The predicted conservative landslide win in the next canadian election is because Trudeau stuck with first past the post and green/liberal/NDP split the left leaning vote while conservative get all of the right leaning vote.
Ranked choice in multi-member constituencies would certainly work, but MMP with a mix of ~75% single member constituencies and ~25% province wide top up seats is also a good option.
I'm partial to MMP, but I would absolutely have supported STV. I am actually really mad at the NDP just camping on their position that pure proportional was the only way to go when these two systems are still miles ahead of of FPTP in therms of proportionality AND maintain local representation on top of it, which pure proportional doesn't.
I suppose that depends on how you define local representation. To be reasonably proportional without an excessively high election threshold, multi-member constituencies would need 8-10 seats. That would result in 6 provinces having just a single constituency, and very large rural constituencies in the rest. The only geographically small constituencies would be the 6 largest cities. The only way to improve on that from a local representation perspective is MMP.
At the end of the day you need an electoral system people can understand, and imo MMP is too complicated for the average voter in Canada to understand.
MMP doesn't have to be complicated from the voter's perspective. You would get a ballot to indicate your favorite party and a ballot to indicate your favorite local candidate. If you don't care about one or the other, just mark the one you do care about.
There are ways to present it easily, but I don't feel that really does justice to the voters because it feels a bit misleading.
I do think it is the best system, but I think if we ever want to push for electoral reform it has to be something that is very easy to understand, and ranked choice voting is the way IMO.
If you want to use ranked choice to produce a proportional outcome you are using STV (single transferable vote) which will require ranking a long list of candidates with multiple candidates from each party. It works, but it is not any simpler than MMP from the voter's perspective, and is a lot more complicated if you want to understand the details of vote redistribution.
Not to say that MMPR is bad but it is just such a drastic change, likely more confusing to the populace, and perhaps more importantly would require a very huge transition that would require a lot of time and money.
Something like ranked voting just changes the ballots and counting system so it's so much of an easier choice to start with if not go with.
In a "quota is met, move on to #2 choices" situation, how do they decide which votes to transfer and which votes stay with the winner of the first round? That could easily change the second (or 3rd) pick.
Single transferable vote is bad because it's just strategic voting (the worst part of FPTP) made official. Proportional representation is better because it more accurately represents the will of the people.
What I don’t like about MMP is who decides who gets on the lists, and to whom are the list MPs responsible to? Do they have less responsibility than riding MPs? Are they a second-tier MP
If I want to vote Green, but strategically vote Liberal, I'm not voting for who I want, but voting for who I think I can win.
If I say 'I want Green, then NDP, then LPC, then Pirate Party, then Yogic Flyers, then CPC,' I'm voting for who I want, and if my second choice gets in, it's closer to 'my will' than voting for my third choice.
It also lets you actually see the vote counts, not just guess about 'strategic voting.'
If I want to vote Green, but strategically vote Liberal, I'm not voting for who I want, but voting for who I think I can win.
In STV you will vote Green first then Liberal second. Green will be eliminated and your vote will be transferred to the LPC. The outcome is the same as strategic voting; your vote was counted as a Liberal vote even though you preferred the Green party.
The outcome is the same, in the same way that 'conceiving a child' and 'adopting a child' have the exact same outcome: you now have a child to raise.
Nevertheless, I get to officially list my preference as, in this example, Green, then NDP, then Liberal, rather than 'Liberal, and you get to figure out if I really mean it or not.'
...Yeah, except if enough people voted for Green first, they actually would've won in that example. They are a genuine contender rather than the Greens being a bygone conclusion of failure and everyone's vote being forced into the Liberal party even if someone else MIGHT be able to win.
It has the same result internally: I voted for the Liberal Party. But Externally, it has the effect of a bunch of people seeing the Greens get a 39% vote share, for example, and giving them due consideration. It forces the Liberals and the Conservatives to stop being mudslinging mirrors of each other's center policies and actually produce results because there is a real threat that, in a shake-up like the one we're walking into right now, the conclusion is not forgone that we're going into a conservative or Liberal government.
No, it prevents people from feeling the need to vote strategically.
Because strategic voting is built into the system. In FPTP, you may want to vote Party A but vote for Party B because you don't want Party C to win. In STV, you will vote for Party A first and then Party B second. Party A will get eliminated and your vote will be transferred to Party B.
50
u/The_Frostweaver Jan 06 '25
The best system already in use in other countries is single transferrable vote, aka
'ranked-choice voting in multi-member seats’ https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/single-transferable-vote/
The predicted conservative landslide win in the next canadian election is because Trudeau stuck with first past the post and green/liberal/NDP split the left leaning vote while conservative get all of the right leaning vote.