Electoral reform?

[[email protected]]

Should we keep FPTP (first past the post) for our elections? Or should the system be reformed to use STV (single transferable vote) or PR (proportional representation)?

Why?

If you think there should be reform how will it happen?

Or is electoral reform not important?

[geoffrey]

FPTP is the most effective at electing directly accountable people. I can point to my MP and say, hey, have you met my interests or not. If we went to runoffs to have a majority decision on candidates, I wouldn't mind that either, but the problem would be low voter turn out. People don't like voting twice. e-Voting would be a step around this, though the conspiracy theorists don't like that for whatever reason... like computers are any less open to tampering than a ballot box.

On top of that, the run offs have the issue of distorting the seats to popular vote percentage even further.

STV is interesting, though again, who is your MP? Who is accountable to you? 10 people? 5 people? Ugh. Messy.

Proportional representation is just a euphanism for get the wacko's in parliament. If you can't drum up enough support in one riding, I don't see how a little support throughout the country makes you qualified. Too many fringe elements become involved at that point, wasting an enourmous amount of time.

With PR, we'd only have had a handful of majority governments in the last century:

Mr. Mulroney's 1984 government.

Mr. Diefenbaker's 1958 government

Mr. King's 1940 government (When King lied to win Quebec on conscription)

Mr. Borden's 1917 government (Another conscription issue government)

It's quite obvious that in minority governments spending skyrockets and little actually gets done. I don't want a constant minority government situation. As well, we'd be voting every couple of years. There is absoultely no way to go to PR system without converting to a completely republican system, it is incompatable with the parliamentary tradition.

[August1991]

PR would give even more power to the party apparatus since the party would decide on the list of names.

If the purpose is to make government more responsive to people's wishes, electoral reform of this sort will change nothing.

[Canuck E Stan]

Or is electoral reform not important?

I agree with you geoffrey.....e-lectoral reform..... as in e-Voting..... and as in Australia where if you DON'T

vote it will cost you $50.

[Leafless]

STV is interesting, though again, who is your MP? Who is accountable to you? 10 people? 5 people? Ugh. Messy.

Proportional representation is just a euphanism for get the wacko's in parliament. If you can't drum up enough support in one riding, I don't see how a little support throughout the country makes you qualified. Too many fringe elements become involved at that point, wasting an enourmous amount of time.

STV is a variation of proportional representation.

What I would like to see is a 'majoritarian system'.

FPTP is being abused as we do not get MP representation but the 'rather party line' .

This would end regional divisiveness that is currently wrecking the country.

http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public/l..._0312231538-743

[geoffrey]

I agree with you geoffrey.....e-lectoral reform..... as in e-Voting..... and as in Australia where if you DON'T

vote it will cost you $50.

Whoa there. I support e-voting. I hate mandatory voting though. I'd rather not have disinterested people vote, only those informed and interested need apply IMO.

[Canadian Blue]

I think that a good step would be an MMP system, similar to what is used in New Zealand. This would allow for a proportionate number of seats per party based on popular vote.

Germany, New Zealand, and Russia are examples of countries that use some form of the mixed member proportional (MMP) system. It is a popular choice, being used in 29 countries in 1999. Some seats are contested on an SMP basis while others are apportioned to the parties on proportional bases that vary according to the number of seats reserved for this purpose. Voters can have two ballots - one for the their choice of individual legislature, and another vote for their choice of party for the second set of seats. In Germany and New Zealand, for example, half of the legislature is elected by single member plurality and half are drawn from the party lists. The party list half are allocated in a manner that tries to provide a party with a total share of the seats in the legislature that is roughly proportional to their share of the party-list vote. A number of counties in the former Soviet Union adopted forms of MMP, as have Italy and Japan. However, the relative portion of seats devoted to SMP elections and those chosen by by PR do vary widely. Plus, there can be variations about the objective of the seats assigned from the party list. They may, as in the case of Germany & New Zealand, be distributed in order to ensure the total share of seats a party wins (including the SMP & party list seats) is proportional to the party's share of votes. Or, the party list seats may be awarded with so that only the party-list seats are proportional to the share of votes; the number of seats won by SMP would be irrelevant in this case.

I think this solution provides the better option.

As for mandatory voting, I hope to god not. The last thing I want is some person who is only going to vote because they are forced to do so, as that person is probably completely apathetic to politics and the issues concerning a country.

[Canuck E Stan]

I agree with you geoffrey.....e-lectoral reform..... as in e-Voting..... and as in Australia where if you DON'T

vote it will cost you $50.

Whoa there. I support e-voting. I hate mandatory voting though. I'd rather not have disinterested people vote, only those informed and interested need apply IMO.

Your dreaming if you think all the people who vote are informed.Too many vote not even knowing the issues ,and vote as their parents,friends,ethnic background etc. have. So why not make it manditory.

Maybe a $50 fine will make people think enough to make sure they get $50 worth of smarts before they vote.

[gc1765]

If we went to runoffs to have a majority decision on candidates, I wouldn't mind that either, but the problem would be low voter turn out. People don't like voting twice.

I thought you liked my idea of instantaneous runoffs? IOW, rank the candidates on one ballot, and eliminate them one by one. It might mean it would take more effort to actually count the votes, but compared to other systems other than FPTP, it is probably no worse in that regard.

[Canadian Blue]

I don't see how a person can say they truly represent a riding if they only get 1/3 of the votes cast. A runoff system could potentially work, however I still support the MMP system as I think it'll at the very least ensure that most if not all votes count.

[geoffrey]

I don't see how a person can say they truly represent a riding if they only get 1/3 of the votes cast. A runoff system could potentially work, however I still support the MMP system as I think it'll at the very least ensure that most if not all votes count.

We'd never have majorities, meaning that we'd have to completely switch our system around for it to be productive. Parliamentary democracy relies on the majority.

[Canadian Blue]

Yes, but at the same time it also mean's in order to have a majority a government has to compromise or form a coalition in order to gain power. I see nothing wrong with it.

[geoffrey]

Yes, but at the same time it also mean's in order to have a majority a government has to compromise or form a coalition in order to gain power. I see nothing wrong with it.

Compromise = spending increases. We've seen the proof, both Martin and Harper have sent spending through the roof with minority governments, despite being the two most fiscally conservative PM's we've had in at least 50 years.

[Canadian Blue]

Yes, and if we end up in a deficit, then both will be subject to the people, as will any minority government which does the same. I'd argue that we actually get better government in a minority situation.

[[email protected]]

Several have mentioned minority versus majority governments when discussing this issue.

Should electoral reform be discussed at all given the current political system or should changes also be contemplated for the political system also along with any electoral changes?

Consensus versus minority versus majority governments?

A parliamentary system versus one with power sharing?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I like living in a democracy. I just wish we had a democratic government. I like the majority rules concept, so in that context the proportional representation concept simply doesn't work for me. I think the problem you folks are talking about stems more from partisan affiliation than anything else. Party whips and planned votes don't do a lot to promote democracy people. Open votes do, but that doesn't work within our political system.

We need reforms yes, but simple electoral reforms will not achieve what we want. We need recall legislation. We need fixed election dates. We need a division power powers within government. We need a leader that can be selected by the people and not the party.

If you want to fix the problems you need to embrace the concept of a republic.

[Charles Anthony]

I don't see how a person can say they truly represent a riding if they only get 1/3 of the votes cast.

I do not see how a person ca truly represent a riding with ANY number of votes.

However, here is a suggestion to your dilemma: make them sign a job contract that says "I will truly represent everybody in my riding yadda yadda yadda whether they voted for me or not yadda yadda yadda to the best of my ability." and I would not care if they bought every single vote.

A parliamentary system versus one with power sharing?

What do you mean by power sharing?

[Canuck E Stan]

However, here is a suggestion to your dilemma: make them sign a job contract that says "I will truly represent everybody in my riding yadda yadda yadda whether they voted for me or not yadda yadda yadda to the best of my ability." and I would not care if they bought every single vote.

CA,

A politician signing a job contract?

-CES

[M.Dancer]

My problem with PR is it gives too much power to marginal interests. PR is the problem with the Knesset, With Italy and wqith the Weimar regime

[geoffrey]

Yes, and if we end up in a deficit, then both will be subject to the people, as will any minority government which does the same. I'd argue that we actually get better government in a minority situation.

The results beg to differ. The costs of all the pandering by the 2004 and 2006 governments plus the elections far excedes the cost of the Sponsorship Scandal.

[Catchme]

I don't see how a person can say they truly represent a riding if they only get 1/3 of the votes cast. A runoff system could potentially work, however I still support the MMP system as I think it'll at the very least ensure that most if not all votes count.

Wow, I actually whole heartedly agree with you. Both on this and with your later comments about we get better governments with a minority situation.

Just because some politicans can't get their minds around how to work in a minority government, and want to do what they want as opposed to what Canadians want does not mean minority governments do not work. It is something some politicians need to get used to, actually doing what Canadians want, not what their masters want them to do.

The way it looks we are going to have minority governments for a good long time into the future, so we might as well have an MMP system where ALL votes count, not just 1/3.

[[email protected]]

What do you mean by power sharing?

Power sharing aka a division of powers. We stress the importance of separating the executive from the legislature (both federal and provincial). Currently the legislature is controlled by the executive, voting is dictated. Why bother with the expense of a legislature? What purpose is it serving?

Along with any electoral reform (not just voting systems), as has been mentioned, there has to be fixed election dates, direct democracy structures, etc But most important power must be shared so that the legislature can restrain and oversee the executive. Voting should not be a forgone conclusion. And this is not a ‘republican’ system, it is simply the more original version of the parliamentary system.

tap

[Charles Anthony]

A politician signing a job contract?

All kidding aside, with the "to the best of my ability" clause, it would not be very onerous and at the same time, it would eliminate whining from the people who want PR and whateveR.

Power sharing aka a division of powers. We stress the importance of separating the executive from the legislature (both federal and provincial). Currently the legislature is controlled by the executive, voting is dictated. Why bother with the expense of a legislature? What purpose is it serving?

I have no idea what purpose it serves. My guess is that the majority of Canadians do not know either.

I read this:

Along with any electoral reform (not just voting systems), as has been mentioned, there has to be fixed election dates, direct democracy structures, etc But most important power must be shared so that

...and I would like to make a recommendation to you (for which I expect a huge backlash from everybody): why do you need Canada? You can separate from Canada and organize your bureacracy the way you want.

[CAVEAT: Do not take this personally against the Atlantic region. I feel this way about every province.]

[August1991]

Paul Wells gave a link to this blog which makes a good point (among several):

The Conservative party–the party with, as expected, the largest share of the votes nationally, would be predicted by the seat-vote equation to have won a large majority of the seats allocated in provinces other than Quebec: 143/233 (61.4%), based on its 40.2% of the votes won outside that province. Instead, it won only 114 (48.9%), thus benefiting much less than might have been anticipated from the normal FPTP tendency to over-represent the largest party even when we exclude Quebec from the results.

Blog

The blogger refers to this as dysfunctional and seems to suggest that the result is due to the concentration of NDP votes.

This may be partly true but I also think the reason is that the Maritimes are over-represented in Parliament.

Nevertheless, it is interesting that the Tories received over 40% of the non-Quebec vote and yet did not get a majority of non-Quebec seats. In a FPTP system, that's exceptional.

[[email protected]]

I have no idea what purpose it serves. My guess is that the majority of Canadians do not know either.

Do you mean division of powers or legislature(s)?

why do you need Canada? You can separate from Canada and organize your bureacracy the way you want.

We are Canadians. Why not simply improve the system?