4 ms·

Problem with First Past the Post voting systems, we tend to vote "strategically", and since the Alliance and PC's joined early augh's, the Right has been "unifi

Problem with First Past the Post voting systems, we tend to vote "strategically", and since the Alliance and PC's joined early augh's, the Right has been "unified" while the left is still split between the more centrist liberals and left NDP, with a small portion bled off for green's. Would love to see explanations of downvotes since this is factually true...

FredPret 2y ago
First past the post is awesome. I moved from a proportional-representation country to a FPTP one (Canada) and it's so much better to have a specific individual who is my MP. Back where I was born, there's a grey and anonymous party list of people selected by extremely dubious internal party political means. I never felt the slightest bit represented; and the political process was completely opaque. Now I have a dude with a newsletter, an email address, and an office.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  You can have both. Selected the candidate and proportional presentation. Most popular party candidates get elected.
  - hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
    Multiple proportional systems don't require lists and provide the best outcome. Comparing FPTP to a worse system and decided FTPT is awesome while ignoring its known and widely discussed flaws surprises me. Its not really open for debate these days although people love to reject reality.
    - FredPret 2y ago
      “Someone disagrees with me” = “they’re rejecting reality” Do you realize how alienating this shit is to a centrist?
      - hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
        I am a centrist. There have been a ton of studies on various sides of the spectrum highlighting issues with FPTP as a system. Its not they disagree with _me_, they disagree with the overall state of political science and its years of research into the outcomes of systems, not just what people "want"
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      > Its not really open for debate these days although people love to reject reality. Whenever I see something is not open for debate, I view it with a lot more skepticism. Almost always, this type of framing, to make an idea untouchable, leads to abuse. We saw this in a lot of the “trust authorities” type messaging in the pandemic.
      - hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
        Gravity's existence isn't open for debate, that doesn't mean there isn't more to learn about it. The studied and understood outcomes of FPTP systems in the real world have all shown similar issues trending towards 2 party systems, being susceptible to vote splitting on one side of the spectrum and leading to 'strategic' instead of 'idealistic' voting. There are worse systems by far, and better systems. Ignoring the bad because you can think of a single worse system is ignoring reality.
        freedomben 2y ago
        > Gravity's existence isn't open for debate What? Of course it is! There are physicists looking for the unified theory who hypothesize that there may be a unified way of understanding all the forces. IANA physicist by any stretch so maybe I've misunderstood the Great Courses and books I've read, but gravity is actually quite poorly understood to us currently. But the broader point about things not being open for debate is dangerous, and I think you unintentionally demonstrated a real-life reason why. If we stop questioning gravity and trying to understand it's cause better (which IMHO primiarly happens through reasoned, intelligent debate) then we stagnate, and stagnation can be dangerous as from there it's a short hop and a skip to regression. If you want to make the argument though that some things aren't open for debate, I think there are stronger cases, like the Cartesian "I think therefore I am" is hard (though not impossible) to argue against because it forces the thinker to make arguments for their own non-existence, which is a tall order for a person who by definition must exist in order to do so.
        hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
- hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
  FPTP has many many flaws, one being that it trends towards a defacto 2-party system due to strategic voting, especially if only one spectrum is divided (i.e. liberal/ndp, or alliance/progressive conservatives back a few decades ago). The Anonymous Party list, and opaque process are not inherent factors on any of the replacements for FPTP, in fact the only one WITH the list was supposed to be an open list, and that was the system with the least political support. Ranked/alternate voting, STV and other options directly address the issues with FPTP without introducing the drawbacks of MMP/unelected leaders being selected for seats.
  - FredPret 2y ago
    What’s wrong with two parties? Countries with multiple small parties frequently seem to collapse into political torpor where nothing ever changes.
    - NewJazz 2y ago
      Countries with two parties often collapse into inaction where nothing ever changes too.
    - hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
      There is no way 2 parties can represent the diversity of opinions and ideas in the country. 2 parties means power tends to jump back and forth due to the recent ruling party doing badly vs the opposition actually providing an alternative and compelling change. This means parties tend to "lose" more than actually "win" elections. 2 dominant parties when one side of the spectrum is split among 2-3 parties tends to allow a smaller minority to achieve stronger governments which is not representative. I.E the split on the right in the 90's allowed the Liberals to have many successive majority governments despite less than 50% of support for many of those elections. In the aughts the alliance and PC merger turned that around and now the NDP and Liberals tend to split the left to a degree and the right can win a strong majority with 35-38% of the actual vote. This doesn't benefit any side long term. "getting things done" isn't always the best metric for a political party, especially when they don't have the public support for their changes. STV or various other methods that allow proportional results while maintaining current representation and government size were the best outcome, but didn't benefit the liberals so they dropped it.
- I-M-S 2y ago
  I moved from a PR country to a FPTP one (Canada) and my experience is exactly the opposite - as a left-leaning individual in a conservative ward, there's no way for my vote to ever count. But yeah, now my interests are directly ignored by a dude with a newsletter, an email address, and an office.
  - FredPret 2y ago
    The idea is that you would now engage with your dude and your fellow citizens in that conservative riding and be a moderating influence. You are all in the same boat in a sense that’s more local and less abstract than with proportional rep.
    - hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
      Considering its a safe conservative riding, that engagement is ignored and goes no where. Politicians here are the same as anywhere else, they will focus on where the money and the votes come from and ignore the rest. Which is why voting needs to be effective, and FPTP is exactly why there are so many "safe" ridings for the various parties.
    - ternnoburn 2y ago
      Why would they engage with you? If they are safe, there's zero need for them to give you the time of day. How do you propose moderating someone who can tell you to fuck off with impunity?
- barbazoo 2y ago
  > I moved from a proportional-representation country to a FPTP one (Canada) and it's so much better to have a specific individual who is my MP. You're mixing things up. FPTP isn't what gives you "a dude with a newsletter, an email address, and an office" and prop-representation doesn't prohibit having one either.
- carbine 2y ago
  Totally agree, 'dude with a newsletter and an email address' is very underrated.
carbine 2y ago
In practice the entire government has been propped up by a leftist coalition between the Liberals and NDPs, in recent years, so functionally I think they have done just fine. In fact, in a first-past-the-post system with a minority government you often end up giving disproportionate power to the third place party, in terms of the popular vote (in this case the NDP) because they hold up the government and can make significant demands in doing so. This has been absolutely borne out in Canada.

FredPret 2y ago

First past the post is awesome. I moved from a proportional-representation country to a FPTP one (Canada) and it's so much better to have a specific individual who is my MP. Back where I was born, there's a grey and anonymous party list of people selected by extremely dubious internal party political means. I never felt the slightest bit represented; and the political process was completely opaque. Now I have a dude with a newsletter, an email address, and an office.

Ekaros 2y ago
You can have both. Selected the candidate and proportional presentation. Most popular party candidates get elected.
- hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
  Multiple proportional systems don't require lists and provide the best outcome. Comparing FPTP to a worse system and decided FTPT is awesome while ignoring its known and widely discussed flaws surprises me. Its not really open for debate these days although people love to reject reality.
  - FredPret 2y ago
    “Someone disagrees with me” = “they’re rejecting reality” Do you realize how alienating this shit is to a centrist?
    - hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
      I am a centrist. There have been a ton of studies on various sides of the spectrum highlighting issues with FPTP as a system. Its not they disagree with _me_, they disagree with the overall state of political science and its years of research into the outcomes of systems, not just what people "want"
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    > Its not really open for debate these days although people love to reject reality. Whenever I see something is not open for debate, I view it with a lot more skepticism. Almost always, this type of framing, to make an idea untouchable, leads to abuse. We saw this in a lot of the “trust authorities” type messaging in the pandemic.
    - hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
      Gravity's existence isn't open for debate, that doesn't mean there isn't more to learn about it. The studied and understood outcomes of FPTP systems in the real world have all shown similar issues trending towards 2 party systems, being susceptible to vote splitting on one side of the spectrum and leading to 'strategic' instead of 'idealistic' voting. There are worse systems by far, and better systems. Ignoring the bad because you can think of a single worse system is ignoring reality.
      - freedomben 2y ago
        > Gravity's existence isn't open for debate What? Of course it is! There are physicists looking for the unified theory who hypothesize that there may be a unified way of understanding all the forces. IANA physicist by any stretch so maybe I've misunderstood the Great Courses and books I've read, but gravity is actually quite poorly understood to us currently. But the broader point about things not being open for debate is dangerous, and I think you unintentionally demonstrated a real-life reason why. If we stop questioning gravity and trying to understand it's cause better (which IMHO primiarly happens through reasoned, intelligent debate) then we stagnate, and stagnation can be dangerous as from there it's a short hop and a skip to regression. If you want to make the argument though that some things aren't open for debate, I think there are stronger cases, like the Cartesian "I think therefore I am" is hard (though not impossible) to argue against because it forces the thinker to make arguments for their own non-existence, which is a tall order for a person who by definition must exist in order to do so.
        hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
FPTP has many many flaws, one being that it trends towards a defacto 2-party system due to strategic voting, especially if only one spectrum is divided (i.e. liberal/ndp, or alliance/progressive conservatives back a few decades ago). The Anonymous Party list, and opaque process are not inherent factors on any of the replacements for FPTP, in fact the only one WITH the list was supposed to be an open list, and that was the system with the least political support. Ranked/alternate voting, STV and other options directly address the issues with FPTP without introducing the drawbacks of MMP/unelected leaders being selected for seats.
- FredPret 2y ago
  What’s wrong with two parties? Countries with multiple small parties frequently seem to collapse into political torpor where nothing ever changes.
  - NewJazz 2y ago
    Countries with two parties often collapse into inaction where nothing ever changes too.
  - hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
    There is no way 2 parties can represent the diversity of opinions and ideas in the country. 2 parties means power tends to jump back and forth due to the recent ruling party doing badly vs the opposition actually providing an alternative and compelling change. This means parties tend to "lose" more than actually "win" elections. 2 dominant parties when one side of the spectrum is split among 2-3 parties tends to allow a smaller minority to achieve stronger governments which is not representative. I.E the split on the right in the 90's allowed the Liberals to have many successive majority governments despite less than 50% of support for many of those elections. In the aughts the alliance and PC merger turned that around and now the NDP and Liberals tend to split the left to a degree and the right can win a strong majority with 35-38% of the actual vote. This doesn't benefit any side long term. "getting things done" isn't always the best metric for a political party, especially when they don't have the public support for their changes. STV or various other methods that allow proportional results while maintaining current representation and government size were the best outcome, but didn't benefit the liberals so they dropped it.
I-M-S 2y ago
I moved from a PR country to a FPTP one (Canada) and my experience is exactly the opposite - as a left-leaning individual in a conservative ward, there's no way for my vote to ever count. But yeah, now my interests are directly ignored by a dude with a newsletter, an email address, and an office.
- FredPret 2y ago
  The idea is that you would now engage with your dude and your fellow citizens in that conservative riding and be a moderating influence. You are all in the same boat in a sense that’s more local and less abstract than with proportional rep.
  - hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
    Considering its a safe conservative riding, that engagement is ignored and goes no where. Politicians here are the same as anywhere else, they will focus on where the money and the votes come from and ignore the rest. Which is why voting needs to be effective, and FPTP is exactly why there are so many "safe" ridings for the various parties.
  - ternnoburn 2y ago
    Why would they engage with you? If they are safe, there's zero need for them to give you the time of day. How do you propose moderating someone who can tell you to fuck off with impunity?
barbazoo 2y ago
> I moved from a proportional-representation country to a FPTP one (Canada) and it's so much better to have a specific individual who is my MP. You're mixing things up. FPTP isn't what gives you "a dude with a newsletter, an email address, and an office" and prop-representation doesn't prohibit having one either.
carbine 2y ago
Totally agree, 'dude with a newsletter and an email address' is very underrated.

carbine 2y ago

In practice the entire government has been propped up by a leftist coalition between the Liberals and NDPs, in recent years, so functionally I think they have done just fine. In fact, in a first-past-the-post system with a minority government you often end up giving disproportionate power to the third place party, in terms of the popular vote (in this case the NDP) because they hold up the government and can make significant demands in doing so. This has been absolutely borne out in Canada.