House Representation and Electoral Reform

[myata]

I certainly agree that there has to be some way for the parliamentary representation to reflect the popular vote. The question is how can this be brought to the attention of the main political players? Including those who'd reather not notice it. If we could get clear statement about the need, and their support to some sort of electoral reform, from the leaders of the main parties, it could be the first step toward getting the ball rolling.

The only alternative to that is the official duopoly. Somebody sometime would figure out that a three way split of progressive vote is a ticket for the conservatives to rule for as long as they stay united. My preference is for the mixed system that reflects popular vote, and yes, in which coalitions are a normal part of a democratic governance system.

Edited December 8, 2008 by myata

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It is the only democratic way to do it. Think about it for a minute ........

[Smallc]

Does the discrepancy in these numbers not concern anyone?

Some of this may be partly fixed if we had true rep by pop in the House. I think that both things should really be looked into.

[cybercoma]

I'm beginning to think the transferable vote systems may be the most effective for addressing the problems with our electoral system. There are many Canadians that would vote Liberal with Conservative as their second preference rather than NDP. This would address the coalition issue we're having. It may also make people more likely to vote for smaller parties, such as the Green Party, because their vote is transferred to a second choice if their candidate comes in last in a riding. This could be combined with "topping-up" parliament, which would not only allow for a more proportional representation, but also would allow for under-represented minorities to gain seats in the house without having to represent a riding. There are some serious considerations to be made here. I don't know why more people aren't on board to support change.

[ToadBrother]

Your preference sounds very much like the American system. Forced to vote between 2 parties, I'd probably just stay home. The world is not a binary entity. After what I've seen this week, I'd be happier if there were no parties - just members of parliament. Then maybe we could dispense with this whole left-right paradigm and focus on the issues.

The American system isn't technically a two party system, it's just that you have nearly two centuries of political tradition which enforces the notion that no more than two parties could be present in Congress. If George Washington could have gotten his wish, there would have been no parties, and I tend to agree with him on that, parties are poisonous entities which as often as not get in the way of our elected representatives doing their jobs (what happened last week is a rather vivid example of that).

We're never going to get rid of political parties, but I think we do need to move to a more representative electoral system. STV, as you mention, is one good example, and, being a British Columbian, I'm still hoping that next year we can pass muster and lay the groundwork that hopefully some day the Federal Parliament will follow. I'm not too keen of some other forms of proportional representation; in particular ones that invoke party lists. I think that every MP should have to directly face the voters.

Edited December 8, 2008 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

I'm beginning to think the transferable vote systems may be the most effective for addressing the problems with our electoral system. There are many Canadians that would vote Liberal with Conservative as their second preference rather than NDP. This would address the coalition issue we're having. It may also make people more likely to vote for smaller parties, such as the Green Party, because their vote is transferred to a second choice if their candidate comes in last in a riding. This could be combined with "topping-up" parliament, which would not only allow for a more proportional representation, but also would allow for under-represented minorities to gain seats in the house without having to represent a riding. There are some serious considerations to be made here. I don't know why more people aren't on board to support change.

Let's face it, a good chunk of the elites in all the major parties are completely against moving from the FPTP system. They're success in gaining seats sometimes defies the popular vote, and who would be keen to chop off their own legs in the name of a fairer electoral system? I remember a number of commentators in BC writing incredibly hateful letters about STV in 2005, saying how it would destabilize the legislature, would cause us no end of grief and we'd hate it, which seems odd, since the NDP was torn down to just two seats in 2001 despite capturing over 20% of the popular vote.