|
Jimbozig posted:Well, ranked ballots are such a cynical bullshit move for the liberals. But at least they should help the Greens. Ranked ballots are unlikely to result in any additional Green MPs or MPPs, that's why it's not proportional, switching to an admittedly flawed (and easily caricatured voting process) is not a good step towards PR, which is why the Greens, NDP and non-partisan Fair Vote all back an MMP system.
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:25 |
|
|
^^^^ Eh, it might lead to more Green MPPs, if by more we mean more than zero. Campaigning for the Federal Greens I heard a TON of "Oh, I would vote Green but I'm too scared of Harper" - all of those could convert into a lot of green votes.bunnyofdoom posted:To be fair, last time PR was floated in Ontario, it was overwhelmingly rejected Oh I know it. 60% of Ontarians who voted in that referendum are assholes who have ensured that in my decade of voting I've never once had my vote count nor have I had any representative in my province's or my country's government. As for baby steps being better... maybe? It could maybe eventually lead to PR. Or maybe it makes PR less likely. We'll never know. It's better than nothing, but it's basically "electoral reform with the goal of having Liberal majorities." Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 22:39 on May 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Does anyone remember the PR campaign for PR , or any notable public debate / media coverage? me either.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Meanwhile in the UK ranked voting was back by most of parliament and a well financed Yes campaign that vastly outspent the no campaign and it still lost by an even larger margin than the completely below the radar PR campaign Ontario ran.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
I was working for Elections Ontario during that particular election. My job was to go door to door and ensure we had the right information about potential voters' addresses and such. However my job was also to explain the details of the referendum on proportional representation to anyone who was interested. Nobody cared. I don't remember a single person asking about it. The entire election was over two weeks before voting day because John Tory said he'd fund none-Catholic religious schools. I also remember talking to my barber during that particular election and the topic of the referendum came up. She was against it because she didn't want the government to spend money hiring an extra forty MPPs or whatever. So yeah, a mixture of indifference and apathy plus reflexive mistrust of politicians and a complete lack of perspective on government budgeting strangled PR in the crib.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Ranked ballots are unlikely to result in any additional Green MPs or MPPs, that's why it's not proportional, switching to an admittedly flawed (and easily caricatured voting process) is not a good step towards PR, which is why the Greens, NDP and non-partisan Fair Vote all back an MMP system. You're talking about pure PR as though it's some kind of unquestionably objective good, as opposed to just good for your party. (And your example doesn't show that it's "easily caricatured," that video is outright lying when it says it's possible for someone who gets a majority of votes to lose an election.) Furthermore, how do you get around the fact that every member must represent an electoral district? You can't just add members to Queen's Park who don't represent an electoral district.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:You're talking about pure PR as though it's some kind of unquestionably objective good, as opposed to just good for your party. (And your example doesn't show that it's "easily caricatured," that video is outright lying when it says it's possible for someone who gets a majority of votes to lose an election.) tagesschau posted:Furthermore, how do you get around the fact that every member must represent an electoral district? You can't just add members to Queen's Park who don't represent an electoral district.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
I really wish I still had the paper or could think of a way to look it up but back in undergrad I read a paper saying that most electoral systems in the 19th century use proportional representation. Then when universal male suffrage started to take hold there was a marked shift toward first past the post. The paper suggested that this statistically significant correlation between universal male suffrage and first past the post was to maintain elite control of the voting system (however the paper, from what I can remember, didn't have sufficient documentary evidence to prove that, all it could do was demonstrate a strong correlation). Really wish I could find that paper now, it'd be interesting to read it in light of these renewed debates about changing the electoral system.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
SOME DUDE A CENTURY AGO posted:You're talking about women's suffrage as though it's some kind of unquestionably objective good, as opposed to just good for your party. I think that letting everyone vote and ensuring that every vote counts is indeed a good in and of itself. And I don't give a poo poo about what party it helps. I would absolutely vote for and campaign for Tim Hudak if he promised to give us proportional representation. (Assuming I believed him)
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:It's not outright lying, the party that most people selected as their first choice will often lose under AV The video says that it's possible to get a majority of the votes under an AV system and not win. This is completely false. It's possible to get a plurality and not win (this would have happened to a lot of Tories in GTA ridings in the 2011 federal election if AV had been in place).
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:I think that letting everyone vote and ensuring that every vote counts is indeed a good in and of itself. OK, how much will it cost to expand Queen's Park to fit eight million MPPs?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:The video says that it's possible to get a majority of the votes under an AV system and not win. This is completely false. It's possible to get a plurality and not win (this would have happened to a lot of Tories in GTA ridings in the 2011 federal election if AV had been in place). It's possible to get a majority of votes under an AV system and not win.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
In which race did that occur? I don't have time to check 150 races to figure out which one you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:In which race did that occur? I don't have time to check 150 races to figure out which one you're talking about. The Labor Party received 45% of the seats despite 51% of the country preferring it to the Coalition. If the point you're trying to make is "the national popular vote doesn't matter and the formation of the government should be up to then particular idiosyncrasies of where the vote happens to be concentrated", whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:The Labor Party received 45% of the seats despite 51% of the country preferring it to the Coalition. Up to the idiosyncracies of where the vote happens to be concentrated? As in, it's such a shame that people in a particular electoral district get to vote for someone to represent them?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
I think it was missed because of reflexive mistrust of Liberals, but the ranked balloting thing in their platform is to give municipalities that choice for their elections, where there are no parties to proportionally represent (unless I've missed some way for PR to work in nonpartisan elections).
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
^^^^^^ I don't think we missed that, but it's obviously a precursor to trying to enact it at the provincial level down the road.tagesschau posted:OK, how much will it cost to expand Queen's Park to fit eight million MPPs? Make it online and it could come in at some 7-digit pricetag. Fairly affordable. I wonder how much of a clusterfuck direct democracy would be in this day and age. But in all seriousness, PR does make (very nearly) every vote count. Every vote goes towards electing some representative. Unless you vote for a guy with no party affiliation who doesn't win or a party that wins less than x% of the vote (provincially, x = 1; nationally x = 0.3, assuming current numbers of MPs/MPPs). The reason it's unambiguously good is that under FPTP there's no reason for me to vote at all. If you live in an uncompetitive riding, you might as well stay home. With PR everyone who cares to vote in every riding can be assured that that vote means something. I'm as politically interested as they come, but I don't live in a riding where my vote means anything. I only vote because the polling station is literally on my block.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Up to the idiosyncracies of where the vote happens to be concentrated? As in, it's such a shame that people in a particular electoral district get to vote for someone to represent them? Where the gently caress did that strawman come from? blkmage posted:I think it was missed because of reflexive mistrust of Liberals, but the ranked balloting thing in their platform is to give municipalities that choice for their elections, where there are no parties to proportionally represent (unless I've missed some way for PR to work in nonpartisan elections). Right, and as this ranked ballot for Toronto advocacy page points out, it's not necessarily appropriate for federal/provincial elections.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Where the gently caress did that strawman come from? Is "characterizing Pinterest's point in a way he doesn't like" a strawman now? What's the meaningful difference between "the idiosyncrasies of where the vote happens to be concentrated" and "the idiosyncrasies of the differences in opinion between local areas across the country/province". In countries where these differences are significant, a national vote - even for a national government - can certainly be less representative and democratic than a collection of local votes. The point of a ranked ballot is to attempt to ensure that the representative of a given local area actually represents some sort of broad compromise choice of that area, as compared to FPTP. You can certainly do this with a proportional vote if you use multimember districts, but the tradeoff then is either a) needing larger districts, or b) needing larger legislatures, both of which have their own practical issues which need to be considered. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 01:51 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:Is "characterizing Pinterest's point in a way he doesn't like" a strawman now? What's the meaningful difference between "the idiosyncrasies of where the vote happens to be concentrated" and "the idiosyncrasies of the differences in opinion between local areas across the country/province". In countries where these differences are significant, a national vote - even for a national government - can certainly be less representative and democratic than a collection of local votes. tagesschau posted:As in, it's such a shame that people in a particular electoral district get to vote for someone to represent them? Pinterest mom did not say or imply in any way that regional representation is bad. It's not incompatible with proportional representation either. The idiosyncrasies he was referring to are mainly related to how electoral districts are divided in the first place. As an example, if you really wanted to, I'm sure you could find at least one combination of individual polling stations into 308 contiguous districts to provide a proportional house of commons without sacrificing regional representation, although the borders of the regions might be a little wonkier than they are now. Precambrian Video Games fucked around with this message at 02:03 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Another Liberal ad I spotted: Has anyone seen any NDP or PC ads on youtube or other websites?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Another Liberal ad I spotted: ACtually yes. I have seen PC ads on websites. (No NDP though. Shocking I know)
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Pinterest mom did not say or imply in any way that regional representation is bad. It's not incompatible with proportional representation either. What he did say is that representation of local opinions shouldn't override the aggregate national vote when determining the national government. Which would be grand in a country that wasn't as regionally divided as this one is. And no, local representation isn't incompatible with proportional representation. As I pointed out in the very next paragraph of my post. However, mixing the two presents challenges. Either your representation gets a lot less local as your district gets larger (and outside the cities some of our districts already have to be ridiculously large in order to cover anything close to the requisite number of people) or you have to pick a lot more members per district in order to represent minority opinions within that district (which is politically difficult to enact because it means adding more legislators - as uninformed an opinion as "there are enough of them already" is, it's definitely a major stumbling block to the various MMP referendums that have been tried if some of the opinions related upthread are any guide). My point is that there are good reasons to prefer other methods of electoral reform to PR even on a national level, and it's not as easy a choice as some of you make it sound. quote:The idiosyncrasies he was referring to are mainly related to how electoral districts are divided in the first place. With the exception of the bizarre SK rurban districts (which are being fixed), electoral districts in Canada are generally a fairly common-sense allocation along municipal, community, or natural boundaries. I mean, yes, they're still arbitrary lines on a map but if there need to be lines somewhere, this would seem to be pretty close the best you can do. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 02:30 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Another Liberal ad I spotted: The PCs are running a terrible facsimile of those Epic Republic Speech ads on youtube.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Another Liberal ad I spotted: I've seen an Andrea Horwath pre-roll on YouTube a couple of times today. She talks about growing up in Hamilton, working hard, pinching pennies, etc. She paid her way through University as a waitress! HackensackBackpack fucked around with this message at 03:37 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:^^^^ Eh, it might lead to more Green MPPs, if by more we mean more than zero. Campaigning for the Federal Greens I heard a TON of "Oh, I would vote Green but I'm too scared of Harper" - all of those could convert into a lot of green votes. IRV/AV doesn't really help this, since people don't understand it. In the last Australian Federal election, the Greens commissioned polling that found that roughly 30% of eligible voters are sympathetic to Green policies. Of that 30%, 30% of those who didn't vote for us did so because "they didn't want to see Tony Abbott (then Leader of the Opposition) elected, so they had to vote Labor." We have precisely one seat in the House of Representatives. It THEORETICALLY helps, but if Australians, who've had preferential voting at all three levels of government since 1918, don't understand how the system works, what hope would Ontarians have? (aside from Australians being profoundly ignorant and terrible people, which I'm not ruling out) DynamicSloth posted:it's also not lying when it says its changing from a one person one vote system AV/IRV is a one person, two votes system. Everyone's vote still has equal impact, it's simply that if your first preference ends up in the two-party-preferred count, your second vote goes to the same party to which your first vote went. Quantum Mechanic fucked around with this message at 04:40 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 04:31
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:AV/IRV is a one person, two votes system. Everyone's vote still has equal impact, it's simply that if your first preference ends up in the two-party-preferred count, your second vote goes to the same party to which your first vote went. With PR voters will vote the exact same way they always have and the upside is that every vote matters.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Yeah I know how it works and for something like an executive position like Mayor I can see its virtues, nationally though it would be such an incredibly hard sell politically to set up this massively confusing system with the only "upside" being that no Liberal government will ever be corrupt enough to lose power again. Yeah, I much prefer Hare-Clark or MMP to single-member IRV. If you're going through the trouble of initiating electoral reform you may as well go for broke with a proper system, single-member IRV is kind of a horrific Frankenstein half-measure.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Wynne and Horwath are going to have a debate over northern issues. Hudak decided not to attend. http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/05/25/ontario_election_kathleen_wynne_andrea_horwath_to_square_off_at_northern_debate.html I wonder if the Hudak team thought this was a smart idea: give Wynne and Horwath a chance to tear strips off each other while he remains above the fray. In reality, I expect they will devote a ton of time to attacking him without him being present to defend himself, so I wonder whether it might backfire. Either way, it's stupid that we only get one real debate in an election for Canada's largest province, and that one of the main party leaders can just decide to not participate in other ones. Alternately, they just don't care because the north votes NDP.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 13:21
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Wynne and Horwath are going to have a debate over northern issues. Hudak decided not to attend. Hordak won't participate because he can't throw his hands up and leave unceremoniously when he gets a difficult question. What a coward.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
Lumius posted:Does anyone remember the PR campaign for PR , or any notable public debate / media coverage? me either. There were lightposts around Yonge-Eglinton that had "Demand Proportional Representation" chalked in blue and red. They lasted for years. I never understood how the rain didn't wash the chalk away.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Wynne and Horwath are going to have a debate over northern issues. Hudak decided not to attend. It's pretty short sighted to write off a region just because you aren't going to pick up any seats there this cycle (and turning up here functionally costs almost nothing), but Hudak knows he's never going to run another election if he loses this one and gives no fucks.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
My question is whether it might backfire on him in places that aren't the north as well. Nobody outside the north really cares about what any of these leaders say about it (sad but true, we even have regionalism within individual provinces, see: hatred of Toronto), and so what is actually said at this debate may well be irrelevant to all but a few ridings, and not change the vote much one way or the other. But not showing up at all can be read as arrogance. That's how a lot of the media, and let's be honest it's their presentation of events that will really affect how a lot of people vote, treated McGuinty's choice to do the exact same thing and avoid the northern debate that Hudak and Horwath had in 2011. And Canadian voters often really hate arrogance in their political figures. If this gets spun as "Hudak doesn't think he needs to attend this debate because he doesn't care about the north and thinks he can win without it anyway" that could be really bad for his campaign.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Wynne and Horwath are going to have a debate over northern issues. Hudak decided not to attend. I believe the Liberals offered to pay for Hudak to come to the debate. The reason the OLP isn't attacking Rae directly is how well is Federal time went, which made him look better. Of course I still won't vote NDP for anything despite agreeing with them on some issues because Jack Layton was once rude to Ed Broadbent.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:My question is whether it might backfire on him in places that aren't the north as well. Nobody outside the north really cares about what any of these leaders say about it (sad but true, we even have regionalism within individual provinces, see: hatred of Toronto), and so what is actually said at this debate may well be irrelevant to all but a few ridings, and not change the vote much one way or the other. But not showing up at all can be read as arrogance. That's how a lot of the media, and let's be honest it's their presentation of events that will really affect how a lot of people vote, treated McGuinty's choice to do the exact same thing and avoid the northern debate that Hudak and Horwath had in 2011. And Canadian voters often really hate arrogance in their political figures. If this gets spun as "Hudak doesn't think he needs to attend this debate because he doesn't care about the north and thinks he can win without it anyway" that could be really bad for his campaign. Conservative candidates have been ducking debates for years now, with seemingly no significant backlash from the voters. I doubt this will hurt Hudak in any way.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
So the rallying cry among the Conservatives in my office is "deficits bad, look at Greece"! Also, "Kathy Wine did gas plants!"
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
JohnnyCanuck posted:So the rallying cry among the Conservatives in my office is "deficits bad, look at Greece"! And you were fast to correct them that she only signed the gas plant cancellation document because Dalton made her and then talked at length about all the new prosperity and social programs the Liberals have personally created by increasing our debt $100b in the last 5 years right?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
You do realize that a lot of our debt comes from basically automatic processes right? Tax revenue goes down and programs designed to alleviate poverty and unemployment start paying out more whenever there is a recession. I guess we could have not bailed out the auto industry and lost even more jobs, that would have saved some money in the short term I guess. If you wanna complain about the ineffectiveness of specific Liberal programs go ahead but saying they "created" the debt isn't accurate. We're going through one of the worst periods of economic turbulence in 50 years, our deficit wasn't created by runaway government spending.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
308's projection flipped to a Liberal minority today - 48 Lib, 39 Con, 20 NDP. Also pointed out that Friday's Ipsos Reid poll has been the only one to show a Conservative lead thus far. Hoping the Libs can stretch things out in the next few weeks.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:25 |
|
|
Helsing posted:You do realize that a lot of our debt comes from basically automatic processes right? Tax revenue goes down and programs designed to alleviate poverty and unemployment start paying out more whenever there is a recession. I guess we could have not bailed out the auto industry and lost even more jobs, that would have saved some money in the short term I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 22:36
|
|