Democracy on a Slate.
Why do I get two Instant Runoff Votes? Political parties run election campaigns where it looks like you are deciding what the next government is going to do. At times, even parties don't want you thinking about their candidates. It has come to the point where the vote we have with FPTP is "all" about party. But the original design of FPTP is "all" about representation. By adding the vote on party election platforms, the new system will fix this subversion of good democracy. The voters will get to vote on representation as is their democratic right, and the voters will get to vote in a "PREFERENDUM" on party election platforms like the parties want voters to do. Who else uses Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)? IRV is used to elect the Australian House of Representatives, the President of Ireland, the national parliament of Papua New Guinea and the Fijian House of Representatives. In the United States, it has been adopted in some local jurisdictions. In the United Kingdom, a form of IRV is used to elect the Mayor of London. (condensed from description of "IRV" on Wikipedia) Why would we need another election within one year? Because the only mandate of this government is to implement these electoral reforms and take you back to the polls to use them. Everything else is pretty much status-quo until the government gets a new and clear mandate in the next election. Existing government programs and initiatives will continue. Once the electoral reforms are in place, voters in districts can choose the best representation for their districts, voters in the province can choose the best political direction for the province, and the government will be led by someone that the Legislature will follow. Elections Ontario and many political parties may need most of a year to prepare for the next provincial election under these new rules. Why use Instant Runoff Voting AND last chance recounts? IRV limits strategic voting based on "divide and conquer" campaign tactics. For example, under FPTP, one side of a voting issue will make it their business to have at least two opponents on the "other side" of that vote. FPTP let's four voters beat five voters when the five voters get split into three and two. IRV will let those two voters pick their second choice, making it possible for five voters on the "other side" to get together and beat the side that has four. By adding last chance recounts, IRV will avoid another strategic voting trick that sees the "wrong" candidate finish second ("IRV's spoiler problem"). The Condorcet vote counting system can fix this automatically, but that's another strategic voting problem. Sometimes supporters of the trailing candidates are with-holding their preferences, on purpose, to win with Condorcet. A "last chance recount" gives the IRV second place finisher the choice of keeping the IRV election the way it turns out, or replace it with a "better" choice. When that happens, the IRV first place finisher gets a similar chance to replace "better" with "best" (see Example and Event Tree). Let's remember that we are voting for candidates to make decisions for us, so it's reasonable that the IRV runner up, and possibly the IRV winner, may get to do exactly that because of the votes they get. How much harder is it going to be to count IRV +/-? Since there will be candidates eliminated during each round of IRV runoff and at least two runoffs during the IRV +/- counting process, it is important that the votes be recorded only once. This is very similar to FPTP where the ballots are recorded at each polling station by candidate, the ballots are counted and totals are forwarded to the next level (the counting process at the electoral district combines hundreds of poll counts into single totals for each candidate, and the district elects their MPP). In IRV +/-, the ballots are recorded by the voting "pattern" indicated on each ballot. For example, 20 ballots may show Candidate A is first and Candidate C is second. This is recorded as 20 votes for "A > C". Once these patterns are recorded and forwarded to the next level, the hard part of IRV is over. The ballots don't need to be counted each time a candidate drops out of a runoff or another runoff is required. The counting process at the electoral district combines hundreds of poll counts by patterns into single totals for each candidate, the runoff(s) takes place at the district level, and the district elects their MPP. FPTP elections with 15 candidates will produce fifteen totals at a polling station that must be forwarded to the district result centre. We do that now. An IRV election with 3 candidates, will produce fifteen totals too. There are more totals using IRV, but it's the same thing, it's simple arithmetic. Who will I contact if I have a concern - my MPP or a Party? You should approach your Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP) with a concern if it is a provincial matter. Basically, you can expect your MPP to listen to you if it's a matter within provincial control. This may be something like a concern regarding delivery of provincial government services, an interpretation of existing provincial laws, or a concern with proposed legislation under study by a provincial government committee. In all cases you should be directed to appropriate committees or to departmental services that will address your concern. If it is not a provincial matter, then your MPP should put you in contact with another level of government that will address it. If it relates to things that you want to see changed that would require new legislation or amendment to existing legislation and is not on the agenda of this government, then you should be going to the political parties. Your MPP should provide you with a contact list of all the registered political parties in Ontario. Some political parties may have an interest in discussing your concern with the purpose of finding a place for it in their party's future election platforms. How will the new system affect representation by population? The version of IRV to be used will allow the Citizens in each election to vote for a compromise if they want to. To get elected, a candidate will usually need to be supported by much more than a strategically manufactured plurality which was good enough under FPTP. Bring on majority rule. The separation of the vote on representation from the vote on party will help the representative of a district remember who he or she represents in parliament and government. How much less power will parties have? The parties will keep their important roles in democracy. They will be in a position to identify and develop policy alternatives for government and promote them in elections. They will be allowed to affiliate with a candidate in each district, and have it shown on the ballot, so that supporters of a party will know that an acceptable choice is out there. They will be first in line to address parliament and parliamentary committees on all matters placed on the provincial government's agenda. What if one party's candidates form a majority in the Legislature BUT their party's election platform does not win? This result shows that the party has found quite a few good candidates, but is coming up empty in the area of good policies. So, the voters don't get stuck with a party and its bad ideas just because they want good representation. Besides, the candidates didn't know for sure which side of the house they would be on, going in, so obviously they intended to represent their district regardless of the government's agenda. Good things can happen. For example, when lots of liberal leaning MPPs get elected along with a hardline conservative agenda ... the resulting legislation may actually deliver very reasonable compromises addressing the most important issues of the day. It may be exactly what the People wanted all along. What happens when NOTA wins? Other than the budget, no new legislation gets passed. The MPPs will deal with everything under the existing rules. A "stay the course" budget will have a little wiggle room, but not much. Things that were planned for, will still happen. The government will do the best it can to make ends meet. Many things will suddenly get done better because government will have the time to look at ways to streamline and improve ongoing projects and programs. Other issues that beg for new legislation will just have to wait "until next time". MPPs could make an exception or two for the most urgent of these. MPPs can do whatever they want. However, each MPP voting for these unexpected "must haves" and hoping to get re-elected will have some explaining to do. Meanwhile, political parties will be invited to happily fill their campaign shopping carts with these wonderfully urgent things that absolutely must get done, next time. What's "new" if one party's candidates form a majority in the Legislature AND their party's election platform wins? This could look a lot like a government elected under FPTP. The difference is that the representatives will clearly represent all of their constituents ( they are also the most preferred), and there is no party in power. The winning election platform identifies what most of the people have "voted for" in the election. Add to that the Lt Governor choosing a Premier, as expected, on the advice of a Leadership Forum and recalling a Premier, if necessary, on the advice of a vote for recall in the Legislature and things will be very different. It's a "new" situation. Why does the Lt. Governor get involved? Reform #3 and Reform #4 mention the role of the Lt. Governor in choosing and replacing the Premier of Ontario. That's the way it is, and that's the way it will stay during this round of electoral reform. The proposed reforms do not require any change to the constitutions of Ontario and/or Canada. Who are these candidates for Democracy on a Slate? These are ordinary people who believe that FPTP is not the democracy we deserve. They have come forward in good faith, and they are willing to give up a year of their time to make democracy right for everyone. They are the ones who are volunteering "to bell the cat". Would it be nice if they had some experience? For example, by 2011, there may be many very good civic minded local politicians, all across Ontario, sitting around with nothing to do after losing in a split vote during their 2010 municipal elections. What do I get when I vote for a candidate on this Slate? There are 107 candidates, one in each district. So, just like every voter in the province, you are using your vote to demand these electoral reforms before you lose again. For example, if elected in 2011 with a majority, there will be provincial elections in 2012 under the new rules. Parties will be invited to offer three year mandates in their election platforms. The Province would return to regular four year terms in 2015. If the slate forms a minority, the elected few will lobby for electoral reform, provide responsible representation for their constituents, and give up their districts to by-elections by the fall of 2012. WHY SHOULD I VOTE FOR DEMOCRACY ON A SLATE? Because the current system makes most of us lose every time. That's not what democracy is supposed to do. It's supposed to be MAJORITY RULE. We decide together, and we go with the decision of the majority. MOST OF US SHOULD WIN EVERY TIME. A democracy must be fair. It's "you get a vote, and I get a vote" on representation. So if we really do want to vote on issues too, then we should all get a separate vote on that. FPTP was not supposed to be about electing representatives of parties, one district at time, plurality after plurality, and have a majority of minorities "elect" a party to run the government. It's sick and it needs to be fixed. |