ReeferMadness

It's not implied in my previous note. I've never heard of anyone argue for "pure PR" - I don't even know what that is. I've posted a link that shows most PR systems around the world represent parties that hit a threshold of 3-5% of the popular vote. Most of the time, those systems work quite well.

A party with a few seats can't "grab" the balance of power, it has to be given the power by larger parties. If a party with, say, 5 seats can convince a party with 150 seats to do something fundamentally wrong or against their principles, then there is something wrong with the system and something wrong with the larger parties. Representative democracy means that the views of the people are represented; and not just the people that whose views you happen to like. Democracy is messy and it means having to confront the views of people who see things differently.

That's an interesting piece of information. It's irrelevant, because I haven't heard anyone suggest that we have a system with no cut off. Also, it's wrong because the Christian Heritage Party received fewer than 19,000 votes (tell me how that translates to 3 seats). But it's interesting.

It would take a carefully (and poorly) designed PR system to deny the Green Party representation. Whether they are "a player" or "hold the balance of power" are undemocratic notions. The system should focus on representation, not power. They have enough presence to merit representation and the system should provide for that.

You're looking at the issue backwards. Parties don't have a right to be in a legislative assembly - citizens have a right to have representation in the legislative assembly where numbers warrant. And as the PR link I posted earlier shows, most countries find the sweet spot for threshold is somewhere between 3% and 5%.

You clearly have no clue what the Green Party is about. I recommend that you learn more before you vote.

I very much doubt that. Harper doesn't do anything by accident. I happened to be watching him on TV with the sound off. His hand actions appeared to be obviously practised as he went through the same body motions over and over. With the sound on, it would have been less noticeable. I also think that it is no accident that this happened just a couple days after the Australian guy who used race baiting to win other elections was invited to run Harper's campaign.

They're welcome to it. They can have the growth hormones that you guys use to boost milk production.

The provinces already have tons of power and they seem to be more and more inclined to use it. We don't need federal systems that further pander to regional differences.

And it very nearly stopped working in 1995. There are Newfoundlanders who regret 1949. Quebeccers and Quebecois. Albertan separatists. BC separatists. And those are just the ones I know about.

The Liberals don't want PR. They want alternative vote. Cuz that's what's best for the Liberals. It's a sham. And a scam.

A province is not a group. It's a set of lines that were arbitrarily drawn on a map. And it will probably result in there being no country at some point.

Well, you better hope that they don't form government; because that's what they want.

No. It should get them 5% of the seats. You do understand that's what the 'proportional' in proportional representation means?

Do you have a citation? I've never heard of the Green Party advocating a particular system. Maybe you mean the NDP. The NDP are big proponents of MMP (what is MMR, btw?)

Exactly. Because I say so. And because if it's much larger, you risk large percentages of the population not being represented in government. And because the overwhelming majority of countries with PR governments have thresholds of 5% or less. I know. It's so disappointing - you would love to see the Green Party shut out.

The provinces already have way too much power. It's a wonder this country has survived as long as it has. It's less of a country than a bunch of constantly squabbling fiefdoms.

The Green Party is polling between 5.5 and 6 percent ATM. Any proportional system worth anything would give them seats.

Greens would definitely get seats under STV and probably through MMP, depending on how it was designed (see smallc's effort to exclude them). The point is, though, we won't know the Greens real strength until we get PR. Right now, there is too much strategic voting.

Yeah. Cuz it's not enough that the senate appointments are by province and the provinces themselves are so powerful they behave like little countries. We need more emphasis on the provinces. You wouldn't be able to deny the Greens at least one seat and possibly 2. But thanks for trying.

Sounds almost like you care more about eliminating smaller parties than you do about proportionality. As I said, the Greens are polling over 30 percent (running second) on the island and there are something over 700,000 residents. You'll have to design your system carefully if you'd like to deny them seats.

I've been a supporter of PR longer than I've been a supporter of the Greens. I was correcting smallc's statement of what is likely to happen under PR.

That depends on which PR system you use. I've heard of nobody advocating a pure list system. The Greens are currently polling over 30% on Vancouver Island. Under MMP or STV, the Greens would have more than one seat. Also, you are assuming that the voting percentages will be unaffected if you remove the motivation for strategic voting.

I'm sure somehow, in some world, that makes sense.

The danger that we will have a government that actually represents the will of the people, not the 2% (the swing voters) that actually determine the election.