Richard, I'm not seeing the same information you are on the referendum site. First, there is no final referendum language or list of options yet. That is still to be determined, informed in part by the results of the survey. STV involves the direct election of individual candidates, so control would not be turned over to party insiders under that system. As you point out, the other methods could have that effect, if they use closed lists, but rather than gloss over the distinction between open and closed lists, the site explains the difference <https://engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote/votingsystems/> under each system page. It will be interesting to see which methods ultimately make it on the referendum ... and which method they use to choose the winner of the referendum :) Greg

On 1/17/2018 5:45 AM, Greg Dennis wrote: > It will be interesting to see which methods ultimately make it on the > referendum ... and which method they use to choose the winner of the > referendum :) I was told that the choice would be done using IRV (instant-runoff voting)! Ironically that's not one of the options. Of course that's because it's not a proportional method, which is clearly their primary goal. For anyone not familiar with Canadian politics, they have more than two main parties, which makes their election results unpredictable and surprising, especially regarding party proportionality. That's why election-method reform is likely to occur in Canada before it occurs in the U.S. (which is similar to what happened for women getting the right to vote). Richard On 1/17/2018 5:45 AM, Greg Dennis wrote: > Richard, > > I'm not seeing the same information you are on the referendum site. > First, there is no final referendum language or list of options yet. > That is still to be determined, informed in part by the results of the > survey. > > STV involves the direct election of individual candidates, so control > would not be turned over to party insiders under that system. As you > point out, the other methods could have that effect, if they use closed > lists, but rather than gloss over the distinction between open and > closed lists, the site explains the difference > <https://engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote/votingsystems/> under each system page. > > It will be interesting to see which methods ultimately make it on the > referendum ... and which method they use to choose the winner of the > referendum :) > > Greg > > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info >

On 01/17/2018 06:57 PM, VoteFair wrote: > On 1/17/2018 5:45 AM, Greg Dennis wrote: > > It will be interesting to see which methods ultimately make it on the > > referendum ... and which method they use to choose the winner of the > > referendum :) > > I was told that the choice would be done using IRV (instant-runoff > voting)!  Ironically that's not one of the options.  Of course that's > because it's not a proportional method, which is clearly their primary > goal. That's unfortunate; I still think the New Zealand double question setup is the best one, where the referendum both has a yes/no question and a "which method if yes gets majority" one. (The question of what election method to use on the "which" section is another matter, of course.) > For anyone not familiar with Canadian politics, they have more than two > main parties, which makes their election results unpredictable and > surprising, especially regarding party proportionality.  That's why > election-method reform is likely to occur in Canada before it occurs in > the U.S. (which is similar to what happened for women getting the right > to vote) An interesting question would be why the US doesn't have multiple parties. As far as I understand, the different parties in Canada have strong local support (in different areas of the country), and that's what keeps Duverger's law from destroying them. But for some reason that hasn't saved US third parties. Could it be an effect of presidentialism? Or a corporate power thing? It is odd.

On 2/4/2018 7:00 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: > ... > An interesting question would be why the US doesn't have multiple > parties. As far as I understand, the different parties in Canada have > strong local support (in different areas of the country), and that's > what keeps Duverger's law from destroying them. But for some reason that > hasn't saved US third parties. Could it be an effect of presidentialism? > Or a corporate power thing? It is odd. Vote splitting, combined with the use of single-mark ballots, easily accounts for why the U.S. has only two parties. Yes, regional affects in Canada account for the Bloc Québécois party -- which is dominant in the French-speaking province of Quebec. As for Canada's other main parties, the Conservative party is on the political right, the New Democratic party is on the left, and the Liberal party, according to Wikipedia, is somewhere in the center. The fact that Canadian citizens have to pay money to a political party in order to vote in their party's nominating convention is very different from the U.S. where any voter can sign up to vote in any party's primary election. I don't know to what extent this helps to account for the difference. Yes, the fact that presidential elections allow for only two parties surely contributes to the difference from Canada, where the voters do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. I doubt that corporations account for any significant difference. Richard Fobes On 2/4/2018 7:00 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: > On 01/17/2018 06:57 PM, VoteFair wrote: >> On 1/17/2018 5:45 AM, Greg Dennis wrote: >> > It will be interesting to see which methods ultimately make it on the >> > referendum ... and which method they use to choose the winner of the >> > referendum :) >> >> I was told that the choice would be done using IRV (instant-runoff >> voting)! Ironically that's not one of the options. Of course that's >> because it's not a proportional method, which is clearly their primary >> goal. > > That's unfortunate; I still think the New Zealand double question setup > is the best one, where the referendum both has a yes/no question and a > "which method if yes gets majority" one. (The question of what election > method to use on the "which" section is another matter, of course.) > >> For anyone not familiar with Canadian politics, they have more than >> two main parties, which makes their election results unpredictable and >> surprising, especially regarding party proportionality. That's why >> election-method reform is likely to occur in Canada before it occurs >> in the U.S. (which is similar to what happened for women getting the >> right to vote) > > An interesting question would be why the US doesn't have multiple > parties. As far as I understand, the different parties in Canada have > strong local support (in different areas of the country), and that's > what keeps Duverger's law from destroying them. But for some reason that > hasn't saved US third parties. Could it be an effect of presidentialism? > Or a corporate power thing? It is odd.