2019 Federal Election

[ijmorlan]

Yes, it would "feel" different to you as a voter, but if you look at the actual composition of government, in places which use ranked ballots, you find that the government is not much more proportional than we have today.  The data shows this quite clearly in practice.  We don't need to test these things here as if we're some special flower, there are countries which have tried out all sorts of electoral systems.  We can and should learn from them.

On the other topic, yes, a per vote subsidy is a good idea, ironically when it was removed, conservatives whined that it was giving money to someone you didn't vote for (which is fundamentally 100% false...it literally gives money to exactly who you voted for), and ignored the fact that this is exactly what the per dollar subsidy does. At a fundamental level, we need to solve this ability to lie to people, when the truth is complicated, and lies seem to fit the facts so well, it's almost impossible to convince people in these cases.

The purpose of ranked ballots, for me, is not to increase the proportionality of the government but rather to make a better choice in each election (including the 338 elections that happened this Monday past). I agree that in provincial and federal elections it may not make a huge difference but I think it’s pretty clear that it would improve municipal politics, especially in cases where some useless blowhard is able to win over a large field of reasonable candidates. I heard of a mayoral recall election in the States where the mayor was removed as a result of Question 1 (“should the mayor be removed”, with a Yes/No answer), was was voted right back in as a result of Question 2 (“who should the new mayor be”, with the usual bogus first-past-the-post system).

Yes, the thing that I found most annoying about the vote subsidy debate was the dishonest characterization of the per-vote subsidy as being a drain on the treasury, as if there wasn’t a long-standing per-dollar subsidy that was already taking a bunch of government funds. I can absolutely respect the views of somebody who thinks there should not be a per-vote subsidy, but not if their complaint is that the government is sending money to political parties, unless they are also opposed to the per-dollar subsidy. Of course you’ll notice that Trudeau hasn’t brought back the per-vote subsidy.

[danbrotherston]

Yes, it would "feel" different to you as a voter, but if you look at the actual composition of government, in places which use ranked ballots, you find that the government is not much more proportional than we have today.  The data shows this quite clearly in practice.  We don't need to test these things here as if we're some special flower, there are countries which have tried out all sorts of electoral systems.  We can and should learn from them.

On the other topic, yes, a per vote subsidy is a good idea, ironically when it was removed, conservatives whined that it was giving money to someone you didn't vote for (which is fundamentally 100% false...it literally gives money to exactly who you voted for), and ignored the fact that this is exactly what the per dollar subsidy does. At a fundamental level, we need to solve this ability to lie to people, when the truth is complicated, and lies seem to fit the facts so well, it's almost impossible to convince people in these cases.

The purpose of ranked ballots, for me, is not to increase the proportionality of the government but rather to make a better choice in each election (including the 338 elections that happened this Monday past). I agree that in provincial and federal elections it may not make a huge difference but I think it’s pretty clear that it would improve municipal politics, especially in cases where some useless blowhard is able to win over a large field of reasonable candidates. I heard of a mayoral recall election in the States where the mayor was removed as a result of Question 1 (“should the mayor be removed”, with a Yes/No answer), was was voted right back in as a result of Question 2 (“who should the new mayor be”, with the usual bogus first-past-the-post system).

Yes, the thing that I found most annoying about the vote subsidy debate was the dishonest characterization of the per-vote subsidy as being a drain on the treasury, as if there wasn’t a long-standing per-dollar subsidy that was already taking a bunch of government funds. I can absolutely respect the views of somebody who thinks there should not be a per-vote subsidy, but not if their complaint is that the government is sending money to political parties, unless they are also opposed to the per-dollar subsidy. Of course you’ll notice that Trudeau hasn’t brought back the per-vote subsidy.

In municipal elections there are no parties (in Ontario at least, and in most cases...there certainly seem to be "clubs" but they're far less cohesive than provincial or federal parties).  This means that ranked ballots make much more sense.

As for the per vote subsidy, Trudeau hasn't brought it back because it would be incredibly unpopular, and would result of screaming (wrongly) that he's taking money from the treasury for his party (of course Ford is ACTUALLY doing that, and nobody's freaking out, so the solution is apparently to lie about it). What bothered me is most people claimed that the per vote subsidy meant a party that you didn't support was getting YOUR (tax) dollars.

That is 100% false, in fact, the per dollar subsidy does exactly that but the per vote subsidy by definition gives YOUR tax dollars to the party YOU support.

There is perhaps a debate about whether we should publicly fund our political parties at all (I think so, because I believe it is one way to reduce corruption, and the influence of big money) but the argument against the per vote subsidy wasn't that...it was the absurd lie that it gave your money to the party you didn't support.

[ijmorlan]

The purpose of ranked ballots, for me, is not to increase the proportionality of the government but rather to make a better choice in each election (including the 338 elections that happened this Monday past). I agree that in provincial and federal elections it may not make a huge difference but I think it’s pretty clear that it would improve municipal politics, especially in cases where some useless blowhard is able to win over a large field of reasonable candidates. I heard of a mayoral recall election in the States where the mayor was removed as a result of Question 1 (“should the mayor be removed”, with a Yes/No answer), was was voted right back in as a result of Question 2 (“who should the new mayor be”, with the usual bogus first-past-the-post system).

Yes, the thing that I found most annoying about the vote subsidy debate was the dishonest characterization of the per-vote subsidy as being a drain on the treasury, as if there wasn’t a long-standing per-dollar subsidy that was already taking a bunch of government funds. I can absolutely respect the views of somebody who thinks there should not be a per-vote subsidy, but not if their complaint is that the government is sending money to political parties, unless they are also opposed to the per-dollar subsidy. Of course you’ll notice that Trudeau hasn’t brought back the per-vote subsidy.

In municipal elections there are no parties (in Ontario at least, and in most cases...there certainly seem to be "clubs" but they're far less cohesive than provincial or federal parties).  This means that ranked ballots make much more sense.

I don’t see how ranked ballots can be worse than first-past-the-post, even where there are parties. I do agree from discussion here and elsewhere that they probably wouldn’t have as big an impact on party politics as I would like to believe.

As for the per vote subsidy, Trudeau hasn't brought it back because it would be incredibly unpopular, and would result of screaming (wrongly) that he's taking money from the treasury for his party (of course Ford is ACTUALLY doing that, and nobody's freaking out, so the solution is apparently to lie about it). What bothered me is most people claimed that the per vote subsidy meant a party that you didn't support was getting YOUR (tax) dollars.

It would be very unpopular amongst Conservatives. Wouldn’t everybody else be in favour?

I think the real reason he doesn’t bring it back is because it would send a bunch of money to the NDP and Green parties.

Ironically, if they did bring back the per-vote subsidy, the Conservatives would actually get (slightly) more from the program than any other party over the next few years.

[danbrotherston]

In municipal elections there are no parties (in Ontario at least, and in most cases...there certainly seem to be "clubs" but they're far less cohesive than provincial or federal parties).  This means that ranked ballots make much more sense.

I don’t see how ranked ballots can be worse than first-past-the-post, even where there are parties. I do agree from discussion here and elsewhere that they probably wouldn’t have as big an impact on party politics as I would like to believe.

As for the per vote subsidy, Trudeau hasn't brought it back because it would be incredibly unpopular, and would result of screaming (wrongly) that he's taking money from the treasury for his party (of course Ford is ACTUALLY doing that, and nobody's freaking out, so the solution is apparently to lie about it). What bothered me is most people claimed that the per vote subsidy meant a party that you didn't support was getting YOUR (tax) dollars.

It would be very unpopular amongst Conservatives. Wouldn’t everybody else be in favour?

I think the real reason he doesn’t bring it back is because it would send a bunch of money to the NDP and Green parties.

Ironically, if they did bring back the per-vote subsidy, the Conservatives would actually get (slightly) more from the program than any other party over the next few years.

I don't think ranked ballots would be worse, I just think they would be no better.

As for the per vote subsidy, it would be unpopular, because right now society in general has an enormous hate on for political spending, and giving money directly too parties I believe would be hated to a degree we have not seen before.

[Spokes]

Was it just me or did the end of this election feel really anti-climactic?

[ijmorlan]

I don't think ranked ballots would be worse, I just think they would be no better.

As for the per vote subsidy, it would be unpopular, because right now society in general has an enormous hate on for political spending, and giving money directly too parties I believe would be hated to a degree we have not seen before.

Any chance we could harness this hate to get rid of the per-$ subsidy? Or is that so long-standing that it’s a fool’s errand?

[panamaniac]

Was it just me or did the end of this election feel really anti-climactic?

Well, it was a complete dud of a campaign, so, yeah.

[danbrotherston]

I don't think ranked ballots would be worse, I just think they would be no better.

As for the per vote subsidy, it would be unpopular, because right now society in general has an enormous hate on for political spending, and giving money directly too parties I believe would be hated to a degree we have not seen before.

Any chance we could harness this hate to get rid of the per-$ subsidy? Or is that so long-standing that it’s a fool’s errand?

Probably.  That being said, it's money back to people, which makes it less "hated" even though th eeffect is the same.

That being said, I'm not sure I agree, we have strong limits on contributions, all of these things combine to reduce the effect of big money in our elections.

[ijmorlan]

Any chance we could harness this hate to get rid of the per-$ subsidy? Or is that so long-standing that it’s a fool’s errand?

Probably.  That being said, it's money back to people, which makes it less "hated" even though th eeffect is the same.

That being said, I'm not sure I agree, we have strong limits on contributions, all of these things combine to reduce the effect of big money in our elections.

I agree we don’t really have much of a “big money” problem. I just think that if the choice is a per $ subsidy vs. a per vote subsidy, we should go with the per vote. Or nothing. Plus I’m still annoyed at the flagrantly dishonest argumentation.

I don’t mind one bit people disagreeing with me, but it does bug me when fraudulent or otherwise invalid arguments achieve prominence.

[tomh009]

Third-party spending was about $5M up to 01 October, so not massive. But I would like to see stronger rules for it so it does not end up being an unregulated morass like it is in the US.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/elections/unions...-1.5325330

[jamincan]

I came across this interesting site that does mapping of results by poll. It's definitely an interesting view.

http://election-atlas.ca/fed/

Assuming they continue to grow, it looks like it's inevitable that the Green's will eventually win Kitchener Centre, and it also looks like we have Kitchener to thank for the Liberals winning Kitchener-Conestoga.