Anyone for NP PR?

[Smallc]

can they stop it if the rest of the country agrees? and even if they can stop it allowing PEI 4 seats is a small consession...

No, PEI would have to agree. The floor on HoC seats is part of the the Constitution the required unanimous consent to change.

[wyly]

No, PEI would have to agree. The floor on HoC seats is part of the the Constitution the required unanimous consent to change.

not a big deal PEI having 4 seats but then to be fair that same consideration should be applied to the territories if and when they become provinces...

if it's unanimous consent that is needed can the current plan for more seats be prevented?

Edited June 4, 2010 by wyly

[Smallc]

not a big deal PEI having 4 seats but then to be fair that same consideration should be applied to the territories if and when they become provinces...

I don't think the territories will ever become provinces. I could be wrong mind you, but then, adding another province is something else that (IIRC) requires unanimous consent.

[August1991]

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?

Machjo, if you are really interested in this question, I suggest that you do some research on collective decision making theory.

Fundamentally, there are two basic problems with current voting mechanisms for making collective decisions based on individual choice. First, there is no way to register how strongly individuals feel about a particular issue. At present, everything is reduced down to a single ballot with a few names. (Your STV partly solves this problem because it forces individuals to list choices according to priority.) Secondly, and perhaps most important, each individual receives no benefit from making a choice.

The idea of PR does not solve either of these problems.

For all intents, our current voting system (even with PR) is equivalent to asking the Japanese to choose our PM while we vote for their PM.

To understand this better, compare how people in Canada go about choosing which car to buy, and how they go about deciding which federal candidate/party to vote for. And yet, for most people, their federal taxes are greater than their car payments.

Canadians of all stripes protect their entitlements and that will not change.

All stripes? In politics, we may have dispensed with religion but Canadians still identify with their language and region. This was true in 1867 and it's still true.

I often argue here that regionalism, not ideology, drives Canadian federal politics.

Edited June 5, 2010 by August1991

[myata]

Still, you're trying to convince people - and the people on this board tend to be convinced by rational arguments rather than the persuasive "sell job". You can say "our system could be fairer - millions of people could conceivably vote for a party that gets no seats" and a thinking person would say ... hmmm ... there's something to that. But it you say "THE SYSTEM IS UNFAIR !!!! THEIR ARE NO CHOICES TO BE MADE !!!!" (caps are mine) then you come across as a zealot.

Thanks for the advice. I do think though that there's no need for a movement or anything of a kind here, there's already five movements for every dime of political space. This problem can be solved by a private choice of a mature thinking individual. I'll make a choice if I have it; and if I can't make a real, meaningful choice, what would be the point of my playing into the rules that deprive me of it? Decide for yourself - and make your choice. Just that, independent individual making mature independent choices would solve the problem faster and easier than five movements writing 500 letters a day to political establishment that has nothing to gain and everything to lose from the change.

The powers that be do change, if pressure is brought to bear. If you're not going to vote, it sounds like you will be making use of other institutions (free speech, protest, for example) so good for you.

Indeed change can brought from outside system, there're multiple examples of that (I wonder if overall and in major issues it's more often the case than not). In this case system is constructed in such a way that there'd be no rational reason to expect it to show any interest in changing till it absolutely and unavoidably have to. I suggest to try exactly that, ie. create situation where it has no choice but to change.

Well, again, you have to keep in mind that you're dealing with the mainstream here. They will only absorb what makes sense.

Look at it this way - 30 years ago gay marriage was unthinkable. Now it's supported. How did that change ? The NDP wasn't elected.

I agree it's probably a matter of time although I think there's a cause for concern in the way our political institution and people are reluctant to change and innovate. As demonstrated earlier, every single FPTP democracy has experimented in some way. Except us. We keep ourselves holier than the Pope of FPTP democracy, for us even perfectly legal coalitions are still an unknown entity and taboo. What's is it is a matter for another thread, but it may not be helpful in our development, world now being more dynamic, flexible and volatile than 160 years ago in a remote and barely settled land.

But, I don't agree that the system is outdated. I think that the party system has survived for hundreds of years and serves democracy well. I don't think that 'modern life' itself makes FPTP outdated. I think that the system as it is needs to change in other ways to adapt to the complexities we have today.

But we already saw here that Canada is the very last democracy at least in the first world with a pure unmodified in any way FPTP system. Just about everybody else has moved on. This refutes the argument of "hundred years". Then, there are obvious problems with the very principles of representation that lead to exclusion of masses of voters; then the system hides real political spectrum of the country in vaguely shaped conglomerates that makes it harder to establish real political direction and generally hides the working of politics behind almost shapeless facade (e.g. CPC vs socially conservative wing). Yes you can say that it works but it works by exclusion, obfuscation and dumbing down of voters. As an independently minded and politically conscious individual I can't see how I could any longer participate in it, so no, it does not work for me, I admire all the past achievements but I'm not prepared to pay that price, going forward.

A lot the problems that PR people see, to my mind, is actually an effect of mass society - mass marketing, mass media and so on. As such, adding PR only arranges the deck chairs and doesn't address the problem that the masses aren't getting good information. PR folks tend to resent those who accept pablum (paraphrasing you here) and understandably so.

I can't see how any information can change the fact that system exists by severely limiting choice (as already pointed out - to the minimum possible that is not an obvious dictatorship) and exclusion of voters who do not support binary status quo.

But making PR, doesn't address the main problem: people are accepting pablum. Instead, it tries to give more power to those who are a step ahead of the masses, if you will.

I see it as giving those "masses" the real choice. That's the only way that can be had (a society cannot be better that it is), short of paternalising the masses and setting up their choices for them.

[Michael Hardner]

Myata - thanks for the post. I have two excerpts to comment on:

Thanks for the advice. I do think though that there's no need for a movement or anything of a kind here, there's already five movements for every dime of political space. This problem can be solved by a private choice of a mature thinking individual. I'll make a choice if I have it; and if I can't make a real, meaningful choice, what would be the point of my playing into the rules that deprive me of it? Decide for yourself - and make your choice. Just that, independent individual making mature independent choices would solve the problem faster and easier than five movements writing 500 letters a day to political establishment that has nothing to gain and everything to lose from the change.

Again, it's how you're framing it. You have 'choice' but the results of the choices make for a limited number of outcomes, perhaps.

We have a paradigm of democracy and choice, but the mechanics of how those choices manifest themselves into a direction for the government is the question. A government that has the power to enact its vision has, for Canada, been very successful.

The motivation for choice seems to be coming from a small minority who never see their votes result in elected candidates. That's fair, and I have suggested some solutions but we're likely talking about 10% of voters aren't we ?

I see it as giving those "masses" the real choice. That's the only way that can be had (a society cannot be better that it is), short of paternalising the masses and setting up their choices for them.

The changes you are talking about won't, to my mind, take any votes away from Liberals and Conservatives. I see them taking a lot of power from the Conservatives, ultimately, as I can't see how they could make a coalition with the smaller parties.

[eyeball]

But my take is that your complaints are with the mainstream of Canadians not listening to your POV. My solution is find ways to speak to them so that they listen to you. If your ideas are good, then they will be convinced.

So what your saying is that to effect changes to the way our fisheries are managed in my region fishermen in my community have to convince people in places like Toronto to elect a government that is sympathetic to us? We get one chance every four or five years to do this?

This is a completely ridiculous system.

Edited June 5, 2010 by eyeball

[wyly]

Just that, independent individual making mature independent choices would solve the problem faster and easier than five movements writing 500 letters a day to political establishment that has nothing to gain and everything to lose from the change.

recall the BC vote with a 60% needed approval and 50% of electoral districts and the liberal government stated even if those conditions were met it was not bound to act on them...57% approved and 77 out of 79 electoral districts approved...it's not surprising the 2nd vote fell flat the message was clear the ruling party will never change a system that put them into power...it was democracy denied...

I can't see how any information can change the fact that system exists by severely limiting choice (as already pointed out - to the minimum possible that is not an obvious dictatorship) and exclusion of voters who do not support binary status quo.

works for China with it's one party system and exclude a billion, Micheals logic would support that because that system works so there's no need to upset the staus quo...

[wyly]

The motivation for choice seems to be coming from a small minority who never see their votes result in elected candidates. That's fair, and I have suggested some solutions but we're likely talking about 10% of voters aren't we ?

more than 10%, I live in a province where 35% are never represented in the HoC...not everyone in Alberta hates the east, not all of us want to see the irresponsible exploitation of the tar sands...and I say the same could be applied to Quebec even though the BQ dominates a good portion of that population does not support their separatist leanings but they have little representation because of FPTP...

The changes you are talking about won't, to my mind, take any votes away from Liberals and Conservatives. I see them taking a lot of power from the Conservatives, ultimately, as I can't see how they could make a coalition with the smaller parties.

ah so there's the issue...the conservatives have no way to grow into a majority...that's what happens when a moderate party allies themselves with the extreme right...

[Smallc]

more than 10%, I live in a province where 35% are never represented in the HoC...not everyone in Alberta hates the east, not all of us want to see the irresponsible exploitation of the tar sands...and I say the same could be applied to Quebec even though the BQ dominates a good portion of that population

I've always said that Alberta and Quebec are the best examples of why PR should happen. Alberta appears to be almost wholly Conservative when in fact the number is more along the lines of 60%. Similarly, Quebec appears to be about 2/3 Bloc supporters, when in fact the number is actually about 40%.

[Machjo]

I've always said that Alberta and Quebec are the best examples of why PR should happen. Alberta appears to be almost wholly Conservative when in fact the number is more along the lines of 60%. Similarly, Quebec appears to be about 2/3 Bloc supporters, when in fact the number is actually about 40%.

To ensure an equal chance for independents though, any kind of PR system would have to be candidate-based and not a party-list though, such as SNTV or some other such system.

There is also STV as an option, though it could prove more complicated a system and thus more prone to error. SNTV, though somewhat proportional, is a very easy system to understand for the average person.

Edited June 5, 2010 by Machjo

[Smallc]

To ensure an equal chance for independents though, any kind of PR system would have to be candidate-based and not a party-list though, such as SNTV or some other such system.

There is also STV as an option, though it could prove more complicated a system and thus more prone to error. SNTV, though somewhat proportional, is a very easy system to understand for the average person.

I disagree. I don't see it as a necessity, especially if the major cities (of over either 1M of 500K) were subdivided off from the provinces. They could act as large defacto constituencies. I think that if wer're looking at actually giving people a voice based on the popular vote, pure list PR is the only way to go. With the provinces and major cities being sobdivided, there wouldn't even be the problem of fringe groups having a large voice (since at current population levels, no area would have anywhere near 100 MPs).

Regardless, it's something to be studied rather than implemented wrecklessly.

[Machjo]

I disagree. I don't see it as a necessity, especially if the major cities (of over either 1M of 500K) were subdivided off from the provinces. They could act as large defacto constituencies. I think that if wer're looking at actually giving people a voice based on the popular vote, pure list PR is the only way to go. With the provinces and major cities being sobdivided, there wouldn't even be the problem of fringe groups having a large voice (since at current population levels, no area would have anywhere near 100 MPs).

Regardless, it's something to be studied rather than implemented wrecklessly.

If you make it a party-list system though, then you depersonalize it and remove it from the grassroots in that to run as a candidate you must then first join a political party and work your way up its ranks, not to mention that then the public no longer gets to vote for a candidate but rather only for a party, with the party then choosing the candidate.

For instance, we currently have one independent MP in the House right now (sorry, now two with Guergis added to the list, but we'll ignore her for now since she was elected under a party banner). Under a list system, his democratic freedom to run would be removed from him, and his constituents would have the democratic freedom to vote for him removed from them too.

The only way to protect that democratic right would be by having people vote for the candidate, and that would mean SNTV, STV, or some other such candidate-based system. If we must go PR, then I'd lean towards SNTV owing to its ease of understanding for the average voter combined with its not shutting out independents from the democratic process.

[Smallc]

If an independent could get a high enough portion of the vote in a PR system, they could still get a seat.

[Machjo]

By the way, political parties can easily manipulate the SNTV system to make it more proportional. For example, a party that usually doesn't win as many votes can choose to run fewer candidates in the riding so as to avoid vote splitting and thus increase the candidate's chance of success.

Another advantage with SNTV is that since the riding is a multi-member constituency, candidates are not running against only members of other parties, but sometimes of their own too. So for example, in a three-member riding let's say, a red Tory might check off the more progressive of the CPC candidates in his riding, the most conservative of the Liberal Party candidates, and then a more conservative member of the Green Party for example. Under a party list, you have no control over whether the party will choose mostly among the right wing of the party, the left wing of the party, or the centre, etc. It totally neglects variations within the party itself.

[Machjo]

Sorry, I just realized that I'd confused SNTV with LV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_voting). Though similar, they do have their differences. Under SNTV, you can vote for only one candidate, though it's still a multi-member constituency, functioning like a FPTP system otherwise.

LV is like SNTV except that you can check off more than one candidate, though the number would be specified. For example, it might specify that you just check of X number of your favourite candidates from the list, and Y candidates will win, though nothing prevents the values of Y and X to be identical.

LV is the one I had in mind, and it would seem to be an easy-to-understand system (you just check off your favourite candidates from the ones offered on the ballot, similar to FPTP except that you check off more than one). You're still voting for the candidate and not party, so independents can still participate easily enough. And it allows candidates to run against members of their own party too, thus making it less partisan.

[myata]

We have a paradigm of democracy and choice, but the mechanics of how those choices manifest themselves into a direction for the government is the question. A government that has the power to enact its vision has, for Canada, been very successful.

If you're talking about historic perspective, I would agree with you, with qualifications related to our very specific situation, being a land with very sparce population, abundance of natural resources and absense of volatile neighbours. In that very uneventful atmosphere our stable majority government have been quite successful indeed.

But if you'll take into account more recent history, I wouldn't be as ready to cheer for our government's efficiency, taking into account that in the three decades that the entire EU has been built from ground up, we saw no significant national level projects or social changes in this country; plus an absolute failure in approaching constitutional matters (to the extent that as a presumably sovereign nation we're afraid to handle them with a stick these days); serious failures in handling national level committments and priorities (Kyoto); obscure, law onto itself government leading to gross inefficiencies in handling resources (too many to mention) and you can continue. And as things progress we don't see situation getting any better, if anything we could expect each turn in power by one of the two "natural governing parties" to reproduce exact same far less than stellar track record; because that is the only behaviour conductive to their survival and continuing grip on power.

The motivation for choice seems to be coming from a small minority who never see their votes result in elected candidates. That's fair, and I have suggested some solutions but we're likely talking about 10% of voters aren't we ?

We are talking about a principle (of fairness and choice). And I'm not sure it's just 10%. Take into account those who don't participate, on principle or because they see no acceptable choice and the number could be much higher.

Also, as already noted the exclusion is only one serious problem with this system. The other one is obfuscation and confusion of politics, making them opaque and invisible to the public. For example, ask yourself, is Harpers's recent atticks with abortion a giveaway to the socially conservative wing of the party? Or manifestation of evolution of CPC general platform? You'll probably never know for sure, even if you ask a hundred of pundits who won't ever know for sure themselves happy as they are making living interpreting and translating for us undercurrents of our deep water politics. And should the LPC/NDP party become reality? Would you be voting for "socially progressive/fiscally conservative"? Or increases of business taxation and massive investment is social spending? You'll never know because you're giving that huge and vague conglomerate full carte blanche on how to deal with your vote.

In a PR system, Reform party as well as NDP and every other party would go to the voters with their own platform and get exactly what voters think about it. Their position in the coalition will reflect citizen's sentiments about country's position and priorities. Coalition agreement will be visible and transparent to the public.

So why, while swearing on the bible of transparency and accountability we would have nothing of transparent and accurate representation system leading to more transparent and accurate government? Is it because claiming full sovereignty, we still don't feel mature enough to change the system we inherited from the times colonial? Or because our voters couldn't be trusted with making full, unrestricted and uncensored political choices? Neither seem to be a good reason for these dynamic times that require consensual work and efficient and responsible decision making.

[August1991]

So what your saying is that to effect changes to the way our fisheries are managed in my region fishermen in my community have to convince people in places like Toronto to elect a government that is sympathetic to us? We get one chance every four or five years to do this?

This is a completely ridiculous system.

Exactly.

Eyeball, you state my argument better than I ever could.

---

Does this mean democracy is bad? No, it is better than any alternative.

[eyeball]

Exactly.

Eyeball, you state my argument better than I ever could.

That's because I've experienced it first hand.

Does this mean democracy is bad? No, it is better than any alternative.

Yes I know, I'm living in the alternative now. Perhaps once every Canadian has had a taste of the same I'll be in a better position to make my case, assuming I live that long or don't go radical and blow something up in frustration in the meantime.

[myata]

One local MP will never be able to define "how fisheries are run" even in this system. He or she would still need support of their party (if they are in majority) or support of other parties if not. In fact this system is notorious for how little say regular MPs actually have in defining party politics, so independence of MPs in this incarnation of FPTP is nothing but a ridiculous illusion. The issue not about having democracy or not, but how the composition of the House reflects the actual preferences of voters. Should 45% not majority continue to mean total domination of legislature? Should 55% majority mean total exclusion of all other voices?

BTW, no, democracy is not synonimous with FPTP system if we only care to take a look around. I thought that at least should have been obvious by now.

[Machjo]

As I looked into it, Plurality-at-Large voting is an attractive system too in some respects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality-at-large_voting).

It's essentially identical to FPTP except that the ridings are larger and include multiple members. For example if let's say in a typical FPFP riding you'd have five candidates to choose from, you get to check off one candidate, and one candidate wins to represent your riding, in plurality-at-large voting, you'd have maybe 10 candidates to choose from, you get to check off 2 candidates and 2 candidates will represent your riding.

Plurality-at-Large has the disadvantage of creating landslide majorities, though it does havethe advantage of giving voters more choices among candidates. One way to counterbalance landslide majorities could be to remove party names from ballots so as to reduce the unfair advantage a candidate might have owing to brand recognition, though granted that will likely provide a small benefit at most and landslide victories would likely continue.

Then again, landslide victories are not all that bad. for example, a minority government can always blame its minority status for not getting things done, and so it keeps getting elected election after election with nothing ever getting done because we keep having minority governments. With constant majority governments, that excuse is removed and so the government in power has an interest in doing a good job otherwise come next election it will likely be replaced with another party in majority position.

This way, with minority status no longer as an excuse, a government had better do a good job if it doesn't want to be decimated come the following election.

[William Ashley]

I firmly bielive that more public forums should be made available to the public at large including utilizing technology for public feedback. In addition to votes of the commons and senates, the public itself should be exposed by means of a referedum forum on all bills put before the house. For these referendums to count as a vote overriding the parliamentary votes. These votes would need to make a quorum or quota to override the member for the area, or the region for matters of senatorial oversight. Likewise this system would also allow for petitions of redress to be laid befor parliament / the courts / or monarch.

The problem with both NP and PR is that NP isn't a reality in Canadian politics, and PR while giving smaller parties or parties such as the NDP and Green Party more representatives. This is good on face, and so I do support PR. The other part of this is that I think ALL people who are candidates should hold their votes in an electoral house, where the members votes translate on a 1 to 1 basis in voting. This not only allows proportional systems but makes ISSUES matter rather than who in the house is in support. It is more publically representative.

So I support a Publically Representative System. PRS.

[Machjo]

I firmly bielive that more public forums should be made available to the public at large including utilizing technology for public feedback. In addition to votes of the commons and senates, the public itself should be exposed by means of a referedum forum on all bills put before the house. For these referendums to count as a vote overriding the parliamentary votes. These votes would need to make a quorum or quota to override the member for the area, or the region for matters of senatorial oversight. Likewise this system would also allow for petitions of redress to be laid befor parliament / the courts / or monarch.

The problem with both NP and PR is that NP isn't a reality in Canadian politics, and PR while giving smaller parties or parties such as the NDP and Green Party more representatives. This is good on face, and so I do support PR. The other part of this is that I think ALL people who are candidates should hold their votes in an electoral house, where the members votes translate on a 1 to 1 basis in voting. This not only allows proportional systems but makes ISSUES matter rather than who in the house is in support. It is more publically representative.

So I support a Publically Representative System. PRS.

A public vote on each and every bill? Next to impossible.

[William Ashley]

A public vote on each and every bill? Next to impossible.

You have no vision.

1. Candidates retaining their votes eg. person gets 150 votes during the election their "peice of the pie" is 150 points. All people who got atleast 1 vote could vote on the bill with the number of vote points they had. 2000 people voting is not "imposible" nor would it be necisary for everyone to vote on every bill. It remains however that if "it was an issue" then the riding could vote involving all Candidates in that riding for the number of votes they held, perhaps persuading the representative to alter their vote.

2. the riding candidates could "impeach" the MP and put someone else in. They could also act as a riding committee.

3. With "modern technology" the "everyone vote is impossible" issue is nonsense and lacks vision. It actually isn't difficult nor is there a reason for it to be burdonsome financially. Also people needn't vote on issues that they arn't for or against.

Perhaps you can provide reasons why it isn't possible rather than spouting uninformed nonsense.

[Michael Hardner]

ah so there's the issue...the conservatives have no way to grow into a majority...that's what happens when a moderate party allies themselves with the extreme right...

Well, Conservatives govern about, say, 1/3 of the time and Liberals the other 2/3 - with the NDP supporting them too.

If you're concerned about representation, then 30% or so of the country will never have a majority government that represents their point of view. That's more of a concern to me than fringe party voters not getting any representation, because the Liberal-Conservative stewardship of our government has been very successful until now.

Forgoing the option of Conservative majorities to ever happen again is too big a change to our democracy, to my mind.