The Difference between a FPTP Party and a PR Party

[M.Dancer]

Mandatory voting is also perfectly aligned with the conservative values of respect for authority and personal responsibility.

No it's more aligned with socialist values of limiting freedom and forcing social engineering and the nanny state.

Which is why you like it.

[M.Dancer]

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.

NZ has a population smaller than Toronto.....

[eyeball]

No it's more aligned with socialist values of limiting freedom and forcing social engineering and the nanny state.

Which is why you like it.

Actually I like mandatory voting because the Conservatives wouldn't stand a chance in an election.

The limits conservatives put on freedom are far worse, especially when they get bent on morally engineering their idea of utopia. Most conservatives also value patriarchy and respect the authority of the daddy state.

[blueblood]

Actually I like mandatory voting because the Conservatives wouldn't stand a chance in an election.

The limits conservatives put on freedom are far worse, especially when they get bent on morally engineering their idea of utopia. Most conservatives also value patriarchy and respect the authority of the daddy state.

And that's different from the Trudeau Liberals how??? I get it, it's alright for the Trudeau Liberals to do what they want, but if the Conservatives do the same thing it's evil. Nice double standard.

As for the tories losing in mandatory voting, did your toaster tell you that?

[eyeball]

Aside from the vindictiveness conservatives usually bring to their cultural engineering projects, the result appears to be the same as when liberals do it so the differences are slight to say the least. There's really no excuse for it no matter who does it.

As for toasters and Conseratives losing under mandatory voting, its fairly common knowledge that Conservative supporters are already more likely to get out and vote. 'Get-out-the-vote' efforts usually result in younger, often less educated or affluent or marginalized minorities like First Nations getting out and these are all less likely to vote Conservative.

That said Australia implemented mandatory voting almost a hundred years ago and they still managed to elect a war-mongering neo-con lap-dog, so there's always hope.

Edited October 18, 2008 by eyeball

[M.Dancer]

That said Australia implemented mandatory voting almost a hundred years ago and they still managed to elect a war-mongering neo-con lap-dog, so there's always hope.

Big numbers scare you?

It's 84 years by the way...

[Kitch]

Thank you for that.

No wonder Ont soundly rejected it last election.

This discussion on this forum is indicative of the level of understanding that the public at large has of these election models. Ontarians had no idea, generally, what they were voting on except that it was either 'the way it is' vs. 'a new way'.

[Kitch]

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.

Hyperbole?

[M.Dancer]

Hyperbole?

Understated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_polit...opolitan_France

[eyeball]

Big numbers scare you?

It's 84 years by the way...

93 in Queensland since you want to quibble. Quibbling over little or nothing usually is the conservative way of blunting change isn't it?

[Kitch]

Understated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_polit...opolitan_France

I mean in terms of the effect IN parliament. I have no doubt that you're correct about the small interest parties. But how much power/influence will they have?

In a sense, the PR consequences that you outlined would be more democratic. People vote for parties now, no matter what some people try to say. So, when you vote liberal, say, you're voting for a spectrum of opinions, as you said. So really, there's no way of knowing which... position on the spectrum will be represented by the party. (Probably close to the centre, but maybe that's not the 'best' thing to happen). Whereas with the numerous small parties, the debating process happens right out in the open rather than within parties away from view.

Perhaps an unfounded idea... what do you think??

[drewski]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...s_/ai_n14674313

There experience demonstrates that that PR will do nothing for voter turn out:

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.

how does it take away a connection between voter and local MP? there are still directly elected MP's accountability to their riding (electorate) in their system

[cybercoma]

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.

I think people are really missing that point.

Regardless, there's always the option of keeping the House the way it is and reforming the senate to be more proportional. This would make a true line of defense for the regions. Each region could have a certain number of seats in the Senate and fill those seats with PR votes. The Senate elections could also be held in years that House elections do not occur to really separate the two.

[cybercoma]

Mandatory voting is also perfectly aligned with the conservative values of respect for authority and personal responsibility.

Actually, if people had more personal responsibility and civic values we may have less of a problem with turnout.

[cybercoma]

Actually I like mandatory voting because the Conservatives wouldn't stand a chance in an election.

The limits conservatives put on freedom are far worse, especially when they get bent on morally engineering their idea of utopia. Most conservatives also value patriarchy and respect the authority of the daddy state.

You should support the alternative vote system. This way when all those Green and NDP candidates fall out in ridings, the majority of their voters will have their votes transferred to the Liberals.

[M.Dancer]

I mean in terms of the effect IN parliament. I have no doubt that you're correct about the small interest parties. But how much power/influence will they have?

Have you ever had a look at Israeli politics? When coalitions can fall for the lack of one vote, parties with one seat weild great power. In Israel this means the secular state has to abide by the demands of the ultra relgious party.

[marksman]

Actually, if people had more personal responsibility and civic values we may have less of a problem with turnout.

I don't think low voter turnout has much to do with a lack of personal responsibility or civic values. I think it's more related to the fact that we don't have anyone in Canada worth voting for. We get to vote for the person we dislike the least. For voter turnout it doesn't matter which system we have if the people running are the same uninspiring group. I'd guess mandatory voting would result in people ignoring the law or spoiling their ballots.

[capricorn]

I'd guess mandatory voting would result in people ignoring the law or spoiling their ballots.

Presumably, a mandatory voting law would include a financial penalty of some kind if the law is broken. I imagine a good many of those breaking the law would simply turn and complain to their MP that they are destitute and the penalty would be forgiven. People can be very inventive when it comes to saving a few bucks.

[marksman]

Presumably, a mandatory voting law would include a financial penalty of some kind if the law is broken. I imagine a good many of those breaking the law would simply turn and complain to their MP that they are destitute and the penalty would be forgiven. People can be very inventive when it comes to saving a few bucks.

My guess is that those who ignore the law would lie and say they had a good reason not to vote. I don't want to even think about the bureaucracy involved in sorting out who had legitimate reasons and who didn't. Anyone know how much it costs to enforce this in Australia?

[Rovik]

PR will not happen anytime soon because there is no will within most of the parties to implement it. The only party that for it is the NDP. PR will detrimentally impact the other parties in regards to seat counts, therefore they will have nothing to do with it.

[eyeball]

Actually, if people had more personal responsibility and civic values we may have less of a problem with turnout.

If voting was a civic duty that was as mandatory as filing a tax return (and it should be for the very same reasons) voter turnout wouldn't be a problem. Of course conservatives would have to work harder to convince Canadians their's should be our natural governing ideology. Good luck on that score.

Speaking of enforcing mandatory voting and tax returns, it would be fairly easy to enforce voting by applying a fine or allowing a grant. Either or both would be easy to do.

Mandatory voting could be a cautious first step down the long torturous path Canadian's seem destined to follow whenever it comes to changing anything about how we govern ourselves. Perhaps in another hundred years we could try some form of PR but like I said, in the wake of MV I suspect conservatives will be begging for PR after one or two elections, tops.

[Smallc]

I don't think low voter turnout has much to do with a lack of personal responsibility or civic values. I think it's more related to the fact that we don't have anyone in Canada worth voting for. We get to vote for the person we dislike the least. For voter turnout it doesn't matter which system we have if the people running are the same uninspiring group. I'd guess mandatory voting would result in people ignoring the law or spoiling their ballots.

I really don't see how people can't find something to vote for rather than against. Nearly the entire spectrum is covered. You can vote because of the party, the leader, or the candidate. We have a great deal of choice. Canadians that do vote don't really seem to be drawn to inspiration either. Charisma and star power don't really seem to be something that Canadians look for.

The real problem is that people take everything we have for granted and they don't bother to become informed and its too much of an inconvenience to take the time to vote. People don't pay attention, that's the biggest problem.

[marksman]

I really don't see how people can't find something to vote for rather than against. Nearly the entire spectrum is covered. You can vote because of the party, the leader, or the candidate. We have a great deal of choice. Canadians that do vote don't really seem to be drawn to inspiration either. Charisma and star power don't really seem to be something that Canadians look for.

The real problem is that people take everything we have for granted and they don't bother to become informed and its too much of an inconvenience to take the time to vote. People don't pay attention, that's the biggest problem.

It's not that Canadians who vote aren't drawn to inspiration. It's that there's nothing to be inspired by. People try to pay attention but what do they get when they do? They get to hear grown men and women bickering like schoolchildren. There was a political cartoon that summed up Canadian politics perfectly. It's from Oct 4 click on the 3

http://www.cbc.ca/photogallery/diversions/1661/7/

We can vote because of a party a leader or local candidate but that doesn't mean any of them are worth voting for. I heard a lot of people talk about how they didn't want to vote for Dion but they really didn't want to vote for Harper. And the other way around as well. They're not voting for someone they've voting against someone worse.

[Smallc]

It's not that Canadians who vote aren't drawn to inspiration. It's that there's nothing to be inspired by. People try to pay attention but what do they get when they do?

The CBC did a report comparing Canadian and American electorates, and how Canadians seem to shun charisma and star power. I think it was called "only in America." Voters who don't vote only have themselves to blame. They can go to the websites, read the platform, or even watch half an hour of news a night to see bickering, yes, but also the issues.

The problem is that many people don't care because they take everything for granted. People around the world fight and die for the right to vote, just as people from this country did in the past. Even if you are not completely happy with all the choices, you should be able to get out there and vote as that is the base on which our society is built. Many people aren't seeing anything they like in politics, but how can you see if you never bother to look?

[marksman]

The CBC did a report comparing Canadian and American electorates, and how Canadians seem to shun charisma and star power. I think it was called "only in America." Voters who don't vote only have themselves to blame. They can go to the websites, read the platform, or even watch half an hour of news a night to see bickering, yes, but also the issues.

The problem is that many people don't care because they take everything for granted. People around the world fight and die for the right to vote, just as people from this country did in the past. Even if you are not completely happy with all the choices, you should be able to get out there and vote as that is the base on which our society is built. Many people aren't seeing anything they like in politics, but how can you see if you never bother to look?

I'll agree that people should be voting no matter what. But I still disagree with why you think voters don't care. It's not that people aren't looking. It's that when they do look they don't see anything worth caring about. I don't think it's true that you can go to the websites or listen to the news to get the issues. Where was the real debate on environmental issues? The debate on the carbon tax consisted of 1 side saying go look at a website with a calculator and the other side saying it's a tax grab that'll ruin civilization as we know it. If there were detailed discussions by the parties about carbon taxes vs cap and trade vs emissions intensity then I missed the good parts. Do you really think the candidates honestly discussed the issues? The economic crisis debate came down to 1 side screaming panic and the other saying don't worry we've had a plan all along just don't ask for details.

Maybe you're right and it's buried deep somewhere where voters could find it if they looked. But the 1st impression given by all of these politicians is that they're more interested in insulting each other and negative campaigning than in an open debate.