A Failure of Democracy

[phyllo]

You made quite a soup of this by mixing talk of votes for individuals in a riding to get a winner and the formation of a majority/minority government from the riding results.

It's easy to get a majority winner in a riding by using ranked ballots or a second runoff vote.

And yes, some segment of the voters will not be happy because their "guy" didn't win.


In the case of forming a government ... majority, minority governments and coalitions reflect the will of the voters. Minority governments and coalitions mean that the voters differ on the issues and the various parties need to work together to reach an acceptable compromise.

And yes, some segment of the voters will not be happy because their party is not in control of the government.

[MikeNovack]

You made quite a soup of this by mixing talk of votes for individuals in a riding to get a winner and the formation of a majority/minority government from the riding results.

It's easy to get a majority winner in a riding by using ranked ballots or a second runoff vote.

Not understanding what I am talking about so I will give a concrete example. For the moment, not relevant HOW the election in a riding is decided (first past the post, ranked choice, etc.)

EXAMPLE: Suppose there are 100 seats in the parliament (100 "ridings" to use the UK term) and suppose there are just two parties contesting, A and B. In sixty of the ridings, the candidate of party A beats the candidate of party B 55% to 45%. In forty of the ridings, the candidate of party B beats the candidate of party A 70% to 30%
Then:
1) Party A forms the government with a very healthy 60-40 seat majority. In spite of the fact.......
2) Party A had 45% of the vote (60 x .55) + (40 x .30)
3) Party B had 55% of the vote (60 x .45) + (40 x .70)

[Gary Childress]

Hmmm...now you're just making stuff up.

I see.

I don't think you do, Gary. If you can't quote it, I didn't say it. And if it's not either a quotation or an inescapable logical corollary required by one such, then it's stuff you made up.

I don't answer to stuff you make up.

OK. So are you saying socialists are or are not evil manipulators? Are you saying Trump is better, worse or the same as socialists? Are you saying the super rich can or cannot earn their exorbitant wealth? Which is it. You've made statements approximately to those effects. You sound like you are backtracking or avoiding the question to me.

They're simple questions. You can answer "true" or "false" to whether socialists are evil manipulators. You can answer "better, worse or the same as" for Trump vs socialists and you can answer "true" or "false" to the super rich being able to earn their wealth. These are statements that can be given a truth value. Or do you not believe in logic?

[Immanuel Can]

I see.

I don't think you do, Gary. If you can't quote it, I didn't say it. And if it's not either a quotation or an inescapable logical corollary required by one such, then it's stuff you made up.

I don't answer to stuff you make up.

OK. So are you saying socialists are or are not evil manipulators?

I'm asking you what you do with the Fabian problem. There are certainly manipulators who use Socialism to achieve their ends...there can be no doubting that, because we've seen it in every Socialist regime in history; and in the case of the Fabian Society, they even tell you exactly what they are doing.

And this is the key reason why Socialism will never work. It's based on a false anthropology, a delusional view of human nature that does not take into account the fallen nature of man, and must assume constant goodness where evil often dwells.

[Gary Childress]

I don't think you do, Gary. If you can't quote it, I didn't say it. And if it's not either a quotation or an inescapable logical corollary required by one such, then it's stuff you made up.

I don't answer to stuff you make up.

OK. So are you saying socialists are or are not evil manipulators?

I'm asking you what you do with the Fabian problem. There are certainly manipulators who use Socialism to achieve their ends...there can be no doubting that, because we've seen it in every Socialist regime in history; and in the case of the Fabian Society, they even tell you exactly what they are doing.

And this is the key reason why Socialism will never work. It's based on a false anthropology, a delusional view of human nature that does not take into account the fallen nature of man, and must assume constant goodness where evil often dwells.

What about socialists who don't use socialism to manipulate? Are all socialists wealthy manipulators? Or is socialism like any other system that can be corrupted by corrupt people or used by good people to do good things?

[phyllo]

You made quite a soup of this by mixing talk of votes for individuals in a riding to get a winner and the formation of a majority/minority government from the riding results.

It's easy to get a majority winner in a riding by using ranked ballots or a second runoff vote.

Not understanding what I am talking about so I will give a concrete example. For the moment, not relevant HOW the election in a riding is decided (first past the post, ranked choice, etc.)

EXAMPLE: Suppose there are 100 seats in the parliament (100 "ridings" to use the UK term) and suppose there are just two parties contesting, A and B. In sixty of the ridings, the candidate of party A beats the candidate of party B 55% to 45%. In forty of the ridings, the candidate of party B beats the candidate of party A 70% to 30%
Then:
1) Party A forms the government with a very healthy 60-40 seat majority. In spite of the fact.......
2) Party A had 45% of the vote (60 x .55) + (40 x .30)
3) Party B had 55% of the vote (60 x .45) + (40 x .70)

Yes. You are again mixing together majority for a candidate and majority for government.

The questions are ...
Why do you have ridings?

What are you attempting to achieve with the vote?

[MikeNovack]

Yes. You are again mixing together majority for a candidate and majority for government.

The questions are ...
Why do you have ridings?

Taken out of order
Why do you have ridings?

Do you mean instead of electing all MPs "at large? THAT is what is being done with a system like "proportional representation". You seem to be wanting "ranked choice voting" but that is suited to selecting ONE candidate, not hundreds at the same time. Besides allowing form representation of local interests, "ridings" are a solution to electing hundreds of candidates at the same time (an entire parliament)

You are again mixing together majority for a candidate and majority for government.

Not really. Consider how the election for president is conducted in the US. There are "states". The election is held in each state (to determine a single winner) with the state deciding how its electoral votes get cast. All but a few choose "winner take all", the candidate who wins in the state gets ALL of the states electoral votes. But say in Maine, the winning candidate in each Congressional district gets the electoral vote for that district with the two remaining electoral votes going to the candidate who won overall in the state. You might note that the whole system favors the smaller (by population) states. So my vote for President (I live in Massachusetts) is worth less than the vote of a friend living 10 miles away in Vermont. This not as crazy a compromise as it might seem when you remember the original situation under the Articles of Confederation was one STATE one electoral vote. We are a federation of states (and commonwealths).

So ----- several times in our history one candidate won the election (majority of electoral votes) even though lost the popular vote (more people voted for an opponent). And yes, repeated calls to change to election "at large" (popular vote only) and also calls for more states to d something like Maine does. That would make more of a difference in a big (large population) state with lots of Congressional districts. Will never happen as "winner take all" increases the power/influence of a state in the campaign for President.

So where you were seeing me mixing up "for a candidate" and "for a government" just think of it as the election of a Prime Minister.

BTW --I would be perfectly happy to see a discussion of "ranked choice voting'. It's not QUITE as advertised, has its own flaws, rarely discussed or what could be done to remedy them. Mind some proponents, although knowing about but not mentioning these flaws, consider them not bugs but features (ulterior motives). I'm generally in favor of ranked choice voting as an improvement over "plurality elections' but think its problems should be addressed with suitable modification.

[Immanuel Can]

OK. So are you saying socialists are or are not evil manipulators?

I'm asking you what you do with the Fabian problem. There are certainly manipulators who use Socialism to achieve their ends...there can be no doubting that, because we've seen it in every Socialist regime in history; and in the case of the Fabian Society, they even tell you exactly what they are doing.

And this is the key reason why Socialism will never work. It's based on a false anthropology, a delusional view of human nature that does not take into account the fallen nature of man, and must assume constant goodness where evil often dwells.

What about socialists who don't use socialism to manipulate?

Lenin had a name for them.

He called them "useful idiots."