News   Apr 24, 2024
Sustainability Month: Mass Timber Construction Showing Long-Term Economic Benefits
 317     0 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Aspen Ridge Freehold Townhomes at Crosstown in Master-Planned Community
 443     0 
News   Apr 24, 2024
News Roundup for April 24, 2024
 480     0 

Time for Ranked Ballots

John Tory would have won, hands down, with a ranked ballot last election, and would be a shoe-in for the next one. Strange that he isn't taking leadership on this issue.
 
TOareaFan said:
what are the "problems with the existing system"? Other than not getting the result(s) some would like...what exactly are the systemic problems?
Click to expand...

Well for starters, part of the problem is mentioned right in the headline. The current representation does not reflect the ethnic diversity of Brampton residents. Voter turnout is reduced. Incumbents are getting reelected with far less than a majority of the vote thanks to vote splitting. This council is so self-serving that not one single member even considered voting for something that would benefit residents instead of just themselves. As always, the number one dumb excuse by anti-reformers is that voters are not intelligent enough to comprehend the idea that you could rank something in the order of most favorite to least favorite, but I think it's pretty obvious what their real motives are.

“For Brampton council to reject ranked balloting so resoundingly, without public input, there might be personal motivations behind that,”
 
salsa said:
Well for starters, part of the problem is mentioned right in the headline. The current representation does not reflect the ethnic diversity of Brampton residents.
Click to expand...

How is that at all a function of the current system? Every single seat on council was open for election....as near as I can tell, every single seat had at least one candidate that would change that racial balance on council. Yet, in an open election with such a racially diverse population, the voters returned a council that people now complain (using different words) is "too white"......it is not clear to me, even in the least, that the voting system is to blame for how Brampton's council looks compared to the citizenry at large.

salsa said:
Voter turnout is reduced. Incumbents are getting reelected with far less than a majority of the vote thanks to vote splitting.
Click to expand...

Have you any evidence that a) voter turnout would be higher with a different system or that b) the results of the election would be different?

So much of this criticism of our current system has a very strong "outcome bias" to it....you/we/I don't like the results...therefore the system must be to blame.


salsa said:
This council is so self-serving that not one single member even considered voting for something that would benefit residents instead of just themselves. As always, the number one dumb excuse by anti-reformers is that voters are not intelligent enough to comprehend the idea that you could rank something in the order of most favorite to least favorite, but I think it's pretty obvious what their real motives are.

“For Brampton council to reject ranked balloting so resoundingly, without public input, there might be personal motivations behind that,”
Click to expand...

I am not commenting (one way or the other) on the current council and the capabilities or motivations....to the extent you want to carry on this conversation with me (you don't have to) please limit your responses to system comparison.
 
TOareaFan said:
How is that at all a function of the current system? Every single seat on council was open for election....as near as I can tell, every single seat had at least one candidate that would change that racial balance on council. Yet, in an open election with such a racially diverse population, the voters returned a council that people now complain (using different words) is "too white"......it is not clear to me, even in the least, that the voting system is to blame for how Brampton's council looks compared to the citizenry at large.
Click to expand...

From the article:

U.S. research shows ranked balloting in cities has significantly improved representation that more accurately reflects the electorate. Vote splitting, where an incumbent can rely on a concentrated base of supporters, while a number of other candidates fight for the remaining voters — often the vast majority — is something that can’t happen with ranked balloting.​


Have you any evidence that a) voter turnout would be higher with a different system or that b) the results of the election would be different?

So much of this criticism of our current system has a very strong "outcome bias" to it....you/we/I don't like the results...therefore the system must be to blame
Click to expand...

Again, the evidence is in the article, and this is not the first time that I've heard about this. When people feel that their vote makes no difference in a system that is designed to keep incumbents in power - incumbents who can ignore large segments of the population and still get elected, then of course some people will not bother to vote.

McGrail says low voter turnout is another problem with first-past-the-post. “The central problem of first-past-the-post is divide and conquer while appealing to your base. People become so disenfranchised they don’t even bother to vote.”​


I will also leave you with this quote from Wikipedia.

Wasted votes are votes cast for losing candidates or votes cast for winning candidates in excess of the number required for victory. For example, in the UK general election of 2005, 52% of votes were cast for losing candidates and 18% were excess votes – a total of 70% wasted votes. This is perhaps the most fundamental criticism of FPTP, that a large majority of votes may play no part in determining the outcome. This "winner-takes-all" system may be one of the reasons why "voter participation tends to be lower in countries with FPTP than elsewhere."[17]​
 
BurlOak said:
Using federal boundaries to become Ward boundaries solves all concerns
Click to expand...

You're not the only one to suggest that. IIRC, that option was rejected because it didn't achieve sufficient voter parity among wards - discrepancies in population among ridings that might be acceptable at the federal or provincial level, when we are talking about a much larger electorate, but which exceed the desired range for municipal elections and would leave ward boundaries subject to attack at any OMB appeal. Whether that explanation holds water, I do not know - have not looked at the numbers.
 
salsa said:
From the article:

U.S. research shows ranked balloting in cities has significantly improved representation that more accurately reflects the electorate. Vote splitting, where an incumbent can rely on a concentrated base of supporters, while a number of other candidates fight for the remaining voters — often the vast majority — is something that can’t happen with ranked balloting.​
Click to expand...

Yet, in that last municipal election....the one very maligned by that article, 4 (yes 4) of the 11 seats were filled by incumbents....and only one of those you could suggest was a result of "vote" splitting. Gibson (city) and Moore (region) were elected in Wards 1&5 with 44% and 52% respectively....Miles won the regional seat for Wards 7&8 with 50.35% . Spovieri won the regional seat for wards 9&10 with 29% of the vote....but why is he a less legitimate holder of the seat than the guy who finished 2nd with 27%?

In the Mayor's race there were a whole slew of candidates....certainly reflective of the cultural diversity of the city.....the incumbent (a Caucasian lady) finished 3rd behind the second place finisher who is a Caucasian man and the winner (another Caucasian lady who, with 49.33% would have won in any system of voting)....combined they got 83.45%.......it tells me that (thankfully) people are voting for candidates not ethnicity and I am still at a loss as to how a different voting system would have produced a different hue of council.

If people feel the council does not reflect the community at large....perhaps they could spend time looking at wards 9&10 and find out why in this so fatally flawed system the impressive Mr. G. Dhillon was able to get elected and, perhaps, deploy some of his strategies elsewhere.

salsa said:
Again, the evidence is in the article, and this is not the first time that I've heard about this. When people feel that their vote makes no difference in a system that is designed to keep incumbents in power - incumbents who can ignore large segments of the population and still get elected, then of course some people will not bother to vote.

McGrail says low voter turnout is another problem with first-past-the-post. “The central problem of first-past-the-post is divide and conquer while appealing to your base. People become so disenfranchised they don’t even bother to vote.”​
Click to expand...

The central problem (IMO) with ranked balloting is that it leads to far more strategic voting and pseudo alliances.....where everyone is encouraged to run.....and the focus then shifts to a campaign of Anybody But "X".....where the focus is becoming "second choice" to more people than the other guys an less on being the person that can formulate a cohesive message that appeals to more people who will mark you as their first choice. It is flawed in its very nature.

salsa said:
I will also leave you with this quote from Wikipedia.

Wasted votes are votes cast for losing candidates or votes cast for winning candidates in excess of the number required for victory. For example, in the UK general election of 2005, 52% of votes were cast for losing candidates and 18% were excess votes – a total of 70% wasted votes. This is perhaps the most fundamental criticism of FPTP, that a large majority of votes may play no part in determining the outcome. This "winner-takes-all" system may be one of the reasons why "voter participation tends to be lower in countries with FPTP than elsewhere."[17]​
Click to expand...

The notion that those votes are wasted is at the very core of the misunderstanding of our system. In the last federal election (as an example) the candidate I voted for did not win.....in no way was my vote "wasted"......it serves as a reminder to the winning candidate that her message did not get overwhelming support and that there were others that felt differently...thankfully, my riding is represented by a lady that seems to understand that post election she represents the whole riding and not just those that voted for her and that there are other opinions out there and they are valuable.
 
Skeezix said:
You're not the only one to suggest that. IIRC, that option was rejected because it didn't achieve sufficient voter parity among wards - discrepancies in population among ridings that might be acceptable at the federal or provincial level, when we are talking about a much larger electorate, but which exceed the desired range for municipal elections and would leave ward boundaries subject to attack at any OMB appeal. Whether that explanation holds water, I do not know - have not looked at the numbers.
Click to expand...
that option was rejected because some current Councillors would lose their jobs.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top