Remember the line in the televised leaders debate last week where Greg says, hey, we had an STV system.
It was too complicated.
We scrapped it.
So... was he right?
I think he was half right, and terribly wrong. In the balance, he should be ashamed of the position. Maybe he is, who knows....
So, the Grits prescribe the Single Transferable Vote. And guess what, they will likely try it if they get enough power (balance of power election thoughts, anyone...?) And guess what.
It won't work, too complicated to explain. Sorry folks.
To save the day (you're welcome) my prescription for quick and effective Manitoban electoral reform:
1. No election is valid unless a minimum of 90% (or so...) vote. There are several ways to get that vote, and we use the elicitation tool set pragmatically.
2. A pure 1,2,3,4 ranking is used (in Manitoba's case), and you are welcome, Mr. Beddome (BTW, keep going, man.) Count the scores for each candidate from each ballet, tally, and the 'most preferred' wins the riding.
Sooo simple. Greg could not possibly deny it. Too simple for the pundits, though? I mean, would this pass the majority criterion, the mutual majority criterion, the monotonicity criterion, the independence of clones criterion, and the...
Puke, right? Makes you want to puke on the screen. WTF is all this garbage, some of my good friends would say. Hey, I'll say, the Poli. Sci. philosophers need work, and this is their Museum of Human Rights project (it will be sooo beautiful if ever finished, takes all our time and money, and stands out like a cancer while it waits to be finished. Just saying... but they need the work, right?)
The perfect system will never fly. It is a chimera anyhow. Forget about it, lets just keep it simple, lets replace what we have... the first-past-the-post to hopelessness system.
The current first-past-the-post voting system breeds hopelessness amongst the majority of the population. The entrenched friendships of the leading parties will trump new movements almost every time. Friends are rewarded, enemies destroyed, bystanders are collateral damage. You are either in a power circle, or you are out of luck. Either with us, or not.
Case in point, the Manitoba NDP favours 'labour'. Fair enough, and why not? However, so many of us feel that labour is overly favoured to curry back some favour come election time. They give sooo much to their labour friends, and they only ask for one little vote in return... well, that, and you must hate the PC's. 'Natch.
That very well favoured core then spreads the love and brings in more support from friends and family. Suddenly, voila, you have a very strong core of well paid hardened supporters. The current government's base vote (in my opinion), and man, do they hate the PC's.
The PC's are the naturally responding with a polar opposite. Who gets hurt the most under the NDP regime? The individualists, the businesspersons, the 'get your big government out of my back yard' types, G-d love them. They are mad as hell, and rightfully so, because when the Dippers are running things, they get the shaft.
And while they fight it out in the bloody battlefield of history, the rest of us get the shaft. Nice, huh?
A simple well formed voting system neutralizes friendship-based extremism so elegantly. The mad-as-hell types rate you super-low, which balances off your friends' super-high rating. The election goes to the ones that most of us like the most, and dislike the least. We get a result and the vast majority of us are between pleased and ok with it. Clear favour pandering types get smoked (there is only so much favour to go around.)
All the choices suck, you say. Fine, so run, and tell us what you can do. Or your new candidate can do, if you are too shy. Go ahead, because if you actually present something that most people are ok with, you could win. Seriously, do the modeling and the math.
"Gee, Rod Rouge, why do other jurisdictions have more complicated systems? What makes them so special...?" I hear you thinking it. Forget about it. Don't worry. Evolution takes time, and every locale has a different rhythm and pattern. Its ok, trust me.
And what makes my recommendation so much better, you ask?
It is simple enough to be implemented by the next election, I respond.
You don't need degrees in philosophy and political sciences to really understand it. You just need to be able to find what number 90% represents, then add 1, 2, 3, and 4 a whole bunch of times.
Unlike the STV system. Which, as Greg pointed out, is too complicated for the majority of us to even comprehend. Seriously, read up on it.
Because of this, it might never fly.
Because of this, we might be stuck in the current buddy vs. buddy system.
No good, right?
But.
If we change the system, and awake the slumbering Bison, then watch out. Who knows what democratic feats we might perform, right?
Right.
Lib's get A- on this one.
(umm... hello? Mandatory vote count? Did you forget?)