Thursday, September 5, 2013

Top ten benefits of Preferential Voting (ranked ballot)

Here are the top ten reasons why we should fix our existing voting system with PV. This small change of the ballot — from single-choice to ranked — offers a giant leap forward for democracy in Canada.

Although PV doesn’t have all the benefits of PR, it will be a good first step if a pro-PR party doesn’t form the government in 2015.

  1. Real Democracy: Ensures an actual majority of voters is represented in government.

  2. Ends winner take all: Prevents minority parties from getting absolute corrupt power.

  3. Stops vote splitting: The ranked ballot makes MPs earn their seats with a majority. Constituents don’t get stuck with the opposite of what they voted for.

  4. Prevents wasted votes: Votes are transferred to alternative choices. Provides better representation as parties reach out for alternative votes.

  5. Ends need for party mergers: Australia uses PV and has 4 right-wing parties. Canadian conservatives had to merge 2 right-wing parties to stop the distorted effects of vote splitting.

  1. Permanent electoral cooperation: Center-left votes are distributed among center-left parties. No need for difficult inter-party arrangements.

  2. Automatic strategic voting: Gets rid of the guesswork. Guarantees Anyone But Conservative voting. Ensures one’s first choice is counted.

  3. Moderates the debate: Extremists lose out on alternative votes.

  4. Would’ve stopped Harper from getting a majority in 2011.

  5. Will stop the Conservatives from becoming Canada’s natural governing party against the will of Canadians.


  1. 1, 2, & 4 are all completely false. Read below for verification.

    Facts regarding Ranked Ballots:

    Difference between Winner-Take-All and Proportional Representation:

    The Broad Categories of Electoral Systems:


  3. Table comparing the 2 Winner Take All Systems: First Past The Post & the Preferential Vote:

  4. Only one party can form the government without a complete rewriting of our constitution. Even with Proportional Representation the Party holding enough support to have the confidence of the house would form the government. Had our present, soon to be anointed, government been chosen through PR, nothing would be different.

    Also, there seems to be a belief here that the parties would remain the same. If even the 3.4% of Green votes this time received appointment seats, what is to stop the present parties from fracturing and all kinds of separatist parties, for example, from forming.

    There is another assumption here and that is that, because some of us think change is due, everybody (or a majority) thinks that. Don't we first have to answer the question that raises or do we believe that anyone who doesn't go along with us simply needs to be led by the nose?


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.