Coalition Government

[wyly]

I do not think the kind of fringe party dominance in Israeli coalitions is putting the peoples' choice first. Quite the opposite, it allows small minorities to dictate major pieces of policy. I have no problem with certain kinds of PR or PR-like systems like AV or STV, but the kind of full-blown PR that lead to decades of instability in Italy and to a lunatic religious fringe in Israel basically deciding issues like development in the Occupied Territories, even in defiance of the countries that are Israel's closest allies, is not a sign of a healthy democracy.

anti PR opponents love using Israel as the go-to example when they want to thwart the democratic value of PR and preserve their parties artificial illusion of popularity...Israeli extremists are the problem not the PR method of elections...

there are about 80 countries that use some form of PR and function just fine with it...

[myata]

I love this. "It can't be the responsibility of the electoral system, because that means my assumptions are wrong. Therefore something else is to blame."

No because you never proved that it is. There're many factors at play in country politics, of which electoral system is only one.

Alternative Vote is not really a PR system. It is a vote distribution system that has emulates some facets of PR. Basically, it's a ranking version of First-past-the-post

I never said it was, please read carefully. It doesn't mean that it could not be used in conjunction with PR though.

That's not what it comes down to all. What it comes down to is a functional, responsive, democratic system of government. As we've seen, there are certain combinations of voter trends and demographics and electoral systems that can produce startling bad governments, election after election after election.

Responsive, etc at a cost skewing (grossly, in our system) representation of society's political choices? Wouldn't it be exactly what was said then, that you can have one (choice and freedom) or the other (responsive, etc) but not both (at the same time)? If you can't trust your choices to be sound, they'd need to be adjusted for you. What you call it ("responsive, stable", blah) isn't important, what matters is that the cost of responsiveness and stability is limitation of choices. Perhaps to the extent that it'd ultimately loose all meaning, as a system of democratic representation.

I'm afraid it's one or the other, you either make your choices and decisions and live with it, even when it means that you'll have to make more decisions, i.e have more elections, read more about your parties, etc, or you pass control of your life to somebody else. In our case we handed it (control) firmly and solidly, to two partocracies, with only a visibility remaining that we could still make any real difference in this country.

And now we're back to the mindless T-shirt sloganeering.

No, just takes time to take it in, please don't give up.

[ToadBrother]

anti PR opponents love using Israel as the go-to example when they want to thwart the democratic value of PR and preserve their parties artificial illusion of popularity...Israeli extremists are the problem not the PR method of elections...

there are about 80 countries that use some form of PR and function just fine with it...

And I'd argue we've done reasonably well without it. No electoral system is perfect, but ours certainly isn't the worst. I'm in favor of electoral reform, but not of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I thought STV was a pretty good compromise between constituency representation and stable government. I think party list versions of PR do nothing more than further cement the influence of political parties by allowing members of a legislature whose only affiliation is to the party, with no connect with any real constituency.

AV is probably the better than STV, because it retains the strength of FPTP while still allowing the voter to give some preference to smaller parties. Another suggestion I like even better, though it could end up being more expensive, and might not translate well into legislatures with a lot of seats, is a form of run-off voting that has a box called "None of the above". If none-of-the-above gets the plurality of votes, a new run-off election with an entirely different set of candidates would be required. But like I said, that could prove impractical, though no worse than any other kind of run-off system (AV and STV are also essentially run-off systems as well, except they use statistical weighting methods to do it).

Electoral systems is a complex but fascinating field. At the end of the day it turns out that short of a pure direct democracy like the Athenian Republic, there is simply no way to create a perfect electoral system. To my mind, the chief issue in our democracy isn't how MPs get elected so much as what happens once they do. Because of our financing rules, MPs and riding associations are largely beholden to the Party leadership, which focuses on the Party leader. Party list systems would only serve to further entrench that rather unwholesome side of party politics. Along with electoral reform should come reforms that free candidates from essentially selling their souls to achieve party nominations. In fact, liberating MPs to my mind is infinitely more important than tinkering with the way we pick them.

Edited May 13, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

I never said it was, please read carefully. It doesn't mean that it could not be used in conjunction with PR though.

Well, PR systems are going to be using some sort of weighting scheme one way or the other. AV, and to some degree, STV attempt to use a PR-like weighting scheme without actually moving to a full PR electoral system.

I think we should wait and see what happens in Britain. We have a fascinating situation in which two parties, other than on a few points, really have little in common, are now in a coalition, even with FPTP. It could be that the British people will ultimately come to love this joining of the two old political traditions in the UK; the Tories and the Whigs, or it could be that they will come to loathe the Coalition. Cameron did have the option of trying to form a government like Harper has, and basically doing a vote-by-vote consensus arrangement, but clearly he felt compelled to seek a more structured and (theoretically) permanent arrangement. Of course, Britain also a fiscal gun pointed to its head that we don't in Canada. We have a lot more room to run deficits and to decide how and when we'll pay it back than Britain does, so maybe, as much as anything, the Conservative-LibDem coalition is not so much an arranged marriage as a shotgun marriage.

If the Conservatives and LibDems can produce a stable government that can stand the five years they claim it will, I think the Harperite claims of the evils of coalition may very well be undermined in Canada, and if not outright electoral reform, then at least the acceptance that in the absence of any party capable of forming a majority, then a formalized coalition might be workable. This could, in fact, bolster a party like the NDP.

[Smallc]

Oh no! Mr. Harper cast a spell on Canadians? Damn those popcorn loving, hockey-watching Canadians who are so easily bewitched by the leader of their country!

Harper is the leader of what now?

[Smallc]

Frankly, I agree with his "edict". Canadians did not vote the Coalition into power.

You prove that you don't know what your talking about more and more with each post.

[Smallc]

I don't agree with full blown PR systems.

Well, PR would be a bit different in our system though, as it would probably be divided by province. I agree though AV may be the way.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Smallc

[wyly]

Well, PR would be a bit different in our system though, as it would probably be divided by province. I agree though AV may be the way.

a quick search in wiki offers a confusing array of PR systems at work in various countries...

I agree a division by province would be required and that would be a welcome relief in Alberta where 35% of the population hasn't had representative in Ottawa in decades, many non conservatives have stopped voting...the irony here is that we have a federal government elected by the roughly the same percentage..that's a sad situation for democratic country or should I say semi-democratic country...

[Argus]

anti PR opponents love using Israel as the go-to example when they want to thwart the democratic value of PR and preserve their parties artificial illusion of popularity...Israeli extremists are the problem not the PR method of elections...

there are about 80 countries that use some form of PR and function just fine with it...

What I see from European nations, almost all of whom use PR, is government which is indecisive and ineffectual, which cannot make basic decisions and stick to them because of their ever changing committee style of government. And because every govenrment is made up of multiple parties, and each party needs to show ITS voters what IT has accomplished, every government has to spread largesse (pork) everywhere, and pay for policies and systems which are largely unneeded, but which are required in order to gain the support of this or that minor party. I can see how the trio of midgets who wanted to overthrow harper would have made for a ridiculously bad government. But imagine if instead of just three there were 5 or 6 midgets who needed to be accomodated in a single government. Each has its own agenda. Each has its own need to show its success to voters. Each will have absolute demands of the new government in order to get their votes.

The reason people use Israel is because it's the clearest and most obviously sucky example of PR government, where religious parties which might only get 2% or more of the vote, can dictate policies to mainstream parties in order to get their support. Personally if we were going to see PR I'd like to see a minimum cutoff of at least 10% of the vote. Below that you get nothing. But even that allows for the possibility of a government which needs to have 3 or 4 partners to get majorities. And I don't consider such a government to be very workable.

[myata]

I agree a division by province would be required and that would be a welcome relief in Alberta where 35% of the population hasn't had representative in Ottawa in decades, many non conservatives have stopped voting...the irony here is that we have a federal government elected by the roughly the same percentage..that's a sad situation for democratic country or should I say semi-democratic country...

How far could the "efficiency" and "stability" argument stretch? A dictatorship can be a model of efficiency and stability (of government). Do we need just enough choice and freedom to make our system not a dictatorship? Or do we need all the freedom there is on principle and because we have right to make sovereign conscious choices without artificial restriction or limitaion?

Well, I for one officially quit playing the "porridge or potato" game, the two year old equivalent of variety of political choices. Either I have the full, uncensored and unrestricted choice as is a right of any mature individual; or, if I can't have it, I'll have no further interest in playing into a spectacle that has no meaning to me.

[jbg]

That aside, I'd also be intrigued to hear how it is that the Canadian parliament cannot produce a coalition government when the very parliament it's modelled on (the British) can.

[+]

First, let's see how long the Cameron-Clegg Rube Goldberg machine lasts. Second, Canada has, I understand, many LPC voters that would never choose the NDP and vice versa. And both have many that would never choose a separatist party. Harper has to kiss his lucky stars that nothing came of the alleged canoodling with the BQ in April - June 2005.

[wyly]

First, let's see how long the Cameron-Clegg Rube Goldberg machine lasts. Second, Canada has, I understand, many LPC voters that would never choose the NDP and vice versa. And both have many that would never choose a separatist party. Harper has to kiss his lucky stars that nothing came of the alleged canoodling with the BQ in April - June 2005.

how long that coalition lasts is really irelavant we've had more than a few of our minority governments that lasted a matter of months...

with PR system there is a home for everyone, I'm sure there are more than a few moderate conservatives who are uncomfortable in the CPC...the same goes for every party...it's unrealistic to lump broad spectrum of beliefs in any one party in a two or three party system...

[jbg]

with PR system there is a home for everyone, I'm sure there are more than a few moderate conservatives who are uncomfortable in the CPC...the same goes for every party...it's unrealistic to lump broad spectrum of beliefs in any one party in a two or three party system...

So you prefer Italy or Israel's never-ending food fights?

[myata]

I personally prefer choices that I make to those that are made for me. And if I can't make my own choices, there's one thing I can still do, quit playing into somebody else's game.

[Smallc]

So you prefer Italy or Israel's never-ending food fights?

Nobody said that democracy is always clean. There are ways to give people a more balanced voice while still keeping things stable. It's at least worth a look.

[ToadBrother]

How far could the "efficiency" and "stability" argument stretch? A dictatorship can be a model of efficiency and stability (of government). Do we need just enough choice and freedom to make our system not a dictatorship? Or do we need all the freedom there is on principle and because we have right to make sovereign conscious choices without artificial restriction or limitaion?

Well, I for one officially quit playing the "porridge or potato" game, the two year old equivalent of variety of political choices. Either I have the full, uncensored and unrestricted choice as is a right of any mature individual; or, if I can't have it, I'll have no further interest in playing into a spectacle that has no meaning to me.

Man but you do get infantile. You claim you're a mature adult and then you have these kinds of outbursts.

Grow up.

[wyly]

So you prefer Italy or Israel's never-ending food fights?

have you read any of this thread? one page back I pointed out the silliness of people using the religious freak show that's Israeli politics as an example while there some 80 other countries that have functioning PR systems...and the Italians aren't suffering despite their numerous changes of government...why not point out the USA with it's dysfunctional two party system of near permanent gridlock...

[myata]

Man but you do get infantile.

Oh, so no comments on the essense of the issue? How, i.e. in what way does our endless duopoly serve society's need for political choice and variety? Or maybe this particular society does not need either, because you eat what you're served or you are branded "infantile"? Great argumentative power, btw, I'm really really impressed!

Like as if in music you could only pick one of the two, Beethoven, or Billy Joel. If not Beethoven, it mush be Billy. Or vice versa. Great (democratic) choice.

Sure you'll have all those buttons, with other names, but you click on them and nothing happens. Click forever and nothing will ever happen, still. Only Beethoven and B.J. work. Eat what you're served, or you're out of luck.

Ridiculous, isn't it? Do grow up!

[eyeball]

In fact, liberating MPs to my mind is infinitely more important than tinkering with the way we pick them.

Then lets outlaw whipped voting.

What's most important to me is that we reform democracy in a manner that makes it crystal clear to both rulers and ruled alike what the intent of the reform is.

[M.Dancer]

Then lets outlaw whipped voting.

What's most important to me is that we reform democracy in a manner that makes it crystal clear to both rulers and ruled alike what the intent of the reform is.

To outlaw that, would require legislation, and legislation would require a vote, and that vote would probably require the whip...

[ToadBrother]

To outlaw that, would require legislation, and legislation would require a vote, and that vote would probably require the whip...

I'm not even sure how that would work, in real terms. So you don't have whips any more. That doesn't mean there isn't caucus solidarity. After all, it's at the caucus meetings where this is all hashed out. A whip's job is only in part to assure how the vote will be cast, the other part of the job is to make sure MPs are there to vote.

[Timothy17]

You prove that you don't know what your talking about more and more with each post.

I find that remark most unfair. In the rest of my post I explained that a Coalition government was not presented to the electorate when formulating that Parliament; had it been, the Prime Minister's rhetoric of the coalition being undemocratic would have been nonsense.

[ToadBrother]

I find that remark most unfair. In the rest of my post I explained that a Coalition government was not presented to the electorate when formulating that Parliament; had it been, the Prime Minister's rhetoric of the coalition being undemocratic would have been nonsense.

But what the PM said was nonsense. The voters do not vote for a government in the Westminster System. They never have. They vote for a Parliament which then decides who will be the government. The Coalition would have been the will of Parliament to choose another government.

Now maybe the Coalition members would have suffered horrifically at the next election. Heck, I'm wagering with all the Liberals who were clearly unhappy with hopping into bed with separatists and the NDP that it probably wouldn't have lasted a year. But the fact of the matter is your underlying precept, that somehow the people are marking a ballot for the government, is false. Now I'll admit that it's a rather common misunderstanding, and if the attempted coalition did one thing, it allowed constitutional experts who wouldn't normally be given the time of day a chance to explain this simple fact: "The people vote for a Parliament, and Parliament decides who will govern."

The Coalition was perfectly legal, completely constitutional, was not a coup, because the Tories were not elected by the people to be a government. In fact, even if they were a majority in the House and got more than 50% of the popular vote, that fact remains.

[g_bambino]

Ridiculous, isn't it?

What you rave about is, yes.

How far could the "efficiency" and "stability" argument stretch? A dictatorship can be a model of efficiency and stability (of government). Do we need just enough choice and freedom to make our system not a dictatorship? Or do we need all the freedom there is on principle and because we have right to make sovereign conscious choices without artificial restriction or limitaion?

What makes you sound so ridiculous is that you're an anarchist who stupidly believes himself to be a humanitarian; you seem to have actually convinced yourself that the key to a better life for all people is the elimination of the millennia-old understanding that a sound, prosperous society relies on a maintained balance somewhere between full individual freedom and full individual control. By removing the "artificial" strictures the individual members of society collectively place upon themselves, each person, with "all the freedom there is on principal," becomes able to do whatever they want whenever they want by their "sovereign conscious choice". The necessary balance is eradicated, the community falls into chaos, and, instead of bettering society, you've destroyed it.

And yet, there you are, offering smug admonishment to anyone deemed by you as less enlightened than you find yourself to be.

[+]

Edited May 14, 2010 by g_bambino

[wyly]

I find that remark most unfair. In the rest of my post I explained that a Coalition government was not presented to the electorate when formulating that Parliament; had it been, the Prime Minister's rhetoric of the coalition being undemocratic would have been nonsense.

coalition options can not and are never presented to the electorate in an election as each party is campaigning on the assumption that they should govern alone...only the results of the election can determine whether a coalition is feasible or which party will or will not take part in that coalition...

lets not forget Harper did the same himself looking to form a government without an election in 2004 with the BQ and the NDP...

Edited May 14, 2010 by wyly