Rick Anderson: CBC NewsWorld

Vote for MMP Campaign Committee Chair, Rick Anderson, on CBC Newsworld September 13th, 2007

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• electoral
• reform
• Ontario
• Vote
• for
• MMP
• Rick
• Anderson

[Amazon25]

@linuxluver Yes unfortunately the 50.1% is an illusion created by proportionally redistributing the votes...there were many elected with originally much less than 50% as I watched the coverage...doctorin the results only adds to the artifice.

[linuxluver]

@pontecanis Your hang up on the word "proportionality" is preventing you from thinking. The "proportion" required to win a seat in a **single-member** constituency in a preferential voting system is 50.1%. *Minimum*. That's a hell of a lot better than the 33.4% that can win a seat under First Past the Post. Try to see what's really there. Under FPP, the other 66.6% of voters get nothing at all. At least under the Aussie system the winner needed 50.1% to win.

[pontecanis]

This is NOT due to the electoral system, but to the unfortunate reality that REALLY competent people tend to avoid politics like the plague, with regrettably limited exceptions; those exceptions are usually people who are not willing to compromise themselves enough or desire power badly enough to seek the Prime Ministership...we have had excellent parliamentarians, as has Australia [and New Zealand]---the cream seldom rises to the top, but gets skimmed off by the aparachiks along the way!

[pontecanis]

This is NOT system just like Canada's...the Senate takes the process one step further and proportionally apportions seats, even worse IMHO...btw, nowhere do I claim that FPTP does not deliver minority governments, or that these governments were in any way superior...most of them stank...my favorite PM was Kim Campbell, she was not in long enough to bugger anything up...we have had a load of undistinguished to basically incompetent governments since before WWII

[pontecanis]

@linuxluver Pardon me for not undertaking to mimic the newspeak of Aussie elections: the indication of party preference and the USE of same, according to the Australian Electoral Commission, is a form of preferentially awarding votes to candidates based on the proportion of votes due from eliminated candidates based on voter preference --thus the result is proportionally affected vote tallies, leading to candidates elected NOT by actual vote tallies, but by proportionality.

[linuxluver]

@pontecanis You clearly have NO IDEA what you're talking about. The Aussie Federal Lower House voting system is based on single-member electorates - just like Canada's. The only difference is the are able to mark a preference on the ballot. Your point is even more ridiculous given Canada's federal parliament under First Past the Post has repeatedly delivered minority governments. If you need to parade your ignorance....please do so. But be man enough to learn from your mistakes.

[pontecanis]

See the latest election fiasco in Australia for evidence of how disproportionate misrepresentation actaully "works"...government by backroom manipulation and deal-making...Anderson is a liar and his pitch is 100% bogus...ALSO: note how the major news media have been 100% SILENT about the contribution of PR to the mess in Australia---interesting, isn't it...talk about hidden agendas....

[breakerexpress]

The Ontario public want to eliminate misuse, abuse and squandering of their money. Taking all of the potential costs above into account, it's likely that each of the 22 extra members would incur around $150,000 each which would mean an additional cost of about 3.3 million dollars a year. I'm glad it blew up in their faces.

[breakerexpress]

First off the people of Ontario didn't ask for this referendum and the associated costs in the first place. The change was pushed by small splinter parties like the one Rick Anderson represents. The public spoke October 10th and want more accountability. They do not want paid MPPs that have no accountability not to ridings or constituents or any other defined entity or channel. The people of Ontario want more transparency of the use of their tax dollars, at all levels of government.

[vitaeterna]

I would have rather seen a preferential where each voter would rank the candidates in order of preference. If no candidate gets 50%+1 on the first ballot, the candidate who got the fewest votes would be eliminated and their ballots would be redistributed to how each voter on their ballot ranked their number two choice. And so on, until one candidate gets the majority of the voters voting for him or her.