Frequently asked questions?

Is choice voting used elsewhere?

Yes, every Australian uses it to elect their MPs, and a royal commission in Britain recently recommended it to elect their politicians. A number of nations use it to elect their presidents, and dozens of cities including London, San Francisco and Oakland use it to elect their mayors. Both the federal Conservatives and Liberals use it already to select their leaders and many parties use it already to choose their candidates.

Even countries that don't use a ranked ballot, such as France, will let voters have a second vote if no candidate gets over 50%.

Does this benefit left or right wing parties?

Neither.

Conservatives may remember the years when the Reform and Progressive Conservative voters split the vote. Liberals have the same problem sometimes with the NDP and the Greens. With choice voting, voters can vote without having to compromise their values. This also means that parties can spend more time promoting their values than relying on fear to maintain their presence. Parties could agree to work together, but voters would still have the final say.

Does it require computers?

No. You count them by hand. It usually only takes a few minutes longer to count as the last place candidates are eliminated and elections officials will then add their votes to other candidates.

Is choice voting complicated?

No. You can list a single candidate if you want, but if you have a second choice and your first choice does not count, your vote can go to your second choice.

Does it increase the number of politicians?

No. It gives voters more choices on the ballot, but voters still only pay for the same number of politicians.

Will the ballots be longer?

Perhaps. More independents may run, but voters can still look for the party names and choose the candidate who they like the most.

Why only two choices?

Some versions of choice voting allow voters to rank all the candidates. This is slightly fairer and accurate, but can create more work for vote counters and preparing ballots with little affect on the overall outcome.

Does choice voting help smaller parties like proportional representation?

Choice voting eliminates barriers such as strategic voting, but the standard choice voting model is not proportional. Parties still have to run candidates who can appeal to over half their community. However, choice voting can also work in combination with a "parity vote" or MMP, in which a voter lists a candidate as well as a party. Choice voting is still only used to elect local candidates, but they can be from any party that can win 50% of the votes in an area.

A more advanced version of choice voting, fair choice (called a transferable vote by political scientists) can be used by city councils to elect more diverse slates or could be used in other levels of government, but it requires an investment in automated vote counting machines.

Are there better systems out there that we should wait for?

There are a lot of problems with our democracy, such of lack of fairness, distorted results, disconnect between MLAs and voters, and a lot of ideas on how to solve them. Some of them require major changes, such as various proportional systems or direct democracy, which often receive resistance from voters and politicians who benefit from the current system or prefer strong majorities.

Three referendums to bring in proportional representation at the provincial level in Canada have fallen short in the past decade, mainly because some voters felt uncertain about the proposals or had issues with some elements of them. Choice voting will make it easier for voters to express themselves, and may elect some new voices to the legislature, while keeping the local representation that voters are familiar with.

Some of the more advanced counting systems promoted by political scientists requires computers to count the votes (such as condorcet or transferable votes) and would require major changes. Other systems allow voters to vote directly for a party and provide them with additional seats to make sure their seat count is accurate. Choice voting can be modified in the future, if the public is ready, to incorporate some of these additions while eliminating many of the major problems in the interim.

Does anyone oppose choice voting?

Unless someone believes that strategic voting and vote splitting are essential to our democracy, or that voters do not deserve choice, there are few critics that are strongly against it. Some politicians, who have run negative campaigns in the past, may be afraid that voters will now be tempted to vote for someone else. If they come out against choice voting, they must be really afraid of competition.

Some may feel it does not go far enough in addressing all of the problems, but hopefully they will agree that fixing some of the problems is better than fixing none of the problems.