First Past the Post - Page 2

fitzgibbon · 7th December 2012, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by Horatius

And that right there is the mindset that bothered me. If you're going to complain about how many electoral/riding seats you're "entitled" to, you might as well scrap FPTP entirely, and just have a PR system.

As it is, it looks like people trying to sneak a PR system in, rather than addressing the issue forthrightly.

Again, why not a preferential ballot? That takes care of the Achilles Heal of FPTP and guarantees that the elected representative of a particular riding is as close to acceptable to the wishes of the majority of the electorate that voted plus it maintains the strength of local representation.

Fitz

dudalb · 7th December 2012, 12:57 PM

The main problem I have with PR is it gives too much power to the Political Party Insiders.Almost impossible for a newcomer to break in and challenge the powers that be in a party through the a primary.

Tsukasa Buddha · 7th December 2012, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

The main problem I have with PR is it gives too much power to the Political Party Insiders.Almost impossible for a newcomer to break in and challenge the powers that be in a party through the a primary.

Could you elaborate? The only PR systems I know that effects primaries are the ones that have a sort of open ballot that does away with them entirely (these are sort of oddball). Or are you talking about List members?

We should note that the UK has strongly centralised parties compared to the US and they are FPTP. There are many other factors at play. Actually, my State is FPTP and I think it helps keep the Democratic Machine in power. But that is another story

.

Horatius · 7th December 2012, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by fitzgibbon

Again, why not a preferential ballot? That takes care of the Achilles Heal of FPTP and guarantees that the elected representative of a particular riding is as close to acceptable to the wishes of the majority of the electorate that voted plus it maintains the strength of local representation.

Fitz

Well, that's another problem with how they went about it. If you're going to muck about with changing the electoral system, you really need to make an effort to get people involved, and consider all the possible systems. This referendum seemed to come out of nowhere, with only one option for the new system. It wasn't clear who it was who decided that this MMP system was the only other choice we'd have, and why they chose it.

Blindsiding the electorate really isn't the way to go about fixing things.

fitzgibbon · 7th December 2012, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Horatius

Blindsiding the electorate really isn't the way to go about fixing things.

Oh, I'm sure that some of the elderly in Mississauga South might consider themselves as having been 'blindsided' after decades of having done it the other way. But I'm sure that most other people would recognise its value. But as I say, I would think its adoption unlikely by whatever party is in power simply because a variation from what brought them to power would be fooling with electoral juju

Fitz

PhantomWolf · 7th December 2012, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Horatius

Well, that's another problem with how they went about it. If you're going to muck about with changing the electoral system, you really need to make an effort to get people involved, and consider all the possible systems. This referendum seemed to come out of nowhere, with only one option for the new system. It wasn't clear who it was who decided that this MMP system was the only other choice we'd have, and why they chose it.

Blindsiding the electorate really isn't the way to go about fixing things.

This is very true, when we changed there was a lot of frustration with the FPTP system as while many people were turning to vote for third parties, they weren't getting in and instead we had just been through three terms were Governments held majorities in the house but had way less than 50% (if I recall right about 35-40%) of the vote, and then proceeded to ram through things that the majority of the country opposed.

We had two referendums. The first, held on 19th September, 1992, asked a) did we want to change, and b) if we were to change, which system we would prefer to change too, and then a second. While only 55% of the country voted (referendum outside of elections tend to have low turnout) 85% of those that did (including me) said change, and the system that won that was MMP, which got 70% of the vote.

Previous to that there had been a lot of advertising and explanation of the systems, though some supporters of non-MMP systems felt that MMP had been given an unfair advantage by several lobby groups.

The second referendum was held at the same time as the 1993 election, so garnered a greater turnout, 85% of voters, and it asked for a straight preference between FPTP and MMP. MMP won 54% to 46%.

This was confirmed in an follow up referendum last year at our 2011 elections. Again there were two questions, should we retain MMP, and if not, which system would you rather have, This time (though voter turnout was lower) MMP gained 57.7% of the vote to retain, though FPTP was the favoured of the alternative systems (it got 46%.)

Again there was a lot of advertising, pamphlets, and even a website to help explain how they all worked.

For more info....

http://www.elections.org.nz/voting/mmp/history-mmp.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zea...ferendum,_2011

Captain.Sassy · 8th December 2012, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by fitzgibbon

Again, why not a preferential ballot? That takes care of the Achilles Heal of FPTP and guarantees that the elected representative of a particular riding is as close to acceptable to the wishes of the majority of the electorate that voted plus it maintains the strength of local representation.

For me, the issue is still that geographically dispersed ideas / philosophies / ideologies are underrepresented relative to geographically concentrated ones. So for example the Greens would still have a heck of a hard time under preferential balloting, despite being the top choice of some 10% of Canadians.

Captain.Sassy · 8th December 2012, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by dudalb

The main problem I have with PR is it gives too much power to the Political Party Insiders.Almost impossible for a newcomer to break in and challenge the powers that be in a party through the a primary.

I don't know how FPTP gives newcomers any advantage in challenging the party establishment. This is more a reflection of how parties go about appointing candidates.

Regardless of internal party dynamics, under PR it is comparatively easy for newcomers to start a new party and achieve some electoral success if their message resonates with the public.

Captain.Sassy · 8th December 2012, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by Horatius

Well, that's another problem with how they went about it. If you're going to muck about with changing the electoral system, you really need to make an effort to get people involved, and consider all the possible systems. This referendum seemed to come out of nowhere, with only one option for the new system. It wasn't clear who it was who decided that this MMP system was the only other choice we'd have, and why they chose it.

Blindsiding the electorate really isn't the way to go about fixing things.

Actually there was a whole commission of individuals selected from the public who did months of expert consultations and engaged in a very open dialogue with the public. There were numerous town hall meetings and anyone could submit their idea on how best (if at all) to reform the electoral system. These submissions were all published.

Maybe there wasn't enough done to advertise that the process was happening, but there was definitely a very exhaustive and open process in place.

Captain.Sassy · 8th December 2012, 06:51 AM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

three terms were Governments held majorities in the house but had way less than 50% (if I recall right about 35-40%) of the vote, and then proceeded to ram through things that the majority of the country opposed.

Sounds a lot like Canada!

:P

gumboot · 9th December 2012, 03:56 PM

Personally, I think the main problem with all of our current democracies is the presence of formal political parties. They should be banned.

fitzgibbon · 9th December 2012, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by gumboot

Personally, I think the main problem with all of our current democracies is the presence of formal political parties. They should be banned.

What? And put all those lawyers back into circulation? Have you not considered what that amount of competition would do to billing rates? Will you not think of the children's private school and tutors?

Fitz

Horatius · 10th December 2012, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Captain.Sassy

Maybe there wasn't enough done to advertise that the process was happening, but there was definitely a very exhaustive and open process in place.

An exhaustive and open process that virtually no one knows about isn't very useful.

dudalb · 10th December 2012, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by gumboot

Personally, I think the main problem with all of our current democracies is the presence of formal political parties. They should be banned.

Good luck with that. Ban Political parties, you would have political clubs, associations, societies that would be parties in all but name.

gumboot · 11th December 2012, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Good luck with that. Ban Political parties, you would have political clubs, associations, societies that would be parties in all but name.

That's fine. I would have no issue with informal associations. The point would be they wouldn't be able to promote or advertise associations during electioneering. An MP would represent their constituents, and if they sided with the wrong voting bloc on the wrong issue they would be voted out.

Captain.Sassy · 11th December 2012, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by gumboot

That's fine. I would have no issue with informal associations. The point would be they wouldn't be able to promote or advertise associations during electioneering. An MP would represent their constituents, and if they sided with the wrong voting bloc on the wrong issue they would be voted out.

First, I've never understood the antipathy to organized political parties. It's an easy way to cast a vote for a basket of political positions that most closely resemble your own.

Secondly, if you elect MPs using FPTP, even without political parties, you still have a good chance of getting 'represented' by someone who doesn't represent you at all, just like how MPs from parties opposed by most of their constituents are often elected by pluralities today.

7th December 2012, 12:52 PM	#41
fitzgibbon Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Just west of the centre of the universe Posts: 2,537	Originally Posted by Horatius And that right there is the mindset that bothered me. If you're going to complain about how many electoral/riding seats you're "entitled" to, you might as well scrap FPTP entirely, and just have a PR system. As it is, it looks like people trying to sneak a PR system in, rather than addressing the issue forthrightly. Again, why not a preferential ballot? That takes care of the Achilles Heal of FPTP and guarantees that the elected representative of a particular riding is as close to acceptable to the wishes of the majority of the electorate that voted plus it maintains the strength of local representation. Fitz
	__________________ "Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God!" Howard Beale, "Network"

7th December 2012, 01:39 PM	#43
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 9,892	Originally Posted by dudalb The main problem I have with PR is it gives too much power to the Political Party Insiders.Almost impossible for a newcomer to break in and challenge the powers that be in a party through the a primary. Could you elaborate? The only PR systems I know that effects primaries are the ones that have a sort of open ballot that does away with them entirely (these are sort of oddball). Or are you talking about List members? We should note that the UK has strongly centralised parties compared to the US and they are FPTP. There are many other factors at play. Actually, my State is FPTP and I think it helps keep the Democratic Machine in power. But that is another story .
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

7th December 2012, 01:53 PM	#44
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,885	Originally Posted by fitzgibbon Again, why not a preferential ballot? That takes care of the Achilles Heal of FPTP and guarantees that the elected representative of a particular riding is as close to acceptable to the wishes of the majority of the electorate that voted plus it maintains the strength of local representation. Fitz Well, that's another problem with how they went about it. If you're going to muck about with changing the electoral system, you really need to make an effort to get people involved, and consider all the possible systems. This referendum seemed to come out of nowhere, with only one option for the new system. It wasn't clear who it was who decided that this MMP system was the only other choice we'd have, and why they chose it. Blindsiding the electorate really isn't the way to go about fixing things.
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

7th December 2012, 02:24 PM	#45
fitzgibbon Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Just west of the centre of the universe Posts: 2,537	Originally Posted by Horatius Blindsiding the electorate really isn't the way to go about fixing things. Oh, I'm sure that some of the elderly in Mississauga South might consider themselves as having been 'blindsided' after decades of having done it the other way. But I'm sure that most other people would recognise its value. But as I say, I would think its adoption unlikely by whatever party is in power simply because a variation from what brought them to power would be fooling with electoral juju Fitz
	__________________ "Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God!" Howard Beale, "Network"

7th December 2012, 02:44 PM	#46
PhantomWolf Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 9,893	Originally Posted by Horatius Well, that's another problem with how they went about it. If you're going to muck about with changing the electoral system, you really need to make an effort to get people involved, and consider all the possible systems. This referendum seemed to come out of nowhere, with only one option for the new system. It wasn't clear who it was who decided that this MMP system was the only other choice we'd have, and why they chose it. Blindsiding the electorate really isn't the way to go about fixing things. This is very true, when we changed there was a lot of frustration with the FPTP system as while many people were turning to vote for third parties, they weren't getting in and instead we had just been through three terms were Governments held majorities in the house but had way less than 50% (if I recall right about 35-40%) of the vote, and then proceeded to ram through things that the majority of the country opposed. We had two referendums. The first, held on 19th September, 1992, asked a) did we want to change, and b) if we were to change, which system we would prefer to change too, and then a second. While only 55% of the country voted (referendum outside of elections tend to have low turnout) 85% of those that did (including me) said change, and the system that won that was MMP, which got 70% of the vote. Previous to that there had been a lot of advertising and explanation of the systems, though some supporters of non-MMP systems felt that MMP had been given an unfair advantage by several lobby groups. The second referendum was held at the same time as the 1993 election, so garnered a greater turnout, 85% of voters, and it asked for a straight preference between FPTP and MMP. MMP won 54% to 46%. This was confirmed in an follow up referendum last year at our 2011 elections. Again there were two questions, should we retain MMP, and if not, which system would you rather have, This time (though voter turnout was lower) MMP gained 57.7% of the vote to retain, though FPTP was the favoured of the alternative systems (it got 46%.) Again there was a lot of advertising, pamphlets, and even a website to help explain how they all worked. For more info.... http://www.elections.org.nz/voting/mmp/history-mmp.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zea...ferendum,_2011
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics.

7th December 2012, 12:57 PM	#42
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,781	The main problem I have with PR is it gives too much power to the Political Party Insiders.Almost impossible for a newcomer to break in and challenge the powers that be in a party through the a primary.

8th December 2012, 06:30 AM	#47
Captain.Sassy Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,180	Originally Posted by fitzgibbon Again, why not a preferential ballot? That takes care of the Achilles Heal of FPTP and guarantees that the elected representative of a particular riding is as close to acceptable to the wishes of the majority of the electorate that voted plus it maintains the strength of local representation. For me, the issue is still that geographically dispersed ideas / philosophies / ideologies are underrepresented relative to geographically concentrated ones. So for example the Greens would still have a heck of a hard time under preferential balloting, despite being the top choice of some 10% of Canadians.
	__________________ Evolution a poem As luck would have it, people.

8th December 2012, 06:36 AM	#48
Captain.Sassy Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,180	Originally Posted by dudalb The main problem I have with PR is it gives too much power to the Political Party Insiders.Almost impossible for a newcomer to break in and challenge the powers that be in a party through the a primary. I don't know how FPTP gives newcomers any advantage in challenging the party establishment. This is more a reflection of how parties go about appointing candidates. Regardless of internal party dynamics, under PR it is comparatively easy for newcomers to start a new party and achieve some electoral success if their message resonates with the public.
	__________________ Evolution a poem As luck would have it, people.

8th December 2012, 06:42 AM	#49
Captain.Sassy Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,180	Originally Posted by Horatius Well, that's another problem with how they went about it. If you're going to muck about with changing the electoral system, you really need to make an effort to get people involved, and consider all the possible systems. This referendum seemed to come out of nowhere, with only one option for the new system. It wasn't clear who it was who decided that this MMP system was the only other choice we'd have, and why they chose it. Blindsiding the electorate really isn't the way to go about fixing things. Actually there was a whole commission of individuals selected from the public who did months of expert consultations and engaged in a very open dialogue with the public. There were numerous town hall meetings and anyone could submit their idea on how best (if at all) to reform the electoral system. These submissions were all published. Maybe there wasn't enough done to advertise that the process was happening, but there was definitely a very exhaustive and open process in place.
	__________________ Evolution a poem As luck would have it, people.

8th December 2012, 06:51 AM	#50
Captain.Sassy Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,180	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf three terms were Governments held majorities in the house but had way less than 50% (if I recall right about 35-40%) of the vote, and then proceeded to ram through things that the majority of the country opposed. Sounds a lot like Canada! :P
	__________________ Evolution a poem As luck would have it, people.

9th December 2012, 03:56 PM	#51
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,105	Personally, I think the main problem with all of our current democracies is the presence of formal political parties. They should be banned.
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

9th December 2012, 07:33 PM	#52
fitzgibbon Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Just west of the centre of the universe Posts: 2,537	Originally Posted by gumboot Personally, I think the main problem with all of our current democracies is the presence of formal political parties. They should be banned. What? And put all those lawyers back into circulation? Have you not considered what that amount of competition would do to billing rates? Will you not think of the children's private school and tutors? Fitz
	__________________ "Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God!" Howard Beale, "Network"

10th December 2012, 10:36 AM	#53
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,885	Originally Posted by Captain.Sassy Maybe there wasn't enough done to advertise that the process was happening, but there was definitely a very exhaustive and open process in place. An exhaustive and open process that virtually no one knows about isn't very useful.
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

10th December 2012, 01:29 PM	#54
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,781	Originally Posted by gumboot Personally, I think the main problem with all of our current democracies is the presence of formal political parties. They should be banned. Good luck with that. Ban Political parties, you would have political clubs, associations, societies that would be parties in all but name.

11th December 2012, 12:14 PM	#55
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,105	Originally Posted by dudalb Good luck with that. Ban Political parties, you would have political clubs, associations, societies that would be parties in all but name. That's fine. I would have no issue with informal associations. The point would be they wouldn't be able to promote or advertise associations during electioneering. An MP would represent their constituents, and if they sided with the wrong voting bloc on the wrong issue they would be voted out.
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

11th December 2012, 06:35 PM	#56
Captain.Sassy Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,180	Originally Posted by gumboot That's fine. I would have no issue with informal associations. The point would be they wouldn't be able to promote or advertise associations during electioneering. An MP would represent their constituents, and if they sided with the wrong voting bloc on the wrong issue they would be voted out. First, I've never understood the antipathy to organized political parties. It's an easy way to cast a vote for a basket of political positions that most closely resemble your own. Secondly, if you elect MPs using FPTP, even without political parties, you still have a good chance of getting 'represented' by someone who doesn't represent you at all, just like how MPs from parties opposed by most of their constituents are often elected by pluralities today.
	__________________ Evolution a poem As luck would have it, people.