Proportional representation and the Conservative Party of Canada

[Bortron]

Proportional representation is obviously a superior form of democracy to what we have, I doubt anyone could argue it's not. Unfortunately due to the nature of politics in Canada we will probably never see it implemented due to the fact that it would hurt the incumbents chances of reelection so it would be very unwise for any party in power to push for it. If by some chance we did see it implemented we would probably see a very left wing dominated political landscape because the left wing split would become less of handicap to the Liberals and NDP. That's what I would predict based on the stats. By the way, before conservatives start attacking me I'm non-partisan, this is just an observation. What's your thoughts?

Edited July 8, 2010 by Bortron

[eyeball]

Could the Conservatives ever win a majority?

Not a chance in hell.

[Bortron]

Could the Conservatives ever win a majority?

Not a chance in hell.

lol I would say your right.

[Alta4ever]

Proportional representation is obviously a superior form of democracy

BS!

I don't want an MP in my riding that did not win the popular support of the riding. That's exactly what PR does, if you can't win the support of your local riding how could you speak for it? PR is just the whining of losers who can win the popular vote.

[Bortron]

BS!

I don't want an MP in my riding that did not win the popular support of the riding. That's exactly what PR does, if you can't win the support of your local riding how could you speak for it? PR is just the whining of losers who can win the popular vote.

I don't think you fully understand how it works. Look into the German system, it's probably the best example. A lot of our MP's didn't win the Majority in their riding therefore some only represent about a third of the voters in their riding leaving the other two thirds with no one representing them, understand?

[Alta4ever]

I don't think you fully understand how it works. Look into the German system, it's probably the best example. A lot of our MP's didn't win the Majority in their riding therefore some only represent about a third of the voters in their riding leaving the other two thirds with no one representing them, understand?

Did you see the word majority in my post...better read it again I said popular support. I know the german system its garbage. Doomed to ineffective coalition governments.

[Bortron]

Did you see the word majority in my post...better read it again I said popular support. I know the german system its garbage. Doomed to ineffective coalition governments.

And I explained to you that most do not have popular support. Something is popular if the majority likes it but I'm not arguing about definitions with you my friend. Peter MacKay for example is a prominent Cabinet Minister and he only had 46.6% of the vote and their wasn't even a Liberal running against him. This means that over half the voters in his riding have no representation and do not support this man, how can you think that this is a superior system? Last I checked Germany is one of the most successful countries in Europe and is bailing out the rest of them so it seems to work for them.

[Machjo]

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

Easily! Proportional Representation is based on one basic assumption:

that we all vote for a party and not a candidate.

If I don't vote for a party, but a candidate rather, then how can I redistribute my vote for that candidate among other candidates? Then it becomes senseless. In that case a better solution is simply to remove any legal or formal recognition given to political parties so that technically each candidate is running as an independent candidate, thus making the whole notion of proportionality meaningless.

Unfortunately due to the nature of politics in Canada we will probably never see it implemented due to the fact that it would hurt the incumbents chances of reelection so it would be very unwise for any party in power to push for it.

And the fact that those who do not want to entrench the party system even further than it is already generally oppose PR too as they want to go in the complete opposite direction of non-partisan democracy, and clearly PR would be going in the opposite direction to that.

If by some chance we did see it implemented we would probably see a very left wing dominated political landscape because the left wing split would become less of handicap to the Liberals and NDP.

Or some who vote candidate now would simply not know how to vote anymore.

That's what I would predict based on the stats. By the way, before conservatives start attacking me I'm non-partisan, this is just an observation. What's your thoughts?

You're 'non-partisan', yet want to further entrench a partisan system?

:angry:

Now I will grant you this:

To have a candidate-based voting system as we do now, but with political party names appearing on the ballot, we can legitimately argue that the voting system is misleading by giving a false impression that the voter is voting for a party when he's really voting for a candidate technically. On that front, yes I'd agree that a PR voting system would be more fair than the false advertisement we now have on our ballots. I'd say we should first try to remove party names from the ballots; and only falling that should we consider PR. One solution I could see would be having a referendum asking the following:

Would you rather the government remove party names from ballots and adopt a plurality-at-large voting system, or

Would you rather the government remove candidate's names and adopt a party-list system?

This way, we'd be making it clear that we expect an honest system devoid of misleading information that makes it unclear as to whether a voter is voting for a party or a candidate.

Personally, I'd vote for the first of the two options on such a referendum, but will still acknowledge that the second option on such a referendum would still be more fair than what we have now.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Machjo

[Alta4ever]

And I explained to you that most do not have popular support. Something is popular if the majority likes it but I'm not arguing about definitions with you my friend. Peter MacKay for example is a prominent Cabinet Minister and he only had 46.6% of the vote and their wasn't even a Liberal running against him. This means that over half the voters in his riding have no representation and do not support this man, how can you think that this is a superior system? Last I checked Germany is one of the most successful countries in Europe and is bailing out the rest of them so it seems to work for them.

Popular support is plurality not majority.

You want to stop the conservatives stop running so bloody many left wingers against each other. In some ridings there are more then five candidates. Pr is just the last vestige of left wing losers who could not win the nomination in real parties like the liberal party or the even I can't believe I am saying this, the NDP.

Last I checked we don't live in Germany or Europe, and I really don't want to.

Borton if your so in love with the German System of government and think they have it right emmigrate.

I for one love the first past the post constitutional monarchy we have. The german system isn't even 100 years old yet our common law constitutional democracy has been formed over hundreds years (it started with the signing of the magna carta) we are a mature democracy, and don't let any socialist tell you different.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Bortron]

Easily! Proportional Representation is based on one basic assumption:

that we all vote for a party and not a candidate.

If I don't vote for a party, but a candidate rather, then how can I redistribute my vote for that candidate among other candidates? Then it becomes senseless. In that case a better solution is simply to remove any legal or formal recognition given to political parties so that technically each candidate is running as an independent candidate, thus making the whole notion of proportionality meaningless.

And the fact that those who do not want to entrench the party system even further than it is already generally oppose PR too as they want to go in the complete opposite direction of non-partisan democracy, and clearly PR would be going in the opposite direction to that.

Or some who vote candidate now would simply not know how to vote anymore.

You're 'non-partisan', yet want to further entrench a partisan system?

:angry:

By non-partisan I mean I support no single party and I think this is a step away from the partisan system actually. There's different models for this style of system I would recommend examining the German system to start. Personally though I don't think this is the best form either, but it's just obviously superior to the one we have and is the next evolutionary step so to speak.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Bortron

[Machjo]

By non-partisan I mean I support no single party and I think this is a step away from the partisan system actually. There's different models for this style of system I would recommend examining the German system to start. Personally though I don't think this is the best form either, but it's just obviously superior to the one we have and is the next evolutionary step so to speak.

That's nonsensical. If you're making us vote for a party, you're making the system more, not less, partisan by its very definition.

[Bortron]

Popular support is plurality not majority.

You want to stop the conservatives stop running so bloody many left wingers against each other. In some ridings there are more then five candidates. Pr is just the last vestige of left wing losers who could not win the nomination in real parties like the liberal party or the even I can't believe I am saying this, the NDP.

Last I checked we don't live in Germany or Europe, and I really don't want to.

So you don't think everyone deserves representation and they shouldn't get the most power from their vote that they can, got it. I like knowing my vote means something and if PR gives my vote more importance I'm all for it.

[Bortron]

That's nonsensical. If you're making us vote for a party, you're making the system more, not less, partisan by its very definition.

You vote for candidates too. Once again I'll say look at the German system. It makes perfect sense.

[Bortron]

That's nonsensical. If you're making us vote for a party, you're making the system more, not less, partisan by its very definition.

Independents actually have a much easier time getting elected, this really is a step away from the partisan system, I wouldn't lie to you.

[Machjo]

Popular support is plurality not majority.

You have a good point here. If three candidates run, and one gets 40% of the vote, and the other two each get 30% of the vote, I'd rather the one who won a real plurality get the seat rather than one who got a false majority.

The same would apply if 99 candidates ran, one got 2% of the popular vote, and the others each got 1%, it would only be fair that the one who got 2% of the popular vote should get the seat based on a real plurality, rather than any of the others based on a a false majority.

By the way, I'm even in favour of an open ballot, which would be the ultimate plurality system since then anyone can vote for anyone else in his riding, thus making it a real system of the people.

I for one love the first past the post constitutional monarchy we have. The german system isn't even 100 years old yet our common law constitutional democracy has been formed over hundreds years (it started with the signing of the magna carta) we are a mature democracy, and don't let any socialist tell you different.

I will grant him this though:

It would be preferable to have an honest party list to a deceitful FPTP ballot with party names on it giving the false impression that one is voting party when he's really voting candidate. We can't have it both ways, and a decision must be made. As long as party names remain on the ballot, then certainly a party list would be more honest at least.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Machjo

[Alta4ever]

So you don't think everyone deserves representation and they shouldn't get the most power from their vote that they can, got it. I like knowing my vote means something and if PR gives my vote more importance I'm all for it.

Your vote does mean something it means you support a candidate. PR actually takes away the importance for your vote why vote for representation when its just going to be assigned because a certain party took a certain percentage of the national vote.

Like machjo said you make no sense.

[Machjo]

So you don't think everyone deserves representation and they shouldn't get the most power from their vote that they can, got it. I like knowing my vote means something and if PR gives my vote more importance I'm all for it.

If 3 candidates run, and one gets 40% of the vote, and the other two each get 30% of the vote, why should the one who won the plurality not get the seat over those who lost the plurality? I think it's obvious enough that the one who got 40% has more popular support than the one who got 30%, no?

Again, if you ignore the party system, then the idea of transferring votes from one person to another is nonsensical. Even if a candidate gets only 2% of the popular vote, if he wins a plurality, then he still has more popular support than any other candidate and so deserves the position.

[Bortron]

Your vote does mean something it means you support a candidate. PR actually takes away the importance for your vote why vote for representation when its just going to be assigned because a certain party took a certain percentage of the national vote.

Like machjo said you make no sense.

You vote for more then one candidate, so you rank them basically.

[Alta4ever]

I will grant him this though:

It would be preferable to have an honest party list to a deceitful FPTP ballot with party names on it giving the false impression that one is voting party when he's really voting candidate. We can't have it both ways, and a decision must be made. As long as party names remain on the ballot, then certainly a party list would be more honest at least.

I disagree the party system helps define were your candidate will stand on issues because there is no way in a campaign to find out where a candidate will stand on all issues. If they agree with a set of party policies set out in a policy manual will give the voter a sense of how they will represent their constituency.

[Bortron]

If 3 candidates run, and one gets 40% of the vote, and the other two each get 30% of the vote, why should the one who won the plurality not get the seat over those who lost the plurality? I think it's obvious enough that the one who got 40% has more popular support than the one who got 30%, no?

Again, if you ignore the party system, then the idea of transferring votes from one person to another is nonsensical. Even if a candidate gets only 2% of the popular vote, if he wins a plurality, then he still has more popular support than any other candidate and so deserves the position.

Man I really don't want to explain all this, look it up on your own. You rank the candidates you don't just vote for the party. You rank the guys running in you riding, ya know like 1st 2nd and 3rd. look at the German system it will explain everything, it's complicated but it works, when ya understand it come back and post.

[Machjo]

You vote for candidates too. Once again I'll say look at the German system. It makes perfect sense.

You can't vote for candidate and party simultaneously. Just to take some examples:

If I have a ballot with candidate names and party names on it, then let's say I vote for John Doe of the Canadian Party, and I chose to vote for him not for his sake, but because I like his party, what happens if he crosses the floor? Suddenly, my vote has just been ripped from me. Inversely, If I chose him for his own sake, but we have a party list system, and the party decides it doesn't want him anymore, but still keeps my vote, again, my representation has just been ripped from me.

The only way you could make it so that we can vote for party and candidate simultaneousness would be to make it the law that a candidate must remain a member of this or that party and must vote along with his caucus. To do so however would infringe on the MP's own freedom of association. We'd need a constitutional amendment to do this.

I think it's obvious enough that a candidate and a party are two distinct and separate entities. As such, you can only be voting for one or the other at any given time. In Germany, they have a mixed system, whereby you vote for a party list and a candidate, each separately. Yet even under that system, you're forced to vote for a party and so further entrench partisan politics.

And again, to be fair to yo, I will concede that a party list would still be preferable to a first past the post system with party names on the ballot to deceive the voter. At least a party list is honest about what you're voting for.

[Alta4ever]

You vote for more then one candidate, so you rank them basically.

Wish washy garbage either you support someone or you don't.

[Machjo]

I disagree the party system helps define were your candidate will stand on issues because there is no way in a campaign to find out where a candidate will stand on all issues. If they agree with a set of party policies set out in a policy manual will give the voter a sense of how they will represent their constituency.

Ever hear of floor-crossing?

Also, if you talk to a candidate, you will find that not all candidates are as loyal to their parties, and some are wiling to express views that contradict the party on occasion. Now as it turns out, most winers are very loyal to their parties. But if you talk to less likely candidates, there is a whole spectrum of loyalties.

Also, if you expect the candidate to be loyal to the party, then we might as well be honest about it if we are in fact voting for party and not candidate and go to the list system. My problem is that you can't have it both ways. On that front, he is right.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Machjo

[Bortron]

You can't vote for candidate and party simultaneously. Just to take some examples:

If I have a ballot with candidate names and party names on it, then let's say I vote for John Doe of the Canadian Party, and I chose to vote for him not for his sake, but because I like his party, what happens if he crosses the floor? Suddenly, my vote has just been ripped from me. Inversely, If I chose him for his own sake, but we have a party list system, and the party decides it doesn't want him anymore, but still keeps my vote, again, my representation has just been ripped from me.

The only way you could make it so that we can vote for party and candidate simultaneousness would be to make it the law that a candidate must remain a member of this or that party and must vote along with his caucus. To do so however would infringe on the MP's own freedom of association. We'd need a constitutional amendment to do this.

I think it's obvious enough that a candidate and a party are two distinct and separate entities. As such, you can only be voting for one or the other at any given time. In Germany, they have a mixed system, whereby you vote for a party list and a candidate, each separately. Yet even under that system, you're forced to vote for a party and so further entrench partisan politics.

And again, to be fair to yo, I will concede that a party list would still be preferable to a first past the post system with party names on the ballot to deceive the voter. At least a party list is honest about what you're voting for.

Seriously are you screwing with me? lol Yes to a certain degree you are voting for the party BUT the candidate comes first. The guy that gets the most first place votes gets the seat. It's very complicated and not perfect, but your obviously a thoughtful individual and you must be able to see the merit in this system. To me it is far far superior to the one we have now in Canada.

[Alta4ever]

Man I really don't want to explain all this, look it up on your own. You rank the candidates you don't just vote for the party. You rank the guys running in you riding, ya know like 1st 2nd and 3rd. look at the German system it will explain everything, it's complicated but it works, when ya understand it come back and post.

Its called a preferential (look it up) ballot and its garbage, look at what the liberals got during their leadership election on a preferential ballot, the worst of the three. In Alberta it was the same thing with the PC's we got Ed. A preferential ballot usually favours the weaker candidate. I understand the German system, and I don't like it. Do you think that PR has not been debated on this board before, that this is a new concept to us?