Ranking Points Relevantly
The Ranked Ballot System
I’ve yapped about what I’ve seen that I don’t like with the current flavour sticks on Canada’s political scene. I’ve made points on what I see as flat out wrong and wrote them up in to a place anyone can see. When I see something I like, I say that too.
A multitude of others have yapped off as well. Most of the yapping has been by the RITE oriented ranting for their way while proclaiming all others to be village idiots. It is fun getting the righteous going and it doesn’t take a whole hell of a lot to send them up in flames.
I haven’t said what I would like to see happen should “First Past The Post” be scrapped. There is a special parliamentary committee on electoral reform. The Liberals say there will be a free vote in the House when it comes time to vote on a change. Any of y’all really believing that?
You gotta believe the current crop of Liberals are pretty much shrinking violets. If they had spine they’d of dealt in party with Trudeau telling caucus to consider it as if it were he the exalted one speaking should Gerald Butts or Katie Telford speak to caucus. Instead some did some tearful leaking of the decree of his Royal High and Mightiness to the press.
My research tells me Canadians can submit questions to the Committee. I’m thinking my question will be, “Why not just do it my way”.
I’m going to be proactive and helpful here with something I think will work just fine for a Ranked Ballot system. I can see validity in a ranked system.
Whether or not our current flavour carries on with their campaign platform to change the FPTP system probably depends on how they think they’ll outcome at the next election if the electoral system isn’t changed.
Y’all didn’t think the current flavour hadn’t thought of that scenario do you?
Bottom line is that there is room to look at possible improvement in the electing of MP’s. That would be called looking to progress conservatively. Unfortunately in this country if you put “Progressive” and “Conservative” side by side it makes a great many of the RITE bat shit crazy.
In another political piece of mine I talk about the “Rite Right” and their never ever unchanging minds. Not a way of being I’m enamored with.
Electoral change and how to go about it the right way, my way. Sure you could jump to the conclusion that I’m jumping to a “Right Rite” but it is an ill advised jump.
I wrote a piece called, “Be Relevant” where I take on making yourself relevant and telling the irrelevant no! I talk on “First Past The Post” with examples in that piece of what constitutes to my mind, what the politically irrelevant are in a Proportional Representation system.
In our Federal elections, excluding Quebec and the BQ of course, it is for the most part choosing one from the big 3 of the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP. I intentionally went alphabetical in my listing.
I was asked recently which one I was, Liberal, Conservative, NDP and the puzzled look on the individuals face when I said none of them was a thing of beauty! After short conversation on what I call the 7% solution and me talking about being relevant, there was one impressed more thoughtful young 20’s something. I have a very good idea why that 20 something used “Liberal” as the first option when asking what flavour I am.
I’ve seen it suggested that the ranking system be 1st choice, 2nd choice and 3rd choice. I disagree with paying the top 3 places rational. I believe the process is best served by only selecting and giving merit to 2 choices.
My scenario is a 5/2 reward ratio. The 1st choice receives 5 points and the 2nd choice receives 2 points. The rest of the field get nothing.
I’ve bounced my rational off people and those I’ve spoken to like and agree with what I’ve said about a “Ranked Ballot” system. We agree that people are either going to cast for the big 3 without much consideration for other candidates or cast for their #1 and anything but the other big players to protect their choice.
The front end should carry a weight of greater than 2 to 1. I think the 2 ½ to 1 is fair. We don’t know what the parameters are yet on such a system but I have to believe the candidate with the most points gets the seat.
Doing the math (which I dislike) tells you that it takes 5 second place votes to equal 2 first place votes. That ratio in this scenario feels fair. Yes I said, “Feels fair”. I thought about different ratios and this is the one that outcomes to feeling right.
Choosing only 2 on the ballot gives the voter a much easier way to say no to any one party. Having the way to say no is important. Saying no tells the other candidates and their party, if any, that you just don’t cut it with me. I cover saying no and why in, “Be Relevant”.
This where the 5 to 2 ratio gets real interesting and ultimately beneficial to the greater good of the people. This is where the flavour sticks in the running will have to give serious consideration to their own constituents. Not a bad thing and we’re not used to seeing much consideration from politicians.
The how and why the voters pick their 2 point second choice should be mattering to the runners and their handlers.
That 2 spot on the ranked ballot is highly relevant. I’ll just keep the scenario simple. Bringing the “Green Party” in to the scenario is only fair as they did run a candidate in every riding last election. We have 4 RITE voters and each one selects a different candidate with their 5 point vote. We have a tie in points.
It is possible that after the second choice points a candidate receives are tallied up there will still be a tie but probability says no. Keep in mind that the 2nd choice pick is now from 3 candidates and not 4. The maximum points any candidate can receive under this system of mine is 11 with 5 points from the first and 6 more points from 2nd selections. Seriously folks, what are the chances any of the runners are going to see a max return of 11 points? I’m thinking if Slim isn’t out of town, he is on his horse.
There are a number of reasons why a voter would select the 2nd choice they do. Maybe it’s for whom they think is legitimately 2nd best. Maybe it’s because they want to cut another party out. Maybe it’s because they deem no one from the other 3 parties as legitimate and throw the vote at someone they think has no chance to matter in the equation. Maybe it’s an Independent the voter really likes but didn’t think was deserving of the 5 point vote.
I go back to living in what was Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s riding when he was defeated and lost his seat. I look at the votes garnered by the 4 parties and ponder how it might have looked under the Ranked Ballot system I’ve described here. You can go ponder for yourself if you’re so inclined.
The possibilities of what the voters will do with that second choice are indeed interesting. The possibilities are also scary and the ones scared should be the politicians!
It is possible that the 2nd choice pick is well enough thought of by the constituents of their riding that all those 2nd choices will add up to a win. Well enough to add up to enough points to send that someone running second or third in the first place votes to Ottawa.
In my reading I read that electoral reform referendum would be polarizing and doesn’t have to be. I disagree with that. I happen to think this matter should be polarizing as we’re talking about how Canada is going to elect Members of Parliament. There is going to be and should be conflict. A little conflict isn’t bad because it means people are sticking up for what they think is best.
What doesn’t have to happen is for people to be carrying on like braying jackasses!
My concept is sound and so is my reasoning. My idea would also require fine tuning. I think you could safely say without causing angst that what I’ve presented here is Liberal, Conservative and is a very nice New Democratic.
A system that encourages both the politicians and the electorate to “Be Relevant” and takes away from the “Rite Right”, I like it a lot!
G.R. Hambley © – all rights reserved
August 01, 2016
You are welcome to visit me over at SPASM as well.