Mirroring Ontario Politics

SinbadEV · Post by **SinbadEV** » 09 Oct 2007, 18:11

Referendum on Proportional Government:

http://www.yourbigdecision.ca/

These votes are for representatives, the party with the most representatives chooses one of it's members as "Premier" (like a governor).

First Past the Post
107 Regions with the person getting the highest vote in each Region being elected to government.

Mixed Member Proportional
Two Votes on the ballot, one for a regional representative and one for a party.

90 Regions with the person getting the highest vote in each Region being elected to government.

39 Additional members elected based on the party vote. For each 2.6% of the total votes for a party, the party appoints a representative to government.

Relative · Post by **Relative** » 09 Oct 2007, 18:37

I accidentally voted first past the post. So +1 MMP

I think both of the current systems fundamentally suck. First past the post is not representative, as the popular vote gets ignored. However, proportional requires that you have the backing of a party with a large enough share of votes, meaning its hard to get elected as an independent or as a small party.

In this case the mixed member proportional is probably the best method as it offers a mixture of both, thus hopefully guaranteeing the most representative results.

stilicho · Post by **stilicho** » 09 Oct 2007, 18:42

MMP is the way to go. Our current plurality system is an archaic holdover from colonial times. Steadily decreasing voter turnouts rates show that voters are losing faith in the system, it follows that the system should be reformed.

edit:

I haven't looked into this, but at first glance it seems to me that it'd be easier to be elected as an indepedent in MPP. A voter doesn't have to choose between who they think would best represent their riding and which party's policies they support, they can vote for either seperately. It's definitely easier for smaller parties to get seats since they don't need to get a majority of the votes in any one riding. The Green Party currently gets about 10% of the popular vote across the province, but not enough in any one place to win. In MPP they'd get 10% of the list seats.

SinbadEV · Post by **SinbadEV** » 09 Oct 2007, 19:07

yeah... I'm planning to vote MMP tomorrow... The only "flaw" I've heard is that it gives "radical" or "fringe" groups a voice in government. My problem with this flaw is that A) I support some fringe groups myself and B) Even though they have a "voice" they still only get as many votes as the population gives them... which is Republican Democracy (definitions here for our poor diluted USA friends, Republican: The best/smartest people are chosen to make decisions, Democracy: The public elects leaders).

The other problem is that parties will no longer need to pay as much attention to the needs of areas with smaller population bases as they can get almost a third of the power in government just by winning the votes of the cities. As a person who lives in a city I don't mind this too much which is, I suppose, why it's being put to a vote.

Anybody know any good reasons not to choose MMP to help sway my opinion?

tombom · Post by **tombom** » 09 Oct 2007, 19:10

How is the US not a republican democracy?

Relative · Post by **Relative** » 09 Oct 2007, 19:19

tombom wrote:How is the US not a republican democracy?

I don't think he said it wasn't, I think he just called the Americans ignorant.

SinbadEV · Post by **SinbadEV** » 09 Oct 2007, 19:19

It is. It's just that in the USA "The Republican Party" and "The Democratic Party" may have confused peoples definitions of the words in question.

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 10 Oct 2007, 04:06

Republic isn't a system where the best/smartest are chosen to govern, it just refers to a system where the citizens and government are considered common wealth. Basically a democracy with less formal and egalitarian voting requirements, although the definition can be even more loose. A workers union in control of a state could be considered a republic, effectively if it's not monarchical, nor democratic or anarchic it's a republic by process of elimination definition.

SinbadEV · Post by **SinbadEV** » 10 Oct 2007, 04:28

Sorry, sometimes I confuse "Plato's Republic" with the definition...

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 10 Oct 2007, 04:31

There's acctually a term for that... a system in which the most ideal candidates to govern every specific area are chosen based on qualifications... I can't recall it off of the top of my head... I wish it was possible to reverse define with a dictionary

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 10 Oct 2007, 06:49

meritocracy?

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 10 Oct 2007, 07:50

Dragon45 wrote:meritocracy?

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 10 Oct 2007, 12:35

I think that's correct... Well, obviously a person's aptitude to leadership is vulnerable to flaws in the perceptions of others, so the system doesn't necessarily always appoint the "best possible" candidate. But it is a system that at least tries to evaluate who would be the best for a position objectively rather than as a matter of popular opinion, which is generally about as reliable as using poop for gasoline.

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 12 Oct 2007, 00:51

So basically both your choices involve electing one gigantic Party or another...

Such things are stupid! Why should there be ANY parties? Why can we simply not elect representatives who REPRESENT US in cabinets without having to belong to one party or another? oh, thats right, because in unity is strength; 1000 rich people working together can do so much more.

fuck ontario's price tag -- I mean elections.

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 12 Oct 2007, 01:24

SpikedHelmet wrote:Why can we simply not elect representatives who REPRESENT US in cabinets without having to belong to one party or another?

That question used to haunt me at night.

I substituted these boards for it.

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 12 Oct 2007, 06:14

SpikedHelmet wrote:So basically both your choices involve electing one gigantic Party or another...

Such things are stupid! Why should there be ANY parties? Why can we simply not elect representatives who REPRESENT US in cabinets without having to belong to one party or another? oh, thats right, because in unity is strength; 1000 rich people working together can do so much more.

fuck ontario's price tag -- I mean elections.

Ontario has at least 4 political parties that seriously contend for election, all of which have been in power at some point or another. Additionally they have several smaller parties and independents that acctually obtain seats in parliament from time to time. The real point of political parties is so that groups of like thinkers can organize and overpower their opposition. I'm not so much against the organization part, but party power as a whole has been a thorn in the size of Canadian government that needs to be addressed. Independents ARE elected under a party platform, to me that means that they, representing their local voters, should have the authority to vote on any issue however they see fit. Apparently Canadian government doesn't see it the same way.

nemppu · Post by **nemppu** » 13 Oct 2007, 00:22

Hahaa I voted at random Im screwing up your poll statistics! >:---D

Spring RTS Engine

Mirroring Ontario Politics

Which form of representational government do you think the province of Ontario should use?

Mirroring Ontario Politics