Could PR be the issue for the NDP?

[idealisttotheend]

On the National tonight, CBC reported that the NDP had already put a condition on their participation in a minority government and that condition was a referendum on Proportional Representation. This is obviolusly in the NDPs interests but then no government that wins via the first past the post system is likely to push too hard for it.

The way I see the NDP campaign, they are trying to be all things to all people. While this may be a noble goal, until and unless they are seen as electable they have no natural constituency. I mean anyone on the left will vote liberal just to stop Harper from coming into power if it looks like it is going that way unless there is a very good chance the NDP candatate will win in their riding. Or split off to the Greens etc.

But if they were to push really hard on the PR thing I wonder if that wouldn't attract more votes. It would appeal to their target vote, it would also give people a reason to vote NDP even if their only expectation would be that the result would be a minority government. Vanilla platforms on more health care funding will get lost as the heat turns up between the Libs and the Cons. Keep that as the backbon but use the 'media space' to talk about PR and the importance of getting it done in this parliament, selling it in terms of helping to end government arrogance. It may be the only way for the NDP to stay relevant as the big two fight it out.

Can the at least one party capture the imagination of the electorate the election?

I think PR is a great idea by the way, it would make everyone's vote "matter." Put together with the financing law it might be two strikes for a stronger democracy.

Here is a great site on PR and everything you might want to know about it

And this link lists the various systems available

(mixed member looks practical)

Cheers

[August1991]

Thanks Idealist, I'll check the web sites. (And I'm actually going to flip through another Richard Gwyn book because of your recommendation).

There are two candidates I know running in Quebec who deserve watching. One is Serge Ménard running as a BQ in a riding north of Montreal and the other is Bruno-Marie Béchard running as a Lib in Sherbrooke.

Both are very interesting people I have no doubt that both would become household names in Canada if elected.

Ménard will win (and despite his age, he may well become BQ leader). Béchard will probably lose.

My point is that with PR and party lists, Béchard would win and be an MP without riding. Under the current system, he'll "lose" and go back to being an engineer-rector.

But think what that means: First, the party bureaucracy becomes very powerful in deciding the party list. Second, party list winners lose touch with something important: ordinary people.

One reason Bill Clinton became president is because he met a lot of ordinary people in New Hampshire. On the other hand, Israel is fascinating because it does it strictly by votes and lists. In France, members of the National Assembly are mayors of their local cities/towns/villages. (Imagine a parliament with our mayors!)

If we had some version of PR in Canada, it would have to be provincial and respect the current relative weights of provinces. I think Quebecers would support the idea. I'll post it on my French forum and see what the response is.

[takeanumber]

If we had some version of PR in Canada, it would have to be provincial and respect the current relative weights of provinces

Doesn't that defeat one of the core purposes of PR, one person one vote?

That is of course, if you believe that one person is entitled to one vote.

[maplesyrup]

Apathy as a political force

So what do we keep doing? Using the exact same system ... and berating everyone who doesn't buy into it.

You know, there's a definition of insanity that argues it's simply, "repeating the same behavriour and expecting a different outcome" ...

Politicians have got to create an electoral system that lets you in and makes your vote count, no matter who you want to vote for.

Ask anyone under 30: It's a specialized, niche world out there. But we're still living under majority rule.

So, on election day, realistically there are two options: You can go vote, and reward a system and a form of government that has done little to deserve it your participation.

Or you don't vote, and you hit the politicians where it counts: Their vanity. If politicians want your attention, they've got to earn it — not produce propaganda telling you it's your responsibility to pay attention and vote for them.

No, it's their responsibility to listen first, then act — and in this case, our collective apathy speaks louder than any organized vote could.

[August1991]

Doesn't that defeat one of the core purposes of PR, one person one vote?

On the contrary, it means that if the Tories or NDP passed a certain threshold, they would have some members elected from Quebec by party list. And Liberals would have some Albertan MPs.

Whichever party wins, the Cabinet would have a "regional" voice.

Now, in addition, imagine the poltical significance of announcing the party list. When Harper announces his CPC list for Quebec, believe me, everyone would be curious to see the names. (There are many web sites in Europe with such lists. Here's an example. These names are irrelevant to you. But the names and their order mean something to the people in the community.)