the incumbent PC MP would win. It changed my mind on who to vote for.

They began a campaign for progressive voters to pledge to vote Liberal.........to ensure the incumbent didn't win. The strategy worked.

It was one of the 3 ridings in Southwestern Ontario that flipped from the Conservatives to another party. Peter McKay was just there trying to get it back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,659 Posts
All that would mean is that your vote would be thrown away if your first choice doesn't make the cut. So if your first choice comes in 3rd, then it is no longer counted for subsequent rounds.
You miss the issue in the 2016 Election.

Many 2016 voters are more against than for a candidate

Nearly half of the total vote was "against" the two main candidates.
The advantage of Ranked ballot is you could put your #1 as a preferred candidate, without the risk of "throwing away" your vote.

I think if we had ranked ballot we'd end up with more compromise people elected.
However, we wouldn't have the issue where people vote Liberal just to stop the Conservatives.

I think the immediate effect would be a dramatic shift in first choices.
Secondary effects would be.
More parties, representing different views.
Less interest on negative advertising.

I'd love a Conservative party that didn't have the religious hangup.
or a Liberal party that used science to develop policy, or at least weren't so blindingly corrupt.

Ranked ballot would make room for this.

Of course for 2020 in the US, we'd end up with President Kanye, which would be even more hilarious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,600 Posts
In the election in 2016, I met the NDP candidate and was impressed and going to vote for him. Then a group started an online website that calculated that if the Liberal and NDP vote split the left, the incumbent PC MP would win. It changed my mind on who to vote for.

They began a campaign for progressive voters to pledge to vote Liberal.........to ensure the incumbent didn't win. The strategy worked.

It was one of the 3 ridings in Southwestern Ontario that flipped from the Conservatives to another party. Peter McKay was just there trying to get it back.
You mean the 2015 or 2019 election? That's kind of why it's difficult to project what effects a change of voting would have done on historical results. If the ranked ballot or PR was in place, I'm sure people would have voted differently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,600 Posts
You miss the issue in the 2016 Election.
Nope, because I don't care about the US elections in this context. It's not applicable to this discussion because they have a straight 2 party system with an electoral college which is different than the parliamentary system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,530 Posts
The issue is that the Liberals benefit from FPTP.
The conservatives generally benefit from FPTP.
The NDP will get more power under Proportional representation. But PR is very scary and will lead to a 2 party system like in the US.


Ranked ballot is a big unknown for the established parties, but honestly it's really hard to find a downside.
Nearly every PR system in the world has more than 2 parties. The US uses FPTP just like Canada. Generally FPTP promotes a two party system, though you do see three or four parties when there are regional disparities. It's why the conservative parties in Canada had to merge again to have any hope of forming government.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,530 Posts
Ranked ballots would turn into political strategies. The parties would tell their supporters to leave the 2nd and 3rd choices blank.
It makes no difference if you leave 2nd and third choice blank. If your first choice is eliminated your vote no longer counts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,023 Posts
In other words, no coherent logic to reducing the number of councilors in Toronto when they already represented more people than the vast majority of mayors in Ontario. Torontonians don't deserve local representation, but presumably residents of Burlington need 6 councilors for a population that wold be represented by 1 in Toronto. Such waste! And Ford obviously doesn't care about the poor taxpayers of Burlington. Ottawa has 23 councilors but should only have 6! Think of all the hundreds of council positions in Ontario that could be eliminated. I'm sure it could save literally a basis point worth of cost--local representation be damned. No point in asking any of these communities about how they would feel about it--we should just implement it in a matter of weeks without consultation.
The coherent logic as you were told already is the TO ridings are the same now as those for prov and fed. There aren't more local issues than prov or federal so they didn't need 2x as many representatives. The representation is based on geography and location. Also nothing was getting done. At least now it is easier to pass votes and not have endless debating

Maybe other cities need less councilors too but issues aren't related to popn again and representation is by geography . Things like parking, parks, transit etc exist in small cities so Burlington still needs councilors to represent their geographical interests regradless of popn density.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,659 Posts
In other words, no coherent logic to reducing the number of councilors in Toronto when they already represented more people than the vast majority of mayors in Ontario. Torontonians don't deserve local representation, but presumably residents of Burlington need 6 councilors for a population that wold be represented by 1 in Toronto. Such waste! And Ford obviously doesn't care about the poor taxpayers of Burlington. Ottawa has 23 councilors but should only have 6! Think of all the hundreds of council positions in Ontario that could be eliminated. I'm sure it could save literally a basis point worth of cost--local representation be damned. No point in asking any of these communities about how they would feel about it--we should just implement it in a matter of weeks without consultation.
Sure there is, you can't do much with that many individuals, that's part of the reason Toronto city council is so dysfunctional.

At the federal and provincial level, it's party politics, which are banned at the municipal level in Ontario.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,530 Posts
The coherent logic as you were told already is the TO ridings are the same now as those for prov and fed. There aren't more local issues than prov or federal so they didn't need 2x as many representatives. The representation is based on geography and location. Also nothing was getting done. At least now it is easier to pass votes and not have endless debating

Maybe other cities need less councilors too but issues aren't related to popn again and representation is by geography . Things like parking, parks, transit etc exist in small cities so Burlington still needs councilors to represent their geographical interests regradless of popn density.
Then why does Ottawa need 23 councilors for their 6 ridings? It was a petty and capricious decision made out of his personal dislike of how the city council works. Councilors deal with issues at a very local level such as community centres, parks, stop signs and speed bumps. It is unreasonable to say that a councilor should represent as many people as MPs or MPPs when those representatives are not typically dealing with hyperlocal issues. A change like this should have been done with consultation of the voters affected, and not imposed on them based on the whims of one person. Particularly when he didn't mention anything about it in the election campaign he just came out of. Why did he hide his desire to do this if it was one of his first acts in office?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,530 Posts
Sure there is, you can't do much with that many individuals, that's part of the reason Toronto city council is so dysfunctional.

At the federal and provincial level, it's party politics, which are banned at the municipal level in Ontario.
Is the issue, then, that the City of Toronto is too big? Maybe amalgamation should be undone and the city should return to a borough/regional government model like in the surrounding regions. I don't live in Toronto, but I found the move absolutely flabbergasting. I could been indifferent to it if residents of Toronto were consulted and the change was put in place for the subsequent municipal election.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,530 Posts
More broadly, I am continually amazed by generally-conservative griping about how democracy is too expensive and is wasteful. You're right, less democracy is cheaper. I'm not sure that makes it desirable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,659 Posts
Is the issue, then, that the City of Toronto is too big? Maybe amalgamation should be undone and the city should return to a borough/regional government model like in the surrounding regions. I don't live in Toronto, but I found the move absolutely flabbergasting. I could been indifferent to it if residents of Toronto were consulted and the change was put in place for the subsequent municipal election.
Region of Toronto with various cities.
Or City of Toronto withe various districts /broroughs/wards, each with their own subdivisions..

I do think that Toronto is too small for one level of "local" government.

The reality is Toronto really needs a lot of focus, and they need multiple tiers, to manage.
Having lived in areas under regional government, it's "interesting".

The problem is each level needs to be clear on their responsibilities and powers, something that people don't get about the Federal/Provincial split. Even politicans at those levels don't understand different responsibilities.
When you have 4 levels, people simply don't understand it.

One issue with Toronto is that there are a LOT of politics, which makes sense, there are a lot of issues when you cram that many people into a small area, and expect government to sort it out.

In high density areas, government has lots of involvement, in less dense areas, they have lesser involvement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,659 Posts
More broadly, I am continually amazed by generally-conservative griping about how democracy is too expensive and is wasteful. You're right, less democracy is cheaper. I'm not sure that makes it desirable.
From the Conservative side you're mixing 2 things.

Democracy is inefficient, but that's acceptable because its the "best" form of government we've developed so far.

Government is too expensive because it's too big and trying to do too much.
Also because they have so much money, and so little accountability, they waste money like crazy.


Separate problems, all forms of official government are inefficient and wasteful, which is why government should be small, so it does as little damage as possible.

Democracy should be used, because the other options are worse.


The Leftist idea seems to big some big all knowing government controlling every aspect of everything would be good, well I don't see how.
At the very least, we know central planning will fail due to the local knowledge problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,023 Posts
Then why does Ottawa need 23 councilors for their 6 ridings? It was a petty and capricious decision made out of his personal dislike of how the city council works. Councilors deal with issues at a very local level such as community centres, parks, stop signs and speed bumps. It is unreasonable to say that a councilor should represent as many people as MPs or MPPs when those representatives are not typically dealing with hyperlocal issues. A change like this should have been done with consultation of the voters affected, and not imposed on them based on the whims of one person. Particularly when he didn't mention anything about it in the election campaign he just came out of. Why did he hide his desire to do this if it was one of his first acts in office?
Ottawa probably doesn't. NYC only has 51 Councillors w 3x the popn. TO can do w 25. The work is about the same at all levels of govt too. You have some bent about Doug Ford and just need to get real.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,530 Posts
So your argument about the logic of aligning city wards to federal and provincial ridings is bunk. Agreed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,530 Posts
From the Conservative side you're mixing 2 things.

Democracy is inefficient, but that's acceptable because its the "best" form of government we've developed so far.

Government is too expensive because it's too big and trying to do too much.
Also because they have so much money, and so little accountability, they waste money like crazy.


Separate problems, all forms of official government are inefficient and wasteful, which is why government should be small, so it does as little damage as possible.

Democracy should be used, because the other options are worse.


The Leftist idea seems to big some big all knowing government controlling every aspect of everything would be good, well I don't see how.
At the very least, we know central planning will fail due to the local knowledge problem.
It is generally conservatives that complain about too many representatives. Whenever new seats are added in the HoC they inevitably moan about having too many MPs. The direct cost of representatives is tiny in the overall cost of government, so any argument about reducing representation as a desire to meaningfully reduce waste is clearly invalid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,659 Posts
It is generally conservatives that complain about too many representatives. Whenever new seats are added in the HoC they inevitably moan about having too many MPs. The direct cost of representatives is tiny in the overall cost of government, so any argument about reducing representation as a desire to meaningfully reduce waste is clearly invalid.
I don't care about the cost of the representatives, the direct cost is insignificant. Just like people complaining about senior officials on private jets or the cost of a filibuster, I don't care.
Honestly I've said before (even in the Harper era) opposition leaders and critics should have access to government funded transport to do their job better.
I think Scheer is doing a poor job, but he shouldn't be slumming around the Toronto airport (Neither should Singh actually). they and senior critics should, in non-COVID times, be travelling around the country, meeting people, understanding issues and debating them in parliment.


I do think 300+ is too many, it's simply not possible for all those representatives to effectively communicate and represent their constituents.
The vast majority of MPs have no voice at all in the commons.
If they're lucky they might get a seat on a committee.

I'd rather a smaller group of maybe 50-100 or so representatives get together and actually discuss how to run the country.
As it is, most MPs have no input into how the country is run, and that's a problem.

Secondly the issue with government waste is the things they spend our money on.
Lots of money get spent on things that should not be funded by the government.
That's my actual concern with the size of government.

Honestly if they had a way to get the 300+ members of parliment to effectively work together, I'd have no issue with expanding parliment. As it is, most of them do nothing, and they sit there finding new ways to spend money.
 
41 - 60 of 72 Posts
Top