Give Away Your Votes
The one thing I liked about the Green party was their concept of proportional representation. Of course they like proportional representation. Without it, the Greens will never ever get a seat. I have problems with the nature of elections: you elect someone and have your say once until the next election. The ruling part is either a dictatorship or its weak and doomed. With three to 10 candidates running in each of the ridings, very few seats will get a majority winner. Basically: we're hoping that greatest minorities reflect the national voting trends. If 60% of the country votes Liberal, they'll get 60% of the seats. That never happens. In Mulroney's first election, his PCs got the most popular votes of any party in any election: 50%. Half of the people would rather not have had him in charge. So, with half of the voters not wanting the PCs in, they managed to 211 out of 282 seats: 75% of the seats for 50.03% of the vote. That isn't right.
The Green's in BC tried to push for the single transferable vote (STV). I wanted to like that system. But, it's a dumb system. Here's my idea: we change the foundations of the voting concept. We each have a vote. If we are not running, we are giving our vote to someone else. So, our vote is a pledge. Government is all about giving up our personal rights to a larger organization. We don't take the law into our own hands, we give that right to someone else. So, this new voting concept is still in step with much of what we do.
Come election night: all of the votes are tallied. The candidates decide whether they should keep their votes or give them to another candidate. Doesn't that sound stupid? That is screwing with your votes? You were willing to send them to the capital to act on your behalf and make deals for you. Why not give the losers the chance to have their voice with your vote.
So, a candidate can hold onto their votes and hope; or give their votes to another candidate. When all of the votes are transferred, some candidates will give up the votes that were pledged to them and potentially change the election. Which would be more distasteful for a Green or NDP? To keep their own votes; or hand them ideologically similar candidate to defeat an ideologically opposed candidate? It's likely that dogma would still have a large role. Larger parties would push smaller parties to surrender their votes. Well, that woul allow deal making. For example: if the Greens got 5% of the vote in 50 ridings and 10% in one riding; the NDP could ask for their 5% in the 50 ridings and make a push for gain 50 seats; then surrender their votes in that one riding to that popular Green who got 10%.
Is this a perfect concept? No. We currently don't have a good system. I think it's a trade up from a system where a party gets 50% of the vote and 75% of the seats.
tags: tyeeelectioncentral
The Green's in BC tried to push for the single transferable vote (STV). I wanted to like that system. But, it's a dumb system. Here's my idea: we change the foundations of the voting concept. We each have a vote. If we are not running, we are giving our vote to someone else. So, our vote is a pledge. Government is all about giving up our personal rights to a larger organization. We don't take the law into our own hands, we give that right to someone else. So, this new voting concept is still in step with much of what we do.
Come election night: all of the votes are tallied. The candidates decide whether they should keep their votes or give them to another candidate. Doesn't that sound stupid? That is screwing with your votes? You were willing to send them to the capital to act on your behalf and make deals for you. Why not give the losers the chance to have their voice with your vote.So, a candidate can hold onto their votes and hope; or give their votes to another candidate. When all of the votes are transferred, some candidates will give up the votes that were pledged to them and potentially change the election. Which would be more distasteful for a Green or NDP? To keep their own votes; or hand them ideologically similar candidate to defeat an ideologically opposed candidate? It's likely that dogma would still have a large role. Larger parties would push smaller parties to surrender their votes. Well, that woul allow deal making. For example: if the Greens got 5% of the vote in 50 ridings and 10% in one riding; the NDP could ask for their 5% in the 50 ridings and make a push for gain 50 seats; then surrender their votes in that one riding to that popular Green who got 10%.
Is this a perfect concept? No. We currently don't have a good system. I think it's a trade up from a system where a party gets 50% of the vote and 75% of the seats.
tags: tyeeelectioncentral
Comments