# Electoral Reform



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

Trudeau confirmed today that yesterday was the last Canadian election with First Past The Post system.

I'm not opposed to electoral reform. But I'm strongly opposed to electoral reform adopted without a referendum.

Yes, he has a mandate to change the system. In my opinion, this mandate is not a blank cheque to do whatever he wants. I think he has to put the new system up to a referendum. I think it would be very undemocratic to do otherwise. I think it would be more undemocratic than anything that Harper has done.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

How about changing it, then have a referendum on the new system after ten years? New Zealand did this after they adopted mixed member proportional.

I just don't think we should allow the status quo bias to leave us stuck with FPTP. At minimum we should go to ranked ballot. I like the idea of single transferable vote as a good compromise between proportionality, local representation not overly beholden to a party (no party lists and independents may be elected), and providing an incentive to not fracture into microparties. The perversity of the current system in untenable, and the government campaigned very clearly on this issue. They have a mandate to proceed.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

I don't dispute the fact they have a mandate.

A mandate to do what exactly? 

There is no such thing as the best possible proportional representation system. Each system has its own pros and cons. On top of that, Canada is a very unique country. A system that works well in Ireland or New Zealand may be a bad fit for Canada. I think they should study the alternatives, pick one or two options, then put them up for a referendum.

I think it would be a sad irony to adopt a new democratic voting system without going through a democratic referendum.

Can we trust the majority government not to do something vindictive? They can easily come up with a system that puts other parties at a permanent disadvantage.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

I'd like to see some type of dual-vote system... one vote for your local candidate, and another vote for Prime Minister. An added benefit is that you needn't vote for the same party on the local and federal levels (though I suspect that most people would anyway).

The main potential negative with this arrangement is that the percentage of votes for may not align with the number of candidates elected for each party... in which case the parties would be able to appoint additional candidates until the proportion was balanced. I think this is one version of "proportional representation", though I'm sure there are several versions with minor differences between them.

Ranked balloting is not a bad idea either, but it adds some complexity and in actual practice may not have much advantage over the current system.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

At the end of the day, the purpose of an electoral system is to serve the electorate, not the parties. 

The cynical choice would be for the Liberals to implement ranked ballot/alternative vote. At the end of the day, though, I think they have a mandate for change and most any reasonable system will give voters ample opportunity in the next election to express their satisfaction or lack thereof with the new arrangement. I can't imagine any system that would permanently give Liberals majority power, so voters will have an opportunity to express their disapproval.


My problem with referenda is that the FUD comes out in force and the status quo bias is difficult to overcome. Better to try it and let voters decide whether it is an improvement or not. There is no perfect electoral system, but if you were to pick one starting from nothing, it is unlikely you would select FPTP as the best.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

nathan79 said:


> I'd like to see some type of dual-vote system... one vote for your local candidate, and another vote for Prime Minister.


That is essentially a presidency. You can't directly elect the Prime Minister and still have a Prime Minister. Otherwise what happens when the party with the most seats is not the party lead by the elected PM? The PM is immediately defeated?

A system where seats are allocated to a party to bring their seat share up to what their vote share is called Mixed Member Proportional. This is what was proposed in Ontario's referendum.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> A system where seats are allocated to a party to bring their seat share up to what their vote share is called Mixed Member Proportional. This is what was proposed in Ontario's referendum.


That's basically what I was referring to, but I didn't know the technical definition.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

As far as complexity, I will give voters enough credit to grasp the concept of ranking their preferences 1, 2, 3...


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

andrewf said:


> My problem with referenda is that the FUD comes out in force and the status quo bias is difficult to overcome. Better to try it and let voters decide whether it is an improvement or not. There is no perfect electoral system, but if you were to pick one starting from nothing, it is unlikely you would select FPTP as the best.


You don't have to put FPTP on the referendum ballot. It can be a choice between two or three proportional systems. No option to keep the status quo.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think I would be okay with that. There is the practicality involved in getting the issue settled in time to run the next election in 4 years. If the consultation process can be wrapped up in 12 months in time for a referendum in 18, that would probably leave Elections Canada and the participants time to prepare for the next election.

The one critique they open themselves up to by not including FPTP as an option is the following:


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

I'm for 100% proportional system, to avoid too many parties/lists in Parliament, barrier of 2- 4% can be implemented, thus we'll get 8-10 parties that's completely fine.... Parties/lists can do dual agreements to pass votes to each other if they don't pass barrier and leftover votes.
Every party will have list of candidates and if it got 20 seats, 1st 20 will go to Parlament. 
Such system is very simple and every vote will count.

Just check on the Web .... a lot of countries using proportional system, from tiny Liechtenstein to huge Russia (that geographically is very similar to Canada)


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Recently elected Liberal MPs who won in close vote counts aren't going to hand an opportunity for the second runner up to defeat them in a future election.

Any recommendations from an all party Parliamentary committee that threaten their re-election will be deposited forthwith into the note and file bin.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think list PR will have a hard time gaining acceptance in Canada. Voters here are very attached to having local representatives.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

As a result, I think the only PR systems with much of a chance in Canada are either Mixed Member Proportional (like Germany, NZ, and others) or Single Transferable Vote (Ireland, Australia's Senate, etc.) since both tie representatives to more local areas. I prefer STV of the two, since I am skeptical about giving parties the power over 'the list', and since it allows for independent representatives. STV has its own issues, but some of the supposed downsides may also be features. A party needs to have a reasonably high critical mass in an area to gain representation nationally, which helps dampen the splintering of parties observed in PR. The most distasteful feature of PR is small, extreme parties holding the balance of power in minority arrangements and wielding outsized influence.

Alternative Voting at first blush would benefit the Liberals (may even result in a bigger majority than the one they just won), but you have to consider that voter behaviour would change (less tactical voting). More people would vote their honest first preference by voting Green or NDP first with perhaps the Liberals as a second choice.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I think our present system worked well to install the government most Canadians, (not me of course lol), wanted...that is the most important thing that election rules should enable.


----------



## Charlie (May 20, 2011)

I'm with Elder on this....I much prefer our current system to the coalition mess in Europe or Australia's election-a-month fiasco.

It works. Sometimes my guys rule with under 40%, sometimes the other guys do, but I don't think we get worse governance than we would under a more convoluted system.

I would like more free votes so that individual MPs mattered.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> I much prefer our current system to the coalition mess in Europe or Australia's election-a-month fiasco.


When I've seen Atlanticm provinces results 34 Libs, 0 - all others (even though not small % voted for other parties), I really wanted same result to be in ALL riding and it's possible! So, we would have 338 Libs abd 0 others... it would be really funny ...like in North Korea 

In case of proportional system , you will see that candidates from the list will represent all Canada provinces/territorries , different etnic groups, different religions etc.... Also party would like to attract known , smart people on their list and we'll get smarter Parlament .



> you have to consider that voter behaviour would change (less tactical voting). More people would vote their honest first preference


 Exactly! Also more people will vote... In theei case it's very likely that we gonna have a true Conservative party (like Reform Party)


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Australia does not have monthly elections. They have periodic putsches of leaders because their MPs are more empowered to remove leaders, and unlike Canada, choose replacements (rather than general party membership).

In many ways, FPTP is quite unstable when it results in minorities, because the outcome of elections changes massively with relatively small shifts in support. I also think it would be better if we had Liberals elected from rural Saskatchewan and Alberta and Conservatives elected from downtown Toronto. Parties shouldn't be able to write off parts of the country that are electorally irrelevant to them (either because they are sure wins and sure losses).


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

I just run numbers what will be our Parlament lokk like with proportional system:

Libs 133 seats,
Cons 108
NDP 66
BQ 16
GRN 12!
Others combined 3 seats (so they won't be passing thresshold, so those 3 votes would be spread among first 3 parties)

and what we have now
Libs  184 seats,
Cons 99
NDP 44
BQ 10
GRN 1!
So Green got totally screwed


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

gibor's example is some food for thought...the fact that under a proportional system, a marginal party like Green can have 12 seats, raises the question of what happens if we have extreme left wing or extreme right wing parties.
What is to stop a party like Golden Dawn, or Austria's Freedom Party from taking 5% or 10% (or more) seats in parliament?

I am not saying the Green Party is an extreme left/right party, but proportional representation enables parties with such pockets of support to hold balance of power in parliament.

In the example above, both the BQ and GRN would hold the balance of power since the Libs do not have a majority.
Replace GPC with Golden Dawn or Freedom Party and see the problem...


----------



## Woz (Sep 5, 2013)

I prefer the current system over proportional representation. Since the introduction of a third party, Canada's only had four government's that have received 50% of the popular vote. Mackenzie King in 1940 and 1949, Louis St. Laurent in 1953, and Brian Mulroney in 1984. I think minority government's can be effective, but I wouldn't want to see majorities become a rare event.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

HaroldCrump said:


> gibor's example is some food for thought...the fact that under a proportional system, a marginal party like Green can have 12 seats, raises the question of what happens if we have extreme left wing or extreme right wing parties.
> What is to stop a party like Golden Dawn, or Austria's Freedom Party from taking 5% or 10% (or more) seats in parliament?
> 
> I am not saying the Green Party is an extreme left/right party, but proportional representation enables parties with such pockets of support to hold balance of power in parliament.
> ...


HC, in this case Liberals and NDP would easily to form coalition even w/o BQ and Greens.



> What is to stop a party like Golden Dawn, or Austria's Freedom Party from taking 5% or 10% (or more) seats in parliament?


 Threshold! I don't believe that in Canada such parties even gonna pass threshold. Also, parties/lists that violate specific rules wouldn't be allowed to participate.

Israel is much less peaceful country than Canada for obvious reasons... but Golden Dawn - like party only once passed threshold and got 2 seats in the Knesset (out of 120). It was Kach ... Also, often extremists parties just don't pass registration 



> Kach (Hebrew: כ"ך‎) was a far-right political party in Israel. Founded by Rabbi Meir Kahane in the early 1970s, and following his Jewish nationalist ideology (subsequently dubbed Kahanism), the party entered the Knesset following the 1984 elections after several electoral failures.[1] However, it was barred from participating in the next election in 1988 under the revised Knesset Elections Law banning parties that incited racism. After Kahane's assassination in 1990, the party split, with Kahane Chai (Hebrew: כהנא חי‎, lit. Kahane Lives) breaking away from the main Kach faction. The party was also barred from standing in the 1992 election, and both organisations were banned outright in 1994. Today both groups are considered terrorist organisations by Israel,[2] Canada,[3] the European Union[4] and the United States.[5] The groups are believed to have an overlapping core membership of fewer than 100 people.[6][7]


----------



## Charlie (May 20, 2011)

gibor said:


> When I've seen Atlanticm provinces results 34 Libs, 0 - all others (even though not small % voted for other parties), I really wanted same result to be in ALL riding and it's possible! So, we would have 338 Libs abd 0 others... it would be really funny ...like in North Korea


We've had blowouts before. And they get corrected in subsequent elections. 

It's more of a pragmatic position than a theoretical one. I like our current system much better than what I see in Europe with fringe parties having king making abilities and even more backroom politicking. I'm fine with more power to the fringies I support, but not so much for the other crazies. 

JT had enough support from around the country that, IMO he should govern as a majority. Ready or not! If he's out of touch he'll get the boot next time. I felt the same about Harper last time around. I don't think our system is broken.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> And they get corrected in subsequent elections.





> If he's out of touch he'll get the boot next time.


 but next time will be in 4 years! It's too long.... In the case of coalition he just won't be able to be "out of touch "


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> gibor's example is some food for thought...the fact that under a proportional system, a marginal party like Green can have 12 seats, raises the question of what happens if we have extreme left wing or extreme right wing parties.
> What is to stop a party like Golden Dawn, or Austria's Freedom Party from taking 5% or 10% (or more) seats in parliament?
> 
> I am not saying the Green Party is an extreme left/right party, but proportional representation enables parties with such pockets of support to hold balance of power in parliament.
> ...


Nothing to stop them, but I think the leading party (LPC in this case) would be far more likely to come to an arrangement with the NDP than try to rely on BQ or 'Golden Dawn' far right wing.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

gibor said:


> but next time will be in 4 years! It's too long....


Hate to break this to you, but prepare for 8 yrs. at the very minimum.
CPC is in tatters...with Harper resigning, and seasoned politicians like Peter Mackay and John Baird gone.
We are left with the Tony Clements of the party....

And since you are in Ontario, it is very clear that the Wynne govt. is going nowhere in 2018.
The PCs are a shadow of their former self, and while Patrick Brown is a nice guy, that is all he will ever be.

I believe the corrupt Wynne govt. will be kicked out at some point as it collapses under the weight of its corruption, debt and deficit, but there is no reason to believe Trudeau may not keep going 2+ terms.
He has been handed a balanced budget, low debt to GDP, and a stable financial system.
There is lots of money to spend, lots more to be borrowed and spent....

So, prepare for a minimum of 7 yrs. of Wynne in ON, and 8 years of Trudeau.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> So, prepare for a minimum of 7 yrs. of Wynne in ON, and 8 years of Trudeau.


You may be right... I just meant 4 years in the best case...  As per Wynn ... i don't see Progressive Conservative Party winning election in my lifespan at all 

On Federal level, i just hope JT will introduce proportional election system


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> And since you are in Ontario, it is very clear that the Wynne govt. is going nowhere in 2018.
> The PCs are a shadow of their former self, and while Patrick Brown is a nice guy, that is all he will ever be.


It is unusual for Ontario to support the same party federally and provincially for very long. I think Wynne will have to deliver on some reform & fiscal responsibility to not run into trouble. And really, the PCs really have to try to not lose.



> So, prepare for a minimum of 7 yrs. of Wynne in ON, and 8 years of Trudeau.


If they change the electoral system, a Liberal majority is far from assured in 4 years.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> It is unusual for Ontario to support the same party federally and provincially for very long


Provincially, it has been 12 years and counting.
Per Wikipedia, we'd have to back to the Bill Davis years to find similar term.
I was too young at that time, so don't remember much (or anything) of politics.



> I think Wynne will have to deliver on some reform & fiscal responsibility to not run into trouble


Not at all !
All they have been delivering is multi-billion $ scams, debt, and deficit and it doesn't make any difference.
In fact, the scams and deficits upgraded them from a minority to majority in 2014.

Given the vote banks in ON (teachers' unions, govt. unions, etc.) and the vote distribution (GTA vs. the rest) it is mathematically very hard for anyone else to win any time soon.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HC, I think you're mistaken. Harper won a thumping majority of the seats in Ontario in 2011, and a plurality in 2008. Perhaps to clarify, I meant Ontario usually does not vote strongly for the same party at the federal level as at the provincial level. Ie, Chretien won big in 1993 and in 1995 Harris took won. In 2003 McGuinty was elected and by 2006 Martin's support has weakened substantially and by 2008 Harper had more support.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

andrewf said:


> HC, I think you're mistaken. Harper won a thumping majority of the seats in Ontario in 2011, and a plurality in 2008. Perhaps to clarify, I meant Ontario usually does not vote strongly for the same party at the federal level as at the provincial level. Ie, Chretien won big in 1993 and in 1995 Harris took won. In 2003 McGuinty was elected and by 2006 Martin's support has weakened substantially and by 2008 Harper had more support.


When number of voters from the vote banks in ON (teachers' unions, govt. unions, etc.) will reach critical mass (and we very close to it), no chance any other party can win


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Liberal governments had budget surpluses and paid down the debt.

Conservative governments had budget deficits and added to the debt.

Odd............that both the Liberals and Conservatives ran on campaigns that were both the polar opposite of their past history.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> HC, I think you're mistaken. Harper won a thumping majority of the seats in Ontario in 2011, and a plurality in 2008. Perhaps to clarify, I meant Ontario usually does not vote strongly for the same party at the federal level as at the provincial level. Ie, Chretien won big in 1993 and in 1995 Harris took won. In 2003 McGuinty was elected and by 2006 Martin's support has weakened substantially and by 2008 Harper had more support.


I guess we will see how 2018 provincial elections go.

LPO has been consolidating its traditional vote banks and are now in a very strong position.
It was basically McGuinty's strife with the teachers' union that resulted in the minority govt. in 2013, otherwise that would have been a majority too.

The party resolved the strife by getting rid of MCG, putting a union sympathizer in place (Kathleen Wynne) and giving in to all the demands of the unions, which resulted in the majority govt.

With the consolidation currently underway, LPO will have ~ 20% vote bank assured for 2018.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> It was basically McGuinty's strife with the teachers' union that resulted in the minority govt. in 2013, otherwise that would have been a majority too.


My daughter told us that on election day all teachers were wearing red


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

LPC finished first or second in 302 out of 338 ridings. I expect they will adopt the ranked ballot system. It will seal their dominant position.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

That assumes that no one was voting strategically, which we know not to be true. I think the Liberals would do well under such a system, but I don't think they would necessarily win majority governments very often.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I wouldn't be so sure andrewf!
Trudeau's secret was the 45 and under crowd(ie:the social media generation)
This is by no means a accurate poll but if I looked at my facebook(about 400 people)half 1st time voters might I add! seemed to vote on a few insane mind blowing reasons(this would be a decent poll because the vast majority of people on my fb are not even close to following politics like majority of Canadians)
2 Things were huge with the youth
Weed and how trudeau looks like a movie star lol
I am not kidding!
He kind of hit a celebrity 'tipping' point like Justin Bieber!
I don't know what was in the air in the last couple weeks but this election seemed like nothing but routine
Voting was 'cool' this yr lol(trust me I don't think it generally is?)
I think far more people were not voting on substance and more on how Trudeau sort of had that perfect storm of intangibles in a social media world
it was as if it was the finally of dancing with the stars lol
I haven't been around that long(36 yrs)but I have never seen so much hype around a Canadian politician 
he had the x factor in spades but I don't think it was much from hi platforms 
Trust me I don't have anywhere near the political class on my facebook but something tells me I wasn't alone and most peoples facebook looked like mine ie:the masses got sweep into Trudeau and it caught like wild fire
just m.o


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

andrewf said:


> That assumes that no one was voting strategically, which we know not to be true. I think the Liberals would do well under such a system, but I don't think they would necessarily win majority governments very often.


To clarify, I expect that a ranked ballot system would keep LPC in government for a long, long time. I agree they wouldn't necessarily win majorities. But they would be almost assured of the first place finish, because they are the #2 choice for many CPC and NDP voters. This is what I meant when I said that ranked ballot = LPC dominance.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> To clarify, I expect that a ranked ballot system would keep LPC in government for a long, long time


 Probably . but if majority of Canadians wants it, so be it 

Also, like andrew, I don't think they will get majority, most likely we gonna have coalition with 2-4 parties...Not necessary it always will be NDP...



> He kind of hit a celebrity 'tipping' point like Justin Bieber!


 Ha ha  ... Interesting to see % of youmg females who voted JT


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

It may help the LPC in the short term, in the long term there are effects that may be hard to predict, such as new parties competing for centrist votes but with different angles (room for Greens to be a centrist party with an environmental bent, for instance). It will change the way that parties campaign, too, because parties like the CPC can't afford to scorched-earth 60% of the vote because they only need 39% to get all the marbles.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

GoldStone said:


> To clarify, I expect that a ranked ballot system would keep LPC in government for a long, long time. I agree they wouldn't necessarily win majorities. But they would be almost assured of the first place finish, because they are the #2 choice for many CPC and NDP voters. This is what I meant when I said that ranked ballot = LPC dominance.


Might be, but there are also more fringe parties that may get votes. If voting for a special interest party isn't going to make your vote worthless I'd expect them to get a bit more support.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Might be, but there are also more fringe parties that may get votes. If voting for a special interest party isn't going to make your vote worthless I'd expect them to get a bit more support.


Exactly waht I'm talking about.... Party I always voted in Israel was getting from 2 to 12 seats in 120 seats Knesset... but frequently they were in coalition and were able to change many policies


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

At the end of the day, I think the Liberals will make a few minor changes in things like pre-election government advertising and that will be about it.

Trudeau pledged he will form an all party committee to study the issue and provide some alternatives, but only said he would give them some consideration.

In the past election 68% of eligible voters cast a ballot. Add in all the people in hospitals, nursing homes, away from their riding, out of the country and unable to vote, or who just aren't interested in voting...........and the turnout was very high.

The results were what Canadians desired. There was local representation by local candidates........who perform important duties for their constituents in their offices.

I doubt there is a better system and it appears to be working, as it always has. What difference does it make what % of the vote is enough to be elected ?

No matter what system is used the popular vote isn't going to rise much higher if there are a number of parties or independent candidates running.

What we don't want is a system that devolves in gridlock like the US system, or into chaos like some European systems.

Under our system, the government can make decisions, if we agree with them or not, that keeps the government operating.

There are a lot of items on the new government's agenda, without creating problems and distractions for themselves.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

This one is non negotiable for me. They promised this was the last election under FPTP and if they fail to deliver I will be giving my MP an earful.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

andrewf said:


> As a result, I think the only PR systems with much of a chance in Canada are either Mixed Member Proportional (like Germany, NZ, and others) or Single Transferable Vote (Ireland, Australia's Senate, etc.) since both tie representatives to more local areas. I prefer STV of the two, ...


Let's keep our terminology straight here. Single Transferable Vote (STV), (aka Ranked Ballot; or Preferential Ballot; or Simultaneous Run-Off) is not proportional representation. It produces the compromise candidate where voting in a constituency is divided between 3 or more candidates. So the winner will be "acceptable" to more than 50% of voters, but not necessarily the first choice of 50%. It is an improvement over First-past-the-post. But it is not "proportional". It will not produce Parliaments where the number of representatives of each party are proportional to their share of the popular vote. It will do nothing to give fair representation to small parties such as the Greens. But it is probably the easiest reform to sell and implement in Canada (particularly in a 4-year timeframe). It does not require a great cultural change, or a re-thinking of how governments are formed post-election. (most fully proportional systems end up governed by coalitions) .

But note that BC made 2 failed attempts at implementing this already on a provincial basis.

MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) is a particular form of Proportional Representation that retains individual Constituency representatives, but adds “Party” votes on a national (or provincial if applicable) basis that are used to select candidates from party lists in such a way that the combination of the two is close to a Party’s fraction of the popular vote. New Zealand switched to this; but they have a 10th of our population and a much smaller House. They also had the sense to eliminate their Upper House - but their "States" have no political power - they exist only as administrative districts. So they have no States such as Australia or Provinces such as in Canada wanting an Upper House to balance the "tyranny of the majority" that one can get in the Lower House. 

I think MMP would be superior in the long term, but would be much more difficult system to sell to the electorate. (People are afraid of change.)

*PS. Ignore my comments on STV - I was mistaken about the concept. *


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

STV and ranked ballot are not the same thing. STV generally has multiple representatives elected in a larger constituency. It approximates proportional representation, the more representatives per constituency the closer the result to PR. It means all MPs represent a particular area and independents still have the chance of being elected.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

My apologies. I've reviewed Wikipedia's explanation of STV and I see that I misunderstood it. I also understand now why they had so much trouble trying to get it passed in BC.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I will support whatever the result is. Just about anything is better than FPTP.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I will support whatever the result is. Just about anything is better than FPTP.


Proportional representation, one of the party favourites, is worse, much worse.

Imagine if disagreeing with your party leader meant you got fired?


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Imagine if disagreeing with your party leader meant you got fired?


This happens now and probably has more to do with the 'culture' of the Canadian political landscape rather than the electoral system.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> Imagine if disagreeing with your party leader meant you got fired?


 My previous MP, Mr. Khan, switched from Leberals to Conservatives...so system doesn't matter


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

*Interview with House Leader Dominic LeBlanc on voting reform*

LeBlanc sounded rather lukewarm about reforming the voting system. I think he is signalling that they are prepared to keep FPTP.

I am shocked! shocked! Electoral reform was a key campaign promise.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I will be riding my MP hard on this issue if I get the sense they are backing down. If the Liberals are smart, they would work with the NDP and adopt their position of MMP, possibly using preferential ballot for the riding MP. If Canadians are not happen with a proportional electoral system, the next election can serve as the referendum on the matter.

And for the more cynical, the Liberals should be happy enough with an truly proportional electoral system as it would be hard to imagine any future government holding the reigns of power that does not contain a large part of the current government's voting block. Ie, centrist parties will rule.

On the flip side, we can be reasonably confident that the CPC will be dissatisfied with any system other than FPTP, as they rely on vote splitting to get elected power. Any system that tries to resolve the problem of vote splitting will only make it more difficult for a Conservative government to be elected.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

Liberals won’t hold referendum on voting reform - The Globe and Mail

Quote:

...

Bill Tieleman, a former NDP strategist who led a group that was against a proposed move to a ranked-balloting system in British Columbia when it was the subject of two referendums in that province, said he is “extremely disappointed” at Mr. LeBlanc’s refusal to test public opinion in a vote.

“There have been four votes in three provinces and every one has [been] clearly rejected,” Mr. Tieleman said.

It would be “bad enough,” if the Liberals changed the federal electoral system, indefinitely, without a referendum, Mr. Tieleman said. But “if they changed it to a system where you have a ranked ballot that would appear to give them dozens and dozens more seats – a system that actually favours the Liberal Party, as well – it would be scandalous.”

...

Wilfred Day, a lawyer who is a member of the national council of Fair Vote Canada, which promotes electoral reform, says the Liberals won a majority on a promise to make every vote count and that means they already have a mandate to bring in proportional representation.

...

Abandoning proportional representation and moving instead to a ranked ballot without a referendum is “definitely not” something that Fair Vote Canada would support, Mr. Day said. But he said he is not worried that that is even a possibility.

“I don’t think the Liberals would dare pull a bait and switch and bring in the ranked ballot, which does nothing except help the Liberal Party,” Mr. Day said. “It doesn’t fulfill the promise to make every vote count.”


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

can anyone doubt for a moment that trudeau and everyone in the country who is currently infatuated by the Liberal party would jumping up and down and screaming "anti-democratic !!!" at the top of their lungs if any other party tried to do this

and people i know wonder why i am so cynical about politicians


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

It would depend on what system they implemented. If they put in place a proportional system, it is inherently self-correcting, since the next election could function as a referendum on whatever issues voters feel are important, including the electoral system.

It's much different than parties unilaterally changing the party funding system, like the Conservatives did with the per vote subsidy, and gearing the system to favour their model of fund-raising, for incredibly cynical reasons (governments still comprise ~75% of party funding with all the tax credits and spending reimbursements factored in).


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

Ranked ballot is not self-correcting. Liberals are the second choice for most Conservative and NDP voters. That only changes when Libs do something off-the-charts awful, like Adscam.

If Liberals use their majority to push through ranked ballot, that would be just as cynical as self-serving as what Conservatives did re: the party funding.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

how parties are funded is a complex system that requires constant tweaking in response to how the system is gamed or not gamed (and yes, can be and often is a political football)

how we elect, allocate and apportion our representatives is another matter altogether and is the bedrock of the system, if this doesn't merit a referendum i don't know what does

i am nominally a pc supporter (though on most social issues i am miles apart) and i am reasonably certain i would be calling foul if emperor harper tried to pull the same stunt as the Reds are now apparently about to do


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

GoldStone, I specified proportional, so my comment did not apply to ranked ballot. And I don't think everyone is properly accounting for the impact that a change in the system will have on the party landscape. I don't think it goes without saying that Liberals would be the dominant political party for the indefinite future. I would expect the other parties to adapt their strategies to the new rules of the game. For instance, the conservatives will have to abandon their minimal viable electorate strategy--that is, wedging off just enough people to get elected and alienating everyone else. The Green Party would see a huge increase in support (after May gets turfed). A lot of people who voted Liberal strategically in 2015 election will vote their true first preference and put Liberal (or other centrist party) as a lower preference. You would probably see a new Reform-esque party form and get at least a few seats in the rural parts of the Prairies. Similarly with a less watered down socialist/labour party than the NDP.

fatcat, on the contrary, had Harper announced the Conservatives were implementing a PR system after having run on it as part of their manifesto, I would be pretty pleased. I was also pleased with the corporate income tax cuts, and expressed that support whether it was the Liberals or the Conservatives implementing them.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I don't think it goes without saying that Liberals would be the dominant political party for the indefinite future.


61% of Canadian voters disagree with you.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

andrewf, let's timestamp this.

I say:

If Liberals change the system to ranked ballot, they will become even more dominant than they already are.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think that is fair. But it's not as simple as looking at the polling data from the 2015 election to say that the Liberals would win 70% of the seats in the HoC. Voters will change their strategies. Parties will change their strategies. The outcome is not entirely predictable.

On the other hand, I hope that this point is moot because the government implements another system other than ranked ballot. I think MMP is a decent compromise. I think my personal preference would be STV, but people complain about it being complex.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

> For instance, the conservatives will have to abandon their minimal viable electorate strategy--that is, wedging off just enough people to get elected and alienating everyone else.


 huh ? ... the notion that is a conservative "minimal viable electorate strategy" is baloney ... the Liberals got a lower percentage of the vote (in 2015) than the pc did (in 2011) so that mean that that particular election strategy is also a Liberal strategy ... lets be fair


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Incorrect. Liberals had a lot of second choice support out there as well. CPC had very little second-choice support, and a very high percentage of hostile voters.

The recent polling bears this out. The Liberals have ~50% support, and JT has >50% favourable ratings. 

From threehundredeight.com:


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

forget the polls ... forget the second choice and especially forget the hostile voters who can be hostile until their teeth start to chatter from grimacing

pmjt got elected in 2015 with a lower percentage (39.50) of voters than harper did in 2011 (39.62) ... period full stop

that's all the matters ... he employed the same "strategy" (he targeted his ridings and his groups and his base just like harper) ... we don't elect governments by "second choices" or perceived "hostility"

trudeau got elected in exactly the same way that harpers opponents never stopped talking about as though it were the _le grand deluge
_


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

If the election were held a week later, Trudeau would likely have gotten something in the mid 40's.

You can't just argue "ignore all the evidence I find inconvenient, my point stands". You could also argue that Trudeau got far more votes in 2015 than Harper in 2011 because turnout was up.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

fatcat said:


> forget the polls ... forget the second choice and especially forget the hostile voters who can be hostile until their teeth start to chatter from grimacing
> 
> pmjt got elected in 2015 with a lower percentage (39.50) of voters than harper did in 2011 (39.62) ... period full stop
> 
> ...


Well, if you look at vote totals, the Liberals had 6.9 million votes which was the highest amount for any party in the previous four elections. The Conservatives had 5.6 million which is on par on what they historically get. Given the increased turnout of voters, the Liberals were able to expand their voting base and not only just pulling votes from the NDP or Conservatives.

Now the base for the Liberals is fairly fickle whereas the one for the Conservatives is fairly stable, so the Conservatives can count on those votes. But unless they plan on expanding their base, they have to count on low voter turnout to win elections and have a higher percentage of the popular vote.

So really, it isn't the core Conservatives who aren't voting, their problem is that other people decided to vote this time around.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The voter makeup is probably changing as well. The so called Millennials now outnumber the Baby Boomers, and they are more progressive politically.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

bgc_fan said:


> Well, if you look at vote totals, the Liberals had 6.9 million votes which was the highest amount for any party in the previous four elections. The Conservatives had 5.6 million which is on par on what they historically get. Given the increased turnout of voters, the Liberals were able to expand their voting base and not only just pulling votes from the NDP or Conservatives.
> 
> Now the base for the Liberals is fairly fickle whereas the one for the Conservatives is fairly stable, so the Conservatives can count on those votes. But unless they plan on expanding their base, they have to count on low voter turnout to win elections and have a higher percentage of the popular vote.
> 
> So really, it isn't the core Conservatives who aren't voting, their problem is that other people decided to vote this time around.


i agree that the younger demographics are perhaps more politically "progressive" but politics is fluid and voter attitudes can change according to all kinds of factors

the pc are a lot like the gop down south, they depend on a solid hard core group that must turn out in big numbers regularly

the fact that the Liberals have expanded their base doesn't mean much, bases can shrink

also, don't forget that though the millennials are more liberal, many of the immigrants being brought into the country are not at all liberal, if the pc can craft a strategy on social issues, they might well start to attract more immigrants (they certainly have people of colour in the party now)

unlike in the usa where the right is stupid and addled by their own beliefs, i don't think this is true of the pc who are smarter and see the need already to expand their appeal, maybe on an economic front because we are going to need to find ways to create jobs and raise tax revenue if resources continue to falter


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

fatcat said:


> the pc are a lot like the gop down south, they depend on a solid hard core group that must turn out in big numbers regularly
> 
> the fact that the Liberals have expanded their base doesn't mean much, bases can shrink


Yes and that is why I said the Liberal base is fickle. The Conservatives can count on the 5+ million votes provided by their base, but it may not always be enough to win the election. In some circumstances, it is enough for a majority like in 2011, but in other cases, like the last election, it is good for second place.


> also, don't forget that though the millennials are more liberal, many of the immigrants being brought into the country are not at all liberal, if the pc can craft a strategy on social issues, they might well start to attract more immigrants (they certainly have people of colour in the party now)


It is difficult to generalize that all immigrants will trend to Conservatives. For example, if some immigrated to Canada for the liberal views on LGBT or things like same sex marriage, I find it unlikely to blindly support the Conservatives. The whole niqab optics is another thing. Maybe most immigrants won't care, but the fact that the Conservatives made a big issue out of it might make some immigrants think that as long as you think like the Conservatives, you are fine. But the minute you appear different, then they don't seem to be very tolerant.


> unlike in the usa where the right is stupid and addled by their own beliefs, i don't think this is true of the pc who are smarter and see the need already to expand their appeal, maybe on an economic front because we are going to need to find ways to create jobs and raise tax revenue if resources continue to falter


You see this is where I disagree. The Conservatives had a majority mandate for 4 years and did diddly squat to encourage any sort of innovation outside of the oil sands. Why should I believe that they have a plan to do anything?


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

bgc_fan said:


> Yes and that is why I said the Liberal base is fickle. The Conservatives can count on the 5+ million votes provided by their base, but it may not always be enough to win the election. In some circumstances, it is enough for a majority like in 2011, but in other cases, like the last election, it is good for second place.
> 
> 
> It is difficult to generalize that all immigrants will trend to Conservatives. For example, if some immigrated to Canada for the liberal views on LGBT or things like same sex marriage, I find it unlikely to blindly support the Conservatives. The whole niqab optics is another thing. Maybe most immigrants won't care, but the fact that the Conservatives made a big issue out of it might make some immigrants think that as long as you think like the Conservatives, you are fine. But the minute you appear different, then they don't seem to be very tolerant.
> ...


the Liberals have plenty of immigrants, by no means are all immigrants conservative but many are and could provide part of the pc base going foward

as far as the niqab, i think many if not most immigrants probably were sympathetic to the conservatives position for a simple reason, it makes most of us uncomfortable to live around people who walk around with a sack on their head, it's weird and people don't like it ... it certainly is a matter of private personal expression and should be protected but niqab-people should not be surprised when they constantly run into problems

i agree with you on the conservatives not doing enough to move us off the oil-sands but just what exactly that that would be that will be viable and profitable in short order, i don't know ... it takes a long time to build new industries

i am happy to phase out resources over a long time period as we phase in newer less polluting alternatives, not to mention the longer we hold this stuff in the ground the more valuable much of it becomes

charlie munger believes that this is what we should be doing, holding on to our oil while others pump theirs


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> t is difficult to generalize that all immigrants will trend to Conservatives. For example, if some immigrated to Canada for the liberal views on LGBT or things like same sex marriage, I find it unlikely to blindly support the Conservatives.


 I very doubt that many immigrants immigrated here "for the liberal views on LGBT or things like same sex marriage" ... as per official statistics majority of immigrants are coming from Philippines, India, China and Pakistan and they are strictly against gays and other sex-minorities... 
imho, majority of immigrants will be supporting Conservatives (except those who came from Arab countries), majority of refugees will support Liberals as they want welfare ... money and benefits are more important for them than all those gay-rights etc., even though they are very negative toward them....

btw, if we switch to popular vote elections, I expect to see some ethnic parties esp from immigrants from India, China and Arab countries.

P.S. I know probably more than hundred immigrants from former CCCP and Israel...our extended family, friends, random people whom we meet on vacation around the world and talk politics... 90% support Conservatives.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

fatcat said:


> the Liberals have plenty of immigrants, by no means are all immigrants conservative but many are and could provide part of the pc base going foward


The main point that I wanted to make is that you can't generalize all immigrants as a homogeneous block. We can't even do that within Canada. The typical Albertan is probably quite different from the typical Quebecois.
Take a look at the election results: Ridings with most immigrants voted Liberal by a landslide 
In the previous election (2011), the Conservatives won most of the ridings, but that changed. There could be a number of reasons for that, but I'd say that being an immigrant is less of a factor than the actual platform.



fatcat said:


> it certainly is a matter of private personal expression and should be protected but niqab-people should not be surprised when they constantly run into problems


I don't think that being verbally abused with the implicit sanction of the government is a problem that they should have to encounter. I mean, what was the point of saying that they'll ban all niqabs from federal workers? The percentage of workers who wear the niqab is probably 0%



fatcat said:


> i agree with you on the conservatives not doing enough to move us off the oil-sands but just what exactly that that would be that will be viable and profitable in short order, i don't know ... it takes a long time to build new industries


Here's the problem, the Conservatives had no patience for this sort of thing. That's why they reduced funding for basic science research and concentrated on applied research. Basically applied research is subsidizing existing industries while basic research has the potential to generate new industries and technologies. You may not like the CBC, but this article points out the advantage of basic research. Scientists urge government to fund basic research. Likewise, you may not like the Huffington Post, but there is an article about changes in NSERC funding focus Science Cuts: Ottawa Views Pure Science As 'Cash Cow,' Critics Say.

The fact is, the Conservatives were so focused on the oil sands, they spent $24M on an ad campaign for Keystone pipeline in a little over a year, but planned on spending only $30M over three years to promote Canadian tourism in the US. That is not an indication of a competent government that looks to the future.



fatcat said:


> charlie munger believes that this is what we should be doing, holding on to our oil while others pump theirs


From a purely economic viewpoint, that would be the best idea. After all, extraction from the oil sands is quite a bit more expensive than just drilling. Instead, there was a rush to try to get it out as quick as possible despite the costs of production.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

bgc_fan said:


> The main point that I wanted to make is that you can't generalize all immigrants as a homogeneous block. We can't even do that within Canada. The typical Albertan is probably quite different from the typical Quebecois.
> Take a look at the election results: Ridings with most immigrants voted Liberal by a landslide
> In the previous election (2011), the Conservatives won most of the ridings, but that changed. There could be a number of reasons for that, but I'd say that being an immigrant is less of a factor than the actual platform.
> 
> ...


all fair points ... to the second, i don't think anyone should be abused for how they dress but i also don't believe that anyone should be delivering a government service wearing a hood over their face ...even if the number is zero and likely to stay that way, i'm glad the pc put people on notice ... 

on science funding, i get your point (and yes, i am suspicious of huffpo and cbc both of whom have well known biases) we should be doing both, applied and basic ...as you know basic science costs money and delivers results that often take a long time to come to fruition and in the meantime we need jobs but yes, we should do as much of both as we can afford ... when it comes to jobs i am a short term thinker, societies without jobs are virtually always in real trouble

yes, maybe the pc did roll the dice too often on the oil-sands and they (and we) have now paid the price for it, that's how democracy should work and did work ... nevertheless, i am sympathetic to their thinking, we have a product that the world wants and will pay well for it ... until they don't want it and won't pay well for it as we are seeing now


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

Paul Wells wrote an article in Maclean's, and it's a good one!

The quagmire of electoral reform and the hunt for legitimacy


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

GoldStone said:


> Paul Wells wrote an article in Maclean's, and it's a good one!
> 
> The quagmire of electoral reform and the hunt for legitimacy


good article and i get his points, the ndp know they will likely always remain a minority party and so want a proportional system that might allow their minority status to have a greater input in legislation ... the liberals are a quasi-centrist party and so they want ranked ballots

he is correct, whatever system we choose should have as much support as possible, a referendum isn't a guarantee that reform will garner wide public support but it really should be done ... if such wholesale change to how we elect our representatives doesn't merit a referendum, what does ?

we had one in bc regarding this exact topic and it required a super-majority and we damn near got it

i lived in washington state for years and so have long experience with referendums which are both good and bad

they are trying one in california where legislators will be required to wear the logos of their ten largest campaign contributors on their clothing !!


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

fatcat said:


> they are trying one in california where legislators will be required to wear the logos of their ten largest campaign contributors on their clothing !![/URL]


Hilarious! I am all for it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I doubt a referendum would end the debate, if the election reform that was chosen put one of the parties at a disadvantage.

The debate would continue anyways.

Best leave well enough alone. Trudeau promised election reform and he can make some changes to advertising and funding, and then tell Canadians that upon due consideration FPTP remains the best option and they will not be changing it.

A few people will care but most won't as it isn't a high priority for them. In fact, I think most Canadians don't think about it at all.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

sags said:


> I doubt a referendum would end the debate, if the election reform that was chosen put one of the parties at a disadvantage.
> 
> The debate would continue anyways.
> 
> ...


i am open to the idea and voted for it in bc but i agree, the current system works well enough as we just saw amply demonstrated ... smaller, more fringe parties (like the ndp :biggrin are always the ones pushing for electoral reform but the electorate is mostly lazy and mostly happy with a relatively broad centre that swings gently from left centre to right centre ... 

trudeau is in a pickle because he was pretty clear about reform so now he has to do the thing that makes us hate politicians, he has to open up his weasel-word thesaurus and try to sell non-change as though it were actually change


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

Do Liberals want electoral reform that works — or reform that works for Liberals?
http://ipolitics.ca/2016/01/02/do-l...that-works-or-reform-that-works-for-liberals/


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

GoldStone said:


> Do Liberals want electoral reform that works — or reform that works for Liberals?
> http://ipolitics.ca/2016/01/02/do-l...that-works-or-reform-that-works-for-liberals/


another excellent article ... i am of two minds, i think the current system works well enough (in the absence of something we think would clearly work better) but i also see the advantages of changing the system to one where voters feel more "empowered"

i tend to like the ranked ballot more than proportional representation because i worry about the chaos of a country with 10 political parties and endless coalition governments

if the pc were in power and were forced to do electoral reform, what system would they bring in to benefit them ?

we just had an election that demonstrated how well first-past-the-post works to bring about change ... it is a conundrum where no solution won't have problems


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

I haven't made up my mind on whether we should keep the current system, or change it to some form of PR.

I'm definitely against the ranked ballot. It benefits the Liberals too much.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

If you are worried about too many small niche parties, I would suggest a high minimum support threshold to earn seats in the House. Say 7.5% popular support.

I like STV because even there, it is very unlikely for a party to win many seats unless they can get a decent amount of support in a local area. In 4 member districts, a party needs 20% support to get a candidate elected.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I will also note that people should not be so afraid of minority governments. The Canadian experience of them is only so mixed because FPTP yields incredibly unstable outcomes. Shift a couple points of popular support and the outcome of an election can change wildly. With a proportional system, the incentive for parties to roll the dice and go to an election is much reduced. It is only worth calling an election early if there has been a major shift in popular support.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

I do not mind minority Governments. They can be very effective.

I think the bigger issue is increasing voter turnout at all levels. Where we live turnout in municipal elections and federal by-elections can, and has been as low as 30 percent.


----------



## CPA Candidate (Dec 15, 2013)

I'm in favor of the current system. Proportional representation leads to endless gridlock and too many parties, some half baked. Do will really want a system where the Green Party has 3-5% of the seats? A lot of people have ideas, many are not worth listening to. You cannot accommodate all ideas, opinions and positions nor should you try. Proportional representation just gives the wingnuts on both sides of the spectrum too much say and the ability to be a swing vote.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

That's not terribly democratic. And if that is the view you hold, I think ranked ballots make more sense to that end than FPTP.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

i'm less worried about "representative" government and much more concerned about honest government

the canada that i have watched both up close and from a distance seems to regularly enact sweeping change in it's democracy and isn't afraid to throw any party out that misbehaves, that is all to the good and we have mostly clean and open government (but we can do a lot more by way of access to information about government business)

the fact that it isn't "democratic" and needs to be fixed strikes me as a solution in search of a problem in some ways

i am afraid that i am not alone in my thinking and many of us think like cpa candidate, the system isn't perfect but it seems to work which is why reform will be so difficult especially if it goes to a referendum

frankly andrew, most of the pressure for this reform (you being an exception i think) comes from small parties on the left like the greens and ndp who simply cannot sell their ideas to the electorate

most of the rest of us in the broad center are happy with the current system ... no, maybe not happy but perhaps not unhappy


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

imo electoral reform is way overdue, and the Liberals did promise it in their election platform.
There may be a better way than ranked ballot, but I'd take that over the current system any day.

If there is a better system than ranked ballot that will work here, I would like to think the parties can work together to find it, but that could just be wishful thinking on my part; I still expect more from the current gov't that what we've seen in the past.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

One of the problems with our current system is that there is already too much power in the hands of party leadership. At it's worst, elected MPs of the governing party are subordinated to the kids in short pants in the Prime Minister's Office. Proportional Representation will only make that worse because individual MPs will serve at the pleasure of the party apparatus. For that reason, I do not support Proportional Representation.

ETA: 
Ranked ballots may be OK if it encourages people to vote for their first choice. It will be perceived as an attempt by the Liberals to entrench themselves in government so it is unlikely to succeed. 

I used to be a member of the Liberal Party and have participated in their internal leadership votes. Their quota based voting system was ridiculous. I therefore have no confidence in the Liberals to implement electoral reform. - and I say that as somebody who voted Liberal.


----------

