FPP: Government by the 30%, for the 30%

According CTV News, Just 30 per cent of Canadians think Harper government should be re-elected.

That's about as low as Harper will go. The 30% makes up hard-core Conservatives who will vote for the party no matter what.

But their influence doesn't stop there. When the PC and Reform parties united under the Conservative banner in 2004, the new party came to represent the 30%'s hard-core values. Moderate conservatives ended up marginalized, many forced to vote for the Liberal party.

What's worse is that the 30% that controls the Conservative party now controls the entire country. In 2011, it managed to win 40% of the vote and 54% of the seats, giving it 100% of the power.

If we modernize our corrupt voting system (First-Past-the-Post) with either Proportional Representation or Preferential Voting (ranked ballot) the 30% will represent the 30%. No more, no less.

Study affirms FPTP turns Canadians off politics

Recently Susan Delacourt of the Toronto Star reported Canadians are not engaged in the political process:

“Politicians, partisans and political junkies may have to confront a harsh truth — Canadians just aren’t that into you.”

According to Samara, “a non-profit organization devoted to improving civic culture in Canada,” Canadians are “lightweights” when it comes to getting involved. Just 17% of us have talked politics in the social media over the past year.

What makes Canada so different from other developed countries? It’s our corrupt voting system, First-Past-the-Post. It rewards ugly divide-and-conquer politics that make Canadians tune out. As Andrew Coyne explains:

“When a candidate needs only a small slice of the electorate to win he has little incentive to make himself less obnoxious to the rest; indeed, he has every incentive to amp up the us-and-them rhetoric, the better to lock down his support.”

If we modernize our voting system with either Proportional Representation, or Preferential Voting (ranked ballot) corrupt politicians will no longer be able to benefit from obnoxious politics. Then Canadians will tune back in.

Minority party, majority power not democracy

Doling out majority power to a minority party is not democracy.

Take Stephen Harper for example. He’s a very polarizing figure who won absolute power on 40% of the vote in 2011, when the vast majority of Canadians were opposed to it. When in opposition, Harper called this kind of outcome a “benign dictatorship.”

Democracy means rule by the people. Since people can’t agree on everything, government (by the people) defaults to majority rule. That means 50% plus one vote.

When a minority party gets majority power, this means the actual majority of voters is shut out of government. That is the literal opposite of democracy.

We need to modernize our voting system (like the rest of the developed world,) so government represents an actual majority. Either Preferential Voting (ranked ballot) or Proportional Representation will get the job done.

Politicians must not be entitled to power they didn’t earn.

MythBuster: senate can't be abolished

According to the Canadian Press, two constitutional experts proclaim abolishing the senate is impossible.

“The Atlantic provinces would basically say (the Senate) is the reason why we came into Confederation,” said Mendes.

“And that makes it the end of the story (on abolition),” added Franks.

Three reasons this hypothesis is ridiculous:

1) It’s anachronistic. Assuming Mendes’ assessment is accurate, what Atlantic provinces wanted out of Confederation 150 years ago and what they want today are two different things.

Today Atlantic Canadians are probably more interested in job training and steady healthcare funding. They want to work with the federal government towards their goals directly; not indirectly through senators appointed from Ottawa.

2) It mistakes the theoretical for the real world. Theoretically, the senate is supposed to give the provinces a voice at the federal table. Realistically, the senate has been corrupted with partisan appointments since Confederation.

One PM stacks the senate to a majority and whips senate votes. Another comes along and does the same. In the real world, the provinces have little to no representation through the senate.

3) It ignores democracy. The Charlottetown Accord package of constitutional amendments was put before Canadians in a national referendum. The same could happen to determine the fate of the senate. Abolition will require the support of either 7 of 10 or all 10 provinces. If Canadians produce that support in a federal referendum, no indirectly-elected premier will be able to stand in the way of democracy.

Canadians should not be misled by pompous academics. Canada is a democracy. The fate of the senate lies in our hands.

Canada, UK: developed countries, undeveloped democracies

Canada and the UK are the only two developed countries that dole out absolute corrupt power to minority parties — the ironic interpretation of democracy.

This is due to our antiquated and unreliable voting system, First-Past-the-Post, which only works in a two party system (ensuring one party represents a majority of voters.) When there are many parties arbitrarily dividing the vote, the outcome can be the very opposite of the will of the people.

Voting Systems

Short-form	System
FPP	First-Past-the-Post
PV	Preferential Voting (ranked ballot)
PR	Proportional Representation
MMP	Mixed-Member Proportional (PR)
STV	Single Transferable Vote (PR)

Developed Countries (IMF)

Country	Voting System	Variation
Anglo-Saxon countries
Australia	Runoff vote	PV
Canada	FPP	Multi-party state
Ireland	PR	STV
New Zealand	PR	MMP
UK	FPP	Multi-party state
US	FPP	Two-party state
European countries
Austria	PR	Party list
Belgium	PR	Party list
Cyprus	PR	Party list
Czech Republic	PR	Party list
Denmark	PR	Party list
Estonia	PR	Party list
Finland	PR	Party list
France	Runoff vote	Two elections
Germany	PR	MMP
Greece	PR	Reinforced proportionality
Iceland	PR	Party List
Italy	PR	Party list
Luxembourg	PR	Party list
Malta	PR	STV
Netherlands	PR	Party list
Norway	PR	Party list
Portugal	PR	Party list
San Marino	PR	Party list
Slovakia	PR	Party list
Slovenia	PR	Party list
Spain	PR	Party list
Sweden	PR	Party list
Switzerland	PR	Party list
Asian countries
Hong Kong	PR	Party list
Israel	PR	Party list
Japan	PR	MMP
South Korea	PR	MMP
Taiwan	PR	MMP

Democratic Wedding: why our democracy's broken

Billy had a PhD and Sarah was a teacher. They were getting married, but had a problem with their entrée. Billy and his friends wanted Filet Mignon. Sarah and her friends insisted on Chicken Marsala.

Since Billy and Sarah were political junkies, they decided to let their guests choose. They added a ballot to the RSVP in the invitations.

To make things interesting, they added Calamari (squid) which they thought few guests would pick. And burger and fries as a joke.

Sarah’s Ballot

Billy’s Ballot

When they counted the votes they found, to their horror, burger and fries had won!

First-Past-the-Post results

Entrée	Votes
Calamari	8
Filet Mignon	28
Chicken Marsala	31
Burger and Fries	33
Total	100

Although the vast majority of guests likely wanted a fitting wedding feast, the vote was split allowing the absurd choice to win.

Since Sarah and Billy didn’t want to get stuck with a choice that would ruin their wedding, they decided to resend the ballots asking guests to rank their choices this time.

This would allow them to have a say if their first choice wasn’t in the running. (Their vote wouldn’t be wasted.)

Sarah’s Ballot

Billy’s Ballot

Sarah and Billy got the ballots back and counted them. On the first round, they got the same results as before. But instant runoff rounds eliminated last-place choices and transferred alternative votes:

Preferential Voting: 1st round

Entrée	Votes
Calamari	8
Filet Mignon	28
Chicken Marsala	31
Burger and Fries	33
Total	100

PV: 2nd instant runoff round

Entrée	Votes	Alt Votes
Filet Mignon	31	+3
Chicken Marsala	36	+5
Burger and Fries	33
Total	100

PV: 3rd instant runoff round

Entrée	Votes	Alt Votes
Chicken Marsala	67	+31
Burger and Fries	33
Total	100

When guests’ alternative choices were factored in, they overwhelmingly preferred a proper wedding entrée.

The simple ballot system — First-Past-the-Post — produces distorted results that can saddle people with the opposite of what they want. Preferential Voting ensures the real will of the people is carried out.

Andrew Coyne on FPP and polarizing politics

In a National Post column, Toronto voting proposal might be last shot at electoral reform in Canada, conservative columnist Andrew Coyne points out how First-Past-the-Post rewards polarizing politics while Preferential Voting (ranked ballot) ends them. (Partisans won’t benefit from obnoxious politics under Proportional Representation either, which Mr. Coyne also supports.)

“When a candidate needs only a small slice of the electorate to win he has little incentive to make himself less obnoxious to the rest; indeed, he has every incentive to amp up the us-and-them rhetoric, the better to lock down his support.

“With a ranked ballot, on the other hand, it’s not enough merely to have the most votes. You have to get a majority. Vote-splitting thus ceases to be an issue: Voters can mark a 1 beside their preferred candidate in good conscience, knowing that their second and third choices will also be counted. And because a candidate will typically need those second and third choices to win, he now has an incentive, not to attack and divide, but to reach out to supporters of other parties.”