Quote:
Originally posted by feelgood
After taking a closer look at the results of the election, I realized that the percentage of votes for each parties doesn't match with the number of seats elected.
I know its really based on each riding and the whole concpt of first past post, etc etc.
There are some questionable method used by democracy. Here's some examples
1. In case of tie, the riding's returning elector is the deciding vote. Now, I don't know how that works but assuming that the returning officer is from the same riding area, wouldn't he have already voted? Or if he's from another riding, what rights does he have in being the deciding vote? Couldn't this be done on a coin? Or dice in case more than 2 parties are tied?
|
I can think of a few things.
First, it is possible that the returning officer doesn't vote.
Second, the coin has issues. People would complain the flip might have cheated: in the case of a person, he can do whatever he wants. I'd assume most people would actually flip a coin given that situation (so as not to appear biased).
Quote:
|
2. Say in one riding, 18000 people voted for the Liberals and 15000 voted CPC and another 7000 voted NDP. Now, if you add up 15000 and 7000, obviously, that number is greater than those who voted for liberals. How does that accurately represent the interest of the people in that area?
|
It doesn't do it perfectly. Like most things in the real world, it is an approximation, or "good enough", that is the goal.
More complex systems are, well, more complex. Naive purportional rep systems result in monolithic parties and no local representation.
Quote:
|
3. The percentage of voters in all of Canada doesn't match with the percentage of seats elected.
|
Which is simply an artifact of the other systems.
First Past the Post encourages 2 parties per region (or post) to be strong, and discourages weak parties. Other systems work differently.
Quote:
|
Now honestly, I don't think alot of people's voice aren't getting through at all. The Greens and NDP have acquired a large number of votes throughout Canada that aren't getting heard.
|
They are being heard, they are just being muted. For example, the Green voters now mean that the Green party will have 1 million dollars/year to keep their party going.
Quote:
|
Now comes in the classic issues of West vs East. Once again, The East are dominated by the Liberals, naming Ontario while the Tories, especially in Alberta, continues to grip the Western provinces.
|
Regionalist parties are encouraged by regional first-past-the-post representation. The Reform party and it's decendants and the Bloc are the result of this encouragement.
Quote:
|
Now why the hell are Quebeckers voting BQ? Just because the party's Quebeckish doesn't make it the right choice. Isn't the BQ advocating for separtatism? (sp)
|
Because they think the BQ will work towards their interests, and they don't trust the other federal parties (or are upset with them).
Quebec was more angry about the sponsorship scandal than the rest of the country. They view the new Conservative party as just another bunch of Western Quebec-haters. This leaves the NDP and the Bloc.
I'd be in favour of a modified regional/purportional system.
Triple the size of ridings, and give each riding 30 points.
The vote %s are turned into points, with leftover points randomly lottaried.
You need 10 points to sit in Parliament.
If you have less or more than 10 points, you can transfer your points to another Candidate with less than 10 points.
The end result is roughly the same number of people in parliament, with regional representatives, the possibility of independant Candidates and MPs who are not purely selected by their party.
Possibly you'd throw in a running-mate system, who could absorb leftover points, so one party could have more than 1/3 the seats in parliament without running against themselves. =)