Voting reforms in the UK.

Alternative Voting System

Under this system, voters will be asked to mark their preferred candidate, their second choice and so on. If a candidate receives a majority of first place votes, he or she would be elected just as under the present system.

However, if no single candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote, the second choices for the candidate at the bottom are redistributed. The process is repeated until one candidate gets an absolute majority. The alternative vote is not actually a proportional system, but a majoritarian system.

This is the most sensible electoral reform proposal for a Westminster style legislature. It does not completely overhaul the current system, with any possible disastrous results. Instead it tweaks the current system, to the possible advantage of the system as a whole.The first advantage is that it more accurately reflects to choices of an electoral district. To make a Canadian example: if 60% of a riding hates the Liberals passionately, it is possible that the Liberals might win with 40% of the vote. Under this system it will allow Liberal haters to put Conservative or NDP first or second. This would ensure that the riding is not represented by a party that the majority despise.

The second advantage is that it could make it easier for smaller parties to be successful. One of the great hurdles of a small party is the "waisted vote" mentality. If someone is sympathetic to the Libertarian Party but wants to ensure a Conservative Party victory, they could vote Libertarian (1) and Conservative (2).

Would this work in Canada?
Discuss.

I do not like this style of voting.

Australia has had it for a while. The only reform I would want at present time is a forced none of the above. In this case that none of the above results all candidates are not allowed to run again for the next vote.

I kinda like both... We do need some sort of electoral reform. Let's start with allowing only true national parties run in Federal elections.

For sure we shouldn't have provincial parties in the federal races. There is no rational reason why we've tolerated this long other than what it's been - a hostage taking/appeasement dynamic. End that with strong reform however it will have to be done mid-term by a majority Conservative government - not even the subject would be raised otherwise. Also, we have to be able to remove politicians who support their parties position rather than that of their constituents. Also, these turkey's that jump to another party should obviously lose any standing. Voters have become fools to the game of politics - we need to change the game and demand progress on issues. When a party wins a fed election with a pledge to get rid of the much hated GST and then simply does not - or a provincial election by eliminating hallway medicine in 6 months - they should be mandated to step down immediately after a time-line. Under this present system of unnaccountability - I could win the next election with a pledge to give all people 1 million dollars and free trips to the moon. I've about had enough of the antics in Ottawa - we need to put them all on high alert that we pay them to get things done.

First of all...

However, if no single candidate
gets more than 50 percent of the vote,

Ahhh...getting more than 50% seems almost impossible to me...especially with three or four candidates running.

...the second choices for the candidate at the bottom are redistributed.

What the hell does that mean?

JTF wrote:First of all...

However, if no single candidate
gets more than 50 percent of the vote,

Ahhh...getting more than 50% seems almost impossible to me...especially with three or four candidates running.

...the second choices for the candidate at the bottom are redistributed.

What the hell does that mean?

I think to answer that question one would have to read the full article.

UK Labour Party seeks electoral reform referendum

JTF it means that when you go to vote. You rate the people..
1,2,3,4,5,6, whatever... ie which choice is your 2nd choice in the event your 1st choice is the lowest on the count.

so once they take a look and no one has 50.0001% or more.. they grab all the votes from the guy in last. take everone's second choice and place a ballot in there. If still no winner they take the 2nd from the last... and look at all those choice and redistribute them as per ... and so on and so on until they reach a winner.

While this system seems relatively simple, methinks it would be a nightmare to administer. Seems to me that there would be a lot more opportunities for recounts, objections and the like.

I guess one thing that bothers me about this, is that I vote for the person I think best represents my interests at whatever level of government. I really don't have a second pick, or third or whatever. On election day, I make a simple single choice. Either my guy gets elected or he doesn't. (usually doesn't), but thats democracy.

yep thats the problem I have with it too. Usually there are no second choices.

If there are five or six candidates, it would be almost impossible to sort things out.

....and if it were possible, then a third rate or fourth rate person would be placed on top.

JTF its actually real simple to sort things out.

here is a sample

vote
A-500 votes
B- 400 votes
C-200 votes
D-150 votes

no winner.

So the 150 votes are taken from D and you end up with
A- 520 votes
B-430 votes
C-300 votes
no winner so Cs votes get redistributed
A- 640
B- 610

winner A but it could have just as easily went
A-520 votes
B- 910 and the winner would be B.




A-

Following that illustration, I like it even less. This system is hoping for more candiates to run so the lower end ones votes can be redistributed, probably not to the leading candidate. In the example, A had the support of more people, period. It isn't right that B could be the eventual winner, only because he was second choice to more people.

Our system allows every dog and his uncle to be put on a ballot, so go with the obvious results. This just seems like some wishy washy system dreamed up by guys who know they can't win an election.