Proportional Representation

[CAMP]

Canada has been fortunate thus far to mainly have two political parties namely Conservatives, and Liberals.

This is why we enjoy a half decent country to live in. With the NDP along for the ride we have enjoyed for the most part a democratic situation in 4 year increments. With the addition of the block and the Greens and now the CAMP and the old boys Conservative Party called the PC's, we now are into a situation where the First past the post voting system doesn't work properly anymore. The more parties you have the more the vote is diluted and then less people wind up having voted for a party that may manage to gain a majority government. In fact it is quite possible now that a party could have 30% or slightly less and form a majority government. This just simply put is wrong. This situation goes against a truly democratic society’s philosophy. The only answer is to use some form of proportional representation. Other countries such as Ireland, Australia and many more where more than two parties sprang up decided to change from first past the post voting methods to proportional representation to get back to or closer to proper democratic philosophy.

We need proportional representation in Canada badly now... REALLY!

[fellowtraveller]

Italy has had proprep for a long time, and has had about 60 governments since WW11.

[madmax]

Italy has had proprep for a long time, and has had about 60 governments since WW11.

IIRC since WWII Canada has went to the polls More then Italy.

[Riverwind]

First past the post voting system doesn't work properly anymore.

I don't see any evidence to support your claim. The government is functioning. Legislation and budgets are getting passed.

Also, proportional representation is a non-starter if that means Toronto/Ontario ends up controlling an even larger block of the vote. Similar problems exist within provinces where the population tends to be concentrated in urban centers. FPTP ensures that every region has at least one representative in the parliment that can represent their interests. PR would completely disenfranchise all voters living in sparsly populated areas.

[madmax]

PR is simply a different form of government. It is not necessarily a better form of government. There are many problems with the FPTP system. Only in the FPTP system can 2 Million votes for a political party result in 2 seats.

However, the rules of the FPTP exist for everyone, and one of the interesting facts of FPTP is that if you want a minority voice, it usually takes less then 50% of the vote to win a seat. More importantly the more parties that are involved and actively competitive in a riding the lower the % needed to win.

As for saying that we need PR now because they are many political parties, is a copout of the worst kind. There have always been many political parties in Canadas history. Just as there have been minority governments and .... wait for it.... coalitions.

There is nothing to stop any political party from winning one seat, or any independant from winning a seat, beyond hard work.

I can't say whether the PR system is better. I tend to support a PR system of government, but what I have seen is that certain political parties are more interested in themselves then they are for democracy.

Across Canada, I would expect PR to lose a referendum. IIRC the NDP is the only party with seats in the house and a historical track record of getting elected in a FPTP system, that supports a move towards PR.

My thoughts are that if a party cannot win a single seat, and do not have a Candidate strong enough to win a single seat, perhaps they shouldn't be in parliment to begin with.

I think of that horrible debate where the Green Party Leader whined her way into the televised debate. Unfortuneately, it created bad Television, and created a system of 4 people ganging up on the PM, instead of 3, and no debate between the parties in opposition, unlike previous televised debates.

We were told that if the GP got into the debate they would prove themselves worthy of electing an MP. Well, it didn't happen.

I cannot say that we should have a PR system where a party elects no MPs but then we get to hear the Leader of that party in the house of commons because they are on the top of a party list.

Perhaps what the electorate are saying is, we DON'T want to hear from anyone in that party until they earn a seat.

Until the format of a PR system is created that the public can understand and agree to and isn't set up to benefit a political party but is set up to benefit the democratic process, I will remain skeptical.

I would hate to see PR ruined by a system of party lists, where it is impossible to get rid of someone we can't stand.

I like PR because it would likely add a better balance to parliment then the Majority swings or Massive Seat Collapse that can occur with a 2% shift in the vote, for or against any party.

That said, PR is unlikely to ever be accepted as long as their is the BQ, the CPC or the LPC.

[Riverwind]

I like PR because it would likely add a better balance to parliment then the Majority swings or Massive Seat Collapse that can occur with a 2% shift in the vote, for or against any party.

The virtue of democracy is not the prinicipal of 'one person one vote' but the mechanism that allows for the peaceful ousting of entrenched elites. IOW, FPTP works well because it makes it possible to have periodic parlimentary house cleanings. PR governments result in perpetural coalitions among the entrenched players which cannot easily be ousted because the core vote for most parties is fairly committed.

[CAMP]

I don't see any evidence to support your claim. The government is functioning. Legislation and budgets are getting passed.

Also, proportional representation is a non-starter if that means Toronto/Ontario ends up controlling an even larger block of the vote. Similar problems exist within provinces where the population tends to be concentrated in urban centers. FPTP ensures that every region has at least one representative in the parliment that can represent their interests. PR would completely disenfranchise all voters living in sparsly populated areas.

You are logically correct saying FPTP ensures that every region has at least one rep in parliment, however because of partisan politics and party towing the line you actually have no representation in many areas, and that is fact. Proportional rep would at least ensure some input from everywhere.

[CAMP]

PR is simply a different form of government. It is not necessarily a better form of government. There are many problems with the FPTP system. Only in the FPTP system can 2 Million votes for a political party result in 2 seats.

However, the rules of the FPTP exist for everyone, and one of the interesting facts of FPTP is that if you want a minority voice, it usually takes less then 50% of the vote to win a seat. More importantly the more parties that are involved and actively competitive in a riding the lower the % needed to win.

As for saying that we need PR now because they are many political parties, is a copout of the worst kind. There have always been many political parties in Canadas history. Just as there have been minority governments and .... wait for it.... coalitions.

There is nothing to stop any political party from winning one seat, or any independant from winning a seat, beyond hard work.

I can't say whether the PR system is better. I tend to support a PR system of government, but what I have seen is that certain political parties are more interested in themselves then they are for democracy.

Across Canada, I would expect PR to lose a referendum. IIRC the NDP is the only party with seats in the house and a historical track record of getting elected in a FPTP system, that supports a move towards PR.

My thoughts are that if a party cannot win a single seat, and do not have a Candidate strong enough to win a single seat, perhaps they shouldn't be in parliment to begin with.

I think of that horrible debate where the Green Party Leader whined her way into the televised debate. Unfortuneately, it created bad Television, and created a system of 4 people ganging up on the PM, instead of 3, and no debate between the parties in opposition, unlike previous televised debates.

We were told that if the GP got into the debate they would prove themselves worthy of electing an MP. Well, it didn't happen.

I cannot say that we should have a PR system where a party elects no MPs but then we get to hear the Leader of that party in the house of commons because they are on the top of a party list.

Perhaps what the electorate are saying is, we DON'T want to hear from anyone in that party until they earn a seat.

Until the format of a PR system is created that the public can understand and agree to and isn't set up to benefit a political party but is set up to benefit the democratic process, I will remain skeptical.

I would hate to see PR ruined by a system of party lists, where it is impossible to get rid of someone we can't stand.

I like PR because it would likely add a better balance to parliment then the Majority swings or Massive Seat Collapse that can occur with a 2% shift in the vote, for or against any party.

That said, PR is unlikely to ever be accepted as long as their is the BQ, the CPC or the LPC.

I disagree whole heatedly with your analysis of a cop out . This is a simple case of not understanding the situation we as Canadians exist in. Yes there have been many political parties in the past and in fact there are approx 16 registered parties now... but the majority are fringe parties that get very little of the vote. FPTP worked fairly well when we mainly had 2 main parties. Even with 3 main parties it wasn't too bad. But now you have the BQ and Greens along with the NDP sucking up votes. These 5 parties are the main parties really, all others baring scrape the surface of obtaining votes as of yet. It is clear the more parties to split the vote up the more likely there could be a majority created with 30% or less of the popular vote, a poor democratic model for sure. PR fixes the system and creates a better democratic system. Just look at the power struggle in Ottawa between the parties now. PR would definetely cause them to have to work together better in coalition style and they know they would have no choice even if another election was called.

[Riverwind]

You are logically correct saying FPTP ensures that every region has at least one rep in parliment, however because of partisan politics and party towing the line you actually have no representation in many areas, and that is fact. Proportional rep would at least ensure some input from everywhere.

Under FPTP the MPs have power because they can always break ranks and run as an idependent. Under PR MPs would be completely beholden to the party brass that create the party lists. If you want individual MPs to have more power then you should be in favour of FPTP.

[Alta4ever]

I disagree whole heatedly with your analysis of a cop out . This is a simple case of not understanding the situation we as Canadians exist in. Yes there have been many political parties in the past and in fact there are approx 16 registered parties now... but the majority are fringe parties that get very little of the vote. FPTP worked fairly well when we mainly had 2 main parties. Even with 3 main parties it wasn't too bad. But now you have the BQ and Greens along with the NDP sucking up votes. These 5 parties are the main parties really, all others baring scrape the surface of obtaining votes as of yet. It is clear the more parties to split the vote up the more likely there could be a majority created with 30% or less of the popular vote, a poor democratic model for sure. PR fixes the system and creates a better democratic system. Just look at the power struggle in Ottawa between the parties now. PR would definetely cause them to have to work together better in coalition style and they know they would have no choice even if another election was called.

If we end tax subs and 1.95 per vote to the parties 2 of the parties would disapear tomorrow. The fringe element would disapear and we wouldn't have to listen to the bloc or the screeching coming from that horrible elizabeth may.

[CAMP]

If we end tax subs and 1.95 per vote to the parties 2 of the parties would disapear tomorrow. The fringe element would disapear and we wouldn't have to listen to the bloc or the screeching coming from that horrible elizabeth may.

Really I don't think so. You should start investigating Independents. CAMP is forming them into a party that will become a political force as time moves forward. The best part about it is most Independents don't want the 1.95 and have no tax subs anyways because of the discrimination that exists in the Elections Canada act.

Independents are true Canadians and finally are about to bloom into reality in a big way... just hang onto your hat and watch! Next online conference for them is March 27th. Last conference it was agreed that an association would be started that would be able to seamlessly morph into a registered party. All regions of Canada were present at the last conference as it lasted nearly 4 hours and covered a lot of ground. This is political history in the making for Canada!

[Alta4ever]

Really I don't think so. You should start investigating Independents. CAMP is forming them into a party that will become a political force as time moves forward. The best part about it is most Independents don't want the 1.95 and have no tax subs anyways because of the discrimination that exists in the Elections Canada act.

Independents are true Canadians and finally are about to bloom into reality in a big way... just hang onto your hat and watch! Next online conference for them is March 27th. Last conference it was agreed that an association would be started that would be able to seamlessly morph into a registered party. All regions of Canada were present at the last conference as it lasted nearly 4 hours and covered a lot of ground. This is political history in the making for Canada!

I laugh at you FPTP will doom this country to minority after minority and give a soap box to the most extreme elements in scoiety. It is a big mistake to go that route.

Band the Ind together and together you wil stand for everthing and nothing. You won't gt one member elected.

[madmax]

I disagree whole heatedly with your analysis of a cop out . Yes there have been many political parties in the past

And these parties won seats.

In one election campaign... The Liberals, Progressives, Conservatives, Labour, United Farmers of ALberta, United Farmers of Ontario, Independent Progressive, and Independent Conservative all won seats.

Small parties and Multi party outcomes exist in a FPTP system.

and in fact there are approx 16 registered parties now

and there were 20 Parties in the 1921 election above.

... but the majority are fringe parties that get very little of the vote.

GOOD! Although I really, enjoyed the Yogic Flyers in 1993. The Natural Law party made money that year and had double the Green Party vote.

FPTP worked fairly well when we mainly had 2 main parties. Even with 3 main parties it wasn't too bad. But now you have the BQ and Greens along with the NDP sucking up votes. These 5 parties are the main parties really, all others baring scrape the surface of obtaining votes as of yet.

Yes it must be difficult. Like in 1926 when the

These parties won seats in a minority government.

Liberal

Conservative

Progressive

United Farmers of Alberta

Liberal-Progressive

Labour

Independent Liberal

United Farmers of Ontario

Of course 4 and 5 party battles were not uncommon in the past, especially in Western Canada.

Where the CCF and Social Credit carved out their niche.

It is clear the more parties to split the vote up the more likely there could be a majority created with 30% or less of the popular vote, a poor democratic model for sure.

People know the rules, you back your horse and working hard to get that 1 MORE vote then the other party is who our democracy works.

PR fixes the system and creates a better democratic system. Just look at the power struggle in Ottawa between the parties now. PR would definetely cause them to have to work together better in coalition style and they know they would have no choice even if another election was called.

I look at the power struggle in Ottawa. It has all the elements of a PR system. A minority government, that is forced to work with other parties. When the party with the most seats fail to get the support required to pass a bill, it will fall. Thus the CPC either had to find a dance partner or walk the plank.

A PR system, will guarrantee that this kind of government exists for the foreseeable future, unless one party should receive a 50+1 majority of the seats/Votes.

[madmax]

Under FPTP the MPs have power because they can always break ranks and run as an idependent. Under PR MPs would be completely beholden to the party brass that create the party lists. If you want individual MPs to have more power then you should be in favour of FPTP.

Riverwind has highlighted the biggest weakness of the PR system. Those party lists. As well as an inability to clean house.

I see nothing in a PR system that would change the values of party discipline. If a budget vote is coming it will be no different then in a FPTP system.

Those lists have all the potential to be dangerous and undemocratic.

[Michael Hardner]

I concur with these points against PR.

I don't vote conservative, however I shudder to think of what would happen if (as would happen with PR) a conservative government could never happen. As it is, we get conservative governments every 20 years or so.

And as has been stated, Canada is proof of the success of FPTP. The idea that people don't vote because the Greens never get elected is preposterous. If we want fringe parties to be represented, then we can set up the system to allow token representation for parties that get 5% of the vote or more. But that means that the family heritage part (or whatever they're called) will be in the House of Commons.

[eyeball]

I could continue living with FPTP if there were more decisions put to citizens assemblies and referenda.

I'm game for just about anything that shakes things up.

[KeyStone]

Canada has been fortunate thus far to mainly have two political parties namely Conservatives, and Liberals.

This is why we enjoy a half decent country to live in. With the NDP along for the ride we have enjoyed for the most part a democratic situation in 4 year increments. With the addition of the block and the Greens and now the CAMP and the old boys Conservative Party called the PC's, we now are into a situation where the First past the post voting system doesn't work properly anymore. The more parties you have the more the vote is diluted and then less people wind up having voted for a party that may manage to gain a majority government. In fact it is quite possible now that a party could have 30% or slightly less and form a majority government. This just simply put is wrong. This situation goes against a truly democratic society’s philosophy. The only answer is to use some form of proportional representation. Other countries such as Ireland, Australia and many more where more than two parties sprang up decided to change from first past the post voting methods to proportional representation to get back to or closer to proper democratic philosophy.

We need proportional representation in Canada badly now... REALLY!

While I agree that FPTP is an archaic system, a straight PR system has its own problems.

There are many other forms of electoral reform that would be a huge improvement over FPTP while not inheriting the many flaws of straight PR.

[Molly]

.. like preferential ballots. Now THAT's democratically nuanced enough to bring out a result that people like best, and eliminate what they can't stand.

[Alta4ever]

.. like preferential ballots. Now THAT's democratically nuanced enough to bring out a result that people like best, and eliminate what they can't stand.

Unless you end up with a Stelmach or Dion.

[Michael Hardner]

.. like preferential ballots. Now THAT's democratically nuanced enough to bring out a result that people like best, and eliminate what they can't stand.

No, it's not.

Our current system has produced a balance of views that seems best suited for running a country as diverse as we are. Democratically nuanced ballots may or may not produce that. It really depends on the numbers.

If we're talking about 10 PR seats over all of Canada, then I'm all for it, but more often then not the numbers proposed are larger.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Michael Hardner

[ToadBrother]

Italy has had proprep for a long time, and has had about 60 governments since WW11.

Italy is hardly typical of proportional representation Parliaments. Lots of other European countries have them, and don't produce the instabilities found in Italy.

[ToadBrother]

.. like preferential ballots. Now THAT's democratically nuanced enough to bring out a result that people like best, and eliminate what they can't stand.

I think "None of the Above" is better. Have an extra box on every ballot called "None of the Above". If that choice gets the plurality of votes, then a new election has to be held in the riding, and none of the candidates on the last ballot are allowed to run.

[Alta4ever]

I think "None of the Above" is better. Have an extra box on every ballot called "None of the Above". If that choice gets the plurality of votes, then a new election has to be held in the riding, and none of the candidates on the last ballot are allowed to run.

Ah true democracy, I would support that.

[fellowtraveller]

IIRC since WWII Canada has went to the polls More then Italy.

so what.

We have not had the wholesale dysfunction of Italy.

[Michael Hardner]

We have not had the wholesale dysfunction of Italy.

Have you BEEN to Italy ?