I am going to preface this by saying that this was shared with me by a friend and I am still trying to get my head wrapped around it. I am not an expert or even well read on the subject but do believe that the voting systems in Canada need to change. I post in the interest of building the discussion in this community.
<Quote> I like single transferrable vote (STV), but it’s unlikely to catch on because it needs number crunching in the backend to apportion the excess votes to (hopefully) improve proportionality. I can see it being accused of corruption by the fact and critical-thinking challenged demographic.
Baden-Württemberg solves that by saying that every riding has two members, one who wins the popular vote, and one who is selected from the runners-up in a manner that best enhances proportionality, but still focuses on the high vote earners.
Mixed member proportional representation (MMR) is too easily gamed by parties to embed unelectable party hacks/loyalists (as experienced in NZ). </Quote>
Hi, I believe we’ve had a short chat before.
Your arguments, while I acknowledge them to be valid, are not something that I believe should be addressed by an electoral system.
Why do you think that we have the right to deny, say, a gun freedom advocacy group, for running for office, as much as their taking of the office could be a scary one? If you could give a reason why, how does that prevent someone else to declare that climate advocacy groups shouldn’t run for office, and try to give some reason that sounds sufficiently legitimate to enough people? And what comes next?
The guardrails that you speak of work to shut people off. Is that how a democracy should work?
If an electorate is that concerned with gun freedom, and think that it’s more important than issues such as a dilapidated public infrastructure, then sure, they can vote for whichever party that will support gun freedom, and that party will have a better chance at winning, assuming a healthy voter turnout. This applies to both winner-takes-all systems and PR systems.
But gun freedom is likely not the only issue people have in mind. The gun freedom party can’t just stay as politicians over that one issue. How would they handle foreign relations? What about our national debt? No single issue platform can give us answer to every one of those larger problems.
So I say let these people speak their minds. If enough people actually support them and they have enough support to even form government, then such is the reality of what your nation cares about, and the numbers tell you that.
Or perhaps do you not believe that Canadians are inherently good and reasonable people? Perhaps you think education has really failed this country that people can’t think sufficiently well for themselves? I’m not sure where this issue with, say, religious parties trying to voice their opinions on how they think things should be run, is coming from.