[EM] Quebec election - references...

[Howard Swerdfeger]

Elisabeth Varin wrote:
> Personnaly, at first glance,
> this clear majority definition seems acceptable to me.
> 
> Was it considered or proposed to the Ontario sssembly?
> Did they vote on it?


From
http://www.ontla.on.ca/bills/bills-files/38_Parliament/Session2/b155rep.pdf
 > The result of the referendum is binding if the recommended
 > electoral system is selected in,
 > (a) at least 60 per cent of all the valid referendum ballots
 > cast; and
 > (b) more than 50 per cent of the valid referendum ballots
 > cast in each of at least 64 electoral districts.

Note: there will be 107 ridings in Ontario when the referendum takes 
place. (64/107=59.8%)

The Referendum will be timed to be at the same time as the next 
provincial election "October 10, 2007"

The Question is currently being decided by the "Ontario Citizens’ 
Assembly on Electoral Reform"
http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/en-CA/home%20page.aspx

the debates are mostly public:
http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/citizensassembly/index.cfm?page_id=83
and they are seeking a large amount of public input.
http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/en-CA/get-involved.aspx

Currently the 2 front runners for the new system are MMP and STV.
My prediction is:
  1. They will recommend some version of MMP.
  2a. The referendum will obtain a majority of the vote.
  2b. but will fail at least one of the super majority criteria.

In BC they recommended STV
http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public
http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/resources/deliberation/BCSTV-FactSheet.pdf

the result was :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_electoral_reform_referendum,_2005
57.69% popular vote, with 77/79 ridings voting in favour of the new 
system. So it failed by 2.3% despite a very clear majority.

So, they are going to ask the same question again, with the same 60 and 
60 criteria in 2009 (with the BC elections), and if it gets between 55% 
and 60% again? Then what do they do? They are stuck in a Minority Rule 
Hell, created by the political parties.




> 
>> From: Howard Swerdfeger <electorama.com at howard.swerdfeger.com>
>> Reply-To: election-methods at electorama.com
>> To: Elisabeth Varin <stephane.rouillon at sympatico.ca>
>> CC: election-methods at electorama.com
>> Subject: Re: [EM] Quebec election - references...
>> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:54:03 -0400
>>
>>
>>   > This site is slightly biased toward the PLQ, however you can download
>> > a detailed prediction, seat by seat under the projection file.
>> >
>> > http://democraticspace.com/blog/quebec2007/
>> > http://democraticspace.com/blog/category/canadian-politics/quebec2007/
>> >
>> > I think that the result will be PQ minoritarian, but with the PLQ 
>> receiving
>> > more votes than PQ. PLQ delayed PR application despite its own promises
>> > and electoral program.
>>
>> if you are interested in the Quebec election, you might be interested in
>> this.
>>
>> http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2007-March/019859.html 
>>
>>
>> The Thread is titled "divided house problem of close vote (50%+1)"
>>
>> I started thinking about this problem when I heard lots of people
>> complaining that the double super majority required in the Ontario and
>> BC referendums (60% popular vote + 60% of the ridings) on electoral
>> reform were undemocratic. While I agree with them I couldn't help
>> thinking that the solution they proposed (50%+1) was also undemocratic,
>> and given to random chance. Thinking back to 1995 the Quebec referendum
>> was not so much a victory for the "No" in my opinion as it was a
>> "Tie".
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum
>> and at the risk of (mis)quoting Rex Murphy
>> "Had it been a little more rainy in Montreal, we might have had a
>> different result."
>>
>> Then you look at other factors that largely effect the outcome.
>> Like
>>   * When you ask the question.
>> Leaders like Charest, Dion, Harper, Chrétien: are constantly watching
>> the polls, to try and think when they can get the result that favours
>> them the most.
>> Cherest, tried to take advantage of the fact that Boisclair is not at
>> all liked., by calling the election. He obviously failed to account for
>> the fact that most people hate him also.
>>
>> So, In my opinion 50% +1 or -1 is far to easy for the people in power to
>> influence and far to vulnerable to random noise. But I also think that
>> Super majority criteria are anti democratic as well. They can lead to
>> minority rule.
>>
>> So I came up with this basic idea, based on a simple neuron model by
>> asking the question multiple times with a super majority threshold. your
>>   score is
>> Score = 'Old Score' + 'Yes%' - 50%
>> with criteria to automatically re-ask the question, if the result is 
>> close.
>>
>> check out the thread, or post questions if you are at all interested.
>>
>> any way in conclusion
>> "Vive le Québec! Vive le Canada Français!"
>>
>>
>>
>> ----
>> election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list 
>> info
> 
>