6 ms·

> Trudeau, who is now answering questions from reporters, said his one regret of his premiership has been his failure to introduce electoral reform. Oh please,

> Trudeau, who is now answering questions from reporters, said his one regret of his premiership has been his failure to introduce electoral reform. Oh please, you had lots of time to address this and instead you've just handed us to the conservatives.

tgv 2y ago
Electoral reforms are only proposed by those who think they'll benefit from them.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Electoral reforms are only proposed by those who think they'll benefit from them There is a long history of this not being true, particularly by outgoing leaders. See, for example, how Nixon almost abolished the electoral college.
  - votepaunchy 2y ago
    Almost? The proposed amendment that passed the House but failed in the Senate? If 3/4 of the states were going to pass an amendment then why wouldn't 2/3 call for a convention of the states?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > proposed amendment that passed the House but failed in the Senate Yes. Read the history of its support. If Nixon’s SCOTUS pick hadn’t been tanked the amendment would have likely passed. > If 3/4 of the states were going to pass an amendment then why wouldn't 2/3 call for a convention of the states? One of these is more drastic than the other.
- usrusr 2y ago
  True. And I believe every system will eventually be gamed to some amount. You do occasionally need change. But if you were to artificially enforce some "full rewrite" reform e.g. every n decades, that reform would just end up a tug of war between sides already deep into the existing gaming, trying to increase the effect of whatever tactic their side excels in. One candidate for a possible workaround that I've occasionally been speculating about would be an organized process where n groups are tasked with doing n "rewrites" in parallel, and then a process that somehow mixes approval and random selection to pick one. The rationale would be the hope that the low chance of a particular rewrite actually making it would add some distance, would reduce the gaming-the-system incentives. Everybody has some amount of motivation to actually design a fair system, but that's competing with incentive to make it gameable by whatever side the co-author in question is on. But that fairness incentive would not really be diminished much by writing a what-if instead of a definitive future, whereas the incentive to deliberately flaw the would-be system to make it easier to game gets lower with a shrinking likelihood of the proposal actually getting implemented.
LanceJones 2y ago
Who is "us"?
- karmasimida 2y ago
  Yeah that is a good question to OP The predicted conservative win if the election happens right away, would be a landslide in every sense of that word
  - mardifoufs 2y ago
    Would it be possible for it to not happen right away? They are in a minority government without a PM, I really wonder if there's a way the elections aren't triggered basically instantly.
    - warmlander99 2y ago
      With Trudeau leaving, I suspect that at least one of the other parties will give them enough time to elect a new leader before bringing down the government. The government may even last until the required election date of late October however, nothing of any importance will likely be passed in that time
    - brailsafe 2y ago
      He stays on until late march, they need to select a new party leader and then an elections held
      - warmlander99 2y ago
        Unfortunately, the liberal party rules say they require a minimum of four months to elect a new leader. They may be able to fast track it in three months, but it’s entirely up to the liberal party so I suspect Trudeau will still be leader when Parliament resumes.
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
renewiltord 2y ago
BC perplexingly chose otherwise. People always seem to hate this. Even here in California, we’re lucky to be able to rank everyone in SF but few other cities can. And every election, there’s a lot of “IRV is ruining this city” when candidates with fewer first choice votes win.
- nindalf 2y ago
  Alaska got Ranked Choice Voting and after every election cycle where a Democrat wins they're up in arms about how it's bad. This time the repeal effort got within a whisker of succeeding, while the Democrat (Mary Peltola) lost her congressional seat. RCV encourages moderation, meaning candidates like Peltola and Senator Murkowski (R) win statewide office. This distresses people who feel like such moderates are very far from their own views.
  - linksnapzz 2y ago
    The Duchess of Alaska is a "moderate" only insofar as her first and overriding loyalty is to the what the permanent Federal Civil Service in DC wants. She'll agree with anyone of any ideological stripe so long as she knows the will of the bureaucracy is being carried out.
    - alephnerd 2y ago
      Unlike most states, Alaska is heavily dependent on the federal government due to the massive defense footprint and ANCSAs.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > This distresses people who feel like such moderates are very far from their own views It pisses off people who don’t understand compromise.
    - nindalf 2y ago
      They don't want to compromise, agreed. But they know they live in a state where any presidential candidate with (R) next to their name can win by 10-20 points. So they wonder how such a state can elect a Democrat without something underhanded going on. A working theory is that the RCV system is "too confusing" for some folks and it leads to the D candidate winning an "undeserved" victory.
jmclnx 2y ago
I hope Canada does not go the "Trump" Route. But from people in Canada I know, they think that is distinct possibility.
- ARandomerDude 2y ago
  The frustrations are certainly similar: > Trudeau has faced mounting pressure to resign amid polling that showed his ruling Liberal Party was likely to be swept out of power in the next election by the opposition Conservative Party. The prime minister has also become deeply unpopular over a range of issues, including the soaring cost of living and immigration. His leadership as further thrown into question when his finance minister abruptly quit in December. https://www.newsweek.com/justin-trudeau-resigning-support-collapsed-2010357 https://www.newsweek.com/justin-trudeau-resigning-support-co...
beaned 2y ago
As someone with no knowledge of the topic, why was electrical reform needed? Wouldn't one assume that either party motivated to do it while in power would be doing it with the goal of positively affecting the outcome for their party in the future? It would seem weird for a candidate to reform how voting works knowing it could negatively affect their side, right?
- thesh4d0w 2y ago
  We have two left parties that votes are split across, and a single right party. This means the conservative party often ends up getting more power since they're "first past the post" even though the majority of the population may not agree with them.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    So? "The rules need to be changed because the wrong people keep winning" sounds very suspicious to me. If the situation is as you describe, what really needs to change is that the two left parties need to merge, or one of them needs to become such a marginal player that it doesn't matter. If the leaders of those parties can't or won't do that, well, then you get the situation that you have.
    - dblohm7 2y ago
      > So? "The rules need to be changed because the wrong people keep winning" sounds very suspicious to me. That's not what they're saying. In Canada, we can easily end up with parliamentary majorities for parties that have less than 50% of the popular vote. Sometimes substantially less.
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        No, I got that part. That's true in any first-past-the-post system, and especially true in ones with more than two major parties. (The solution to that would be proportional representation rather than first-past-the-post.) But the complaint seemed to be, not that it kept happening, but that it kept favoring the Conservatives. So, on the one hand, the fact that it keeps favoring one party is an issue. On the other hand, the way the complaint was made makes it sound like it's not coming from a position of objectivity.
thijson 2y ago
I remember when he first ran that was one of his planks.
jyscao 2y ago
> instead you've just handed us to the conservatives I agree that the conservatives are not a good choice, but apparently for the opposite reason as you - the conservatives are unlikely to be able to fix much of the damage Trudeau has inflicted on the country, especially w.r.t. unfettered immigration. The PPC is the only one with any sensible policies IMO, but unfortunately they won't be competitive in the upcoming national election.
- cassepipe 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - jyscao 2y ago
    You're welcome. And thanks for offering your unasked for and useless input.
hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
Was it failure to introduce ranked voting, or failure to introduce electoral reform? There was multiple systems being suggested. NDP preferred MMP. Personally I wanted STV, but the Liberal party wanted alternate vote, the system that would benefit them the most. Once they realized public and other party support was for systems other than Alternative Vote they backed out.
joshdavham 2y ago
I wonder if he could still do it last minute. Like could we switch to proportional representation in the last months? It’d be a better system and may even (cynically) help his own party in the next election so there’d be some incentive.
- cmrdporcupine 2y ago
  They don't want proportional representation. If they did, they would have had it. Trudeau killed the electoral reform committee precisely because the NDP and Bloc insisted the would only accept PR and not Ranked Ballots (Trudeau's preference) and the Conservatives would prefer no change at all. PR would force the Liberals to co-govern in coalition with the NDP basically forever. They don't want it. Their enthusiasm for Ranked Ballots is for the opposite reason: they realize they are the 2nd choice of "most" Canadians (or were until the last few months...). Given that, and the near-extinction event they suffered pre-2015 and the rise of Trudeau II, you can understand why they'd prefer that...
cmrdporcupine 2y ago
People are failing to read between the lines here. Trudeau wanted electoral reform. But only one kind of electoral reform. A ranked ballot system. When he couldn't get that, because the NDP and Bloc said "No F'ing Way" (for reasons I'll get into below), he sabotaged the whole committee and forced it shut. After that he only had minority governments. So there was no way he was going to re-open the issue because he still wouldn't get the result he wanted. Why ranked ballots, and why are the NDP opposed to them? Because in a ranked ballot system the Liberals would be the 2nd choice of the majority of Canadians. It would effectively end the NDP as a viable electoral party. At least that's now the NDP saw it. I think a look at other ranked ballot system countries would definitely provide evidence that it tends to produce two-party system outcomes (see Australia, effectively a two party system) The NDP's preference is for a Mixed Member Proportional system like in Germany. As a partner in a coalition minority gov't with Trudeau there is no way they would have accepted anything else. And key people in the Liberal party will never ever accept such a system, since it would mean governing forever along with the NDP, their ideological opponent (no matter what other people might tell you.) So, yeah, screw Trudeau, and thank god he's gone (he should have resigned after he failed a majority last time around), but I think people need to dig more on this issue and why he might be saying this: He wants "electoral reform" and regrets not getting it, because if they had accomplished what they wanted (ranked ballots), they would probably have a good chance at another election win. Yikes.

tgv 2y ago

Electoral reforms are only proposed by those who think they'll benefit from them.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Electoral reforms are only proposed by those who think they'll benefit from them There is a long history of this not being true, particularly by outgoing leaders. See, for example, how Nixon almost abolished the electoral college.
- votepaunchy 2y ago
  Almost? The proposed amendment that passed the House but failed in the Senate? If 3/4 of the states were going to pass an amendment then why wouldn't 2/3 call for a convention of the states?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > proposed amendment that passed the House but failed in the Senate Yes. Read the history of its support. If Nixon’s SCOTUS pick hadn’t been tanked the amendment would have likely passed. > If 3/4 of the states were going to pass an amendment then why wouldn't 2/3 call for a convention of the states? One of these is more drastic than the other.
usrusr 2y ago
True. And I believe every system will eventually be gamed to some amount. You do occasionally need change. But if you were to artificially enforce some "full rewrite" reform e.g. every n decades, that reform would just end up a tug of war between sides already deep into the existing gaming, trying to increase the effect of whatever tactic their side excels in. One candidate for a possible workaround that I've occasionally been speculating about would be an organized process where n groups are tasked with doing n "rewrites" in parallel, and then a process that somehow mixes approval and random selection to pick one. The rationale would be the hope that the low chance of a particular rewrite actually making it would add some distance, would reduce the gaming-the-system incentives. Everybody has some amount of motivation to actually design a fair system, but that's competing with incentive to make it gameable by whatever side the co-author in question is on. But that fairness incentive would not really be diminished much by writing a what-if instead of a definitive future, whereas the incentive to deliberately flaw the would-be system to make it easier to game gets lower with a shrinking likelihood of the proposal actually getting implemented.

LanceJones 2y ago

Who is "us"?

karmasimida 2y ago
Yeah that is a good question to OP The predicted conservative win if the election happens right away, would be a landslide in every sense of that word
- mardifoufs 2y ago
  Would it be possible for it to not happen right away? They are in a minority government without a PM, I really wonder if there's a way the elections aren't triggered basically instantly.
  - warmlander99 2y ago
    With Trudeau leaving, I suspect that at least one of the other parties will give them enough time to elect a new leader before bringing down the government. The government may even last until the required election date of late October however, nothing of any importance will likely be passed in that time
  - brailsafe 2y ago
    He stays on until late march, they need to select a new party leader and then an elections held
    - warmlander99 2y ago
      Unfortunately, the liberal party rules say they require a minimum of four months to elect a new leader. They may be able to fast track it in three months, but it’s entirely up to the liberal party so I suspect Trudeau will still be leader when Parliament resumes.
      - bryanlarsen 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

renewiltord 2y ago

BC perplexingly chose otherwise. People always seem to hate this. Even here in California, we’re lucky to be able to rank everyone in SF but few other cities can. And every election, there’s a lot of “IRV is ruining this city” when candidates with fewer first choice votes win.

nindalf 2y ago
Alaska got Ranked Choice Voting and after every election cycle where a Democrat wins they're up in arms about how it's bad. This time the repeal effort got within a whisker of succeeding, while the Democrat (Mary Peltola) lost her congressional seat. RCV encourages moderation, meaning candidates like Peltola and Senator Murkowski (R) win statewide office. This distresses people who feel like such moderates are very far from their own views.
- linksnapzz 2y ago
  The Duchess of Alaska is a "moderate" only insofar as her first and overriding loyalty is to the what the permanent Federal Civil Service in DC wants. She'll agree with anyone of any ideological stripe so long as she knows the will of the bureaucracy is being carried out.
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    Unlike most states, Alaska is heavily dependent on the federal government due to the massive defense footprint and ANCSAs.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > This distresses people who feel like such moderates are very far from their own views It pisses off people who don’t understand compromise.
  - nindalf 2y ago
    They don't want to compromise, agreed. But they know they live in a state where any presidential candidate with (R) next to their name can win by 10-20 points. So they wonder how such a state can elect a Democrat without something underhanded going on. A working theory is that the RCV system is "too confusing" for some folks and it leads to the D candidate winning an "undeserved" victory.

jmclnx 2y ago

I hope Canada does not go the "Trump" Route. But from people in Canada I know, they think that is distinct possibility.

ARandomerDude 2y ago
The frustrations are certainly similar: > Trudeau has faced mounting pressure to resign amid polling that showed his ruling Liberal Party was likely to be swept out of power in the next election by the opposition Conservative Party. The prime minister has also become deeply unpopular over a range of issues, including the soaring cost of living and immigration. His leadership as further thrown into question when his finance minister abruptly quit in December. https://www.newsweek.com/justin-trudeau-resigning-support-collapsed-2010357 https://www.newsweek.com/justin-trudeau-resigning-support-co...

beaned 2y ago

As someone with no knowledge of the topic, why was electrical reform needed? Wouldn't one assume that either party motivated to do it while in power would be doing it with the goal of positively affecting the outcome for their party in the future? It would seem weird for a candidate to reform how voting works knowing it could negatively affect their side, right?

thesh4d0w 2y ago
We have two left parties that votes are split across, and a single right party. This means the conservative party often ends up getting more power since they're "first past the post" even though the majority of the population may not agree with them.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  So? "The rules need to be changed because the wrong people keep winning" sounds very suspicious to me. If the situation is as you describe, what really needs to change is that the two left parties need to merge, or one of them needs to become such a marginal player that it doesn't matter. If the leaders of those parties can't or won't do that, well, then you get the situation that you have.
  - dblohm7 2y ago
    > So? "The rules need to be changed because the wrong people keep winning" sounds very suspicious to me. That's not what they're saying. In Canada, we can easily end up with parliamentary majorities for parties that have less than 50% of the popular vote. Sometimes substantially less.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      No, I got that part. That's true in any first-past-the-post system, and especially true in ones with more than two major parties. (The solution to that would be proportional representation rather than first-past-the-post.) But the complaint seemed to be, not that it kept happening, but that it kept favoring the Conservatives. So, on the one hand, the fact that it keeps favoring one party is an issue. On the other hand, the way the complaint was made makes it sound like it's not coming from a position of objectivity.

thijson 2y ago

I remember when he first ran that was one of his planks.

jyscao 2y ago

> instead you've just handed us to the conservatives I agree that the conservatives are not a good choice, but apparently for the opposite reason as you - the conservatives are unlikely to be able to fix much of the damage Trudeau has inflicted on the country, especially w.r.t. unfettered immigration. The PPC is the only one with any sensible policies IMO, but unfortunately they won't be competitive in the upcoming national election.

cassepipe 2y ago
[flagged]
- jyscao 2y ago
  You're welcome. And thanks for offering your unasked for and useless input.

hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago

Was it failure to introduce ranked voting, or failure to introduce electoral reform? There was multiple systems being suggested. NDP preferred MMP. Personally I wanted STV, but the Liberal party wanted alternate vote, the system that would benefit them the most. Once they realized public and other party support was for systems other than Alternative Vote they backed out.

joshdavham 2y ago

I wonder if he could still do it last minute. Like could we switch to proportional representation in the last months? It’d be a better system and may even (cynically) help his own party in the next election so there’d be some incentive.

cmrdporcupine 2y ago
They don't want proportional representation. If they did, they would have had it. Trudeau killed the electoral reform committee precisely because the NDP and Bloc insisted the would only accept PR and not Ranked Ballots (Trudeau's preference) and the Conservatives would prefer no change at all. PR would force the Liberals to co-govern in coalition with the NDP basically forever. They don't want it. Their enthusiasm for Ranked Ballots is for the opposite reason: they realize they are the 2nd choice of "most" Canadians (or were until the last few months...). Given that, and the near-extinction event they suffered pre-2015 and the rise of Trudeau II, you can understand why they'd prefer that...

cmrdporcupine 2y ago

People are failing to read between the lines here. Trudeau wanted electoral reform. But only one kind of electoral reform. A ranked ballot system. When he couldn't get that, because the NDP and Bloc said "No F'ing Way" (for reasons I'll get into below), he sabotaged the whole committee and forced it shut. After that he only had minority governments. So there was no way he was going to re-open the issue because he still wouldn't get the result he wanted. Why ranked ballots, and why are the NDP opposed to them? Because in a ranked ballot system the Liberals would be the 2nd choice of the majority of Canadians. It would effectively end the NDP as a viable electoral party. At least that's now the NDP saw it. I think a look at other ranked ballot system countries would definitely provide evidence that it tends to produce two-party system outcomes (see Australia, effectively a two party system) The NDP's preference is for a Mixed Member Proportional system like in Germany. As a partner in a coalition minority gov't with Trudeau there is no way they would have accepted anything else. And key people in the Liberal party will never ever accept such a system, since it would mean governing forever along with the NDP, their ideological opponent (no matter what other people might tell you.) So, yeah, screw Trudeau, and thank god he's gone (he should have resigned after he failed a majority last time around), but I think people need to dig more on this issue and why he might be saying this: He wants "electoral reform" and regrets not getting it, because if they had accomplished what they wanted (ranked ballots), they would probably have a good chance at another election win. Yikes.