Anyone for NP PR?

[Machjo]

Another idea I cold see would be a Plurality-at-Large open ballot. For example, if a riding has three seats to win, then the ballot would be a blank sheet of paper with three blank lines on it. You write down the names of the three people residing in your community who have voting rights themselves, and the three names that appear most frequently get the seats.

Some might think this would lead to chaos as some people would vote for any friend or relative. My guess is though that the majority would vote for well-known and well-respected members of the community.

Some might criticize this on the grounds that the winners might not want the seats in the first place, but we could look at it like jury duty. If the public want him, then it's his duty to serve unless he has good reason to turn it down. Thi would remove many egomaniacs from power too.

[ToadBrother]

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...

Well, first of all, the UK has a lot higher a population and a lot more seats in Parliament, so it greatly increases the odds of fringe parties and even independents getting elected, so it's not a perfectly symmetrical situation.

I was a big supporter of STV here in BC, even with the most substantial flaw that it created "super-ridings" with multiple elected representatives. STV does increase the odds of minority governments somewhat, but reruns of the last few provincial elections revealed that we would still have had majority governments, but it would have given more representation to smaller parties.

At the end of the day there's no such thing as a perfect electoral system. Picking one always has trade offs. If the UK does go with alternative vote system, which is a cousin of STV, and would still likely produce majorities, I think it's something we should look at. FPTP does indeed tend to create majorities, and hence more stable governments, but at the cost of disenfranchising a considerable number of voters. In Canada, at least, I don't think we can make the situation worse than having the Bloc making the hurdle for any party seeking a majority very high, and maybe we would rebalance things if we did even a slight statistical leg up to smaller parties.

Again, there are any number of PR systems out there. The ones we tend to look at are the systems used in Europe and in Israel, and I agree that these systems create systemic instability.

Edited June 10, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Michael Hardner]

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.

As I said - you're using the same arguments against DD that I use against PR.

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

Ok. I retract that. Poor wording on my part.

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.

"Factual substantiation of your fears" is oxymoronic.

What could happen ? Zombies could appear. It's not important. The key is that there's no identified reason, other than your private perception that "it's not fair" which seems to be only shared by fringe dwellers.

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

Yes, absolutely - totalitarian systems are brought in if necessary, as Trudeau felt it was during the October Crisis.

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.

I would submit that you want to use the Canadian government as an extension of your own identity - that you only see it as fair that your fringe votes somehow manifest themselves in representation.

If your ideas had more appeal, then you would have a real chance to win.

And the broken record continues to skip with you talking about 'choice' as though someone was holding your hand to the ballot and forcing you to make an 'x'.

[myata]

Again, there are any number of PR systems out there. The ones we tend to look at are the systems used in Europe and in Israel, and I agree that these systems create systemic instability.

Mixed system is another possibility. This is something that I see could work for me, without excluding any other voters. Half ridings are elected by party list, another half by direct vote (non partisan at that - to exclude illusion of fair partisan representation). Voter can choose either ballot, but only one is valid.

The notion that party list is any different than what we have now is near total nonsense. Candidates get parachuted into ridings all the time, and once elected they are no more than helpless puppets of the party exec. The reality is that parties, at least main ones do come up with lists all the time and at least from my personal experience most voters (would be really interesting to research exactly how many) vote for the party rather than individual. I mean that in conversations with friends and colleagues I hear "I'm going to vote X party" or "I'm reluctant to support Y as in the last election" but very few would even know the name of the candidate in their riding.

[myata]

As I said - you're using the same arguments against DD that I use against PR.

No, one more time, I'm not against DD. I only don't understand why you brought it into this discussion. It is obviously far more complex system that require much higher level of education, awareness and participation than PR or any existing electoral system. So if you staunchly object to even moderate sophistication of political choice, how could you expect me to discuss with credibility a much more complex system? Wouldn't it be like, I can't figure out basic arithmetics so let's get stright to calculus instead?

What could happen ? Zombies could appear. It's not important. The key is that there's no identified reason, other than your private perception that "it's not fair" which seems to be only shared by fringe dwellers.

I pointed out at least two serious problems with our current system, with reasons identified and explained to the utmost level of detail. If you won't at least admit as much (and I see why you are reluctant, because if you do, there wouldn't be much rational cause to object to the change, other than of course "zombies" that somehow failed to appear elsewhere this change was made) there's no further reason to continue this argument. You position is essentially reduced to "What I have is good enough and I won't see anything else" and there's no logical way to argue against this position. The only thing that could move that position is the reality and that is exactly why I'm suggesting that the only way to have actual movement on this issue is to change the reality of our voting. If you don't see enough of real, meaningful choice; if you feel forced to chose between (reduced to absolute minimum) options neither of which really appeal to you: don't pretent; stop playing into somebody else's game; quit the show till we all have real, meaningful, free and uncompromised political choice.

When our "majority" governments are elected by 30% of voters; when our preudo majority minorities have support in the twenties (and we aren't really that far from there), there will be no way to ignore this anymore and the change will come through need, rather than forward looking, rational analysis.

Yes, absolutely - totalitarian systems are brought in if necessary, as Trudeau felt it was during the October Crisis.

And I would absolutely oppose to it, even if brought by holy Trudeau himself. If we fail to function as a free society, we fail altogether.

I would submit that you want to use the Canadian government as an extension of your own identity - that you only see it as fair that your fringe votes somehow manifest themselves in representation.

Don't submit because this is not what I ever asked for and I've no idea how you got to it (if you have a reference to where I said that, I'd appreciate your posting it as evidence). I only asked for a meaningful worth of my vote and as much as I wont' accept it being thrown away, the same exact notion would apply to everybody else in this country. In other words I'd like to see Canadian government as an "extension" of free and uncompromised choice of voters, rather than inherently compromised (for all the reasons explained at length here) system we have now.

If your ideas had more appeal, then you would have a real chance to win.

I don't really fancy running in rigged races. And I already suggested a more efficient way to bring about the change pretty much everybody else has awaken to.

And the broken record continues to skip with you talking about 'choice' as though someone was holding your hand to the ballot and forcing you to make an 'x'.

No it's not broken, because you fail to notice what happens after you put that 'x'. That road will take you all the way down to China and Russia, where they consider democracy reduced to putting Xes in a piece of paper, nothing to do with real choice or real power.

[ToadBrother]

Mixed system is another possibility. This is something that I see could work for me, without excluding any other voters. Half ridings are elected by party list, another half by direct vote (non partisan at that - to exclude illusion of fair partisan representation). Voter can choose either ballot, but only one is valid.

But this only strengthens political parties. Party list systems, even mixed ones, are simply gifts to the parties. If we're going to make reforms, the way to do it is to weaken parties, not given them even further power over representatives by making some portion of them basically servants of the party with little or no direct attachment to the electorate.

This has been made pretty clear in the UK, which is why they're probably going to go with the alternative vote system (if the electorate over there decides on it). In this system, MPs still have to stand for election, still have an actual constituency and are still directly answerable to the people who voted for them.

The notion that party list is any different than what we have now is near total nonsense. Candidates get parachuted into ridings all the time, and once elected they are no more than helpless puppets of the party exec. The reality is that parties, at least main ones do come up with lists all the time and at least from my personal experience most voters (would be really interesting to research exactly how many) vote for the party rather than individual. I mean that in conversations with friends and colleagues I hear "I'm going to vote X party" or "I'm reluctant to support Y as in the last election" but very few would even know the name of the candidate in their riding.

That the current systems has abuses is not, in my mind, an argument for producing an even worse electoral system.

[Michael Hardner]

No, one more time, I'm not against DD. I only don't understand why you brought it into this discussion. It is obviously far more complex system that require much higher level of education, awareness and participation than PR or any existing electoral system. So if you staunchly object to even moderate sophistication of political choice, how could you expect me to discuss with credibility a much more complex system? Wouldn't it be like, I can't figure out basic arithmetics so let's get stright to calculus instead?

As I indicated off the top, I thought discussing that might shed some light on the basis for our disagreement on PR. Which it did to me at least.

I pointed out at least two serious problems with our current system, with reasons identified and explained to the utmost level of detail. If you won't at least admit as much (and I see why you are reluctant, because if you do, there wouldn't be much rational cause to object to the change, other than of course "zombies" that somehow failed to appear elsewhere this change was made) there's no further reason to continue this argument. You position is essentially reduced to "What I have is good enough and I won't see anything else" and there's no logical way to argue against this position. The only thing that could move that position is the reality and that is exactly why I'm suggesting that the only way to have actual movement on this issue is to change the reality of our voting. If you don't see enough of real, meaningful choice; if you feel forced to chose between (reduced to absolute minimum) options neither of which really appeal to you: don't pretent; stop playing into somebody else's game; quit the show till we all have real, meaningful, free and uncompromised political choice.

"It's not fair" is indeed serious, I'm not debating that. But it's subjective. Kind of like what constitutes "good service" varies from place-to-place.

Quitting the show is likely a good idea, the democratic equivalent of taking your ball and going home because the fringe parties don't get proportional representation... I'd rather you stay out of the process if that's your definition of fair.

And I would absolutely oppose to it, even if brought by holy Trudeau himself. If we fail to function as a free society, we fail altogether.

You could protest it too, and you would be arrested.

[ToadBrother]

No it's not broken, because you fail to notice what happens after you put that 'x'. That road will take you all the way down to China and Russia, where they consider democracy reduced to putting Xes in a piece of paper, nothing to do with real choice or real power.

Oh give me a break. We're nothing like those systems. We have a fiercely competitive political system. If the Greens failed in the last election, it's in large part because they haven't matured enough to turf out or marginalize the wing nuts, and in part because Elizabeth May is a moron (I mean, what kind of idiot runs against Peter MacKay, she should have run in the Sunshine Coast in BC, where the odds were much greater that she would have won a seat).

I'm not adverse to electoral reform, but I have certain key principles that have to be met before I would sign on.

[myata]

Oh give me a break. We're nothing like those systems. We have a fiercely competitive political system.

Like "fiercly competitive" tweedle dum-dee duet? Can you be sure it's real competition rather than a have-do-to public show? Both are guaranteed a turn at the power, sooner or later. Just like everybody else is guaranteed to be excluded.

If the Greens failed in the last election, it's in large part because they haven't matured enough to turf out or marginalize the wing nuts, and in part because Elizabeth May is a moron (I mean, what kind of idiot runs against Peter MacKay, she should have run in the Sunshine Coast in BC, where the odds were much greater that she would have won a seat).

So you think that with great leaders they'd get strong representation in FPTP? Think again. Because with left-center vote split three ways it'd be total and absolute domination of the House by CPC. There's just so many ways in which "left" vote could be split (LPC-NDP, NDP-Green, LPC-Green, and so on), that both individual and combined representation of the left part of political spectrum would be decimated.

Before you make these statements, try to understand the system. It's made to have exactly two real parties and to produce majority governments for them, alternating.

I'm not adverse to electoral reform, but I have certain key principles that have to be met before I would sign on.

We could discuss them forever, but the point is who is listening. Neither of our governing duo has anything to gain from this reform, and they'll have to be dragged into it kicking and screeming.

[ToadBrother]

Like "fiercly competitive" tweedle dum-dee duet? Can you be sure it's real competition rather than a have-do-to public show? Both are guaranteed a turn at the power, sooner or later. Just like everybody else is guaranteed to be excluded.

Yes, it's fiercely competitive. The big race is to the center, as always, because that's where the bulk of the voters are.

So you think that with great leaders they'd get strong representation in FPTP? Think again. Because with left-center vote split three ways it'd be total and absolute domination of the House by CPC. There's just so many ways in which "left" vote could be split (LPC-NDP, NDP-Green, LPC-Green, and so on), that both individual and combined representation of the left part of political spectrum would be decimated.

I'm saying an idiot runs against a cabinet minister who is extremely popular in his own riding. May is an idiot, and idiots at the top of political parties generally translate into very poor performance at the polls, regardless of electoral system. The Greens need to grow up. They need to concentrate their effort on key ridings, just like the old CCF/NDP did. Making a successful political party requires a capacity for strategy, and most importantly, a leader who appears to live on a different planet.

Before you make these statements, try to understand the system. It's made to have exactly two real parties and to produce majority governments for them, alternating.

And that's a bad thing?

We could discuss them forever, but the point is who is listening. Neither of our governing duo has anything to gain from this reform, and they'll have to be dragged into it kicking and screeming.

I'm not going to get rear-ended into signing on for a party list system. I despise political parties. Why on Earth would I be on board for a voting system that basically further entrenches them?

As flawed as FPTP is, it's infinitely better than any system that involves any kind of party list.

Edited June 11, 2010 by ToadBrother

[eyeball]

The main problem with FPTP that I see and seems to rankle the most is that the popular vote is often at odds with the winning result. Presumably this number reflects where the real center is. Perhaps in those cases when a party fails to get a majority in a conventional FPTP victory power should by default, be awarded to a coalition first, then the 'winner' should no coalition emerge.

Edited June 11, 2010 by eyeball

[myata]

Yes, it's fiercely competitive. The big race is to the center, as always, because that's where the bulk of the voters are.

There's no objectively verifiable way to tell though. Not by the content of parties platforms, nor by quality of their leaders.

I'm saying an idiot runs against a cabinet minister who is extremely popular in his own riding. May is an idiot, and idiots at the top of political parties generally translate into very poor performance at the polls, regardless of electoral system. The Greens need to grow up. They need to concentrate their effort on key ridings, just like the old CCF/NDP did. Making a successful political party requires a capacity for strategy, and most importantly, a leader who appears to live on a different planet.

Indeed, once the reality is safely out of the way, it's time for musing and fuming. Who cares that with a great leadership they could have gotten one or two seats, instead of 30 something according to popular support.

And that's a bad thing?

Depends on the framework of reference. If lack of choice, assured grip on power and stagnation are a good thing, I'll agree that there's no better system than ours. But that would be quite original way of thinking judging by the fact that everybody else is moving on, in some way.

I'm not going to get rear-ended into signing on for a party list system. I despise political parties. Why on Earth would I be on board for a voting system that basically further entrenches them?

Relax, it's just a discussion, so you arent rear ended anywhere and nothing's going to happen for a few generations anyway.

As flawed as FPTP is, it's infinitely better than any system that involves any kind of party list.

Having voted for one for ages, and still proudly ignorant about it. What is your party's list of candidates? How exactly is it different from the dreaded "party list"?

[ToadBrother]

There's no objectively verifiable way to tell though. Not by the content of parties platforms, nor by quality of their leaders.

Of course there is. Neither the Tories nor the Liberals have much wavered from the center in a generation or more.

Indeed, once the reality is safely out of the way, it's time for musing and fuming. Who cares that with a great leadership they could have gotten one or two seats, instead of 30 something according to popular support.

To get one or two seats, you're going to need a leader who has a populist streak of some kind. That's how the CCF became a success. You don't start off by trying to topple a guy who is not only a cabinet minister, but also very popular in his own riding. You're going about this backwards.

But beyond that, if a party is so immature and its leader so delusional, why would you actually want it in the Commons at all?

Depends on the framework of reference. If lack of choice, assured grip on power and stagnation are a good thing, I'll agree that there's no better system than ours. But that would be quite original way of thinking judging by the fact that everybody else is moving on, in some way.

Our system is hardly stagnant. Just because it doesn't give the results you want doesn't mean its not evolving.

Relax, it's just a discussion, so you arent rear ended anywhere and nothing's going to happen for a few generations anyway.

Still, you seem to be complaining that I just won't accept any old change. I am utterly and totally convinced that party list systems are the very worst in that they pretty much guarantee party apparatchik an uncontested seat.

Having voted for one for ages, and still proudly ignorant about it. What is your party's list of candidates? How exactly is it different from the dreaded "party list"?

It is completely different. Even where you have a candidate parachuted in, that candidate is still directly elected by a geographically-bounded constituency. He is not removed from the riding, a sort of "virtual" candidate whose only allegiance is to the party.

Let's put it this way. This morning the British Columbia Minister for Mining and Energy, Blair Lekstrom, just resigned from cabinet and from the BC Liberal caucus over the HST. In large part this is presumed to be because his riding in the Peace River area borders Alberta, and a lot of businesses, particularly in Dawson Creek, are terrified that residents of the area will cross the border where they only have to pay the GST. It is a very graphic demonstration of how the direct link between an elected representative and a specific constituency allows for a kind of influence over the representative's decisions.

In a party list system, such an individual would have no base in the constituency, no link. He is simply a party animal. There's no one for the electorate to rail against, and that link disappears.

I want to be able to go down to my constituency office and tell me elected representative my opinion. A party list system repudiates that.

[myata]

Of course there is. Neither the Tories nor the Liberals have much wavered from the center in a generation or more.

It was about competition, remember? Tories and Libs are looking more and more like identical twin. Guess you can call it "competion" though we arrive the same place no matter how we vote.

To get one or two seats, you're going to need a leader who has a populist streak of some kind. That's how the CCF became a success. You don't start off by trying to topple a guy who is not only a cabinet minister, but also very popular in his own riding. You're going about this backwards.

No kidding. The ideas, solutions and platforms they are all only an adornment of the leaders portrait.

But beyond that, if a party is so immature and its leader so delusional, why would you actually want it in the Commons at all?

Really, why the voice of 10% of voters (one million) should matteer if I find it "immature" and "delusional"? It's a democracy we have here, after all.

Our system is hardly stagnant. Just because it doesn't give the results you want doesn't mean its not evolving.

Well, go on, show examples that it's actually evolving. I.e. moving somewhere.. anywhere.

Still, you seem to be complaining that I just won't accept any old change. I am utterly and totally convinced that party list systems are the very worst in that they pretty much guarantee party apparatchik an uncontested seat.

But it instantly becomes "contested" if the same apparatchik is parachuted into riding by the same party exec? We can't get an objective answer here, but I have a suggestion in case somebody's listening. At election time run a random poll on the streat asking people the party they'll vote and the name of its candidate in their riding.

It is completely different. Even where you have a candidate parachuted in, that candidate is still directly elected by a geographically-bounded constituency. He is not removed from the riding, a sort of "virtual" candidate whose only allegiance is to the party.

A "list" official could have an office in some riding hardly an essential difference(I imagine most do anyways).

Let's put it this way. This morning the British Columbia Minister for Mining and Energy, Blair Lekstrom, just resigned from cabinet and from the BC Liberal caucus over the HST. In large part this is presumed to be because his riding in the Peace River area borders Alberta, and a lot of businesses, particularly in Dawson Creek, are terrified that residents of the area will cross the border where they only have to pay the GST. It is a very graphic demonstration of how the direct link between an elected representative and a specific constituency allows for a kind of influence over the representative's decisions.

"Presumed" by who? You have evidence that it's closer related to his riding than general concerns about this policy? In any event, this is just an anecdote and there many (probably many more) examples of local MPs toeing party line, as well as "list" MPs abandoning their parties for political reasons.

I want to be able to go down to my constituency office and tell me elected representative my opinion. A party list system repudiates that.

I do not insist on party list though. We can have the same system as now, except actual representation being determined by the party showing in the election. Voter breakdown by %% of vote in election = House breakdown by party, the winning candidates appointed to ridings according to party showing in it. Just one possibility of how it could be moved forward. What is inacceptable in a modern democracy is maintaining the status quo that no longer gives voters any meaningful choice.

[ToadBrother]

It was about competition, remember? Tories and Libs are looking more and more like identical twin. Guess you can call it "competion" though we arrive the same place no matter how we vote.

The reason they look that way is because that's what the majority of the electorate wants. Once again, your problem isn't with the system, it's with the electorate.

No kidding. The ideas, solutions and platforms they are all only an adornment of the leaders portrait.

No, the problem is that May is a moron, and morons very rarely achieve any high office.

Really, why the voice of 10% of voters (one million) should matteer if I find it "immature" and "delusional"? It's a democracy we have here, after all.

Perhaps those one million voters should tell the Green Party not to elect a simpering idiot for a leader.

Well, go on, show examples that it's actually evolving. I.e. moving somewhere.. anywhere.

And once again you demonstrate that you're not for intelligent change, just simply for change of any kind, for any reason, at any cost.

But it instantly becomes "contested" if the same apparatchik is parachuted into riding by the same party exec? We can't get an objective answer here, but I have a suggestion in case somebody's listening. At election time run a random poll on the streat asking people the party they'll vote and the name of its candidate in their riding.

The incidents of parachuting are not really all that common, to be honest with you. Certain party vetting is a serious problem, but I have a solution that involves no alteration to the political system at all. Don't vote for those parties.

A "list" official could have an office in some riding hardly an essential difference(I imagine most do anyways).

It is utterly different. Party lists involve people who aren't even candidates to a riding, just simply people that the party decides it will name to the legislature.

"Presumed" by who? You have evidence that it's closer related to his riding than general concerns about this policy? In any event, this is just an anecdote and there many (probably many more) examples of local MPs toeing party line, as well as "list" MPs abandoning their parties for political reasons.

He wrote a frickin' letter detailing why he resigned from cabinet and from the party. That's how we bloody well know. I know BC is probably some distance away from you, but come on, this was in the national papers as well. You really are confirming to me that you don't have the foggiest idea about anything. Anyways, here's a link to the letter:

http://www.vancouversun.com/pdf/Lekstrom_resignation.pdf

I think it amply shows the power of the citizen involving himself in the process. Here in BC, some 600,000 citizens (and counting) are making their voices heard, and the halls of power are trembling. That's what it takes. It doesn't require re-jigging voting systems, overthrowing constitutions, it simply requires the people making their voices heard.

I do not insist on party list though. We can have the same system as now, except actual representation being determined by the party showing in the election. Voter breakdown by %% of vote in election = House breakdown by party, the winning candidates appointed to ridings according to party showing in it. Just one possibility of how it could be moved forward. What is inacceptable in a modern democracy is maintaining the status quo that no longer gives voters any meaningful choice.

In other words "Wahh!! I want change!!!!"

As I said, want me onside for PR, drop party lists. That's the only way I'll sign on. I will never support a system that further entrenches party power.

Edited June 15, 2010 by ToadBrother

[myata]

The reason they look that way is because that's what the majority of the electorate wants.

No, I already explained it out painstakingly to another poster here that you can't claim knowing "what electorate wants" until they are given free and uncompromised choice. The reason why Tories and Libs are the new political twins has also been explained. Imitating each other is the lest risky strategy in late and tired stage of evolution of two party system. Neither partocracy wants any unnecessary movement or risk, it's safe and cheaper this way and their turn in power is guaranteed sooner or later.

Perhaps those one million voters should tell the Green Party not to elect a simpering idiot for a leader.

And until they tell her what you're telling them, they merit no representation in the Parliament? Yes, it's the democracy we have here after all.

The incidents of parachuting are not really all that common, to be honest with you. Certain party vetting is a serious problem, but I have a solution that involves no alteration to the political system at all. Don't vote for those parties.

Indeed I'm not voting any party till I have a meaningful choice anything less is like playing into two hundred year old game to the benefit of two party commmittees.

It is utterly different. Party lists involve people who aren't even candidates to a riding, just simply people that the party decides it will name to the legislature.

OK, we'll have to defer this argument until suggested experiment is conducted (percentage of people in the riding who recognise the candidate as opposed to party). Or how about even this minor modification, remove the name of the party from the ballot, and see what happens?

In other words "Wahh!! I want change!!!!"

Rather, having a free and unrestricted political choice as the condition of my participation in the process.

As I said, want me onside for PR, drop party lists. That's the only way I'll sign on. I will never support a system that further entrenches party power.

So far, there's been two suggestions, one with no party lists, and the other with lists only for those who wants them. And all we hear from you so far is "Wahh! I don't want any change!!!"

[Michael Hardner]

No, I already explained it out painstakingly to another poster here that you can't claim knowing "what electorate wants" until they are given free and uncompromised choice.

It is endemic to your argument that you have to depict your proposal as offering 'free choice' when that is actually what we have now.

Under your plan, it will be the majority that will have their freedom reduced - the majority of mainstream voters will have power reduced by a small minority of voters. Minorities are not guaranteed power, only rights.

And, again, look at the result - we have a healthy balance of right and left in Canada. Your proposal, for all you know, could result in a broad centre-right coalition in response and less power for the left.

Be careful what you wish for.

[myata]

It is endemic to your argument that you have to depict your proposal as offering 'free choice' when that is actually what we have now.

But of course it would. Chosing something else but the eternal duo would actually have some meaning, unlike what we have now. How's that not free, or at least more free than what we have now?

Under your plan, it will be the majority that will have their freedom reduced - the majority of mainstream voters will have power reduced by a small minority of voters. Minorities are not guaranteed power, only rights.

How exactly would it be "reduced"? Each vote would get it exact worth, one vote to one unit of representation. Majority (more than 50%) voting for a party would still result in a majority representation.

And, again, look at the result - we have a healthy balance of right and left in Canada. Your proposal, for all you know, could result in a broad centre-right coalition in response and less power for the left.

As explained (multiple times) my argument is based only on principles of fairness and freedom, rather than long term political engineering. In other words, I want real uncompromised choice and I'm fully preparted to take full responsibility for it.

[Michael Hardner]

But of course it would. Chosing something else but the eternal duo would actually have some meaning, unlike what we have now. How's that not free, or at least more free than what we have now?

Using the same arguments that you yourself used against direct democracy: it's not practical. You can't take a country that is run by one vision, or at times two parties in compromise, and throw 2 or three extra stakeholders and there and expect it to work.

How exactly would it be "reduced"? Each vote would get it exact worth, one vote to one unit of representation. Majority (more than 50%) voting for a party would still result in a majority representation.

Because the majority currently sees their government elected to enact their vision at least once per generation. That would never happen again, and that is real loss of power and freedom.

50% vote for one party practically never happens. It would under a 2-party system, which paradoxically is more fair under your rules.

As explained (multiple times) my argument is based only on principles of fairness and freedom, rather than long term political engineering. In other words, I want real uncompromised choice and I'm fully preparted to take full responsibility for it.

Principles of fairness and freedom, as evaluated subjectively by you. Objectively, it's more difficult to move decisions through with more stakeholders, as you yourself argued in the discussion on direct democracy.

You have selected a balance of power plan that is between what we have now and DD, but it's too radical a change to foist on 70-80 percent of Canadians who do not want such a change. If you want representation for minorities in government, that's reasonable and I would support that but not a pure PR plan.

[ToadBrother]

No, I already explained it out painstakingly to another poster here that you can't claim knowing "what electorate wants" until they are given free and uncompromised choice. The reason why Tories and Libs are the new political twins has also been explained. Imitating each other is the lest risky strategy in late and tired stage of evolution of two party system. Neither partocracy wants any unnecessary movement or risk, it's safe and cheaper this way and their turn in power is guaranteed sooner or later.

The proof is in the pudding. Canada, since Confederation, has been a centrist country. Parties that veered too far in one direction or another saw their electoral success hampered. Reform was all but cut off at the Manitoba-Ontario border, the Alliance did no better, and it wasn't until Harper and Mackay forcibly merged Reform/Alliance and the PCs and moved, you guess it, to the center that Canadian conservatism reclaimed the government. By the same rule, the NDP has never been able to gain more than a small fraction of Parliament, because its policies are too far to the Left for most voters, and while it has certain core constituencies, no political party can rely on those for more than a presence in Parliament. To do more than that, you guessed it, you have to move to the center.

Both the CCF/NDP and later Reform certainly tried to stay true to their particular ideologies and achieve power, and for both, the success was limited, though I'll gladly admit that both were able to heavily influence policy during their heyday, but voters were still unwilling to give either the keys to the kingdom, because voters simply are not comfortable which rushing too far to either political extreme.

Now it can happen that more ideological parties can gain success. Certainly Labour in Britain was at times able to, despite being very dominated by unions, but it's greatest stretch of success under Tony Blair was, you guessed it, because he pushed the party to the center, and thus was able to compete with the old "natural governing" party.

In countries where you have PR systems and where coalitions are more likely, those coalitions still tend towards the center. Israel is a major exception, due to peculiarities of demographics which make it an exception to the rule. Italy has all kinds of hard right and hard left parties, but still, coalitions tend towards the middle ground, wavering between right and left much as we do.

And until they tell her what you're telling them, they merit no representation in the Parliament? Yes, it's the democracy we have here after all.

The notion of merit puzzles me. It's as if you want everyone to ignore the fact that the leader is incompetent, that the party refuses to remove her, and just vote Green anyways. It's rather like saying "Bob's a shitty mechanic, but I go to him because I want to make sure I'm fair to all the mechanics in town."

The fact is the Green's wouldn't be a major voice in Parliament even in a PR system, but even now they likely could have won at least a seat or two if they hadn't been so badly managed by May and her handlers, and by a few vocal wingnuts. In fact, one of the signs that a political party has matured is its ability to marginalize the inevitable nutjobs in every party, and indeed in every caucus. Harper, for instance, has gone some distance in leaving behind some of the goofier and sometimes truly noxious members of the old Reform party. The Greens are still young, and like all immature parties have yet impose the degree of maturity and insight needed. They could start by tossing out May and demonstrating that they understand their failings and are willing to amend them.

Indeed I'm not voting any party till I have a meaningful choice anything less is like playing into two hundred year old game to the benefit of two party commmittees.

Well, I probably won't for any major party. I'm out with the Tories because the Tory incumbent is an intolerant religious nutjob. The Liberals have had a couple of good candidates, but nothing spectacular. The NDP candidate last time was a good guy, but this time around I'm hoping one of the independents looks good.

OK, we'll have to defer this argument until suggested experiment is conducted (percentage of people in the riding who recognise the candidate as opposed to party). Or how about even this minor modification, remove the name of the party from the ballot, and see what happens?

The whole point of a party list is that the party doesn't have to run them properly as candidates. They're on a list. You don't get to choose from that list. It's just there, and they get to name one of the apparatchik, whose sole loyalty is to the party.

There's no deferal. Party list systems are undemocratic.

Rather, having a free and unrestricted political choice as the condition of my participation in the process.

Why not run yourself? That way you know you'll like the guy you're running for.

So far, there's been two suggestions, one with no party lists, and the other with lists only for those who wants them. And all we hear from you so far is "Wahh! I don't want any change!!!"

I'm quite willing to look into non-party list PR. As I have said repeatedly I voted twice for STV in British Columbia. You seem to think that because I don't buy into everything you say I'm an opponent of change.