Ranked choice is what’s best for the liberals not for Canada.
The Citizens assemblies have chosen proportional representation the most and research has shown that pr is more effective on government action and the system represents 95% of the vote.
The liberals are in no current position to make demands, they must compromise with the smaller parties,independents and disgruntled conservatives in order to get electoral reform done to fulfil the 2015 promise.
Ranked choice allows for people to vote for who they want AND who they don’t want. PR doesn’t do that. I don’t like the liberals for a variety of reasons, but sometimes what’s good for Canada will also benefit a specific party. That’s not a reason to dismiss it.
That makes the voting process more complicated than it needs to be, with proportional representation people use their share of votes for their preferred candidates. Voting for your favourite party is already inherently voting against a party you don’t want.
I don’t understand how “ranking” is making voting meaningfully more complicated. If I ask you what ice cream you want, you say, “Chocolate” and we’re all out of chocolate, it’s not complicated to give your second choice. And if you don’t like any of the options, you can say, “Chocolate or nothing.”
By your own argument, PR is waaay too complicated. You now have twice as many votes to make!
Ranked choice allows my opinion about every candidate to matter effectively allowing me to vote multiple times. PR only takes my opinion once or twice. I’m not concerned with how complicated it is. Voting should take thought.
That’s false as the votes for parties other than the big 2 in the riding are wasted. First-past-the-post often has parties winning all the power with 40% of the vote.
That’s not what you said the first time, which is why I asked for clarification. Maybe you meant, “the system represents 95% of the voters” because the votes are all totaled therefore represented? I was wondering if you were implying that some votes don’t count in the current system.
Ranked choice is what’s best for the liberals not for Canada.
The Citizens assemblies have chosen proportional representation the most and research has shown that pr is more effective on government action and the system represents 95% of the vote.
The liberals are in no current position to make demands, they must compromise with the smaller parties,independents and disgruntled conservatives in order to get electoral reform done to fulfil the 2015 promise.
Ranked choice allows for people to vote for who they want AND who they don’t want. PR doesn’t do that. I don’t like the liberals for a variety of reasons, but sometimes what’s good for Canada will also benefit a specific party. That’s not a reason to dismiss it.
That makes the voting process more complicated than it needs to be, with proportional representation people use their share of votes for their preferred candidates. Voting for your favourite party is already inherently voting against a party you don’t want.
I don’t understand how “ranking” is making voting meaningfully more complicated. If I ask you what ice cream you want, you say, “Chocolate” and we’re all out of chocolate, it’s not complicated to give your second choice. And if you don’t like any of the options, you can say, “Chocolate or nothing.”
By your own argument, PR is waaay too complicated. You now have twice as many votes to make!
Ranked choice allows my opinion about every candidate to matter effectively allowing me to vote multiple times. PR only takes my opinion once or twice. I’m not concerned with how complicated it is. Voting should take thought.
What do you mean by this? Every election represents 100% of the vote.
That’s false as the votes for parties other than the big 2 in the riding are wasted. First-past-the-post often has parties winning all the power with 40% of the vote.
That’s not what you said the first time, which is why I asked for clarification. Maybe you meant, “the system represents 95% of the voters” because the votes are all totaled therefore represented? I was wondering if you were implying that some votes don’t count in the current system.
I think he means 95% of the votes result in representation in Parliament.