Ontario Election 2018

[herman]

https://twitter.com/torontostar/status/1003748241593249792

This all seems remarkably familiar.

 

[mr grieves]

She is truly that afraid of a NDP majority which is why she said vote Liberal.

It's something you see all over the place, whether in the States with Centrist Democrats vs. the Sanders wing of the party or Blairite Labour vs. Corbin Labour but I really think that one of the incredible blind spots of centrist politics, and what's leading to their demise, is their somewhat bizarre belief that a Left Wing government is just as damaging as a Right Wing one.

Is it possible that center-left politicians act this way not because they believe left governments are as damaging as right wing ones but because they see right wing governments as clearing easier paths back to power? Don't like us now? Well, let us heighten the contrasts for you.

Of course, maybe I spend too much time in left-wing circles and see accelerationists everywhere.

 

[WAYNEINIONA]

I can't honestly vote for any of them. Since there won't be a "none of the above" box, I will write it across the bottom.

 

[TimKerr]

It's definitely detrimental to their party, 39.5% of the votes and 54% of the seats, beautiful math. Like I said it was part of his platform which he quickly retracted after he won. Anyway we're talking provincial elections right now.

If the party I vote for loses, I would like to think my vote is worth more then $2.71. Never mind, I have no idea why any party would get any tax dollars to campaign. Cancel my $2.71 and give me proportional representation and I can choose to donate or not.

What I'm saying is the potential detriment to the party isn't the reason they backed off. The constitutional reform issues made it unfeasible.

The article below states that it is only an act of legislation in order to change the voting system in Canada.

In fact, proportional representation designed for Canada ? whether Mixed Member Proportional, Single Transferable Vote, or a hybrid of those, is just an act of legislation.


The only model of proportional representation that is unconstitutional in Canada is one where ridings cross provincial boundaries. For example, implementing a nation-wide, party list system like Israel. Such a system is highly unsuited for Canada and nobody has ever proposed it.
https://www.fairvote.ca/2014/12/16/is-proportional-representation-constitutional/

 

[Bill_Berg]

I can't honestly vote for any of them. Since there won't be a "none of the above" box, I will write it across the bottom.

You'll just spoil your ballot. Instead, decline it. It's a thing. Maybe not a huge difference but if you're going to not vote, make it official.

 

[Captain Canuck]

I can't honestly vote for any of them. Since there won't be a "none of the above" box, I will write it across the bottom.

Here is how you can do this and still have it "count".

On election day June 7, if you want to vote ?none of the above? you can, by going to your polling station and formally declining your ballot.

A little-known sentence in Ontario?s Election Act allows a voter to register his or her protest at the choices on offer by declining to vote. Section 53 states: ?An elector who has received a ballot and returns it to the deputy returning officer declining to vote, forfeits the right to vote and the deputy returning officer shall immediately write the word ?declined? upon the back of the ballot and preserve it to be returned to the returning officer and shall cause an entry to be made in the poll record that the elector declined to vote.?

 

[bustaheims]

The article below states that it is only an act of legislation in order to change the voting system in Canada.

In fact, proportional representation designed for Canada ? whether Mixed Member Proportional, Single Transferable Vote, or a hybrid of those, is just an act of legislation.


The only model of proportional representation that is unconstitutional in Canada is one where ridings cross provincial boundaries. For example, implementing a nation-wide, party list system like Israel. Such a system is highly unsuited for Canada and nobody has ever proposed it.
https://www.fairvote.ca/2014/12/16/is-proportional-representation-constitutional/

And here's one that talks about why it could cause a constitutional issue: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/electoral-reform-constitutional-change-1.3433335

Basically, it comes to the fact that proportional representation makes a majority the unlikely outcome, so, implementing it would possibly require a change to the powers of the Governor General - and that would require constitutional changes. So, yes, they could change the laws without going into the constitution, but they would probably have to go into the constitution to actually implement it.

Also, your last paragraph basically spells out why PR would be problematic on a Federal level. Without having a nation-wide list, you're not implementing true proportional representation for those elections. In fact, you'd be introducing a system that's similar to the electoral college system, as each province would have to assigned a specified number of seats in Parliament before each election. They'd be divvied up proportionally by votes at the provincial and territorial level, but not at the national level. Introducing true proportional representation at the Federal level would require a change to the constitution.

 

[Kin]

Is it possible that center-left politicians act this way not because they believe left governments are as damaging as right wing ones but because they see right wing governments as clearing easier paths back to power? Don't like us now? Well, let us heighten the contrasts for you.

Of course, maybe I spend too much time in left-wing circles and see accelerationists everywhere.

I admire the cynicism and, you know, sure it's possible that that's at least part of what drives centrists politicians. But among actual centrist voters that I know/talk with/yell at it seems to be a genuinely held belief that any sort of hard-left government would be just as bad.

 

[WAYNEINIONA]

I can't honestly vote for any of them. Since there won't be a "none of the above" box, I will write it across the bottom.

Here is how you can do this and still have it "count".

On election day June 7, if you want to vote ?none of the above? you can, by going to your polling station and formally declining your ballot.

A little-known sentence in Ontario?s Election Act allows a voter to register his or her protest at the choices on offer by declining to vote. Section 53 states: ?An elector who has received a ballot and returns it to the deputy returning officer declining to vote, forfeits the right to vote and the deputy returning officer shall immediately write the word ?declined? upon the back of the ballot and preserve it to be returned to the returning officer and shall cause an entry to be made in the poll record that the elector declined to vote.?

Thanks. I may have to give that a try.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

https://twitter.com/bruce_arthur/status/1003831097103396864

Oh.

 

[Zee]

https://twitter.com/bruce_arthur/status/1003831097103396864

Oh.

Honestly my sister sent me the story about this lawsuit and my reaction "oh yeah, not surprised at all"

 

[Bates]

Can someone give me a quick explanation on how Proportional Representation might work?  Who would represent my Riding and how would you decide who the MP's are?  Not against such an idea but don't see how my interests locally could be represented??

 

[Kin]

Can someone give me a quick explanation on how Proportional Representation might work?  Who would represent my Riding and how would you decide who the MP's are?  Not against such an idea but don't see how my interests locally could be represented??

There isn't any one way how it might work. Lots of places have divided systems where, say, you would still have a local MP who you would vote for by name but then you would effectively cast a second ballot for a party and parliament would consist of a mix of locally elected representatives as well as a % of seats reserved for members chosen by the party and apportioned based on their % of the party vote.

This would, of course, expand the number of MPs significantly but lots of countries offset that by not having an upper chamber.

Another thing to consider is that it would be in a party's interest to serve local interests as a means to get your vote. So a party would be encouraged to, among their membership, choose a broad swath of reps from all over the country who could then be assigned de facto regions for constituency work.

 

[louisstamos]

Can someone give me a quick explanation on how Proportional Representation might work?  Who would represent my Riding and how would you decide who the MP's are?  Not against such an idea but don't see how my interests locally could be represented??

There isn't any one way how it might work. Lots of places have divided systems where, say, you would still have a local MP who you would vote for by name but then you would effectively cast a second ballot for a party and parliament would consist of a mix of locally elected representatives as well as a % of seats reserved for members chosen by the party and apportioned based on their % of the party vote.

This would, of course, expand the number of MPs significantly but lots of countries offset that by not having an upper chamber.

Another thing to consider is that it would be in a party's interest to serve local interests as a means to get your vote. So a party would be encouraged to, among their membership, choose a broad swath of reps from all over the country who could then be assigned de facto regions for constituency work.

Nik beat me too it, but as someone who wrote their 4th year thesis on Electroal Systems, he's pretty much correct.  The one he mentioned is used particularly in Germany and New Zealand, and is referred to Mixed Member Proportional Representation (MMP).  Party List PR is another system used in places like Turkey and Israel.  You basically just vote for the party/leader and that's it, and the representatives are then assigned from a party list.  Depending on how your constituency voted, you would get a rep from the party that won from their list, but you wouldn't know who it was until after the election.

There's also a kind of hybrid of a ranked ballot system - it's more common for primary/party elections, but it is used in places like Ireland and Australia.  When you vote, you rank the parties you want to win - typically 1-2-3.  If, in a riding, nobody gets over 50% of the vote (which can happen if there are multiple parties running), then whoever voted for the party with the fewest votes will have their votes moved on to their second choices.  You keep doing this (and moving to 3rd choices too) until one of the parties reaches over 50% of the vote, and they finally get the seat.  This is a system I particularly like - however, it does historically lead to the creation of a lot of fringe parties.

 

[Bates]

Thanks Folks.  Personally I like the ranked ballot system better as it keeps my Riding the choice of people in my area.  I know the other suggestion also does that but it increases Govt and we don't need more Govt.

 

[Bender]

Thanks Folks.  Personally I like the ranked ballot system better as it keeps my Riding the choice of people in my area.  I know the other suggestion also does that but it increases Govt and we don't need more Govt.

STV all the way, baby!  8)

 

[mr grieves]

Is it possible that center-left politicians act this way not because they believe left governments are as damaging as right wing ones but because they see right wing governments as clearing easier paths back to power? Don't like us now? Well, let us heighten the contrasts for you.

Of course, maybe I spend too much time in left-wing circles and see accelerationists everywhere.

I admire the cynicism and, you know, sure it's possible that that's at least part of what drives centrists politicians. But among actual centrist voters that I know/talk with/yell at it seems to be a genuinely held belief that any sort of hard-left government would be just as bad.

Oh, the voters... I meant what was motivating Wynne and similar sorts of moves from the political center.

As for voters, I'd imagine liberals in the States are different animals than those across the border... but down here, centrist voters just don't seem as ideological as their right-wing or left-wing counterparts or as desirous of changing society in any particular way (hence centrists), and they generally seem to have more trust in and investment in the personal success of their political leaders (are likely to see their failures as being victimized by the media or the underhanded tricks of the opposition, rather than betraying a cause). So, if they're not motivated by a vision of how society ought to arrange itself (or are largely satisfied with how it does presently) and their leaders tell them any change is bad, any change is bad.

 

[cabber24]

The CBC poll says 79.3% chance of PC majority? This is the result of another "first past the post" voting system. A dead heat turns into a majority for someone, I hate that. I wish we had a proportional representation voting system. I want every vote to count proportionately. Parties get $'s per vote why not representation in the house?

Liberals are projected to win 20% of the popular vote, but only 4% of the seats!

Today projected to win just 2 seats. We could be down to a two party debate next provincial election.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

https://twitter.com/BillTufts/status/1002700156066762752

How do idiots like this even breathe?

 

[Frank E]

It's twitter, man.