News   Apr 26, 2024
News Roundup for April 26, 2024
 117     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
How It's Going
 343     0 
News   Apr 25, 2024
GTA 2024 BILD Award Finalists Announced — and You Can Vote!
 524     0 

Time for Ranked Ballots

The current system ensures that the best candidate wins (or at least the candidate that most think is the best).

Ranked ballot ensures that the least hated candidate wins.
 
BurlOak said:
The current system ensures that the best candidate wins (or at least the candidate that most think is the best).
Click to expand...

LOL No it doesn't. There are many examples in Ontario of strategic voting where people don't vote for the candidate they think is best. Then there's the underlying reality that the "best candidate" may not be from the party you want to win so you don't vote for them.
 
Jonny5 said:
LOL No it doesn't. There are many examples in Ontario of strategic voting where people don't vote for the candidate they think is best. Then there's the underlying reality that the "best candidate" may not be from the party you want to win so you don't vote for them.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget the multi-candidate contests where the FPTP winner rakes in, say, 17.4%, of the popular vote. (I'm looking at you, Ward 16). Yeah, last time I checked a math book, 17.4% equalled "most people."
 
Could ranked ballots be used to delegate a replacement candidate if the winning candidate is unable to finish their term? How many times last term did they have the stupid debate over whether to appoint someone or have an expensive byelection? And then the stupid continues when they force any eventual appointee to declare that they no ambition to run for the position in future elections. Seems it would be better if ranked ballots allowed something like Miss Universe pageant, where the runner-up gets the crown should the winner need to step down. It might also be an incentive for candidates to run even in wards where the incumbent is a lock but is also an ambitious type who may later choose to move up to another level of government. In that case candidates might run even if they mostly agree with the incumbent, to ensure they become second in overall preference and keep more extreme opposition candidates out of the seat. A little agreement in campaigning wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
 
typezed said:
Could ranked ballots be used to delegate a replacement candidate if the winning candidate is unable to finish their term? How many times last term did they have the stupid debate over whether to appoint someone or have an expensive byelection? And then the stupid continues when they force any eventual appointee to declare that they no ambition to run for the position in future elections. Seems it would be better if ranked ballots allowed something like Miss Universe pageant, where the runner-up gets the crown should the winner need to step down. It might also be an incentive for candidates to run even in wards where the incumbent is a lock but is also an ambitious type who may later choose to move up to another level of government. In that case candidates might run even if they mostly agree with the incumbent, to ensure they become second in overall preference and keep more extreme opposition candidates out of the seat. A little agreement in campaigning wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
Click to expand...

It could. The problem is that it would tie up the second place candidate for four years, for a position they'll likely never win. I'm not sure how willing people would be to put their life on hold just in case there's a tiny chance that the winning candidate resigns.
 
From this link:

From 1834 to 1857, and again from 1867 to 1873, Toronto mayors were not elected directly by the public. Instead, after each annual election of aldermen and councilmen, the assembled council would elect one of their members as mayor. For all other years, mayors were directly elected by popular vote, except in rare cases where a mayor was appointed by council to fill an unexpired term of office.
Click to expand...

Did the aldermen do a first-past-the-post or run-off election for their mayor at the time?
 
TheTigerMaster said:
It could. The problem is that it would tie up the second place candidate for four years, for a position they'll likely never win. I'm not sure how willing people would be to put their life on hold just in case there's a tiny chance that the winning candidate resigns.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't tie them up. They'd go on with their life and should the position become available they'd have first option on it. If no one down the list is interested (unlikely) then we're just back to the argument about byelection versus appointment that we have now.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
It could. The problem is that it would tie up the second place candidate for four years, for a position they'll likely never win. I'm not sure how willing people would be to put their life on hold just in case there's a tiny chance that the winning candidate resigns.
Click to expand...

I agree the second place finisher should be OFFERED the position but do you really think that person is going to be hiding under their bed for four years hoping the opportunity arises? Really?
 
Cooper said:
Let's not forget the multi-candidate contests where the FPTP winner rakes in, say, 17.4%, of the popular vote. (I'm looking at you, Ward 16). Yeah, last time I checked a math book, 17.4% equalled "most people."
Click to expand...
There must have been 10 or more candidates in the example you present. A 3 level multiple choice ballot would maybe swell this candidates share of the total vote to about 30% or so, what's the point?
 
Cooper said:
Let's not forget the multi-candidate contests where the FPTP winner rakes in, say, 17.4%, of the popular vote. (I'm looking at you, Ward 16). Yeah, last time I checked a math book, 17.4% equalled "most people."
Click to expand...

It does when Canadian "democracy" proponents teach math.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top