Typically it’s not a choice - it’s a result of your ballot system.
Ranked ballots, directly for candidates, can easily prevent this. People need to trust that their vote is not squandered if they throw in behind some longshot, or if they like several similar options.
Juuust don’t do “Ranked Choice” specifically, for single-winner elections. The multi-winner version, Single Transferable Voting, works as intended. RCV gets stupid results and has suspicious backing. You want a Condorcet system like “Ranked Pairs.”
Or… just check as many names as you like, for Approval Voting. That approximates Condorcet results and there’s no good reason it isn’t the default.
I say “typically” because of Sri Lanka, which has ranked ballots, but is apparently too thick to use them. Most voters still pick one guy and cross their fingers. They have the option to vote for every candidate they do not despise, if their first-, second-, and tenth-favorite candidates cannot win. But for some goddamn reason, they act like their system is as broken as America’s.
Increasing dependency on O&G would be also be a mistake so CPC will have to shrink or split.
It’s already a 1.5 party system. Our liberal party is just conservatives who aren’t openly racist or bigoted.
They’re so unracist they tripled what the UN defined as modern slaves to prop up Canada’s GDP. Would a racist bring non-white wage slaves into an existing housing shortage just to serve them cheaper Tim Hortons?
Pretty much.
Gee, if only a major prime minister candidate were to promise to end first-past-the-post voting as a major campaign issue, and I was to vote for said candidate’s party on that basis, and they were to not flagrantly renege on that promise right after being elected.
There are times when I find myself in grudging sympathy for those “fuck Trudeau” bumper stickers. There weren’t better options at the time and he did accomplish a few other things that were good, but that one was really important IMO. Fundamental to the long-term health of Canadian democracy.
On a per capita basis we had a lost decade as the cost of living exploded for non-asset holders. We did manage to beat Luxembourg however, in the entire 38 countries of the OECD, so we have that going for us which is nice.
getting rid of First-Past-The-Post alleviates the drive toward a 2-party system. The author mentions this (they have written extensively on it).
I remember when 2015 was going to be the last election under FPTP 🤦
I not only still remember, I will never forget. I am an NDP supporter for life now, until and unless they betray us too.
Obligatory !fairvote@lemmy.ca
first past the post? that’s an actual thing? that’s crazy :/
We should absolutely get rid of FPTP in favour of proportional representation, however, I don’t know that the current polling situation is actually a result of FPTP. I’m a pretty consistent NDP voter, but I’ve voted Liberal twice - Trudeau once (to bring in proportional rep… lol), and Carney this last time. I know this is unpopular but I didn’t “lend” my vote to Carney to beat the CPC, I genuinely think he’s doing great and will happily vote for Liberals again so long as he’s at the helm.
Proportional Representation is what you need for multi-seat bodies like parliament. It’s absolutely the best method for such bodies, imo. For single seat elections, proportional doesn’t work as their are no proportions for a single seat and generally you don’t want to just vote for party for such roles, but individuals themselves. You’ll need something like Ranked Choice or (my preference) Approval voting for those seats to avoid the two party inevitability.
Ranked Choice is a misuse of ranked ballots. Say an election goes like this:
40% vote A > B > C.
35% vote C > B > A.
25% vote B > C > A.Plurality says A wins, because Plurality sucks. You don’t even need a bare majority. You just need everyone else to split.
RCV says C wins: B has the fewest top votes, so they’re eliminated. The race becomes 40% A > C versus 60% C > A. Better… but still wrong, because 65% of people would prefer B > C.
Condorcet methods like Ranked Pairs get that right. They model every runoff: A vs B is 40-60, A vs C is 40-60, B vs C is 65-35. B wins every 1v1 and is obviously the best candidate according to these voters. The supermajority prefers B.
Oh that’s interesting, I always thought that ranked choice would put B in there but in that example it shows that that wouldn’t happen. I never saw or thought about it that way. Thanks!
Everyone has a vague idea of what ranked ballots should do, even if they’ve never tried to explain how that works. Condorcet is what they expect. RCV is just goofy.
We need a strong and vibrant NDP party at the very least. It would definitely be nicer to have a bigger spread.
Maybe the NDP should focus on being a labor party with some basic common sense around housing shortage, wage supression, and mass immigration?
Clearly running as a duplicate Liberal party isnt working out.
There’s a good chance the NDP will be back with a vengeance.
I did my part last time to keep PP out. That was the one and only liberal vote i have ever made in my life. I will be voting green or NDP as usual next time.
This and how hard it would be to ever amend the constitution (y’know, to move away from FPTP, for example) are the biggest problems for Canadian democracy going forwards.
It won’t sink us in the next 10 years, but past that who knows. History has a way of turning heroes into villains, and vice-verse.
Every time the constitution is on the table the country nearly implodes.
Will all the provinces agree on a new constitution this time? It only led to two referendum the few last times we tried.
Some of that blame belongs to Harper, for consolidating conservative parties, and sidelining progressive conservatives who are and have shifted to Liberals. But he has also long had a goal of single party state, like Alberta has essentially been. That is not going well
If the NDP grows too strong they’ll just consolidate the Liberals and Conservatives into the Canada Party or some bullshit. The problem with democracy isn’t democratic in nature, it’s corruption from the power structures that form and become self-protective. Democracy is just the game we play, the veneer of choice that makes what’s going on look nice and legitimate. These power structures and the people in them are playing meta-games above and beyond it. We can’t fix these things by modifying the game itself, it may help, it may disrupt them for a bit but they will just find new and probably more powerful ways to metagame the system and entrench themselves at the top.
Things like party politics, strategic voting, media bias, these are just tactics they use. How do we fight against them? I don’t know, but I know we can’t use the game itself, we have to play the metagame against them. Or at least prevent them from using it against us.
Yeah no shit sherlock…
Which is why we were supposed to drop the FPTP system already.
