The results of the 44th Canadian federal election and their striking resemblance to the results of the 43rd election signal that it’s time to switch to ranked-choice voting.
An interesting piece, but I would note that RCV in Australia means the main parties can largely ignore minority views within their own tents. If you know that the Marxists will give their ‘real’ votes to the Labor party, the Labor party can largely ignore the Marxists. There’s little danger they’ll move so far to the centre that the Marxists’ second preference will go elsewhere.
Perhaps this is its appeal but it’s led to the main political parties in Australia being even less distinguishable from one and other than the main parties in other Western democracies. Aggravating that phenomenon might not assuage the dissatisfaction of so much of the population. It might even exacerbate it.
It also leads to paper ballots that are ginormous and very hard to count!
Actually that would be single transferable vote(STV) causing ginormous ballots for senate. See in Australia we would describe our voting system as preferential voting in that you rank candiates in order of preference. Now the point I'm trying to make for this is in a single member distrct ranking candidates gives you ranked choice while in multi-member districts it give you STV which is proportional. Now senators are elected from states and you can have up to 12 senators elected in a state, so easily more than a hundred candidates can run for the seats, but thankfully you can just vote by party instead. My point ultimately is that RCV can be a bridge to proportional elections.
Additionally the recent climate debates in Australia may indicate your viewpoints on minorities holding parties hostage is wrong, with the potential imposition of a net zero having the potential to split the LNP.
An interesting piece, but I would note that RCV in Australia means the main parties can largely ignore minority views within their own tents. If you know that the Marxists will give their ‘real’ votes to the Labor party, the Labor party can largely ignore the Marxists. There’s little danger they’ll move so far to the centre that the Marxists’ second preference will go elsewhere.
Perhaps this is its appeal but it’s led to the main political parties in Australia being even less distinguishable from one and other than the main parties in other Western democracies. Aggravating that phenomenon might not assuage the dissatisfaction of so much of the population. It might even exacerbate it.
It also leads to paper ballots that are ginormous and very hard to count!
Actually that would be single transferable vote(STV) causing ginormous ballots for senate. See in Australia we would describe our voting system as preferential voting in that you rank candiates in order of preference. Now the point I'm trying to make for this is in a single member distrct ranking candidates gives you ranked choice while in multi-member districts it give you STV which is proportional. Now senators are elected from states and you can have up to 12 senators elected in a state, so easily more than a hundred candidates can run for the seats, but thankfully you can just vote by party instead. My point ultimately is that RCV can be a bridge to proportional elections.
Additionally the recent climate debates in Australia may indicate your viewpoints on minorities holding parties hostage is wrong, with the potential imposition of a net zero having the potential to split the LNP.