[Woodbridge_Heights]

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.

You have a right to vote and you have a right to make the effort to vote (almost all employers will allow you time off on voting day). The choice not to participate in a cornerstone of the democratic process shows a lack of interest in democracy, and to claim that changes to the democratic process would entice you to participate is asinie. Participate now, push for changes you seek and advance the democratic process.

 

[jn_12]

+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?

Unless you have trouble counting, it doesn't complicate it. What it does is ensure that the more preferred person wins, which I think is what we should be striving for in a democracy. If that happens to be the candidate thet received the most 1st place votes, then so be it, but at least we know for sure that 50% of voters felt strongly enough about the candidate to rank them highly.

Also consider that not every election ends with one person having an overwhelming amount of support. Take for example the mayoral election in Welland:
Barry SHARPE 5001 31.56%
David ALEXANDER 4459 28.14%
Greg D'AMICO 2589 16.34%
Leo S. VAN VLIET 2371 14.96%
Phil BRADLEY 1214 7.66%
John WATT 211 1.33%

Such a result could have played out in Toronto given that we had 5 main candidates. In this case, I don't think it's clear whatsoever who would win between Sharpe and Alexander based on a ranked ballot. At the very least, with a ranked ballot we wouldn't be left knowing that a man with 31% support is the mayor.

 

[archanfel]

Unless you have trouble counting, it doesn't complicate it. What it does is ensure that the more preferred person wins, which I think is what we should be striving for in a democracy. If that happens to be the candidate thet received the most 1st place votes, then so be it, but at least we know for sure that 50% of voters felt strongly enough about the candidate to rank them highly.

Also consider that not every election ends with one person having an overwhelming amount of support. Take for example the mayoral election in Welland:
Barry SHARPE 5001 31.56%
David ALEXANDER 4459 28.14%
Greg D'AMICO 2589 16.34%
Leo S. VAN VLIET 2371 14.96%
Phil BRADLEY 1214 7.66%
John WATT 211 1.33%

Such a result could have played out in Toronto given that we had 5 main candidates. In this case, I don't think it's clear whatsoever who would win between Sharpe and Alexander based on a ranked ballot. At the very least, with a ranked ballot we wouldn't be left knowing that a man with 31% support is the mayor.

Depending on how you do it, I don't think they counted the ballot in Toronto by hand. Computers will have a very hard time telling 2 from 3. And the voters will have a hard time dealing with a format that computers can understand easily. I think it should be done, but needs to be done in a clean way.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Depending on how you do it, I don't think they counted the ballot in Toronto by hand. Computers will have a very hard time telling 2 from 3. And the voters will have a hard time dealing with a format that computers can understand easily. I think it should be done, but needs to be done in a clean way.

A sample of a computer based ranked ballot:

Because it only costs $200 to get on the current ballot for mayor of Toronto, which was why the ballot had so many candidates, we may have to increase the fee to weed some out.

 

[archanfel]

A sample of a computer based ranked ballot:

Because it only costs $200 to get on the current ballot for mayor of Toronto, which was why the ballot had so many candidates, we may have to increase the fee to weed some out.

I think it should be signature based. If you can get say 10,000 signature, then you can get onto the ballot.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Unless you have trouble counting, it doesn't complicate it. What it does is ensure that the more preferred person wins, which I think is what we should be striving for in a democracy. If that happens to be the candidate thet received the most 1st place votes, then so be it, but at least we know for sure that 50% of voters felt strongly enough about the candidate to rank them highly.

Also consider that not every election ends with one person having an overwhelming amount of support. Take for example the mayoral election in Welland:
Barry SHARPE 5001 31.56%
David ALEXANDER 4459 28.14%
Greg D'AMICO 2589 16.34%
Leo S. VAN VLIET 2371 14.96%
Phil BRADLEY 1214 7.66%
John WATT 211 1.33%

Such a result could have played out in Toronto given that we had 5 main candidates. In this case, I don't think it's clear whatsoever who would win between Sharpe and Alexander based on a ranked ballot. At the very least, with a ranked ballot we wouldn't be left knowing that a man with 31% support is the mayor.

Yes it complicates things. I now have to choose three times as many candidates and consider and rank the planform of three times as many candidates, versus choosing the one candidate that I agree with. The tallying of votes dosen't get complicated it's the process of choosing my choice of candidate that gets complicated. All this so that the results of, what, one out of one hundred elections can be changed?

Sorry I fail to see the benefit.

 

[adma]

Is it possible to "plump" ballots through ranked balloting? I mean, the prospect of having to rank each and every one of 40+ mayoral candidates is daunting...

 

[Mongo]

Is it possible to "plump" ballots through ranked balloting? I mean, the prospect of having to rank each and every one of 40+ mayoral candidates is daunting...

As far as I know, you can rank as many names as you wish to, ranging from one name to all of them. Typically, you would at least include all the candidates that you don't despise, since if all of the names you have ranked are eliminated during the tabulation process, your vote disappears and you have no further influence on the result.

 

[adma]

Great! So I could have voted
(1) Rob Ford
(2) Don Andrews.

Thanks for reminding me.

(Boy, I love pitching to lame negative voter stereotypes;-))

 

[PinkLucy]

Ranked ballots may become a reality:

RaBIT ‏@TorontoRaBIT 1m
We did it!!! Just moments ago, City Council voted to request permission from the province to use ranked ballots for our municipal elections!

Daniel Dale ‏@ddale8 1m
But there's still a ways to go: the province must change legislation, then council must vote again to approve it.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Ranked ballots may become a reality:

Finally. The election system we use is deeply flawed. For a great explanation of it, take a look at this video from CGPGrey.

[video=youtube;3Y3jE3B8HsE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE[/video]
One last benefit: It also means that Rob Ford is almost certainly gone.

 

[yonderbean]

One last benefit: It also means that Rob Ford is almost certainly gone.

Great news indeed, though I've heard this wouldn't come into effect until the 2018 elections.

 

[Mongo]

ranked ballots may become a reality:

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I am hoping that the ranked ballot can be a trial run for the rest of Canada. Hopefully it will spread through the nation once people realize how successful it is. Never again shall Toronto have a crazy mayor like Ford.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained

[video=youtube;3Y3jE3B8HsE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE[/video]

The ridiculous system we, and most other democracies, use and why it's so flawed. Without this insane FPTP system of voting, Ford and other fringe candidates wouldn't have a chance at victory.

The Ford bros are the snake and turtle