Jump to content

Proportional Representation


McBif

Recommended Posts

A referendum will be held in my province (Ontario) in a few months on the issue of PR. Right now we use the Plurality Voting System or First Past the Post (FPTP) system where the winner takes all.

 

The referendum will propose a mildish form of PR whereby 90 seats in the provincial parliament will use the current system, but a further 39 seats will be filled using PR.

 

Thus, small parties (like, say, the Greens) that get tens of thousands of votes but zero seats under FPTP will get their place in the sun.

 

Sounds like a no brainer and only fair, right?

 

There are however arguments against the idea. One may, for example, love the Greens, but what of the Sword of the Infidel Slayer party? The Sikh People's Revenge Party? The National Socialist Ontario Workers' Party? OK, I'm making up (sort of) these last three but who knows what can happen in the future? Can it lead to chaotic conditions?

 

I'm leaning towards PR myself if only on the grounds of learning who's who and what's what (plus the entertainment factor) and would be glad to hear the members' opinions. Germany, Australia, NZ, the Scandinavian countries all use some form of PR. What do the guys from those countries think?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to think our FPP system was superior beacuse it led to a strong / stable Govt.......but this tends to produce a "winner" who can do WTF he / she likes - no matter how barmy the ideas are.

 

What I want from a Govt are folk simply capable of competently running the country and who spend all their time doing so, not instead spending their time being able to easily inflict on me any more half baked and unworkable ideas.......I figure if an idea truly is a good idea then the test is whether a Govt can get a majority of votes to pass a law, inclduing from those who are not just toeing the party line...........and PR would force this upon a Govt.

 

Therefore I am now in favour of PR.

 

Cheers

 

David

 

Self Appointed Life President of

The Peoples Democratic Party of Shagging BG's

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK - In Australia we are almost a full democracy unlike Canada ;) We actually vote for our upper house, unlike Canadians who are the same as those un democratic Brits and "Nominate" a upper House.

 

Both the Upper Fed House (Only a few Australian states have upper houses) and Lower house have odd form of proportional voting.

 

Simply it goes like this

 

4 people running for a seat, say 100 votes

 

McBif gets 49 Votes

Moo Noi gets 21 Votes

ND gets 20 Votes

KS gets 10 Votes (You ran a lousy campaign)

 

So McBif, you'd win!

 

But in Oz

 

KS's votes get looked at and we discover that everyone who Voted KS 1, also put ND as their second choose,

 

So now we have

 

McBif - 49 votes - still looking good, SO close!

Moo Noi - 20 Votes

BUT

ND now has 31 votes Woo Hoo

 

Moo Noi is dropped, and looking at his votes (each individual vote, usual along "Suggested Party lines" but you can do anything.

 

Moo Noi being a fellow Aussie had recommended to his voters who all 100% who voted Moo Noi 1, put ND second

 

McBif 49 Votes

ND, who was third overall now wins with 51 votes!

 

Upper house as it's often a 50 - 100 seats being decided, the first past a number, say 50 000 (Total voters divided by seats) THEN has their "Second" choice redistributed.

 

So a normal Voting Ballet looks like this

 

McBiff

KS

ND

Moo Noi

 

In past you had to mark all squares with a number, but once some smart guys (Fishing Party, Shooters PArty) worked out they could get a cozy Gov job by doing "Preference Swap Deals" with other parties you can now do PARTIAL PREF VOTING

 

Say, mark the first two square, 1 And 2 BUT MARK NO ONE AS 3RD CHOICE AND FOURTH CHOICE

 

It's bloody hard to work out, but I think it's in fact a better system than first past the post

 

DOG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ND,

 

That's pretty complicated but is of course the way political parties nominate their own candidates and leaders. I like it. But is it PR?

 

After all, theoretically, the McBifs of the nation could get 49% of the vote and not get a single seat as rampaging mobs howled, "Any stiff but McBif!"

 

On the other hand, what were the McBifites ticking off for their second and third choices?

 

Still, I've stood pondering in many a polling booth in the past: "Hmmm, I wanna vote for Bloggs but he hasn't a chance, and that swine Snooks might win by only a few votes... Oh dear, what to do?"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the voters list the same candidate as their first, second AND third choices? :)

 

 

I like the original way US presidential elections were decided: top electoral vote recipient is the prez, number two is the vice prez. Means they kept a close watch on each other.

 

US Senators used to be chosen by state legislatures, not the people. Took a Constitutional ammendment to change that.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...