First Green MP

[Ontario Loyalist]

That's your opinion. Others DO consider our "first past the post" system to be democratic.

There are many flavours of representative democracy. Who decided YOURS was the ONLY one?

The vast majority of democracies have some form of PR system and they result in representation that much more closely reflects the actual popular vote.

[M.Dancer]

So what if those parties do have 308 people running? Let the leaders have a voice at the debates. As long as the debate is organized, timed, etc... They should take the time to allow all of them to speak. Who cares if relatively few vote for Christian Heritage or Marxist-Leninist, the point is that there are some people who vote for them, they're a national party with a person running in each riding, so those party leaders should have an opportunity to speak. Not allowing certain federal parties to speak at the debate is nothing short of censorship, imho.

I'm all for a fringe party debate.....on public access cable

[M.Dancer]

The vast majority of democracies have some form of PR system and they result in representation that much more closely reflects the actual popular vote.

But not necessarily, in in the case of the fringe parties not entirely the wishes of the ridings. What some other countries do or don't do has no bearing on whether Canada is a democracy. Persoanlly I am not too worried that the 2% of people who vote Green in my riding don't get their choice. They still get represented in Parliament regardless and luck them, their representitive will respond to their communities needs while a PR Rep has no consituenccy other than the fringe scattered to a fro across the country. In other words since no one votes for the individual member, they are foisted on the general electorate by the party cadre and that is democratic in name only.

Anyway, we have had a plebescite about the issue and it was soundly defeated. Dead issue.

[Wild Bill]

The vast majority of democracies have some form of PR system and they result in representation that much more closely reflects the actual popular vote.

I'm not adverse to the idea of adding some more proportional representation, as long as politicians don't get to pick any extra MP's. I only feel comfortable with electing MPs directly by the people.

That was the problem with the idea here in Ontario last provincial election. The last thing anybody wanted was for politicians to appoint themselves!

[Ontario Loyalist]

I'm not adverse to the idea of adding some more proportional representation, as long as politicians don't get to pick any extra MP's. I only feel comfortable with electing MPs directly by the people.

That was the problem with the idea here in Ontario last provincial election. The last thing anybody wanted was for politicians to appoint themselves!

Under the mixed member system we would have been able to vote for a local candidated and the party list. The party list would have been made public prior to the election, and if the names on the list aren't to your liking, you don't vote for the party. The names would have been selected not by the politicians, but by the party, which is no different than how riding candidates are selected.

Sadly the system wasn't adopted because most people just could not understand some very basic aspects of the system, as you have just demonstrated.

The system recommended is close to the one used in Germany, and has worked just fine since it was adopted. Kind of sad, though, that a society that has only really been a democracy for the last 60 years--aside from the failed Weimar Republic--is more democratic and politically sophisticated than a country that is founded on an 800 year tradition of democracy.

[M.Dancer]

. The names would have been selected not by the politicians, but by the party, which is no different than how riding candidates are selected.

Actually Bill nailed it and no it is not the same as how riding offices do it. Riding offices nominate local people to represent their riding. The PR candidates would have no local loyalty, only to their party. I can fully understand why the marginal fringe parties would want PR. Without a snowballs chance to be elected in a method that has stood the test of time, they hoped to get in the back door and exert more influence in the House than their actual popularity would give them. It would give a fringe party the chance to form coalitions and such...which is what happened in the Wiemar and gave a fringe party like the Nazis the credibility they did not deserve.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Actually Bill nailed it and no it is not the same as how riding offices do it. Riding offices nominate local people to represent their riding. The PR candidates would have no local loyalty, only to their party. I can fully understand why the marginal fringe parties would want PR. Without a snowballs chance to be elected in a method that has stood the test of time, they hoped to get in the back door and exert more influence in the House than their actual popularity would give them. It would give a fringe party the chance to form coalitions and such...which is what happened in the Wiemar and gave a fringe party like the Nazis the credibility they did not deserve.

You see, you don't even know what you're talking about. The Nazi Party was not a fringe party any different than the Reform Party was at one point a fringe party. They gained status largely due to things that they did outside of the Reichstag and were feeding on political, social and economic discontent; it was a revolutionary movement that would found its way into government one way or another. It's easy to say in hindsight that they did not deserve "credibility" but at the time they would have been reflecting the political beliefs that many Germans were holding at the time, and in a democracy that's what a political party is supposed to do, right? Same thing that happened with the Bloc: how did they suddenly get so much power? Because the sentiments were there and they gave a political voice to it; why aren't they banned, why are they allowed "credibility" given the fact that they want to destroy Canada? Whatever the case, you're just fear-mongering. The FPTP system is meant to maintain the status quo for the ruling elites which just means that Canada's decline and fall is a little more drawn out and subtle. Canada is facing an environmental, economic and social crisis and has been unable to adapt to this reality and it's probably now too late.

[blueblood]

You see, you don't even know what you're talking about. The Nazi Party was not a fringe party any different than the Reform Party was at one point a fringe party. They gained status largely due to things that they did outside of the Reichstag and were feeding on political, social and economic discontent; it was a revolutionary movement that would found its way into government one way or another. It's easy to say in hindsight that they did not deserve "credibility" but at the time they would have been reflecting the political beliefs that many Germans were holding at the time, and in a democracy that's what a political party is supposed to do, right? Same thing that happened with the Bloc: how did they suddenly get so much power? Because the sentiments were there and they gave a political voice to it; why aren't they banned, why are they allowed "credibility" given the fact that they want to destroy Canada? Whatever the case, you're just fear-mongering. The FPTP system is meant to maintain the status quo for the ruling elites which just means that Canada's decline and fall is a little more drawn out and subtle. Canada is facing an environmental, economic and social crisis and has been unable to adapt to this reality and it's probably now too late.

The reform party didn't need PR, neither did the NDP, either your party jives with Canadians or it doesn't. The greens don't.

As for PR why not go one step better and have referendums on all the laws passed and the budget? This doesn't make sense and that's why we have elected reps distributed in the most fair way which is with ridings.

The only crisis Canada is facing is how fortunate our situation is compared to other countries in the world.

[Ontario Loyalist]

The reform party didn't need PR, neither did the NDP, either your party jives with Canadians or it doesn't. The greens don't.

Neither did the Nazis. That's the point.

Yes, the Greens "jives with Canadian" but since they have nationiwde support rather than a regional concentration like the Reform or Bloc, then it's no dice. And for that reason Canada has had a divisive political system for several decades now...

[blueblood]

Neither did the Nazis. That's the point.

Yes, the Greens "jives with Canadian" but since they have nationiwde support rather than a regional concentration like the Reform or Bloc, then it's no dice. And for that reason Canada has had a divisive political system for several decades now...

They're not jiving with enough Canadians as they are getting smoked in the elections.

you want to talk about divisive politics, pr would mean that Canada would turn into the second ontario legislature. Good for Ontario, bad for everyone else. Canada's population is not evenly distributed enough like in Europe for PR to work.

[Ontario Loyalist]

They're not jiving with enough Canadians as they are getting smoked in the elections.

you want to talk about divisive politics, pr would mean that Canada would turn into the second ontario legislature. Good for Ontario, bad for everyone else. Canada's population is not evenly distributed enough like in Europe for PR to work.

That can be mitigated by how the ridings are alotted.

Really, the only reason for keeping this sytem is because the people that are already entrenched in Ottawa don't want to adopt a system that threatens their power. Sadly there are many people who prefer to blindly accept the sham arguments that they make for keeping things the way they are.

[blueblood]

That can be mitigated by how the ridings are alotted.

Really, the only reason for keeping this sytem is because the people that are already entrenched in Ottawa don't want to adopt a system that threatens their power. Sadly there are many people who prefer to blindly accept the sham arguments that they make for keeping things the way they are.

What are you talking about, in the 90's the PC party which was around for more than 100 yrs. was cast into oblivion using the FPTP system and a fringe Reform party got in. Nobody is entrenched in a democracy.

[Ontario Loyalist]

What are you talking about, in the 90's the PC party which was around for more than 100 yrs. was cast into oblivion using the FPTP system and a fringe Reform party got in. Nobody is entrenched in a democracy.

But a lot of PCs jumped ship to join the Reform/CA and eventually they merged again.

[blueblood]

But a lot of PCs jumped ship to join the Reform/CA and eventually they merged again.

that doesn't change the fact they were voted into oblivion.