Anyone for NP PR?

[Machjo]

With all the talk about non-partisan democracy vs proportional representation, would it not be possible for both sides to get what they want?

For instance, not all forms of PR are party-based; STV (single-transferable ballot) is still based on the candidate and not the party. Why could we not remove party names from the ballots on the one hand, but introduce an STV ballot on the other. This would provide a form of PR that woudl still not penalize independent candidates unfairly.

This way, the non-partisan crowd and the PR crowd could get what they want (i.e. a non-partisan PR ballot).

Any thought on this as a solution?

Edited June 3, 2010 by Machjo

[Michael Hardner]

Any thought on this as a solution?

A solution to what ?

What is this business of supplying solutions to non-problems ? People who vote NDP and Green thinking it's not fair that their candidate never wins - to my mind - isn't a top-priority issue.

For the record, I regularly vote for such parties and recognize that our system already accommodates them through power-sharing, coalitions and the like. This is Canada, and the system works. It's not going to get more left-wing than it already is, but if you shake it up, it could well go the other way.

We need to prioritize delivery of services as that is not adequately prioritized now.

[Machjo]

Clearly people think it is an issue and that's why I'd put it out. Some people are pushing for PR, and what concerns me is that parties end up having even more power than they do now, thus strangling us by the balls even more than they do now.

I do not want democracy hijacked by political parties, and so if ever push came to shove and the PR crowd were, winning, then I'd hope it's an NP PR position and not something like a list system that would essentially shut independents out from the democratic process completely.

For me, it's crucial for democracy that it not be hijacked by political parties.

[M.Dancer]

Any thought on this as a solution?

Yes...it ain't a solution...ignore it

[wyly]

With all the talk about non-partisan democracy vs proportional representation, would it not be possible for both sides to get what they want?

For instance, not all forms of PR are party-based; STV (single-transferable ballot) is still based on the candidate and not the party. Why could we not remove party names from the ballots on the one hand, but introduce an STV ballot on the other. This would provide a form of PR that woudl still not penalize independent candidates unfairly.

This way, the non-partisan crowd and the PR crowd could get what they want (i.e. a non-partisan PR ballot).

Any thought on this as a solution?

sounds good in theory I don't know if it's practical...

[Machjo]

sounds good in theory I don't know if it's practical...

Personally, I prefer NP FPTP (i.e. the current system minus party names on the ballots) as that is the best way to represent the local riding.

That said, if it ever came down to a choice of PR systems and FPTP were no longer an option, then I'd be pushing for NP STV as a way of at least ensuring the democratic rights of independents, as a second-best option if you will.

[Michael Hardner]

Let's elect people who will vote for MPs ? Or maybe MPs should vote for their constituents and if you "win" then you have to move to the riding in which your elected MP (the MP who elected you) is located.

Seriously, though, we have two main things that government does:

1. New initiatives

2. Ongoing services.

#2 is far far more important than #1 most of the time. We should be focusing on what they deliver, and how.

[myata]

A solution to what ?

What is this business of supplying solutions to non-problems ? People who vote NDP and Green thinking it's not fair that their candidate never wins - to my mind - isn't a top-priority issue.

The problem for me at least. is that in this democracy I cannot make my vote count. I'm faced with a choice premade for me - Tweedledum A or Tweedledum B or throw it away. And I'm long past the age of two when people make this kind of choices. So faced with this artificial choice I can only choose one option remaining to an independent individual - not participate in the process. And I think that I'm not alone.

However, STV won't solve this problem. Really why would one be reluctunt to vote for a candidate appointed by a party committee, but be OK with transfering vote somewhere thousands miles to somebody they (or majority of voters) would know nothing about?

Then, the parties won't go away just because they aren't on the list. Common interests, common goals, common programs will persist and prevail even if not immediately visibile on the ballot. The thing will become a nightmare of vote transfer strategisms.

So, instead of looking for outlandish solutions, why not just ask (and answer) in honesty to ourselves, what kind of political choices we desire? Seriously why don't we run a referendum with only a few options, like:

1. I want all independent MPs = banish political parties and end up with a 300+ strong city council.

2. I don't want to make any choices = declare one party (toss a coin if necessary) as the only legitimate party in the country

3. I want to make as few political choices as possible without going to #2: keep the current system, it guarantees you exactly two choices: for the government and against it.

4. I want to be able to make political choice that counts from all the variety of ideas that exist in the country = proportional representation. If we want to be able to choose from the whole spectrum of political ideas, there's neither rational nor justifiable reason to restrict or distort it - other than maybe cutting off really marginal parts of the spectrum (participation threshold).

It is really this simple. What we want (deep inside, truly) is what we get.

[Machjo]

The problem for me at least. is that in this democracy I cannot make my vote count. I'm faced with a choice premade for me - Tweedledum A or Tweedledum B or throw it away. And I'm long past the age of two when people make this kind of choices. So faced with this artificial choice I can only choose one option remaining to an independent individual - not participate in the process. And I think that I'm not alone.

However, STV won't solve this problem. Really why would one be reluctunt to vote for a candidate appointed by a party committee, but be OK with transfering vote somewhere thousands miles to somebody they (or majority of voters) would know nothing about?

I think you totally misunderstood STV. It's based on candidates in nearby ridings. for example, an STV ballot might lump 3 or 4 or 5 or how many ridings together, whereby the populaiton of that region selects so many among the candidates of that region in order of preference. That's why it's called STV. So it's not a pure form of proportional representation, but at least it allows for independent candidates to participate, and if you don't like any of the options in your riding, you can still vote for the neighbouring riding's. So it essentially sist somewhere between FPTP and PR,while still allowing independents to participate. STV would give you no say in choosing candidates across the ocuntry and parties have little to no power over it since you are still voting for persons, not parties. In that sense, it's similar to FPTP. It's essentially a kind of hybrid between FPTP and STV.

So I really don't know what you're talking about when you say thousands of miles away? Unless you're confusing it with the list system?

Then, the parties won't go away just because they aren't on the list. Common interests, common goals, common programs will persist and prevail even if not immediately visibile on the ballot. The thing will become a nightmare of vote transfer strategisms.

Again, I have no clue what you're talkin aobut because STV as no 'list'. Again, I think you're confusing STV with the list system.

[myata]

So I really don't know what you're talking about when you say thousands of miles away? Unless you're confusing it with the list system?

OK thanks for clarification! I read about country wide STV, where a Green voter in Ottawa would be able to cast their vote in Vancouver.

[wyly]

I think you totally misunderstood STV. It's based on candidates in nearby ridings. for example, an STV ballot might lump 3 or 4 or 5 or how many ridings together, whereby the populaiton of that region selects so many among the candidates of that region in order of preference. That's why it's called STV. So it's not a pure form of proportional representation, but at least it allows for independent candidates to participate, and if you don't like any of the options in your riding, you can still vote for the neighbouring riding's. So it essentially sist somewhere between FPTP and PR,while still allowing independents to participate. STV would give you no say in choosing candidates across the ocuntry and parties have little to no power over it since you are still voting for persons, not parties. In that sense, it's similar to FPTP. It's essentially a kind of hybrid between FPTP and STV.

so how will that change anything?

lets say my city has 8 seats what's to prevent the majority from selecting all 8 from one party the 35% who have no representation now will still have no representation as their selections finish 9-16...

maybe I'm not understanding this correctly...

[wyly]

OK thanks for clarification! I read about country wide STV, where a Green voter in Ottawa would be able to cast their vote in Vancouver.

I think that works in compact countries in europe living in one time zone but here the regions are very distinct we're like mini countries with little contact with each other...

[eyeball]

#2 is far far more important than #1 most of the time. We should be focusing on what they deliver, and how.

Focus with what?

As for what their delivering...for the most part and in my region at least, they're divesting themselves of anything that costs them money and tightening their grip on the things that don't. They're doing this in a very undemocratic manner given the near total absence of any local input to their decisions and actions.

There's nothing new in the way they're doing this so as far as their initiative goes it's just the same old same old. I agree we should be focusing on what they are doing, but why is far and away more important than how.

How is obvious compared to why.

[madmax]

A solution to what ?

Exactly...

[madmax]

Yes...it ain't a solution...ignore it

Its not a solution, because the problem wasn't identified.

[eyeball]

Its not a solution, because the problem wasn't identified.

That's why I asked, focus with what?

We can't identify what we can't see and given the problem with our democracy is the lack of transparency...

Edited June 3, 2010 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

The problem for me at least. is that in this democracy I cannot make my vote count.

Your problem is that you're measuring that by whether your candidate wins or not. That's a mistake. Take a look at how much influence your party has on the nation as a whole and you'll see that it is significant.

I'm faced with a choice premade for me - Tweedledum A or Tweedledum B or throw it away. And I'm long past the age of two when people make this kind of choices. So faced with this artificial choice I can only choose one option remaining to an independent individual - not participate in the process. And I think that I'm not alone.

You are participating in the process, but you do not have enough people who agree with you to get the kind of power that goes with actually winning.

1. I want all independent MPs = banish political parties and end up with a 300+ strong city council.

So, you want the rest of Canada to vote on effectively dynamiting our system because your candidate never wins ?

Get real.

2. I don't want to make any choices = declare one party (toss a coin if necessary) as the only legitimate party in the country

3. I want to make as few political choices as possible without going to #2: keep the current system, it guarantees you exactly two choices: for the government and against it.

4. I want to be able to make political choice that counts from all the variety of ideas that exist in the country = proportional representation. If we want to be able to choose from the whole spectrum of political ideas, there's neither rational nor justifiable reason to restrict or distort it - other than maybe cutting off really marginal parts of the spectrum (participation threshold).

It is really this simple. What we want (deep inside, truly) is what we get.

We get: a system with a cradle-to-grave social safety net, that protects individual rights, allows for people to pursue happiness in a pluralistic and tolerant society, that provides one of the best business environments in the world.

This, according to PR advocates, is a big problem and we should ban (!) political parties because, effectively, there are no Green Party MPs.

I will throw you a bone and say, let's provide a few seats to parties that poll above, say, 10% nationally but don't win any seats. Even if we provide five seats, they will hold the balance of power from time to time, and have influence far above their numbers so that should be enough for you.

[myata]

The problem for me at least. is that in this democracy I cannot make my vote count. I'm faced with a choice premade for me - Tweedledum A or Tweedledum B or throw it away. And I'm long past the age of two when people make this kind of choices. So faced with this artificial choice I can only choose one option remaining to an independent individual - not participate in the process. And I think that I'm not alone.

Great apologies for quoting self, but it describes the problem. That is serious enough for me to the extent that I did not participate in the last election and not planning to in any near future, i.e till things change (or at least there's real possibility of such change).

[Michael Hardner]

Focus with what?

Focus our attention on improving, making changes...

There's nothing new in the way they're doing this so as far as their initiative goes it's just the same old same old. I agree we should be focusing on what they are doing, but why is far and away more important than how.

How is obvious compared to why.

Why then ? And why discuss why ?

If we want to monitor what they're doing, can't we just agree on THAT and leave 'why' out of it ? We can make change happen without agreeing on the motivations behind it: for example, you may institute an honour system because you assume people are essentially good, or because you assume that they're afraid of bringing shame upon themselves. Does it matter that much what you're saying about human nature there ?

[myata]

Your problem is that you're measuring that by whether your candidate wins or not. That's a mistake. Take a look at how much influence your party has on the nation as a whole and you'll see that it is significant.

How much influence has a party with no representation in the legislature? As defined by whom? No thanks, I'm not interested in wordly games, outgrown that. I vote, I see the result or I don't take part in the show.

You are participating in the process, but you do not have enough people who agree with you to get the kind of power that goes with actually winning.

That has nothing to do with having my vote count. Why should it depend on the choice of other people? Should other people decide what you read? Where you will work?

So, you want the rest of Canada to vote on effectively dynamiting our system because your candidate never wins ?

No, you misunderstood. The four are logical options about political system people can have. A choice equals or rather leads to a conclusion, outcome.

We get: a system with a cradle-to-grave social safety net, that protects individual rights, allows for people to pursue happiness in a pluralistic and tolerant society, that provides one of the best business environments in the world.

So you want status quo at the expense of freedom of choice. Your option is #3.

I will throw you a bone and say, let's provide a few seats to parties that poll above, say, 10% nationally but don't win any seats. Even if we provide five seats, they will hold the balance of power from time to time, and have influence far above their numbers so that should be enough for you.

Thanks, but I said that what I want is meaningful political choice. So a bone wouldn't cut it.

Edited June 3, 2010 by myata

[eyeball]

Focus our attention on improving, making changes...

I said focus with what, not on what. The mechanisms and processes that we need to see into the government with just don't exist or if they do they are so ill-suited and outmoded for the times and speed with which issues unfold as to be non-existent.

Why then ? And why discuss why ?

Why indeed. There really isn't that much point in discussing what we can't see.

If we want to monitor what they're doing, can't we just agree on THAT and leave 'why' out of it?

No way. Not in a world where private lobbying and government secrecy are both given and taken to be a right and a privilege.

We can make change happen without agreeing on the motivations behind it: for example, you may institute an honour system because you assume people are essentially good, or because you assume that they're afraid of bringing shame upon themselves. Does it matter that much what you're saying about human nature there ?

Our motivation you mean? I guess we're both after the same thing but your approach is far too incremental and timid for my liking. I simply want MP's and Cabinet Ministers to live up to their claim that they're as right and honorable as they say. I don't believe them as far as I can spit and I suspect I can spit a lot farther than you.

[M.Dancer]

No way. Not in a world where private lobbying and government secrecy are both given and taken to be a right and a privilege.

Private lobbying is illegal....move on

[Michael Hardner]

How much influence has a party with no representation in the legislature? As defined by whom? No thanks, I'm not interested in wordly games, outgrown that. I vote, I see the result or I don't take part in the show.

A party with no representation ? Not much.

How much influence should a party that can't elect a single representative have ?

That has nothing to do with having my vote count. Why should it depend on the choice of other people? Should other people decide what you read? Where you will work?

That's an interesting take on democracy: "Why should democracy depending on the choice of others ?"

In other words, it should be up to you to decide. Sounds good.

No, you misunderstood. The four are logical options about political system people can have. A choice equals or rather leads to a conclusion, outcome.

Banning parties is not a logical option to solve a problem to give the Green Party some kind of voice in parliament.

So you want status quo at the expense of freedom of choice. Your option is #3.

Hyperbole. We have freedom of choice. Look at the ballot next time and there are many choices. Yours may not win, but you can still choose them.

Thanks, but I said that what I want is meaningful political choice. So a bone wouldn't cut it.

You have choice, but you want your party to have power when they haven't convinced people that they deserve it.

----

As I told Wyly, I'm willing to give a few seats to MPs that get enough votes nationally, but you have to be careful about that. Setting the bar too low means you will have circus freaks in the HofC.

[eyeball]

Private lobbying is illegal....move on

Sorry, I meant corporate.

[Michael Hardner]

I said focus with what, not on what. The mechanisms and processes that we need to see into the government with just don't exist or if they do they are so ill-suited and outmoded for the times and speed with which issues unfold as to be non-existent.

Right.

So we can just make it clear that we, as owners of the corporation that is Canada, deserve at least the level of performance reports that shareholders would need. Including costs, performance stats... the same thing you'd expect in a glossy mutual fund pamphlet, or maybe more.

I guess we're both after the same thing but your approach is far too incremental and timid for my liking. I simply want MP's and Cabinet Ministers to live up to their claim that they're as right and honorable as they say. I don't believe them as far as I can spit and I suspect I can spit a lot farther than you.

My approach is reasonable, and doesn't require any major changes. People have to ask for it, and government just has to do it. And yet, even that seems impossible to capture peoples' imaginations with. At least to me.

Chretien's Red Book was forgotten, basically, after he was elected so how can you expect them to deliver something more stringent ?