M.Dancer Posted October 17, 2008 Report Posted October 17, 2008 FPTP parties tend to be Big Tent parties. Whether they are Conservative, Liberal or NDP they contain people with a spectrum of opinions and ideas how to achieve their broad goals and they work towards a consensus in bringing about suppport from all in the party. In every mainstean party there are extreme lefts and rights with the majority in the centre, some may be social conservatives (even in the Liberal Party) some may be Fiscal Conservatives, some may want universal public heathcare and some may want means tested healthcare....some may want low capital gains, some may not....but in the end they hammer out a goal that is achieable and has a chance of gaining public support. The public gets to choose which party has the most ideas that appeal to the voter and normally that's how they vote. With PR there is no need for Big Tent parties as every special interest group, every single issue party would be represented so that there would be a spectrum of ideas, most of them conflicting and the ensuing chaos would render the House unworkable as the Pro Life Party with their 9 seats argues inscessantly with the Pro Choice party and their 9 seats who is trying to form a colaition with the Feminist Agenda party and the Property Rights Party with their 8 seats heckles the United Trades Party.....each party has no particular interest in broadening its appeal beyond their issue so instead to function, loose coalitions would form and disolve daily and would not be accountable to the people who voted for them. (I voted for the Green-Pro-Life-Manitoba Farmers-Free Trade Party?) And that's how I see it. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
cybercoma Posted October 17, 2008 Report Posted October 17, 2008 9 seats would require 3% of the popular vote, which would be difficult for a pro-life or pro-choice ideological party to get in Canada. Regardless, many countries with proportional representation models set a threshold, it could be anywhere between 5-10% of the vote and that would ensure small ideological one-issue parties would not get any seats in the house. Quote
guyser Posted October 17, 2008 Report Posted October 17, 2008 And that's how I see it. Thank you for that. No wonder Ont soundly rejected it last election. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 17, 2008 Report Posted October 17, 2008 Thank you for that.No wonder Ont soundly rejected it last election. Didn't Ontario reject MMP? Quote
Riverwind Posted October 17, 2008 Report Posted October 17, 2008 It is worth noting that BQ is a perfect example of a single issue party that has no desire to run the government and no interest in accepting compromises. If you want to imagine what Canada would be like under PR one should imagine a parliment which 3-5 BQ like single issue parties. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
cybercoma Posted October 17, 2008 Report Posted October 17, 2008 It is worth noting that BQ is a perfect example of a single issue party that has no desire to run the government and no interest in accepting compromises. If you want to imagine what Canada would be like under PR one should imagine a parliment which 3-5 BQ like single issue parties. BQ: ideological party for quebec's interests Alliance/Reform: ideological party for the west's interests NDP: ideological party for socialist interests Green: ideological party for environmental interests You mean something like that? Quote
M.Dancer Posted October 17, 2008 Author Report Posted October 17, 2008 It is worth noting that BQ is a perfect example of a single issue party that has no desire to run the government and no interest in accepting compromises. If you want to imagine what Canada would be like under PR one should imagine a parliment which 3-5 BQ like single issue parties. Actually the BQ is far from a single issue party. A single goal maybe, the same as the other parties...while most parties goals are what's best for Canada, theirs is what's best for Quebec and on that note, many in the party have differing opinions...whether it's trade, labour or the environment. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
guyser Posted October 17, 2008 Report Posted October 17, 2008 Didn't Ontario reject MMP? Oops.....I am still (a)Drunk (B)stoned © exhausted (d) confused (e) Stupid. Pick "d".....please. Thanks. So....is it similar? (MMP vs PR) Quote
Smallc Posted October 17, 2008 Report Posted October 17, 2008 and no interest in accepting compromises. And yet they do it all of the time. Quote
M.Dancer Posted October 17, 2008 Author Report Posted October 17, 2008 9 seats would require 3% of the popular vote, which would be difficult for a pro-life or pro-choice ideological party to get in Canada. Regardless, many countries with proportional representation models set a threshold, it could be anywhere between 5-10% of the vote and that would ensure small ideological one-issue parties would not get any seats in the house. I would hazard that more than 3% feel that either pro life or pro choice is their most important issue.... What would really make PR fun is if everyone got say 3 votes.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
cybercoma Posted October 17, 2008 Report Posted October 17, 2008 (edited) Oops.....I am still (a)Drunk (B)stoned © exhausted (d) confused (e) Stupid.Pick "d".....please. Thanks. So....is it similar? (MMP vs PR) Pure PR is not an viable option for Canada. In a true PR voting system, you vote for a party only, there are no ridings. Each party gets a number of seats equivalent to the percentage of the vote they get. The seats in the house are then filled from party lists from the top down. MMP, you vote for a candidate in your riding, then you vote for a party. This solves the problem of constituencies not being represented by a true PR system. Once the local candidate seats are filled, the numbers are "topped-up" by members from the party lists, so the house looks more proportional than it does with FPTP. I'm not positive for which system Ontario was voting. It may have been neither and some other variation of PR. Edited October 17, 2008 by cybercoma Quote
cybercoma Posted October 17, 2008 Report Posted October 17, 2008 I would hazard that more than 3% feel that either pro life or pro choice is their most important issue....What would really make PR fun is if everyone got say 3 votes.... There's always the Alternative Vote system, where you get the option of ranking candidates in your riding. They drop the last place candidate, when tallying the votes, then everyone who voted for them as first choice has their votes transferred to their second choice. This continues until a candidate gets over 50% of the vote in the riding. This would be a really useful system for cementing the Liberals as the governing party of Canada. Quote
M.Dancer Posted October 17, 2008 Author Report Posted October 17, 2008 Some other exciting potential PR parties: Canada First Party (Anti Immigration) True North Party (Anti USA) English Canada Party (Anti French) Gold Standard Party (anti monetary policy party) Feeman on the Land Party (Pro Tinfoil) Animal Rights Party (Anti Prime Rib) Republic of Canada Party (Anti Monarchy) ...and so on and so on..... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
PoliticalCitizen Posted October 17, 2008 Report Posted October 17, 2008 Some other exciting potential PR parties:Canada First Party (Anti Immigration) True North Party (Anti USA) English Canada Party (Anti French) Gold Standard Party (anti monetary policy party) Feeman on the Land Party (Pro Tinfoil) Animal Rights Party (Anti Prime Rib) Republic of Canada Party (Anti Monarchy) ...and so on and so on..... Even with pure PR none of the BS parties you list here would have a chance. Quote You are what you do.
M.Dancer Posted October 17, 2008 Author Report Posted October 17, 2008 Even with pure PR none of the BS parties you list here would have a chance. Really, I thought the Republican party would get your vote for sure Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Riverwind Posted October 17, 2008 Report Posted October 17, 2008 New Zealand went PR and should give us some idea of what parties are likely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/48th_New_Zealand_Parliament NZ First - Anti-immigrant, Anti-crime Green - Envronmental Māori - Native rights United Future - Pro-family, libertarian ACT - Anti-tax Progressive - Generic left wing Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
PoliticalCitizen Posted October 17, 2008 Report Posted October 17, 2008 Really, I thought the Republican party would get your vote for sure Not if I only get 1 vote With MMP - maybe Quote You are what you do.
PoliticalCitizen Posted October 17, 2008 Report Posted October 17, 2008 New Zealand went PR and should give us some idea of what parties are likely:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/48th_New_Zealand_Parliament NZ First - Anti-immigrant, Anti-crime Green - Envronmental Māori - Native rights United Future - Pro-family, libertarian ACT - Anti-tax Progressive - Generic left wing So they are enjoying a true democracy and more freedom of thought. Australia also has PR. Did that break their parliament? Quote You are what you do.
Mad_Michael Posted October 17, 2008 Report Posted October 17, 2008 FPTP parties tend to be Big Tent parties. Whether they are Conservative, Liberal or NDP they contain people with a spectrum of opinions and ideas how to achieve their broad goals and they work towards a consensus in bringing about suppport from all in the party. In every mainstean party there are extreme lefts and rights with the majority in the centre, some may be social conservatives (even in the Liberal Party) some may be Fiscal Conservatives, some may want universal public heathcare and some may want means tested healthcare....some may want low capital gains, some may not....but in the end they hammer out a goal that is achieable and has a chance of gaining public support. The public gets to choose which party has the most ideas that appeal to the voter and normally that's how they vote.With PR there is no need for Big Tent parties as every special interest group, every single issue party would be represented so that there would be a spectrum of ideas, most of them conflicting and the ensuing chaos would render the House unworkable as the Pro Life Party with their 9 seats argues inscessantly with the Pro Choice party and their 9 seats who is trying to form a colaition with the Feminist Agenda party and the Property Rights Party with their 8 seats heckles the United Trades Party.....each party has no particular interest in broadening its appeal beyond their issue so instead to function, loose coalitions would form and disolve daily and would not be accountable to the people who voted for them. (I voted for the Green-Pro-Life-Manitoba Farmers-Free Trade Party?) And that's how I see it. I agree entirely. This dichotomy is realistic if you survey various comparative systems. Big Tent parties tend to produce majority governments flipping between two large parties. PR tends to produce endless coalition governments. Quote
Riverwind Posted October 17, 2008 Report Posted October 17, 2008 So they are enjoying a true democracy and more freedom of thought. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...s_/ai_n14674313 There experience demonstrates that that PR will do nothing for voter turn out: New Zealand's experiment with PR is illustrative. The highest voter turnout ever, since elections began in 1853, was in 1984 under the traditional first-past-the-post (FPTP) system that New Zealand inherited from Westminster. Turnout had fallen to 85.2 per cent by the time of the last FPTP election in 1993. In 1996, the first election after PR's introduction, turnout rose to 88.3 per cent, but then fell to 84.8 per cent in 1999 and to just 77 per cent in 2002. PR gives far too much power to political parties, who stack their party lists with unelectable cronies, and takes away the direct connection that voters should have with their local MP. Britons should think carefully about ditching a system that has served them so well and played no small part in making Britain the world's most amazing nation. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
eyeball Posted October 17, 2008 Report Posted October 17, 2008 I think we should implement mandatory voting using our FPTP system and see how things progress from there. I bet within 2 elections systemic losers like Morris will be crying like babies for PR. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Mad_Michael Posted October 17, 2008 Report Posted October 17, 2008 I think we should implement mandatory voting... Gosh, I though Canada was a freedom loving democracy... You can't force people to vote. That is authoritarian and undemocratic. If people don't want to vote, that's their perogative to do so. Quote
PoliticalCitizen Posted October 17, 2008 Report Posted October 17, 2008 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...s_/ai_n14674313There experience demonstrates that that PR will do nothing for voter turn out: NZ's voter turnout is still better than ours... As was proposed in Ontario - we can mix the 2 systems to get better representation both geographically and across the political spectrum. Quote You are what you do.
PoliticalCitizen Posted October 17, 2008 Report Posted October 17, 2008 Gosh, I though Canada was a freedom loving democracy...You can't force people to vote. That is authoritarian and undemocratic. If people don't want to vote, that's their perogative to do so. Australia had no problem doing it... Quote You are what you do.
eyeball Posted October 17, 2008 Report Posted October 17, 2008 Harper had no problem following Australia's lead on spreading freedom and democracy around the world. By rights Canada's conservatives should be the very first to point out and follow their example and start spreading a little democracy and freedom right here at home. Mandatory voting is also perfectly aligned with the conservative values of respect for authority and personal responsibility. Its a pretty sad day when a lowly lefty like me has to point these things out to conservatives. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.