I am going to preface this by saying that this was shared with me by a friend and I am still trying to get my head wrapped around it. I am not an expert or even well read on the subject but do believe that the voting systems in Canada need to change. I post in the interest of building the discussion in this community.
<Quote> I like single transferrable vote (STV), but it’s unlikely to catch on because it needs number crunching in the backend to apportion the excess votes to (hopefully) improve proportionality. I can see it being accused of corruption by the fact and critical-thinking challenged demographic.
Baden-Württemberg solves that by saying that every riding has two members, one who wins the popular vote, and one who is selected from the runners-up in a manner that best enhances proportionality, but still focuses on the high vote earners.
Mixed member proportional representation (MMR) is too easily gamed by parties to embed unelectable party hacks/loyalists (as experienced in NZ). </Quote>
You must log in or register to comment.
I appreciate you sharing this to spark discussion. As someone deeply concerned about electoral reform in Canada, let me address these points systematically.
If you haven’t already, take a look at: A Simple Guide to Electoral Systems, and other information in the sidebar.
The criticism of STV being “too complex” or vulnerable to accusations of corruption is a common but misguided concern. While STV does involve mathematical calculations to distribute excess votes, these calculations follow transparent, predetermined formulas - not arbitrary decisions. Several democracies like Ireland have successfully used STV for decades without significant corruption accusations. The benefit of STV is that it maintains local representation while ensuring proportionality, and allows voters to rank candidates by preference - expressing their full democratic voice. Even if STV is “too complex”, that doesn’t mean we should compromise on a fundamental democratic principle: proportionate representation.
Regarding the Baden-Württemberg model mentioned, it’s an interesting hybrid approach. However, it’s important to note that this system isn’t fully proportional. It’s a form of parallel voting that attempts to improve proportionality while maintaining FPTP elements. This half-measure approach would still leave many votes without meaningful impact on electoral outcomes.
The criticism of MMP being “gamed” to include “party hacks” is a design issue, not an inherent flaw in the system. New Zealand’s challenges could be addressed through better implementation - for example, by using open lists where voters have direct input on which party candidates are selected, rather than closed lists where parties have complete control. Open list MMP is the variant of MMP advocated by fairvote canada.
What’s crucial to understand is that any electoral system using winner-take-all mechanisms (like FPTP) systematically discards votes. In our current system, millions of perfectly valid ballots have zero effect on representation. This isn’t just mathematically inefficient - it’s fundamentally undemocratic.
Both STV and properly designed MMP would be vast improvements over our current system. I slightly prefer STV because it doesn’t formalize political parties in the electoral process, but either would ensure that vote percentages match seat percentages - the core principle of democratic representation.
What’s your view on electoral reform? Have you looked into the mathematical comparisons between these systems?
Do it like the way Ireland’s PRSTV Radiolab has a few minutes on it in their podcast episode called Tweak the Vote. It’s 15 minutes in
I really like ranked ballots, since they map to MPs. Party lists feel gross, because they’re controlled by internal party machinations.
But either would be an improvement over what we have now.
I’ve always leaned toward ranked ballots as I felt it would be an improvement over a constant over-representation of the conservative mentality in a majority progressive country. Recently there have been posts on Lemmy where people have made good points for proportional representation (PR) but I still have reservations. I agree with a post here about the fact the party ultimately chooses who to appoint to the earned positions and so also agree that it would need to be adjusted with an open list, details to be worked out. My main objection to the PR system though is the rise of many single issue and or myopic platforms for parties that would get representation. My fear would be a party coalition quagmire where issues that should never see the light of day are entertained in an effort to appease the dubious partners. Would we want a Muslim, Christian or Hindu party pushing a particular agenda? Would we want an NRA backed group pushing gun freedom? I feel I could only support PR if there were guardrails put in place to mitigate this type threat. I’ve had someone comment that if that’s what people choose then shouldn’t they have that right? I understand that point but still have reservations. Thanks for prompting this discussion.
Hi, I believe we’ve had a short chat before.
Your arguments, while I acknowledge them to be valid, are not something that I believe should be addressed by an electoral system.
Why do you think that we have the right to deny, say, a gun freedom advocacy group, for running for office, as much as their taking of the office could be a scary one? If you could give a reason why, how does that prevent someone else to declare that climate advocacy groups shouldn’t run for office, and try to give some reason that sounds sufficiently legitimate to enough people? And what comes next?
The guardrails that you speak of work to shut people off. Is that how a democracy should work?
If an electorate is that concerned with gun freedom, and think that it’s more important than issues such as a dilapidated public infrastructure, then sure, they can vote for whichever party that will support gun freedom, and that party will have a better chance at winning, assuming a healthy voter turnout. This applies to both winner-takes-all systems and PR systems.
But gun freedom is likely not the only issue people have in mind. The gun freedom party can’t just stay as politicians over that one issue. How would they handle foreign relations? What about our national debt? No single issue platform can give us answer to every one of those larger problems.
So I say let these people speak their minds. If enough people actually support them and they have enough support to even form government, then such is the reality of what your nation cares about, and the numbers tell you that.
Or perhaps do you not believe that Canadians are inherently good and reasonable people? Perhaps you think education has really failed this country that people can’t think sufficiently well for themselves? I’m not sure where this issue with, say, religious parties trying to voice their opinions on how they think things should be run, is coming from.
I don’t suggest that one issue parties would form government. I do suggest however that a one issue party would be part of a coalition and would eventually want their one issue addressed. If a coalition government wanted the votes for an issue they really felt important, they may concede to other issues that they would not otherwise entertain. I know you will say, rightly, that this is what democracy and working with others is all about. My complaint is that it simplifies what governing an entire country entails. I feel it invalidates governance when myopic views are allowed to prevail and striving for one issue can eliminate proper consideration of another for the simple desire to get that one issue passed. I feel this contributes to allowing an ignorant electorate to treat the only thing the care about as a zero sum game where no matter what else is allowed to happen, at least they get their way. I know I overplay this narrative and simplify my concerns but the underlying premise is still valid. To not strive for a more informed electorate and a more broad appreciation of cause and effect does no one any favours.
If a single issue is enough to make people put their vote into, why wouldn’t a larger party simply make that promise themselves, as long as it still somewhat aligns with their party goals, or is not in the way of their goals, and eat the single-issue platform’s pie?
And if anything, we already have single-issue politics, right within our FPTP system, and I don’t see why this wouldn’t happen under ranked ballots or instant runoff as well. Instead of forming a party, they lobby, and whichever party adopts their stance will win their votes, along with whoever else they can influence. There already is a subset of the electorate that are geared into thinking that way.
I don’t think there’s a good solution to mitigating single-issue politics, perhaps other than good education about our governments and institutions. It certainly isn’t solved under PR, and, as you said, could possibly lead to the proliferation of small single issue parties (though I believe larger parties will absorb their vote by promising the same while offering more), and it certainly exists even today under FPTP, just not as a party but a lobby group, and it will no doubt exist similarly as a lobby group in other winner-takes-all system.
You’re absolutely right about single issues being absorbed, the most prevalent being gun rights and abortion in the u.s… I think I lean much more on the side of education and civic engagement you mentioned. Not easy to shove that down anybody’s throat. The moment you try to introduce a larger extent of that you’ll get the “brainwashing our kids” crowd crying fowl, even though they’re right. My solutions to these problems aren’t well received or practical given the current state. While I understand your objections and am willing to throw caution to the wind I don’t think a change to PR will really be of consequence.
Edit: I came back to this because I realized this sounded too defeatist. Certainly PR or something similar is the next best step. Nothing we do will happen quickly so the most important thing always is to keep moving.
To the “brainwashing our kids” crowd, my stance is that the kids can decide for themselves if it’s brainwashing, as long as we aren’t actually doing that, and is instead simply equipping them with the ability to think on their own. So I’m not bothered by them, and I think we should make that narrative clear enough, with experts in and out of power to have their say, and the rest can complain all they want. I do understand that that doesn’t always work well in our political climate; just look at the carbon tax, but if we hold ourselves back just because some crowd might fight back, and essentially do nothing, based on the trajectory where things are going, I fear that we’re only sleepwalking ourselves into ruin. This applies to adopting PR as well.
In other words, I’d rather we say that we’ve tried to do things that we have good reasons to believe are good and may actually steer us in the right direction, than go for something that might please more people but is no different from our current trajectory.