Proportional Representation

[Wild Bill]

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?

If ANY MP is elected from a list and NOT directly by the citizens in a particular riding then I want no part of it!

Judging by the result of the question put in Ontario few others want any part of it either. It's not that they didn't understand it, they just didn't like it!

What's so difficult to understand about that?

[PoliticalCitizen]

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.

I was saying the same for the longest time...

[PoliticalCitizen]

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

We could go one step further, as soon as technology allows... Let a supercomputer govern

[Wild Bill]

<snip>

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.

Exactly! And it would be FAR more democratic to have a Triple E Senate!

That's what virtually every other parliamentary democracy in the world has done. Only Canada uses their upper House as a retirement home for party bagmen.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Exactly! And it would be FAR more democratic to have a Triple E Senate!

That's what virtually every other parliamentary democracy in the world has done. Only Canada uses their upper House as a retirement home for party bagmen.

Why not reform both?

[Radsickle]

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...

MMPR sounds like the answer then. Anything's better than this half-conscious caucus.

I'm still shocked over how many Canadians believed Harper's claim that parliament was disfunctional. It was his excuse to break his own rule and take the wind out of his competition.

I'm not excusing the childish antics that most of these highly-paid people exhibit daily in their jobs, but what should the opposition do in parliament, agree all the time?! Thanks for wasting over 300 Million of our tax money, Mr. Harper! I hope you're sent packing the next time you gamble our tax money on a grab for a majority. You're simply not popular enough. Get over it. Go to the States if you want to appeal to more people. Stop trying to mess with Canada. If your'e truly for `reform', then bring in MMPR!

[ReeferMadness]

Supporters of FPTP should get honorary memberships in the flat earth society. The system Winning 40% of the popular vote shouldn't give you 100% of the power - ever.

Personally, I prefer STV to MMPR. More power to individual members of parliament, less to parties.

[M.Dancer]

Supporters of FPTP should get honorary memberships in the flat earth society. The system Winning 40% of the popular vote shouldn't give you 100% of the power - ever.

People who think that those winning 40% (or 50%, 60%...) of the vote get 100% of the power shouldn't be allowed to vote....outside of high school council elections.

[drewski]

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.

I see where you're coming from. What if it was some kind of MMP system so there was still riding based accountability, and each province got x number of "top up seats" (at the same ratio as riding based seats) and they were distributed amongst the parties based on provincial results.

ie if there were 100 "top up" seats, Ontario would get 34 and alberta would get 10.

its not a perfect solution because smaller provinces like PEI and the territories would have very few seats to distribute but at least it could still be more representative of popular opinion

[Kitch]

The fact that MMP was shut down in Ontario once frustrates the hell out of me because I'm confident that people didn't really know what they were voting on. And now we're likely never to get the choice again.

I wasn't even aware that different election models existed before that... perhaps this is true for many people which would give reason to the alleged low number of people calling for election reform.

I have read a lot from people stating that MPs need to represent communities/ridings in order to be accountable... or simply that voting for a party rather than a person is not ideal.

DO MPs really need to represent a riding?

What is it that MPs do, in terms of governing, that represents the interests of the people in their riding? As opposed to representing the interests of ALL the people that voted for a politician from the same party?

I, personally, think that I have different interests (living in Toronto) than people living in Alberta. Should the policies decided on in federal government not represent the views of people on issues that are not contingent on regional circumstances? Such as the abortion issue? Anything that is dependent on the region should be left to the region to decide.

Therefore, I don't know that MPs really need to represent ridings. People, as it was said earlier, don't vote for the name on the election signs, they vote for the PM or the colour of the sign. I voted Green and couldn't tell you the name of the candidate. Had I voted for another party it would have nothing to do with that person and everything to do with the party.

And what is wrong with "fringe" parties getting seats? (I don't mind cybercoma's suggestion about vote thresholds). Wouldn't these parties just bring new, ill or unconsidered ideas? How much power could a fringe party with 2 seats really exert anyway? Doesn't parliament work by members voting on legislation (whether it's with their party or not)? So if the conservatives have 143 seats and the NDP have 37, and individuals in these parties vote with their parties... does this not mean that the conservatives will win every time? Is that too simplified?

I really like the idea of proportional representation for the reasons that I gave above... of course, that's contingent on the answers that (if people would kindly oblige) are given to my questions. I have absolutely no beef with mixed member parliament though.

[ReeferMadness]

I have read a lot from people stating that MPs need to represent communities/ridings in order to be accountable... or simply that voting for a party rather than a person is not ideal.

DO MPs really need to represent a riding?

The PR schemes I've been familiar with have allowed for some type of riding representation - it's just different than in FPTP. For example, the Single Transferrable Vote (STV) system that received 57% approval last election would have had much larger ridings with multiple MLA's per riding. One advantage to that is if you didn't particularly care for one of your representatives, you'd have others to choose from.

What drove me crazy about the vote (aside from the fact that the yes side got 57% but still didn't pass!!) was that it was opposed by many in favour of PR who insisted on MMP instead. There are a lot of party insiders out there who don't want STV because it will weaken the parties' monopolies on power.

[Mad_Michael]

The big cities get pandered to enough already.

Please supply one valid example of this "pandering" please.

Toronto gets taxed heavily to pay for school boards in Northern Ontario, pork in Quebec and UI in the Atlantic provinces.

Toronto's public transit runs on the lowest public subsidy of any public transit service on the planet (84% from the farebox).

That's some pandering.

[guyser]

Toronto gets taxed heavily to pay for ...

$12B net loss paid vs return.

Yes yes, all the other regions are "pissed" at Toronto.

[PoliticalCitizen]

$12B net loss paid vs return.

Yes yes, all the other regions are "pissed" at Toronto.

Let's form a GTA party. Or a Golden Horseshoe party.

We deserve representation in the Parliament. More so than Quebec

We make money, they spend them... NOT FAIR!!

Edited October 17, 2008 by PoliticalCitizen

[Kitch]

The PR schemes I've been familiar with have allowed for some type of riding representation - it's just different than in FPTP. For example, the Single Transferrable Vote (STV) system that received 57% approval last election would have had much larger ridings with multiple MLA's per riding. One advantage to that is if you didn't particularly care for one of your representatives, you'd have others to choose from.

What drove me crazy about the vote (aside from the fact that the yes side got 57% but still didn't pass!!) was that it was opposed by many in favour of PR who insisted on MMP instead. There are a lot of party insiders out there who don't want STV because it will weaken the parties' monopolies on power.

Well, I can't speak about that, but my question is, what to MPs do that is in the direct interest of the people in their riding and ONLY the people in their riding?

[M.Dancer]

Well, I can't speak about that, but my question is, what to MPs do that is in the direct interest of the people in their riding and ONLY the people in their riding?

A quick answer is they act like an ombudsman on behalf of their constituents in regards to federal agencies. The better MPs help people with problem with old age pension, federal licensing, immigration...etc etc.....they really really good MPs get funding to their ridings...federal offices and such, funding for builing....the kind of stuff a PR rep would have no motivation for.

[Kitch]

A quick answer is they act like an ombudsman on behalf of their constituents in regards to federal agencies. The better MPs help people with problem with old age pension, federal licensing, immigration...etc etc.....they really really good MPs get funding to their ridings...federal offices and such, funding for builing....the kind of stuff a PR rep would have no motivation for.

OK, but is that the kind of stuff that MPs are responsible for, or is that something of a political tactic? Just asking.

I understand the ombudsman part and would love it if my MP stood up for me when I have a problem, but in my experience, (which I know is only anecdotal), that doesn't happen. Is the ombudsman function part of the job description or is it, too, reserved for those we call 'good' MPs?

[eyeball]

If ANY MP is elected from a list and NOT directly by the citizens in a particular riding then I want no part of it!

Judging by the result of the question put in Ontario few others want any part of it either. It's not that they didn't understand it, they just didn't like it!

What's so difficult to understand about that?

You could always join a party or riding association and have a say in who's on the list. It looks like MMPR address's all the concerns that have been raised. The 5% threshold should certainly be enough to keep out the likes of the Gay Nazis for Christ Party or the Rhinos and it ensures a riding representative is in fact elected by the citizens that live in it.

Beyond that the best way to ensure the system works and stays on track is to get involved in it. If you don't want any part of that you'll probably get the party you deserve. I thought conservatives were proud of rolling up their sleeves and grubbing about in the grassroots to effect social change through political activism. This should be right up their ally.

[William Ashley]

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.

I do not propose proporational resprenation. I propose two new houses to parliament. 1 a representatives assembly which lets anyone with a voter be a member, with votes in that house done by total votes.

A second house being a federal council, which is done along the same lines, but instead of being riding based would be the whole of all canadian citizens able to vote. Once again the representative would vote based upon total number of votes, not based on 1 person in the room 1 vote.

These two house would serve to insure popular support of legislation, and a larger pool to draw government employees from, etc.. Technically the MPs would be members of the representatives assembly and the house of commons. While they could also opt to run on the federal ballot. Likewise someone could run on the federal ballot but not locally.

The votes in both new houses would able to be pooled for sitting, or speaking time. The representatives council would offer, tax deductions for operational expenses, and not for profit status when taking political contrabutions/funding.

The Federal council would work on the same grounds. Actual salaries from the government could be gained by getting government jobs in the civil service in a prefered employment program (eg. 30 hours per week in the public service - to supliment their income while being a representative) or as political staff, or work in the cabinet or various other posts, and committes which would offer a on performance of duty pay. eg. commissions, investigations, goverment sanctions reports etc.. This would offer two active political houses. While the MP's could concentrate on representing their ridings, but the representatives house still insure that public opinion wins the day, not just 1 person with 1 vote.

In the ideal system it would be a publicly registered vote that could be changed at anytime, Or monthly etc.. however this isn't too realistic in the paranoid tell no one how you vote system. Perhaps those who vote publically "card holders open supporters" would be able to change their vote. eg. two classes of votes "public vote, and private vote. Private voters would be able to change their vote only at election times, while public voters, would be able to change their vote at anytime.

Edited November 2, 2008 by William Ashley

[Kitch]

I do not propose proporational resprenation. I propose two new houses to parliament. 1 a representatives assembly which lets anyone with a voter be a member, with votes in that house done by total votes.

A second house being a federal council, which is done along the same lines, but instead of being riding based would be the whole of all canadian citizens able to vote. Once again the representative would vote based upon total number of votes, not based on 1 person in the room 1 vote.

These two house would serve to insure popular support of legislation, and a larger pool to draw government employees from, etc.. Technically the MPs would be members of the representatives assembly and the house of commons. While they could also opt to run on the federal ballot. Likewise someone could run on the federal ballot but not locally.

The votes in both new houses would able to be pooled for sitting, or speaking time. The representatives council would offer, tax deductions for operational expenses, and not for profit status when taking political contrabutions/funding.

The Federal council would work on the same grounds. Actual salaries from the government could be gained by getting government jobs in the civil service in a prefered employment program (eg. 30 hours per week in the public service - to supliment their income while being a representative) or as political staff, or work in the cabinet or various other posts, and committes which would offer a on performance of duty pay. eg. commissions, investigations, goverment sanctions reports etc.. This would offer two active political houses. While the MP's could concentrate on representing their ridings, but the representatives house still insure that public opinion wins the day, not just 1 person with 1 vote.

In the ideal system it would be a publicly registered vote that could be changed at anytime, Or monthly etc.. however this isn't too realistic in the paranoid tell no one how you vote system. Perhaps those who vote publically "card holders open supporters" would be able to change their vote. eg. two classes of votes "public vote, and private vote. Private voters would be able to change their vote only at election times, while public voters, would be able to change their vote at anytime.

You have some very interesting ideas.

What could be some of the problems with each politician's vote counting for the proportion of popular vote that they represent though?

Do you think that it would ever be possible for citizens to vote on certain issues at any time? Sort of like referendums on a number of issues, but internet based to (maybe?) reduce the cost.

[M.Dancer]

As someone who took live figure drawing in college, I'm all for proportional representation. Even in fat people. But the really important thing to keep in mind is foreshortening.

Foreshortening is everything...

[Kitch]

As someone who took live figure drawing in college, I'm all for proportional representation. Even in fat people. But the really important thing to keep in mind is foreshortening.

Foreshortening is everything...

I really am impressed with the ability to speak in metaphor... but I don't know what you're saying. I'm not very quick.