Opinion poll - electoral systems

[Return of Too Many Daves]

a)First past the post,
b)Proportional representation,
c)Combination,
d)Democracy sucks.

[GenX]

B

[GenX]

This thread is of no interest to the vast majority.

It doesn't bash the U.S.

[NewCasa]

Well, whatever system we go with it shouldn't be even similar to the corrupt US system [img]/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/purpbanana.gif[/img]

[The Berean]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This thread is of no interest to the vast majority.

It doesn't bash the U.S. </div></div>

Spoiling for a fight as usual.

Go beat your head against the wall instead.

[Soundbear]

Daves, give us a short explanation of each, would ya???

[The Berean]

That would be helpful

[Crusty]

http://www.yourbigdecision.ca/en_ca/default.aspx Ontario's upcoming referendum


This may help.

[Soundbear]

Democracy does indeed suck, but I guess I'd have to go with "C".

[Return of Too Many Daves]

Here is a really good link explaining your options at this election.

http://www.yourbigdecision.ca/en_ca/default.aspx

And I've wiki'd the 2 types of electoral system (although your options at referendum are 1st past the post or a new combination of 1st past the post and proportional representation), sorry I've no time to write my own at work!

Proportional representation
(sometimes referred to as full representation, or PR), is a category of electoral formula aiming at a close match between the percentage of votes that groups of candidates (grouped by a certain measure) obtain in elections and the percentage of seats they receive (usually in legislative assemblies). It is often contrasted to plurality voting systems, where disproportional seat distribution results from the division of voters into multiple electoral districts, especially "winner takes all" plurality (FPTP) districts.

Various forms of proportional representation exist, such as party-list proportional representation, where the above-mentioned groups correspond directly with candidate lists as usually given by political parties. Within this form a further distinction can be made depending on whether or not a voter can influence the election of candidates within a party list (open list and closed list respectively). Another kind of electoral system covered with the term proportional representation is the single transferable vote (STV), which, in turn, does not depend on the existence of political parties (and where the above-mentioned "measure of grouping" is entirely left up to the voters themselves). Elections for the Australian Senate use what is referred to as above-the-line voting where candidates belonging to registered political parties are grouped together on the ballot paper with the voter provided with the option of "group voting" a semi-open party list/individual candidate system.

There are also electoral systems, single non-transferable vote (SNTV) and cumulative voting, all which offer a variant form of proportional representation. These systems are not true proportional representation, however. They are truly minority representation systems where as many different parties as there are seats should be elected if everyone votes honestly, but often major parties will split their votes in order to make it proportional. Also, with small two or three member districts such systems often give similar results as proportional systems.

First past the post
The term first past the post (abbreviated FPTP or FPP) was coined as an analogy to horse racing, where the winner of the race is the first to pass a particular point on the track (in this case a plurality of votes), after which all other runners automatically and completely lose (that is, the payoff is "winner-takes-all"). There is, however, no "post" that the winning candidate must pass in order to win, as they are only required to receive the largest number of votes in their favour. This sometimes results in the alternative name "furthest past the post".

Historically, FPTP has been a contentious electoral system, giving rise to the concept of electoral reform and a multiplicity of different voting systems intended to address perceived weaknesses of plurality voting.

Plurality voting is used in 43 of the 191 countries in the United Nations for either local or national elections. Plurality voting is particularly prevalent in the United Kingdom and former British colonies, including the United States and Canada. [2] See Westminster system.

Ps I wish they had this referendum in the UK

[Crusty]

I posted that link an hour ago

[403_forbidden]

I am trying to gather more information about this referendum that is coming up....I came up with this site that is for voting no.......

http://www.nommp.ca/

It gives the reasons why they recommend no....I am going to try and find sites that are pro MMP and see what they have to say.....The one thing that concerns me about this current system is that majority governments form and basically can do anything they want (much like a dictator party) until the next election...a majority government can do a lot of damage in 4 years.....

[Return of Too Many Daves]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crusty</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I posted that link an hour ago </div></div>

Sorry was rushing and scanning, didn't spot your link.

e) None of the above.

It is my opinion that C) would be better, but only if additional reforms were also implemented that would give Canadians a louder voice in government. My problem with PR is that politicians are already so far removed from the average citizen, that adding non-elected members to the mix would only serve to shut the public out of governance even farther.