Proportional representation and the Conservative Party of Canada

[myata]

Likely true.

Like, there can actually be more "power over MP" (theoretically) than in this system here?

[Michael Hardner]

Like, there can actually be more "power over MP" (theoretically) than in this system here?

Of course. They could immediately expel anybody who votes against the party, which they don't do now.

[ToadBrother]

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

Of course you do, because you think voters are simpering morons.

[ToadBrother]

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.

I look at this way. If my MP votes on legislation, and I disagree with that vote, I can drive down to his constituency office, or I can phone, or mail him. I pretty much know where he's going to be during the summer, can walk up to him and say "Mr. My-MP, I'm mighty angry about the way you voted." There's contact, there's a presence.

If I don't like how a party list-chosen MP votes, that, for the most part is lost. I'm left dealing with the party itself, a big impersonal beast. That connection between a representative and a riding, which has been a feature of our system for centuries now, is missing, or at least even further minimized.

Look at what's happening with the HST in my province; BC. BC Liberal MLAs are literally being bombarded by angry constituents. Though all but one BC Liberal is still in caucus, most are admitting that they are feeling the pressure. Yes, for now they'll stick to the party line, because it's only a year into a four year mandate, but if the rumors running around are true, the Premier and the Finance Minister have been roasting for months, and it's likely that the Premier's political future will be much shorter. The HST will likely remain, but the party is damaged, and the internal politics, albeit somewhat hidden from public view, is intense and going to only grow more intense.

In a party list system, a bunch of the government's MLAs don't owe anything to a constituency, are there because the Party, without even the limited democracy of the riding association, has decided they, for whatever reason, should be there. They would be personally immune from a lot of the anger and criticism, simply because they are apparatchik, all loyalty and their very political existence owed solely to the party.

Our system, with its strong centralized parties bound by caucus solidarity and the not insubstantial powers the party leader has to punish errant (as the party views it) representatives, has some big flaws. I fail to see how further entrenching and expanding the party's control over the representatives elected under its banner is supposed to solve the problem, more likely it seems to me that it is a sort of an admission of defeat.

If you want my thoughts on the matter, I'd retain everything except caucus secrecy. Force parties to publish caucus vote results, because so very often that's where things are decided. I'd wager you'd see significantly more responsive MPs and a degradation of leadership power if MPs knew that even the votes they did behind closed doors were going to be opened to their constituents.

[Bortron]

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.

I usually disagree with my profs actually. Most of them are left-wing nut jobs.

[Bortron]

I never said the PR system is perfect people and the majority of people I've personally come into contact with agree its superior despite their political affiliation, but it's not something I talk about a lot. I see many of the posters on here disagree, that's fine. I wasn't intending for this to be a debate on the PR system just on the consequences if it was implemented.

[Bortron]

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.

I have to say you have actually given me some things to consider; I like your views.

[Bortron]

Of course you do, because you think voters are simpering morons.

Maybe they are....

[Machjo]

Of course you do, because you think voters are simpering morons.

It would seem the government thinks so if it feels the need to point out on the ballot to what party each candidate belongs. It's a bit of an insult to voters' intelligence, don't you think?

Then again, what does it say about the voters who defend such a crutch?

Edited July 9, 2010 by Machjo

[Machjo]

I have to say you have actually given me some things to consider; I like your views.

I never studied politics in school, so I got most of my ideas for this from experience, brainstorming, exchanging ideas with others, and some Wikipedia, and possibly some other influences subconsciously.

Honestly though, I wouldn't mind seeing some combination of plurality-at-large and non-partisan democracy, at least to some degree, even if only symbolically in terms of removing party names from my ballot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality-at-large_voting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy

Mind you, of course my ideas are always evolving and so I could have different ideas next week.

[TimG]

If you want my thoughts on the matter, I'd retain everything except caucus secrecy.

Is the causus meeting a formal part of our political process? I did not think it was. They can have the meetings but if there a no procedures about when votes occur and who votes then making that information public would be useless because they would not formally vote contentious on issues. Making the entire debate open is not an option - it would just move the real discussions to some other venue which is not covered by the rules.

[Machjo]

As for caucuses, just scrap party caucuses, and have a caucus of the House.

[TimG]

As for caucuses, just scrap party caucuses, and have a caucus of the House.

And how would that be implemented? Would meetings of 3 or MPs from same party be banned? Caucus is just a fancy word for business meeting.

[Machjo]

And how would that be implemented? Would meetings of 3 or MPs from same party be banned? Caucus is just a fancy word for business meeting.

It couldn't It's just an idea. I don't think much could be done about caucus meetings without first weakening the partisan system we have at least somewhat.

[M.Dancer]

Talk about scrapping political parties is nonsense. They are here to stay and the right to form a party, be in a party is enshrined in our constitution under the freedom of association.

http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/pdp-hrp/canada/frdm-eng.cfm

To scrap that would require a constitutitional amendment that would in effect remove quite a bit of freedom from us as well, no party would work and lobby to exterminate itself.

[Michael Hardner]

Maybe they are....

Voters are not a homogeneous bloc, yet we design our systems of democracy as though they are.

Just as our roadways are designed to handle a wide range of driving ability, so our democratic systems should guide voters to good information, and informed choices.

While I trust voters to make good choices, I do think that the parties should voluntarily work to reform the system so that those choices are supported with good information. The Canadian parties have done this recently, and the last election had (IMO) better TV ads which are, let's face it, the currency of elections.

What we should not do is make it especially easy for people who are uninterested in the issues to vote by, for example, letting them click on a radio button on a popup web page.

[Remiel]

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.

I wonder if perhaps a possible compromise would be to have regional lists. Some of the " proportionateness " would possibly be diluted, but at the same time every MP would be attached in some way to a specific geographic area. It is possible that in using such a method it might be easier to keep out fringe parties too, if, for instance, to get list seats in a region you have to get exceed the percentage of votes needed regionally AND nationally. So, if the Communist party polls 15% in one provice but only 2% nationally, they are cut out entirely.

[Michael Hardner]

I wonder if perhaps a possible compromise would be to have regional lists. Some of the " proportionateness " would possibly be diluted, but at the same time every MP would be attached in some way to a specific geographic area. It is possible that in using such a method it might be easier to keep out fringe parties too, if, for instance, to get list seats in a region you have to get exceed the percentage of votes needed regionally AND nationally. So, if the Communist party polls 15% in one provice but only 2% nationally, they are cut out entirely.

Geographic area ? This sounds kind of like the Senate... doesn't it ?

[Machjo]

Talk about scrapping political parties is nonsense. They are here to stay and the right to form a party, be in a party is enshrined in our constitution under the freedom of association.

http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/pdp-hrp/canada/frdm-eng.cfm

To scrap that would require a constitutitional amendment that would in effect remove quite a bit of freedom from us as well, no party would work and lobby to exterminate itself.

We would not need to ban political parties, but merely remove all legal recognition of them. As such, parties would exist like any other club, but would have no special privilege of any kind.In this way, while they may still influence politics to a degree, and while informal party alliances might form in Parliament, their power would be severely weakened, thus maybe promoting a healthier balance between party discipline and the MPs' independence.

[myata]

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.

As said, if fairness of representation does not matter then everything becomes abstract. System that guarantees one party 99% of representation would be just as legitimate as ours and as a full proportional representation that correctly reflects voter's choices. Everything is the same so no need to go anywhere. End of story.

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.

Right, wouldn't it be so sad and unjust? Party that fails to either win majority of popular support, or establish or participate in a coalition with such, could be excluded from power.. an obscenity! Our guaranteed dance of two is so much more credible. Your turn - my turn - and to hell with the "mathematics", right?

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.

One more time: if a party polls above representation threshold filtering out marginal groups, who's there to define it as "nuts" etc? Are some of us more worthy than the others? Maybe we should just scrap the whole idea of universal vote, and give it only to those who have the "right" ideas?

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.

Yes it would. What does not exist is your explanation how it would consitute a serious risk to our system (given that pretty much every other democracy has moved or is moving to some form or element of proportional representation).

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.

No, there's no machine, but there's a rational, measurable real indicator that is called "popular support". You're free to not notice it even than it's glaring straight in your eyes, but I'm afraid that impossibility theorem is only created because you slept through, or were otherwise distracted from grade 3 math (remember, than you studied such things as percentages and proportions)? Funny how we could be so apt in applying these to seriously important matters like daily taxes, fees, etc and go completely at loss when it touches the question of how we elect our government.

[Machjo]

Voters are not a homogeneous bloc, yet we design our systems of democracy as though they are.

Just as our roadways are designed to handle a wide range of driving ability, so our democratic systems should guide voters to good information, and informed choices.

Giving an ignorant voter the false impression that he is voting for a party on a candidate-based ballot is hardly providing him with 'good' information leading to 'informed' choices.

While I trust voters to make good choices, I do think that the parties should voluntarily work to reform the system so that those choices are supported with good information. The Canadian parties have done this recently, and the last election had (IMO) better TV ads which are, let's face it, the currency of elections.

Good luck with that. Most if not all party ads are nothing more than mudslinging matches.

What we should not do is make it especially easy for people who are uninterested in the issues to vote by, for example, letting them click on a radio button on a popup web page.

That I can agree with, but by defending the listing of political parties on a candidate-based ballot, are you not promoting a more moderate version of this very thing? What, can't a voter be bothered to find out for himself what party a candidate belongs to?

[ToadBrother]

We would not need to ban political parties, but merely remove all legal recognition of them. As such, parties would exist like any other club, but would have no special privilege of any kind.In this way, while they may still influence politics to a degree, and while informal party alliances might form in Parliament, their power would be severely weakened, thus maybe promoting a healthier balance between party discipline and the MPs' independence.

I think you'd best review Parliament's functioning in the 18th century. There were no formalized parties, just too major groupings; Whigs and Tories, with no defined leadership, and it was hardly a paradise. I dislike party discipline, but I don't think any of the remedies can reasonably involve some disestablishing them.

As it is, our constitution itself really does not formalize political parties, which developed in parallel to the key constitutional changes between the 16th and early 19th centuries, and looking back on it, I cannot imagine political parties not forming. They began precisely as you say you want them to be, and once you got voting blocs with whipped votes, you didn't need legal recognition, because the structure was de facto already there.

We're stuck with them, and the best we can do now is to try to find ways to claw back the powers of the party leadership. I'm not exactly sure how that can be done. In some ways I think the fundraising and donation rules have in fact been counterproductive, that in making the system more honest, we have in fact made much more concrete the overarching role of the party. But seeing as parties are fundamentally free associations, I can't imagine you would get very far in trying to disestablish them that wouldn't end up being tossed out in the Supreme Court.

[Machjo]

I think you'd best review Parliament's functioning in the 18th century. There were no formalized parties, just too major groupings; Whigs and Tories, with no defined leadership, and it was hardly a paradise. I dislike party discipline, but I don't think any of the remedies can reasonably involve some disestablishing them.

As it is, our constitution itself really does not formalize political parties, which developed in parallel to the key constitutional changes between the 16th and early 19th centuries, and looking back on it, I cannot imagine political parties not forming. They began precisely as you say you want them to be, and once you got voting blocs with whipped votes, you didn't need legal recognition, because the structure was de facto already there.

We're stuck with them, and the best we can do now is to try to find ways to claw back the powers of the party leadership. I'm not exactly sure how that can be done. In some ways I think the fundraising and donation rules have in fact been counterproductive, that in making the system more honest, we have in fact made much more concrete the overarching role of the party. But seeing as parties are fundamentally free associations, I can't imagine you would get very far in trying to disestablish them that wouldn't end up being tossed out in the Supreme Court.

I'm not suggesting having any specific law disestablishing them, but rather simply removing all laws that acknowledge their existence. Some may continue voting as voting blocks, or continue following party discipline. But with no trace of parties on the ballot, and no legal recognition of parties (which would include giving parties money for each vote, etc.) there is no doubt that the party system woudl be weakened at least somewhat.

Now are you going to tell me that parties have a constitutional right to all these legally recognized privileges?

[ToadBrother]

I'm not suggesting having any specific law disestablishing them, but rather simply removing all laws that acknowledge their existence.

Which would then permit them every manner of action, funneling money to candidates in all ways save illegal ones. What have you accomplished here?

Some may continue voting as voting blocks, or continue following party discipline. But with no trace of parties on the ballot, and no legal recognition of parties (which would include giving parties money for each vote, etc.) there is no doubt that the party system woudl be weakened at least somewhat.

Now are you going to tell me that parties have a constitutional right to all these legally recognized privileges?

About the only thing you could do is remove tax exemptions and writeoffs for donations, and get them off the ballot. I still think your last solution is simply hoping that voters are so stupid they accidentally vote for the wrong guy.

As it is, you're right up there with myata and eyeball in the inconceivable ideas department. No political party would go for it, and unless you managed to vote a Parliament full of independents in, it would never happen.

Now, do you have any suggestions that could actually happen in the real world?

[Machjo]

"Well, in the real world we pull our pants down and bend over for the buggering of a lifetime from the ignorant masses?"

And Toadbrother, you may very well be right about voters being able to do nothing about the encroaching power of political parties. And as my statement quoted above indicates, maybe this is why voter turnout is so low? Maybe precisely because, sadly enough, you're right. The people have lost their democratic power ad now we live in a 'party-cracy', or should I say 'party-ship'.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Machjo