Dave,
Thank you for an extensive reply. Your being Canadian is great because you understand some of the differences of systems already, with big US as neighbor. But there is more with Canada ranking #1 on the happy list in the Americas. Ordinarily the happy list is not the most interesting list, politically, yet to rank #1 does tell us that happiness penetrates deep in Canada. Indeed, when reviewing all nations in the Americas, Canada delivers its bottom 10% of the population 2.4% of its wealth. When poor in the Americas, one can better be a Canadian.
I have two explanations for this phenomenon. First, Canada’s political system results in about five parties, meaning that the top dog must vie for voters that may otherwise go with Party #2, #3, #4 and perhaps #5. The top party must (try to) spread its wings in the directions of the other parties in order to capture as many of their voters as possible.
The second part is that in the Americas close to all nations have a president. Presidents are not managers, while prime-ministers can be regarded as some kind of political manager. With the Queen, Canada ends up not having a strong president, whereas in the other American nations the president can really yank the political game in surprising directions. Having a president tends to benefit the elite (and the data strongly confirms this) because it is easier for the elite to get influence over a single player than an entire House. Canada has therefore two empowered layers where the US has three. The elite is less likely to hijack the prime-minister. That benefits the bottom 10% of the Canadian society.
Indeed, that other American nation with the same queen, Jamaica, is also doing rather well for its bottom 10%. They end up sharing 2.1% of Jamaica’s wealth. Naturally, 2.1% in a wealthy nation is different from 2.1% in a not so wealthy nation, so Jamaica, baking happy in the sun, is not close to the happiest nation in the Americas. But Jamaica is in the top 5 of nations in the Americas delivering for the bottom 10%, percentage-wise.
— -
The happiest nations in the world are the Scandinavian countries. Yes, their bottom 10% get a higher percentage than the bottom 10% in Canada: 3.0%, 3.5%, 3.7%, 3.9% for Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland, respectively. So, if poor, one should definitively desire to live there.
Fascinating part is that the Scandinavian countries do not have two houses, they have just one house. Finland has a president, but with residual powers, so not too strong, politically. Having the option to pick from a diverse group of political parties, and not having to divide one’s own vote with one’s own vote for the Senate nor one’s own vote for the Presidency (sauf Finland) means they have an extremely clean system. No hanky panky between House, Senate and President. The Scandinavian voter is therefore the most powerful voter in the world. They are the happiest people on earth because they have more control over their politicians than anyone else on earth. Their political system does not dirty up the voters.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.DST.FRST.10?end=2017&start=1984 scroll down for the numbers of bottom 10% in a nation and their share of wealth of that nation.
— -
Dave, I do not give importance to flying arguments. I see that you do and that is fine. I prefer information that is based on something real, not on something that could possibly have happened, when this or that was put in place, and we’ll never know because it is in the past.
Ranked Choice Voting is makeup indeed, because it does not lift the voter up in importance. In Canada, fortune has it that the reality of this strangely formed nation (close to everyone lives right next to the border) creates very specific communities that are truly distinct from one another. Additionally, not having a president helps in not having to fight over that single most-important seat (that can then poison an entire nation’s thinking in red and blue only). I love that the Canadians are full-color indeed. No, not the happiest people on this planet, but happiest in the Americas.
If we can have four empowered parties in the USA, I would be thrilled to the bone. Requirement is that they are empowered, and not like the weakling parties we have now as third and fourth parties, spoilers at best.
Ranked Choice Voting does nothing to establish a different political reality in the USA. The same person gets elected, from an overall perspective. Fair Votes’ multi-seat proposal would change the political landscape some, and I am half-delighted with the proposal. I keep that to myself for now.
Ranked Choice Voting does not increase the voters’ importance, because it does nothing to change the district fence now drawn around an entire population whose individual votes are not important (and so many people move when their votes do not count).
0.6 x 0.6 = 0.36, with the first 0.6 being the majority that won the seat for each and all ‘representatives’ on the board, and the second 0.6 the majority decision by that board. Ranked Choice Voting does not change that minority percentage of 0.36.
In Proportional Voting 0.6 x 0.9 = 0.54, still a real majority. In proportional voting, the voter can point his or her finger to the person who is really their representative on the board. In proportional voting close to all voters are represented at the table.
In district voting the real choice is between number 1 and number 2, and the collective makes the decision, not the individual.
Proportional voting = Inclusive Democracy versus District Voting = Exclusive Democracy. The two systems even make people think differently.
Ranked Choice Voting changes the makeup of the exclusive democracy. Up to 49.99% of the voters can get ‘represented’ by the person they did not vote for.
Having districts restricts the voters and benefits the top 10%. The word district is based on ‘drawing apart’ or ‘to hinder’. I need not say more.
Okay, one more thing: Thank you, Dave. I appreciate our conversation.
