Proportional Representation

[Chuck U. Farlie]

I admit I don't know that much about proportional representation or first-past-the-post like we currently have. I don't know which one would be better and I honestly hope that some that are smarter than me can enlighten me.

I did notice one glaring discrepancy in yesterday's election...

Bloc got 1,379,565 votes or 9.98% and got 50 seats while NDP got 2,517,075 votes or 18.19% but only got 37 seats. Green got 6.95% of the popular vote (not far from the bloc) but got zero seats.

I think there is something very wrong with this... as it suggests to me that somehow a bloc voter has much more say than other voters.

Mr. Canada, in another thread, said about first-past-the-post elections that 'if its not broken, don't fix it"... well something seems very broken about the way our popular vote is distributed now.

In terms of how many Canadians actually voted for the bloc, there should be very little representation of them in our government. No Canadian's vote is more important than another, although that is the way it seems now.

[drewski]

if you'd like more info, an group in Ontario studied it and recommend we change our system to mixed member proportional (like New Zealand), standard first past the post as current, and then some MPP's from party lists to "top of" the legislature till it basically meets the popular vote as choosen by a second option on the ballot.

More info and the full reports can be read

http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/en/t...ion/default.asp

[scribblet]

Remember last year`s Ontario election, the voters turned it down by quite a margin.

[Wild Bill]

I admit I don't know that much about proportional representation or first-past-the-post like we currently have. I don't know which one would be better and I honestly hope that some that are smarter than me can enlighten me.

I did notice one glaring discrepancy in yesterday's election...

Bloc got 1,379,565 votes or 9.98% and got 50 seats while NDP got 2,517,075 votes or 18.19% but only got 37 seats. Green got 6.95% of the popular vote (not far from the bloc) but got zero seats.

I think there is something very wrong with this... as it suggests to me that somehow a bloc voter has much more say than other voters.

Mr. Canada, in another thread, said about first-past-the-post elections that 'if its not broken, don't fix it"... well something seems very broken about the way our popular vote is distributed now.

In terms of how many Canadians actually voted for the bloc, there should be very little representation of them in our government. No Canadian's vote is more important than another, although that is the way it seems now.

The problem with your argument is that it ignores regional representation. Our riding system (supposedy) elects Members who can represent each riding in Parliament. Simply going by national popular vote numbers could mean that a whole lot of folks at one end of the country could make it happen that other folks thousands of miles away would get stuck with some Members of parties that perhaps they never, ever would vote for!

Also, the beauty of our present system is that it sets a threshold to keep fringe parties of less universal appeal out! The Rhinos would have a field day in a PR system! Hell, I'd vote for 'em!

If a party can't muster enough support to win just ONE riding then in my opinion it doesn't deserve to have a seat handed to them.

[drewski]

Remember last year`s Ontario election, the voters turned it down by quite a margin.

true, but I think a lot of people really didn't know enough.

I found a lot of people I know who voted against it were generally uninformed about it.

[cybercoma]

The first thing you should know is that it's not a matter of First-Past-The-Post vs Proportional Representation.

Proportional Representation in its purest form has the electorate pick the party they support on a ballot. There are no ridings. Instead, the parties make lists of candidates and members from the top of the list down get seats based on the percentage of the vote the party gets. The obvious problem is that there is no local representation. Another problem is the politics of who gets near the top of the list and who doesn't. Also, pure PR allows fringe parties to take a handful of seats with a very small percentage of the vote.

Now there are all sorts of ways of overcoming these problems. One way to prevent several small parties from getting seats is to set a threshold (ie: a party needs 5% of the vote to get any seats).

But there are many other voting systems that can be considered as well. There's an Alternative Vote system which allows you to make a second choice on your ballot. This way if the person you voted for gets the least number of votes, your vote is transferred to your second preference. The benefit of this is that it will move the parties closer to center because they'll have to compete for second preference votes. The downside is that all those Green and NDP voters will probably pick Liberal as their second preference, thus making Canada a de facto one party state.

Another method involves picking a candidate in your riding, then picking a national party. This allows a more proportional parliament by topping up the seats with candidates from a list. We're still left with the issue of having MPs in parliament that do not represent any riding and how do they get to the top of the list anyway? On the plus side, the list could be a good way to get representation into parliament for under-represented groups, such as aboriginals, women and ethnic minorities.

So, it's not as simple as fptp or pr. A hybrid system will be the best solution, however, there has been no agreement on what type of hybrid system would be the best. Regardless of what system the Canadian electorate finds most favourable, the solution is unlikely to be implemented by either of the leading parties. The Liberals have benefited from the FPTP for decades. The Conservatives are beginning to benefit from the system, so they'd be shooting themselves in the foot to change it. Jack Layton can say he wants electoral reform until he's blue in the face, it remains to be seen what he would do if he were actually able to make that change. If he was in the position of getting enough seats to form government, I doubt he'd want to jeopardize that by implementing electoral reform.

Unfortunately, the only way it will happen is if the electorate become more aware and demand change. With voter turnout at a historic low after this past election, it has never been more obvious that change is needed. However, with less people getting involved, it is even less likely to happen, which means even less people will get involved next time. Canadians need to be snapped out of this downward spiral of electoral discontent.

One last thing, if we do venture into electoral reform and the Constitution is opened for change, we risk opening a whole can of worms for other demands. As much as electoral reform is needed, I'm cynical as to it ever happening. It may be best just to keep the FPTP for the House of Commons and try to get an elected Senate via some form of PR. A strengthened upper house would be good for Canadians and would offer a much needed check to the near unrestricted power of the prime minister.

[cybercoma]

That was way longer than I had intended... sorry.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

Yeah, I read that site and I voted for PPR last time in the Ontario election. I think it was voted down because a lot of people had never thought much about how we vote and didn't educate themselves about any alternatives (which I am trying to do here). I also think the question was worded awkwardly.

I wonder, Wild Bill, is there a good way that PPR could be worked out to solve the problems you mentioned?

Edit... thanks cybercoma, you already answered some of which I was wondering.

Edited October 15, 2008 by Chuck U. Farlie

[Riverwind]

One last thing, if we do venture into electoral reform and the Constitution is opened for change, we risk opening a whole can of worms for other demands.

Provinces will also jealously guard their seat guarantees in the existing constitution which means any system would only be PR within a province or region - not within the country. This will still give regional parties like the BQ an advantage.

If people want reform then it must happen at the provincial level first. A few decades with major provinces running under an alternate system would demonstrate whether it worked or not.

Personally, I don't want any system where politicians get into parliment based on their party connections. Every person in parliment should have to face the voters. Practically that will mean two votes: a FPTP local representative and a ranked vote for a regional representative.

Edited October 15, 2008 by Riverwind

[drewski]

Personally, I don't want any system where politicians get into parliment based on their party connections. Every person in parliment should have to face the voters. Practically that will mean two votes: a FPTP local representative and a ranked vote for a regional representative.

realistically, most MP's get in because of their party connections. how many people know much about or care to see their MP?

but i do agree of a local representatives because I do think there needs to be riding based accountability for those of use who do know our MP's

[Moonbox]

If there isn't a single community in the entire country that wants the Green Party to represent them in parliamant, then they don't deserve to have an MP in parliament.

This is the foundation of a federation. The Bloc has 50 seats because Quebec wanted Bloc MP's in parliamant, just like things turned out in Alberta and Toronto.

Under proportional representation, the balance of power is fractured to such an extent that someone like the Greens, with 6% of the popular vote, could effectively hold the balance of power and be just as powerful in the House of Commons as a party with 120 seats.

[whowhere]

First of All, Canada is supose to be a democracy not a communist Country. Proportional Representation is a form of Communism. We vote in people to represent us, we don't vote in parties . Technically, the Canadian Constitution makes no mention of the Prime Minister. The PM through convention is derived from the party who gets the most seats. The party with the second most seats gets the official oppostion status. That is our system.

Those who advocate proportional representation have the mindset the majority of people should dictate to the minority. The mentality would be because the GTA has the most population they would dictate laws and programs to the rest of Ontario. Well, that system can be shoved up ur azzez.

Besides, to change the voting structure would in my view would require an Amendment to the Constitution. The 1982 Constitution has the amending formula. Good luck meeting that formula. You can be sure if an elected party tries to mess with the electoral system without meeting this formula its legitamacy will be brought befor for the Supreme Court, and like any law that parliament passes can and will be tossed out by the Supreme Court

Canada's electoral system is fine the way it is.

[Riverwind]

realistically, most MP's get in because of their party connections. how many people know much about or care to see their MP?

I have lost count of the number of "star" candidates that were summarily rejected by voters. There has to be a mechanism for direct accountability for every politician or it will breed corruption that will make sponsorship scandal seem like a boy scout camp.

[Moonbox]

Those who advocate proportional representation have the mindset the majority of people should dictate to the minority. The mentality would be because the GTA has the most population they would dictate laws and programs to the rest of Ontario.

This is exactly why it failed in Ontario. The big cities get pandered to enough already.

[Slim MacSquinty]

I thought all you people were sick of elections, wait till we get through another minority governement situation, then imagine five or six more parties in the house demanding that each peice of legislation carries their thumbprint and the watered down legislation and aimlessness of parliment that results. You may well have a change of heart.

[capricorn]

Cries that FPTP is the scourge of our democracy are intensifying and becoming shriller. Funny, FPTP is what kept the Liberals in power so long. But now that FPTP elects the Conservatives, expect the push for MMP to gain momentum, spearheaded by Ms. May.

[Radsickle]

Wouldn't every `established' party be partially against proportional representation? Independents would have much more strength in such a system and therefore a threat to the `establishment'. Only the Green and NDP parties are honestly pushing for PR. The Conservatives and Liberals see it as a threat... something from the `new school'.... those enlightened countries across the pond. It would be their mutual undoing; no majorities, ever again.

Edited October 15, 2008 by Radsickle

[cybercoma]

If there isn't a single community in the entire country that wants the Green Party to represent them in parliamant, then they don't deserve to have an MP in parliament.

This is the foundation of a federation. The Bloc has 50 seats because Quebec wanted Bloc MP's in parliamant, just like things turned out in Alberta and Toronto.

Under proportional representation, the balance of power is fractured to such an extent that someone like the Greens, with 6% of the popular vote, could effectively hold the balance of power and be just as powerful in the House of Commons as a party with 120 seats.

That's not entirely true. The Bloc Quebecois received less than 50% of the popular vote in Quebec, so the majority of Quebeckers did not vote for them.

[cybercoma]

Does no one understand MMP or Alternative Vote?

No one is advocating pure PR, as far as I've seen anyway.

We wouldn't be doomed to permanent minorities. Even if they were more common, often times you would have parties working together and forming coalitions. This would make it much more likely that they'd have to govern from the center.

There won't necessarily be 5 or 6 additional parties in the house because it is possible to set a threshold for getting seats. Some countries have it as low as 2% of the vote, others as high as 10%.

We don't have to lose local representation because there is a system out there for topping up the numbers in the house by adding additional non-riding specific MPs.

All of that aside, we could leave the house exactly as it is and reform the Senate. A more region-based proportionally elected Senate would provide a much needed check to the PMs power. I know it seems to be the popular thing these days to call for the Senate to be abolished; however, I think a stronger upper house could serve an important function in our government. Particularly as a balance to the skewed representation in the House of Commons.

Edited October 16, 2008 by cybercoma

[M.Dancer]

I'm for real proportional government. I'm twice as smart as the average person so proportionally I should get two votes.

[kengs333]

The problem with your argument is that it ignores regional representation. Our riding system (supposedy) elects Members who can represent each riding in Parliament.

No, you see you're doing it yet again... did you even bother reading anything about the proposed system, or did you simply vote against based on your assumptions???? The "MM" part stands for "Mixed Member" meaning that the system elects a "mix" of riding and list candidates. You still get a riding MP. What's so difficult to understand about that?

[cybercoma]

I'm for real proportional government. I'm twice as smart as the average person so proportionally I should get two votes.

I'm all for Plato's idea of government. Screw elections. The most intelligent person that wants to govern the least is it.

Edited October 16, 2008 by cybercoma

[kengs333]

Wouldn't every `established' party be partially against proportional representation? Independents would have much more strength in such a system and therefore a threat to the `establishment'. Only the Green and NDP parties are honestly pushing for PR. The Conservatives and Liberals see it as a threat... something from the `new school'.... those enlightened countries across the pond. It would be their mutual undoing; no majorities, ever again.

Majorities could still happen, but who says that's a good thing. Parlaiment is about representing the people, and if people feel that there are 30 parties out there that represent their views, then members from all those parties should have the chance of being elected. MMPR is set up so that parties have to get at least 5% of the popular vote, and out set of parlaimentry procedures are such that business should be able to function properly so long as the dominant party doesn't try to disrupt everything like the Cons did to make it seem like parlaiment is dysfunctional...

[nothinarian]

Majorities could still happen, but who says that's a good thing. Parlaiment is about representing the people, and if people feel that there are 30 parties out there that represent their views, then members from all those parties should have the chance of being elected. MMPR is set up so that parties have to get at least 5% of the popular vote, and out set of parlaimentry procedures are such that business should be able to function properly so long as the dominant party doesn't try to disrupt everything like the Cons did to make it seem like parlaiment is dysfunctional...

Yeah right

Rule by committee always works...the more the merrier...Look at Italy

Two parties only...no separatists...present a mandate...follow through/run gov...and if you don't we will toss you... once every 4 years...simple... no loony left...no scary right...forsake the middle ground where most of us are and you go down

[Wild Bill]

Yeah, I read that site and I voted for PPR last time in the Ontario election. I think it was voted down because a lot of people had never thought much about how we vote and didn't educate themselves about any alternatives (which I am trying to do here). I also think the question was worded awkwardly.

I wonder, Wild Bill, is there a good way that PPR could be worked out to solve the problems you mentioned?

Edit... thanks cybercoma, you already answered some of which I was wondering.

Well, first you'd have to convince enough of your fellow citizens to care about making any change in the first place! From what I've seen, PR is only being pushed by an extremely small percentage of the total electorate. What's more, if that percentage were to grow large enough it is inevitable that the more popular new parties would have enough support to start winning ridings anyway! So why bother?

I say again, the only parties crying for PR are parties that just aren't popular enough to get any seats yet. If they do their job they will eventually win seats. We shouldn't hand them some just because they whine. All that would achieve is a "pizza Parliament" where little fringe parties could have some clout for propping up various minority governments. The parties with the least amount of votes would end up calling the shots. That's democracy?