myata

Words have different meanings and "popular" does not mean "best" or even "any good". If the choice is limited to meh porridge and bad porridge your best possible is meh. The more choice and selection is restricted, the less opportunity is for open competition, the less chance that the best is selected. Stagnation and decline becomes the default direction of evolution. "both allow fair and open competition" Restricting the choice, by any means or hooks is not open and not free, a fact confirmed by enormous barriers and limited choice. Scratching something on a piece of paper is not equivalent to democratic choice. FPTP has two fundamental problems: limiting the choice to an absolute minimum; and engendering partisanship where getting to and keeping the power is the main goal, not service to the society. Corporations evolve for generations under this one guiding goal. No, can't be good. Fair is in the eyes of the beholder, not going to argue some consider Putin's dictatorship as democratic and fair.

And for the criteria of selection of viable options I propose these: a) a tested solution that works, not something entirely new b) no record of fundamental or major problems like "soviets"; and c) practical possibility of implementation in Canada. Judging by these, proportional system is a clear possibility. It works around the world and it's possible to implement technically. In fact in Canada there's been at least two previous attempts, can be argued how genuine, but the fact remains: it is possible conceptually and technically. "True representative" FPTP (no whipping representative vote) passes first two criteria but has a problem with the last one: how do we ensure true independent vote? If it's only on the paper as many of our things here, party-corporations would quickly find less obvious backdoor channels of influence (they are experts at that, as illustrated by the SNC affair) and we're back to where started (and the public would get yet another experience of a useless paper-only "reform"). But in our reality there's nothing, not a single office or institution that's entirely independent, including judicial, justice, media, even civil society is skewed by the habit of feeding on government grants. So it wouldn't be an easy task with no clear solutions. Proportional system with simultaneous removal of prohibitive entry barriers could change political reality starting tomorrow. Make it rich, colorful, representative of the reality of the country. If we choose not to do it, it's no given, not impossibility or some existential danger but only a choice, rooted in exclusive benefits for some and complacency and fear of change of the others.

The system does not allow open fair competition to the detriment of the society. The barriers to entry in the political process are ridiculous, they benefit only the status quo pseudo parties, in fact default governing corporations. They protect the system that works for them and them only at all cost. Imagine dinosaurs that could control their environment, to an extent? You would get Jurassic park. Canada is a Jurassic park of the 21st century politics. With open political competition, the best for the country will be selected, just like in the nature. We can do and have better: it's not inevitability, but a choice.

I'm afraid you're talking from a platform of all-knowledge and that can distort both understanding of problems and ways (practical and feasible) how to approach them. We seem to agree that the status quo is defunct and ineffective, going forward. That attempting to stretch it into the future would exacerbate existing problems and accelerate emergence of new ones, not in the least via inability to detect them early and find effective ways to address them. Now, if we want to avoid this scenario, we need to find ways of changing, improving the status quo. Again we seem to agree that the role of the public is paramount; a society in a deep democratic slumber cannot be helped. It's only a lottery when bad things would begin to happen, not if. And then, there's a difference of opinions on how to proceed with change. And that's where the problem seem to lie. If both of us are firmly entrenched in our desired outcomes (as opposed to practical and functional solutions to the problem we agreed exists and is essential), then nothing will happen. This is obvious from the start and the discussion can be ended in two posts: I like this and would accept nothing else; and the other, others almost identical to it. Done. And now, if we were looking to get past that point, we would need to a) not rule out anything outright; b) define mutually agreed criteria of how we would judge solutions and c) go ahead and consider all possible solutions fairly and objectively, based on agreed criteria and principles. In the end, if we have more than zero, that would be a huge step forward (but not the end yet). So the question is, are we moving past the position 3 or will be stuck there for the observable perspective. In that latter case, obviously, there would be no solutions to essential problem.

OK that's telling. And who are you to brand ideas, and groups that promote them, and getting the support of the voters, citizens same as you are - or maybe not, a lower less important kind? as "splinter", "fringe" and generally undesired and wrong? "We don't need them", as spoken by us? Is it some kind of democratic (knock-knock) demi-deity on some political Olympus mount? Sure. Decades and centuries of entitlement to rule, with no questions or accountability (as demonstrated once again, just days ago) will do that. Easily.

You have strong emotions, absence of logical arguments and the fallacy of association. No system is perfect; moreover, every one will fail where citizens decide to become complacent and not care. Rome has proven it two thousand years back, no need to repeat again. And Germany of 1930s sure. And many more examples, current and future. Yet, a complex contemporary society cannot be effectively represented in a system designed for 17th century. It, the society will loose and already losing.

Sorry, that's just nonsense. Coalitions are a regular, daily part of politics in proportional systems. It's nearly impossible to get a single party majority and to be successful one has to be able to negotiate, find common grounds and acceptable policies. And this is nearly exactly the opposite of "if not me then you" of FPTP. Dunno where that professing tone comes from but it isn't working here. You need logical arguments based on facts and reality. Just professing wouldn't do it.

It's called: eyes.

Correct. But it wouldn't address the other essential problem that is directly caused by FPTP: partisan politics. If not their gang then it has to be ours. Only in your eyes. The problem of Canadian politics is FPTP plus barriers plus transparency and accountability plus independence (or rather, an absence of it). If and once all other problems are fixed, we would still have to deal with FPTP and they aren't small either. Yes there are options that allow to combine proportional representation with delegation of local representatives. Yes we can have: accurate representation of political reality; free, unconstrained vote; and local representatives preferred by the public. The problem is not that it isn't possible, but that for some it's a trouble and others couldn't care. And that's why the country is moving toward the third world. The vector points right there.

Thanks, it's a fact now that the system can be changed. It is obvious that geographical differences have to be accommodated. But grossly outdated system that restricts meaningful choice to the absolute minimum is not an answer. Nor is the system designed in and for 17th century going to be effective and efficient in solving problems and answering to challenges of the 21st. If Canada can no longer change and adapt it's doomed to descend into the third world simply by the law of entropy.

And more BS that you are electing a "representative" rather than, in reality an employee slave of the party office. Just fantasy upon an unbelievable stretch. But the onus was on us to make sure and keep assuring that it makes sense, for us. Always. The moment we go to the grill and leave it to itself it begins spinning - for itself.

What about permanently acquired entitlement though? Gotcha!

Haha, sure they'll come with a myriad of solutions - those that work for them though. The moment you handed the keys to your home to a helpful stranger without asking them any questions it's only a matter of time before they begin believing its theirs. This is how us, the humanity works.

For the record, here's a blueprint of a system that combines free unrestricted vote; correct representation of the political reality; and possibility to choose local representatives if people want to appoint them. It's not an impossibility; only a choice. You vote for a party, just like now and can specify preferred representative, optionally. If not specified, they would be appointed by the party. Already implemented in some countries in Europe. A ballot is anonymous, contains this information: district; party; and preferred candidate, if specified Every vote counts, can be a threshold for fringe parties. Once proportional representation is determined, seats are matched to electoral districts, based on local vote. Finally, in the district for the party that holds the seat the results of the candidate vote are tabulated. It can be either one of the preferred candidates; or the default one, determined by the party. All is done by a modern computer in a fraction of a second. 21st century helps. The result: representation closely reflects political reality of the country; the vote isn't constrained in any way; no outrageous barriers to entry in the election; and the public can appoint desired representatives. Yes it is possible. If you are not doing it, there has to be another reason.

That is a problem of FPTP, not so much general of democracy. In a proportional system, a coalition can and very often does include main parties as well as smaller ones, focused on specific issues. That provides first of all, a direct feedback from the voters to the government; and secondly, an additional level of controls and checks on the government. In Canada's status quo though, absolutely, there are default governing corporations whose main focus is to get to and keep the power, rather than address (successfully, with results) issues that are important to the citizens.

In Ontario, the writing is on the wall even now: the latest voter participation was around 42%. And when it gets below 40 that could very well be the next election, what next? Can we guess? A real, essential change or more panel discussions, blame the public for "apathy" and mandatory vote?

And that wouldn't change much, if the choices are still the same and never change, ever. But they can make voting mandatory, now even easier.

There are similarities but also principal differences. The UK has centuries of democratic tradition with many unwritten rules and codes. The system is ingrained into the culture and tradition of the society. Canadian system is a copycat of the British system superimposed on a bureaucratic colonial system of government. It has never been created consciously as in the US; or developed naturally over time like British system. Both are extremely resistant to change; but for quite different reasons.

Oh that's so hard, indeed. In PR you vote for a party - exactly the same as almost everyone votes in reality these days by the way, forget the cute faces I've no clue who the "candidates" were in my riding parties somehow came up with some faces. The only difference is that parties get the representation reflecting their vote not a finger stuck in the sky (like Greens had less than a half of the PPC vote yet two seats vs none). If you still want local representatives this is possible too - there are examples in Europe, and with genuine desire for change a fair process can be established. For example, we can map the seats (the fair number, based on the popular vote) to the results in the ridings AND take into account people's preferences for party candidates in the ridings. Yes it's possible to have it all: fair representation, free vote and good local representatives the century is 21st not 17th and the reason that we have some convoluted parody instead is not that it's not possible, but very likely because 17th century system works best for someone. Does it mean for the country, though?

Just saying it just not good enough. You can broadcast your supreme knowledge of all things all you like, but specific and concrete examples were given how the status quo system limits the choice and restricts competition. And again just saying it isn't enough and in no way convincing. You've got to show it to prove it.

CPC had the highest popular vote in the last election: 34.3%. In a proportional system, it would have had the first hand in forming a coalition, and several layouts of a coalition would be possible, for example: CPC + BQ + PPC + some smaller parties that we don't have. Liberals + NDP probably wouldn't have their just barely majority because with PR, part of the electorate would have chosen other parties that we don't have. No you cannot take massively skewed results, deliberately made to skew the popular vote and pretend that they reflect the reality of the country. If the choice isn't open and free all bets are off. We simply don't know how the major parties would have performed in an open system with fair competition where every vote counts.

Good try. First limit the choice to the minimum, then use the result to justify the premise. Wrong, obviously. You can say who reflects the voters only with open, fair competition and unrestricted choice. "King is the best because they are the king", right.

These aren't real parliamentary parties because they have no ways, paths to the political reality to test their ideas and concepts and filter those that have some relevance to the society. PR allows that; the status quo system in Canada disconnects from political reality all but the the default twins, and maybe some regional parties. Same word does not assure, and in this case translate to the same meaning. Somewhere there are parliamentary parties; the "parties" in Canada are in essence, default governing corporations or a parody, caricature.

Seemingly unrelated, some days back I had to talk to a government office (Ontario). I'm trying very hard now to stay cool and relaxed if / when faced with these issues but gosh it was bad. Dismal, incompetent and abusive and entirely unapologetic at that at the same time. It would be extreme naivite to think that it would be only an isolated case not related to the topic. The connection is direct and strong: why would a system designed from day one to be absorbed in itself and now irrevocably entrenched; that knows only how to reward itself for whatever it does or haven't done; and throw public millions with unknown result and in known cases, no results except the millions spent; why would such a system have any incentive to change, adapt and improve itself? We will be in the third world. The vector, direction is clear and there's nothing left here to hold at bay the laws of nature.

I many times criticized overreaching government. But an overreach is wrong for anyone in a position of authority however it is covered. You can tell your stories as long as they are willing to listen free and willingly. And you have no business telling young vulnerable people, influencing them on what to do with their bodies. It's just none of your business, their only, period. Stories, OK. Influence and power, wrong. Abuse of power, criminal. Stop overreach in a position of authority of any kind.