dre Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 That ISN'T the same system. As I pointed out, why would we wreck the system that got us this far ? Parties allow for centralized control and organization so that like-minded groups can forge a general direction. Well, it's similar to the American system in design but yet it's much different in execution. I credit the powers that be for that. Sure it is. Our system already allows for independants but the parties have conspired to monopolize the political process to keep other voices out. Its almost impossible to win without party backing these days because they have made it so expensive to run. Our parliamentary system would function just fine with 300 independants or 300 or 100. And parties didnt used to have to the same power they have now... there used to be a lot more free votes, and it used to be a lot easier for non partisans to participate in politics. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Michael Hardner Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 Sure it is. Our system already allows for independants but the parties have conspired to monopolize the political process to keep other voices out. Its almost impossible to win without party backing these days because they have made it so expensive to run. Our parliamentary system would function just fine with 300 independants or 300 or 100. And parties didnt used to have to the same power they have now... there used to be a lot more free votes, and it used to be a lot easier for non partisans to participate in politics. There were parties from the start. Banning parties makes the system altogether different than what we have - and you haven't explained why that's necessary given the success that I have pointed out. "Our parliamentary system would function just fine..." says... you. Like people who promote PR, you understate the implications of major changes. More free votes would be a minor change that could improve things, banning parties would be an overhaul - though I'm not certain that is what you want. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
dre Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 There were parties from the start. Banning parties makes the system altogether different than what we have - and you haven't explained why that's necessary given the success that I have pointed out. "Our parliamentary system would function just fine..." says... you. Like people who promote PR, you understate the implications of major changes. More free votes would be a minor change that could improve things, banning parties would be an overhaul - though I'm not certain that is what you want. I dont claim to have thought this through enough to be able to tell you exactly how it would work. Im just throwing the idea out there. I see party politics as a huge problem though... political gangs and cartells are one of the most corruptive influences on the political system, and I just dont really see a compelling need for them. Nor do I see any reasons our system couldnt work without them. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
wyly Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 PR is just a dumb idea, IMO, but we have discussed here already extensively in threads devoted to that. the majority of the worlds democracies use some form of PR but Canada knows better? Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
myata Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 PR would only achieve what the proposed coalition would achieve anyway, wouldn't it ? If we accept the notion of coalition of parties as a way to ensure predictable and stable government in the situation where no single party has majority support, the existing representation system would become irrelevant and counter productive. The main intent of "first by the post" system is to produce majority governments, by consolidating electoral support into two main groups (government / opposition). This obviously leads to the two party model. Split opposition = domination of government party; the only viable strategy to defeat the government is to consolidate opposition. But what would be the point of it in a true multiparty situation? Why would smaller parties agree to a system that reshuffles electoral support from them in favour of the two dominant behemoths? What would be the meaning of our current situation where the coalition of Liberal/NDP, having more popular votes, has less representation than CPC? No, outside of "banish the parties" pipedream, there're only two viable options for our political system. Status quo of two dominant, stagnating behemoth parties, forever. Or dynamic multiparty system based on fair representation. Pretty much everybody else has figured out that much already. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Michael Hardner Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 the majority of the worlds democracies use some form of PR but Canada knows better? Again - explain why we need to change a system that is mature and works well for our country. Saying "Because Israel has it" isn't giving a good reason. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 No, outside of "banish the parties" pipedream, there're only two viable options for our political system. Status quo of two dominant, stagnating behemoth parties, forever. Or dynamic multiparty system based on fair representation. Pretty much everybody else has figured out that much already. Two options ? And the current 4-party system is not an option because ? Other countries do lots of things that we don't do - such as private healthcare. But if we're going to revive the stinking PR corpse let's do it in another thread. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted June 1, 2010 Report Posted June 1, 2010 bump Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
wyly Posted June 2, 2010 Report Posted June 2, 2010 Again - explain why we need to change a system that is mature and works well for our country. Saying "Because Israel has it" isn't giving a good reason. picking a country where it reflects screwed up politics as an example of PR isn't a good reason not to...it works well in many countries why wouldn't you pick one of those as your example?...our system works well only for those who benefit from it, it's like Robert Mugabe saying his one party system worked well for Zimbabwe...it worked well for his party for those not in his party not so much...our system deny's a fair democratic representation for millions of Canadians... not accepting a change to PR is the selfish view of those who prefer the status quo and are willing to deny representation to millions because they like things just the way they are, Mugabe logic... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted June 2, 2010 Report Posted June 2, 2010 But if we're going to revive the stinking PR corpse let's do it in another thread. let's not, coalitions and PR go hand in hand it's a natural outcome...if minority governments are becoming the standard it's time to accept that and let popular vote be fairly reflected in representation...it's time to grow up and move on from a semi-democracy to the real deal... I want a vote that means something, I want fair representation in parliament, I want someone other than a red necked banjo-picker speaking for me in the House..."first past the post" is democracy denied... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Jack Weber Posted June 2, 2010 Report Posted June 2, 2010 let's not, coalitions and PR go hand in hand it's a natural outcome... if minority governments are becoming the standard it's time to accept that and let popular vote be fairly reflected in representation...it's time to grow up and move on from a semi-democracy to the real deal... I want a vote that means something, I want fair representation in parliament, I want someone other than a red necked banjo-picker speaking for me in the House..."first past the post" is democracy denied... Wait a minute...I'm no fan of Mr.Harper,but he's no red necked banjo picker.I simply disagree with many of his party's policies.That's not a reason,in and of itself,to completely change how we elect people.The fact of the matter is that the opposition has not,as of yet,come up with any polices or leadership candidates that galvanize the public enough to vote for them in numbers great enough to defeat Mr.Harper.This is'nt to say PR does'nt intrigue me,I mean,theoretically,we could still end up with a governament like Mr.Harper's under a PR system, Your other point about continuous minority government is an interesting one.Mainly becaue if we had some sort of Proportional Representation system,we would need leaders with a completely different mindset.In otherwords,comprimise would have to trump ideology and constantly angling for an election... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
wyly Posted June 2, 2010 Report Posted June 2, 2010 Wait a minute...I'm no fan of Mr.Harper,but he's no red necked banjo picker.I simply disagree with many of his party's policies.That's not a reason,in and of itself,to completely change how we elect people.The fact of the matter is that the opposition has not,as of yet,come up with any polices or leadership candidates that galvanize the public enough to vote for them in numbers great enough to defeat Mr.Harper.This is'nt to say PR does'nt intrigue me,I mean,theoretically,we could still end up with a governament like Mr.Harper's under a PR system, I was just making a point, I don't think Harper is a redneck either...but there are a number of PCP who are, Rob Anders being the perfect example(cue the pointy white hats and banjo picking)...I don't know how many different political party representatives you've had in your life but there are people(liberals and NDP) here who have lived their entire lives with no other rep but a conservative and unless they move to another province never will...many have given up voting altogether, how is this good for democracy? we might as well be living in a one party state...30-35% of Albertans vote liberal, NDP and Green that represents about 1 million people who decade after decade have no voice in Ottawa, and without PR may never have a voice...we could still end up with a Harper government that's true but we'd have a real democracy where representation reflects the vote Your other point about continuous minority government is an interesting one.Mainly becaue if we had some sort of Proportional Representation system,we would need leaders with a completely different mindset.In otherwords,comprimise would have to trump ideology and constantly angling for an election......as long as we have this system the two main parties will continue their agenda rejecting PR because they enjoy the benefits/perks of it...as we can see now no one wants an election and there is a half hearted effort to work together to avoid one, but it's not an honest effort to govern for the good of the country but angling for opportune moment for a majority...if we had a PR system the constant maneuvering for a majority will be a thing of the past but still possible, but parliament can get on with making an honest effort to govern rather then endless Machiavellian scheming for a majority position...we've had minority governments before and they work, compromise is possible with mature adults...isn't compromise what the democratic system should be about... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Keepitsimple Posted June 2, 2010 Report Posted June 2, 2010 (edited) I was just making a point, I don't think Harper is a redneck either...but there are a number of PCP who are, Rob Anders being the perfect example(cue the pointy white hats and banjo picking Wyly....what you and others have trouble with is that you expect every MP to look and sound like they came from the city. For the most part, Liberals and NDP are urban parties - the Liberals being reduced to a mere Toronto/Montreal rump. Fact is, there are a lot of rural Canadian citizens - and they may seem like bumpkins to city folk - but they deserve to have their voices heard just as much as the next guy. So the point you are making is a divisive one and accentuates the Urban/Rural divide that infects Liberals. They would be better advised to develop policies that would enable them to actually elect rural MP's and become a true national party......much like the Conservatives have been concentrating on becoming more relevant in the big cities. For the Liberals to get back to power, they'll need to elect some of those "bumpkins". Edited June 2, 2010 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
Wild Bill Posted June 2, 2010 Report Posted June 2, 2010 picking a country where it reflects screwed up politics as an example of PR isn't a good reason not to...it works well in many countries why wouldn't you pick one of those as your example?... our system works well only for those who benefit from it, it's like Robert Mugabe saying his one party system worked well for Zimbabwe...it worked well for his party for those not in his party not so much...our system deny's a fair democratic representation for millions of Canadians... not accepting a change to PR is the selfish view of those who prefer the status quo and are willing to deny representation to millions because they like things just the way they are, Mugabe logic... Things are not that simple, wyly! Some of us have been against PR for other reasons than selfishness! The PR systems proposed so far and ESPECIALLY the one that appeared on the previous Ontario ballot didn't just address the lack of power to the smaller parties. They wanted to tilt the result in their favour! It's one thing to want better representation. It's quite another to want the extra MPs or MPPs selected by the parties themselves and not the people directly! As a populist the idea appalled me. Another factor is that so far the proposed systems ignored any need to preserve geographical representation. If your riding gets an extra representative it's natural to want one from your riding and not from 3000 miles away! Some Toronto type folks claim it doesn't make any difference but if you live in a "small town" riding it absolutely DOES! Toronto is NOT like the rest of Canada! One good thing about the First Past the Post system is that it sets a minimum bar to screen out "noise" candidates. There are always "yogic flyer" candidates that really don't represent a significant portion of the citizenry. Trying to accommodate EVERY Tom, Dick and Wingnut is both expensive and ultimately futile! If they can't achieve a minimum majority in a riding then you have to ask if they deserve anything at that level. Mind you, the real need for some sort of PR improvement is not at the riding level. A few hundreds of voters in many ridings adds up to a more respectable number of citizens who share some points of view and there's a good argument they deserve some change to the system! However, so far that's not at all what has been offered to us. The Ontario offering looked to me like solely and only a system to give disproportionately more power to those parties that are perennially unsuccessful in attracting any sort of mainstream support. They knew full well that they would never, ever increase their share of the popular vote so they wanted a system that would give them more power anyway! What's more, they wanted the freedom to appoint their own members and ignore any geographical ties in their selection! Screw them and the horses they rode in on! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Michael Hardner Posted June 2, 2010 Report Posted June 2, 2010 picking a country where it reflects screwed up politics as an example of PR isn't a good reason not to...it works well in many countries why wouldn't you pick one of those as your example?... I'm not trying to give examples of where it doesn't work. I picked a country at random, but thanks for the opinion that PR doesn't work there. I submitted that because saying "it works in country xyz" isn't enough of a reason to adopt it here. You happened to comment that it doesn't work in Israel. our system works well only for those who benefit from it, it's like Robert Mugabe saying his one party system worked well for Zimbabwe...it worked well for his party for those not in his party not so much...our system deny's a fair democratic representation for millions of Canadians... The system works for the whole country, not just for those whose party wins the election. You don't "win" when your party wins the election. Canada "wins" if its system provides for the people, and it does by most measures. not accepting a change to PR is the selfish view of those who prefer the status quo and are willing to deny representation to millions because they like things just the way they are, Mugabe logic... Selfish ? Again - the measure of success isn't "did my party win" it's "does the country function". And it does. In any case, only people who vote Liberal get their fair share of representation Federally, and under the proposed PR systems, we'd likely see Liberal coalitions for eternity. Not fair. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted June 2, 2010 Report Posted June 2, 2010 it's time to grow up and move on from a semi-democracy to the real deal... I want a vote that means something, I want fair representation in parliament, I want someone other than a red necked banjo-picker speaking for me in the House..."first past the post" is democracy denied... I also note that PR proponents necessarily have to bolster their arguments by name-calling on the other system, or calling it "old". Hell, Democracy itself is a lot older than China's current system (whatever that is) so let's adopt that ! Summary of bad arguments that I see recycled in favour of PR: 1. Other countries have it (so ?) 2. First past the post is old (so ?) 3. My NDP votes didn't result in Jack Layton winning last time (you don't hear this one too often, but it's the most honest one) Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
wyly Posted June 2, 2010 Report Posted June 2, 2010 Things are not that simple, wyly! Some of us have been against PR for other reasons than selfishness! The PR systems proposed so far and ESPECIALLY the one that appeared on the previous Ontario ballot didn't just address the lack of power to the smaller parties. They wanted to tilt the result in their favour! It's one thing to want better representation. It's quite another to want the extra MPs or MPPs selected by the parties themselves and not the people directly! As a populist the idea appalled me. there are numerous variations PR systems in the world we only need one that will work for us... Another factor is that so far the proposed systems ignored any need to preserve geographical representation. If your riding gets an extra representative it's natural to want one from your riding and not from 3000 miles away! Some Toronto type folks claim it doesn't make any difference but if you live in a "small town" riding it absolutely DOES! Toronto is NOT like the rest of Canada! think about going your entire life without represntation, I'd happily trade my local MP who never speaks for my views ever for a an MP 3000 miles away who does...and 3,000 miles is where my local MP is anyways... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
dre Posted June 2, 2010 Report Posted June 2, 2010 No, outside of "banish the parties" pipedream, there're only two viable options for our political system. Unfortunately youre probably right. Why would a political gang / cartell give up their monopoly? It would be like expecting mexican drug gangs to voluntarily disband. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
wyly Posted June 2, 2010 Report Posted June 2, 2010 Hell, Democracy itself is a lot older than China's current system (whatever that is) so let's adopt that ! the first democracy(Greek) wasn't a democracy...women couldn't vote and neither could slaves so hell lets use that it was good enough then or do you think it might be possible to improve on it?Summary of bad arguments that I see recycled in favour of PR:1. Other countries have it (so ?) 2. First past the post is old (so ?) 3. My NDP votes didn't result in Jack Layton winning last time (you don't hear this one too often, but it's the most honest one) 1-put that in perspective of a Chinese voter wanting democracy-Other countries have two or more parties (so) 2. Greek democracy (banning women and slaves)is old (so) 3. let's intsall a system that denies the liberals or conservatives fair representation forever(so) first past the post is undemocratic...society always moves forward improving as it goes, democracy has improved over time as well there reason to assume it is perfect now just because it's convenient to those who enjoy an unfair share of influence in government... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Michael Hardner Posted June 2, 2010 Report Posted June 2, 2010 1-put that in perspective of a Chinese voter wanting democracy-Other countries have two or more parties (so) 2. Greek democracy (banning women and slaves)is old (so) 3. let's intsall a system that denies the liberals or conservatives fair representation forever(so) Other countries having it, the idea being old... not valid reasons. The Conservatives have held power about 16 years of the last 50... proportional to their support. The NDP has shared power with the Liberals and the Liberals have held power the longest. Some of the systems proposed for PR are reasonable, such as a certain number of free floating seats to represent national parties that poll a certain number ... but other proposals amount to blowing up the house because there's a crack in the window. Keep in mind, also, that the BQ benefits the most from FPTP and dislodging them could awaken nationalist sentiments in Quebec. first past the post is undemocratic...society always moves forward improving as it goes, democracy has improved over time as well there reason to assume it is perfect now just because it's convenient to those who enjoy an unfair share of influence in government... Hyperbole. People who claim that our democracy is democratic overstate their case and lose my interest. Oh, and you brought up the 4th argument - "you like FPTP because your party wins". Not valid, and it amounts to an ad hominem. Furthermore, it would be very difficult for Conservatives to rule under PR so how is that democratic ? Removing representation for roughly 30% of the population to make the 15% NDPers happy ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Wild Bill Posted June 2, 2010 Report Posted June 2, 2010 there are numerous variations PR systems in the world we only need one that will work for us... think about going your entire life without represntation, I'd happily trade my local MP who never speaks for my views ever for a an MP 3000 miles away who does...and 3,000 miles is where my local MP is anyways... I agree there are various PR systems. The fact that we were only offered one flawed in the manner I described made me deeply suspicious as to the motives and character of those supporting it! As for "going your entire life without representation", welcome to the club! I'm a classic liberal at heart! After 57 years I've given up ever expecting such a ballot choice, let alone actually having such a representative MP or MPP! In Canada a modern liberal stands for whatever might win, at this particular moment only. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Michael Hardner Posted June 2, 2010 Report Posted June 2, 2010 think about going your entire life without represntation, I'd happily trade my local MP who never speaks for my views ever for a an MP 3000 miles away who does...and 3,000 miles is where my local MP is anyways... You are represented on national issues by a national party. Again, you're looking at this the wrong way. Look at the big picture - do you think Canada is successful as a country ? I do, and it is because we have a system that allows the party that wins to put its vision through, and modify it enough if it wants to remain in power. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted June 2, 2010 Report Posted June 2, 2010 As for "going your entire life without representation", welcome to the club! Yes, I'm only asking for parties that publish clear plans of what they plan to do and live up to it. I voted for Chretien the first time because I foolishly believed 'the red book' was it. It's hard to remember that honesty was his main selling point in the beginning. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
wyly Posted June 2, 2010 Report Posted June 2, 2010 Other countries having it, the idea being old... not valid reasons. it's absolutely valid, it's evidence it works despite examples being given where it does not because of unique internal politics such as Israel...if MDs in another country are successfully treating cancer with a new treatment do we ignore the results because others having success is not a valid reason...what bizarre logic...The Conservatives have held power about 16 years of the last 50... proportional to their support. The NDP has shared power with the Liberals and the Liberals have held power the longest. the NDP have never shared power, not deafeating a minority is not sharing power...with that logic the liberals are now sharing power with the CPC...Some of the systems proposed for PR are reasonable, such as a certain number of free floating seats to represent national parties that poll a certain number ... but other proposals amount to blowing up the house because there's a crack in the window. I would break it down provincially, a 1% portion of the vote equals one seat, we need not increase the total number of seat very much if at all....a party such as the Greens when they have the nearly same % of popular vote as the BQ deserves representation...Keep in mind, also, that the BQ benefits the most from FPTP and dislodging them could awaken nationalist sentiments in Quebec.or it might not, this is about democracy not beating up on Quebec...Hyperbole. People who claim that our democracy is democratic overstate their case and lose my interest. Oh, and you brought up the 4th argument - "you like FPTP because your party wins". Not valid, and it amounts to an ad hominem.it's valid because it's true, whatever party gains power with a majority it will do nothing to change a system that put them in that position...you have to be naive to trust politicians to do otherwise...change will only come with a minority government in a coalition...a jr partner(s) in the coalition will insist on the change as a condition of support as is being demonstrated in England Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted June 2, 2010 Report Posted June 2, 2010 I agree there are various PR systems. The fact that we were only offered one flawed in the manner I described made me deeply suspicious as to the motives and character of those supporting it! there are many that wouldn't work for us but that doesn't prevent us from creating one suited to us alone...just as suggestion why not have super ridings...here in Calgary we have 8 MPs, 8 ridings...why not elect all 8 from one large riding by PR, that could mean 5 CPC's 2 libs and 1NDP, for the first time in decades a sizable portion of the polulation would have a voice... As for "going your entire life without representation", welcome to the club! I'm a classic liberal at heart! After 57 years I've given up ever expecting such a ballot choice, let alone actually having such a representative MP or MPP!that's a depressing thought and not a functioning democracy ...think how much more depressing it would be if your MP was Rob Anders... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.