Quebec politics, and the fact that they have seen party fortunes come and go, feels as an outsider to be a place where ballot ranking would be being demanded to avoid all the harmful strategic voting.
I know there is this weird nostalgia in Ontario and with some of the party brand fixations at the federal level, but is there something holding Quebec back?
Ranking still allows for strategic voting. I could (and want to) see Quebecers being the first to approve PR. Currently polling, like the UK, tells me they’re practically begging for it.
I don't understand what you wrote. Is it possible we using different meanings of words?
The term "allows for" and "mandates" is quite different: Any ballot question that has a single X (whether for a person, party, or any other question) that has more than one viable answer mandates strategic voting. Systems like MMP are two questions that mandate strategic voting.
Ballot ranking removes that requirement for strategic voting as a vote "for" something can't inadvertently bring in a person or party you dislike even more. That is true in single member districts (AV), and even better in multi-member districts (STV).
They leave vague the critical question around proportionality: whether it is proportional to support for a human candidate (with all their traits) or proportional only to alleged support for party affiliation. That is fine, as once you include any criteria beyond "proportionality" it becomes clear that ballot ranking is superior to party-centric features (like party lists, party block voting, etc).
I am aware that ranking "allows for" strategy, in that you can keep your ballot in play past candidates you support so that it can continue to influence which of the candidates you dislike the least can't get in.
Note: I was part of the "yes" campaign in Ontario in 2007, but actually listened to the "no" side. The primary arguments weren't in favor of FPTP (a false binary logical fallacy promoted by many on the "yes" side), but arguments against party-centric features such as party lists which only make many of the current problems with centralized corporate party brands worse. If an MMP referendum were to happen now, I would strongly be on the "no" side.
How I understand strategic voting is essentially as not voting for your top preference because you’re trying to avoid something worse. We do this FPTP bc it only takes a plurality to win so your one vote can actually help the party you want to lose. Ranked ballots also it seems to me allow and mandate strategic voting by transferring your vote to another party if your top preference fails. I don’t see voting in a PR system as strategic bc you can (and almost certainly will) vote for your top preference know that there’s a stronger connection between that vote and actually electing a rep.
I see -- you think of the party as the representative, while I think of voting for a party brand as a proxy vote for a corporation (mixed with wishful thinking about what the brand means that was burned out of me over the decades).
Maybe I spent too much time in parliamentary committees to see parties as political representation rather than hierarchical corporate corruption of Democratic Institutions.
Note 1: For any given party brand, there are humans I would support and humans I would oppose. Any vote for a party brand is to me a requirement to be strategic: to decide if my desire to see one person in parliament outweighs my fear that the other person with the same brand affiliation would end up in parliament. Every party with seats in Ontario and Federally have examples like that for me, and once I started to pay attention to parliament (rather than marketing campaigns of corporations) there has no longer been a PARTY brand that I have totally agreed with or totally disagreed with.
Note 2: The term "PR" is not a system, but a narrow criteria for success built on narrowly fixating on the interests of political parties. One thing I've noticed is the category-error of thinking of STV as an example of "PR" when it is actually an example of ballot ranking (in multi-member districts). Only if you believe parties are all that matters can STV be incorrectly included as an example of "PR".
Quebec politics, and the fact that they have seen party fortunes come and go, feels as an outsider to be a place where ballot ranking would be being demanded to avoid all the harmful strategic voting.
I know there is this weird nostalgia in Ontario and with some of the party brand fixations at the federal level, but is there something holding Quebec back?
https://fairvote.org/
Ranking still allows for strategic voting. I could (and want to) see Quebecers being the first to approve PR. Currently polling, like the UK, tells me they’re practically begging for it.
I don't understand what you wrote. Is it possible we using different meanings of words?
The term "allows for" and "mandates" is quite different: Any ballot question that has a single X (whether for a person, party, or any other question) that has more than one viable answer mandates strategic voting. Systems like MMP are two questions that mandate strategic voting.
Ballot ranking removes that requirement for strategic voting as a vote "for" something can't inadvertently bring in a person or party you dislike even more. That is true in single member districts (AV), and even better in multi-member districts (STV).
Electoral Reform UK has a pretty good site.
https://electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/
They leave vague the critical question around proportionality: whether it is proportional to support for a human candidate (with all their traits) or proportional only to alleged support for party affiliation. That is fine, as once you include any criteria beyond "proportionality" it becomes clear that ballot ranking is superior to party-centric features (like party lists, party block voting, etc).
I am aware that ranking "allows for" strategy, in that you can keep your ballot in play past candidates you support so that it can continue to influence which of the candidates you dislike the least can't get in.
Note: I was part of the "yes" campaign in Ontario in 2007, but actually listened to the "no" side. The primary arguments weren't in favor of FPTP (a false binary logical fallacy promoted by many on the "yes" side), but arguments against party-centric features such as party lists which only make many of the current problems with centralized corporate party brands worse. If an MMP referendum were to happen now, I would strongly be on the "no" side.
How I understand strategic voting is essentially as not voting for your top preference because you’re trying to avoid something worse. We do this FPTP bc it only takes a plurality to win so your one vote can actually help the party you want to lose. Ranked ballots also it seems to me allow and mandate strategic voting by transferring your vote to another party if your top preference fails. I don’t see voting in a PR system as strategic bc you can (and almost certainly will) vote for your top preference know that there’s a stronger connection between that vote and actually electing a rep.
I see -- you think of the party as the representative, while I think of voting for a party brand as a proxy vote for a corporation (mixed with wishful thinking about what the brand means that was burned out of me over the decades).
Maybe I spent too much time in parliamentary committees to see parties as political representation rather than hierarchical corporate corruption of Democratic Institutions.
Just sharing: https://www.davidgraham.ca/p/leadership-by-caucus
Note 1: For any given party brand, there are humans I would support and humans I would oppose. Any vote for a party brand is to me a requirement to be strategic: to decide if my desire to see one person in parliament outweighs my fear that the other person with the same brand affiliation would end up in parliament. Every party with seats in Ontario and Federally have examples like that for me, and once I started to pay attention to parliament (rather than marketing campaigns of corporations) there has no longer been a PARTY brand that I have totally agreed with or totally disagreed with.
Note 2: The term "PR" is not a system, but a narrow criteria for success built on narrowly fixating on the interests of political parties. One thing I've noticed is the category-error of thinking of STV as an example of "PR" when it is actually an example of ballot ranking (in multi-member districts). Only if you believe parties are all that matters can STV be incorrectly included as an example of "PR".