Blaming the candidates is missing the point. It's the party leaders who need to make this happen.
There needs to be a single alliance party right from the outset who's only mandate is to implement PR, call an election and disband.
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2025
9 points (76.5% liked)
Ontario
2592 readers
6 users here now
A place to discuss all the news and events taking place in the province of Ontario, Canada.
Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No porn.
- No Ads / Spamming.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/39866020
In these 32 ridings the PC candidate won thanks to vote splitting. Results are as of this morning and may have changed slightly.
Thanks to all spoiler candidates listed below /s
26 spoiler candidates are New Democrats, 11 are Green, and 5 are Liberal. Only one NDP candidate, Natasha Doyle-Merrick, had the decency to step down in Eglinton-Lawrence, but that election was still spoiled by Green candidate Leah Tysoe 😡
First past the post 👎👎👎
York South-Weston: election spoiled by Faisal Hassan (NDP); Daniel Di Giorgio (Liberal) would have won by 7957 votes (25%)
Hamilton Mountain: election spoiled by Kojo Damptey (NDP); Dawn Danko (Liberal) would have won by 8021 votes (21%)
Peterborough-Kawartha: election spoiled by Jen Deck (NDP); Adam Hopkins (Liberal) would have won by 7232 votes (13%)
Sault Ste. Marie: election spoiled by Gurwinder Dusanjh (Liberal); Lisa Vezeau-Allen (NDP) would have won by 2920 votes (10%)
Burlington: election spoiled by Megan Beauchemin (NDP); Andrea Grebenc (Liberal) would have won by 4447 votes (8%)
Hamilton East-Stoney Creek: election spoiled by Zaigham Butt (NDP); Heino Doessing (Liberal) would have won by 2784 votes (7%)
Kitchener South-Hespeler: election spoiled by Jeff Donkersgoed (NDP) and Jessica Riley (Green); Ismail Mohamed (Liberal) would have won by 2653 votes (7%)
Scarborough Centre: election spoiled by Sonali Chakraborti (NDP); Mazhar Shafiq (Liberal) would have won by 2104 votes (7%)
Kitchener-Conestoga: election spoiled by Jodi Szimanski (NDP); Joe Gowing (Liberal) would have won by 2636 votes (6%)
Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound: election spoiled by Joel Loughead (Green) and James Harris (NDP); Selwyn Hicks (Liberal) would have won by 2591 votes (6%)
Wellington-Halton Hills: election spoiled by Bronwynne Wilton (Green) and Simone Kent (NDP); Alex Hilson (Liberal) would have won by 3061 votes (6%)
Bay of Quinte: election spoiled by Amanda Robertson (NDP); David O'Neil (Liberal) would have won by 2629 votes (6%)
Mississauga-Erin Mills: election spoiled by Mubashir Rizvi (NDP); Qasir Dar (Liberal) would have won by 2067 votes (6%)
Thunder Bay-Atikokan: election spoiled by Stephen Margarit (Liberal); Judith Monteith-Farrell (NDP) would have won by 1436 votes (5%)
Willowdale: election spoiled by Boris Ivanov (NDP); Paul Saguil (Liberal) would have won by 1192 votes (4%)
Eglinton-Lawrence: election spoiled by Leah Tysoe (Green); Vince Gasparro (Liberal) would have won by 1223 votes (3%)
Milton: election spoiled by Katherine Cirlincione (NDP) and Susan Doyle (Green); Kristina Tesser Derksen (Liberal) would have won by 993 votes (2%)
Cambridge: election spoiled by Marjorie Knight (NDP); Rob Deutschmann (Liberal) would have won by 999 votes (2%)
Whitby: election spoiled by Jamie Nye (NDP) and Steven Toman (Green); Roger Gordon (Liberal) would have won by 1130 votes (2%)
Mississauga East-Cooksville: election spoiled by Alex Venuto (NDP); Bonnie Crombie (Liberal) would have won by 649 votes (2%)
Perth-Wellington: election spoiled by Jason Davis (NDP) and Ian Morton (Green); Ashley Fox (Liberal) would have won by 674 votes (2%)
Pickering-Uxbridge: election spoiled by Khalid Ahmed (NDP) and Mini Batra (Green); Ibrahim Daniyal (Liberal) would have won by 692 votes (2%)
Brantford-Brant: election spoiled by Ron Fox (Liberal) and Karleigh Csordas (Green); Harvey Bischof (NDP) would have won by 764 votes (1%)
Parry Sound-Muskoka: election spoiled by David Innes (Liberal); Matt Richter (Green) would have won by 451 votes (1%)
Mississauga-Lakeshore: election spoiled by Spencer Ki (NDP); Elizabeth Mendes (Liberal) would have won by 350 votes (1%)
Newmarket-Aurora: election spoiled by Denis Heng (NDP); Chris Ballard (Liberal) would have won by 329 votes (1%)
Mississauga Centre: election spoiled by Waseem Ahmed (NDP); Sumira Malik (Liberal) would have won by 216 votes (1%)
Etobicoke Centre: election spoiled by Giulia Volpe (NDP) and Brian Morris (Green); John Campbell (Liberal) would have won by 258 votes (1%)
Mississauga-Streetsville: election spoiled by Shoaib Khawar (NDP); Jill Promoli (Liberal) would have won by 183 votes
Scarborough-Rouge Park: election spoiled by Hibah Sidat (NDP) and Victoria Jewt (Green); Morris Beckford (Liberal) would have won by 115 votes
Algoma-Manitoulin: election spoiled by Reg Niganobe (Liberal); David Timeriski (NDP) would have won by 94 votes
Oakville: election spoiled by Diane Downey (NDP); Alison Gohel (Liberal) would have won by 2 votes
There needs to be a single alliance party right from the outset who’s only mandate is to implement PR
I think the bigger problem is that the "establishment", prioritize party over their constituents.
100%
The other solution to this problem is to double or triple the amount of ridings from 124 to 248 or 372. Let communities actually pick people that represent them. Ridings are now at 120,000 people almost. Should be at 60,000 or 30,000.
No, this won't solve the problem. The problem is that our non-proportional representation electoral system, ignores votes.
In a healthy democracy, we are entitled to all our votes affecting the outcome of an election.
For your solution to succeed, the population in each electoral district would need to be much smaller. I don't know what that number would be, but in practically any case, it would be cost prohibitive, and still does not guarantee proportional representation.
In the long run, the only viable solution is proportional representation: !fairvote@lemmy.ca
Yeah, party leadership is way more at fault that individual candidates but as the Eglinton-Lawrence case showed, they do have the power to at least minimize vote splitting. I'm very disappointed that the Greens put up 124 candidates when they only had good chance to win 3 seats. Why not focus your effort on these instead of spoiling or helping to spoil 11 ridings!?
If a Liberal loses votes to the Greens, then it forces them to " green up" their platform, which is also in line with the Green party's stated goals.
Thanks for the work, but too preachy, it's no one person's fault. I don't want to have a two party system like in the USA, that is what happens when parties drop out.
We have a FPTP system that is morally wrong, the chicken shit courts refuse to pass judgement and rule against it. The Conservatives and Liberals don't want to change it, know that's the only way they'll get majorities, even if occasionally there parties will have to lose big.
The simplest solution is give people a plurality of votes, pick as many candidates on the ballet as you want.
I don't want to have a two party system
That is the reality with winner-take-all electoral systems such as FPTP and Instant runoff voting (IRV). This phenomenon is described by Duverger's Law.
courts refuse to pass judgement and rule against it
There is actually a court case against this. It's called the Charter Challenge for Fair Voting.
The simplest solution is give people a plurality of votes, pick as many candidates on the ballet as you want.
The system you describe is known as Block Approval Voting (BAV). It is better than FPTP, but still not proportional representation. Even though it is "simple", it still doesn't most effectively solve the problem of wasted votes. There is no practical reason proportional representation can't be implemented.
Superior to BAV is Single Non-Transferable Vote (SNTV). SNTV has multi member districts. SNTV is a semi-proportional electoral system, which is better than winner take all, but still not considered proportional representation.
You should take a look into Single Transferable Vote (STV). STV is considered proportional representation, and is just SNTV with ranking.
Please join us over at !fairvote@lemmy.ca.
BAV seems like it solves 80% or current problems without being much of a change, that's why I like it. Everything else seems like a push too far, so it never gets implemented.
BAV seems like it solves 80% or current problems
I'm not sure what evidence you are using to make this claim
Everything else seems like a push too far
I also disagree that everything else is too far. With PR, we are trying to satisfy a core tenet of democracy -- that we are entitled and deserving of representation in government. And many countries, even the European Parliament, uses proportional representation!
If we truly live in a democracy, we are entitled to have all our votes towards the outcome of an election.
The only electoral system that can practically satisfy this criterion is proportional representation (a direct democracy is impractical). I wish there was some "easier" alternative to PR, but PR is the only way that we can ensure every vote counts.
Countries with PR arn't doing as great as you think politically. Right wing governments have popped up everywhere. BAV plus smaller ridings solve most problems, such as vote splitting. Perfection is the enemy of getting it done.
Countries with PR arn’t doing as great as you think politically
That's not the objective of PR anyway.
Right wing governments have popped up everywhere
The goal of an electoral system is to obtain effective and proportionate representation. If you want to tackle right wingers, the appropriate venue would be in legislature or other democratic processes (e.g., conversations with peers).
BAV plus smaller ridings solve most problems, such as vote splitting
This is not a true statement. Vote splitting exists in any configuration of BAV.
Perfection is the enemy of getting it done.
How is ensuring that every vote counts to the outcome of an election considered "perfection"? That's literally just democracy.
The obstacle is not that PR is difficult to implement, but rather our elected officials prioritize party over country.
Our current Parliamentary system is hundred of years old, it survived much. Yes it needs fixing, but not a complete overhaul. I'm not a revolutionary, as most people aren't. BAV fixes split votes, almost no change from how things are done now. No need for a whole new system if BAV fixes split votes.
BAV fixes split votes
Actually, thinking more about this, I can see how split votes are lessened under BAV. Even if the problem of split votes is no longer a problem, what about wasted votes? Under BAV, that is still certainly a problem -- there will be votes that elect nobody.
Yes [our electoral system] needs fixing, but not a complete overhaul
I don't agree that implementing PR is a complete overhaul. If we look at mixed-member proportional (MMP), we actually mostly have the existing structures in place, and would actually eliminate the bigger problem of wasted votes, unlike BAV.
I’m not a revolutionary, as most people aren’t.
Me neither, I just believe that in a democracy, every vote must count.
*every vote must count *
This is why we need smaller riding, about 30,000 in size. Not the 100,000 to 120,000 that we have now. In a 30 day election a candidate can knock on about a 1000 doors a day, a little under a hundred doors an hour, 12 hours a day. It's important to talk to people, understand what they need and want. Few people vote today, because ridings are so big.
Few people vote today, because ridings are so big.
Voter apathy exists because the existing system (and BAV) wastes votes (i.e., votes that elect nobody). Only PR will resolve that.
You're arguing against smaller ridings! Calm down, touch grass.
But your suggested BAV solution doesn't actually address the core problem -- that people feel disenfranchised by the electoral system.
Even in IRV where split votes are eliminated, we will still have wasted votes. Only PR will resolve that.
The people that feel the most ripped off are those in split ridings, where the Conservatives win because the NDP and Liberals split the vote.
Lefties that move to heavily conservative ridings, and vice versa, understand that the majority of people vote in a particular way out of their own interest and aren't as mad. Having smaller ridings would help with this, move from 124 to 248 would be great as there would be fewer ridings with a split vote.
Also, you think that under PR we'll still have Cons, Libs and NDP, maybe Green. But under PR we'll have an extremist conservative group like the New Blue and True Conservative Party winning seats. The left will get even more splintered. And the fringe right wing part will hold power in a coalition.
The people that feel the most ripped off are those in split ridings
People feel ripped off when they are denied representation, as they are under all winner-take-all systems (including BAV).
But under PR we’ll have an extremist
I've heard this argument time and time again. But we already have extremism under winner-take-all, take a look at the US. It is also an extreme idea that we can have elections where votes don't affect the outcome whatsoever -- as we currently have under FPTP and would still have under BAV.
The purpose of an electoral system is to provide representation to constituents, not to deny representation. If we live in a democracy, we are deserving and entitled to representation in government. If you have an issue with that, then you have an issue with democracy itself, and not PR.
In the long run, the only viable solution is proportional representation: !fairvote@lemmy.ca
The solution we need is to let people choose more than one candidate on a ballot. Don't even need ranking.
Whatever electoral system, so long as we have proportional representation!
@observantTrapezium it's equally fair to blame the 2nd place candidate for spoiling the campaign of the 3rd.
For this election, the OLP and NDP were further apart on principles that they have been for 20y.
The OLP leader Crombie is further to the economic right than recent OLP leaders.
If the NDP and OLP can agree that Ontario should exist to benefit people, then they can merge. The OLP often veers into thinking Ontario should benefit only the rich.
Both Marit Stiles and Bonnie Crombie put defeating Ford at the top of their agenda. If they were serious about it they wouldn’t have filed candidates in ridings where vote splitting was a concern. They would have divvied them up and formed a coalition, but I guess defeating Ford was not that important after all. Not having done that is wishful thinking at best given the polls, and more realistically, idiocy.
@observantTrapezium there were a few withdrawn or non-replaced candidates. I think there was an OLP candidate who endorsed the NDP candidate as they were withdrawing, forget exactly where.
I totally agree on the Crombie/Stiles fake agenda though. They can have a great collaboration, forming many unity govts, even if they can't align how their parties work or some of their principles.
This assumes all the voters would have still come out to vote, and that they would have voted for the 2nd place candidate. There are a lot of people who swing between the PC and Liberals. There are other, weirder swings too. Plus, many people may have found both the 1st and 2nd place candidates undesirable, so even given some sort of RCV, they wouldn't have ranked.
Yeah sure, that's why the list is sorted from most egregious to least.
A two party system is a band-aid solution to the gashing wound that is first-past-the-post.
My area went to the conservatives, but it wasn't close. Especially in times where it's important to win, vs business as usual, I tend to vote with whatever party is polling highest in my area that isn't conservative.
I'm sure the liberal party won't do a stellar job, but they're often trending above NDP in most areas I've lived in. I don't want to have my vote invalidated by vote splitting.
I'd like to think we have three or four parties actually competing for leadership but the truth of it is, the left leaning folks are divided, while the right is (mostly, or at least more than the left) united under one banner. Therein lies the strategic failing of everyone on the left.
I’m sure the liberal party won’t do a stellar job
On proportional representation, they have nothing to show. All bark, no bite -- especially for their constituents.
I don’t want to have my vote invalidated by vote splitting
I like to see it as the other voters that are "vote splitting" by choosing to vote for candidates that don't support proportional representation.
Therein lies the strategic failing of everyone on the left.
I don't think anybody is happy with the current winner-take-all electoral system.
I like to see it as the other voters that are "vote splitting" by choosing to vote for candidates that don't support proportional representation.
Exactly. It's one thing if you're voting for the Liberal candidate because you believe in them, but if all you're doing is voting defensively then I don't know how we'll get out of this two wholly unconstructive two party back and forth.
Certainly not by voting our way out of it.
We simply need too many people to decide to vote differently all at once to get someone else in there.
I recognize that I'm part of the problem.
Well, the liberals got in last election based on voting reform (at least in part), and they didn't do shit. The conservatives certainly won't implement it.... There's just, a lot to process with how fucked the current voting and government system is.
At the end of the day, all politicians are owned by one corporate interest or another... That's not going to change.
all politicians are owned by one corporate interest or another… That’s not going to change.
I wouldn't say all politicians, but there are too many, and too many in power. It can change if we vote for PR candidates exclusively!
Please join us over at !fairvote@lemmy.ca.
At the end of the day, all politicians are owned by one corporate interest or another… That’s not going to change.
This largely does not apply to smaller parties and independents.