[fvc-wat-disc] Total ballots ...'wasted' votes

Tue Feb 28 23:12:28 EST 2017

Bob Rae is an advisory council member of Fair Vote Canada.  As Interim
Liberal Leader, he spoke a few times on his preference for proportional
representation to a room full of Liberals.

Now that he isn't in politics, I haven't heard a peep from him on the
subject, but then other than indigenous issues, I haven't heard a peep from
him on any subject.

Jenn

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:59 PM, John Cooper <johnco at golden.net> wrote:

> The problem with the concept of a 'wasted vote' is this: unless everyone
> votes for one candidate, some people are going to think that their vote is
> 'wasted', even if that is just one person.
> That's not about the method of voting, it's about the perception that some
> people have.
>
> I have never wasted my vote because I vote for the person I want to be
> elected, not for someone who was necessarily going to win or because other
> voters told me that I was wasn't my vote because my candidate was not going
> to win.
>
> I don't like the idea that a party receives less than 50% of the vote and
> gets 50% or more of the seats.
> Yes, I do believe we must change from FPTP. I have believed that before
> Fair Vote came along.
>
> Another dilemma in determining what system to use: what is the threshold
> of number of votes or percentage of votes that a party receives determines
> the number of seats that they are allocated if the party does not elect a
> candidate in any constituency?
>
> Why is 5% a magic number? How valid is that? Why not 10 or 20 or 30%
> Why not the number of votes that are assigned to one constituency in that
> province or territory? (The number of votes is less in lower populated
> provinces and territories.)
> If a party received that number totally across Canada (or in that province
> or territory), one seat is assigned.
> For each subsequent multiple of 'the number', one seat is assigned.
>
> Is it fair that PEI with 145,000 people has 4 seats based on the Electoral
> Quotient while the 4 largest populated provinces require more than 100,000
> per seat?
> That allows PEI  to have more representation in Parliament so the bigger
> provinces can't have all of the power.
>
> I'm NOT proposing this; I'm just asking why 5% is the 'magic' number?
> How is that percentage justified?
>
> One final comment: when the NDP won Ontario in 1990, Bob Rae said that he
> and the caucus had to represent everyone, not just the views of the NDP -
>          partly because the NDP was elected with less than 40% of the
> votes.
>         At one point he commented that it was 'unfair' that the NDP
> received a majority of seats with less than a majority of the votes.
> Many supporters were not happy with these comment because it sounded like
> he was not going to present legislation that the party had proposed in the
> election.
> Now that he's a Liberal, what does he think about FPTP?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fvc-wat-disc [mailto:fvc-wat-disc-bounces at listserv.thinkers.org] On
> Behalf Of STUART CHANDLER
> Sent: February-28-17 4:17 PM
> To: Bob Jonkman; FVC Waterloo Region Discussion
> Subject: Re: [fvc-wat-disc] Total ballots ...'wasted' votes
>
> Thanks Bob.
> I hope John finds that helpful.
> I suspect he is correct that more Canadians are unhappy with FPTP than
> those who really like it. But most are not aware of how PR could work, or
> how much it would improve our Parliament and the decision making there. As
> far as how it might work, a simple explanation that comes to mind is this:
> take Kitchener Centre, and add to it the three closest ridings. That would
> allow for a riding where 4 Candidates (the top 4 with the most votes) could
> each win a seat without having to increase the seats in Parliament. Now
> suppose that there were 8 candidates running in that riding in a
> hypothetical election. And let's imagine that the top 4 just happened to be
> 1 Liberal 1 Conservative, 1 NDP, and 1 Green.  Then, at least those who
> voted for each of those 4 parties would feel as though their vote had
> counted/ mattered and that they would have representation in Parliament, so
> their voice could be heard.
>
> Cheers.
> Stu.
>
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
>   Original Message
> From: Bob Jonkman
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 2:53 PM‎
> To: FVC Waterloo Region Discussion
> Reply To: FVC Waterloo Region Discussion
> Subject: Re: [fvc-wat-disc] Total ballots ...'wasted' votes
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> John Cooper wrote:
>
> > The fact is that only one candidate can be elected.
>
> That's the case under our current FPTP system.
>
> > Maybe our way of selecting our political leaders by votes is all
> > wrong.
>
> Yes!
>
> > Is there another way?
>
> Almost all the proposed systems for Proportional Representation are an
> improvement. The main exception is block voting (choosing only a party, not
> a candidate), and that's not being proposed by anyone for a Canadian voting
> system.
>
> - --Bob.
>
>
>
> On 2017-02-27 11:48 PM, John Cooper wrote:
> > Hi Stu
> >
> >
> >
> > So based on your argument, all votes must elect the winner or none are
> > of any value.
> >
> > The fact is that only one candidate can be elected.
> >
> > Why bother to have more than one political party and more than one
> > candidate?
> >
> > Or as George Washington proposed: no political parties.
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe the “make every vote count" phrase is the ‘wrong choice’?
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe our way of selecting our political leaders by votes is all
> > wrong.
> >
> > Is there another way?
> >
> > Is it possible to have consensus when thousands of people are
> > selecting a representative?
> >
> >
> >
> > Based on voter intentions and the results in the last election, more
> > people are opposed to ‘first past the post’ than those who support it.
> >
> > Trudeau and the Liberals have chosen to ignore this for their own
> > purposes.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm from the older generation too.
> >
> > There are many of ‘our generation’ who do not vote because they never
> > did or they have become too cynical.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: fvc-wat-disc
> > [mailto:fvc-wat-disc-bounces at listserv.thinkers.org] On Behalf Of
> > STUART CHANDLER Sent: February-27-17 10:46 PM To: John Cooper; 'FVC
> > Waterloo Region Discussion' Subject: Re: [fvc-wat-disc] Total ballots
> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi John.
> >
> > I'm not sure about others, but I choose to use the term "wasted vote"
> > for a deliberate purpose. I use it for any potential shocking effect
> > it might have on the reader/listener‎, and I always follow it with
> > brackets stating something like: () to explain what I mean by "wasted
> > vote".
> >
> > I've heard others advance the theory that no vote is wasted, but I
> > find I'm not interested ‎in pursuing that theory as I worry that the
> > opponents of PR will simply use it as a way to justify their
> > satisfaction with the status quo. I would not want to feed their
> > addiction to FPTP.
> >
> >
> >
> > My vote in 2015 was one of the more than 9 Million "wasted votes"‎, so
> > I am taking it personally that the person I chose to support was
> > beaten by someone I was opposed to, so I am effectively without
> > representation in Parliament (at least from my riding - and it appears
> > from most other ridings as well, particularly since all the Liberal
> > MPs have betrayed those of us who were voting for the concept of
> > electoral reform).
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm from the older generation, many of whom will continue to exercise
> > the civic responsibility to vote, even if my choice doesn't win. But
> > many others are discouraged from voting because they do not expect
> > their vote will actually affect the outcome.
> > Consequently, I believe we need to stick with identifying such votes
> > as wasted, in order to advance our cause "to make every vote count".
> > ‎(Otherwise that phrase is pointless.)
> >
> >
> >
> > Sincerely.
> >
> > Stu Chandler.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
> >
> >
> > From: John Cooper
> >
> > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 5:55 PM
> >
> > To: 'FVC Waterloo Region Discussion'
> >
> > Reply To: FVC Waterloo Region Discussion
> >
> > Subject: Re: [fvc-wat-disc] Total ballots ...
> >
> >
> >
> > in a democracy (whatever that is) , no vote is a ‘wasted vote’.
> > Everyone who meets the criteria has a right – and a duty as a citizen
> > - to vote.
> >
> > It’s only wasted if you did not vote according to your principles and
> > values for the person or party who shares those with you or you did
> > not vote at all.
> >
> >
> >
> > There’s a difference between a ‘wasted vote’ and a ‘principled vote’.
> >
> >
> >
> > The real issue is whether the person elected receives more than a
> > simple plurality of votes over the other candidates.
> >
> > Is that democracy?
> >
> >
> >
> > The people who voted for the ‘winners’ and are not happy with the
> > decisions of those ‘winners’ after they gained power – those are
> > wasted votes
> >
> > because you did not vote according to your principles. You got ‘sucked
> > in’ by the promises of liars.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: fvc-wat-disc
> > [mailto:fvc-wat-disc-bounces at listserv.thinkers.org] On Behalf Of
> > Eleanor Grant Sent: February-27-17 5:08 PM To:
> > fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org Subject: [fvc-wat-disc] Total
> > ballots ...
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Fair Voters -
> >
> >
> >
> > These are the numbers that Jenn found for me on Feb 9.
> >
> >
> >
> > Results of 2015 Oct 19 election:
> >
> > 35,749,600 - Population of Canada
> >
> > 25,638,379 - Eligible Voters
> >
> > 17,559,353 - Ballots cast
> >
> > 8,214,532 - Effective votes
> >
> > 9,106,926 - "Wasted" votes, elected no one.
> >
> >
> >
> > I noticed the numbers don't add up;
> >
> > 237,895 votes are unaccounted for.
> >
> > Would there be that many spoiled ballots across the country?
> >
> >
> >
> > But even if all of these were added to the effective votes, they're
> > still far outnumbered by the votes which elected no one. That's
> > scandalous.
> >
> >
> >
> > Eleanor
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ This is the
> > fvc-wat-disc mailing list Post a message:
> > fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org Unsubscribe:
> > http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.th
> > inkers.org
> >
> >
> - --
>
>
> - --
> Bob Jonkman <bjonkman at sobac.com> Phone: +1-519-635-9413 SOBAC
> Microcomputer Services http://sobac.com/sobac/ Software --- Office &
> Business Automation --- Consulting GnuPG Fngrprnt:04F7 742B 8F54 C40A E115
> 26C2 B912 89B0 D2CC E5EA
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
> Comment: Ensure confidentiality, authenticity, non-repudiability
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAli11MoACgkQuRKJsNLM5eqarwCgq0tJMWwK4/LfJta8ctTm6/V0
> q8gAn1ZUdM7YCrzbhqfCSMrO2qi+9QMT
> =IVrx
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
> Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_
> listserv.thinkers.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
> Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_
> listserv.thinkers.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
> Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_
> listserv.thinkers.org
>

-- 
No other Western democratic country concentrates as much political power in
the hands of one person as Canada does with her Prime Minister.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.thinkers.org/pipermail/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org/attachments/20170228/233abcd8/attachment-0002.htm>