News   Apr 24, 2024
 232     0 
News   Apr 23, 2024
 2.3K     5 
News   Apr 23, 2024
 619     0 

Premier Doug Ford's Ontario

FPTP is not all bad. I think it is the greatest system you could have in newly emerged and developing democracies for growing political parties tied to ideas rather than identities.

But (despite the recent actions of Doug Ford) I would like to think that Canada is a mature and stable democracy. We can handle the move to a proportional or majoritarian system, and I strongly believe it would lead to electoral results that better reflect the values of the electorate.
If the British system not one of the most developed democracies. They have FPTP.
The push to get rid of FPTP is likely just to prevent a conservative government from winning - and it they win without FPTP, they will still be neutered.
 
If the British system not one of the most developed democracies. They have FPTP.
The push to get rid of FPTP is likely just to prevent a conservative government from winning - and it they win without FPTP, they will still be neutered.

In addition to your other sins, you are guilty of a persecution complex.

PR is neither pro, nor anti Conservative.

Its a system that serves two purposes. The first is to ensure that no party gets a vastly greater level of power than its vote would merit. This is equally true for left or right-leaning parties.

The other is to better reflect minority views by ensuring a party attracts as much power as its vote suggests it ought to have, such that when a party, say the Campbell Conservatives federally in the early 90s gets 20% of the vote, they aren't reduced
to a mere 2 seats or less than 1% of the power.

I'm not sure why you have a fear of accurately representing the will of voters.
 
Last edited:
If the British system not one of the most developed democracies. They have FPTP.
The push to get rid of FPTP is likely just to prevent a conservative government from winning - and it they win without FPTP, they will still be neutered.
Not too sure of what your point is, but if by "British" you mean the UK, it's not so: (From Channel 4, a public broadcaster)
How would parliament look under Proportional Representation?
In this year’s General Election, the Conservative Party only won 42 per cent of the overall vote, compared with Labour’s 40 per cent.

But they ended up with 318 parliamentary seats, while Labour only won 262 seats.

Meanwhile, the SNP got around twice as many votes as the Green Party. But the Greens still only have one MP, compared to the SNP’s 35 MPs.

This disparity is due to the voting system we use, known as First Past The Post (FPTP). It means that, in each constituency, the winner takes all – and votes for other candidates are effectively discounted.

So even if smaller parties win a significant share of the overall nationalvote share, they could still end up with no MPs if they have failed to come out on top within any single constituency.

Technically it’s still one person, one vote. But some parties are more likely to see these votes translate into MPs than others, depending on the distribution and concentration of their supporters.

The UK is the only undisputed democracy in Europe to use FPTP; others use systems that better reflect the overall proportion of votes cast, rather than just who wins in each constituency.

So how would the 2017 General Election have played out under proportional representation?

By combining election data with the results of a large-scale opinion poll, the Electoral Reform Society has this week published projected results.

They have looked at three different versions of proportional representation, which are explained below: Alternative Vote (AV), Additional Member System (AMS) and the Single Transferable Vote system (STV).


ge2017-projections-under-different-voting-systems-COMBINED-TABLE-AND-GRAPH.jpg

It’s important to remember that these are only estimates. It’s impossible to know exactly how voting behaviour might change if the UK switched to proportional voting – or how parties might alter their campaign tactics.

However, it gives us an idea of what the political map may look under proportional representation.

It suggests that the current FPTP system is only beneficial for the SNP and Conservatives, who would both lose out if the voting system was changed. Plaid Cymru would not stand to gain from a change either.

But the other parties would all benefit from switching to a version of proportional representation because second preferences now become relevant.

However, the different types of proportional representation are better for different parties, which perhaps makes it more unlikely that they would ever agree on a new system.

The Lib Dems, the Green Party and Ukip would all fare best under AMS. But this would actually be worse for Labour than the current method.

However, under STV – the version generally regarded as the most representative proportional voting system – Labour would have won more seats than any other party.

The voting systems explained
First Past The Post (FPTP) – This is the system currently used in UK general elections. Each voter picks a single candidate and the person with the most votes wins. They could get one per cent of the votes, or 100 per cent – it doesn’t matter. Just so long as they get more than their rivals.

Alternative Vote (AV) – Instead of just voting for one candidate in your constituency, you can rank them in order of preference. If any candidate gets more than 50 per cent of the first choices, they win. If not, the second preferences are added into the mix – and so on, until a candidate reaches the threshold.

Additional Member System (AMS) – This is a mixed method, which is already used to elect the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and London Assembly. You vote twice: once for a constituency representative, and once for a regional one. The constituency vote uses the FPTP system, while the makeup of regional members reflects the proportion of votes cast for each party.

Single Transferable Vote (STV) – This is possibly the most complex system, but it is also the one most strongly advocated by the Electoral Reform Society and is already used in certain elections in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Instead of electing one MP for each constituency, voters pool together to elect a small team of MPs to represent a wider region. Like with AV, voters rank the candidates in order of preference. To win, they must reach a pre-set quota. If no one reaches this quota level, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and their votes are redistributed, until someone reaches the quota. Campaigners say this is the closest to true proportional representation of any voting system currently in use.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/how-would-parliament-look-under-proportional-representation

See also: https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/first-past-the-post/
 
Bill 5, Better Local Government Act, 2018

From link:

Section 135 currently sets out rules regarding the City’s authority to change the composition of city council. The section is re-enacted to set out rules regarding the composition of city council commencing on the day city council is organized following the 2018 regular election.

Can city council, after the October 22nd election, change the wards for the 2022 election? I don't understand the legalize.
 
Bill 5, Better Local Government Act, 2018

From link:



Can city council, after the October 22nd election, change the wards for the 2022 election? I don't understand the legalize.

Not a lawyer, but my lay person's reading is: No.

The new rules are affixed here:

Division of Wards after 2018 regular election
128 (1) On the day city council is organized following the 2018 regular election, the City is divided into wards whose boundaries are identical to those of the electoral districts for Ontario that are within the boundaries of the City.

Same
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the electoral districts for Ontario are those determined under the Representation Act, 2015 as it read on the day the Better Local Government Act, 2018 received Royal Assent.


***

The sections that empowered the City to alter ward boundaries have been repealed and replaced.
 
Last edited:
Doug Ford has confirmed that they will be getting rid of Bill 148 when asked about it in question period.

The question begins at 30m:20s into this video:

https://www.680news.com/2018/10/02/ontario-scrapping-bill-148/

I recall after the election there were musings that we'd eventually appreciate the Liberal government we had, realizing for all their faults they were still far better than the government we elected.

That day arrived much sooner than a lot of us would've expected.

Ford's first actions have been to repeal a valuable curriculum (expected) and severely damage democratic representation. Now he wants to repeal a law that was sorely needed, having the most impact on the people he claims to care about.

Hopefully Ontarians learn to not vote for a party that is unwilling to reveal their platform. It's quite clear why they didn't tell anyone what they had planned. For some of us, it was obvious all along.
 
If the opposition were smart they would attack Ford for not implementing his tax exemption for minimum wage earners (lets be honest this promise was always bs). Instead they are going to attack him for not increasing the minimum wage which everyone knew was going to happen, and is something that the business community actually likes.
 
People do use Trustee as a stepping stone to get into higher elected positions.

And really not having kids shouldn't be a big deal.

But fuck if Lisi wins I think I will lose all hope in our system.
I wonder if he could win if someone legit backed him or the Sun endorsed him as this reformed guy who wants to make amends.
 
Did you know him from your RoFo days?
Yep, he was one of my best friends in middle school through to early 20s. Then I didn't hear from him again for 15 years until he heard I was collaborating with the Star on Ford crack videos stories. Was one of those crazy calls similar to what cops caught on wiretaps lol.
 
The push to get rid of FPTP is likely just to prevent a conservative government from winning - and it they win without FPTP, they will still be neutered.

Your argument seems to be that we shouldn't be closer to a true will-of-the-people democracy if it doesn't benefit conservatives. As if your vote as a conservative somehow matters more.
 
In addition to your other sins, you are guilty of a persecution complex.

PR is neither pro, nor anti Conservative.

This would be true if left-leaning voters didn't resort to talking about PR only when Conservatives won elections. I want PR. But the optics of a lot of PR proponents are terrible.

We had the referendum in 2007. It wasn't really well campaigned for. And occurred the same time as the election. Instead of a proper referendum independent of elections with proper debates. And after losing that, the LPO forgot all about electoral reform. I don't think I heard much from the NDP either. And then the PCs come into office and we're back to talking about PR.
 
When is he gonna make do on his lowering of our hydro bill promise??
Right now I'm paying about double of what I should be paying (2-bedroom downtown condo, I'm paying $100/month)
 

Back
Top