I've been thinking for a while about the problem of first-past-the-post elections, wherein a single candidate wins a whole riding as long as they have at least one more vote than the next highest candidate. This can lead to a representative who has only 20% of the popular vote in their riding, but is expected to represent the entire riding. This in turn can lead to a large majority government with a minority of the popular vote (just look at Alberta's last election for a good example of how far the number of Tory seats outstrips the popular vote).
But how can we fix this? Well, I've got a proposed solution, although there are some caveats:
- Clearly there is no 100% right answer; there will always be some group that doesn't have a direct representative in a representative government system
- There is a limit to how much our country should spend on representatives, thus the proposed solution attempts to be cost-effective
- The nature of politics changes with the proposed solution, as it will be very difficult to actually win a majority government
- The proposed solution is meant as an evolution rather than a revolution, so that it will still be understandable to common people
So the solution I propose:
To better represent the voters of a riding, appoint the three candidates with the most votes in each riding as a member of Parliament. Each candidate represents the number of votes they received. Thus, if a candidate received 20,000 votes and another candidate in a different riding received 15,000 votes, the candidate with 20,000 will have more power in the House of Commons (since they represent more people).
However, this triples the number of MPs whose salaries we are paying; therefore the number of ridings should be reduced by one-third. This will limit the increase in salaries to only double (also possible to reduce the ridings by two-thirds and have no increase in salaries, but it might be difficult to have so few ridings across Canada).
I picked the magic number three as the number of candidates to appoint because there is usually a clear first, second, and third place with a significant number of votes. I expect in most ridings this would represent anywhere from 80% to 95% of the voters (perhaps more, I haven't crunched any numbers, although the election results are available online somewhere I'm sure). Also, re-drawing riding boundaries is something that happens all the time, although probably not on quite a big a scale as I'm suggesting.
So, thoughts? Opinions? Given that I hold the opinions of the people who post here in pretty high esteem, I would love for you all to poke holes in this proposed solution.
The first question I noticed just as I posted this was should there be multiple candidates from a single party allowed? What if some people want Tory candidate A, and other people want Tory candidate B? This could lead to the Tories having a large number of votes and thus a large amount of power emanating from this one riding; on the other hand, the two candidates would be representing two different groups, and could conceivably vote differently from each other on a particular topic.
Not sure what I'd say to that one yet, but I'm leaning towards letting more than one candidate from a particular party run in a riding.
I think it will be very hard to make a system of representation much more efficient than it already is (which is basically what you're proposing - making representatives better represent). You're going to have a relationship between the people:representative ratio, and how well the people are represented - the higher the people/rep the worse job the rep will actually be able to do.
I think in the near future, we'll have the technology to allow every legal voter in Canada to vote on every topic. Doing a poll on the internet is easy, even this forum will do them, we just need a better authentication and authorization system. How far to the extreme we take the "vote on every issue" system could really fall just about anywhere on the spectrum - from voting on EVERY issue, to just high-profile issues (say everything that makes national news), to just a few controversial issues a year.
Another idea that's popped into my head a few times in the last year or so is also somewhat related. These 2 assumptions need to be in place for it to work though - again we need the technological system to allow us to do this, and don't assume I want to change the overall amount of tax people would pay with this system implemented. Now then - what if you could see a little pie-graph of the various things your taxes are spent on - say broken down into 5 or 10 categories. Perhaps be able to drill-down into those categories, maybe even a bunch of levels, for more and more detailed pie-graphs. And now - what if you could adjust those pie-graphs by yourself. People who think crime is a problem can direct their money to funding cops - people who think cops just use photo-radar as a cash-cow can direct their money elsewhere. The system may also have to have minimums in some places - certain things like healthcare and education need to be maintained. The best would be if those minimums could be dynamically calculated, such that they would only appear if not enough people were already directing funds that direction. Or on a more local example - say you could pick which of the many traffic projects currently underway should receive your funding - all the people without cars would be pushing for LRT and bus expansions (well, most people), while south and west side would likely be pushing the ring-road project, north side might be pushing for less lights on yellowhead or something. Votes are nice and all, but get peoples money involved and you'll really know what they're thinking.
I say lets wait and see if we get the promised elected Senate. I am not in favour of any proposal that INCREASES the size of government, MP salaries, and pensions.
The riding system is not without issues but I believe it works.
As much as I might complain that our voting system is so technology-averse (pencils marking on paper ballots checked by hand?), and as much as I'm a techie geek (or at least a wannabe), I think that technology alone will fail. There are many, many people out there who have trouble running a computer (I am assuming that we would use home computers rather than polling station machines?). There are ways those bent on getting their way can try to circumvent the technology (yes, I know that a system can be made extremely difficult to hack, but that study that showed that some 20% of people are willing to trade their password for chocolate indicates that there will always be a weak link in the system). There are even communities in Canada that don't have high-speed Internet (poor bastards)!
Our current voting system is technology-averse, but also more accessible to the technologically-incompetent and it produces physical artifacts that can be stored and guarded.
Now, for the pie-chart suggestion. This is interesting on the surface, but has some issues when you look at it closer; not saying these couldn't be addressed, but they would have to be addressed before it becomes a viable option:
- All of the problems with technology as outlined above
- Not enough granularity in budgets to make a proper decision; for instance, I would want to continue funding the police so that my streets stay safe for my kids, even if they do run photo radar - if I cut funding to them because of photo radar, I am also cutting funding to their safety programs and/or night-time patrols (in fact, they might just not cut the photo radar budget, choosing to take the money from the night-time patrolling budget, which could sharply increase night-time crime)
- Minimums, why? What if people don't want education and/or healthcare funded? Why should they be forced to allot a minimum amount to anything? And why isn't there a minimum for policing, then? Don't we need to maintain a police force to apprehend those who trespass against us?
A very interesting problem, issues notwithstanding.
Quote from: "Cova"basically what you're proposing - making representatives better represent
No, I'm proposing multiple representatives from each electoral division. This causes the make-up of the government to more closely represent the popular vote. It also allows for candidates who have a strong following to appear in government; for instance, the Green Party and the Marijuana Party might have gotten a seat or two each. And as much as I disrespect the Marijuana Party (I find their platform extremely singular-minded, with no thought as to what they will do after they've legalized marijuana and toked up a few times), I think that if a large minority of people vote for them in a riding they clearly should be represented in the House of Commons.
Quote from: "Cova"the higher the people/rep the worse job the rep will actually be able to do
So you're saying when there are 1,000 people to 1 representative the representative can do a better job than when there are 10,000 people to 1 representative? Or did you mean that reversed?
I think that the more representatives we have the less power each representative has and therefore the more likely it is that decisions will be made by consensus rather than unilaterally.
As I said at the beginnging - we don't currently have the technology for my idea's, but it will be developed. Eventually, internet access will be as wide-spread (or replace) telephone, cable-tv, etc. A shorter-term solution for voting-type scenario's would be to use the existing structure of places to vote, and put internet-connected terminals at them.
On the pie-chart-type idea's - your issue with photo-radar vs. public safety is why I suggested multiple levels of drill-down. I don't know where the proper level would be, once you start getting down to the real details I'd rather have someone who knows what they're doing do it (just as here at NAIT the budget for hardware comes from above, but I get to pick the details on what we actually spend it on). And I suggest the minimums mostly to ensure that we don't have radical cuts in funding to important things while people acclimate to the new system - I think over time it would work out without them, but the day after it goes live I fear something like all adults without children taking their money out of education, and adults with children not realizing they need to compensate till the next year. The whole pie-chart thing is just a concept, not a fully fleshed out idea, I just like the idea of putting more control back into the hands of the individual.
QuoteNo, I'm proposing multiple representatives from each electoral division.
No - you're proposing a system of representation where the individuals would be better represented by the people in power. HOW you propose to do that is by having multiple representatives in each electoral division. It's still a system where few make decisions for many - just a theoretically better one. And what I was saying was that if a representative only has to be the voice of 1000 people, that he can be closer to what they actually want than if he was trying to be the voice of 10000 people. The closer you get to people making their own decisions, the better represented those people are.
I want numeric voting.
Example Ballot:
Liberal
Conserve
NDP
BQ
Green
...i want to fill it in (through some method thats easy to determine the number...touch screen?)
2 Liberal
5 Conserve
4 NDP
3 BQ
1 Green
...so when they do they tally the votes the #1 pick gets 5 points, the #2 vote gets 4 points. This would give people a change to have their 2nd and 3rd picks matter.
There is really no need for computer terminals at the voting station as there is little net gain by doing so.
- Interface. Using a pencil to make a check mark is easy enough for ANYONE to understand.
- Paper trail. The most often seen problem with computer voting is that everyone wants a hard copy of each vote just in case, guess what we already have that.
- Net GAIN? the pencil system produces the paper trail already and is then feed into a computer that records and reports the results.. Judging by how fast the news seems to get results I assume it does this rapidly.
In order for it to be practical for there to be fine detail voting eveyone WOULD need to have access to a computer. The population will not all go to a voting station computer or otherwise to vote on every single issue. Thats why we have elected officials.. They are supposed to REPRESENT US. Some sort of poll system for the reprentitives to better get a view of opinion might be useful.
Quote from: "Shayne"I want numeric voting.
Example Ballot:
Liberal
Conserve
NDP
BQ
Green
...i want to fill it in (through some method thats easy to determine the number...touch screen?)
2 Liberal
5 Conserve
4 NDP
3 BQ
1 Green
...so when they do they tally the votes the #1 pick gets 5 points, the #2 vote gets 4 points. This would give people a change to have their 2nd and 3rd picks matter.
I like the idea, but I think it would lead to some odd results, such as almost no one getting thier first pick but the guy with the most #2s wins.. On the other hand that would be the ultimat comprimise.
Quote from: "Lazybones"I like the idea, but I think it would lead to some odd results, such as almost no one getting thier first pick but the guy with the most #2s wins.. On the other hand that would be the ultimat comprimise.
I also like the idea - and I agree with the results part. NDP would probably be in power right now with such a system, as most of the liberals would vote ndp 2nd, and so would most of the conservatives - neither big party wanting to put their main competitor in #2 place.
Cova, you raise an interesting conundrum with the pie-chart idea: should costs such as education or healthcare be borne by the entire population or only those who are actively using it? My opinion, the reason that education and healthcare are attainable are precisely because the cost is borne by all.
Quote from: "U2: God, Part II"The rich stay healthy, the sick stay poor
Nicely summed up with Bono's strange voice; I believe in, I desire, a country where there is no examination of your financial situation before determining whether you qualify for educational or medical help that is just as good as anyone else would receive. If the healthcare costs are borne only by the sick, and the sick have no way to work and pay for it, the sick will die. If the educational costs are borne only by the uneducated, and the uneducated cannot find work to pay for the education, the uneducated will be stuck in low-paying jobs, poverty, and the ever-pending doom of sickness. I suppose this is why you suggested minimums.
Shayne, the numeric voting sounds like a good idea, but can again cause a situation where the elected representative really doesn't represent the choices of the voters. The outcome would be essentially the same as the current system, except that in some cases when the populace cannot decide between two representatives a third will be picked that numerically was the strongest compromise. Do you have any suggestions on how this could be adapted to have the government more closely resemble the popular vote? As that was the original topic of this thread...
Popular vote is TOTALLY over-rated. In the canadian system you are NOT supposed to vote for the party but for your representative. So complaining about popular vote really serves no point. Also a popular vote system has issues with distributing the voice properly. ALberta is a blue province (Red in the USA gov), so if we did popular vote how would this work?! Would NDP or Lib get no say in Alberta or maybe 1 seat? Stupid. Popular vote is a waste, i dont even really no why they count it up.
A numeric voting system basically gives people a chance to compromise. I think its a great system.
Quote from: "Shayne"ALberta is a blue province (Red in the USA gov), so if we did popular vote how would this work?! Would NDP or Lib get no say in Alberta or maybe 1 seat? Stupid.
They didn't get any wit the current system, its not basically blue it was a sweep this election.
As for voting for the rep not the party the current system does not really encourage it. Parties have platforms, and only the party in power gets to push theirs through in most cases.. In the case of a minority government then its much harder for anyone to push something through.
If our reps where more independent then maybe it would be wise to vote directly for them. It is much easier to get party or party leader information than it is your local rep without taking a great deal of time to find out when they are holding a public rally of some sort.
The system is broke, but as long as people are getting elected why would they change it? Imagine if Harper changes the system and fails to get elected next time :P
A thorough Wikipedia article that gives some examples of "instand runoff" aka "preferential" voting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_runoff
and also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting
Its the way of the future, mark my words!