tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5611409863712113861.post7521064745296958540..comments2023-06-27T10:33:35.086-04:00Comments on kirbycairo: Some Problems of Democracy. . . . .Kirbycairohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17528654183160305877noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5611409863712113861.post-81253427149999955822010-09-04T17:19:42.375-04:002010-09-04T17:19:42.375-04:00Thanks, Leo. So it would appear that there is a sm...Thanks, Leo. So it would appear that there is a small trend. Actually, I noticed it when trying to devise a small tweak of our electoral system towards proportionality: Don't resize the ridings, add seats or change the ballot, but compensate towards proportionality by eliminating some ``worst winners'' of the over-represented parties and replacing them by some ``best losers'' of the under-represented parties. The number of seats affected (10%, 20%?) could be decided by the electorate at each election. <br /><br />Furthermore, the score of candidates could be measured by (votes obtained / number of eligible voters) rather than (votes obtained / votes cast). That way, there would be a local incentive to high voter turnout: Better chances to retain a local candidate.<br /><br />I did tests with recent elections in Ontario. It is there that I noticed that some of the worse winners had over 50% in a riding with a low voter turnout. Moreover, it seemed that these victims were women and minorities in safe ridings. It is just as if our parties put women and minorities as candidates in safe ridings to make us look good. This raises us to about 50-th in the world in therms of representation of women, instead of being much worse. But at the same time it seems to decrease voter turnout in these ridings.Claude Tardifnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5611409863712113861.post-64752037679578682392010-09-03T13:49:22.681-04:002010-09-03T13:49:22.681-04:00I'd favour an official regime of compulsory vo...I'd favour an official regime of compulsory voting (though not punitive, but instead offering a tax rebate to those who cast a ballot).<br /><br />-LeoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5611409863712113861.post-67184704969658425942010-09-03T13:01:43.180-04:002010-09-03T13:01:43.180-04:00Thanks for the numbers Leo. It seems to me over al...Thanks for the numbers Leo. It seems to me over all however that one can safely say that a significant number of MPs are elected with only a plurality of actual voters, let alone potential voters. And I think it is fair to say that this demonstrates a real problem for our democracy.Kirbycairohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17528654183160305877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5611409863712113861.post-38556065474735560952010-09-03T12:47:57.924-04:002010-09-03T12:47:57.924-04:00Your comments had me wondering, Claude. So I went ...Your comments had me wondering, Claude. So I went to the numbers to test your theory: Is there a correlation between voter turnout and the propensity for an "outright majority" in a riding.<br /><br />See the results here: http://tinypic.com/r/sy4do6/7<br /><br />It appears that there is a trend of some sort: that as the size of the majority vote increases, the voter turnout decreases.<br /><br />There are a lot of high turnouts with victories in the 50-60% range (top left of chart), which seems to counter act the trend.<br /><br />But even some of the largest majority victories are not that far off the Canadian average voter turnout: with Diane Ablonczy and Jason Kenney near 70% majorities *and* over 60% turnout.<br /><br />-LeoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5611409863712113861.post-10775872962370201372010-09-02T19:32:39.844-04:002010-09-02T19:32:39.844-04:00118 out of 305 is about a third. Also, I think tha...118 out of 305 is about a third. Also, I think that ``safe'' ridings tend to be the ridings with the lowest participation. I confess I don't have thourough data on this, but it would make sense: why bother to vote if the opponent is sure to win?<br /><br />First-past-the-post also poses an ethical problem with campaign financing: You can give money either to your favorite leading candidate, or to a minor candidate who has no chance of winning but could split your main opponent's vote. Which is the most cost-effective?Claude Tardifnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5611409863712113861.post-89208467272555119432010-09-02T16:29:11.572-04:002010-09-02T16:29:11.572-04:00Thanks for the numbers Leo, it is a surprising num...Thanks for the numbers Leo, it is a surprising number. However, of course the point still stands and the problems still remain.Kirbycairohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17528654183160305877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5611409863712113861.post-55500676803529248952010-09-02T16:21:23.315-04:002010-09-02T16:21:23.315-04:00Further to your train of thought, even though a vo...Further to your train of thought, even though a voter casts in favour of a particular party, the voter may not favour all of that party's policy positions. This is especially true within big-tent, brokerage parties, although every party has its internal divisions and policy confusions.<br /><br />And, actually, there is a surprising number of MPs elected with an outright majority: 118 in the 2008 election (ranging from 50.1% to 82%). (Of that 118, 80 were elected as Conservative MPs).<br /><br />[There were 267 MPs elected with at least 40% of the vote in their riding. And only 8 candidates who received more than 40% of the vote but *did not* win a set.]<br /><br />-LeoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com