Disenchanted with Liberals, Conservatives & NDP?

jdobbin · September 20, 2008

First, the NDP has pushed the FPTP for a long time now but the Liberals, Conservatives and the Bloc have been against (because they know they if they did, they would lose seats..so they are more concerned about their own well being instead of democracy in Canada as a whole.)

I'd find the federal NDP's push on this more credible if they implemented in Manitoba. Why is good enough for Canada but not Manitoba? Would love to see Layton challenge Doer on that.

Bryan · September 20, 2008

We had a chance to get a proportional system in Ontario's last election, but most of the people I talked to didn't understand the proposal and were dissuaded by the propaganda from the Big Three, who want to keep the status quo and keep new parties from getting a foothold.

The PR system they were proposing in Ontario was a really bad idea. It results in less local representation, and bigger government. The PR MPs could be anyone on the list, so the party could appoint whomever they want, not who you vote for.

Also, as much as you wanted the idea to happen so that the Greens could get in, are you prepared for other fringe parties you don't agree with to have seats in the house too? Keep in mind that if we had that same system in place federally, not only would the Greens have seats, so would Christian Heritage. If CHP has seats, then they get to be in the debate too, and it gets messier and messier. Even joke parties like the neorhino would have a real chance. Seriously, many people, given TWO votes, will vote one serious vote, and one joke/protest vote. The same thought process that would give the Greens an extra boost will also legitimize a slew of what would otherwise be "no chance in hell" parties.

I used to think like you. I was a hard core Reform supporter (the only party I've ever sent money to and carried an actual card for). Back when we had one seat or less, I was crying for PR. I too thought that FPTP was totally unfair. Then we got 52 seats. That proved me wrong. It proved that the current system really does work if your party legitimately has the support you think it does.

Edited September 20, 2008 by Bryan

marksman · September 20, 2008

The PR system they were proposing in Ontario was a really bad idea. It results in less local representation, and bigger government. The PR MPs could be anyone on the list, so the party could appoint whomever they want, not who you vote for.

I can see the points about less local representation and bigger government but not the last point about who appoints the candidates. The party already appoints who they want in the ridings so why are the list candidates any different?

Also, as much as you wanted the idea to happen so that the Greens could get in, are you prepared for other fringe parties you don't agree with to have seats in the house too? Keep in mind that if we had that same system in place federally, not only would the Greens have seats, so would Christian Heritage. If CHP has seats, then they get to be in the debate too, and it gets messier and messier. Even joke parties like the neorhino would have a real chance. Seriously, many people, given TWO votes, will vote one serious vote, and one joke/protest vote. The same thought process that would give the Greens an extra boost will also legitimize a slew of what would otherwise be "no chance in hell" parties.

There're arguments that say that's democracy. If there're enough people who want to vote for a party then why shouldn't they get a voice? I might not like their views but they're entitled to have them and voice them in parliament if they get votes.

Other arguments against PR systems say PR parliaments get less accomplished and you're constantly having shifting coalitions. Majority governments are rare. Then again people use the same argument to say that PR is a good thing so maybe it just depends on your point of view.

Smallc · September 20, 2008

especially since she's running against the Deputy Prime Minister.

Just a correction, there is no deputy PM at the time. The media have said that Lawrence Cannon holds most of the duties of one if not the title.

WIP · September 20, 2008

I understood it perfectly. I didn't like it! It all hinged on the idea of politicians making the list of alternative MPP's instead of voters.

YOur local MP is cut from a different cloth than mine apparently, if you consider him more accountable to the voter than to party leader or party whip.

Every one I know who voted against the idea did so for this very reason. Yet every single time I hear someone like yourself refer to that vote I NEVER hear that point mentioned!
It's always "Oh, folks just didn't get enough time to understand it!" or "Well, bad people spread evil propaganda that scared people away from it!"

Like I said, most people don't understand the system if they think their local MP is accountable to them! He needs the backing of the party leadership before he starts worrying about how to get enough votes to stay in office. Power comes from the top down, not bottom up in a parliamentary system. When a government has a majority in the House, they have unlimited power until they decide to call the next election.

Never what perhaps was the TRUTH - there were things about the proposal that folks DIDN'T LIKE!
The idea of a more proportional system is a totally separate and distinct issue from the specific proposal that was offered to Ontario voters on that ballot.

It was a dumb and unpopular approach to your goal of PRR. Get over it!

Stop whining and come up with a better one!

If the proposal was complete proportional representation like some countries such as Israel have, I could see a cause for alarm; but when it is just a quarter of the total seats in Parliament, it's a bogus claim that it would lead to permanent coalition governments. The majority party would win the majority in the proportional section of the legislature, so it might make their goal of unlimited power more difficult, but most of the worst legislation that's been passed by either federal or provincial parliaments have come from the governments who had majorities in the House that prevented others from stopping their bills and spending allocations.

PoliticalCitizen · September 20, 2008

Greens got less than 2% in Central Nova last time. Do you really think just May being there will get her that seat? I highly doubt it, especially since she's running against the Deputy Prime Minister.
Guelph? 4th place.

In all of BC, the Greens never finished better than 4th place last election. In some ridings they finished fifth behind independent or Christian Heritage candidates. They never broke the 10% support barrier, and even got less than 2% in many ridings.

Perhaps you were thinking of a provincial election? I know the Greens came in second in Owen Sound in 2007.

I'm having trouble digging out the percentages of votes each party per riding for the last election, perhaps one of you can help me out..

But here's what I remember as I was watching the vote count - one of the ridings in BC turned green for the first time in election history and stayed green for quite a while...

PoliticalCitizen · September 20, 2008

The PR MPs could be anyone on the list, so the party could appoint whomever they want, not who you vote for.

That's exactly what I LIKED about it. One may not the candidate assigned to their riding but know the party leader.

It would only make sense in a proportional voting system for the first place alloted to a party with no representation to go to its leader.

Bryan · September 20, 2008

I'm having trouble digging out the percentages of votes each party per riding for the last election, perhaps one of you can help me out..
But here's what I remember as I was watching the vote count - one of the ridings in BC turned green for the first time in election history and stayed green for quite a while...

The numbers are all documented here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/ridings...h_columbia.html

Just click on the "2006 Results" tab for each one.

WIP · September 20, 2008

The PR system they were proposing in Ontario was a really bad idea. It results in less local representation, and bigger government. The PR MPs could be anyone on the list, so the party could appoint whomever they want, not who you vote for.

The claim of unaccountable MP's has already been covered, but the other argument was "bigger government." Ontarians would not have fallen for that argument if their memories went back more than two election cycles, since the total number of seats would have still been less than the 133 in the old parliament before Harris cut the numbers to match federal riding boundaries. Cutting 30 MPP's from Parliament didn't make a whole lot of difference where I live, but many in sparsely populated areas in Northern Ontario weren't happy about the cuts.

Nevertheless, giving smaller parties an opportunity to have a voice in parliament and ask questions should be worth going back to the old numbers.

Also, as much as you wanted the idea to happen so that the Greens could get in, are you prepared for other fringe parties you don't agree with to have seats in the house too? Keep in mind that if we had that same system in place federally, not only would the Greens have seats, so would Christian Heritage. If CHP has seats, then they get to be in the debate too, and it gets messier and messier. Even joke parties like the neorhino would have a real chance. Seriously, many people, given TWO votes, will vote one serious vote, and one joke/protest vote. The same thought process that would give the Greens an extra boost will also legitimize a slew of what would otherwise be "no chance in hell" parties.

Seems like you're making the argument for a proportional system! Why shouldn't the CHP have their seats in Parliament? At least they would be out in the opening instead of where they are now -- embedded in Stephen Harper's organization. And, I enjoyed having the Rhinos around to add a few laughs during election time.

I used to think like you. I was a hard core Reform supporter (the only party I've ever sent money to and carried an actual card for). Back when we had one seat or less, I was crying for PR. I too thought that FPTP was totally unfair. Then we got 52 seats. That proved me wrong. It proved that the current system really does work if your party legitimately has the support you think it does.

I supported the Reform Party too at first, but they went from one to 52 seats because the Western conservatives crossed over and joined the Reform Party, not by growing a new party. In Ontario, Reform or Canadian Alliance never caught on, and now they are all amalgamated together again anyway. The Reformers threw their most important ideas, such as a Triple E Senate, under the bus when they realized Ontario and Quebec aren't interested in power-sharing. The only difference between the Conservatives now and before the Mulroney/Reform split is that the Westerners have more control of the party now -- and those fundamentalists you don't like, seem to have a lot of influence behind the scenes.

PoliticalCitizen · September 21, 2008

The numbers are all documented here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/ridings...h_columbia.html

Just click on the "2006 Results" tab for each one.

I went through all the BC ridings and didn't find any with a substantial Green vote percentage, so I guess it was an illusion during vote counts.

But the Nation-wide Green support has certainly grown since last election - it is now estimated at between 9% and 11% - both are higher than BQ !

PoliticalCitizen · September 22, 2008

CTV reported 12% for the Greens today - that puts a big green on my face

M.Dancer · September 22, 2008

CTV reported 12% for the Greens today - that puts a big green on my face

This should fix that...

Today's Nanos numbers...

Committed Voters - Canada (N=986, MoE ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20)
Conservative Party 35% (-1)

Liberal Party 30% (-1)

NDP 22% (+2)

BQ 7% (NC)

Green Party 6% (-1)

Undecided 18% (-1)

With Dion putting the Green Shift is the shadows, the less talk about Green means less interest in Greens...

I would wager they will do no better in this election than last.....with odds I will say they will do worse as there will be few Liberals voting Green in disgust over Liberal fraud...

Wild Bill · September 22, 2008

I don't understand that criticism. Politicians make the list of candidates in each riding so what's the difference between the list of candidates in the ridings and the list of candidates used to make the seat totals proportional to the vote totals?

Well, in practice you're often correct but not always and not totally. There is a slim shred of populist democracy in the system.

What's supposed to happen is that the members of the riding association nominate candidates from their riding/community and then hold a vote to choose one of them as the party candidate to run in the election. Sometimes the candidate is simply picked by the party brass. The Liberals have always been famous for doing so. Still, more often than not parties respect local wishes for their local candidate, if only to have a better chance of winning the seat instead of parachuting in some "foreigner".

It's not politicians doing the choosing in this process. It's ordinary folks that live in the riding! They join the party to have the right to choose their own candidates, among other things.

That IS a big difference from what you describe! I find it telling that the system has become so top-down if not perverted as to someone like yourself thinking that a perversion of the system is actually official!

PoliticalCitizen · September 22, 2008

This should fix that...
Today's Nanos numbers...

With Dion putting the Green Shift is the shadows, the less talk about Green means less interest in Greens...

I would wager they will do no better in this election than last.....with odds I will say they will do worse as there will be few Liberals voting Green in disgust over Liberal fraud...

Thanks, Dancer, my face is back to normal <_<

Let's assume the truth is in the middle - that would still place Greens before BQ.

If May performs well at the debate (and it would be really hard to perform worse than Dion or be more irrelevant than Duceppe ) the support for the Greens may shoot up a bit.

M.Dancer · September 22, 2008

Thanks, Dancer, my face is back to normal
Let's assume the truth is in the middle - that would still place Greens before BQ.

If May performs well at the debate (and it would be really hard to perform worse than Dion or be more irrelevant than Duceppe ) the support for the Greens may shoot up a bit.

I doubt she will do well. I expect that layton will out perform May and any left leaning single issue voter will probably shift to a party that can get elected representation over one that would be lucky to come in third...

...and with that, 3 parties battling for the extreme left the possibility of a Harper majority solidfies..

DrGreenthumb · September 22, 2008

I doubt she will do well. I expect that layton will out perform May and any left leaning single issue voter will probably shift to a party that can get elected representation over one that would be lucky to come in third...
...and with that, 3 parties battling for the extreme left the possibility of a Harper majority solidfies..

The left needs to find a way to work together for sure, if you just take the numbers of the liberals and NDP together they are always ahead of the cons by at least 20 %.

PoliticalCitizen · September 22, 2008

The left needs to find a way to work together for sure, if you just take the numbers of the liberals and NDP together they are always ahead of the cons by at least 20 %.

Do you think there's any chance of a coalition government?

marksman · September 23, 2008

Well, in practice you're often correct but not always and not totally. There is a slim shred of populist democracy in the system.
What's supposed to happen is that the members of the riding association nominate candidates from their riding/community and then hold a vote to choose one of them as the party candidate to run in the election. Sometimes the candidate is simply picked by the party brass. The Liberals have always been famous for doing so. Still, more often than not parties respect local wishes for their local candidate, if only to have a better chance of winning the seat instead of parachuting in some "foreigner".

It's not politicians doing the choosing in this process. It's ordinary folks that live in the riding! They join the party to have the right to choose their own candidates, among other things.

That IS a big difference from what you describe! I find it telling that the system has become so top-down if not perverted as to someone like yourself thinking that a perversion of the system is actually official!

The Liberals aren't the only party that parachutes in candidates all the parties do that. Even in this election I read a list of "celebrity candidates" and all parties had about the same number. Unless the article just stopped counting at some point which is possible.

It's true that with local candidates the local party members have a say in who becomes the candidate. The thing is you've still got to be a party member. So when you say that with PR the politicians would make the choice not voters I can't help but thinking that voters don't make any choice right now either. It's party members.

There's a difference where local party members would choose local candidates and the higher up party members would choose the generic list of candidates but I'm still not sure that's a big deal. If you support the party then don't you trust the higher ups in your own party? They're the ones who set the priorities once they're in power anyway so if you don't trust those higher up party members there's a problem isn't there?

In either system it's not voters choosing anything. It's all party members.

Oleg Bach · September 23, 2008

CTV reported 12% for the Greens today - that puts a big green on my face

So are Greens the real stewards of the earth? Are they the new defenders of Eden? Are they the ones who will teach us to flow in harmony with the goodness that is nature and God? Will they bring about a healthy natural world again where we will live in heavenly bliss? _ Will they shut down that pollutiong slave labour camp called China? OR will they be like everyone else and just take the money which is real green?

PoliticalCitizen · September 23, 2008

So are Greens the real stewards of the earth? Are they the new defenders of Eden? Are they the ones who will teach us to flow in harmony with the goodness that is nature and God? Will they bring about a healthy natural world again where we will live in heavenly bliss? _ Will they shut down that pollutiong slave labour camp called China? OR will they be like everyone else and just take the money which is real green?

I think they'll do both: take money and protect nature

Oleg Bach · September 23, 2008

I think they'll do both: take money and protect nature

That's the kind of job I want. I love nature and it loves me...may as well have a job you like - YOU sure are up late clicking away...good night my friend it's almost one thirty in the morning in T>O.....It's really about nurturing people and plants - some people make plants and people die - others generate life - you have to love the plants - and the people...Love is life and life abundantly - I just hope the greens are good at making things grow....good night.

M.Dancer · September 23, 2008

The left needs to find a way to work together for sure, if you just take the numbers of the liberals and NDP together they are always ahead of the cons by at least 20 %.

Yeah and if horses had wings....

The vast majority of Liberal voters are closer to the Conservatives in ideaology than to the NDP.

DrGreenthumb · September 23, 2008

Yeah and if horses had wings....
The vast majority of Liberal voters are closer to the Conservatives in ideaology than to the NDP.

Hahahaha you are kidding right? The conservatives are so far right that no Liberal could dare call themselves liberal if they vote for Harper. The man is an authoritarian who aims to take us back in time to the 50's. Liberals are progressive not regressive. The main difference between the Libs and new democrats is that the NDP have a strong leader, and no corruption scandals. All true liberals should support Layton.

PoliticalCitizen · September 23, 2008

All true liberals should support Layton.

And all true environmentalists should support the Greens

M.Dancer · September 23, 2008

The main difference between the Libs and new democrats is that the NDP have a strong leader, and no corruption scandals. All true liberals should support Layton.

Is that the main difference?

Who got Canada involved in Afghanistan again?