Proportional representation and the Conservative Party of Canada

[Bortron]

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

I'm not a fanatic and I don't think in absolutes. Ya don't have to like one man and hate the rest, but granted if your a conservative in Canada ya don't got many options hence this thread.

[Bortron]

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?

It certainly seems new to you.

[Alta4ever]

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.

It is a tool to help figure out the candidate, 36 days not a lot of time to figure out were a candidate stands on all issues. Floor crossers tend to be voted out in subsequent elections.

[Alta4ever]

It certainly seems new to you.

This coming from someone who doesn't even know what a preferential ballot is. Better finish that poli sci degree.

[Machjo]

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.

I don't think that'show it works in the German system. They have a combined FPTP and party list if I'm not mistaken. Are you sure you're not confusing it with the Australian system, Single Transferable Ballot?

But then this brings us to a few other issues:

1. Would there still be party names on the ballots? If so, then we might as well be honest about it and go to a pure party list.

2. If we remove party names from the ballot, then we need to compensate for the lack of unity in Parliament that the removal of the party system would produce (sure parties are divisive between themselves, but do provide unity within the party at least). One way of doing that would be to go to a plurality-at-large voting system, thus increasing the likelihood that the candidates chosen will share similar ideas so as to promote cohesiveness in a non-partisan system. Clearly you would not want to remove parties from the system and then on top of all of that promote fringe candidates via a more PR system thus eliminating any possible chance of establishing unity in Parliament.

[Alta4ever]

I'm not a fanatic and I don't think in absolutes. Ya don't have to like one man and hate the rest, but granted if your a conservative in Canada ya don't got many options hence this thread.

So you are willing to support three different candidates who may want to take the country in different directions.

Sounds like someone doesn't know how to make a decision.

[Machjo]

It is a tool to help figure out the candidate, 36 days not a lot of time to figure out were a candidate stands on all issues. Floor crossers tend to be voted out in subsequent elections.

That's where I think an open ballot can help. If there is someone in the community who is well respected but would normally not run in an election, people could still vote for that person, and so that way would be voting for someone they know rather than a commercialized brand name.

[Remiel]

You know, nevermind. I am just going to have to learn to avoid threads on voting reform if I do not want to have to listen to Machjo say the same thing about getting rid of parties he said in five other threads...

[Bortron]

This coming from someone who doesn't even know what a preferential ballot is. Better finish that poli sci degree.

lol I know what it is and I got all my Poli Sci credits.

[Machjo]

But again, I will give Bortron this:

To have party names on a FPTP ballot is dishonest and misleading to say the least. And as terrible as a party list would be, it would still be preferable to what we have now in that at least it would be honest about what we're voting for. Either we're voting for a candidate, or we're voting for a party. If we insist on voting for a party yet support FPTP, then we're essentially manipulating the system unfairly, since FPTP is fair only in a non-partisan system.

[Alta4ever]

lol I know what it is and I got all my Poli Sci credits.

Why did you not call it a preferential ballot then?

[Bortron]

I don't think that'show it works in the German system. They have a combined FPTP and party list if I'm not mistaken. Are you sure you're not confusing it with the Australian system, Single Transferable Ballot?

But then this brings us to a few other issues:

1. Would there still be party names on the ballots? If so, then we might as well be honest about it and go to a pure party list.

2. If we remove party names from the ballot, then we need to compensate for the lack of unity in Parliament that the removal of the party system would produce (sure parties are divisive between themselves, but do provide unity within the party at least). One way of doing that would be to go to a plurality-at-large voting system, thus increasing the likelihood that the candidates chosen will share similar ideas so as to promote cohesiveness in a non-partisan system. Clearly you would not want to remove parties from the system and then on top of all of that promote fringe candidates via a more PR system thus eliminating any possible chance of establishing unity in Parliament.

Your obviously anti-party and I said that there is a lot of different ways this could be done, perhaps there is a way we could eliminate parties all together, I know I'd like to see it happen. I think we're on the same page. You may be right about me mixing up Germans with the Australians, I didn't think this was gonna turn into this sort of a debate and I was ill prepared, its been about 6 years since I read anything on electoral process in a PR system.

[Bortron]

Why did you not call it a preferential ballot then?

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

[Machjo]

Your obviously anti-party and I said that there is a lot of different ways this could be done, perhaps there is a way we could eliminate parties all together, I know I'd like to see it happen. I think we're on the same page. You may be right about me mixing up Germans with the Australians, I didn't think this was gonna turn into this sort of a debate and I was ill prepared, its been about 6 years since I read anything on electoral process in a PR system.

As for being on the same page, I'll agree, but only to a certain degree.

Again, I do agree that most importantly, we need honesty on the ballot. If we're going to keep FPTP, then party names must be removed. If we're going to keep party names on the ballot, then we need to remove candidate names and make it a list system. Either way, it should be honest, fair, and transparent as to what exactly you're voting for. We can't be voting for candidates and parties simultaneously. Looking at it that way, yes I'm anti-party, but more importantly I want an honest ballot.

Now if we do remove party names (which is the direction I'd want to go in), then we'd need to compensate for the lack of cohesiveness this would create in parliament, and so plurality at large would be the way to go as it tends to promote landslide majorities (which is not particularly meaningful in the absence of parties, but it would still at least encourage candidates with similar views, thus compensating for the lack of cohesion removing parties would cause). In a sense, we can say that STV is an attempt at a compromise between systems, and so in the end it represents neither the candidate nor the party particularly accurately. Looking at it that way, it would be preferable to make a clear decision. If we go non-partisan, we go all the way and adopt plurality at large. And if we go partisan, then likewise we go all the way and adopt a party list. No confusing compromises letting us wonder what we are really voting for.

Again, FPTP per se is not a bad system if we hand out honest ballots.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Machjo

[Bortron]

As for being on the same page, I'll agree, but only to a certain degree.

Again, I do agree that most importantly, we need honesty on the ballot. If we're going to keep FPTP, then party names must be removed. If we're going to keep party names on the ballot, then we need to remove candidate names and make it a list system. Either way, it should be honest, fair, and transparent as to what exactly you're voting for. We can't be voting for candidates and parties simultaneously. Looking at it that way, yes I'm anti-party, but more importantly I want an honest ballot.

Now if we do remove party names (which is the direction I'd want to go in), then we'd need to compensate for the lack of cohesiveness this would create in parliament, and so plurality at large would be the way to go as it tends to promote landslide majorities (which is not particularly meaningful in the absence of parties, but it would still at least encourage candidates with similar views, thus compensating for the lack of cohesion removing parties would cause). In a sense, we can say that STV is an attempt at a compromise between systems, and so in the end it represents neither the candidate nor the party particularly accurately. Looking at it that way, it would be preferable to make a clear decision. If we go non-partisan, we go all the way and adopt plurality at large. And if we go partisan, then likewise we go all the way and adopt a party list. No confusing compromises letting us wonder what we are really voting for.

And failing that, if we can't remove parties,

Interesting... I'd still have to say that PR is a good next step to eliminating parties, it's not too drastic but if implemented correctly could put us on the right track. Preferential voting isn't perfect I just think that overall it is better then FPTP style in giving people the most value for their vote and better represents the political climate of the country. I really believe this is the next step we need to take in Canada.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Bortron

[Bortron]

Machjo I think you should look at this more pragmatically. You can't change things over night, specially in a country like Canada. One step at a time my friend.

[Machjo]

Interesting... I'd still have to say that PR is a good next step to eliminating parties, it's not too drastic but if implemented correctly could put us on the right track. Preferential voting isn't perfect I just think that overall it is better then FPTP style in giving people the most value for their vote and better represents the political climate of the country. I really believe this is the next step we need to take in Canada.

But when you talk of preferantial ballot, what kind of preferential ballot are you talking about?

If you mean one with candidate names only and no party, then there is the problem of cohesion in Parliament. Without parties pulling MPs together, the last thing we'd want would be a preferential voting system that increases the chance of a greater distance between Mps' views, thus making it difficult to get anything done in Parliament. In that case, parties are necessary, but then having party names on a preferential ballot is about as dishonest as on an FPTP ballot since in both cases you're technically voting for a candidate and not a party. So in the end, preferential ballots are a compromise in mediocrity either way. If party names must stay, then let's be honest and go party list.

[Machjo]

Machjo I think you should look at this more pragmatically. You can't change things over night, specially in a country like Canada. One step at a time my friend.

If you want incrementalism, then just remove party names from the current ballot. A small step, but a symbolically important one none the less.

[Bortron]

If you want incrementalism, then just remove party names from the current ballot. A small step, but a symbolically important one none the less.

Yeah I'd agree with that, it's not a hard sell to me. Your 100% correct about the cohesion issue and I pretty much agree with you on most points. The main issue I was hoping people would discuss is the fact that Conservatives in Canada are over represented in Parliament and that parliament poorly represents the dominant political culture in Canada. lol Didn't think we were gonna get into electoral process and the advantages and disadvantages of the PR system.

[Machjo]

Yeah I'd agree with that, it's not a hard sell to me. Your 100% correct about the cohesion issue and I pretty much agree with you on most points. The main issue I was hoping people would discuss is the fact that Conservatives in Canada are over represented in Parliament and that parliament poorly represents the dominant political culture in Canada. lol Didn't think we were gonna get into electoral process and the advantages and disadvantages of the PR system.

Well, if we think in terms of party votes, then yes the conservative Party has excessive representation. If we think in terms of votes for candidates, then no no individual candidate has excessive representation in his riding as he legitimately won the plurality vote. Where the problem lies is in the Conservative Party promoting itself as a party and then encouraging people to vote party on a candidate-based ballot, which of course skews the numbers completely as we can now see.

But then again, all parties are guilty of this.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Machjo

[Remiel]

In that case, parties are necessary, but then having party names on a preferential ballot is about as dishonest as on an FPTP ballot since in both cases you're technically voting for a candidate and not a party.

It would only be dishonest if it were only the party name on those ballots. Having party names on the ballots with their candidates is more honest than not. The dishonestly lies not in the ballots, but in the failure to correct voters mistaken impressions about their party system. If a voter does not understand how the system works before they go into the voting booth, it is a failure that cannot be corrected by playing games with the ballots.

[Machjo]

And while we're on the topic of incrementalism, going from FPTP to plurality-at-large is not such a radical step considering that FPTP is in fact a form of plurality at large already, except with only one candidate to vote for. In some urban areas, plurality at large could easily be extended to more than one candidate on the ballot without any radical change to the system. Since plurality at large would encourage landslide victories, this would likely make the population ever more wary of political parties and so likely turn people more against parties. Inversely, a more PR system such as preferential ballots would likely lead to a wider variety of ideas and so more support for political parties so as to promote more cohesion in Parliament. So strangely enough, if the goal is in fact ot weaken party loyalty, then we would want a more plurality-based rather than PR-based system.

[Machjo]

It would only be dishonest if it were only the party name on those ballots. Having party names on the ballots with their candidates is more honest than not. The dishonestly lies not in the ballots, but in the failure to correct voters mistaken impressions about their party system. If a voter does not understand how the system works before they go into the voting booth, it is a failure that cannot be corrected by playing games with the ballots.

I agree to an extent, but unless you intend to make political scholars out of the population or simply take their voting rights away from them, then you clearly want as simple and straightforward a system as possible.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Machjo

[Bonam]

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.

[M.Dancer]

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

There have been countless threads on this, both your suppositions fail.