General Politics Discussion

[kzurell]

Maybe you could eliminate (or at least reduce) those on a municipal level, where you are voting for a person rather than a party. But do you think any of the federal or provincial parties would agree to the seat being given to the second-place candidate when the elected member resigns?

I think the concept of taking the second place winner makes no sense when there are parties involved and that doesn't change with ranked ballots.

When parties are involved, it makes more sense that the winning party can select a new representative to serve the term, than it would to pick a different party.

But in my opinion, the thing that makes the most sense is to run another election...but seems there is often no appetite for that at a municipal level, unlike at a provincial or federal level.

Just a ground check here: parties don't exist, right? They are not constitutional organs. They have no role "selecting" anyone, outside of passing public trusts around among their members.

Parties do exist: they're like dual citizenship, where the holders are tasked to gain and hold power "elsewhere" (i.e., here). We get all paranoid about the influence of China and India that we can police, and say nothing about centuries of entrenched homegrown machinations.


The "second place winner" idea does have merit: they're the "next past the post", no permission from any party required. I do agree the best solution is to run another election, like keeping a seized joint exercised.