Electoral Reform in Canada

[Divacat]

I'm curious to hear what people think about changing the way Canadian's vote in federal elections.

Do you think Canada should chagne to a proportional representation system? Why or why not?

Or would you recommend a different electoral system all together?

[Topaz]

Why is Harper trying to figure out how to get a majority through chance?

Edited January 15, 2009 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied opening post

[Riverwind]

Do you think Canada should chagne to a proportional representation system? Why or why not?

Proportional representation is a non-starter because it would take influence away from the smaller/slower growing regions. This means it won't happen since these regions have a veto on any electoral change.

Secondly, most of the people who actually choose to vote don't have any particular problem with the current system. The people who don't vote don't count - that is the way democracy works.

Lastly, there is no perfect system. All we really need is a system that allows us to periodically boot the current politicians out once they get too arrogant. FPTP makes this kind of transformative change possible. Proportional representation or some variation of it will make it impossible to vote for change since the same people/parties will keep getting elected by their core vote.

[M.Dancer]

I think we should wear hats when we vote. If we can't agree on that, then leave it as it is.

[DFCaper]

I've never been a fan of Proportional representation. I think if we had it, we would see a lot of single issue parties started, and they may hold the balance of power, giving such a group too much power. And we will never see a majority again. I'm a fan of the 2 party politics.

I don't think our parliamentary system is ready for such a change. People are not comfortable with a Coalition government yet. I know it works within our parliamentary rules, but as our system is as much tradition as it is rules. I think we would be better off waiting to see our first coalition form prior to guaranteeing them throughout the future. We as Canadians don't have enough experience in this direction to fully embrace it.

I cannot see how people can properly represented in such a system as well. How are members selected?

[punked]

I think we should wear hats when we vote. If we can't agree on that, then leave it as it is.

I agree

[ToadBrother]

It will be interesting to see what happens in British Columbia in May. The STV referendum almost passed (it got over 58% of the popular vote, but required 60%), suggesting that the majority of British Columbians want electoral change. I voted for it, and will again, simply because in BC we've seen two rather extreme examples of how the first-past-the-post system can create a situation completely out of whack with the popular vote:

1996 - The NDP managed to maintain a majority, despite getting less than 40% of the popular vote.

2001 - Saw the BC Liberals gain all but two seats in the legislature despite getting less than 60% of the popular vote.

The latter case, in particular, lead to an incredibly lopsided government, because there was effectively no official opposition.

STV isn't perfect, and it probably wouldn't have seen the NDP lose even the 1996 election, but it would have narrowed the seat counts. In 2001, it would have seen the NDP certainly gain enough seats to be the official opposition.

There really is no perfect electoral system, but first past the post, particularly now in Ottawa where we have four parties, is producing a situation that has inherited the worst of both possible worlds; a situation in which coalitions are still politically dangerous, but also a situation where minorities who have to seek consensus on a vote-by-vote basis cannot reasonably make long-term plans.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied opening post

[Molly]

I hate the idea of proportional representation, because I really believe that every individual in government should have to look a voter to whom they are directly responsible, in the eye, to explain their conduct. We already ahve too many folks whose loyalty to a political party outweighs their loyalty to the folks who elected them. More of that is just an invitation to more abuses of the electorate.

I could go with a preferential ballot, though. That would provide a lot of nuance, fewer travesties via unfortunate splits, and a lot of guidance to the chosen representatives, too.

Edited January 14, 2009 by Molly

[madmax]

I think we should wear hats when we vote. If we can't agree on that, then leave it as it is.

What colour?

[madmax]

Topic gets beaten to death.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied opening post

[ToadBrother]

I hate the idea of proportional representation, because I really believe that every individual in government should have to look a voter to whom they are directly responsible, in the eye, to explain their conduct. We already ahve too many folks whose loyalty to a political party outweighs their loyalty to the folks who elected them. More of that is just an invitation to more abuses of the electorate.

I don't think that's necessarily a fair statement of all proportional representation systems. It certainly is, to my mind, a flaw of the party list systems, which let people who have never had to stand in front of the voters they're supposed to be representing get a seat because they're loyal party minions. Our current system is undermined enough by voiceless MPs, and a party list system only further entrenches the tyranny of the political party structure.

I could go with a preferential ballot, though. That would provide a lot of nuance, fewer travesties via unfortunate splits, and a lot of guidance to the chosen representatives, too.

That's why I'm voting for STV again this May in the BC election. The only downside to STV is that you need at least a calculator, and better a spreadsheet, to figure out who exactly got elected.

[Molly]

I couldn't go with it, because the collectivism of it blunts the direct responsibility of representative to voter. The little old lady from Moose Jaw must know exactly which individual bears the responsibility of reflecting her needs and interests. That duty must not be passed off as the decision of a committee, or 'everyones' (and therefore no ones) task.

If I had my d'ruthers, 'party' wouldn't be acknowledged whatsoever within our voting system- each rep a stand-alone, and party affiliations irrelevant to actual voting, meaningful only as a platform commitment of individual candidates, not recorded on a ballot.

[ToadBrother]

I couldn't go with it, because the collectivism of it blunts the direct responsibility of representative to voter. The little old lady from Moose Jaw must know exactly which individual bears the responsibility of reflecting her needs and interests. That duty must not be passed off as the decision of a committee, or 'everyones' (and therefore no ones) task.

Are you referring to proportional representation or STV? With STV the little old lady in Moose Jaw would still be voting for each and every candidate.

If I had my d'ruthers, 'party' wouldn't be acknowledged whatsoever within our voting system- each rep a stand-alone, and party affiliations irrelevant to actual voting, meaningful only as a platform commitment of individual candidates, not recorded on a ballot.

Technically that's how things started out. You had rather large groupings generally divided into Whigs and Tories, but who encompassed a rather vast array of political ideologies. Thanks to the evolution of actual parties from Sir Robert Walpole up until the end of the 18th century, we saw the creation of the familiar political party structures.

There's no real way to get rid of political parties. George Washington cautioned against them, but admitted that they were probably inevitable. What I'd like to see is some serious weakening of them. For instance, I'd enshrine in law the independence of riding associations and would make all caucus meeting votes available publicly. You'd never really fix it, but perhaps by undermining the means by which party leaders and the upper echelons basically turn MPs into political whores, you might see said MPs caring a lot less about whether or not they get adequate signage money during elections.

[Progressive Tory]

We definitely need electoral reform, because our system isn't working. This last parliamentary crisis shows how little Canadians know about how our government works. This played nicely into the Conservative campaign against the Coalition, but was kind of an eye opener.

I see a real problem when the Bloc gets less than a million and half votes and win 50 seats, while the Green Party get almost a million votes, but no seats. That means that a million Canadian voters have no representation.

I think we should be able to elect our Prime Minister independantly, from any Party, with fixed election dates every four years. He or she can choose Cabinet Ministers from any elected MPs; thereby getting the best that Parliament has to offer. We may like our local Green Party Candidate because the Conservative choice is a moron, but like Stephen Harper so elect the moron. On the other hand, maybe our local Cons candidate is great but we hate the party leader, so vote for someone else.

This will avoid some of the horrible partisan politics we've had in the past, and Canadians will be able to vote for the best candidate in their riding, based on their own qualifications.

[Topaz]

You know, we could always get rid of the Feds and let each province run its own government and each province shares .As far as the military, each province has their own and if war comes then each province send their share of troops. Canadians could come out ahead money-wise and there wouldn't be the Feds taking us into a deficit again and again.

[M.Dancer]

We definitely need electoral reform, because our system isn't working.

orks pervectly. Every election without fail a government gets elected. Whether someone decides to vote or not is their own business and it should bot be a requirement of any system....in fact, a system that allows the unmotivated, uniformed, misguided and out to lunch opt out is far better than one that encourages wingnuts, toaster talkers and the clueless to particpate.

I would not mind if voting was made harder .Maybe make it a requiremment that you must vote in the provincial and civic elections or you don't get to vote in the federal...

[eyeball]

It will be interesting to see what happens in British Columbia in May. The STV referendum almost passed (it got over 58% of the popular vote, but required 60%), suggesting that the majority of British Columbians want electoral change. I voted for it, and will again, simply because in BC we've seen two rather extreme examples of how the first-past-the-post system can create a situation completely out of whack with the popular vote:

Me too.

What I'd really like though are a lot more citizen's assemblies of the type that preceded the STV referendum. If I had my way half the legislation Parliament and provincial Legislature's produce in this country should be discussed by citizen's assemblies and voted on directly by us before being passed.

[Wilber]

STV isn't perfect, and it probably wouldn't have seen the NDP lose even the 1996 election, but it would have narrowed the seat counts.

Actually it would have. In 1996 the NDP got a six seat majority even though the Liberals got 2.3% more of the popular vote. NDP 39 seats with 39.5%. Liberals 33 seats with 41.8% A ridiculous situation as were the 2001 results in the opposite direction. I voted for STV as well and will again.

[Riverwind]

Actually it would have. In 1996 the NDP got a six seat majority even though the Liberals got 2.3% more of the popular vote. NDP 39 seats with 39.5%. Liberals 33 seats with 41.8% A ridiculous situation as were the 2001 results in the opposite direction. I voted for STV as well and will again.

FPTP allowed to NDP to mess up the province but it gave the Liberals the power to fix the mess. I don't see STV as any different from our municipal elections which can be lively in Vancouver city but result in the same mix of individuals getting elected over and over again other municipalities. All we need from a voting system is a way practical way to boot the incumbants out of power. FPTP provides that. STV will likely not so I will not be supporting it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Proportional representation is a myth. It simply should never be considered, here is why.

It destroys democracy by negating the majority of a constituency in favour of some larger demographic. That is simply insane.

From my perspective what is needed is not electoral reforms, the process of elections is fine. The problem that I would focus upon is term limits, electoral recalls, and citizens initiatives. There needs to be a way for the public to interact with government as it relates to legislative efforts and representative integrity. Perhaps of even more relevance would be to reform the parliamentary system to enable citizens the opportunity to choose a leader for the nation independent of partisan choice. The PMO's office is already separate from government, why not take a page from the republic system?

[Progressive Tory]

You know, we could always get rid of the Feds and let each province run its own government and each province shares .As far as the military, each province has their own and if war comes then each province send their share of troops. Canadians could come out ahead money-wise and there wouldn't be the Feds taking us into a deficit again and again.

That is actually the so-called 'hidden agenda' of Stephen Harper. A new federalism with the central government looking after only the military and foreign affairs, though I think he still wants federal MPs. I agree to much of his plan in theory, but some provinces would not survive. And of course, I don't want Canada divided up like that.

[Molly]

Toadbrother... correct me if I'm wrong (I live a long way from the Land of the Lotus Eaters, so may well have missed by a mile) but my understanding of the proposed STV includes the lumping of ridings into small groups, from which a group of representatives is preferentially elected.

If this is the case then my criticism stands.

In terms of balloting and parties- one highly desireable and easy step would be to remove party affiliation from ballots. It is a small thing, but would oblige voters to be aware that they are electing a representative to parliament-- not a party, and not a Prime Minister. (And if they don't know which is which walking in... I have little sympathy.)

I figure that trying to equate overall popular vote to numbers of seats is a bit of a red herring. The fact is that the Bloc is very representative of the interests of regions in which Bloc members are elected, while the Greens do not represent the priorities and interests of any riding. As such the former truly is deserving of seats, while the other is not, regardless of the overall share of popular vote.

[Michael Hardner]

Progressive Tory:

This last parliamentary crisis shows how little Canadians know about how our government works. This played nicely into the Conservative campaign against the Coalition, but was kind of an eye opener.

If the problem is that people don't understand the system, why does making it more complicated help the situation ?

The problem I have with PR is that in almost every case, the argument in favour of PR either doesn't make sense, or it's negated by the proposed 'solution'. This is an example of the latter.

Another example is "there's too much squabbling between the parties now", as if increasing the number of MPs and making constant coalition governments a la Italy would help things.

The best reason to have PR is often between the lines of the stated reason. Plainly, I think the reason many want PR is "I want the greens to have a seat". If that's the case, then let's address that rather than rework the entire system to solve one little problem. For example, make a 10% rule

that says any party getting 10% of the popular vote gets a floating MP to represent their voice in parliament.

EDITED TO ADD: My heart is warmed by the fact that most MLW posters don't seem to be swayed by this Proportional Representation fad.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Michael Hardner