[js97]

The new mayor was *directly* elected by a huge margin in a municipal election with a staggering 50+% turnout.

If that isn't democracy in action, then I don't know what is.

Is UT really this out of touch?

Ranked ballots and John Tory woudl be mayor, NOT miller
Ranked ballots and and it woudl have been some right wing mayor in calgary, NOT NENSHI

I'm actually very much for it. The NDP will generally garner the least amount of support in Toronto

In this case, they will always be elimiated first, and make it a liberal/conservative play ground

All for ranked ballots

 

[The_Waffler]

Ranked ballots and John Tory woudl be mayor, NOT miller

Is that supposed to be better?!

Tory and Smitherman... two best friends looking for for an election they can win.

 

[jn_12]

Remember when I said people don't understand voting reform? Case in point:

The thought that should I vote for a very unpopular candidate who is eliminated early means that my vote is then given to someone else based on a formula is downright disturbing. My only voice in a democracy is my vote, and you suppose to take that right from me and give it to a candidate that I did not choose to vote for? Are you kidding me? The entire premise here just reeks of elitist feces. WTF gives anyone the right to take my vote and give to someone else? If I choose to vote for some wingnut out in the political wilderness, that is my choice, my right.

This is not a democratic idea, it's an attempt to slowly co-opt the election process in order to manufacture results that some might prefer.

Which is more disturbing to you? The idea that a person with less than a majority of the vote can impose his/her will on the majority of people who opposed them, or the idea that we can elect a mayor or a councilor who was at least the 1st or 2nd (or even 3rd) prefered candidate of 50% of the voters? It's actually far more democratic as it ensures that a candidate has a significant level of support from at least 50% of the population.

The great thing about ranking systems is that you don't even have to rank any or all of the candidates (though there are a couple jurisdictions in the world that do force you to for their own reasons). If you only believe one person deserves your vote then you mark them with a 1 and submit your vote. Your vote is only transferred to another candidate if you want it to be and if it's necessary.

 

[jn_12]

Ranked ballots and John Tory woudl be mayor, NOT miller
Ranked ballots and and it woudl have been some right wing mayor in calgary, NOT NENSHI

I'm actually very much for it. The NDP will generally garner the least amount of support in Toronto

In this case, they will always be elimiated first, and make it a liberal/conservative play ground

All for ranked ballots

Well actually based on prior voting results in past elections centrists in Toronto are more likely to vote for the "left" candidate in the absence of a "centre" candidate. At least that was the case in both of Miller's wins. There's not much evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

[Yoshimura]

Which is more disturbing to you? The idea that a person with less than a majority of the vote can impose his/her will on the majority of people who opposed them, or the idea that we can elect a mayor or a councilor who was at least the 1st or 2nd (or even 3rd) prefered candidate of 50% of the voters?

What is disturbing is that certain people agree to impose their views on others by threatening violence.

 

[Yoshimura]

If people refuse to vote, then they're giving their consent to be ruled by the people who actually did vote.

That's Illogical.

It's impossible to give one's consent to be ruled. There can be no such thing as voluntary slavery, because slavery takes away one's capacity of free choice. In other words, freedom is one's default ethics, as rational, volitional beings.

The fact of the matter is that some people endorse the notion of having rulers ("representatives") by voting and other methods. Not participating in that coercive process (and explaining why) is simply refusing to violate the rights of others or champion those who do.

 

[jn_12]

What is disturbing is that certain people agree to impose their views on others by threatening violence.

Did anyone threaten violence?

 

[vic]

A really interesting race was in Ward 10. See results here. In that ward, James Pasternak won with only 19.156% of the vote! The top four contenders were all within 4% of each other, and fifth place was only 8% behind. No real clear "winner" that represents the wishes of the whole ward very well.

 

[Dan416]

That's Illogical.

It's impossible to give one's consent to be ruled. There can be no such thing as voluntary slavery, because slavery takes away one's capacity of free choice. In other words, freedom is one's default ethics, as rational, volitional beings.

The fact of the matter is that some people endorse the notion of having rulers ("representatives") by voting and other methods. Not participating in that coercive process (and explaining why) is simply refusing to violate the rights of others or champion those who do.

Okay I get it. You're an anarchist. I won't waste my time with you then. Go live under a rock. Don't pay taxes. I don't care. Everything is a tool of oppression to you anyway. Add the internet into that too. I think you should throw your TV away. Your computer away. And your clothes too, because they're oppressing your natural body. Set fire to the national flag because it's a symbol of oppression. And you better be an atheist too. And don't wear any branded clothing, ever.

 

[Yoshimura]

Okay I get it. You're an anarchist. I won't waste my time with you then. Go live under a rock. Don't pay taxes. I don't care. Everything is a tool of oppression to you anyway. Add the internet into that too. I think you should throw your TV away. Your computer away. And your clothes too, because they're oppressing your natural body. Set fire to the national flag because it's a symbol of oppression. And you better be an atheist too. And don't wear any branded clothing, ever.

Hey Coruscanti,

I don't know what triggered that ad-hominem response . I certainly did not mean to upset you. My response was addressing the topic at hand.

Peace

 

[doady]

Hey Coruscanti,

I don't know what triggered that ad-hominem response . I certainly did not mean to upset you. My response was addressing the topic at hand.

Peace

All of your posts in this thread have been off-topic.

Peace.

 

[Peepers]

I don't agree with the premise that a candidate needs to get +50% in order to have a mandate. Ford got almost the exact same number of votes as Smitherman and Pantalone combined! Ford has a huge mandate to govern. If we did have a ranked ballot I don't think it would have been enough to save Smitherman since I think his "anyone but Ford" campaign siphoned off just about all of the Pantalone votes he was going to get (thanks to polls showing Ford and Smitherman in a "dead heat" - polls which we now know were bogus). I would imagine in a "ranked ballot" system voters would not be required to make second and third selection therefore many - like me would only select my first choice any way.

 

[archanfel]

Voting reform is awesome but the problem is that people only remember to care about it for about two weeks before a major election and maybe a week afterwards.

I also think the overly complicated MMP proposal in Ontario a few years ago kind of poisoned the well. They did a remarkably shitty job of selling that.

Indeed.

Whether Ford has a mandate or not does not change the fact that our election system is not fair. I am not sure whether Ranked Ballot is the answer, but we should not have to worry about strategic voting. This is a good discussion to have.

 

[CDL.TO]

I'm offended by the suggestion that people are only talking about this now because of Ford's victory. I've been involved with a ranked ballot initiative for several months now... even back when Smitherman was polling with a huge lead and I will continue to be involved in the campaign. This is something that should occur at all levels of government, no matter who is currently in power.

If we are to be actual citizens who are engaged in our democratic system, we need to advocate for making sure that the democratic system works in the best possible way. Giving people to ability to make more informed decisions and vote in a way that more closely represents their desires, if they choose to do so, is clearly a decision that would empower the democratic process.

The PCs... the Liberals... the NDP... they ALL have used or will use ranked ballots to choose their leader. Do they not want to choose the best possible leader for their party? Do they not want to reflect the desires of their members? Then why not the same for the public?

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

The new mayor was *directly* elected by a huge margin in a municipal election with a staggering 50+% turnout.

If that isn't democracy in action, then I don't know what is.

Is UT really this out of touch?

+1 Miller won with far less support and far less voter turnout.

Besides as the explination pointed out, more often than not the candidate with the most first choice votes wins in a ranked system. So basically we want to complicate a system just to reach the same conclusion?