House Of Commons Electoral Reform...

[NDP Newbie]

After considering the pros and cons of a number of different ways in which Canada's process for electing the House of Commons can be reformed, I have come up with the following requirement:

The end goal of any attempt at reforming Canada's electoral process must lead to a HoC whose composition mirrors the aggregate will of the Canadian electorate as accurately as possible, while still possessing the following characteristics:

1. Some level of local representation to ensure that the smaller concerns of the average coommunity is met and that the diversity of Canada's parliament reflects the diversity of its regions.

2. A voting process that will be identical to the current one: It is very possible to reform the HoC in such a way as to ensure that any changes are transparent to the mechanical process of voting. The current system of voting is easy for the average voter to understand, systems such as instant run-off voting and approval voting, are a little more complex, and other systems still, particularly Condorcet's Method, are fun for number crunchers like myself, but require some knowledge of game theory to be understood.

3. The will of the voters takes precedence over the will of party insiders.

4. Any reforms shall allow voters to vote their conscience without any sort of strategic penalty.

With these goals in mind, I propose the following reforms:

1. Giving the HoC 300 MPs, but realigning constituencies so that only 50% of MPs are elected by representative first-past-the-post democracy and that the other 50% are distributed to the different political parties so as to ensure that each occupies a percentage of the Parliament proportional to the popular vote it receives.

2. Rather than voters electing a "roster" of candidates appointed by party insiders, each party's top non-winners (by vote %) in the different constituencies are given seats in Parliament. Should the party's leader not be among these proportional winners, the lowest proportional winner shall give up his/her seat so that the party leader may sit in Parliament.

3. There shall be no threshold of popular votes or seats required to enter government. 1/308th of the popular vote shall guarantee a party 1/308th of the Parliament.

Allow me to provide a hypothetic example of the proposed reforms in operation:

Following the May 2004 election, the Liberal Party of Canada wins 42% of the vote and 78 constituencies, the Conservative Party wins 27% of the vote and 35 constiuencies, the NDP wins 13% of the vote and 15 constituencies, the Bloc Quebecois wins 10% of the vote and 20 constituencies, and the Green, Christian Heritage, and Marijuana party each win 2% of the vote and no constituencies, the Natural Law Party wins 1% of the vote and no constituencies, and each of the other parties/independents is lucky to win 0.1% of the remianing votes.

At this point, the Liberals control 52% of the HoC inspite of winning 42% of the vote, the Conservatives, 23.3% of the legislature in spite of winning 27% of the vote, the NDP, 10% of constituencies in spite of winning 13% of the vote, the Block, 13.3% of constituencies in spite of winning 10% of the vote. The other parties are self-explanatory.

At this point, the Liberals will be given the number of non-winners / 150 necessary to make 42% of 300, and so on, until Parliament represents the will of the people.

Any seats not won can be left vacant or something. :-P

[August1991]

After considering the pros and cons of a number of different ways...

EYELIDS FALL...

...the end goal of any attempt at reforming...

SHUT...

...any changes are transparent to the mechanical process...

FIRMLY...

...goals in mind, I propose...

AND THEN ZZZZZ...

...different constituencies are given seats in Parliament...

BNA Act? The most boring headline: Canada Proposes Policy.

[maplesyrup]

Proportional Representation will alleviate a lot of the unfairness in Canadas voting system.

[NDP Newbie]

I agree (obviously...lol)...And mixing it with representational democracy will ensure no change to the voting process for the end voter and will also ensure that issues on a more local scale are given due focus by the federal government.

[Pellaken]

mixed-member PR is the only way to go!

another interesting suggestion was to elect the senate, through pure PR, at the same time as the house, which remains FPTP.

[August1991]

You guys are all living in FANTASYLAND! (Who is prepared to dispute my precise calculation that 47,326 angels can dance on the head of a pin?)

Canada CANNOT amend its Constitution because Canadians are involved in an extremely messy argument about the existence of Canada.

Everytime I hear westerners go on about PR and TripleE, I think I'm a divorce lawyer and the mother-in-law comes to say: "It would be much better if I took the kids on Sundays instead of Wednesdays." My answer? "You're right! But that's not the problem right now and given the way things are, your suggestion will just add to the litigation." (And my bill!!!)

[maplesyrup]

Western alienation is serious, close to 25% now, so Canada needs to act. It won't be easy, but it won't go away.

I suggest abolish the Senate (this should satisfy all the whiners who complain about too much tax and patronage, etc., and bring in a more fair and simple voting system such as PR.

That's it Canada's problems are solved. What's next?

[Black Dog]

Canada CANNOT amend its Constitution because Canadians are involved in an extremely messy argument about the existence of Canada.

I see. So August 1991 refers to the peiod in the past you've travelled from to be here today. FYI, seperatism is pretty much off the national agenda. And while seperatist sentiment is still strong in Qubec and occassionally rears its ugly head in the West, I think the issue of electoral reform is an impiortant one for the future of democracy in this country. In the meantime, though where'd you get the time machine?

[August1991]

BD and MapleSyrup, I agree with you both. I think the Senate should be abolished, and electoral reform would do democracy in Canada well. In fact, the Charest government just tabled a proposal to have 75 seats by fptp and 50 by party list in the Quebec's National Assembly. (And immediately, the Quebec nationalists started to argue.)

Any reform of the Senate, and serious federal electoral reform, would require a constitutional amendment. That's not going to happen. Why? Because as soon as you say "constitution", you open a can of worms - and the arguments never end.

To amend a country's constitution should be difficult, but not impossible. Until something changes, it is impossible to amend Canada's constitution. This is one indication that Canada is not normal country.

[Pellaken]

well... not to gloat... but my idea's for democratic reform are the best

House:

25% of the seats elected proportionally, 75% through either FPTP, or a Preferential Ballot (like the new tories/ndp use(d) in their recent leadership races)

Senate:

the senate must represent the provinces. EEE is nice, if Quebec accepts. if not, I have 2 other suggestions. One is to give PQ, ON, BC, and AB the same number of seats (24), then distribute the remaining 48 seats to the remaining 6 provinces. Or, a 50/50 formula, where each province is given 5 seats automatically, then more depending on population.

to "elect" the senate, there are a few options.

first of all, we could do like the house, and mix some sort of PR. we could go with pure PR (no ridings) or as I like best, PR based on the legislature. so, for example, if you have 20% of the seats in the provincial legislature, you get 20% of your provinces senate seats. I would suggest there be limits so the opposition gets 1 senate seat, regardless.

Here's a provincial idea. I came up with this after realizing that PEI may not stomach PR.

One problem is that the Opposition is under-represented. I therefore suggested just a few PR seats. What these seats would do is 2 things. First, there would be seats dedicated to each party leader. If you have 20 parties, then, its possible, you could have 20 people elected form these seats. If you only have 2 major parties, then there could only be 2 of these seats. Basacally, if your party makes the threshold (5% of the vote, or 1 riding/seat elected) then the party leader gets his seat. The party leader would be banned from running in a riding. Next, if the opposition has less then 25% of the seats (this would only happen if the government had more then 75% of the seats) then we give the opposition enough seats so they have 25%. This would solve the problem of under-representaiton which happens out often out east.

[Pellaken]

some things on thresholds.

first of all, we should make 2, not 1 MP elected the minimum. why? simple. you need someone to second your bills

but, I dont like the 1/308th of the vote threshold. I want higher. Canada, being a uniqie nation, should have 3 thresholds.

1 seat elected in a riding

5% of the total vote, nationally

2% of the total vote nationally, and, 15% or more in any one province.

the last one would have represented Reform in 1988, and will likely keep the Bloc happy. 15% of the vote in any of the 3 largest provinces equals 2% of the naitonal vote.

note

15% of the vote in Quebec is about 3.5% of the national vote, meaning, the Bloc would need to make 15% in quebec to be represented. With just a 2% national threshold, the Bloc could do as poorly as 8% in Quebec and still get representaiton

We need to keep the fringe element out.