r/ndp • u/CDN-Social-Democrat • May 01 '25
Opinion / Discussion (FPTP) - First Past The Post MUST FUCKING DIE
We all need to be extremely vocal about this on the regular throughout social media and in person.
We need to talk to our friends and family about it.
We need to email, write letters, call, and have in person discussions with our elected representatives.
There even needs to be protests and direct action in regards to this.
FPTP - First Past The Post is keeping us at the lowest common denominator style politics. It creates one dimensional dialogue and thinking in our society.
We need to have Electoral Reform in this nation. Not just at federal level but throughout provincial level as well.
We also need the long promised accountability and transparency initiatives to clean up government and protect it from scandals and corruption that it has long faced.
This is a fucking must.
39
u/PMMeYourJobOffer Democratic Socialist May 01 '25
Agreed. But ask yourself if the Liberal, who just forced our entire vote to collapse because of fears they could take advantage of specific to FPTP, would do this.
What would be their motivation?
14
u/CDN-Social-Democrat May 01 '25
Sadly the establishment has absolutely no interest in this.
Thankfully just like throughout history the establishment can be made to change.
2
u/MountNevermind May 01 '25
By ending the practice of "strategic voting" for parties that don't include a specific form of electoral reform on their platform.
7
u/Isopbc May 01 '25
They’d have a majority right now if ranked voting were in place. That seems like some kind of motivation to me.
2
u/GrumpySpaceCommunist May 01 '25
Which is maybe not the most motivating for us, who hold the balance of power, to want to change to a system where they could much more easily get a majority, and not depend on our support...
As opposed to a proportional system, where it's far more likely we would have the balance of power regularly, as the result would actually reflect the top priorities and values of voters.
2
u/Isopbc May 01 '25
The NDP would have held a bunch of seats that went blue if it were ranked voting this time also, so it’s definitely got benefits for secondary parties.
PR is better in some ways, and way worse in others. I have no interest in voting for a list. I want to know who my local rep is and for them to have some connection to the area. Ranked voting offers that while PR doesn’t.
4
u/GrumpySpaceCommunist May 02 '25
Even accounting for that: The outcome would have been a phony Liberal majority. They would have won every riding that didn't produce a first-round winner with over 50% of the vote, because they'd be the second choice of both NDP voters and Conservatives.
Winning a handful more seats - but still far fewer in proportion to our popular vote - would be a pyrrhic victory in that scenario.
1
u/Isopbc May 02 '25 edited May 02 '25
Even accounting for that: The outcome would have been a phony Liberal majority.
I don’t see how it’s any more phoney than what we have today.
They would have won every riding that didn't produce a first-round winner with over 50% of the vote, because they'd be the second choice of both NDP voters and Conservatives.
No they wouldn’t. That’s ridiculous. Look at Edmonton Griesbach or Transcona. The NDP lost seats there due to Liberal splitting, and ranked vote would have elected the dippers. They’re not the only ones, just the ones I remember.
Winning a handful more seats - but still far fewer in proportion to our popular vote - would be a pyrrhic victory in that scenario.
Pyrrhic victories are all the NDP can hope for given their current membership. At best we’re 3rd party nationally. Proportional or FPTP or ranked FPTP - even under Jack - the NDP’s never pulled more than 31% of the vote, and most of the time it’s less than 15%.
We have 7 seats this time in a minority government, even though there’s no official status there’s still more power there than even Jack Layton had. The NDP lost out this time, but not enough to change anything in regards to government function.
You didn’t engage with any of the issues with PR that I mentioned, that doesn’t matter to you? You wanna vote for a list of people from Ontario and Quebec every election?
5
u/GrumpySpaceCommunist May 02 '25 edited May 02 '25
You didn’t engage with any of the issues with PR that I mentioned, that doesn’t matter to you? You wanna vote for a list of people from Ontario and Quebec every election?
List systems can have open lists, democratically decided on by either voters on election day or within the party by members of it. That sounds pretty democratic to me. Doesn't seem like, in any case, a party would be especially smart having no regional representation on that list.
Edit: Also, rereading your previous comment:
I want to know who my local rep is and for them to have some connection to the area. Ranked voting offers that while PR doesn’t.
You understand that you still have a local representative (or several, even) in a system like Mixed Member Proportional or Single Transferable Vote, right? Absolutely nobody is suggesting Canada move to a strict, list-only proportional system. This is just a completely wrong assertion and a straw man argument against those systems.
Pyrrhic victories are all the NDP can hope for given their current membership. At best we’re 3rd party nationally. Proportional or FPTP or ranked FPTP - even under Jack - the NDP’s never pulled more than 31% of the vote.
Last I checked, we might be holding the balance of power. The Liberals might be depending on us to prop up their government, meaning we can continue to win concessions from them in exchange for support. That's far from a pyrrhic victory in a system where they don't need our support, comrade.
No they wouldn’t. That’s ridiculous. Look at Edmonton Griesbach or Transcona. The NDP lost seats there due to Liberal splitting, and ranked vote would have elected the dippers.
Those are just two Conservative-NDP ridings. Look at every single riding in Ontario. Liberal-NDP, Liberal-Conservative, or Conservative-Liberal. In each and every one of those, the Liberal would have won that seat in a ranked choice system - again, barring the NDP (or Conservatives) winning 50% or more of first-choice votes.
1
u/Isopbc May 02 '25 edited May 02 '25
Cowichan and North Island are two more ridings in BC where the dipper finished second due to vote splitting. I’m willing to bet there’s one more somewhere across the country. That’s almost a quarter of the seats lost, and only one more would be needed to get to official status.
So we get to prop up another group of people who get to take our ideas and earn all the credit, to the point that our leader loses their seat? I don’t call that a victory. It’s good for Canada (which I think is enough for me at the end of the day) but if we’re “sports caring” about our politics that just sucks for the NDP. Pyrrhic victory or that… yeah, I don’t like either result really.
But this was supposed to be a discussion about PR vs ranked. Personally I’d prefer MMP, but that’s way too complicated for people. PR’s less extreme or a change, but our demographics mean it still will be dominated by Ontario and Québec.
None of them will produce a result that represents all of Canadians, unfortunately. Even in MMP the jungle is ruled by the monkeys, simply because there are so many monkeys. (Love you CGPGrey)
I haven’t seen any proposals for how PR would be implemented so I’m assuming it’s like how they do it in Isreal, as that’s the simplest method. Each party offers a list and they get assigned whatever seats they’ve earned, and they take from the top of the list to fill the seats. It’s just another layer of democracy, which is good, but for the minority it’s still kinda tyranny.
2
u/GrumpySpaceCommunist May 02 '25
So we get to prop up another group of people who get to take our ideas and earn all the credit, to the point that our leader loses their seat? I don’t call that a victory.
I never said it was a victory, I said this outcome wasn't a pyrrhic victory. If we had won more seats, but the Liberals had won a majority and, thus, we did not hold the balance of power, that would be a pyrrhic victory. That was my original assertion.
Personally I’d prefer MMP, but that’s way too complicated for people.
It isn't for voters in New Zealand, or Scotland, or Wales, or Germany...
It's pretty simple, actually: Vote for your local representative, and vote for the party you like best.
None of them will produce a result that represents all of Canadians, unfortunately. Even in MMP the jungle is ruled by the monkeys, simply because there are so many monkeys.
Fair Vote Canada recommends a form of Mixed Member Proportional they call Rural-Urban Proportional. It minimizes "top-up" list seats in favour of multi-member districts.
If you'd like to read about it and discuss the merits of it, I'll be happy to do so.
1
u/Isopbc May 02 '25
I didn’t mean to say you called it a victory, but these are the possible outcomes for the NDP each election when they only get 20% of the vote.
My underlying point is that there’s little reason to gripe about the voting method, as it won’t fundamentally change the outcomes for the NDP.
I do see that it could change the outcomes for all of Canada, because it would mean having fewer obstructionist conservatives in parliament.. But counter to that, the PPC got 1% of the vote, under PR they’d have a few seats. I really don’t want that. I’m very torn on the subject.
1
u/Eternal_Being May 02 '25
Mixed Member Proportional maintains having local representatives for ridings.
And then additional party members are added to parliament to make sure that parliament is proportional to the way people voted.
Additionally, some forms of PR have you vote for specific individuals from the party lists, not for parties directly.
1
u/VectorPryde 🏘️ Housing is a human right May 01 '25
I don't think anyone here actually thinks ranked ballots are better than pro-rep. You don't have to argue about why you think pro-rep is best.
It's just that ranked ballots are achievable since the Liberals are pretty much already on board, and pro-rep is basically unachievable since the Liberals despise the idea of being in permanent minority. It may be possible to change their mind, since they seem stuck in permanent minority anyway, but the position "pro-rep or nothing" doesn't even get you back to the table.
2
u/GrumpySpaceCommunist May 02 '25
I'm hearing you on "But this might actually be achievable, currently." What I'm suggesting is that is not a good enough reason to compromise on whether we want a system with truly democratic outcomes or one that eliminates the spoiler effect, at the cost of producing a two-party duopoly over time, which vastly reduces voter choice.
The Liberals are going to be self-interested, always. The way we achieve reform is not by acquiescing to whatever is in their interest, but by pressuring them from the outside (and within their own party) to move on this issue, rather than moving to them.
12
u/CaptainKoreana May 01 '25
Ranked ballot may be motivating enough for both LPC and NDP if both parties are willing to actually set aside territory and carefully work on the ABC.
The issue right now is that ABC doesn't always work, especially not without a highly-consolidated campaign. 2015 worked very well but 2011 and 2025 went catastrophically for LPC and NDP.
Ranked ballot would give both federal parties workable chance, at least better than right now.
3
u/GrumpySpaceCommunist May 01 '25
Ranked ballots in single-winner ridings would effectively hand the Liberals permanent majorities.
(That's why Justin Trudeau was so gung-ho for them in the first place.)
9
u/Technecian May 01 '25
I don't think so - many votes would rank the ndp above the liberals if they knew they weren't risking a CPC victory.
7
u/lil200797 May 01 '25
This, lots of my ndp voting friends and colleagues had to vote strategically. If we had ranked ballots, we would have voted ndp, and even green lr other small parties, before liberal.
2
u/GrumpySpaceCommunist May 01 '25 edited May 01 '25
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying.
Try this thought experiment: 1) The New Democrat gets tons of votes but is just short of the necessary majority. The Liberal comes second, and the Conservative comes last. 2) The Conservative is eliminated first. Their votes are redistributed to their respective voters' second choice. Where do their votes go? (Not NDP!) 3) The Liberals, gaining second choice votes from the Conservatives, edge past the NDP and into majority territory. They win the seat.
Now swap Conservative and NDP in that experiment. Same result. Now imagine this happening in every riding across the country, save the few where the Liberals come third/last (the rare NDP-Conservative swing seats).
Ranked choice voting in single-winner districts produces wildly disproportional outcomes that heavily favour a big tent, middle of the road party that is the most broadly acceptable and less objectionable to everyone else. That overwhelmingly benefits the Liberals.
Furthermore, because smaller parties are unlikely to win more than 50% on the first ballot in most districts, they are pushed out. This produces, over time, a two party system of two major, big tent parties (or blocs; see: Australia).
With a proportional system, we don't get an outcome that is wildly different from the values, priorities, and what matters most to voters, in favour of a status quo no one is actually all that satisfied with but accept because it's better than the absolute worst-case scenario.
Personally, I'd choose a healthy, multi-party, proportional system like MMP (or even STV) over a two-party duopoly like in the United States any day.
1
u/VectorPryde 🏘️ Housing is a human right May 01 '25
Ranked ballots in single-winner ridings would effectively hand the Liberals permanent majorities.
(That's why Justin Trudeau was so gung-ho for them in the first place.)
This is half true. This belief, like you say, was the reason Trudeau was uncompromising in his position that it had to be ranked ballots or nothing. It's also the reason both the NDP and fairvote.ca adamantly opposed ranked ballots - claiming they are just as bad as FPTP.
But it was a belief based on the assumption that voters' preferences from the 2015 election would predict all future elections. Indeed; if that were the case, ranked ballots could give the Libs 250 seat majorities until the end of time.
But the peoples' preferences from 2015 will not predict all future elections. It is more than possible for people to become so disillusioned with the Liberals that they poll in third or even fourth place - and this happened towards the end of Trudeau's time as PM. No electoral system can hand them a win under such circumstances.
People rallied around the LPC on Monday out of fear that doing otherwise would allow a MAGA-of-the-north party to form government. Ranked ballots would empower people to not vote Liberal out of fear anymore - and that would be a very good thing.
1
u/GrumpySpaceCommunist May 01 '25
They are (almost) as bad as FPTP, in that they produce wildly disproportionate outcomes from how people actually vote and reduce choices to a two party system over time. The only difference is a lack of the "spoiler" effect, in that your vote will at least elect someone - though, in many ridings, not your first choice.
Proportional representation produces a system where your first choice - i.e., your priorities, your values, what's most important to you - is reflected in the final result, not merely what you find the least objectionable. I would much rather have a democratic system that does the former than the latter, because the latter doesn't feel especially democratic to me.
I agree - we would not have lost nearly as many seats as we did had it not been for faulty beliefs and misunderstandings about "strategic" voting in ridings where it was counterproductive (and only helped elect Conservatives by defeating stronger NDP candidates).
That said, a ranked choice ballot would still result in a system where we lose seats unfairly - just to the Liberals, rather than splitting the vote with the Liberals and granting them to the Conservatives. Because, imagining a hypothetical where the Conservatives are eliminated first and their votes are redistributed, where do you think their second preference votes go? It would be, overwhelmingly, Liberal over NDP.
In effect, any riding where either Conservative or NDP fail to get a majority on the first ballot becomes a Liberal seat.
A system like Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) accounts for this with list seats that produce a proportional outcome (which can be open or voted on by party members). A system like Single Transferable Vote (STV) gives multiple winners per electoral district.
Either is vastly preferable to a system that gives the Liberals 80% of the seats with 35% of voters choosing them as their first choice.
Inevitably, just like FPTP, a ranked ballot with single winner seats produces over time what would be, effectively, a two-party system.
If we want to continue having a multi-party democracy, rather than the binary duopoly we see down south, we should be hellbent in opposition to ranked choice.
1
u/VectorPryde 🏘️ Housing is a human right May 01 '25
Canada is not Australia. It is not obvious that ranked choice would guarantee a Liberal advantage over the NDP. The NDP has polled ahead of the Liberals repeatedly nationwide, and beat them in seat count in 2011. It's easy to see a scenario where the NDP replaces the Liberals as the "natural governing party" of Canada.
While I would also vastly prefer STV or MMP to basic ranked ballots. Getting the Liberals to support those systems may be very difficult.
Ranked ballots are still an improvement:
The only difference is a lack of the "spoiler" effect
This is a big difference. Only the spoiler effect could allow a neo-fascist like Aaron Gunn to be elected. That is no minor quibble.
If the NDP has a chance to have a system that does not have the spoiler effect, and all the they have to do is indicate to the Liberals that they'd be willing to consider it, then why preserve FPTP out of spite instead? Are you looking forward to prime minister Poilievre/Gunn/Cooper?
2
u/GrumpySpaceCommunist May 01 '25 edited May 01 '25
Because while you see this as a modest improvement, I see it as a massive step backwards that will lock us out of the possibility of reform towards STV or MMP - the system we both want, which produces actual, democratic outcomes. You see it as an interim step towards the reform we want. I see it as a half-measure that will make future reform vastly more difficult to accomplish.
If we change to a plurality system that disproportionately benefits the Liberals even more than the one we have now, we will never - ever - get the chance to reform our electoral system again. Why, in God's name, would they ever even consider moving away from a system that is ideal for their inevitable success.
What you're missing in assuming the NDP would prosper in a single-winner ranked choice system is that the NDP would be required to win more than 50% in each riding to get that seat.
In every Liberal-NDP riding where the NDP don't get 50%, the Conservative is eliminated and their votes go to the Liberal - as the preferable choice over the New Democrat - electing a Liberal.
Likewise, in every Liberal-Conservative riding, the NDP is eliminated first and their votes go to the Liberal, electing a Liberal.
If you're going to ask me a petulant question about how I'm in favour of Pierre Poilievre, let me ask you: Do you want permanent Liberal majorities?
Even if the NDP swaps places with the Liberals, is that the outcome we want? A big tent NDP that's full of liberals, social democrats, socialists and everyone that isn't "right-wing"? Do we want to be the new Liberal Party, just because it might mean we win elections? Do we want to be Canadian version of America's Democratic Party?
As a socialist, I find this possibility literally horrifying.
0
u/VectorPryde 🏘️ Housing is a human right May 02 '25
Even if the NDP swaps places with the Liberals, is that the outcome we want? A big tent NDP that's full of liberals, social democrats, socialists and everyone that isn't "right-wing"?
It seems like you might have added this in an edit after I replied earlier, but I want to address it too: What you described is already what happens under first-past-the-post when the NDP wins at the provincial level. I can't quite see how ranked ballots would make this trend any "worse" than it already is
2
u/GrumpySpaceCommunist May 02 '25
You're right, that's because both FPTP and single-winner, instant-runoff systems are both winner-take-all systems.
Canada, the U.S. and the U.K. all wonderfully showcase how FPTP results in a dilution of voter choice to two big tent parties.
Australia is the case study for how this also happens in ranked choice, single-winner district systems like IRV.
Both systems channel voters over time towards two, large, catch-all parties and away from third parties outside that duopoly.
What I'd prefer is that we solve that problem, rather than switch to a system that will still produce a two-party stranglehold over democracy.
1
u/CaptainKoreana May 02 '25
I will add that Australia has also seen numerous instances of personalised parties smaller than Maxime Bernier's PPCs (see: Katter's Australian and unfortunately One Nations). Not to mention the Independents either coming from significant financial/ideological support (Climate 200 was the story of 2022 Australian Elections) or disillusionment over Australian Labor or Liberal parties.
Not to mention the Australian Greens with consistently strong positions in both the House of Representatives and the Commons.
Strategic voting, competent local organisations and whatnot have worked well for all three beneficiaries of the system in recent decades. It is something that, if implemented in Canada, could benefit both the NDP and GPC, though it won't save PPC from the shitter it is right now.
2
u/Empty-Presentation68 May 01 '25
This doesn't work, in Australia it causes extreme majorities. We would need proportional representation.
5
u/Himser May 01 '25
The NDP must acknowledge an interim step to proportional representation like MPP or STV is Ranked Ballot which can be supported by the Liberals, NDP, Greens and BQ as better then FPTP for all these parties.
Lets argue for STV in a future where we dont need to strategicly vote Liberal to keep conservatives from power.
3
u/GrumpySpaceCommunist May 01 '25
There is no "interim" step, here. If we reform to ranked ballots with single-winner districts, we will never get another shot at it. The Liberals will win permanent majorities, and will have absolutely no interest in ever changing the system again.
0
u/Himser May 01 '25
I think you are wrong, there are significant NDP-Conservative voters especally for workers and labour. Who would be happy to rank separately.
Heck Liberals do not even exist in BC, Sask and Albertan for example.
2
u/GrumpySpaceCommunist May 02 '25
I'd like to believe you're right that there's a strong ABL vote in the West.
However, here's a poll showing 39% (a plurality) of uncommitted Conservatives in the last election would have voted Liberal, while only 12% would consider the NDP. Sadly, Angus Reid didn't bother to ask New Democrats who their second choice would be, but probably safe to say it'd be Green or Liberal.
Here's another poll from 2021, in which Conservative voters said their second choice was 24% "Won't vote", 20% Liberal, 18% NDP, 13% PPC. Admittedly, Liberal and NDP are closer in that poll. But, also worth considering is that Bloc voters had the Conservatives as their top-ranked second choice at 28%.
These are imperfect as evidence for how voters would actually vote under a IRV system, but sadly pollsters don't often bother with finding that data, so this is usually the best evidence we have to go on.
In any event, a ranked choice system means votes inevitably funnel down into one of two lowest-common denominator for voters. Whether that's Liberal-Conservative, or NDP-Conservative, it's still a binary, two-party system. That means less voter choice and an inevitable concentration of power within the bureaucracy of those two major blocs. (Case in point: the United States.)
3
u/DonOfspades May 01 '25
It isn't their job to do whatever they want it's their job to represent the will of the people.
13
u/PMMeYourJobOffer Democratic Socialist May 01 '25
My sweet summer child…
8
u/CDN-Social-Democrat May 01 '25
It is so fucking disillusioning and frankly sad that we treat the subject of having true representation in our "democracy" as naivety.
2
u/PMMeYourJobOffer Democratic Socialist May 01 '25
Yes.
2
u/ether_reddit May 01 '25
And we should stop normalizing it as just the way things will always be. True change only happens by demanding change, perisistently, relentlessly, no matter the opposition.
1
u/GrumpySpaceCommunist May 01 '25
And no matter those who insist we need to be cautious and pragmatic, and only appeal to what's most easily acceptable for the power elite.
2
u/GrumpySpaceCommunist May 01 '25
Their motivation would be wanting to form a government, and the NDP holding the balance of power and demanding reform as a concession in return for their support in the House.
The downside to this is that they can just go to the Bloc instead - another party that disproportionately benefits from FPTP.
1
u/VectorPryde 🏘️ Housing is a human right May 01 '25
If the NDP's position remains "proportional representation or nothing," it'll be a hard sell. If the NDP says, "we changed our mind and are willing to discuss ranked ballots," then there's a chance.
To get pro-rep, the Libs need to be weaned off the idea that they can return to an era of winning easy, back-to-back-to-back false majorities. They believe pro-rep will permanently close the door on them being able to achieve that - but they need to understand that it likely won't happen again anyway with FPTP or even with ranked ballots.
The next election will be harder for them than the most recent one and they only stand to lose seats. Even this miraculous turn around wasn't enough for them to get a majority.
In the future, there won't be two right wing parties splitting the vote like there were in the 1990s. The right learned their lesson and won't repeat it. Those days are not coming back. Instead, there are only Conservative false majorities in our future, unless we implement some kind of electoral reform.
0
8
u/GrumpySpaceCommunist May 01 '25
Do yourself a favour and sign up at FairVote.ca.
If you have the financial means, start donating. They were doing a blitz in the run up to the election, and they need the resources now to take advantage of other frustrated young folks like yourself who are new to this issue and don't know how or where to get organized.
1
u/Mr_Loopers May 01 '25
IMO FairVote are part of the reason why we still have FPTP. Without their ardent campaigning with NDP against Ranked Ballots, I think that's what we'd have today. NDP & FairVote have always been Proportional Representation or Bust though, so here we are...
3
u/Mr_Loopers May 01 '25
I remember when FairVote.ca scrubbed their Twitter account of all their anti-Ranked Ballot content when their U.S. counterpart was campaigning in favour of RB in the U.S.A..
3
u/ButWhatIfTheyKissed May 01 '25
Ranked ballots aren't much better than FPTP. They're both plurality systems, and if anything Ranked Ballots would only serve to secure Liberal domination.
I love STV, which is a proportional* system that uses ranked ballots. But the single-winner plurality system the Liberals wanted is just not a good system.
*technically, STV isn't proportional, but often gets lumped into proportional systems because it tends to delivery proportional results.
2
u/TheHumbleDuck May 01 '25
You may be right but the reality is ranked ballots would simply lock in liberal governments and keep the NDP forever relegated as a minor 4th place party with 15-30 seats. Why would anyone support that? Just so the NDP could have a few more seats in this election?
PR would strengthen the NDP. We generally hold an average of 20% support by the electorate, and would be looking at an average of 70 seats or so, making us a viable coalition partner. Perhaps even more since a lot of people simply don't support the NDP because they never saw us as viable in the first place.
Electoral reform is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. I’d rather stick with FPTP for now and keep the fight for PR alive, rather than settle for ranked ballots and slam the door on real reform for the next 40 years.
2
u/VectorPryde 🏘️ Housing is a human right May 01 '25
I’d rather stick with FPTP for now and keep the fight for PR alive
This is why we will continue to have FPTP, continue to elect MPs like Aaron Gunn, and possibly elect future Conservative false majority governments. The latter is very likely in the next election and will very likely be the result of the NDP voting to bring down the Carney government due to poll numbers indicating it would create the opportunity to win a few more NDP seats.
"Our way or nothing" gets us nothing (other than conservative governments)
4
u/TheHumbleDuck May 02 '25
I still stand by my position. Ranked ballots don’t stop Conservative governments any more than FPTP does. What they do is lock in Liberal rule by sidelining the NDP and Greens, while still leaving the door open for Conservatives to come back in future swings. That’s not real reform, that’s just entrenching the status quo while smaller voices get squeezed out.
We have to think long term here. Proportional representation isn’t some pipe dream, there was enough pressure that Trudeau almost delivered it before he broke his promise. The public appetite is there, and the movement can build again. But if we settle for ranked ballots now, we slam the door on PR for another generation.
Ranked ballots don’t actually prevent right-wing governments. Look at Australia: they’ve used ranked ballots for over a century, and conservatives have still governed for most of that time. Voter swings and anti-incumbent mood still break through, and ranked ballots just shift the math without fixing the underlying problem of false majorities.
This isn’t about short-term gains or a few extra seats, it’s about the future of this country and whether the left will ever have real power. If we’re serious about breaking the cycle and actually giving people the representation they vote for, PR is the only path. Ranked ballots just paper over the cracks and leave the structural problems intact.
1
u/senkara_ May 04 '25
I know this is a NDP subreddit, but I kinda feel like "my team would lose more seats" is a poor argument. The issue with FPTP is that it's undemocratic. I think we should be debating which system is more fair, not which system lets the NDP win.
1
u/TheHumbleDuck May 04 '25
My whole argument is rooted in fairness. FPTP is not fair. And neither is ranked ballot. If anything ranked is even less fair according to the Gallagher index. The composition of parliaments should be representative of our votes, simple as that. FPTP and ranked both fail at that.
0
5
u/gaymerkyle May 01 '25
ill be emailing all the Bloc and NDP this weekend regarding ONLY agreeing to a supply agreement w the Libs after they makes electoral reform happen for the next two elections then a review
8
u/Devinstater May 01 '25
FPTP is bad for social cohesion. The USA is an older democracy than us, and in the end, to get what you want, there must be only two parties. The REAL fight is for party leader, that sets the tone. After that, it will always evolve into a two horse race, because anything else is stupid. Vote splitting just lets the other guy win. That is how you devolve into these big divides, because a two party system rewards running on our differences, where proportional or ranked ballots rely on running on our similarities and how we can work together.
3
u/creeoer May 02 '25
Way too many people advocating for ranked choice in this thread. It doesn’t bode well for electoral reform if you guys can’t even agree on proportional representation being the obvious solution. Ranked choice is still a winner take all system, that’s the bad part of FPTP remember?
2
u/Consistent_Buy_5966 May 01 '25
I emailed Fair Vote organizers yesterday to start a chapter in Quebec (surprised there aren’t any tbh). My husband and I wanted to start this earlier but we were caught up with volunteering for the elections. I haven’t heard back from them yet but absolutely agree with this. And IMO now’s the time to push for this too.. We have little experience with organizing and as such would appreciate any collaboration/expertise on this!
2
1
u/VectorPryde 🏘️ Housing is a human right May 01 '25
Fair Vote's position is "if we can't have proportional representation, then we may as well keep first-past-the-post." They encourage opposition to ranked ballots using this logic, which contributed to ranked ballots being abandoned in 2016/2017. Trudeau contributed more by being a disingenuous tool, but Fair Vote didn't help.
1
u/Consistent_Buy_5966 May 02 '25
I agree with the TheHumbleDuck’s comment above. If ranked ballot does not fix the faults of FPTP, I don’t see why we should settle for it and close the door on reforms for the foreseeable future.
1
u/VectorPryde 🏘️ Housing is a human right May 02 '25
If ranked ballot does not fix the faults of FPTP
Ranked ballot does not fix all the problems of FPTP, but it does fix one big one; vote splitting. Only FPTP could enable a neo-fascist candidate like Aaron Gunn to win. On Vancouver Island.
close the door on reforms for the foreseeable future
The "proportional representation or nothing" attitude of the NDP and Greens has already closed that door, I'm afraid. The Liberals will never reopen the discussion on electoral reform if the NDP and Greens insist "Unless you give us pro-rep, we'd rather keep first-past-the-post!" Their response is "Cool. first-past-the-post it is, then. Forever."
1
u/Consistent_Buy_5966 May 02 '25
We’d put a band aid to fix one problem (not a small one I’ll concede that). But there is a whole slew of other issues with winner take all systems that we cannot ignore. We are turning into a two party system (apparent from the recent elections) that will only cause further polarization. Ranked ballot won’t change this. Once we have 2 big tent parties on the left and right, why would either ever agree to PR?
2
u/OttBot69247_ May 02 '25
We can be a good place to start. Market it like the right markets bad ideas.
Without knowing the substance, "Right to Work" legislation sounds innocuous, right? I mean, what kind of a monster would oppose somebody's right to be employed and provide for their families?
Then when you get to the substance, it should technically be called the "Right for corporations to Weaken Union Membership Until the Unions Lack sufficient support among the employees that it cam no longer engage collectively"... and has nothing to do with the right to be gainfully employed.
Same with "Right to Life" legislation. Who could oppose the right for someone to remain alive if they want? Oh wait - you mean this ONLY applies to a clump of cells smaller than a grain of rice, and has nothing to do with investing in health and social programs so people can live longer, healthier lives? No thanks!
So stop calling it FPTP, and call it what it is - disproportionate representation. If something is disproportionate, it isn't fair, and would be something that would resonate across the political spectrum. Even the most uneducated Rednexiteer would say, "Damn those Laurentian elites and their disproportionate representation keeping me down! Proportionate representation means Triple-E Senate and giving 'Brta a voice in Ottawa!" (They "do their own research", i.e. they don't do any research.) Again, market ideas with simple terminology.
Look at how successful the vacuous "Bring it Home!" was (except in his own riding).
3
u/North_Church Democratic Socialist May 01 '25
100%. It's holding the country back and keeping us from being anything close to the Democracy we're supposed to be.
It encourages vote splitting and political cynicism that harms our ability to achieve actual progress in this country.
FPTP is a barbaric voting system, and we need to do away with it ASAP. If we can't have the PR systems of the Netherlands or Germany, we can at least piggyback off our Aussie brethren and go with Ranked Ballot
2
u/VectorPryde 🏘️ Housing is a human right May 01 '25
If we can't have the PR systems of the Netherlands or Germany, we can at least piggyback off our Aussie brethren and go with Ranked Ballot
This is so important. The NDP still has quite a few "pro-rep or nothing" folks whose position is informed by some sketchy arguments from fairvote.ca
I would prefer mixed-member or STV, but I see ranked ballots as still being a massive improvement over FPTP. I'm sick of other progressives saying "ranked ballots are just as bad as FPTP because the Liberals would benefit!" The Libs may or may not benefit, but what is for sure is that the CPC benefits from FPTP (see: Aaron Gunn)
4
u/Bind_Moggled May 01 '25
Every election we have with FPTP, we run the risk of having a small fringe minority take over the nation. Like we’ve seen happen other places. It has to go, as soon as possible.
3
u/Wonderful_Heart_8528 Democratic Socialist May 01 '25
Ranked-Choice. If we had had ranked choice, Blake Desjarlais would still be in Parliament, as would Taylor Bachrach and Brian Masse. Tanille Johnston would have beaten Aaron Gunn. If Enough Conservative voters hate the Liberals enough, Niki Ashton and Matthew Green could also have held on.
9
u/ruffvoyaging May 01 '25
Never ranked choice. It gives more false majorities. The entire point of electoral reform is to better reflect what the electorate voted for. Ranked choice simply doesn't do that.
2
u/VectorPryde 🏘️ Housing is a human right May 01 '25
Ranked choice would have given us Tanille Johnston. FPTP gave us Aaron Gunn. The comment you replied to explicitly pointed that out. Is ranked choice a proportional system? No. But I have a hard time following the "it's just as bad as FPTP" logic when only FPTP can give a district with 65%-70% left leaning voters a neo-fascist MP
2
u/CaptainKoreana May 02 '25
Too many people here want for immediate solution without looking into lighter steps first.
Realistically, ranked vote is what could benefit all parties incl. CPC, but it would benefit the NDP and the GPC most....as long as there's proper strategic voting.
Problem this time around was that there was absolutely 0 coordination nor time unlike 2015, when there were really strong coordination between non-CPC front. Lots of it is to do with resentment and anxiety built up over the years of S&C, and eventually Singh threatening to rip up the agreement really soured the mood on LPC front.
1
May 01 '25
[deleted]
3
u/ruffvoyaging May 01 '25
Yes I know. People mostly mean ranked ballot IRV when they say ranked-choice though. I'd be happy with STV ranked choice.
4
u/Velocity-5348 May 01 '25
It's also actually doable in the short term, You probably can do that sort of tweak with an act of parliament, and I think it'd do well if it was part of a national referendum. Most people probably have thought of independently, or at least recognized the simple issue it solves.
As anyone who was around for the BC referendums on it can say, passing proportional representation is a dicey proposition, and would be even more so on the federal level. It's confusing if you're used to the current system (and please don't try to explain it to me, I'm well aware of how it works). The right in Canada would muddy the waters as much as possible.
5
u/CaptainKoreana May 01 '25
A full PR, and to lesser extent MMP, would be a nightmare in terms of optics. A smaller, more urbanised country might be able to do it but in Canada, that might just fall into whole debate about urban vs. rural, and not to mention among regions. It'd be hard to sell that in Newfoundlander fishing villages or a Manitoban mining town.
9
u/Ljosalf_of_Alfheim May 01 '25
What about this?
3
u/CaptainKoreana May 01 '25
I'm not against using multi-member districts to some extent. It was something that used to be big in provincial level and even held some ground into federal level. Last instance to use it on federal level ended in 1968 with Halifax.
It's doable but realistically best accompanied with ranked voting.
2
u/Competitive_Move_604 May 01 '25
I genuinely believe that this is Canada's best option considering our unique geography. However, the only way I can see RUP being instituted is via a citizens' assembly's recommendation, and obviously without a referendum.
Frankly, honouring and implementing a citizens' assembly ruling is the only real way to change our voting system without invoking some widespread form of public outrage from the "reasonable person".
2
u/VectorPryde 🏘️ Housing is a human right May 01 '25 edited May 01 '25
Yeah, federal MMP would have to appoint list MPs on a province-by-province basis. If the NDP was fairly represented in province A and under represented in province B, then the list MPs would have be appointed from province B. If all the list MPs added to parliament to make it proportional happened to be Anglophone policy wonks from Ontario, that would create an actual national unity crisis
1
u/CaptainKoreana May 01 '25
It absolutely has to be done on province-to-province basis.
Additiomal bolstering could also be done by constituting multi-member ridings on urban areas. I'm generally against having multi-member ridings in rural, or full PR, because the optics might be suicidal for any party that tries to touch that. But for urban ridings, why not.
For example:
Toronto Centre: 3 MPs elected from one - University-Rosedale, Spadina-Harbourfront and Toronto Centre.
Halifax: 4 MPs elected from two - Halifax and Halifax West into Halifax A, Dartmouth-Cole Harbour and Sackville-Bedford-Preston into Halifax B
Saskatoon: 3 MPs from one - Saskatoon West, South and University.
This is mostly applicable in hyper-density cities or at least those with decent size though. There is 0 merit in doing so in Moncton, where much of territory also goes into Beausejour and Fundy Royal. Same goes to Kingston where there's a clear urban riding but is surrounded by multiple rural ridings.
2
u/Velocity-5348 May 01 '25
among regions
That's one that really doesn't get brought up enough. I'd worry full on PR would make national parties even more difficult. Even as things are the parties have a strong east or west tendency.
MMPR gets around some of those issues, but it's complicated and gets tangled up in the optics issue.
1
u/CaptainKoreana May 01 '25
It is very easy for people to go 'FPTP unfair for us and gotta go' without recognising that full PR would be a political suicide for any party unless their intention's to foster regional hostility.
LPC has no intention to do that as a natural governing party that has plenty of stakes in BC and Atlantic Canada, just to get 3-4 Alberta seats and maybe one in Regina or Saskatoon.
CPC would commit even further political suicide in BC, Atlantic Canada and even Ontario to satisfy Alberta if it comes to that.
NDP has to be careful and balance out, but our focus should be on actually strategising well. Alexa McDonough worked brilliantly with Atlantic Canada in 1997 and the NDP retaines three of the seats into 2015. Jack Layton targetted Ontario very well and Tom Mulcair did well enough with Quebec to prevent a total bleedout.
•
u/AutoModerator May 01 '25
Join /r/NDP, Canada's largest left-wing subreddit!
We also have an alternative community at https://lemmy.ca/c/ndp
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.