maplesyrup Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 Prime Minister Paul Martin keeps on talking about his democratic deficit and it is strictly a diversion, to try and keep Canadians off balance. Canadians know all about democratic deficits. Majority governments quite regiularly are being elected in Canada with high thirties, low forties percentage of the vote. It is unbelievable that Canadians are still willing to accept this most unfair, first-past-the-post system from their governments. It's time for all our governments in Canada to seriously address this real democratic deficit, and bring in a proportional representation system. So when a political party gets 20% of the vote, they get 20% representation in the House of Commons. Enough is enough. ------------------------------------------------- - from today's Globe and Mail 'PR would have saved the PCs' http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Pag...bhub=VoteResult Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 Maple, i agree, the first past the post system suffers from serious flaws. A good book I read on reform is: "Fixing Canadian Democracy" G. Gibson. It is a series of 'experts' that offer solutions - and give the pros and cons of each idea. It is good i would recommend reading it to understand better what alternatives exist. Most western nations have some PR system and Not first past the post. The benefits of PR are: -regional representation -greater voter choice based on policies and not only party affiliations [in which you pick 2 MPs based on % votes gained per riding for instance or based on MPs/Population ratios] -coalition governance structures that tend to reflect divergent regional and local interests. Some cons are: -complexity of the voting system -more MPs and Politicians and hence more dollars [and waste ?] -coalitions lead to inertia and political manhandling and very little real change [witness Germany and France] -How to change the system from FPTP ? This is the most serious objection - it would involve Constitutional amendments and I DON'T see that happening in Canada. We will be stuck with FPTP - there is no compelling reason why the Libs would change it. On the other hand some paramount issues with Cdn democracy that MUST be redressed include: -MPs are irrelevant -Power is centralised in the PMOs office -All major Senate, Gov't., Crown and diplomatic posts are appointed by the PM -Ottawa is using extra legal techniques to expand power -Party whips and Party lines preclude real discussion inside parties and across party lines About 50 % of voting age people cast ballots. Of this maybe 40 % will vote for one party leading in most cases to a large majority. The country is thereby run for the benefit of 20 % of the population. This is egregious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udawg Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 While I agree completely that the current system has its flaws, I don't really like the idea of having the minority governments and coalitions that would be the norm in another scheme. At least with a "majority" government under the current system, things get done... and they can be undone by the next government if the people don't like what they do. I'm afraid that under a different system, nothing might get done at all, and then what would we do. Voting another party to have the largest minority accomplishes nothing either, since the largest minority is just as useless as the smallest minority. I propose having a no-party system. I'm sure there are precedents, anybody familiar with them? Sort of like municipal elections, all candidates in a riding get their names on the ballot, and they can spell out their personal policies, etc. And the ballot also has the various choices for prime minister (like electing the mayor). No party allegiances, no party line to follow, each member has equal right to propose bills, etc. Members vote according to their personal beliefs on each subject (in a perfect world, the beliefs of their constituents...), and the elected Prime Minister has minimal powers involving the day-to-day operation of the Legislature. This starts to sound similar to the American system... but it seems to work for them. And I won't complain about Canada becoming too much like America, either. It's their policies that make them American after all, not their system of government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gloria Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 I propose having a no-party system. I'm sure there are precedents, anybody familiar with them? Nunavut operates under a non-partisan concensus-style government where the premier is selected by, and from, those elected to their Legislature. I have serious doubts whether that style of governance would be effective on a larger scale or in a different environment. I think Canadians are smart enough to see through Martin's rehortic (at least I hope so, anyway), and if they aren't, I'd be surprised if enough Canadians cared about parliamentary committee structure to pay attention. Canada has seen power centralised in the PMO and influence removed from the individual MP. However, if has not always been like this, and it won't always be like this either. Does the political will exist in the Martin government to make real democratic changes? Of course not: all Martin has ever wanted was power; why would he change the system that got his that? It's going to take a government with the political will (and a campaign promise) to make changes in the democratic direction. We're not going to see that if we keep electing the Liberals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udawg Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 Canada has seen power centralised in the PMO and influence removed from the individual MP. However, if has not always been like this, and it won't always be like this either. Agree completely, which is why, despite my previous post, I hope we don't get ahead of ourselves calling for a complete reform of our tried and tested style of government. In ten years, with things going great, we could be laughing at ourselves for thinking we should have changed systems. And it's only been a month, I wouldn't be so hasty in criticizing Martin. I still have hope he can lead this country in the right direction. Not saying the Liberals haven't been in power for too long, though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 Democratic reform is a top priority but like I said why would a government in power initiate such reforms when for the Liberals - the FPTP system works perfectly. The 'right wing' so called always has its votes spread out across the country, the Libs dominate certain regions and therefore parliament. It is obvious that some form of PR is needed but it will never happen - it demands constitutional amendments. You believe that after Meech any gov't will toy with the Constitution. No way. The democratic deficit leads to: -Media manipulation -Declining voter participation -Regional parties -National fissures along regional lines -Corruption and fraud All important posts including the Ethics commissioner are appointed. I DOUBT that any Sun King would willingly give up this power. As for the example of Nunavut and 'consensus' ie. loving gov't. Who Cares. 80 % of Nunavut's revenue comes from Ont. and Alta. It is just another socialist welfare program and waste of tax payer money. It should be disbanded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boydfish Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 The problems with trying to reform the Canadian confederation's lack of overall democratic process are pretty complex. The Canadians, fearful of being treated as just two provinces among ten, rather than the current exalted position they hold, are wary of ever giving that up. The Canadians are a funny bunch, in many ways: They claim that their policies are "for the best" and "The envy of the world", but become terrified if asked to put them to the test. They claim that french is a vital, growing and vibrant lingustic community in all parts of the confederation, but then spend billions trying to convince people to speak it. Shouldn't people already be speaking it if that were the case? Canadians also get right offended if you try and point out to them that the myth of "Two Solitudes" has more holes in it than the belief that a giant UFO was in the tail of the Hale-Bopp comet. Only a Canadian can claim that the other eight provinces are "just like Ontario" and that everybody in those provinces are "uniform Canadian" in thought, belief, culture and national identity, then state that the people in those provinces can't be trusted because "they're not like us". The Canadians will never permit a EEE Senate because it would mean that they'd have to start convincing the other eight provinces of the value of their policies. Unlike now, where the Canadians simply have to consider how their choices will play in Ontario and Quebec, they'd have to start acting with all aspects considered. Reform of the Canadian confederation is impossible, that's why it will likely fall apart in the next 5-10 years. We should try to save it, I suppose, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 Boyd, good points - rather pessimistic are you Boyd wrote: They claim that their policies are "for the best" and "The envy of the world", but become terrified if asked to put them to the test. They claim that french is a vital, growing and vibrant lingustic community in all parts of the confederation, but then spend billions trying to convince people to speak it. Shouldn't people already be speaking it if that were the case? I would agree old chap. Social engineering and appeasing Quebec, by letting them take over the Federal Gov't and plum posts. Bilingualism is a Trudeau byproduct - and part of the anti-american pro Quebec policy that has informed Cdn politics since 1968. Language and cultural are 'natural' flows that can't be forced onto populations. Cultural flows are always 2 way not one way - ie. globalisation alarmists depict the McWorld of frightening homongeneity. This is puerile. Real cultural change is always 2 ways and dialectical. Ergo multi-culturalist and bi-lingualism emanating from the top of gov't pervert and distort society. There is simply no demand for it, but lots of supply. They are not real but surreal policies designed as social engineering. In Toronto the equivalent would be that all people learn Chinese who covet gov't posts. While an interesting intellectual excercise, it would be a waste of time and money. I too feel that Canada will fail - its EU styled nationalism and hypocrisy and socialism have been proven historically to be bankrupted ideologies. Canada has many strengths and advantages that would allow it to outshine the US - but alas no one here cares. Regionalism will become more prevalent as power is further centralised both provincially and federally. In FPTP there is verily no need to vote or care about politics - the perversity is that a better educated populace knows that its votes make no difference in such an unrepresentative system. Result? Regional issues will come to the fore again and again. Political reform is needed in Canada including a Triple E Senate - to stimulate debate, reform its outmoded socialism and interject reality into policy and stop corruption. But the non ideological nature of the Cdn people - suffering under socialist propaganda - precludes change. Damned depressing. The country has potential and ignores it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted January 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 (edited) 'Democractic history in the making" Gordon Gibson National Post http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpos...a3-6d6c9e52fece 'The men and women of the assembly are very ordinary people, by design. They had been selected at random from the province's voters list -- subject to their willingness to serve, which does add a significant bit of self-screening -- and they constitute an excellent match for the geographical, gender, age, occupational, ethnic and educational profile of British Columbia.' ----------------------------------- - here's a much better article 'Welcome to a new era of liberal democracy' http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/National/ 'But it is those very elites who raise the most objections to electoral reform and citizens' assemblies. Which makes one wonder whether what they most fear is losing their ability to dominate public discourse.' --------------------------------------------- This is the beginning of Canadians concretely exploring substantially more fairness in their electoral voting systems across Canada. Unfortunately from our federal Liberal government, there is no interest and we get the same old, same old. Paul Martin is trying to create a diversion with his catchy worded diversion "democratic deficit", which has absolutely nothing to do with a fair voting system for Canadian citizens. For the most comprehensive background on a fair voting ststem in Canada please go to: www.fairvotecanada.org Edited January 13, 2004 by maplesyrup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theWatcher Posted January 13, 2004 Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 Wouldn't proportional representation allow a dingbat party that managed to get .33% of the vote to get a seat in the house of commons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted January 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 theWatcher.....that's correct, if we chose a 100% proportional representation system. There are different kinds of proportional representation methods such as those in place in New Zealand, Germany, and Israel. There are lots of small one issue groups out there such as the Chritians, the Greens, etc. whatever, that I may, or may not, agree with. One seat out of 308 is not a big amount, but they do deserve to be at least heard. It seems to me that our Canadian government has always operated best for Canadian society under minority governments, when they had to pay attention. Any of these governments that we have had, have always had way too much power for such a small group of elites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pellaken Posted January 13, 2004 Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 Wouldn't proportional representation allow a dingbat party that managed to get .33% of the vote to get a seat in the house of commons? it depends on the threshold. most countries have it at 5%. Israel has it at 1% I beleive there are some countries that WOULD elect an MP with 0.33% of the vote. Turkey has a 10% threshold. plus Proportional Representation does NOT mean that we have to stop electing MP's form ridings. that is a common myth poeple use to de-bunk PR which is not true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pellaken Posted January 13, 2004 Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 I propose having a no-party system. I'm sure there are precedents, anybody familiar with them? yes, there are precedents every country (or body over a certain populaiton) found that this form of government is to corupt, as people need to pay-off others to support them. also, other such bodies have just dissapeared as parties naturally devloped. For the sole naitonal body, its a bad idea, but somoene proposed it for Senate reform, and I think that idea does have some merrit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob1963 Posted January 13, 2004 Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 Craig, I don't think you have to change the constitution to change our form of voting. However, I don't think PR is the best way to go. I think a preferential system would be better suited to our country... - It would keep the same electoral districts (with PR you will need either... more MP's - we have enough now, or larger ridings - if you want to keep the same number of MP's) - the elected MP would be representative of and responsible to the riding they were elected from (much like now) - much closer to the way we vote now, less confusing change over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pellaken Posted January 13, 2004 Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 PrefBalloting tends to favour centrists in Canada, the Liberal party is the centrist party. If we adopted PrefBallots we would NEVER end the Liberal government. PrefBalloting tied to PR is a great idea though. we can add 100 MP's. I dont see how we have "enough" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pellaken Posted January 13, 2004 Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 Some cons are:-complexity of the voting system -more MPs and Politicians and hence more dollars [and waste ?] -coalitions lead to inertia and political manhandling and very little real change [witness Germany and France] -How to change the system from FPTP ? This is the most serious objection - it would involve Constitutional amendments and I DON'T see that happening in Canada. complex? no. if a party gets 15% of the vote, they get 15% of the seats. our current system is more complex, but because we are used to it, we cant see it. more MP's mean more waste? I doubt that. We could keep the same number of MP's but make ridings bigger. no change? I doubt that. Germany and France have had similar governments for years. In canada we would surly alternate and I dont beleive it would involve the constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob1963 Posted January 13, 2004 Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 PrefBalloting tends to favour centristsin Canada, the Liberal party is the centrist party. Preferential voting encourages candidates (and the elected Rep) to reflect the voter's concerns. It encourages compromise and consensus more than PR. PR tends to encourage reflection of Party interests and more extreme and uncompromising views. If Canadians are generally centrist, then their government would be generally centrist with either PR or Preferential voting. FPTP does so to a lesser extent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pellaken Posted January 13, 2004 Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 I dont see how that is true. if I am a new democrat, I am going to put a liberal 2nd before a tory if I am a tory, I am going to put a liberal 2nd before a new democrat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob1963 Posted January 13, 2004 Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 That's because Canadians are generally centrist. And it assumes we only have the three choices. If we were more, say, conservative there would be more 'conservative' parties and they would be the second choice of other conservative-minded voters. ie: A party - extreme conservative B party - not so extreme conservative c party - centrist d party - liberal e party - extreme liberal A & B Party voters will vote for one another leaving the rest voting for three parties. I know this is over-simplified but I think it gets the point across that voters will Generally get what they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.