Conservatives for majority, anyone?
Computer Science Canada Election 2008 |
| Author: | rdrake [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Election 2008 |
...So vote if you haven't already! Polling doesn't close until 9:30. |
|
| Author: | SNIPERDUDE [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
Planning on it. People's thoughts on the election? |
|
| Author: | jbking [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
I'm in Toryland here, near Stephen Harper's riding where I doubt there will be any change. My guess is that the Tories will get another Minority, with NDP gaining a little ground on the Liberals. My hope would be for more NDP in and less Bloc Quebecois as I don't see how a party that runs in just one province could wield so much power. |
|
| Author: | HellblazerX [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Election 2008 |
jbking @ Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:24 pm wrote: I don't see how a party that runs in just one province could wield so much power.
That one province is pretty big. As for me, I voted Liberal. I'd like to go NDP, however, the candidate in my riding doesn't have much of a chance, so I voted Liberal so the Conservatives don't get this riding. Kinda of a bad practice, but I wouldn't have to resort to this if our election system wasn't so bad. |
|
| Author: | CodeMonkey2000 [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
I can't vote yet, but I would vote liberal. Right now voting NDP is pretty much throwing away your vote imo. |
|
| Author: | Zeroth [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Election 2008 |
I'm voting green. The greens are great. They have a very exhaustive and complete plan for Canada, which, contrary to Jack Layton's claims, has actual plans on how to deal with the staffing shortages in medicine. I checked the file history... they had it before Layton's announcements of what he would offer. In addition, they have a section on technology and IT, specifying that they would use open source software in government, and open formats. |
|
| Author: | twtmc [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Election 2008 |
Had I a vote it would go towards the green party. |
|
| Author: | md [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Election 2008 |
CodeMonkey2000 @ 2008-10-14, 3:13 pm wrote: I can't vote yet, but I would vote liberal. Right now voting NDP is pretty much throwing away your vote imo.
If everyone voted the way you did then the NDP and Green parties would never gain any share. The system works when people vote for who they want, not against who they don't want. If you haven't voted yet you have a little less then two hours left. |
|
| Author: | [Gandalf] [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
Done sir! Also, completely agreed with jbking. |
|
| Author: | StealthArcher [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
Done. Edmonton-Strathcona Riding. Much different obvious turnout than my old riding of Thunder Bay-Rainy River would've been. And yes I voted Conservative. Bitch all you want. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
16 mins and 10 seconds to vote! (for EST at least) |
|
| Author: | StealthArcher [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
Voting in MT has finished as of 17 minutes ago. |
|
| Author: | [Gandalf] [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
Conservatives for majority, anyone? |
|
| Author: | SNIPERDUDE [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Election 2008 |
CodeMonkey2000 @ October 14th 2008 wrote: I can't vote yet, but I would vote liberal. Right now voting NDP is pretty much throwing away your vote imo.
Haha, that's how I felt about voting Green (comparing Green and NDP) Either who I voted Green. They can only gain ground through our votes. |
|
| Author: | gitoxa [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Election 2008 |
Gandalf @ Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:29 pm wrote: Conservatives for majority, anyone?
Four more years... Le sigh. |
|
| Author: | StealthArcher [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
What's wrong with that?.. OH WAIT I FORGOT Konservats and Rethuglicans are evil, how DARE I? |
|
| Author: | [Gandalf] [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Election 2008 |
"OK" Makes you kind of sad to see the actual percentages of votes, for example Green and Bloc have about the same amount of votes, yet Bloc has ~48 seats and Green has... ~0.  Or how Conservatives have almost double the seats compared to Liberals with only ~9% more votes. Not to mention NDP with almost 1/5th of the votes, yet only 1/10th of the seats. Ugh.
Source: CBC.ca |
|
| Author: | gitoxa [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Election 2008 |
Gandalf @ Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:55 pm wrote: Makes you kind of sad to see the actual percentages of votes, for example Green and Bloc have about the same amount of votes, yet Bloc has ~48 seats and Green has... ~0.
I just had this argument with my dad. Him being the diehard conservative he is, his view was that our government works the way it does, there's no changing that. He also kept arguing that because Bloc are only in one province, it's okay that the percentages are off. And the greens are a bunch of dope smoking hippies* that aren't fit to run our country, and deserve no seats, so everyone's happy in the end. And yes Stealth, they are evil. Maybe if people didn't have their heads shoved so far up their a**es, they'd see it too. *note, even if this was the case, there are millions of 'dope smoking hippies' in Canada. |
|
| Author: | md [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:46 pm ] | ||||||
| Post subject: | Re: Election 2008 | ||||||
The joys of a first-past-the-post electoral system. Personally I'm a fan of ranked voting, you rank the candidates in your riding from 1 to n, and then each candidate gets points equal to their rank for each voter. The person with the least points would win. For example; in a tiny riding there are four candidates and 10 voters. Using highly selected voting data (to illustrate the example... in many cases with more voters the results would be much closer)
Now, using the First past the post means you only vote for one person, so only a rank of 1 counts
Candidate #1 wins, though it's a close race. Now, using a ranked-voting method:
Candidate #2 wins, by virtue of appealing to the most people. He might not have been anyone's first choice but by being everyone's second choice he is the least offensive to the most people. **Note that you can fool with the numbers and get similar results; I was just too lazy to make up realistic numbers. In reality though I am quite glad it's still a conservative minority though I do wish that the NDP had gained more seats and the Greens too. |
|||||||
| Author: | StealthArcher [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Election 2008 |
gitoxa @ Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:29 pm wrote: Gandalf @ Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:55 pm wrote: Makes you kind of sad to see the actual percentages of votes, for example Green and Bloc have about the same amount of votes, yet Bloc has ~48 seats and Green has... ~0.
I just had this argument with my dad. Him being the diehard conservative he is, his view was that our government works the way it does, there's no changing that. He also kept arguing that because Bloc are only in one province, it's okay that the percentages are off. And the greens are a bunch of dope smoking hippies* that aren't fit to run our country, and deserve no seats, so everyone's happy in the end. And yes Stealth, they are evil. Maybe if people didn't have their heads shoved so far up their a**es, they'd see it too. *note, even if this was the case, there are millions of 'dope smoking hippies' in Canada. That was immense sarcasm, shows how much you have your head stuck up your ***. And the greens ARE dope smoking hippies, or the closest thing one can be without smoking dope. BUT O HOW IM EEEEEEEEVIL I DARE STAND AGAINST PROGRESSIVISM AND THE HANDING AWAY OF MY MONEY TO GLOWBULL(****) WORMENING AND PEOPLE WHO WONT WORK FOR THE CAUSE OF ENTITLEMENTISM. MODERATION Let's keep this civil. Respect other people's votes and opinions. |
|
| Author: | rdrake [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
Quiet. I'm tired of reading whiny posts about who supports who. This was supposed to be a grown up discussion about the discussion, not a flame fest. I thought if you were old enough to vote you were old enough to understand that. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
Well it seems it is a consertive minority again, making this election rather pointless and a big wast of money :p It would be intreating if the NDP + LIB + BQ made a coalition government, however i have a hard time seeming them get along for long enought to make such an adgrment. |
|
| Author: | TheFerret [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
I voted and actually worked for Election Canada today, so I got to know first hand in how its run. I'm disappointed that Harper got back in again but he is the lesser of the evils right now since Dion is a push over and wont do anything for the country and not enough people will vote for the other parties... le sigh, we need fresh new candidates for this... |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
Intresingly this election had the lowest voter turn out in canadian hisotry with 59% of canadians voting. |
|
| Author: | StealthArcher [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Election 2008 |
TheFerret @ Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:46 am wrote: I voted and actually worked for Election Canada today, so I got to know first hand in how its run. I'm disappointed that Harper got back in again but he is the lesser of the evils right now since Dion is a push over and wont do anything for the country and not enough people will vote for the other parties... le sigh, we need fresh new candidates for this...
Indeed. You should run ferret! Depending on what you stand for even I might vote for you! |
|
| Author: | SNIPERDUDE [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
And it would be another wasted vote. But yea, if it something worthwhile I might too!  |
|
| Author: | octopi [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Election 2008 |
This election did have a purpose, the government will be allowed to continue working, and getting bills past for at least another 6 months, I doubt voters would look to kindly on the Liberals and NDP if they forced another election so soon. So they will play nice for a while, until they think they have a shot at winning something, at which point they will force an election, or whine so much that Harper will call one. Also by the Liberal's loosing the election, this forces Dion to face a review, quite possible he'll get canned, maybe the Liberals will wise up, and get a leader that both sides of the Country can like. |
|
| Author: | Zeroth [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Election 2008 |
I prefer proportional voting, myself. Then the greens would have a couple of seats then. At the very least though, the greens are modifying policy by their presence. Look at the "Green Shift" plan by the Liberals. This is a good thing, that all voices get heard. I think though a bigger issue is the changes in voting that were made. It makes it significantly harder for mobile and flexible people to vote(ie, young voters and students), while it seems to be no big hardship to most settled people(ie, families). One could almost argue that that is what the law was designed for, make it harder for students to vote(that are more likely to vote liberal anyways), and win an election that way. I'm curious if any stats were kept on how many people were turned away, and what they would have voted if they could. |
|
| Author: | StealthArcher [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
I know plenty of students who vote as I do, so the partisan crap is unlikely |
|
| Author: | md [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
The new rules for voting are far from unreasonable - what's wrong with having to prove that you live in the riding you are voting in? My problem with proportional representation is that it's not region-based which kind of gets rid of some of the tie that your MP has to you as a voter. It's much harder to ignore someone who lives in the same small area you do. |
|
| Author: | btiffin [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
I still stand by a need to change the entire system over to complete and utter proxy democracy. Dump elected representation and take each and every issue and vote to the people. We have tech that could easily support ALL of us being the "members of the house", and all we'd need to do is show an interest in our own governing. If we were ever apathetic enough to let the country slide into oblivion, well, it would be on ALL of us; not the few that decide they should run things. Everyone thinks the "other guy" wouldn't care enough. But deep down, the vast majority of people do care, and we are all the "other guy" that we worry about, but shouldn't. Would the Alberta Tar Sands be given carte blanche to bypass carbon emission protocols if all Canadians got to decide on environmental law? Probably not. Would our decision make Canada less money in the short and long run? Probably yes. Would a reasonable person be willing to sacrifice a little for future generations, if told the upfront truth and not 5 year political rhetoric? Probably yes. All in my humble opinion and a view of the overall general good, nice and hardworking people of Canadian society. That view being that people are not good, nice and hardworking because the police or banks tell them to, but because it is in our basic human nature to strive and struggle and to make safe environments for children and then protect those children as they play. Failing all that, I'm glad the Conservatives didn't get a majority mandate. They may "get more done", but majority governments in Canada seem to spawn the "I'm King" mentality with the Prime Minister telling our elected representatives how they will vote on issues. And if the member deeply disagrees, they face sanctions and "firing". How did we get to a place where our elected representatives can be "fired", or have to risk a career for voting as the constituents ask? Cheers |
|
| Author: | octopi [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Election 2008 |
Anyone who wanted to vote was able to vote, the list of acceptable documents is huge, and includes things such as "Residential Lease", which would cover most people living off campus (unless your crashing at your friends house for 8 months). |
|
| Author: | Clayton [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
I think it will be interesting to see what comes of the previously proposed Copyright bill. Will it come back, and if it does, will it still make it as far as it did before and/or beyond? |
|
| Author: | md [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
Harper has promised to re-introduce it. He made the announcement a few days before the election, thursday or friday methinks. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Election 2008 |
octopi @ 15th October 2008, 2:34 pm wrote: Anyone who wanted to vote was able to vote, the list of acceptable documents is huge, and includes things such as "Residential Lease", which would cover most people living off campus (unless your crashing at your friends house for 8 months).
I adgree, you could even have no id or proof of residence and have some one who does sponsor you and you could vote if you took an outh that you where a ctizentent and lived in the ridding. Also for studetns here, lakehead has a polling station just for the res students on campus so they would not even have to leave campus to vote. |
|
| Author: | Roman [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
I voted too, but wow, 59% is a really crappy turnout. Proportionally, 37% of 59% is 21.83% of the population that voted for Harper. =[ |
|
| Author: | Zeroth [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Election 2008 |
Dan @ Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:50 pm wrote: octopi @ 15th October 2008, 2:34 pm wrote: Anyone who wanted to vote was able to vote, the list of acceptable documents is huge, and includes things such as "Residential Lease", which would cover most people living off campus (unless your crashing at your friends house for 8 months).
I adgree, you could even have no id or proof of residence and have some one who does sponsor you and you could vote if you took an outh that you where a ctizentent and lived in the ridding. Also for studetns here, lakehead has a polling station just for the res students on campus so they would not even have to leave campus to vote. How many students know that? How many would really go back after getting the required documents? |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Election 2008 |
Zeroth @ 15th October 2008, 9:27 pm wrote: How many students know that? How many would really go back after getting the required documents? Well the only required document is having a friend with a drivers licenes (or one your self). Also a list of all posible doucments or methods of identifcation that can be used was sent to most house holds, appremnts and residences by elections canada (at least in my ridding) and to top it off they played ads on t.v. saying that you need id and gave examples of what fourms of id work. If you some how ignored all that and could not find some to voutch for you or are to lazy to get one of the many many fourms of id accpected (including student card with anything with an address on it) then maybe you should not be voting as the marking an X part might be a bit much for you.  |
|
| Author: | Zeroth [ Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Election 2008 |
You've obviously never worked in retail Dan. Intelligent, capable people seem to have their brains turn off whenever its something important, like, say, election information. Or big giant signs. No one looks at them. Who was it here, that said they worked for Election Canada? Maybe we should hear from them whether it seemed like people /still/ did not know after all this time? |
|
| Author: | S_Grimm [ Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
i agree with Zeroth. people just "shut down" when election information comes there way. i had someone call and ask me who i was voting for, and i hung up on them. why? because all i have seen politians do is spend our money on useless things, like, meaning no offense to any of the people who are or were in Iraq, the war. |
|
| Author: | StealthArcher [ Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
Canadians have never been in Iraq.... >_> Or so I thought? |
|
| Author: | S_Grimm [ Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
hmmmm. Afganistan then, or where ever the war is. |
|
| Author: | StealthArcher [ Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
Yes Afghanistan. |
|
| Author: | Zeroth [ Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Election 2008 |
... and this is the exact problem. "Wherever the war is." You should care, or at least be aware that Canadian forces are supposed to be acting as peacekeepers in Afghanistan, helping to rebuild the country, etc. This, after the Coalition Forces, consisting of British, American, and Canadian forces invaded Afghanistan, all to gain "revenge" on Osama Bin Laden. Doing some very quick research, I've found documents showing at the very least that there is a side benefit to the invasion, and the current occupation by Canadian forces(when did we become occupiers, btw? Isn't that something... Imperialists do?). For reference, what follows is mainly guided by information provided by Naomi Klein in her book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. I did a quick google search, "free market afghanistan" and the very first five results all talk about a few things:
Let us examine a few situations, where free market economics were applied, often with brutal results. Russia: When the USSR collapsed, economists moved in, to encourage Russia to go totally free-market as soon as possible. To do this, Yeltsin asked for, and recieved one year of special powers. He used those powers consequently to privatize everything he could, from Russia's massive oil resources, to its hospitals and infrastructure. However, because of the hurry, many extremely valuable assets were seized by former Party apparatchiks at dollar store prices. Russia's massive oil company, fifth largest in the world, went for $30 million dollars, when in one year, it brings in revenues of $2.5 billion dollars. So, the wealth and assets of Russia were sold off in an orgy of back-room dealing, while Yeltsin had unconstitutional powers. At the end of that year, with the threat of massive riots, and of being expelled from his position by the Russian Parliament, so newly formed, he then turned the army on them, surrounding the Russian White House with tanks. Russia went globalized, but the rich just became richer, and the poor became poorer. In 1991, there were no Russian millionaires. In 1993, there were 23 billionaires. The same story has happened, repeatedly, in Argentina, Chile, Brazil, China, and every country affected by the psuedo-crisis of the Asian Tigers in 1997, where free market economics are pushed through as quickly as possible, all to the enrichment of a few, while the middle class in those countries gets wiped out. Before the coup by Pinochet in Argentina, Argentina had the world's largest and wealthiest middle class per capita. Now, after Pinochet instituted the free-market economic ideas of Milton Friedman, Argentina has one of the world's largest divides between the rich and the poor. One especially important quote I found: Quote: The key to fighting poverty doesn't lie in foreign aid, which often merely helps recalcitrant governments avoid necessary reforms. Developing countries must reduce trade barriers, establish the rule of law, protect private property, curb inflation, cut wasteful spending and corruption, and stop meddling in domestic markets. A trade deal wouldn' t prompt those changes overnight, but it would introduce external discipline to get the basics right.
Reducing trade barriers without developing the local industries beforehand means that they cannot compete with foreign companies, ie, China, Walmart, etc. Protecting private property means defending the property of foreign multinationals, because these poor companies always get uppity and try to take their money back. Cut wasteful spending means privatize everything but the police, army and courts. Stop meddling in domestic markets means no more price controls, so we can make unlimited profit off of these people. Canadian companies, much as I hate to say it, stand to benefit just as much as American companies, Japanese companies, even UK companies. However, countries, like France, with a strongly developed internal industry, strong trade protections, strong consumer protection, and laws that prevent exploitation of other countries... don't have companies that would benefit. You can almost draw every country that supported the coalition as benefiting economically in some way. All this information is intended to do is put into context many actions of the past two decades. Understanding what was going on economically in Russia explains Yeltsin's actions, when not two years before, he was protecting democracy with his own life. Understanding where the money goes also puts into context the entire Iraq war, and the subsequent occupation. There was a strong financial incentive to invade Iraq, and even better, it owed a lot of debt, so whatever government came into power could be pressured. Do research. Understand. Information is power. And may I remind you of another quote in regards to Afghanistan, published in 2005: Quote: Afghanistan needs just about everything and money is to be made.
Sources: Building a New Market Economy in Afghanistan(PDF warning) Promoting Afghanistan |
|
| Author: | S_Grimm [ Thu Oct 16, 2008 5:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
huh. thanks for the info. |
|
| Author: | jbking [ Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
There still may be some polar wars coming soon between Canada, the US and Russia over the arctic and who has control of which parts as all 3 countries have some land up in them there hills. It is also interesting to think of all the countries that Canadians have been deployed to in the past decade besides Afghanistan that may be dominating the news over the past year or so. |
|
| Author: | Zeroth [ Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Election 2008 |
That all will depend on how much value there is to each country. If its a significant amount(billions), the US companies will pressure the government to act and claim a portion, illegally. Or, companies would hire Blackwater to take the land away. |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
Except that the arctic icecap (is that what we are talking about?) has no land. Though don't think that Russia will not put up a fight over the region anyway. They've already claimed that they have... claimed the area. With nuclear submarines. |
|
| Author: | Zeroth [ Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Election 2008 |
Well, not land per se, but there is untold mineral wealth underneath. Its probably the last large unexplored area on planet earth(and the Antarctic). |
|
| Author: | jbking [ Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
I'm talking about the "Northwest Passage" that Canada is trying to assert its ownership of but that Russia, the US and Greenland also feel have a stake in whatever minerals or hydrocarbons are up there along with the shipping lanes up there. |
|
| Author: | btiffin [ Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
The North Pole is ours, so most of the NW Passage is ours; Proof and precedence is in the H0H0H0 postal code.  |
|
| Author: | DemonWasp [ Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Election 2008 |
With regards to the actual results of an election, I have to say that a system combining Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) with Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) would make all of our elections much more fair. MMP is a scheme for proportional representation where there are both distinct representatives for ridings and a more proportional distribution of power based on the voters. This is achieved by the following: - Each party has a list of Candidates. These Candidates are both on the Party List and runs in a given riding (of which there would be about 150 in Canada) - Each voter votes on the Candidate they would like to govern their riding ("candidate votes"), and on the party they would like to see in power ("party votes"). This permits voters to vote for completely different parties if they so wish. - Any candidate that is elected in their riding is removed from the Party List to create the Revised Party List. - The "party votes" are then used to determine which of the members on the party lists are elected as non-riding candidates. The first on the list would likely be the leader of the party, followed by their strongest supporters. Combining that with IRV, we can refine the process by which we choose the riding candidate which is elected. It works like this: When casting the vote for which candidate the voter would like in a riding, he ranks the candidates (best to worst)...let's call 1 the best, and 4 the worst. Then, when all the votes are tallied, it goes like this: 1. Count only the highest-rated candidate on each vote (i.e. rank 1). 2. If any candidate has the majority of these votes, they win that riding. 3. If not, then all the votes for the weakest candidate are replaced with votes for the next-best choice on all those ballots. (For example, the Communist candidate loses badly, so those that had him as their first choice are now counted with their second choice, as their first choice was eliminated). 4. Repeat until somebody wins the election. Between these two systems, we can solve two of the major problems in current Canadian electoral system. First, we can correct the problem that the percentage of the popular vote is so completely unrelated to the percentage of power received. Secondly, we can deal with the problem where one side of the political spectrum (the right) is united in the Conservative Party, while the other is divided between the Liberals, NDP and Greens. IRV accomplishes the second task by allowing those on the left to select the candidates on the left in order of preference; this prevents splits like (40 Conserv., 35 Lib, 15 NDP, 10 Green) from resulting in a right-wing candidate even when most of the riding is left-leaning. This would result in a fairer, multi-party system which would allow people to vote for the government they actually wanted, rather than voting strategically against the party they'd least like. It would encourage the political right to fragment (as they did a few years ago), since in IRV they could then get some second-votes too. Hopefully, this would also increase the voter turnout by letting people see that their vote actually does matter. I'm also pretty much convinced that we should be adopting a rule like France has: there can be NO majority government, ever. What you do has to be acceptable to a majority of governors, including a substantial portion outside your party, in order to pass. It would require that our government place more emphasis on cooperation than on mud-slinging (as those who keep slinging mud would find themselves in a bad situation with no allies). Just my pocketful of chance...it'd be $0.02, but given the way the economy is going... |
|