Proportional representation and the Conservative Party of Canada

[Alta4ever]

don't know didn't think you guys would know what it was probably, sorry for the under estimation.

So what we have here is another life experience challenged student pushing his/her profs views arrogantly thinking his/her education elevates them above the rest of the posters on the board.

[Michael Hardner]

Proportional representation is obviously a superior form of democracy to what we have, I doubt anyone could argue it's not. U

First post I read on this thread was this one, and you're way off.

It has been argued here in the past, and you should have looked into those arguments before starting this one.

[Argus]

Proportional representation is obviously a superior form of democracy to what we have, I doubt anyone could argue it's not.

It's not.

[Argus]

Could the Conservatives ever win a majority?

Not a chance in hell.

As opposed to whom? The Libs are at about 25%. The NDP calls it a good year when they get as high as 20%.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

My summary of this topic, which has actually been discussed to death on here despite the claims that you can't argue PR is superior.

My summary of the PR discussions we've had here in the past, from my POV.

1. Why do we need to change the mechanics of our democracy ?

The answer often comes back as "fairness", as in "the system isn't fair now". The important thing to note is that "fairness" is subjective after all is said and done. Most would say that a fair system allows freedom of expression, but also might allow for martial law, whereby rights were suspended. The implementation of popular perceptions of freedom, and choice are what we're talking about.

PR proponents describe the system as unfair because FPTP ends up (when there are 3 parties) as electing a party with less than 50% of the vote. I guess that means the US 2-party system is completely fair, then. What I'm saying is that there are different measures of fairness, and the measures of fairness in society that are agreed to by a large majority of the group (all or most of which) are protected in our constitution.

Whatever voting system we choose, the result needs to promote good solutions and a nation that produces the best lives for its citizens. The mathematics of the system chosen, then, are subordinate to the results they produce.

Let's look at the fairness of our voting system then.

2. But, ok, what specifically is unfair about FPTP ?

The answers I have seen to this come back as:

- I'm not represented because my candidate/my party doesn't win elections.

- Large numbers of voters who support my party have no voice in parliament.

The first point, I would say, is an example of a abstract measure of freedom. It's the mathematics. There can only be so many representatives, and the abstractions of millions of people voting have to be translated into a formula that gives a certain amount of power to those that receive the most support. If you want everybody who votes to get power, not just representation, then that is possible but it's also a major change to how we govern. Our system has produced a great result by giving one party a large amount of power for the term of their government. An alternative system would mean that parties would govern in consensus mode for a long time if not forever.

The second point - having no voice - is a little less abstract, in that you can measure that millions of people vote for, say, the Green Party and there isn't a single MP who can stand up in the House of Commons and ask a question from a GP perspective.

3. What are the risks in having PR instead of FPTP ?

Some of the points discussed:

- Removing power from the majority.

In some cases, this is significant. The PR systems I have seen proposed would make a Conservative majority government nearly impossible to achieve. That's a significant loss to the 30% or so who regularly vote conservative, in order to make the system more fair for those who don't vote conservative. Now, PR advocates say that more would vote for fringe parties if they had a chance of winning but we really couldn't assess that without implementing PR.

- Fringe parties get a voice

Yes, the Green Party will have a voice but so will extreme parties of right/left.

- There are always risks in changing the process, it's not to be taken lightly

Large changes in the design of mass society can have large repercussions including the opposite effect of what is intended. Canada has a very good balance of right/left and a good framework for dialogue currently.

4. My Conclusion

If we're going to make pervasive changes in order to improve the fairness of the system, we had better be careful to do so and only do it if the system is perceived as being widely perceived as unfair.

I have changed my opinion on PR, and now see the value in offering a certain amount of seats to parties that poll at least 10%. Even a small number of seats given to these parties will give them a disproportionally large amount of power in parliament. As such, I think that is a reasonable compromise.

[Michael Hardner]

As opposed to whom? The Libs are at about 25%. The NDP calls it a good year when they get as high as 20%.

They are talking about under PR.

[Machjo]

Not a fan of proportional representation. It gets all kinds of fringe parties into positions of power, potentially making them decisive in terms of coalitions or in votes on various bills. In a PR system, we'd have greens, communists, race supremacists, religious parties, etc, all represented in parliament. IF a party can't muster up plurality support in a single riding, it doesn't deserve to have a single seat, even if it can get a few % support nationwide. Hence the FPTP system makes more sense to me than PR.

Just reread the bolded part. This is the current problem. FPTP is not bad in its own right, but when the government creates a ballot that misleads people into thinking they're voting for a party when in fact they're voting for a candidate, the result is that they might vote for a complete incompetent they don't even lke and would not normally vote for just because they happen to like the party leader. Looking at it that way, while I do prefer FPTP over any kind of PR system, that is conditional on FPTP being honest and not misleading. Otherwise, PR is preferable.

Now if I had the choice between simply removing party names from an FPTP ballot or going to a party list let's say, I'd choose the former. But if I had to choose between the current misleading system and a party list, then I'd choose the latter since at least it's honest about what we're voting for.

[Machjo]

But, ok, what specifically is unfair about FPTP ?

The answers I have seen to this come back as:

- I'm not represented because my candidate/my party doesn't win elections.

- Large numbers of voters who support my party have no voice in parliament.

Another one you've missed is:

- If party names are added to the FPTP ballot, then it becomes misleading to the voters, giving them the impression they are voting for a party when in fact they are doing nothing of the sort.

Granted, that is not a failure of FPTP itself, but rather of the design under which it is currently functioning, but still a potential flaw when the design is flawed as it is in Canada. And naturally such a design flaw causes even those who'd normally have no issue with FPTP to demand some kind of change to the system.

[myata]

We've been through this a lot, but I can't let this pass without comment.

My summary of this topic, which has actually been discussed to death on here despite the claims that you can't argue PR is superior.

My summary of the PR discussions we've had here in the past, from my POV.

1. Why do we need to change the mechanics of our democracy ?

The answer often comes back as "fairness", as in "the system isn't fair now". The important thing to note is that "fairness" is subjective after all is said and done. Most would say that a fair system allows freedom of expression, but also might allow for martial law, whereby rights were suspended. The implementation of popular perceptions of freedom, and choice are what we're talking about.

Fairness is only one aspect of the argument. Representation (i.e. lack, suppression of it) of political agendas, ideas and priorities is another. Our system where a majority government could absolutely ignore any voice from the opposition, and a minority one - very much so, creates rigid, inflexible and stagnating political system that is strongly aversed to any meaningful improvement or change unless it cannot absolutely be avoided.

Whatever voting system we choose, the result needs to promote good solutions and a nation that produces the best lives for its citizens. The mathematics of the system chosen, then, are subordinate to the results they produce.

Only when one has already prejudged that what they have is the absolute best and they couldn't possibly have anything that is better i.e. can be improved. It's in such contrast with the general notion of evolution and progress in nature, but who cares if in this little quiet corner of things we can afford to think that way - for a while.

2. But, ok, what specifically is unfair about FPTP ?

The answers I have seen to this come back as:

- I'm not represented because my candidate/my party doesn't win elections.

- Large numbers of voters who support my party have no voice in parliament.

The first point, I would say, is an example of a abstract measure of freedom. It's the mathematics.

The point is somewhat mute. It's not that my party does not get power, but how popular will translate into it. Does 40% of popular support give one party a mandate to fully and completely dominate political process? Should political groups with significant support (in double digits) be completely excluded from it?

So, how's this "abstract"?

Let's imagine a system where one party, you name it, always gets at least 95% percent of representation in power, no matter what. Would you call that also "abstract mathematics" though it completely changes the nature of political system, to obvious dictatorship a la any number of examples?

In the essence of things our system is a controlled democracy only one step away from those that are being practiced in countries like China or Russia. Good for us is that till now this extends only to political system per se, but who knows how it'll play out in the longer run.

The second point - having no voice - is a little less abstract, in that you can measure that millions of people vote for, say, the Green Party and there isn't a single MP who can stand up in the House of Commons and ask a question from a GP perspective.

I think in the essense it's still the same question: how popular support translates into party's mandate to power. Until we have a system where party's status reflects its popular support in a fair, unskewed manner, we can't claim that we have fair representative democracy. Controlled democracy as a tradeoff for predictable, stable government, it's your choice. Best government possible - your presumption.

3. What are the risks in having PR instead of FPTP ?

Some of the points discussed:

- Removing power from the majority.

Indeed, probably removing the whole notion of one party majority government. Is it necessarily a bad thing, that one party is able to force it's political way on the contry without any meaningful check or othersight? In your example, just like in reality of many countries, CPC would still be able to form a majority coalition, in which it would play a major role. What it would lose is the absolute, unchecked and unrestricted in any way control over government. Some would see it as good thing.

- Fringe parties get a voice

Yes, the Green Party will have a voice but so will extreme parties of right/left.

Does not this assume some extra (to the public that elects parties) point of view on who and what should be allowed to power. And who that extra point that will be deciding what is good for us, you forgot to mention. And if there isn't any such extra point, then what choice do we have then to allow us - our collective will represented by our electoral votes - to decide how our government will operate, and nothing else?

- There are always risks in changing the process, it's not to be taken lightly

Large changes in the design of mass society can have large repercussions including the opposite effect of what is intended. Canada has a very good balance of right/left and a good framework for dialogue currently.

I dunno what to say here. Yes anything can have "repercussions". E.g. I can take a bike and run into a tree. Is it because riding bike was a bad idea, despite millions or billions others riding it daily, or any number of other circumstances. If possibility of things going wrong were a valid argument, no change anywhere in human life would have been possible or rather there wouldn't be any human or otherwise life in the first place.

4. My Conclusion

If we're going to make pervasive changes in order to improve the fairness of the system, we had better be careful to do so and only do it if the system is perceived as being widely perceived as unfair.

I have changed my opinion on PR, and now see the value in offering a certain amount of seats to parties that poll at least 10%.

I agree with some safeguards in the transition that are fair to all or great majority of parties involved. Such as representation thresholds.

Even a small number of seats given to these parties will give them a disproportionally large amount of power in parliament. As such, I think that is a reasonable compromise.

And I completely disagree with any unfair skewing of representation that would result in nothing else but justification of the existing status quo by another name. If political competion is inherently unfair, there's no point pretending that it could produce a fair result, and therefore no reason to participate in it.

[Michael Hardner]

Another one you've missed is:

- If party names are added to the FPTP ballot, then it becomes misleading to the voters, giving them the impression they are voting for a party when in fact they are doing nothing of the sort.

Granted, that is not a failure of FPTP itself, but rather of the design under which it is currently functioning, but still a potential flaw when the design is flawed as it is in Canada. And naturally such a design flaw causes even those who'd normally have no issue with FPTP to demand some kind of change to the system.

I think you can say that you are voting for the party, given that individual MPs have little freedom to vote independently.

[Machjo]

I think you can say that you are voting for the party, given that individual MPs have little freedom to vote independently.

Then if that's the case, FPTP is among the worst systems, and a party list would in fact be the ideal since we would in fact be voting for the party. Unless of course we intended to weaken the party system itself and make individual candidates more independent from their parties.

Then the decision has to be made:

Do we try to weaken the party grip at least somewhat and remove party names from the ballots, or do we remove candidates from the ballots and go to a party list? My preference would be to remove party names from ballots, but again, a decision has to be made either way. To straddle the issue is just plain dishonest, misleading, and quite honestly, manipulative of public ignorance.

[Machjo]

Personally, I'd love for the government to have a referendum on this making clear that we will not tolerate misleading ballots anymore, with let's say the following two options:

-To adopt a plurality-at-large voting system with party names removed from the ballots and possibly even allowing for an open space on the ballot to write in a name of one's choosing, or

- a party list of some kind.

Sure both of these options are somewhat vague as there are various forms of plurality-at-large systems, such a question would not commit the government to any open space on a ballot but merely give it the freedom to consider the option, and party lists of of many kinds too.

However, while such a referendum would not settle the specific question of what kind of system we want, it would at least clarify whether we'd rather a candidate-based system or a party-based system, forcing us to make a choice between the two and put an end to manipulative ballots such as the ones we have now.

It would finally force us to make set a clear path either way.

[ToadBrother]

Then if that's the case, FPTP is among the worst systems, and a party list would in fact be the ideal since we would in fact be voting for the party. Unless of course we intended to weaken the party system itself and make individual candidates more independent from their parties.

Then the decision has to be made:

Do we try to weaken the party grip at least somewhat and remove party names from the ballots, or do we remove candidates from the ballots and go to a party list? My preference would be to remove party names from ballots, but again, a decision has to be made either way. To straddle the issue is just plain dishonest, misleading, and quite honestly, manipulative of public ignorance.

I am the constant opponent to party list systems. While I think FPTP has some major drawbacks, the one thing I think needs to be retained is the notion of an elected representative being tied to a specific geographical riding. Yes, with the way the parties run the shows nowadays, party apparatchik still often get on the ballot, but still, the minute you go to some proportion of the House being apparatchik with no ties, not even a constituency office, and thus no real constituency beyond the party that they owe everything, that bond is broken.

[ToadBrother]

Not a fan of proportional representation. It gets all kinds of fringe parties into positions of power, potentially making them decisive in terms of coalitions or in votes on various bills. In a PR system, we'd have greens, communists, race supremacists, religious parties, etc, all represented in parliament. IF a party can't muster up plurality support in a single riding, it doesn't deserve to have a single seat, even if it can get a few % support nationwide. Hence the FPTP system makes more sense to me than PR.

First of all, I doubt very much that there are any white supremacist parties that even under a PR system like Israel or Germany has that would ever find their way into Parliament. Ditto for the Communists (I mean, come on, the Marxist-Leninists guys poll statistically insignificant figures anyways, and you have to some degree of broad-based support to reasonably expect to win any seats). Yes, the Greens would get in, but they did manage to poll nearly a million people, hardly insignificant in a country of 30 million, so saying "Well, you have to get a plurality, otherwise your vote was wasted" seems a tad unfair, and more than a little undemocratic.

I'm eager to see how AV flies in the UK. I think if the LibDems can make the argument (and they'll have to outargue the Tories and Labour, both of which know that any kind of PR or transferable vote system will weaken their own position) and the UK does go to such a system, I suspect it will bolster the argument here as well (just look at how the UK coalition government made waves here).

Transferable vote systems like AV or STV are actually rather good compromises. They would still tend towards majority governments (if that really means anything in the current climate right now), but still give smaller parties at least a fighting chance of representation. AV in particular has the benefit of being a bit simpler than STV. What's wrong with the idea of marking your preference from first to last?

[Machjo]

I am the constant opponent to party list systems. While I think FPTP has some major drawbacks, the one thing I think needs to be retained is the notion of an elected representative being tied to a specific geographical riding. Yes, with the way the parties run the shows nowadays, party apparatchik still often get on the ballot, but still, the minute you go to some proportion of the House being apparatchik with no ties, not even a constituency office, and thus no real constituency beyond the party that they owe everything, that bond is broken.

But if people vote party already, then that bond is essentially broken already anyway except in appearance, is it not?

What I'm simply proposing is honesty. If a person supports FPTP but then defends party names on the ballots, he's trying to play both sides of the fence, telling the ignorant masses to vote party while in reality the plurality party will then be able to get more representation than it's really earned owing to the skewed numbers FPTP brings in a party system.

If a person genuinely supports FPTP on principle and not owing to some unfair advantage it gives his party, then he'll certainly support removing names from the ballot. Otherwise he's just being manipulative.

And just to clairfy again, I dislike the party list. All I'm saying is that it's still more honest than a partisan FPTP system trying to play both sides of the fence. At least with a party list, you know what you're voting for (though admittedly I personally would not know how to vote in such a system, I'd still applaud its honesty in at least not playing both sides of the fence and making it clear to me that I am voting party). We do have to be honest about that at least.

[Machjo]

First of all, I doubt very much that there are any white supremacist parties that even under a PR system like Israel or Germany has that would ever find their way into Parliament. Ditto for the Communists (I mean, come on, the Marxist-Leninists guys poll statistically insignificant figures anyways, and you have to some degree of broad-based support to reasonably expect to win any seats). Yes, the Greens would get in, but they did manage to poll nearly a million people, hardly insignificant in a country of 30 million, so saying "Well, you have to get a plurality, otherwise your vote was wasted" seems a tad unfair, and more than a little undemocratic.

And this I can see as a major problem for a PR system. Last election, I'd almost voted for the Green candidate (I'd handed in a blank ballot, but looking back on it I was a little too hard on the candidates), not because of his party affiliation, but rather because he really was a good candidate with his head screwed on right. In a PR system, I would not have the option of voting for that candidate personally. Then I'd have to vote for a party and then there is no saying whom the party could end up choosing. Just because I happen to support a particular candidate does not mean I support his party. Let's be careful in the polls too. When the polster asks what party one will vote for, he may answer party x but more as a short form to say the local candidate who happens to be a member of party x, but more as a point of reference only. That same voter in another riding may have answered party y if let's say he normally straddles the left of party x but the right of party y, and the party x candidate in the one riding represents the left of the party, and candidate y in the other riding represents the right of his party.

Looking at it that way, party polls in Canada are likely extremely skewed to say the least. After all, had I been polled last election, I might have answered Green Party, and that could have been misinterpreted to mean that I actually supported his party. In another riding, I could support the Conservative Party for instance. In fact, I'd say the Green Party candidate in my riding last election was definitely a 'blue green' if you know what I mean, whereas the CPC candidate in my riding was, well, not particularly ideological but more of a blind CPC partisan with no real ideas of his own. Overall, I'd say the Green Party candidate in that particular riding was a better fiscally conservative choice, ironically enough, but that should not be construed to mean that I support the Green Party as such.

And this is where I think simply removing party names from the current FPTP ballot would be a positive step forward.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Machjo

[Michael Hardner]

Fairness is only one aspect of the argument. Representation (i.e. lack, suppression of it) of political agendas, ideas and priorities is another. Our system where a majority government could absolutely ignore any voice from the opposition, and a minority one - very much so, creates rigid, inflexible and stagnating political system that is strongly aversed to any meaningful improvement or change unless it cannot absolutely be avoided.

I think you're just restating the same thing here.

Only when one has already prejudged that what they have is the absolute best and they couldn't possibly have anything that is better i.e. can be improved. It's in such contrast with the general notion of evolution and progress in nature, but who cares if in this little quiet corner of things we can afford to think that way - for a while.

We can always make things better. I don't think that my assessment precludes changing the system - see below.

The point is somewhat mute. It's not that my party does not get power, but how popular will translate into it. Does 40% of popular support give one party a mandate to fully and completely dominate political process? Should political groups with significant support (in double digits) be completely excluded from it?

So, how's this "abstract"?

It's abstract in that, you can't give every Canadian 1/30 millionth of power, so you have to come up with abstract formulae that translate the popular will into workable means of governing.

The answer to your questions are "maybe". Since freedom is subjective, we have to decide these things.

Let's imagine a system where one party, you name it, always gets at least 95% percent of representation in power, no matter what. Would you call that also "abstract mathematics" though it completely changes the nature of political system, to obvious dictatorship a la any number of examples?

It's still an abstraction of power, that becomes real when a billyclub cracks your skull, or when you are able to walk down the streets without harassment. Would I call a system like that free ? No, I wouldn't.

In the essence of things our system is a controlled democracy only one step away from those that are being practiced in countries like China or Russia. Good for us is that till now this extends only to political system per se, but who knows how it'll play out in the longer run.

One step away ? Well, ok but what does that mean ? Democracy is one step away from dictatorship, peace is one step away from war. It's prose.

I think in the essense it's still the same question: how popular support translates into party's mandate to power. Until we have a system where party's status reflects its popular support in a fair, unskewed manner, we can't claim that we have fair representative democracy. Controlled democracy as a tradeoff for predictable, stable government, it's your choice. Best government possible - your presumption.

Using the term "fair" - again - is a personal thing. Sorry but I think the system is fair now.

Indeed, probably removing the whole notion of one party majority government. Is it necessarily a bad thing, that one party is able to force it's political way on the contry without any meaningful check or othersight? In your example, just like in reality of many countries, CPC would still be able to form a majority coalition, in which it would play a major role. What it would lose is the absolute, unchecked and unrestricted in any way control over government. Some would see it as good thing.

In more practical terms, though, the CPC would appear to have fewer opportunities to gain power.

Does not this assume some extra (to the public that elects parties) point of view on who and what should be allowed to power. And who that extra point that will be deciding what is good for us, you forgot to mention. And if there isn't any such extra point, then what choice do we have then to allow us - our collective will represented by our electoral votes - to decide how our government will operate, and nothing else?

Nothing new here.

I dunno what to say here. Yes anything can have "repercussions". E.g. I can take a bike and run into a tree. Is it because riding bike was a bad idea, despite millions or billions others riding it daily, or any number of other circumstances. If possibility of things going wrong were a valid argument, no change anywhere in human life would have been possible or rather there wouldn't be any human or otherwise life in the first place.

This is why it's listed as a risk. The next step would be to quantify the risk.

There's nothing in what I posted that says we shouldn't make changes. But labeling and exploring the risks is essential.

I agree with some safeguards in the transition that are fair to all or great majority of parties involved. Such as representation thresholds.

And I completely disagree with any unfair skewing of representation that would result in nothing else but justification of the existing status quo by another name. If political competion is inherently unfair, there's no point pretending that it could produce a fair result, and therefore no reason to participate in it.

As I said, my suggestion gives the smaller parties the balance of power in many situations, so it's more than fair to them.

[Michael Hardner]

Then if that's the case, FPTP is among the worst systems, and a party list would in fact be the ideal since we would in fact be voting for the party. Unless of course we intended to weaken the party system itself and make individual candidates more independent from their parties.

It has less to do with FPTP and more to do with the rules of individual parties.

The party list system would address this question, but if we're dealing with perpetual coalitions, I imagine parties would be more likely to tighten up discipline rather than let people vote independently.

Do we try to weaken the party grip at least somewhat and remove party names from the ballots, or do we remove candidates from the ballots and go to a party list? My preference would be to remove party names from ballots, but again, a decision has to be made either way. To straddle the issue is just plain dishonest, misleading, and quite honestly, manipulative of public ignorance.

I don't see what this is going to achieve. Maybe some people don't know who their local candidate's party is but so what ?

The big problem today is that people don't pay attention to big issues such as the environment, fiscal planning, health and so on so these little changes are just academic exercises for those of us on these boards.

As such, we need to put a priority on discussion and consensus building in our changing media environment, and not PR. The Green Party isn't going to win anytime soon. We're better off trying to get the electorate, and the main parties to discuss environmental issues - the GP isn't going to save us anytime soon.

[Argus]

They are talking about under PR.

So? If the NDP can't do better than 20% of the popular vote now what makes anyone think they'd somehow be able to form a majority government with PR?

[Argus]

I think you can say that you are voting for the party, given that individual MPs have little freedom to vote independently.

This is true. Still, rebel MPs often have a constituency behind them, a loyalty from thsoe who voted ffor them, and the ability, on occasion, to tell the party to go screw itself, and still get re-elected.

Under PR the parties have a lot more power over MPs, not less.

[myata]

I think you're just restating the same thing here.

Well I have to because they were never answered.

We can always make things better. I don't think that my assessment precludes changing the system - see below.

I wouldn't call cosmetic changes that does not address the essense of problem "improvement". Nor would I interested in any of these.

It's abstract in that, you can't give every Canadian 1/30 millionth of power, so you have to come up with abstract formulae that translate the popular will into workable means of governing.

Correct. And some "formulae" reflect actual political composition of the country, while others - (much) less so. As in situation where 35% of popular support translates into absolute domination of the government.

The answer to your questions are "maybe". Since freedom is subjective, we have to decide these things.

It's still an abstraction of power, that becomes real when a billyclub cracks your skull, or when you are able to walk down the streets without harassment. Would I call a system like that free ? No, I wouldn't.

And how we decide them doesn't matter because everything is subjective and "an abstraction of power"?Dictatorship is democracy, choice is mandatory and freedom is the absense of it?

One step away ? Well, ok but what does that mean ? Democracy is one step away from dictatorship, peace is one step away from war. It's prose.

Not as much as there're working real democracies that allow their citizens real political choice. The difference is real and measurable, e.g. by the number of real political choices we can make, so not everything reduces itself to "abstraction" and "prose".

Using the term "fair" - again - is a personal thing. Sorry but I think the system is fair now.

I already defined my notion of political fairness as correct unobstructed representation of popular support given to the party. Don't tell next time that it's abstract or prose because you see it on the screen every election time. And no it does not translate into anything even remotely similar in the actual balance of power.

In more practical terms, though, the CPC would appear to have fewer opportunities to gain power.

No fewer than they have now. If they garner highest popular support they would be likely to form the majority coalition. The only difference is that they wouldn't be able to dominate it absolutely and unconditionally which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Nothing new here.

Correct, you've yet to answer it. So one more time, who or what is that mysterious force that should be able to decide which public choices are worthy and which should be excluded?

There's nothing in what I posted that says we shouldn't make changes. But labeling and exploring the risks is essential.

Of course, but because you failed to name any concrete ones, that argument becomes empty commonplace against any change.

As I said, my suggestion gives the smaller parties the balance of power in many situations, so it's more than fair to them.

Again, given by who / what? Why should some parties get more representation than their actual popular worth, and others - less?

Edited July 8, 2010 by myata

[Argus]

But if people vote party already, then that bond is essentially broken already anyway except in appearance, is it not?

No, not entirely. Atlantic MPs will still do the best to protect their particular area, just as western MPs or Quebec MPs have their own geographical areas they are beholden to. When you have a party list then you're basically reducing all MPS to the job of roving ambassador for the party, not responsible to any individual group of voters, only to the party which allows them on the list.

[Michael Hardner]

So? If the NDP can't do better than 20% of the popular vote now what makes anyone think they'd somehow be able to form a majority government with PR?

No but they would appear to have a perpetual balance of power going on.

[Michael Hardner]

Under PR the parties have a lot more power over MPs, not less.

Likely true.

[Michael Hardner]

I already defined my notion of political fairness as correct unobstructed representation of popular support given to the party. Don't tell next time that it's abstract or prose because you see it on the screen every election time. And no it does not translate into anything even remotely similar in the actual balance of power.

I don't care what your definition is - everyone's definition is different so it's pointless to continuously use it in your arguments. Do you want to argue that broccoli tastes bad ? It's akin to the same thing. Arguments based on subjective evaluations have no weight outside your mind. If you're trying to convince ME then use my definition. Don't want to do that ? Fine, then argue the facts not your feelings about them.

No fewer than they have now.

Absolutely incorrect. The PCs have little in common with the NDP so it's a lot harder to govern with them. Even when finishing 2nd, the Liberals would be able to work with the NDP more easily.

So you've shut out 30% of the population completely, giving more much power to the Liberals and some to the NDP.

Oh, right it's "fair".

Correct, you've yet to answer it.

Answer what ? Do you want to give a voice to the far-right nuts and parties that poll in single digits ? If so, then fine.

Of course, but because you failed to name any concrete ones, that argument becomes empty commonplace against any change.

You aren't reading my posts then. I have proposed giving parties that poll 10% seats that would proportion significant power to them. Please read my posts.

Again, given by who / what? Why should some parties get more representation than their actual popular worth, and others - less?

Because there's no divine machine that will tell us what the "right" amount is. Giving every voter 1/30 millionth of the power is mathematically pure but impossible, and absolute fairness like that makes the system unworkable, I believe even you pointed out that direct democracy has limits so.

Again, your insistence on arguing things based on your own personal taste for 'fairness' is starting to be a waste of time. You should see by now that that doesn't convince me.