ReeferMadness

On the contrary, this is a very helpful post. It seems like McHale is a lot less scary than a whole bunch that have been elected under FPTP already.

A good system would encourage broad levels of involvement. Our system, combined with the autocratic nature of the parties, concentrates power in the hands of a few. I don't understand how electing a legislature that better represents the people is kowtowing to laziness and indifference.

I don't know who McHale is - maybe he's only scary to you. Democracy is founded on the belief that people are capable of governing themselves. Representative democracy is based on the belief that people are capable of selecting competent representatives. Do you have such contempt for people that you don't believe they can do this? Do you think the major parties are here to save us from the ravages of democracy?

So democracy is an exercise where you exercise futility once every four years. How inspiring.

What evidence do you have for your beliefs about why people don't vote?

According to professor of political science Dennis Pilon, PR doesn't improve voter participation that much but the type of voter changes. He said that under the current system informed voters quite understandably come to the conclusion their vote doesn't matter very much, particularly in certain 'safe' ridings. Instead, in close ridings you have lots of voters who aren't very well informed coming out when the party does a 'we need to bring out the vote' emergency call. The more knowledgeable voters come out under PR because they can see that their votes matter. I should add, though, that non-participation is a bad thing. Democracy requires people to get involved.

I just have one more Mr. Klein: In 2004, you stood up in the Alberta legislature during a debate on public auto insurance and began talking about events in Chile during the 1970's. You said that when Allende, a duly elected president started to nationalize industry (according to the platform on which he was elected), Pinochet was "forced, I would say, to launch a coup". Your words "I'm not saying Pinochet was any better" imply that you feel that these two are on morally similar ground. The controversy around this issue was diluted when it was discovered that your University paper on the subject was in substantial part copied off the internet without proper citation. - Do you think brutal dictators are morally justified in seizing control of a country from duly elected socialists? - Several strongly left-leaning governments have been elected in the last decade in South America. Do you think they should be overthrown by force? - A number of your detractors have dubbed you "King Ralph" because they feel your approach has weakened democracy in Alberta. Do you think that democracy is less important than ideology?

Apparently, having a minority dictate what happens is OK but only if that minority gets a majority of seats thanks to the arbitrary nature of FPTP elections. It all makes perfect sense - you just need to medicate more heavily.

It doesn't scare me at all. First of all, under STV, he would still need to get the same number of votes as he does under FPTP - he just gets to draw them from a wider area. If he's as big a wingnut as you suggest, he likely won't draw outside of his own little constituency. Second, if he does become a contender, the media are going to start noticing him. They're not known for being kind to racists. Finally, even if he gets elected, then what? He's one MP out of 308. I guess the bottom line here is that democracy demands that you have faith that most of the people are going to make good choices. There have been plenty of knuckle-draggers elected under the banners of the Reform and Conservative parties that have had some views that are either silly or just downright offensive. I don't go and suggest that we change the voting rules to prevent their constituents from electing them. Ralph Klein stood up in legislature and essentially said that it was good that Pinochet overthrew a democratically elected government because it was socialist in nature. People with questionable views can be elected in any system and you're mistaken if you think that the party system weeds them out. Finally, just because someone holds the balance of power (as you put it), it doesn't automatically follow that the other parties have to accept whatever they propose. The parties need to ensure they are upholding their principles. Bottom line: I think you're fear-mongering and trying to make an issue where none exists.

Michael Thanks for your input. I'll admit that the wording is a bit tongue in cheek but the questions themselves are valid. These are questions that the media should have been pressing at the time but to my recollection, they didn't. First off, everything I've said is my honest belief - even the part about him being a great leader. I think he has a terrible set of moral values but that's a different question. Mr. Klein is purported to have screamed something like 'Why don't you bums go and get a job!' at these guys. It really made me wonder whether he was completely out of touch with what was going on for people who weren't making big cash. I heard about some of the things that went on in Alberta out here on the coast so he really should have known. He wouldn't be the first leader to be so insulated that he lost touch. As far as the second question goes, perhaps it's a bit tabloid-ish but a sign of a great leader is when you can be open about things that you may not want to reveal. I've read that he refused to admit he had a drinking problem, even though he swore off drinking. As for the third question, I was ashamed of my home province that they let him get away with this. Apparently, when this first came out, his office essentially lied about the affair, saying he just stopped by to chat with these guys and gave them 70 bucks. I can't imagine Klein having kept his job if he had done this to any other group of people. But the sad part is that he voiced what a lot of people were thinking but don't say in polite company. That speaks poorly for a whole lot of people in that province.

Wow, thanks! This is great. I'm sure I can think of a few. Here goes... Mr Klein As a native of Alberta, I'm humbled to be putting this to one of the great Alberta politicians of modern Alberta times. I'd say you were even a better politician than (though not as good a premier as) Peter Lougheed. Anyway, here goes: In the wee hours of December 12, 2001 you stumbled into a homeless shelter and berated some homeless men, apparently in a drunken rage. According to some sources, you actually spat on them. This begs a few questions. 1. Were you really so out of touch that you were not aware that some of these people worked full time but couldn't afford to live on the minimum wage set by your government? 2. In retrospect, do you think it would have been better leadership to admit to being an alcoholic? 3. Were you suprised at all that the people of Alberta didn't rise up and demand your resignation for this callous disregard for these people who, after all, were also citizens of Alberta? I look forward to your reply. -Reefer

Who am I supposed to be calling a name? FPTP was not designed to be dictatorial but the parties have usurped almost all of the power and made it so. As I'm amply demonstrated, the result does not reflect the population. For the major parties, sure. Quebec would not have reduced representation, only the Bloc would have reduced representation. The Bloc does not represent the view of all Quebeccers. BTW, nationally the NDP supports PR as does Ontario's provincial NDP. But as an NDP supporter, you must know that, right?

In FPTP, we have an electoral system that produces results that are entirely disproportionate to the way people vote. If your party can get 40% of the vote, you can get 60% of the seats and 100% of the power. It's a system that extremely erratic. Sometimes 40% of the vote gets you 60% of the seats, sometimes it gets you 30% of the seats. In one Federal election, Manitoba Conservatives got over 40% of the vote and no seats. The seats all went to a variety of parties, none of whom got half as many votes as the Conservatives. People claim the system favours moderation but in fact it swings crazily back and forth. With just a few percentage points difference, the opposition leader who previously had 30% of the seats now has all the power. Worst of all, it's discriminatory. Large numbers of people are disenfranchised to give all the power to the largest minority. Even the one great strength of the system, local representation, has been turned completely on its head by the major parties. MLA's and MP's are supposed to be representing the people in the legislature. Instead, they are representing the parties to the people. Do you doubt me? Here's a quote from Rafe Mair, former cabinet minister in the BC Government. So, Michael Hardner, when you get all huffy because I call our current system a dictatorship, what would you call it?

Under STV, all of these candidates would be competing in a larger constituency. If McHale can attract a sufficient number of votes in this larger constituency, he will be elected. In fact, the Irish experience is that STV will be quite good for independent candidates. Link You continue to bring up the Green Party. While the Green Party is a readily available example of discrimination in our FPTP system, STV and PR are about giving proper representation to parties, not the Green Party.

You're avoiding the question. Do you think it's OK that about a million Canadians are unable to look at their legislature and find someone who can represent their views? Not very many independents get elected. And most of the independents that do show up originally entered politics under a party banner. According to Political Scientist Dennis Pilon, the primary criterion for most people voting is party. There are other reasons but that is the most important. I'm happy for you. Both federally and provincially, I have had e-mails to my elected representatives go unanswered. Is that the type of local representation that the anti-STVers are afraid we'll lose? There are two types of representation - non-partisan (e.g. difficulties dealing with government agencies) and partisan (policies, government direction). You can get support for the first out of any type of system. If the party of your representative isn't with you on policy, you get nothing. That's one of the great things about STV. Yes, that's great. We can trudge off to the polls every 4 years and cast a largely meaningless ballot. Yippee. They often poll higher before an election. Let's see what happens during the election. Under our current, antiquated, backwards electoral system, people often vote for parties they don't want because the parties they do want don't have a chance. This practise has the bizarre euphenism strategic voting. Absolutely not. This is about having all substantial points of view recognized in our democracy. It may benefit the Green Party today but things change over time. It is ridiculous and so are all of the rationalizations as to why a party with 40% of the vote gets unfettered political power for 4 years. There has been public funding for political parties as long as there has been tax break to support them. They've been there as long as I can remember. The funding model has simply been changed from indirect funding to direct funding. The move was done to prevent the perception (and a well founded one at that) that corporations, unions and wealthy individuals were buying government influence. I doubt that most people even know what FPTP means. Just to set the record straight, I'm not a party activist - I'm not even a party member. I'm just someone who believes in the basic tenets of fairness. It's fine to say one person, one vote. How about all votes are equal?

We don't now what the true support of the Green Party would be if they were allowed to participate according to basic democratic principles. Maybe people would vote for them if they knew their votes might help elect someone. Or maybe the Green Party is really only attacting protest votes which would go somewhere else. We're not allowed to know because of a system that effectively bars new entrants. Kind of like a political monopoly. There are lots of countries that always have coalitions and do just fine. They forget about the principles of dictatorship and learn a new concept called consensus building. No, I don't want things to go to the left or to the right. I want a system that accurately reflects the views of the population. It's funny you say that because there are a LOT of NDP supporters who complain the Green Party is too right wing and Libertarian. Well, in BC 4 years ago, we had 58% approval for an improvement in our voting system. The powers that be sighed with relief and said sorry, that's not good enough. That's not what I said. You said that there was nebulous benefit to having all substantial points of view represented. The obvious reply is that if democracy isn't about representing the people, what good is it? I don't think that democracy should be about power, it should be about representing all points of view and building on the strength of diverse opinions. There are some countries in the world where coalitions are built on specific issues. That is where we should be going. I've lived through 8 years of BC Liberal government and what bothers me most isn't what they've done. It's that they've been so bloody dishonest about it. During the campaign, they mouth platitudes. They get a 4 year dictatorship and ram through all kinds of things that weren't mentioned during the campaign. I absolutely believe that Stephen Harper will do exactly the same thing federally if he ever gets a majority. I think there should be as many parties as there are points of view. However, the Bloc is getting a huge advantage from the premium that FPTP gives to a party with concentrated support. That advantage will favour other regional parties and if that starts to happen, Canada could easily go up in smoke. You say you're an NDP supporter. Are you happy that in terms of electing MP's, every Bloc vote is worth more than 2.5 NDP votes? So, all of the countries that use PR are radical? Someone should tell NATO about all of our radical allies. Yes, I'm religious in my belief that my vote should be worth the same as everyone else's. I'm sorry you don't believe in that. And if you think that a democracy is like driving a bus, well, I can see why ours doesn't work all that well.

This is a recipe for a very dysfunctional country. Eventually, it's going to split into two countries. But in this example, at least the 49% of the population has an opportunity to send representatives to the legislature to present the views of the minority. How does giving equal weight to votes for smaller parties give them too much power? So, then you must agree that in the current electory system, the majority of the power actually exists in the 10-15% of "swing" voters. But is that democratic?

None of my responses are ad hominem. I didn't say Madmax was smug or arrogant - I said what Mad Max said was smug and arrogant. There's a difference. In terms of my response, you openly questioned what I said. It seems reasonable for me to interpret that as you either questioning my competence or my honesty. There's nothing ad hominem about that either. So do you think giving an NDP vote equal weight to a Liberal vote means you're valuing them more? I like to support my opinions with facts. I'm just funny that way. My experience with local representation is that if your local MLA doesn't agree with you, you are unrepresented. STV provides you with a choice of representatives, increasing the odds that at least one of them will be aligned with your position. I'm sure NDP supporters in Saskatchewan are thrilled by their local representation. Same with Liberal supporters in Alberta. And Green supporters everywhere. STV would represent the regions much more honestly that FPTP can ever hope to. It may seem patronizing. It certainly is not elitist. In fact, FPTP is a much more elitist system. In terms of being wrong, I'm sorry but I doubt it. You seemed to be unaware that most "majority" FPTP governments represent a minority of the voters. Frankly, most people probably haven't given it much thought. And I've seen so much fear-mongering and misinformation about BC-STV that I know there are a lot of people who don't understand PR or STV.

No, they're not. Nationally, smaller national parties like the NDP and the Green Party are perennially grossly under-represented. The bloc is over-represented. I don't see this changing any time soon. The goofy cat-and-mouse games that have been played over the last two elections are because Harper has been angling for a majority government. He doesn't deserve a majority government (and we certainly don't deserve him having one) because he doesn't represent a majority of Canadians. The more I write about this, the more I wonder whether it might be possible for groups like the smaller parties and Fair Vote Canada to launch a charter challenge on behalf of the voters who are continually discriminated against by our electoral system. You missed the point. Under PR, the coalition wouldn't have needed the support of the Bloc to form a government. In fact, it isn't clear that the Conservatives could have formed a government at all, given the support they have. Ask all of the people out there who can't get UI about our "strong safety net". If having a legislative assembly that's representative of the population is a nebulous benefit, perhaps you would be more comfortable with a military dictatorship. Most of them are conservative so you should be very happy with that. There's no legitimate reason for giving no voters 1.5 votes and yes voters 1 vote. Assuming that when you say "all of us", you mean the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the Bloc, you're right. What balance? Have you noticed how FPTP produces wild swings from one party to another? How are you taking away the voice of 10 million by allocating power according to the level of support? That's a valid concern but it needs to be presented correctly. This isn't anti-Quebec, it's offering Quebeccers representation more in line with their views. The scenario that worries me is that parties like the Bloc will start showing up in other provinces because they are so effective at inflating their representation. It's not hard to imagine an 'Alberta party, followed shortly by a BC party. Suddenly national parties are out the window and everything is seen through the lens of regional politics. Throughout history, whenever there's been systemic discrimination, it's been up to the group being discriminated against, supported by a group of fair, open-minded citizens from the majority to make enough noise to get the system fixed. Every time, the people who benefit from the discrimination rationalize the system and resist change. Just as you are doing now. I don't think there are any perfectly proportional systems but I think that STV does a good job of balancing proportionality with regional representation. Look at the STV website.

So, you're saying you think it's completely OK that about a million Canadians aren't represented? You think that's a good form of democracy? Most people identify first with the party, second with the candidate. If people don't think the party has a chance, a lot of them cast their votes elsewhere, regardless of the strength of the candidate. No, it's not difficult at all. In most of the world's democracies, that is to say democracies where they're not all about suppressing minority opinion, the Green Party would have seats. What a smug, self-serving comment. People who don't feel represented feel like their vote has been wasted. From comments made in online fora such as this, I'd say that inculdes a lot of Green voters. Saying they're against democracy is arrogant and inane. For people who think it's OK to leave large blocks of the citizenry unrepresented, there is no case for STV or any other form of PR. PR isn't a provincial or federal issue. It's an issue of democracy. And lack of thereof. The BC voters don't appear to agree with you. The Federal Green Pary actually polled a bit better than the Provincial Green Party in the most recent respective elections. We'll see how that translates. I could be wrong but I believe that Greens usually poll higher before an electoin than they get votes during an election. Could be due to "strategic voting", yet another well known weakness with our ridiculous electoral system. You don't know squat. And the citizens who vote Green are deserving of that funding going to a party that represents their point of view. So far, all I've heard are a bunch of fear-mongering and misinformation. The Irish population voted twice to retain the system. Maybe you could find some actual examples where STV produces worse results that FPTP. Because I have tons of examples where elections run under STV would produce more representative results. That's depressing because with the artificial supermajority rules, it's going to be extremely difficult. Electoral reform (any system, not just STV) is difficult to explain to a largely apathetic population. The yes side has to be clear and persuasive. The no side simply has to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. Still, I agree with you that if BC-STV fails to be adopted, there is a significant chance that PR will disappear from debate for perhaps a generation due to the experiences in Ontario, Quebec and PEI as well as BC. Wow, you're really going out on a limb with that prediction. Maybe. Or maybe they'll discover there are a whole world of different electoral systems out there.

I've never heard the term democratic insanity before so you can retain ownership of it. I just think that a system that distorts the vote, rewards regional parties, and leaves large portions of the population unrepresented is wrong. What an arrogant, uninformed thing to say. This is Canada where we just had a crisis because some parties tried to exercise their democratic prerogative to form a coalition to replace a government that lost confidence. We had a party leader exploiting peoples ignorance by calling it a coup d'etat and accusing the opposition of "making a deal with the devil". Under PR, a coalition could have been formed without the BQ. This is Canada where we have serious regional conflict and rather than help build bridges, our electoral system is exacerbating them. Who are you comparing us to? Well, the main benefit is that we will have a system where all points of view that have substantial support will be represented. I'm not sure what risk you're speaking of. Here in BC, the government has set an almost impossible level of 60% support for the referendum to bring in a new electoral system. The ironic thing is that they don't even need a referendum at all. The change could be made (or reversed) by an act of parliament. Put bluntly, like all systems of discrimination, FPTP is being protected by those it favours, both the politicians and their supporters. What do you tell the 940,000 people who vote Green every election, knowing that they're wasting their time? How many thousands of others have just given up because they know their votes won't count? What are you afraid of?

Accept my math???? Bill, you seem to be implying I don't know what I'm talking about, if not outright calling me a liar. From the Elections BC website, here are the results of the last 4 BC general elections. In 2005, the Liberals received over 58% of the seats with less than 46% of the votes. In 2001, the Liberals actually did receive the majority of the votes but with less than 58% of the vote they got 97.5% of the seats so we effectively had no opposition. In 1996, the NDP won 52% of the seats with only 39% of the vote; despite the fact that the Liberals got significantly more votes. And in 1991, with under 41% of the vote, the NDP got 68% of the seats! Voter participation has been declining over the years and in the latest election, it was about 58% The national results are similar. In 2000, the Liberals won over 57% of the seats with less than 41% of the vote. In 1997, the Liberals got 51.5% of the seats with 38.4% of the vote. In 1993, with just 41.2% of the vote, the Liberals got 60% of the seats. In 1988, the Conservatives got 57% of the seats with 43% of the vote. The source for these statistics is Elections Canada for the elections 1993 and after and Wikipedia for the 1988 election. The elections since then have been less distorted but only because there haven't been majority governments. Over the years, voter participation has been declining and was at 58.8% in the most recent election. Where do these extra seats come from? They come from the smaller parties. In other words, that minor party you are so concerned about probably has significantly fewer seats than it deserves, according to its share of the popular vote. So, you can see, most "majority" governments are produced with significantly less than a majority of the vote. Legislation that is unsupported by the majority of the population happens all the time. Does that bother you or is it only when the NDP gets the occasional bill through? There is another aspect to FPTP that isn't usually mentioned. Federally, it's bad for Canadian unity. Regional parties, like the BQ, get way more than their share of seats. For example, in last year's election the BQ got 16% of the seats with 10% of the vote. That's a 60% premium. And it isn't just Quebec. Alberta and Saskatchewan elect almost 100% conservatives, leaving other views in those provinces unrepresented. For a long time, Ontario was almost totally Liberal, leaving the Conservatives in that province unrepresented. Under these conditions, an ideological dispute between the Conservatives and Liberals starts to look like a regional conflict. A good democratic system should ensure that regional voices are appropriately represented. Ours doesn't.

It's nothing of the sort. 12.5% of the votes in Greater Victoria would be more than 33.3% in Northeast BC. Maybe you are familiar with this thing called democracy?

You guys can cut your own side deal but meanwhile, the vote on BC-STV is proceeding under the proposal prepared by the Citizens Assembly. MLA's can get elected with as little as 12.5% + 1 in a 7 member consituency like Greater Victoria or as much as 33% +1 for a 2 member constituency like the Northeast.

Mostly, they want us to buy arms because they make so much money selling them. They're not worried we're going to become more powerful than them. You're mostly wrong. I was talking about history in general, not the war of 1812. What military attack? Who? Well, we can't do without that, now, can we? Valuable for what? So we can go fight wars for them? To test what? Missiles from where? Space vehicles? You mean like aliens? Maybe if we just stopped attacking 3rd world countries, the terrorists would be less motivated to come here. Snort. And who is the world's leader in the development of WMD? What failed states? Oh, yeah. I see a lot of that. Are you for real? The US military is going to save us from natural disasters? Maybe someone should have told them about Katrina. You're copying all this from a pamphlet, aren't you. Organized crime is there mostly because of drug prohibition. Drug prohibition is there mostly because of the knuckle-dragging right wing refused to address reality. Most of the knuckle-dragging right wing is in the US. And since when did the US military fight organized crime? Great. They'll show up to shoot us so we don't die slowly. It's really not all that easy to sit here and watch trillions of dollars wasted on high tech machinery specifically built to kill people. Or all that easy to see minds poisoned to the point where people are willing to run off to foreign lands and destroy countries. All for the sake of mindless paranoia. So let's attack them now because at some time in the future they might attack us. Hans Island is a small pile of rock in the middle of nowhere. It is disputed territory, with both Canada and Denmark claiming ownership so your claim that this is Sovereign Canadain (sic) terroritory is a matter of dispute. Thankfully, Canada and Denmark have agreed to go to arbitration instead of starting a war over it. BTW, Denmark is our NATO ally. Also, AFAIK, we still have a territory dispute with the US around 54'40" Then maybe we should stop fighting an American war in Afghanistan and focus on the arctic instead. I"m not surprised you don't recognize it. Just keep on eating up the propaganda the military feeds you. What I really want is for the world to start making sense. And for that to happen, people need to start questioning what's going on and thinking for themselves.