Anyone for NP PR?

[Michael Hardner]

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 EU has been rebuilt from the ground up, but they haven't changed the basic issues with the way their economies work: bureaucracy, protectionism, and high labour rates. How has it been built from the ground up ? They have created a EU governing body, but haven't had success in integrating the states yet IMO.

"We saw no signficiant national level projects or social changes" ? LGBT and women's right ? Environmental change ? Globalization ? The internet ? I'm sure I am missing a few more.

No country did well with Kyoto, it was a global failure, but we did sign it. If that had been done as a coalition of 3 or 4 parties signing, you would have a galaxy of horse-trading and special interests weighing in. Those complexities is what makes congress so hard to manage, and they're harder to take away than to add to the system.

As for inefficiencies, I only know of the Scandinavian countries who have a reputation for managing these services efficiently. And as I have pointed out in my healthcare threads, the public is not paying attention to things in the right ways so PR wouldn't help that situation, in fact in would likely make it worse, IMO.

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.

Does this mean that the 70% percentage of voters who vote Liberal/Conservative would vote elsewhere if we had some kind of PR ? If so, I doubt that.

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.

As I pointed out in another post, you have highlighted a problem, but it's a communication problem not a problem with how votes are cast. We have complex problems now, and adding more complexity on how to elect those who solve them isn't a good approach. I say we should address complexity with simplicity, rather than complicating things more.

In other words, solving the healthcare crisis isn't going to work better with even more stakeholders and negotiators into the mix. We need someone like a Mike Harris, but with a brain, and heart - not just courage.

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.

Why would they be more visible and transparent, when the inter-party deals tend to happen out of the public eye ? There's no reason to believe that these deals would be knowable by 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.

Transparency and accountability are more a function of what the people demand, in my opinion. PR wouldn't bring that in for any reason that I can see.

[myata]

The EU has been rebuilt from the ground up, but they haven't changed the basic issues with the way their economies work: bureaucracy, protectionism, and high labour rates. How has it been built from the ground up ? They have created a EU governing body, but haven't had success in integrating the states yet IMO.

It's a functioning community of 26 nations with a single currency and about 500 million total population.

"We saw no signficiant national level projects or social changes" ? LGBT and women's right ? Environmental change ? Globalization ? The internet ? I'm sure I am missing a few more.

Sure you can scratch for a few more but none of these relate to how our federal government operates. For comparison, creation of EU required an accord of several national governments that simply isn't foreseable in Canada given our reluctance and inability to effect even trivial constitutional change.

Does this mean that the 70% percentage of voters who vote Liberal/Conservative would vote elsewhere if we had some kind of PR ? If so, I doubt that.

Do you have to keep guessing for Canadian voters what they would or wouldn't do instead of giving them a chance to choose for themselves?

As I pointed out in another post, you have highlighted a problem, but it's a communication problem not a problem with how votes are cast. We have complex problems now, and adding more complexity on how to elect those who solve them isn't a good approach. I say we should address complexity with simplicity, rather than complicating things more.

Sorry, you lost me again. "Communications" have very little to do with how FPTP forces all specific interests into two only vaguely distinct conglomerates. Once it happened, all specific group and interests in it are obscured behind the party facade and average voter has lost all visibility and control, via election process over it. For example, in a PR a marginal social conservative group could be unpopular and any compromise deal with it impossible for a mainstream party. But you can only guess how and when members of the group affect operation of the party conglomerate, it's all hidden from sight. From that perspective our politics may be the most complicated in the world (other than maybe depth of Chinese or Russian). There you go, as everywhere else in life there's no getting something for nothing, the apparent simplicity of electoral choice coming at expense of severe restriction of it and total loss of visibility or control over post-election politics.

In other words, solving the healthcare crisis isn't going to work better with even more stakeholders and negotiators into the mix. We need someone like a Mike Harris, but with a brain, and heart - not just courage.

Yes, "we" thinking is a large part of the problem here. It is also a sign of distrust of independent individuals to make full and unrestricted political choices.

Why would they be more visible and transparent, when the inter-party deals tend to happen out of the public eye ? There's no reason to believe that these deals would be knowable by the public.

Of course they'll be more transparent, because they are absolutely transparent. Just look at the recent example in the UK. You know, everybody knows who made coalition with whom, who will hold which post and on what political condition. Compare it with our situation. Minister A who used to be a Reform; does he still share social conservative views? Are they going to speak for them and/or promote them in the cabinet? Good luck trying to figure that out.

Transparency and accountability are more a function of what the people demand, in my opinion. PR wouldn't bring that in for any reason that I can see.

It would and a big deal because the need to share the power and expose government operation to coalition partners would set strong checks over any given party's policies while government is still in power. In our case no such checks can exist in principle and cases of gross mismanagement usually come out long after the government in question is gone and nothing can be done about it.

[Michael Hardner]

Sure you can scratch for a few more but none of these relate to how our federal government operates. For comparison, creation of EU required an accord of several national governments that simply isn't foreseable in Canada given our reluctance and inability to effect even trivial constitutional change.

All of these things relate to how our government operates. How about Free Trade ? Would that have been possible under PR ? I don't think it could have happened as easily.

Do you have to keep guessing for Canadian voters what they would or wouldn't do instead of giving them a chance to choose for themselves?

The question was for you: do YOU think that significant numbers will vote for, say, the Green party.

I'm not guessing what they would or wouldn't do. Curiosity over what might/might not happen is no reason to implement PR.

Sorry, you lost me again. "Communications" have very little to do with how FPTP forces all specific interests into two only vaguely distinct conglomerates. Once it happened, all specific group and interests in it are obscured behind the party facade and average voter has lost all visibility and control, via election process over it. For example, in a PR a marginal social conservative group could be unpopular and any compromise deal with it impossible for a mainstream party. But you can only guess how and when members of the group affect operation of the party conglomerate, it's all hidden from sight. From that perspective our politics may be the most complicated in the world (other than maybe depth of Chinese or Russian). There you go, as everywhere else in life there's no getting something for nothing, the apparent simplicity of electoral choice coming at expense of severe restriction of it and total loss of visibility or control over post-election politics.

You talked about obfuscation and confusion of policies. Those are the result of how political proposals are communicated, and how the public is engaged. They can be more or less confusing but PR shouldn't affect that.

If anything, some diffusion of power will happen under PR, which result in more deal making and political intrigue rather than a few powerful players making change happen.

You can hold a party to its promises more easily than you can hold a group of parties to their promises: if the legislation is put through by a group of parties, they will point the finger at each other if questions are asked.

Yes, "we" thinking is a large part of the problem here. It is also a sign of distrust of independent individuals to make full and unrestricted political choices.

I hate that term "we" but I used it as you pointed out.

But as I pointed out - more bit players won't help the complexity we have to deal with now.

Why is it a sign of distrust of independent individuals ? That makes no sense at all: I expect people would vote largely as they do today, under PR, and that smaller parties would get more representation. What is distrustful about that ?

Of course they'll be more transparent, because they are absolutely transparent. Just look at the recent example in the UK. You know, everybody knows who made coalition with whom, who will hold which post and on what political condition. Compare it with our situation. Minister A who used to be a Reform; does he still share social conservative views? Are they going to speak for them and/or promote them in the cabinet? Good luck trying to figure that out.

Exactly. You don't know what deals have been made behind the scenes any more than you would have known what a single party was really planning to do.

Your example doesn't shed any light on why PR would change anything: it just says that you can't see inside someone's heart. True, but PR won't fix that.

It would and a big deal because the need to share the power and expose government operation to coalition partners would set strong checks over any given party's policies while government is still in power. In our case no such checks can exist in principle and cases of gross mismanagement usually come out long after the government in question is gone and nothing can be done about it.

Cases of gross mismanagement usually come out long after the government is gone ? What are you referring to here.

I don't see anything in your argument that gives good evidence that PR would be beneficial, except that some people would like it. I would support it for that reason, depending on the details.

My proposal is: parties polling at least 10% are guaranteed at least 1/2 the number of seats in parliament that would reflect their overall vote.

For example, any party getting 10% of the popular vote is guaranteed 5% of the seats, which would be extra seats added.

[eyeball]

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.

What we need are MP's that are willing to decentralize the government and start running the place more geographically or even better let the people who live and work in these bio-geographic region's manage them (bio-regionalism is another term). I mean, Ottawa is more than a 1000 miles from the nearest ocean...is it any wonder our fisheries management has been such a disaster on both coasts?

I honestly believe this misbegotten country of our's will have to collapse before we can ever rebuild our region. On our own terms, not the center of the universe's.

[Machjo]

What we need are MP's that are willing to decentralize the government and start running the place more geographically or even better let the people who live and work in these bio-geographic region's manage them (bio-regionalism is another term). I mean, Ottawa is more than a 1000 miles from the nearest ocean...is it any wonder our fisheries management has been such a disaster on both coasts?

I honestly believe this misbegotten country of our's will have to collapse before we can ever rebuild our region. On our own terms, not the center of the universe's.

Now that I could agree with. I could support transferring much Federal and Provincial responsibility to cities, perhaps even via changes o the constitution to entrench a new extremely decentralized federalism with more power transfered to local governments.

[Bonam]

people on this board tend to be convinced by rational arguments

:lol:

[Michael Hardner]

Tend to...

[eyeball]

Now that I could agree with. I could support transferring much Federal and Provincial responsibility to cities, perhaps even via changes o the constitution to entrench a new extremely decentralized federalism with more power transfered to local governments.

We could probably eliminate provinces or more realistically, rearrange a few borders and add a few new one's to better fit the geographic lay of the land. Bio-regions make most sense if they generally conform to watershed or other obviously natural breaks in a landscape's continuity.

[myata]

All of these things relate to how our government operates. How about Free Trade ? Would that have been possible under PR ? I don't think it could have happened as easily.

PR parliament would vote on it according to the actual views of voters on the matter. It happened e.g. with adoption of EU constitution many times over, in PR democracies. The contrast to that in FPTP it would be a single party, or more like one of the two partocracies that happened to be in power at the moment, making decision for the whole country. So while result may not be up to your or my expectation, it would be much closer to the actual public opinion of the country. Can't really blow for "more democracy" and suck to have it "simple" with no more than two real names on the ballot all in one breath, can we, logically?

No, what we do is what we get.

The question was for you: do YOU think that significant numbers will vote for, say, the Green party.

And that question can be interpreted in so many ways. Is 10% = over a million of voters, "insignificant" number that deserves no representation? In what system of measurement? How does it reflect the actual number of voters that would have chosen Green party if their vote meant something in every riding? You can keep guessing for ever but it'd be just pointless speculation because you can't prove anything with a rigged experiment, correct?

I'm not guessing what they would or wouldn't do. Curiosity over what might/might not happen is no reason to implement PR.

I don't really fancy going in circles. Curiousity aside, several strong arguments in favour of PR have been described in by many posters and in detail. And I haven't seen any logical counter arguments so far.

You talked about obfuscation and confusion of policies. Those are the result of how political proposals are communicated, and how the public is engaged. They can be more or less confusing but PR shouldn't affect that.

OK, how do you "communicate" these details in a party that is a conglomerate of multiple political streams and ideologies? More importantly, how do you force every such party to communicate it openly and transparently if it'd rather hide it behind single monolyth facade?

If anything, some diffusion of power will happen under PR, which result in more deal making and political intrigue rather than a few powerful players making change happen.

All these happen though as direct result of voter's choices and not for internal reasons visible only to the conglomerate parties in which voters have no participation. As said, there's no getting something, especially simplicity in a complex volatile political world, for nothing. The price you pay is limitation or choice, loss of knowledge and control over political system.

You can hold a party to its promises more easily than you can hold a group of parties to their promises: if the legislation is put through by a group of parties, they will point the finger at each other if questions are asked.

I was about to ask you just that, how exactly do you "hold a party to its promises"? Did it actually happen in reality? Good luck daydreaming! In this reality though, once a majority government is elected it'd sail through without paying one darnedest bit of attention to what you think about it. This may not be the case in PR, where coalition partners may not like the direction of the government and refuse to participate in it; causing government to collapse. And again there're actually precedents of that happening in reality, the most recent one being collapse of Dutch government over Afghanistan.

Why is it a sign of distrust of independent individuals ? That makes no sense at all: I expect people would vote largely as they do today, under PR, and that smaller parties would get more representation. What is distrustful about that ?

So should we base our representation on your expectations? Or rather on xPC partocracy? Or on what people would tell us ourselves given free and unrestricted choice?

Your example doesn't shed any light on why PR would change anything: it just says that you can't see inside someone's heart. True, but PR won't fix that.

But you do see who is who in that coalition and that government. No, PR won't fix everything but it'll give us much better visibility and control over our own political system.

Cases of gross mismanagement usually come out long after the government is gone ? What are you referring to here.

I'm saying that information on operation of government would have to be made available to coalition partners. Some of whom (one is enough) may not be willing to tolerate inefficiencies or direct mismanagement. This actually means transparency, or at least more of it than we'll ever achieve in a closed up system with all the laws and public incantations.

I don't see anything in your argument that gives good evidence that PR would be beneficial, except that some people would like it. I would support it for that reason, depending on the details.

Well, having spent so much effort putting all the arguments in every minuscule detail I can't but conclude that it could be the vision problem (that is btw not uncommon here).

My proposal is: parties polling at least 10% are guaranteed at least 1/2 the number of seats in parliament that would reflect their overall vote.

For example, any party getting 10% of the popular vote is guaranteed 5% of the seats, which would be extra seats added.

I already said that personally I'm not interested in games and I won't participate in any system that wouldn't give me full worth of my vote. Why 50% and not 38.5% for example? But I concede that it may be good for the educational purposes, just seeing more variety in the parliament not unlike China or Russia toying with multiparty democracy for the first time. Good luck with that project, I'd like to hope that it'd find some traction with xPC although I wouldn't bet my own money on it.

[Michael Hardner]

PR parliament would vote on it according to the actual views of voters on the matter. It happened e.g. with adoption of EU constitution many times over, in PR democracies. The contrast to that in FPTP it would be a single party, or more like one of the two partocracies that happened to be in power at the moment, making decision for the whole country. So while result may not be up to your or my expectation, it would be much closer to the actual public opinion of the country. Can't really blow for "more democracy" and suck to have it "simple" with no more than two real names on the ballot all in one breath, can we, logically?

No, what we do is what we get.

Right, and in this age of increasing complexity I don't see the value in adding to the galaxy of stakeholders.

And that question can be interpreted in so many ways. Is 10% = over a million of voters, "insignificant" number that deserves no representation? In what system of measurement? How does it reflect the actual number of voters that would have chosen Green party if their vote meant something in every riding? You can keep guessing for ever but it'd be just pointless speculation because you can't prove anything with a rigged experiment, correct?

I'm just asking for your guess as to how many Liberal/Conservative voters will switch teams to Green party or others as a result of this.

I don't really fancy going in circles. Curiousity aside, several strong arguments in favour of PR have been described in by many posters and in detail. And I haven't seen any logical counter arguments so far.

The arguments in favour are all subjective, as in "it's more fair" as in "it's more fair to me"... and the tired arguments we've already seen. If you have a new argument that is logical, please submit it.

I haven't seen one yet that convinces me that PR should be adopted beyond my proposal.

OK, how do you "communicate" these details in a party that is a conglomerate of multiple political streams and ideologies? More importantly, how do you force every such party to communicate it openly and transparently if it'd rather hide it behind single monolyth facade?

People need to demand better information than is provided on television, still the medium of choice for political communication. That's the topic for a different thread, though.

All these happen though as direct result of voter's choices and not for internal reasons visible only to the conglomerate parties in which voters have no participation. As said, there's no getting something, especially simplicity in a complex volatile political world, for nothing. The price you pay is limitation or choice, loss of knowledge and control over political system.

Knowledge - no, that's part of communication and I addressed that already.

Loss of control, then sure - there is less consultation and more pushing things through. Maybe some areas could use PR, but not service delivery. Those need an overhaul, as the government bureaucracies are 20 years behind the times in delivery of services.

I'll give you this - if service delivery (health, education, etc.) was in good shape, I'd be more amenable to the suggestions of PR.

I was about to ask you just that, how exactly do you "hold a party to its promises"? Did it actually happen in reality? Good luck daydreaming! In this reality though, once a majority government is elected it'd sail through without paying one darnedest bit of attention to what you think about it. This may not be the case in PR, where coalition partners may not like the direction of the government and refuse to participate in it; causing government to collapse. And again there're actually precedents of that happening in reality, the most recent one being collapse of Dutch government over Afghanistan.

If any government that didn't keep its promises was trounced in the following election, then they would keep their promises. But such governments actually get re-elected. Who is to blame ?

I'm not sure but PR or not-PR can't really change the propensity for voters to look past such things.

So should we base our representation on your expectations? Or rather on xPC partocracy? Or on what people would tell us ourselves given free and unrestricted choice?

I don't know - I was responding to your point that I 'didn't trust voters' or somesuch.

But you do see who is who in that coalition and that government. No, PR won't fix everything but it'll give us much better visibility and control over our own political system.

You're just restating buzzwords 'give us more visibility and control'. There's no evidence of this. Ask one person to do something, and it's their job to do it. Ask two or three people, and they point fingers at each other if it isn't done.

Now, my example isn't proof that PR won't work... it's just a supposition. But it's not on me to disprove PR will work, it's on you to prove it will. And the buzz-words you use 'unrestricted choice' 'better visibility and control' seem to be backed up only by a hunch that things will be better with more political operators on the scene.

I'm saying that information on operation of government would have to be made available to coalition partners. Some of whom (one is enough) may not be willing to tolerate inefficiencies or direct mismanagement. This actually means transparency, or at least more of it than we'll ever achieve in a closed up system with all the laws and public incantations.

Some of whom "may not be willing"... again, it's a guess. Maybe they will be willing to do so. You then reach the conclusion from there that this means transparency, conjured out of thin air.

You aren't providing any evidence here, just supposition and it's tiresome. I have very little to criticize because there's no hard evidence.

Well, having spent so much effort putting all the arguments in every minuscule detail I can't but conclude that it could be the vision problem (that is btw not uncommon here).

My vision is to improve communication, and to use a system the way it was successfully used for a long time. The original system wasn't designed for mass communication, universal sufferage and needs to address that.

I already said that personally I'm not interested in games and I won't participate in any system that wouldn't give me full worth of my vote. Why 50% and not 38.5% for example? But I concede that it may be good for the educational purposes, just seeing more variety in the parliament not unlike China or Russia toying with multiparty democracy for the first time. Good luck with that project, I'd like to hope that it'd find some traction with xPC although I wouldn't bet my own money on it.

It's just a number. Numbers allow for reasonable people to discuss and compromise. Do you have a number or is it all or nothing with you ?

What is xPC, I don't get that reference ?

[myata]

Right, and in this age of increasing complexity I don't see the value in adding to the galaxy of stakeholders.

As always in life facing a challenge we have two options: 1) adapt and overcome it or 2) hide and pretend it's not there (while at all possible).

I'm just asking for your guess as to how many Liberal/Conservative voters will switch teams to Green party or others as a result of this.

My guess would be "some". Based on personal experience 'cause I've been one of these voters myself.

The arguments in favour are all subjective, as in "it's more fair" as in "it's more fair to me"... and the tired arguments we've already seen. If you have a new argument that is logical, please submit it.

1) Take the number of thrown away votes in every election (all votes that haven't been cast for the winning canditate) and see it these weren't actually a majority. That number (call it the exclusion numnber) is as objective as Universe around us. Now your turn, please explain how this is "subjective" i.e. I see it while you see something totally different. Do you somehow not see those millions of votes that have absolutely no, zero representation?

2) Relatively recently there was a merger of PC and Reform so can you tell who is who in this new party? Or that it's even technically possible to tell, if and then party makes all it can to obscure all such differences? When I hear a detailed rational and logically substantiated method of how to determine specific ideological affiliations of key members of our parties and their practical impacts on the government of our country, I'll hear you and I perhaps even change my opinion. And if you cannot provide such method, it would mean that you have the same problem too, and therefore it has grounds in the reality and for that reason couldn't be called "subjective".

FYI in a PR coalition government that information is readily available right there in the coalition agreement.

I haven't seen one yet that convinces me that PR should be adopted beyond my proposal.

Your proposal won't do anything much though, keeping dominance of the two main parties intact while giving another, different illusion of fairness. If you aren't prepared to allow people to state their political preferences freely, why bother in the first place. It's not like you have to. We're a sovereign country and free to do (or not do) whatever we wish here.

People need to demand better information than is provided on television, still the medium of choice for political communication. That's the topic for a different thread, though.

Yeagh we can certainly do with more soul talk.

Knowledge - no, that's part of communication and I addressed that already.

No, nothing is addressed with wishful thinking, only with real practical act. And you never addressed what act would ever make monster parties like our governing duo to ever share this information with voters.

Loss of control, then sure - there is less consultation and more pushing things through. Maybe some areas could use PR, but not service delivery. Those need an overhaul, as the government bureaucracies are 20 years behind the times in delivery of services.

I'll give you this - if service delivery (health, education, etc.) was in good shape, I'd be more amenable to the suggestions of PR.

You lost me again. Maybe because I don't see freedom and choice as an "on/off" thing.

If any government that didn't keep its promises was trounced in the following election, then they would keep their promises. But such governments actually get re-elected. Who is to blame ?

I'm not sure but PR or not-PR can't really change the propensity for voters to look past such things.

Correct, you can't be sure because we never had a chance to vote according to our actual likes and preferences, rather than minimal (dum or dee) available to us.

Now, my example isn't proof that PR won't work... it's just a supposition. But it's not on me to disprove PR will work, it's on you to prove it will. And the buzz-words you use 'unrestricted choice' 'better visibility and control' seem to be backed up only by a hunch that things will be better with more political operators on the scene.

1. "Unrestricted choice" means that every vote cast for a party in an election would count in determining its representation.

2. "Better visibility" means that we actually see who governs us, rather than having to make wild guesses about it.

3. "Better control" means that we don't give any one party carte blanche to do its own things no matter what we think about it.

4. "Transparency and accountability" means that information about government policies and operation must be shared with independent entities (coalition partners).

I'm afraid it's the best I could do here, so please don't ask me to explain it again.

Some of whom "may not be willing"... again, it's a guess. Maybe they will be willing to do so. You then reach the conclusion from there that this means transparency, conjured out of thin air.

Coalition makes big parties share their information with other independent parties (coalition partners) and makes it more likely that mismanagement or other undesirable events will be detected and told to the public. This is actually an objective measure of transparency (the number of independent entities critical information is shared with) so please don't say that it's "subjective". No it isn't perfect (in communism or dictatorship nobody "is willing"), it's just better that what we have or will ever have in this system.

My vision is to improve communication, and to use a system the way it was successfully used for a long time. The original system wasn't designed for mass communication, universal sufferage and needs to address that.

The original system was not designed for politically mature electorate that wants to make their own choices rather than follow those that were set for them.

It's just a number. Numbers allow for reasonable people to discuss and compromise. Do you have a number or is it all or nothing with you ?

Gee, how hard should it get, really? My number is the full worth of my vote. Would you buy that ipod, for the full price, if it actually meant 1/2 of it? I'm not going to pretend that I have a choice if only a half of it actually matters.

But I did make an alternative proposal that could make me, as well as FPTP voters all happy: have half of seats, per province, elected by PR and the other half - by non partisan local ridings (canditate can campaign on party affiliation but it won't be shown on the ballot). Only one ballot (party or riding) is valid. There - it'll respect right of people to vote local if they wish to, and give meaning to my vote too, so please don't say that I'm all negative here.

What is xPC, I don't get that reference ?

LPC, CPC = xPC

[Michael Hardner]

As always in life facing a challenge we have two options: 1) adapt and overcome it or 2) hide and pretend it's not there (while at all possible).

Adapt and overcome the complexity ? Yes, of course.

But, again, there's nothing to say that PR will help.

My guess would be "some". Based on personal experience 'cause I've been one of these voters myself.

Ok, fair enough. You don't have a number, per se. My guess would be that low numbers would go that way. I would guess that most would follow the polls, as it is suspected to happen today.

1) Take the number of thrown away votes in every election (all votes that haven't been cast for the winning canditate) and see it these weren't actually a majority. That number (call it the exclusion numnber) is as objective as Universe around us. Now your turn, please explain how this is "subjective" i.e. I see it while you see something totally different. Do you somehow not see those millions of votes that have absolutely no, zero representation?

It's a subjective way of looking at the mathematics of it.

If you put it that way, then a 2-party system is automatically more fair because there are less wasted votes, which is your term by the way not mine.

If you have 10 choices, and only one winner, then on average you have 90% wasted votes. It's an effect of the mathematics, that's all.

2) Relatively recently there was a merger of PC and Reform so can you tell who is who in this new party? Or that it's even technically possible to tell, if and then party makes all it can to obscure all such differences? When I hear a detailed rational and logically substantiated method of how to determine specific ideological affiliations of key members of our parties and their practical impacts on the government of our country, I'll hear you and I perhaps even change my opinion. And if you cannot provide such method, it would mean that you have the same problem too, and therefore it has grounds in the reality and for that reason couldn't be called "subjective".

FYI in a PR coalition government that information is readily available right there in the coalition agreement.

I can't figure out how this point supports PC. Again, you're asking for a way to look into somebody's heart and find their "true self". I can't do it any more than you can, but PR doesn't give us this.

That's twice now we've discussed this example, and I still don't get it.

Your proposal won't do anything much though, keeping dominance of the two main parties intact while giving another, different illusion of fairness. If you aren't prepared to allow people to state their political preferences freely, why bother in the first place. It's not like you have to. We're a sovereign country and free to do (or not do) whatever we wish here.

The two main parties should dominate because they have 70% or so support. That is fair.

I have provided a proposal that gives the minority and fringe a stronger voice in affairs.

Yeagh we can certainly do with more soul talk.

No, nothing is addressed with wishful thinking, only with real practical act. And you never addressed what act would ever make monster parties like our governing duo to ever share this information with voters.

Because that's a topic for another thread. It's not related to allocation of MPs and is a HUGE topic on its own.

You lost me again. Maybe because I don't see freedom and choice as an "on/off" thing.

It's about setting up decision-making processes that are appropriate to the era. In some cases, for example, governments need to declare martial law and suspend all rights when its necessary.

I believe that our government reflects institutions and practices that predate the internet era, and require a complete make over. A singular vision is better to make that happen.

Correct, you can't be sure because we never had a chance to vote according to our actual likes and preferences, rather than minimal (dum or dee) available to us.

This is what is called a 'circular proof'.

What you're saying is "corrupt governments weren't held to their promises because we didn't have PR, therefore we need PR".

How can you say that PR would fix this ? Again, and again and again: you can't.

1. "Unrestricted choice" means that every vote cast for a party in an election would count in determining its representation.

Subjective as to whether the change would mean anything. The end result is the legislation that comes out of this new form of government, and it's too complex to say what would happen.

It's like bowling, and trying to predict where every pin will land.

2. "Better visibility" means that we actually see who governs us, rather than having to make wild guesses about it.

Why ? How ?

Just using the term 'better' doesn't make it better. Why does PR result in better visibility ?

3. "Better control" means that we don't give any one party carte blanche to do its own things no matter what we think about it.

You don't, you're right, but you have to illustrate why that's better than perpetual minority governments and coalitions. Would Paul Martin have been able to cut EI in a coalition ? No.

Would Barack Obama have had an easier time passing healthcare with less bargain making to do in congress ? Yes, for sure.

4. "Transparency and accountability" means that information about government policies and operation must be shared with independent entities (coalition partners).

I'm afraid it's the best I could do here, so please don't ask me to explain it again.

Coalition makes big parties share their information with other independent parties (coalition partners) and makes it more likely that mismanagement or other undesirable events will be detected and told to the public. This is actually an objective measure of transparency (the number of independent entities critical information is shared with) so please don't say that it's "subjective". No it isn't perfect (in communism or dictatorship nobody "is willing"), it's just better that what we have or will ever have in this system.

The original system was not designed for politically mature electorate that wants to make their own choices rather than follow those that were set for them.

Why does sharing with other parties mean the public will find out ? The parties share information today that doesn't leak - deal making and th elike.

Why is our electorate more 'mature' than in 1867 ? Do you mean older ?

Gee, how hard should it get, really? My number is the full worth of my vote. Would you buy that ipod, for the full price, if it actually meant 1/2 of it? I'm not going to pretend that I have a choice if only a half of it actually matters.

Yes, so your approach is therefore a complete overhaul of the way we do government, and why ? Because you don't consider the system fair. As such, you will risk the entire country for the minority of voters who don't get their parties elected ever.

This is a country that has produced an incredible balance between right and left, and a country that stands above almost all others in its balance - but because it has never elected a Green Party member it's an unfair.

This is what revolutionaries do.

But I did make an alternative proposal that could make me, as well as FPTP voters all happy: have half of seats, per province, elected by PR and the other half - by non partisan local ridings (canditate can campaign on party affiliation but it won't be shown on the ballot). Only one ballot (party or riding) is valid. There - it'll respect right of people to vote local if they wish to, and give meaning to my vote too, so please don't say that I'm all negative here.

LPC, CPC = xPC

Well, that's some compromise but ... majority governments have given us big changes in our government and positive ones. There can never be a Trudeau or Mulroney under PR.

[myata]

Ok, fair enough. You don't have a number, per se. My guess would be that low numbers would go that way. I would guess that most would follow the polls, as it is suspected to happen today.

I'm glad that you have a guess. But being a guess it doesn't account for much and polls that are conducted under rigged condition that only one of two parties can ever win power also is not the proof. In any case, are you saying that it's OK to dispose of large number of votes, or what would be the point of your question?

It's a subjective way of looking at the mathematics of it.

Is "subjective" your favorite word for anything you either don't understand or couldn't accept even if proven logically? How can a number be "subjective"? For each election, not in some abstract country but here and now you can find the number of votes that had no effect on representation in the parliament, i.e. were thrown away. If you want to say that it doesn't matter because of (some greater reason, that we still waiting to hear) it would at least have some meaning. But I'm afraid that this "subjective" is subjective only to you.

I can't figure out how this point supports PC. Again, you're asking for a way to look into somebody's heart and find their "true self". I can't do it any more than you can, but PR doesn't give us this.

No need to go heartsearching though. A coaltion always tells you what parties it's made of. Which party gets what and for what. A conglomerate of parties like CPC or prospective LPC/NDP merge will tell you very little. First system brings political agreement into the open for everybody to see and make their conclusions. The second hides them away where they are near impossible to see or know.

The two main parties should dominate because they have 70% or so support. That is fair.

No, I already explained that they have this support in a rigged system where voting for any other party means throwing your vote away. This is like tossing your coin and saying wow, together heads and tails have almost 100% percent support (short of miscounted or missed throws), wow and wow! Till we have an open and unrestricted choice it's impossible to tell what real support these parties will have.

To explain it to yourself even better consider example with telephone service. Before liberalization it was Rogers or Bell or nothing. Now that you can choose any provider, people are all over the place and market share of both went down dramatically, and they are much more likely to listen to what you have to say. It is a simple notion of choice and competition.

Then again there's a question of how fair is it to throw away massive number of votes, perhaps even a majority of votes. But we discussed it at such length that if it didn't settle in it probably won't at least in this incarnation, so I'm not going to play a broken grammophone.

It's about setting up decision-making processes that are appropriate to the era. In some cases, for example, governments need to declare martial law and suspend all rights when its necessary.

I already said somewhere maybe in another thread that it's all about our priorieties, individual and collective. If we are the people for the government to handle in a wise and stable succession, then I agree with you completely. But if we are a society of free individuals we'd never allow any government to take away our right for any reasons. What we are is what we get.

What you're saying is "corrupt governments weren't held to their promises because we didn't have PR, therefore we need PR".

How can you say that PR would fix this ? Again, and again and again: you can't.

No I didn't try to prove that "we" need PR (for once, for already mentioned reason that I don't really what "we" is), but I tried to outline logically how the need to make compromises and coalitions would make operation of political system more transparent to the public. Nope, no guarantees there, as anywhere else in life, the only guarantee you get is that of stagnation, decay and death, eventually.

Subjective as to whether the change would mean anything. The end result is the legislation that comes out of this new form of government, and it's too complex to say what would happen.

As explained, only if for you the government exists for its own sake - to govern lowly people who can't figure out how to live on their own. Sort of wise father. Or colonial master? For me though the government is manifestation of my choice and it's operation has no meaning unless I can participate in electing it with meaning and responsibility.

It's like bowling, and trying to predict where every pin will land.

Just using the term 'better' doesn't make it better. Why does PR result in better visibility ?

Gee, it does get complicated, doesn't it? Have you read about the coalition in the UK? The way it was negotiated, which parties made it eventually and on what conditions?

Now think about "coalition" of PC and Reform. Or Liberal/NDP? Do you know anything at all how it played out? Which faction get what and for what?

Again if it's not clear now, I'll have to give up here. Perpetual repetition won't make it any easier.

You don't, you're right, but you have to illustrate why that's better than perpetual minority governments and coalitions. Would Paul Martin have been able to cut EI in a coalition ? No.

And now you've mastered alternative history also? Good stuff. I already explained that real coalitions have little meaning in this system because we never know what actual popular support parties have.

Why does sharing with other parties mean the public will find out ? The parties share information today that doesn't leak - deal making and th elike.

I said more likely not "will". Sharing information with more people and I mean that information that parties try to hide and obscure only gives is greater chance that it'll encounter a principled individual who would decide to open it to the public.

Why is our electorate more 'mature' than in 1867 ? Do you mean older ?

No, I hope more mature socially and intellectually, age per se doesn't always translate into either.

Yes, so your approach is therefore a complete overhaul of the way we do government, and why ? Because you don't consider the system fair. As such, you will risk the entire country for the minority of voters who don't get their parties elected ever.

This is a country that has produced an incredible balance between right and left, and a country that stands above almost all others in its balance - but because it has never elected a Green Party member it's an unfair.

This is what revolutionaries do.

Indeed fairness is one of the key concepts in a society. Because it's related to freedom, and that is one of the main drivers of progress. It deserves to be treated seriously.

Well, that's some compromise but ... majority governments have given us big changes in our government and positive ones. There can never be a Trudeau or Mulroney under PR.

They were great individuals but I already said that I dont really care much about portraits. For me the government exists as extension of my choice, or rather our collective choice and only as far as it represents me rather than some abstract idea. And if we cannot make meaningful choice anymore, past glories come as empty drumming to me.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm glad that you have a guess. But being a guess it doesn't account for much and polls that are conducted under rigged condition that only one of two parties can ever win power also is not the proof. In any case, are you saying that it's OK to dispose of large number of votes, or what would be the point of your question?

I wanted to find out if you're one of those deluded PR supporters who sees a landslide for the Greens once the system is set to its proper and fair setup.

Is "subjective" your favorite word for anything you either don't understand or couldn't accept even if proven logically? How can a number be "subjective"? For each election, not in some abstract country but here and now you can find the number of votes that had no effect on representation in the parliament, i.e. were thrown away. If you want to say that it doesn't matter because of (some greater reason, that we still waiting to hear) it would at least have some meaning. But I'm afraid that this "subjective" is subjective only to you.

If I don't understand something, restate your case for me.

Your framing of the votes as "lost" or "thrown away" is just one perspective on the mathematical realities of FPTP but my main point remains - the fairness of a society isn't in the way it divies up the votes, but in the end result.

No need to go heartsearching though. A coaltion always tells you what parties it's made of. Which party gets what and for what. A conglomerate of parties like CPC or prospective LPC/NDP merge will tell you very little. First system brings political agreement into the open for everybody to see and make their conclusions. The second hides them away where they are near impossible to see or know.

As I already explained - parties have secret agreements even today.

Your example is just made up.

No, I already explained that they have this support in a rigged system where voting for any other party means throwing your vote away. This is like tossing your coin and saying wow, together heads and tails have almost 100% percent support (short of miscounted or missed throws), wow and wow! Till we have an open and unrestricted choice it's impossible to tell what real support these parties will have.

Again, how the votes are sliced and diced aren't the point. We have built a healthy and fair society with our current system.

To explain it to yourself even better consider example with telephone service. Before liberalization it was Rogers or Bell or nothing. Now that you can choose any provider, people are all over the place and market share of both went down dramatically, and they are much more likely to listen to what you have to say. It is a simple notion of choice and competition.

Bad analogy. Your system won't mean choosing one entity and giving them control, but choosing a multiplicity of entities who will have to work together. In business, it's preferable to charge one supplier with a task, otherwise suppliers will point the finger at each other.

Then again there's a question of how fair is it to throw away massive number of votes, perhaps even a majority of votes. But we discussed it at such length that if it didn't settle in it probably won't at least in this incarnation, so I'm not going to play a broken grammophone.

They're not thrown away. They are votes cast for a candidate.

I already said somewhere maybe in another thread that it's all about our priorieties, individual and collective. If we are the people for the government to handle in a wise and stable succession, then I agree with you completely. But if we are a society of free individuals we'd never allow any government to take away our right for any reasons. What we are is what we get.

Again, we have built a stable and prosperous and fair society.

You want to make a substantial change for no other reason than a small minority of people don't get their party elected. It's irresponsible.

No I didn't try to prove that "we" need PR (for once, for already mentioned reason that I don't really what "we" is), but I tried to outline logically how the need to make compromises and coalitions would make operation of political system more transparent to the public. Nope, no guarantees there, as anywhere else in life, the only guarantee you get is that of stagnation, decay and death, eventually.

You *said* that it would make the system transparent but there's no evidence for that. As I said, parties make secret deals today, why wouldn't that continue ?

As explained, only if for you the government exists for its own sake - to govern lowly people who can't figure out how to live on their own. Sort of wise father. Or colonial master? For me though the government is manifestation of my choice and it's operation has no meaning unless I can participate in electing it with meaning and responsibility.

You're making all of this up. Most people vote Liberal, NDP and Conservative with a fair chance that their party will see power, and when they do they will have a mandate to make change.

This colonial master stuff is just silly.

Gee, it does get complicated, doesn't it? Have you read about the coalition in the UK? The way it was negotiated, which parties made it eventually and on what conditions?

I have seen a few coalition governments in my life. So ?

Now think about "coalition" of PC and Reform. Or Liberal/NDP? Do you know anything at all how it played out? Which faction get what and for what?

Again if it's not clear now, I'll have to give up here. Perpetual repetition won't make it any easier.

What's the difference between the UK version and our version ?

I said more likely not "will". Sharing information with more people and I mean that information that parties try to hide and obscure only gives is greater chance that it'll encounter a principled individual who would decide to open it to the public.

Hey, that seems like you actually have a reason there.

How many people know about these deals today then ? How many will know about them with PR ?

No, I hope more mature socially and intellectually, age per se doesn't always translate into either.

That's an odd term to use 'mature'. Why are we more 'mature' than the Canadians of Confederation ?

Indeed fairness is one of the key concepts in a society. Because it's related to freedom, and that is one of the main drivers of progress. It deserves to be treated seriously.

That's a stretch. I have a right to have my views represented in government, no matter how much of a fringe dweller I am.

You have no such right. If you had this right then everyone would have it.

They were great individuals but I already said that I dont really care much about portraits. For me the government exists as extension of my choice, or rather our collective choice and only as far as it represents me rather than some abstract idea. And if we cannot make meaningful choice anymore, past glories come as empty drumming to me.

So I give you a solid example of why it's good to give power to a government that has vision, and you respond with "if my vote doesn't get somebody elected than I'm not free". Your zealotry would destroy this country over a stupid abstraction.

If you can't get enough people interested in your cause to get people elected, then it's likely that you're not coming up with the best ideas.

You don't give everybody on the bus a steering wheel either...

[myata]

As I already explained - parties have secret agreements even today.

Your example is just made up.

UK coalition agreement is "made up"? PC - Reform alliance is "made up"? Anyways I'm not into playing bs games, if you can't make yourself see the obvious things pointed out to you in detail and painstakingly, I'm afraid I can't be of more help here.

Again, how the votes are sliced and diced aren't the point. We have built a healthy and fair society with our current system.

Yes somebody already mentioned here that China thinks they are that too (and probably more). Again, if you don't want to see the obvious problems, I see no interest in discussing your rationales for that, it's your private business.

Bad analogy. Your system won't mean choosing one entity and giving them control, but choosing a multiplicity of entities who will have to work together. In business, it's preferable to charge one supplier with a task, otherwise suppliers will point the finger at each other.

No, it's exactly to the point. When I choose a telecom provider they work for me. If we let more parties to be represented in a meaningful way, they'll start working for voters. Now they are simply a decoration.

They're not thrown away. They are votes cast for a candidate.

They have no effect on representation, whatsoever, and therefore are thrown away. As said I'm much more interested in the result than in the process.

Again, we have built a stable and prosperous and fair society.

You want to make a substantial change for no other reason than a small minority of people don't get their party elected. It's irresponsible.

Again, I'm not playing broken grammophone here. No this not what I want, and not why I want but if it hasn't sunk in by now, I can't add much to what I already said.

You *said* that it would make the system transparent but there's no evidence for that. As I said, parties make secret deals today, why wouldn't that continue ?

No I gave you concrete and specific examples of coalition governments, but if you can't or won't see obvious facts pointed out to you, I can't be of any further help.

You're making all of this up. Most people vote Liberal, NDP and Conservative with a fair chance that their party will see power, and when they do they will have a mandate to make change.

Oh you mean NDP was actually elected to government? Ever? Now who's making things up?

This colonial master stuff is just silly.

Then name another reason that is not. The point of further discussion on these terms is quickly diminishing.

I have seen a few coalition governments in my life. So ?

I don't know. It depends on how much of what you so actually reached your mind.

What's the difference between the UK version and our version ?

Hey, that seems like you actually have a reason there.

How many people know about these deals today then ? How many will know about them with PR ?

If they can't have this information even when they want to, they certainly won't know.

That's an odd term to use 'mature'. Why are we more 'mature' than the Canadians of Confederation ?

We normally associate immaturity with inability to make indpendent responsible decisions. So no, it's not an odd term to use in the context of this thread and from that angle, politically I certainly hope that we're more mature than our ancestors.

That's a stretch. I have a right to have my views represented in government, no matter how much of a fringe dweller I am.

You have no such right. If you had this right then everyone would have it.

Nothing there says anything about rights. But indeed the ability to represent variety of opinions including political ones in stable and fair manner is a sign of mature democracy. Stability itself doesn't account for much because it may just signify absence of challenges. The ability to face and overcome problems is a sign of maturity.

So I give you a solid example of why it's good to give power to a government that has vision, and you respond with "if my vote doesn't get somebody elected than I'm not free". Your zealotry would destroy this country over a stupid abstraction.

No that's how I understand democracy sorry. I have to make my own choices rather than have the best in world wisest possible decisions made for me. Call that latter what you will but it wouldn't sound like a free society to me, the one I'd like to live in. Lots of literature is written about it btw.

If you can't get enough people interested in your cause to get people elected, then it's likely that you're not coming up with the best ideas.

We we'been there and now it's just empty wordplay. What's the meaning of "interested" when we have no objective, verifiable way to measure it?

You don't give everybody on the bus a steering wheel either...

No, you'd rather have it for yourself and your buddy.

[ToadBrother]

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?

I like None-Of-The-Above best. Basically the last item on every ballot is titled "none of the above". If that wins a plurality of votes, there's a new election for the riding and no one on the previous ballot can run.

[Michael Hardner]

UK coalition agreement is "made up"? PC - Reform alliance is "made up"? Anyways I'm not into playing bs games, if you can't make yourself see the obvious things pointed out to you in detail and painstakingly, I'm afraid I can't be of more help here.

Yes, it's made up. Agreements are only in the open as far as they want you to know.

Even the UK coalition likely has some secret aspects.

Yes somebody already mentioned here that China thinks they are that too (and probably more). Again, if you don't want to see the obvious problems, I see no interest in discussing your rationales for that, it's your private business.

But do you think our system is like China's ?

No, it's exactly to the point. When I choose a telecom provider they work for me. If we let more parties to be represented in a meaningful way, they'll start working for voters. Now they are simply a decoration.

There's no reason to think that this change will result in significant change to how people vote, i.e. which party they choose.

And saying "we have no way of knowing until we try" isn't valid. We should know a little more about what changes will produce before we embark on them.

They have no effect on representation, whatsoever, and therefore are thrown away. As said I'm much more interested in the result than in the process.

No, the result is the kind of society that is produced by government. You're more interested in the process.

Our result is a fair and stable society, which you are willing to put at risk because of your own interpretation of fairness. The system that translates individual freedom of choice and expression into policy is always subject to reducing individual power, unless we're talking about direct democracy.

More on that below,

Oh you mean NDP was actually elected to government? Ever? Now who's making things up?

Yes, in Ontario they were as well as other provinces and held the balance of power in a coalition government Federally as well.

If you don't like that kind of power, it's called compromise and sharing and that's what you will have with endless minority governments under PR - so I'm not sure why that bothers you.

Then name another reason that is not. The point of further discussion on these terms is quickly diminishing.

For Christ's sake, you get to vote... you don't think likening yourself to a slave is hyperbole ?

We normally associate immaturity with inability to make indpendent responsible decisions. So no, it's not an odd term to use in the context of this thread and from that angle, politically I certainly hope that we're more mature than our ancestors.

But we STILL have FPTP ok, and we have more parties than back then so less wasted votes. So they were more mature than us, right ?

We we'been there and now it's just empty wordplay. What's the meaning of "interested" when we have no objective, verifiable way to measure it?

Measure it by votes. Green party gets 10%... not enough.

No, you'd rather have it for yourself and your buddy.

Not for me, but for the single vision that most people select as the most capable.

It's representative democracy, you vote power to someone else you don't get it for you and your buddy.

-----------------------------------------

Ok, Myata - although I think you've been fair and have argued your position in good faith - as you say, we're not getting anywhere. It's like people from two different cultures arguing about which foods taste good. We have different views of 'freedom' that prevent us from coming to a basic agreement.

May I suggest an exercise for us ?

I respect your debate enough to try this: maybe we can argue a position of 'direct democracy' vs 'PR' and see if we learn something more about the others' point of view.

I would argue for either one, but I prefer arguing DD.

[myata]

Michael,

I find the idea of direct democracy very interesting and promising. BUT. Having argued here that only a few more (meaningful) choices on your ballot once every few years would result in insurmountable complexity not to mention the risk to the country I can't see how making informed and responcible decisions about day to day government of the country could be any more feasible. So, given our fear and suspicion of any change that would give citizens even marginally greater decision power and responcibility, talking about direct democracy would pointless fantasy for all practical means. But if it were ever to happen, perhaps in the times of our grand (grand grand...) children, the path to it would certainly lie through politically savvy voter that has confidence to make meaningful choices and fully expects them (choices) to count their full worth.

Yes, it's made up. Agreements are only in the open as far as they want you to know.

Even the UK coalition likely has some secret aspects.

The difference is of course, between "some" and "nothing". Looks like you have difficulty grasping that "everything" is an ideal that rarely exists in life and there could still be an enormous distance between "much" or even "some" and "virtually nothing". Unless it's just a common pretext to dismiss (an argument; proposal; opinion): can't have it perfect, no need to bother doing anything at all.

But do you think our system is like China's ?

I already said that in political sense our system is marginally better because it allows voters one more choice.

However the point is that defenders of China's system will use exact same argument as you do (it works; so why bother trying anything different?)

There's no reason to think that this change will result in significant change to how people vote, i.e. which party they choose.

Of course, if we think of voters being incapable of making more than a simple binary choice, it wouldn't be reasonable to expect them to go into really complicated thinking like e.g.: "OK, I can checkmark "Green" here but it would mean, for all practical ends as much as not going at all".

As said, it all comes to how we view our society. A country that exists to be governed, wisely and with stability, needs nothing more than what we have.

And saying "we have no way of knowing until we try" isn't valid. We should know a little more about what changes will produce before we embark on them.

You do know that countries that adopted proporional systems recently didn't get instantly blown from the face of this Earth. There's a wealth of research and records on operation of proportional systems. But I'm afraind you'd be asking too much if you want to hear exactly how it'd turn out in Canada. Fortune telling belongs to the domain of miracles, rather than political science.

No, the result is the kind of society that is produced by government. You're more interested in the process.

Yes that's indicative of your point of view. You think that society is produced by the government, while I hold that government has to work in the interests of the society, in simple words, employed or contracted by it. From here flow many aspects of this discussion. If the society is sovereign, there's never a reason for it to stop improving the way it comes up with the government. But if the government calls the shots then it may just come up with its own ideas on how to get by with the process.

Our result is a fair and stable society, which you are willing to put at risk because of your own interpretation of fairness.

What exactly is the risk are you talking about?

The system that translates individual freedom of choice and expression into policy is always subject to reducing individual power, unless we're talking about direct democracy.

More on that below,

See more on that above, again, the difference is about how much (the individual power is reduced). In our system, individual political choice is reduced to the absolute minimum short of no choice. In a proportional system there's obviously more. Again, more doesn't mean all or everything, so please try to stay on subject.

Yes, in Ontario they were as well as other provinces and held the balance of power in a coalition government Federally as well.

You sure understand that provinces have separate systems, that don't have to follow federal pattern (i.e have same parties, and in the same places)? No? Just the time to get into advanced subjects, like direct democracy.

So NDP was never elected to govern federally and only once in the whole history in Ontario.

If you don't like that kind of power, it's called compromise and sharing and that's what you will have with endless minority governments under PR - so I'm not sure why that bothers you.

No, it's called guaranteed and assured grip on power leading to inefficiency and stagnation.

For Christ's sake, you get to vote... you don't think likening yourself to a slave is hyperbole ?

Thank your government for that privilege. But guess what, in China they get to vote too! Which doesn't change much though. It's the meaning of voting we're discussing here.

Measure it by votes. Green party gets 10%... not enough.

Keep playing broken grammophone. Can't tell any party's real worth till there's free unrestricted choice that translates into fair representation.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael,

I find the idea of direct democracy very interesting and promising. BUT. Having argued here that only a few more (meaningful) choices on your ballot once every few years would result in insurmountable complexity not to mention the risk to the country I can't see how making informed and responcible decisions about day to day government of the country could be any more feasible. So, given our fear and suspicion of any change that would give citizens even marginally greater decision power and responcibility, talking about direct democracy would pointless fantasy for all practical means. But if it were ever to happen, perhaps in the times of our grand (grand grand...) children, the path to it would certainly lie through politically savvy voter that has confidence to make meaningful choices and fully expects them (choices) to count their full worth.

That's the crux of my argument against PR, though.

Although I concur that PR would give you more 'choice' in the way that you have defined it, the complexity and the shock to our system would be impossible to predict.

The difference is of course, between "some" and "nothing". Looks like you have difficulty grasping that "everything" is an ideal that rarely exists in life and there could still be an enormous distance between "much" or even "some" and "virtually nothing". Unless it's just a common pretext to dismiss (an argument; proposal; opinion): can't have it perfect, no need to bother doing anything at all.

Not really, I was just wondering what your opposition could be to DD. As it turns out, my arguments against PR aren't good enough for you - unless you yourself are using them against DD.

...You think that society is produced by the government,

Don't know where you got that from.

What exactly is the risk are you talking about?

Government touches everything that we do, the administration of government services impacts all of us daily. Making a change at the top by changing the nature of power base of the executives could have devestating results.

No, it's called guaranteed and assured grip on power leading to inefficiency and stagnation.

Very debatable - there are arguments for this both way. In any case, there is a balance involved and tipping the balance could have the exact opposite effect as what is suggested, i.e. it could easily turn Canada into a right-wing bastion. You never know with these things.

Thank your government for that privilege. But guess what, in China they get to vote too! Which doesn't change much though. It's the meaning of voting we're discussing here.

And their totalitarian government was quite effective for a time in reducing the pressing problem of starvation. Maybe we should talk first about what our pressing problems are, generally.

Keep playing broken grammophone. Can't tell any party's real worth till there's free unrestricted choice that translates into fair representation.

Hey - the record skips both ways. If I'm a grammaphone, it's because I'm responding to the same arguments from PR types over and over again.

[wyly]

Measure it by votes. Green party gets 10%... not enough.

10% of the population...3.3 Million people have no representation essentially because it's an inconvenience to the ruling parties who do not want any dilution of their power...that's democracy denied...

[M.Dancer]

10% of the population...3.3 Million people have no representation essentially because it's an inconvenience to the ruling parties who do not want any dilution of their power...that's democracy denied...

That is a falsehood that continues to be foisted by the sore losers..taken to the extreme, in any race there are losers...saying they aren't represented is false, they are, they just aren't represented by their choice.

It seems that the fringe parties want in effect is to end local democracy in the hope that one of their choice, not the local voters, will be selected. In which case, since the effect of PR is to push the parties choice over the peoples, no one is represented by their own choice. Yet they call that democracy...

[myata]

Not really, I was just wondering what your opposition could be to DD. As it turns out, my arguments against PR aren't good enough for you - unless you yourself are using them against DD.

You confuse it to the point of impossibility. It was you who brought the whole idea of direct democracy into the discussion and I only pointed out the incredibility of that notion given that you object and resist to even minimal change.

Don't know where you got that from.

From your own quoted statement: "...society that is produced by government" (M.H.)

Government touches everything that we do, the administration of government services impacts all of us daily. Making a change at the top by changing the nature of power base of the executives could have devestating results.

Could you point to examples of such "devastations"? It was already noted that Canada is the only democracy in the first world that has yet to modify FPTP, so sure you'll have no problems with factual substantiation of your fears.

Very debatable - there are arguments for this both way. In any case, there is a balance involved and tipping the balance could have the exact opposite effect as what is suggested, i.e. it could easily turn Canada into a right-wing bastion. You never know with these things.

And I never pretended to. It's about having fate of the country decided by people, rather than political elites with ideas about "bastions".

And their totalitarian government was quite effective for a time in reducing the pressing problem of starvation. Maybe we should talk first about what our pressing problems are, generally.

Or given the efficiency of totalitarian system consider it as well? The risk and unnecessary choice will be reduced to absolute minimum.

Hey - the record skips both ways. If I'm a grammaphone, it's because I'm responding to the same arguments from PR types over and over again.

With the essential difference that you don't have any meanigful response to the argument and just have to play the same line over and over. How can you measure real popular support for the party in the environment where only two parties have any real chance to win? Wouldn't it be like throwing that coin, and wondering about extremely high level of "support" for heads and tails, combined? No, can't answer that. Can't have objective answer without giving people free unrestricted choice. And free and unrestricted choice is something that we can't i.e. don't want to give them. So, as a necessity, reduced to repeating the same tiring adage.

[Michael Hardner]

Yet they call that democracy...

And... my point that it's the end result that matters - which in Canada means a centre-left society which is far more appealing to the average Green voter than, say, the US which is our closest neighbour and the country most similar to us.

An avalanche of lefty policies, or - even worse - lefty inspired gridlock could force the mainstream to go right as happened in Ontario in the mid 90s. Be careful what you wish for.

[ToadBrother]

It seems that the fringe parties want in effect is to end local democracy in the hope that one of their choice, not the local voters, will be selected. In which case, since the effect of PR is to push the parties choice over the peoples, no one is represented by their own choice. Yet they call that democracy...

So far as I'm aware, the Green Party largely has abandoned the party list system they had been advocating. There are other forms of PR, like STV and Alternative Vote, that do not use party lists.

[M.Dancer]

So far as I'm aware, the Green Party largely has abandoned the party list system they had been advocating. There are other forms of PR, like STV and Alternative Vote, that do not use party lists.

I would consider a PR system for municiple elections but not much beyond that...England, with their FPTP federal system has managed to get a few fringe candidates elected...I don't see why that can't happen here other than policies they espouse that do not resonate locally with any sort of critical mass...