Trudeau Popularity - or not (various polling, etc.)

[Remius]

If 39% of the votes wins 57% percent of the seats and we want to call that the most representative form of voting on the planet then its not wonder things are the way they are. Those simple numbers tell you its not representative.

Canada does not have a two party system though. So it’s whoever gets the most votes. It’s representative by the fact that a person from your riding and area and community is selected by that vote to represent you. And it is so with a generally smaller ratio of population to representative than most places.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Canada does not have a two party system though. So it’s whoever gets the most votes. It’s representative by the fact that a person from your riding and area and community is selected by that vote to represent you. And it is so with a generally smaller ratio of population to representative than most places.

I understand how our system works.

My problem is 39% of the population gaining the plurality of the seats and then steering the ship in the direction they choose/proposed/ran on.

I guess you could really put this at the feet of the left leaning parties in Canada who are all fractured apart. If they could combine it might change things.

I still stand by my position that we need electoral change.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I understand how our system works.

My problem is 39% of the population gaining the plurality of the seats and then steering the ship in the direction they choose/proposed/ran on.

I guess you could really put this at the feet of the left leaning parties in Canada who are all fractured apart. If they could combine it might change things.

I still stand by my position that we need electoral change.

This is where things always circle the drain: change to what?

What system is better that gives you a local representative that you can personally hold to account?

 

[Halifax Tar]

This is where things always circle the drain: change to what?

What system is better that gives you a local representative that you can personally hold to account?

I think it was @Eaglelord17 who mentioned Direct Democracy. Its and interesting concept I need to read more about.

Do we really have local representation ? Or do we have local mouth pieces or puppets for the party leadership ?

 

[Eaglelord17]

I think it was @Eaglelord17 who mentioned Direct Democracy. Its and interesting concept I need to read more about.

Do we really have local representation ? Or do we have local mouth pieces or puppets for the party leadership ?

Look at how the Swiss do things for some really good ideas.

Not saying its perfect, but if we combined some elements of their system with ours I feel we could create a much better system with substantially more accountability.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think it was @Eaglelord17 who mentioned Direct Democracy. Its and interesting concept I need to read more about.

Do we really have local representation ? Or do we have local mouth pieces or puppets for the party leadership ?

My problem with all the Proportional Representation models that I have seen is that they enshrine the Party. The Party executive decides which of their members will make it to the Party List and then the List gets divvied up according to the number of seats the Party has won.

The locals don't get to choose their representative. The Party tells them who their representative will be.

 

[GR66]

This is where things always circle the drain: change to what?

What system is better that gives you a local representative that you can personally hold to account?

You could have a Ranked Ballot system. Not perfect, but maintains the link between the voter and a local MP that can be held to account while also ensuring that the elected member has the support of at least 50% of the voters in the riding (not as first choice but is the preferred choice of the majority of the voters over the other candidates).

Macleans had a short article on it in 2016...you know when Trudeau said we'd never have another election under FPTP

Under a ranked ballot, voters mark their first, second and subsequent choices. If no candidate wins more than 50 per cent of the vote, the contender with the fewest votes is dropped from the ballot and his or her supporters’ second choices are counted. That continues until one candidate emerges with a majority.


Ranked balloting remains one of the options under consideration by a Commons committee, which resumes its study of potential new electoral models next week.

Here’s a look at the pros and cons of ranked ballots:

PROS​

• Relatively easy for voters to understand, less complicated than PR models.

• Relatively easy to implement, would not require redistribution of riding boundaries or an increase in the number of MPs.

• Ensures no candidate wins a seat without garnering more than 50 per cent of the vote.

• Reduces the need for strategic voting. Voters can follow their hearts and rank smaller parties first, without fear that they’re “wasting” their votes on parties with no hope of forming government or that they’re inadvertently helping a party they don’t want to win.

• Compels parties to try to broaden their appeal to attract second choice support.

CONS​

• Does not result in a distribution of seats proportional to each party’s share of the popular vote. Majorities can still be won with less than 50 per cent of the vote.

• One candidate in each riding will win; everyone else loses. Voters whose first choices lose could still feel their votes didn’t count.

• Could make it harder for fledgling parties to break through and win a seat. Under FPTP, a small party can win a seat with less than 40 per cent of the vote. Under a ranked ballot, it would have to win more than 50 per cent.

 

[Halifax Tar]

My problem with all the Proportional Representation models that I have seen is that they enshrine the Party. The Party executive decides which of their members will make it to the Party List and then the List gets divvied up according to the number of seats the Party has won.

The locals don't get to choose their representative. The Party tells them who their representative will be.

I didn't mention PR. Nor is that my uneducated interpretation of Direct Democracy.

 

[Halifax Tar]

you know when Trudeau said we'd never have another election under FPTP

Ah yes... The line that duped me.

 

[Lumber]

My problem with all the Proportional Representation models that I have seen is that they enshrine the Party. The Party executive decides which of their members will make it to the Party List and then the List gets divvied up according to the number of seats the Party has won.

The locals don't get to choose their representative. The Party tells them who their representative will be.

There's a version where it's blended. You still get to vote for a local rep, but there is a "party list", and those get added to parliament in such numbers so that the overall makeup of parliament matches the popular vote.

I'm not sure how it would work; I think you would end up with a HUGE parliament. Think about it: using the numbers shared above, lets say only 39% of the population voted liberal, but they got 57% of the seats. That's 192 Seats of the 338 seat parliament, and they get to keep those seats, because that's their local representation. But because we want "proportional representation", and we can't remove elected members, than we have to add more members to the other parties so that the the 192 seats the liberals have is only 39% of parliament. Doing the rough math, that means we would need parliament to distribute an additional 157 seats among the other parties (proportionally) and parliament would grow to 495 seats (192/495 = 39%).

 

[Kirkhill]

I didn't mention PR. Nor is that my uneducated interpretation of Direct Democracy.

Sorry. I agree that it is not anybody's interpretation of Direct Democracy. I actually like the concept of some well considered Direct Democracy in the form of referendums for the big changes.

I am happy with the FPTP system even if it has meant the other guy wins more often than my guy. I like the idea of a Triple E Senate, an idea that actually was favoured by Trudeau Sr according to his biographer Max Nemmni.

The problem lies, in my opinion, entirely in the party system.

 

[Kirkhill]

There's a version where it's blended. You still get to vote for a local rep, but there is a "party list", and those get added to parliament in such numbers so that the overall makeup of parliament matches the popular vote.

I'm not sure how it would work; I think you would end up with a HUGE parliament. Think about it: using the numbers shared above, lets say only 39% of the population voted liberal, but they got 57% of the seats. That's 192 Seats of the 338 seat parliament, and they get to keep those seats, because that's their local representation. But because we want "proportional representation", and we can't remove elected members, than we have to add more members to the other parties so that the the 192 seats the liberals have is only 39% of parliament. Doing the rough math, that means we would need parliament to distribute an additional 157 among the other parties (proportionally) and parliament would grow to 495 seats (192/495 = 39%).

Agreed but that results in a dilution of the local representative's voice which only enhances the power of the Party.

 

[Fabius]

I don’t see much benefit from a ranked ballot system.
The overall % of support a party receives nationally is not tied to what they are receiving at the riding level. The 2021 election saw an average of likely in the high 40 percent, if not above 50% based on a quick scan of the by riding percentage breakdowns.
There are pockets of mid 30 percent support and pockets of high 60 percent support.

The majority are in the 45-55 percent and a ranked ballot would easily get the same parties candidates past 50.

The issue is not at the riding level. It’s that overall voters turnout is in the low to mid 60% of eligible voters.

My concern is that a ranked ballot system would given the current Liberal and NDP party policies, see a hardening of the current breakdown in seats. Red Liberals would reinforce Conservative seats and NDP voters would reinforce Liberal seats.

 

[Spencer100]

The first fix I would work on is less party control over members. No party control over local party nominations. Sitting MP's can boot the leader of their parties with simple majority vote. No whipped votes on non confidence bills. And stop omnibus bills. Those measures alone would go a long way to fix the "democratic deficit"

 

[lenaitch]

There's a version where it's blended. You still get to vote for a local rep, but there is a "party list", and those get added to parliament in such numbers so that the overall makeup of parliament matches the popular vote.

I'm not sure how it would work; I think you would end up with a HUGE parliament. Think about it: using the numbers shared above, lets say only 39% of the population voted liberal, but they got 57% of the seats. That's 192 Seats of the 338 seat parliament, and they get to keep those seats, because that's their local representation. But because we want "proportional representation", and we can't remove elected members, than we have to add more members to the other parties so that the the 192 seats the liberals have is only 39% of parliament. Doing the rough math, that means we would need parliament to distribute an additional 157 seats among the other parties (proportionally) and parliament would grow to 495 seats (192/495 = 39%).

That's one of my concerns as well. It's either that or we have fewer but much larger ridings to keep the numbers in check (which I don't agree with either).

Some of the present concerns could be addressed if there was a practical way to break up the power and control of the PMO.

 

[GR66]

That's one of my concerns as well. It's either that or we have fewer but much larger ridings to keep the numbers in check (which I don't agree with either).

Some of the present concerns could be addressed if there was a practical way to break up the power and control of the PMO.

There is already a solution to this in place but it would require the surgical insertion of backbones into the backbench MPs of the governing parties.

 

[lenaitch]

There is already a solution to this in place but it would require the surgical insertion of backbones into the backbench MPs of the governing parties.

Agree, but it's hard to do given the power imbalance.

 

[Brad Sallows]

My problem is 39% of the population gaining the plurality of the seats and then steering the ship in the direction they choose/proposed/ran on.

Your problem is the assumption that a voting system has to return representation in almost exact proportion to the popular vote.

 

[Brad Sallows]

ensuring that the elected member has the support of at least 50% of the voters in the riding (not as first choice but is the preferred choice of the majority of the voters over the other candidates).

As you say, "not as first choice" - which is meaningless. It's an advertising fiction intended to create the illusion of popular support. Why stop at 50%? Just keep dropping out the lowest candidate on successive rounds until you have one candidate with 100% of the complete (meaning, ballots which ranked all candidates) votes!

 

[GR66]

As you say, "not as first choice" - which is meaningless. It's an advertising fiction intended to create the illusion of popular support. Why stop at 50%? Just keep dropping out the lowest candidate on successive rounds until you have one candidate with 100% of the complete (meaning, ballots which ranked all candidates) votes!

As I said it's not a perfect system (and what system is?) but what it prevents is the splitting of votes between two candidates that are broadly most preferable by the majority of the voters resulting in the least popular of the three candidates being elected.

For example "Party A" and "Party B" are both roughly on the same side of the political spectrum while "Party C" is on the opposite side of the spectrum.

On election day the results are:

Party C - 32% of the vote
Party A - 30% of the vote
Party B - 28% of the vote

So in our current FPTP system the candidate for Party C wins the election with 32% of the popular vote. While the two parties on the opposite side of the political spectrum between them earned 58% of the popular vote.

Now let's hypothetically say that the vast majority (say 80%) of the last place party's voters would far prefer Party A over Party C because they are much closer in their political outlook. So under the ranked ballot system with no single party receiving over 50% of the vote Party B is dropped from the count with 80% of their supporters picking Party A as their 2nd choice and 20% picking Party C as their 2nd choice.

The results would look something like this:

Party A - 30% of vote + 22.4% 2nd choice votes from Party B (.8 x 28%) = 52.4%
Party C - 32% of vote + 5.6% 2nd choice votes from Party B (.2 x 28%) = 37.6%

Party A wins the riding with a majority of ranked preference of 52.4% of voters.

Again, certainly not a perfect solution but better than a system where a candidate can win with the plurality of the votes but be strongly opposed by the majority of the voters in their riding.