Carney’s leadership opens up the possibility for progress on proportional representation: an open-minded leader
Carney’s leadership opens up the possibility for progress on proportional representation: an open-minded leader
Fair Vote Canada congratulates Mark Carney on winning the Liberal Party leadership. Carney’s leadership opens up the possibility for progress on proportional representation.
You're viewing a single thread.
I much prefer ranked ballots to PR. IMO PR will lead to dozens of niche parties with single issue platforms that will end in coalition hell.
I find that a hard argument to believe in. There are many problems a country needs to solve and, more importantly, programs to maintain. Single issue platforms would only be viable for that one thing on some voters’ mind, but if someone comes in and say they can do that and more, I don’t see why people wouldn’t go for those who campaigns on multiple issues, with a few highlights that people would be concerned about.
It’s also likely that enough of these niche parties would see eye to eye on a good number of topics to just form a coalition.
PR does make things go slower cause of a more diverse set of views on the table, but that’s what being in a society is about anyways, and a winner-takes-all system is just sweeping that under the rug.
Winner-takes-all also leads to all sorts of problems that just boggles the mind; policy lurch being the biggest problem imo, where governments will literally work and spend money and effort to tear up things done by the previous government, almost like they’re trying to rebuild a province or country in their own vision. Not only is that wasteful, it’s inconsistent from a foreign relations perspective. Just look at Canada-US relations right now.
I agree with your arguments and especially about new governments tearing up what was done under the other. This would still happen but maybe less. Bottom line is I'd vote for either when in mean getting rid of FPTP. Cheers
I’d say ranked ballot (which is also a winner-takes-all system if you weren’t aware) might be even worse. You might think that it’d get rid of smaller fringe parties and quell extremists, but the Republicans in the US would’ve become what they are today even under ranked ballot. Ranked ballot pushes the winning threshold up, but it doesn’t do away with
- having a small voter-base decide on who gets to become government,
- leading the ecosystem into a 2-party scenario,
- doesn’t solve the disillusionment that voters have over the consequences of their votes, and also
- encouraging political parties to literally be at each other’s throats and burning bridges instead of leaving or even creating chances to work together.
Getting rid of fringe parties also means you get rid of budding parties that might actually be good for the nation, and you essentially lock the country into the 2-party scenario even harder than FPTP. So you get all the problems of FPTP and more.
Australia’s been using this system, and if you talk to Australians, you’ll hear the same kind of stories that you hear here in NA. Maybe worse.
The instant run-off ranked ballots leads to the same 2 party entrenchment, hostile politics and worse government performance on issues as seen with Australia.
We should not deny anyone representation if they have enough of the share of the vote.
You can have ranked ballots and proportionality with the single-transferable vote.
I agree and am not opposed to PR. I only worry about the fracturing of the electorate.
Big tent parties are still fractured, it's just that all the arguing happens behind the scenes out of the public eye. With PR you could actually vote on the issues that were most important, and then watch the debates play out in public.
Besides, you aren't dreaming big enough. Imagine if politicians actually cooperated rather than tearing each other down.
What do you think of MMP?
I hadn't looked closely at that. I'll have a look, thanks.