Let the coalitions begin.

[myata]

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.

No, they won't, but people can make them to, if they are interested to see the change and have will and persistence to see it through. One way to achieve it is to stop voting either of the two incumbents to power on principle, until one of them (or both) accept the need for the change. If we try that - and it's purely private democratic and legitimate act - I'm certain we'll see the change within a decade.

M-H: it was already explained that in a majoritary democracy there can be only two real parties (i.e those with a national agenda and meaningful representation): that of a government and, possibly, the opposition. Possibly because if opposition is split, the government party dominates political process, becoming the only real party in the country (yes we've been there). Other parties have no chance to obtain significant representation and exist only as background decorations of the main duo.

Now ask yourself a question, if you really prepared and want to see many parties representing many views and interests to appear and play role in the Parliament, would it still make sense to severely undercut their representation by cutting off all votes that did not result in winning a riding? On one hand, you want to see many parties elected; on the other, you're saying that only one choice (in a riding) really matters, all other are thrown away. Therein lies the unsurmountable logical contradiction, so pick what you really want: less real choices, more stable and predictable politics, even at the cost of stagnation; or more real choice, coalitions and certainly, more variable politics. One is direct opposite of the other and they can be combined in one system only in a dream.

Of course one doesn't even have to go to all these complexities. The simplest argument in favour of PR is that I have the right to a meaningful choice according to what I think and desire, and not from options prepared for me. In other words, I have a right to have my vote count regardless of peculiarities of electoral system. In a first by the post system it is simply not the case, as all votes that are not for the winning party are thrown away.

[wyly]

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.

they all lie...what happened the last time a politician told the truth about raising our taxes(carbon tax I think it was)...what happened to "I won't touch Income Trust"..or "We'll axe the tax"..."we won't have a deficit in 2009 we'll have a surplus"...canadians are victims of their own greed...we get bad governments because they tell us what we want to hear and we believe it...

[Michael Hardner]

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...

It works somewhere perhaps. Maybe even solves some problem they have or had.

What is our reason ?

Egypt likely has a Dept. of Camels. What do you think - should we have one ?

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...

Yes, they supported Trudeau in the 1970s in a minority government for example and (from my conversations from Liberals) Trudeau expressed satisfaction at being able to pass bills that were more to the left.

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...

That means you will have extreme far-right representation, at that level.

How much would you increase the total ?

I do see the value in giving the Greens and so forth some representation, but I think it should be at 5 or 10 %.

or it might not, this is about democracy not beating up on Quebec...

They won't buy that.

[wyly]

It works somewhere perhaps. Maybe even solves some problem they have or had.

What is our reason ?

are you not following the debate? we are not fully functioning democracy, millions of people are not being represented under this system, even the mother of all parliaments has recognized it isn't working...

Egypt likely has a Dept. of Camels. What do you think - should we have one ?

you're being fecetious

Yes, they supported Trudeau in the 1970s in a minority government for example and (from my conversations from Liberals) Trudeau expressed satisfaction at being able to pass bills that were more to the left.

did they hold cabinet positions? no..Harper has also passed bills with liberal support

That means you will have extreme far-right representation, at that level.

how so? in alberta the liberals and NDP would gain seats isnstead of the 1 seat now representing 35% of the population that did not vote CPC...under the new CPC proposal alberta will get 5 more seats so under FPTP 32 seats for the CPC and 1 for the 35% of us who don't vote conservative...keeping the FPTP increases the right wing imbalance...

How much would you increase the total ?

how would I know I haven't made a study of it...the CPC wants to increase the number of seat to 338

I do see the value in giving the Greens and so forth some representation, but I think it should be at 5 or 10 %.

at 5% 1 million people are left without a voice, that's a significant number...allowing one seat for every 1% of the popular vote would mean 3 seats in a 333 seat HC not a huge sacrifice to make for democracy...the exact formula for deciding representation needn't be found today or tomorrow just the will to look for better representation, what we have now leaves too many people out of the process...

They won't buy that.

just as I don't accept FPTP, there is always another way...

[Jack Weber]

"Egypt likely has a Department of Camels"

Edited June 2, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Michael Hardner]

are you not following the debate? we are not fully functioning democracy, millions of people are not being represented under this system, even the mother of all parliaments has recognized it isn't working...

Let me try to explain this another way.

"We are not a fully functioning democracy" is an opinion not a fact.

The function of a democracy isn't whether your candidate wins often enough, it's whether the people have a say. You need to reframe your opinion because saying that we don't have a functioning democracy sounds like chicken little saying the sky is falling.

Most people think we do have a functioning democracy, and these people won't easily believe you.

When I argue with PR folks, their biggest reason against FPTP is "it's not fair" but that is such a subjective statement. If your party regularly polls 15%, it doesn't necessarily mean you are allowed 15% of the power.

did they hold cabinet positions? no..Harper has also passed bills with liberal support

That's always a possibility with minority governments, although I don't think that they did in this case.

how so? in alberta the liberals and NDP would gain seats isnstead of the 1 seat now representing 35% of the population that did not vote CPC...under the new CPC proposal alberta will get 5 more seats so under FPTP 32 seats for the CPC and 1 for the 35% of us who don't vote conservative...keeping the FPTP increases the right wing imbalance...

If you give a seat for every 1% of the vote then extreme parties will garner seats as they poll more than 1%.

at 5% 1 million people are left without a voice, that's a significant number...allowing one seat for every 1% of the popular vote would mean 3 seats in a 333 seat HC not a huge sacrifice to make for democracy...the exact formula for deciding representation needn't be found today or tomorrow just the will to look for better representation, what we have now leaves too many people out of the process...

So do you propose a pure PR solution for the HofC ?

[dre]

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.

I actually think most of our success comes despite our government. We are probably the most geographically wealthy region in the world... we only have an international border with one country and that country is a close friend and boasts the largest consumer market in the world. We have some of the largest oil reserves in the world, some of the best forests, and among the longest coastlines.

Couple all that with a relatively small population and this is probably the easiest country in the whole world to run.

[Michael Hardner]

I actually think most of our success comes despite our government. We are probably the most geographically wealthy region in the world... we only have an international border with one country and that country is a close friend and boasts the largest consumer market in the world. We have some of the largest oil reserves in the world, some of the best forests, and among the longest coastlines.

Couple all that with a relatively small population and this is probably the easiest country in the whole world to run.

Likely some truth to that. But we have had challenges too.

[Topaz]

I heard some reporters say that they think that Harper may use the "coalition" to win a majority in the next election. I would think who ever is supporting Harper will support him but alot of things has happen since the last election and like other times voters do get tire of the same party and will eventually vote Harper out. I think its still smart of voters to only put minority governments in and by doing so, we can get a taste of what it would be like if the party has a majority. I rather see a coalition of the two parties than a merger because then voters wouldn't have the upper hand over the parties, by having 3 parties rather than 2 like the USA.

[wyly]

Let me try to explain this another way.

"We are not a fully functioning democracy" is an opinion not a fact.

The function of a democracy isn't whether your candidate wins often enough, it's whether the people have a say. You need to reframe your opinion because saying that we don't have a functioning democracy sounds like chicken little saying the sky is falling.

not an opinion it is a fact, FPTP does not accurately match representation with % of the popular vote millions of people have no representation...the system is flawed there not a fully functioning democracy because we have a partial democracy does not mean we shouldn't strive for something better...there was a time in our democracy when women, asians, and natives were not allowed to vote what was wrong with that "old" system then, why the need to change? because it was flawed, it wasn't democratic ...

Most people think we do have a functioning democracy, and these people won't easily believe you.

just as when women asians and natives weren't allowed to vote...it's time for a re-education...

When I argue with PR folks, their biggest reason against FPTP is "it's not fair" but that is such a subjective statement. If your party regularly polls 15%, it doesn't necessarily mean you are allowed 15% of the power.

why not? what issues do you have with 15% or 3.5 million people having representation? which is very possible with the Green party spread across the country how do you justify that?...what is fair about a party having 35-40% of the vote getting just short of 50% of the seats? and 15% getting none?

If you give a seat for every 1% of the vote then extreme parties will garner seats as they poll more than 1%.

and how is that a problem? do you imagine parliament coming to a stand still and the collapse of our state if the Greens come away with a massive 15 seats?...and extreme is subjective, I may consider any party that have nut jobs like Rob Anders in their midst extreme...I feel safer in a room full of a thousand Greens than alone in a room with Anders...

So do you propose a pure PR solution for the HofC ?

I don't know if that would be the best solution, but nearly any system that produces MPs in numbers closer to the popular vote and includes as many viewpoints as possible would be an improvement...a visit to wiki lists huge number of variations of PR,but I'm not an expert I couldn't tell you which version would work best for us... Edited June 3, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

I actually think most of our success comes despite our government. We are probably the most geographically wealthy region in the world... we only have an international border with one country and that country is a close friend and boasts the largest consumer market in the world. We have some of the largest oil reserves in the world, some of the best forests, and among the longest coastlines.

Couple all that with a relatively small population and this is probably the easiest country in the whole world to run.

we have a lot of things going for us, just as Alberta does(a dozen drunken monkeys spinning a bottle could do as well as the governments here)...but our weakness is our small population and large size, the infrastructure required and taxes needed to support it are a problem...

[Bonam]

we have a lot of things going for us, just as Alberta does(a dozen drunken monkeys spinning a bottle could do as well as the governments here)...but our weakness is our small population and large size, the infrastructure required and taxes needed to support it are a problem...

I'd take large size over small size any day. Our large size gives us tons of resources as well as huge potential for growth in the future, whereas many other nations are facing problems with overcrowding and lack of space.

[Michael Hardner]

not an opinion it is a fact, FPTP does not accurately match representation with % of the popular vote

What you are doing there is applying a subjective measure of fairness, and dismissing the whole system because of your subjective measure. I could just as easily take the same stance on representative democracy itself and say it's unfair by pointing out that direct democracy is a more pure system.

Because of the hyperbole you're engaging in, I don't accept your argument and in fact I find them deceptive.

what was wrong with that "old" system then, why the need to change? because it was flawed, it wasn't democratic ...

But the argument wasn't that the system was old, or it shouldn't have been. That in itself is not an argument, yet - because of the lack of evidence that PR provides any benefit - that is one of the reasons you consistently see trotted out.

why not? what issues do you have with 15% or 3.5 million people having representation? which is very possible with the Green party spread across the country how do you justify that?...what is fair about a party having 35-40% of the vote getting just short of 50% of the seats? and 15% getting none?

I think it's good that they have representation, but it doesn't mean that they should hold power, i.e. be the government, for 15% of the time for example.

"If my party has 5% of the vote, then they should run the government at least one year out of every twenty !"

There are a lot of similar ways to slice the mathematics of it.

and how is that a problem? do you imagine parliament coming to a stand still and the collapse of our state if the Greens come away with a massive 15 seats?...and extreme is subjective, I may consider any party that have nut jobs like Rob Anders in their midst extreme...I feel safer in a room full of a thousand Greens than alone in a room with Anders...

Right. Then prepare yourself for the Lictor party to rise in the house of commons during question period and read long harangues about why the Jews control society as useless parties like that are given access to a public podium.

I don't know if that would be the best solution, but nearly any system that produces MPs in numbers closer to the popular vote and includes as many viewpoints as possible would be an improvement...a visit to wiki lists huge number of variations of PR,but I'm not an expert I couldn't tell you which version would work best for us...

And I, too, am willing to consider solutions that don't swing the balance of power too much in any direction. Maybe 30 seats or so.

[myata]

Because one of the main issues with the Federal Liberal Party,at least to me,is that I don't think it would do a whole lot different from the Tories if it ever regained power.That seems obvious as it rarely goes after the Tories on substantive policy issues,but more on the "bad and unethical behaviour" side of things...

Even that is a natural result of development of binary political system. When there're only two dominant political parties, one in the power and one waiting to get in, neither has anything to gain from bold distinctive postition that would instantly open it to attacks and bring inherent risk. We'll end up, no ended up already with near twin political bureacracies alternating at the helm of the country.

Either way, through logical analysis, or simple principle of freedom of choice, our situation is dead clear: we can have a status quo of stagnating near identical monstrous political partocracies endowing us with stability and predictability we desire; or we can have real choice, real variety in our politics and take full responsibility for the outcome.

These two options are dead opposite and can be intermixed no more than water and lead. It's OK if we continue to choose predictability over freedom as long as its a conscious choice and we accept the cost. Although mental apathy and illiteracy is also a choice of a kind, and choices never fail to bring consequences, eventually.

[Machjo]

I'd take large size over small size any day. Our large size gives us tons of resources as well as huge potential for growth in the future, whereas many other nations are facing problems with overcrowding and lack of space.

I'd lived in Shanghai for a short time, and have visited Hong Kong. And I can tell you that they manage their population quite well. honestly, I'd love for most Canadian cities to fire all of their city planners and hire some from Hong Kong and other such places who actually know what they're doing and who know how to maximize the use of space.

[wyly]

What you are doing there is applying a subjective measure of fairness, and dismissing the whole system because of your subjective measure. I could just as easily take the same stance on representative democracy itself and say it's unfair by pointing out that direct democracy is a more pure system.

direct democracy is is a more pure system but it's very awkward to use, PR is certianly closer to direct democracy than what we have now...

But the argument wasn't that the system was old, or it shouldn't have been. That in itself is not an argument, yet - because of the lack of evidence that PR provides any benefit - that is one of the reasons you consistently see trotted out.

most of the worlds democracys use PR so yes it works...how is a more democratic system not a benefit? how is engaging more people in the democratic system not a benefit? how is fair representation not a benefit? a quick look in the history books will tell you millions of people died fighting for fair representation, and you want to put limits on representation because what we have is good enough, we don't have to worry about the few million who are denied a voice?

I think it's good that they have representation, but it doesn't mean that they should hold power, i.e. be the government, for 15% of the time for example.

"If my party has 5% of the vote, then they should run the government at least one year out of every twenty !"

There are a lot of similar ways to slice the mathematics of it.

and where in this discussion has anyone claimed that a party that gains 15% of the vote forms government???

Right. Then prepare yourself for the Lictor party to rise in the house of commons during question period and read long harangues about why the Jews control society as useless parties like that are given access to a public podium.

we have those types in parliament all the time, they keep their thoughts hidden...if they want to come out in the open and form their own parties let them I want to know who they are so I don't vote for them...

And I, too, am willing to consider solutions that don't swing the balance of power too much in any direction. Maybe 30 seats or so.

so then we agree, we just don't have a consensus on what arrangement would work best for Canada...

[Machjo]

direct democracy is is a more pure system but it's very awkward to use, PR is certianly closer to direct democracy than what we have now...

That depends. If the idea is that the MP is supposed to represent the wishes of his riding, then FPTP is more accurate than a system allowing people from elsewhere to select the local candidate (though granted having party names on the ballot also violates this principle as it makes people vote for parties rather than the best candidate, and on that front one could argue that as long as party names appear on the ballot and thus misleading people into believing that they're voting party when in fact they're voting candidate, that PR would be more honest by making them actually vote for party). If we remove party names from ballots, then FPTP is the best system.

If however push comes to shove and we must have PR, then certainly the rights of independents must be protected, in which case NP STV would be the next best option in that while it's not the most accurate representation of the wishes of the local population, at least independents can participate on an equal footing, unlike a list-system for example where independents' rights are simply wiped off the map.

[Shady]

wyly insists on PR because the ideas of himself, and others of his ilk, are so unpopular, they can't attain any real political power through our democratic process. PR would give his already rejected ideas and policies, a foot in the door. That's the only reason he's a PR proponent. If PR did the opposite. He'd be against it.

He's just a frustrated communist.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Shady

[Michael Hardner]

direct democracy is is a more pure system but it's very awkward to use, PR is certianly closer to direct democracy than what we have now...

Which is exactly the argument I use against PR... but what would you say to someone who continually said that PR "isn't fair" because it doesn't permit us to vote directly on things ?

most of the worlds democracys use PR so yes it works...how is a more democratic system not a benefit?

Yeah, there you go again.

I resent to how you frame the debate, and to me it reveals a lack of objective evidence for your side.

You can just keep saying "it's more fair" but that's a subjective valuation, like personal tastes.

we have those types in parliament all the time, they keep their thoughts hidden...if they want to come out in the open and form their own parties let them I want to know who they are so I don't vote for them...

It doesn't matter if you vote for them or not, you'll be giving them a pulpit in the HofC.

so then we agree, we just don't have a consensus on what arrangement would work best for Canada...

How many seats would you want to be designated to PR ?

Edited June 3, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[myata]

If however push comes to shove and we must have PR, then certainly the rights of independents must be protected, in which case NP STV would be the next best option in that while it's not the most accurate representation of the wishes of the local population, at least independents can participate on an equal footing, unlike a list-system for example where independents' rights are simply wiped off the map.

That is a good point and I agree that something would have to be done about it. But as explained in another thread, STV has problems of its own. So what if we have one half of the House elected from parties, the other - from non partisan local candidates (who could still use party affiliation in campaigning, but it won't be shown on the ballot)? A voter having a choice which way to vote (only one counts).

That would solve my problem for sure. And have people who want to vote locally for non partisan candidate satisfied as well.

[wyly]

Which is exactly the argument I use against PR... but what would you say to someone who continually said that PR "isn't fair" because it doesn't permit us to vote directly on things ?

how does it not let us vote directly on anything? you vote as you always would or should...don't like the party or what their platform is or their candidates don't for them...the reason you vote doesn't change only how those votes are turned into seats...

Yeah, there you go again.

I resent to how you frame the debate, and to me it reveals a lack of objective evidence for your side.

You can just keep saying "it's more fair" but that's a subjective valuation, like personal tastes.

I could say I resent how you frame the debate by claiming it's fair enough let's ignore those millions without representation, who cares...

fair representation isn't subjective, either there is full representation or there is not there is no grey area...

It doesn't matter if you vote for them or not, you'll be giving them a pulpit in the HofC.

they already have a pulpit in the HoC it's called the CPC only most of them are gagged by the PMO...I want them identified and marginalized I don't want them hiding in the ranks of our government, let them have their 10% of the vote and seats that go along with it aren't we a nation of free speech?...

How many seats would you want to be designated to PR ?

how many times have you asked that? I don't know! I haven't done a study of all the PR systems of the world as yet...ideally all would be PR but that may not be feasible in a country of our geographical size...

[Michael Hardner]

how does it not let us vote directly on anything? you vote as you always would or should...don't like the party or what their platform is or their candidates don't for them...the reason you vote doesn't change only how those votes are turned into seats...

Well, since my criticism of PR was just hypothetical, and meant to illustrate my problem with your approach, I should just pass on by without answering.

But, I meant that with PR you elect representatives to vote on issues, as with any representative democracy. You don't get to vote on the direct issue yourself.

I could say I resent how you frame the debate by claiming it's fair enough let's ignore those millions without representation, who cares...

Notice the difference: You characterized my point of view as claiming "it's fair enough". That is now I would represent it. I don't think it's "fair" to the nth degree but no system is.

fair representation isn't subjective, either there is full representation or there is not there is no grey area...

Then you can only believe in direct democracy with individual votes on every issue. Not practical, though, as the system has to sacrifice absolute fairness for expendiency.

Bad for you, bad for me, good for all of us.

they already have a pulpit in the HoC it's called the CPC only most of them are gagged by the PMO...I want them identified and marginalized I don't want them hiding in the ranks of our government, let them have their 10% of the vote and seats that go along with it aren't we a nation of free speech?...

I don't expect that there are CPC members who are anything like what the Lictor party would unleash on us.

We're not a nation of free speech, in that we restrict hate speech unlike in the US.

how many times have you asked that? I don't know! I haven't done a study of all the PR systems of the world as yet...ideally all would be PR but that may not be feasible in a country of our geographical size...

I'm asking you what you would really feel would be fair to you. If you have no idea, then is it 3 ? 300 ? How many seats would you be satisfied with, at a minimum or haven't you thought it through enough ?

[Shady]

I don't know! I haven't done a study of all the PR systems of the world as yet...ideally all would be PR but that may not be feasible in a country of our geographical size...

Sounds like you haven't really thought through the issue very well.