NDP MPP for Davenport, Johan Schein, has introduced a bill at the Ontario Legislature calling for a ranked ballot in mayoral elections.
Schein was enthusiastically supported by the predatory Canadian Union of Public Employees so he could advance their agenda. Also supporting the Bill is one of Ford's most vociferous Council enemies, the inept councilor, "Fiasco" Joe Mihevc.
Toronto Mayor Rob Ford was able to negotiate firm deal with CUPE and as revenge, the union's man at Queen's Park is introducing a Bill which is widely seen as a back door effort to defeat Rob Ford.
The ranked ballot bill that Schein introduced would allow voters to choose a first, second and third choice for mayor and so forth, allocating points for each place. So conceivably, if this backwards twist on democracy goes through, the next mayor of Toronto could be someone who does not even have a plurality of first choice votes for mayor.
The Bill could easily pass the Legislature with the support of the corrupt provincial government of Kathleen Wynne. The provincial Liberals have consistently tried to utilize Ford's personal behavior as a distraction from their incompetent, corrupt leadership, while they have ignored the criminal activities of Liberals, such as the mayor of London, Ontario who is currently under indictment for serious offenses.
EYE ON A CRAZY PLANET
So if ranked ballots are a "backwards twist on democracy" what are your thoughts on party leadership elections, all of which either use a ranked ballot or essentially do the same thing by having multiple ballots if no one wins a majority on the first?
ReplyDeleteYou've confused and conflated ranked ballots with run-off elections. They're completely different things. Run off elections are democratic, if a protracted process.
ReplyDeleteActually, Richard, I'm not confused - I'm afraid you're just a decade or so out of date. As parties moved away from delegated conventions to "One Member One Vote" they've tended to adopt the ranked ballot. For instance, the federal Conservatives used a ranked ballot in 2004 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election,_2004 ) as did the Ontario Progressive Conservatives in 2009 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Conservative_Party_of_Ontario_leadership_election,_2009#Process where it is referred to as a "preferential ballot"). So the original question stands - if ranked/preferential ballots are a "backwards twist on democracy" what are your thoughts on party leadership elections what are you thoughts on party leadership elections (specifically those that use a ranked/preferential ballot)?
ReplyDeleteWell, you conflated them in your comment and they are not the same thing.
ReplyDeleteBut that aside, I think ranked ballots aren't really a proper exercise of democracy, but again, run-off elections are certainly legitimate.
What a political party does for its own process is its own business. There are a whole lot of things about internal party elections that are less than savory, but they are all, give or take, on the same moral plain as far as that goes. But aside from instances where those fixed internal elections deposit a new Premier on the public, as happened with the Liberals and Wynne, or the Progressive Conservatives and Kim Campbell, etc, it's still something different than the way a public election does and should occur.
Then do you agree that having a run-off election between the two leading candidates (if no one wins a majority on the first ballot) as they do in France would be more democratic?
ReplyDeleteNo, run offs are neither more democratic, nor less. Just a different means. But ranked ballots are a convoluted, misleading process, much like the proportional representation being pushed in the name of democracy by a number of people who are clearly contemptuous of the democratic process when it doesn't go their way.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to use the Ontario PC's an an example, the useless Tim Hudak should be enough of a deterrent against using ranked ballots again.
Rob Ford voted in favour of ranked ballots himself.
ReplyDeleteCity Council item MM52.33, August 26, 2010
"To ensure that the individual who is elected is representative of the majority of voters in the
City, the Municipal Elections Act should be altered to state that the race for Mayor should be
decided by a form of voting that represents a result of 50% + 1. This will ensure that the Mayor
has a mandate and the support of a majority of those who voted. "
Yes: 29
Paul Ainslie, Brian Ashton, Sandra Bussin (Chair), Mike Del Grande, Mike Feldman, John Filion, Paula Fletcher, ROB FORD, Mark Grimes, Suzan Hall, Doug Holyday, Cliff Jenkins, Norman Kelly, Chin Lee, Gloria Lindsay Luby, Giorgio Mammoliti, Peter Milczyn, Howard Moscoe, Frances Nunziata, Case Ootes, Cesar Palacio, John Parker, Anthony Perruzza, Kyle Rae, Bill Saundercook, David Shiner, Karen Stintz, Adam Vaughan, Michael Walker
Kenny, you've managed to confuse run-off elections with ranked ballots. Though calling themselves "Instant run-offs" they aren't and a person who was not the first choice of most voters could win based on the rankings.
ReplyDelete"a person who was not the first choice of most voters could win" - that's also a description of the current system in which candidates often win and "majority" governments are often elected with only 35 to 40% of the vote (and sometimes less). If no one wins a majority of the vote what's wrong with looking at the second choices of lower ranked candidates?
ReplyDeleteAnd in a run-off election, the winner is not necessarily the same person who had the plurality in the first ballot. Which was precisely your complaint in the blog post.
ReplyDeleteThe results of an instant run-off are statistically identical to a phased run-off. But feel free to keep up the spin attempt.
Yeah, right. Except in a run-off, at least you get to make a head to head choice and you know whom vs whom you're voting for specifically, and the winner is indeed the one with more votes than any other candidate amongst all of them facing each other.
ReplyDeleteI don't always like the results in first-past-the-post either. Kristyn Wong-Tam, whom I think is one of the worst councilors in the city, managed to win that way with only about 28% of the vote. While I may have a low opinion of her, I most certainly would not challenge the legitimacy of her election. But hey, if it's good for mayor, why not do the same thing in local council elections?
Oh, the Councilors pushing this proposal for the mayoral election aren't proposing it for Council seats too? How odd.
The people pushing this are hypocritical, dishonest and anti-democratic. It's an implausible coincidence that the system was fine for centuries and now suddenly, with someone you detest like Rob Ford being mayor, the electoral system needs to be changed as a specific and transparent effort to get rid of him.