Proportional representation and the Conservative Party of Canada

[Remiel]

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

Perhaps, but I do think that we should say that nothing else can be based on the same regions because that would make it " like the Senate " . The reason for having regional lists and the reason for having regional Senators I think are different. Senators are regional because that is who they are suppposed to work in the interest of. Regional lists, however, are merely to make sure those MPs have a better chance of being held to account by someone. The regional divisions would just be because that might be more convenient because it is pre-existing.

[ToadBrother]

Perhaps, but I do think that we should say that nothing else can be based on the same regions because that would make it " like the Senate " . The reason for having regional lists and the reason for having regional Senators I think are different. Senators are regional because that is who they are suppposed to work in the interest of. Regional lists, however, are merely to make sure those MPs have a better chance of being held to account by someone. The regional divisions would just be because that might be more convenient because it is pre-existing.

The Senate's purpose is not to be regional representatives, but rather to represent the Provinces in Ottawa. Think of it more as jurisdictional representation.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

I didn't say it didn't matter.

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?

Yes, shutting out 30% from ever having power would be unjust. You seem to pooh-pooh it here, which doesn't gibe with your rejection of giving PR seats to give small parties some say in the balance of power.

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?

Who's there to define any of this ? We are.

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).

I don't understand this part. "Yes it would ?" so you agree with my proposal ?

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.

Just an ad hominem on my math skills here. ( That's funny. ) And restating your old argument, forgetting the arguments you made about the impracticality of having direct democracy.

Really, there's no progress being made in this discussion - except that you maybe agree with that proposal I made on giving some PR seats to address the problem of 'no voice' to smaller national parties ?

[Michael Hardner]

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

The last election Paul Martin lost had ads showing Harper sending tanks into the streets. The last election had Dion talking friendly, and Harper's low-key campaign. IMO the newer ads are much better, and (I think) there was less money spent on these things too.

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?

I don't really have that strong opinion on your suggestion. You're going to get a bunch of 'mistake votes' but I expect most know who they're voting for.

[M.Dancer]

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 would like to say that is intersting, but i can't. What you think would limit their ability, would only increase it...such as by removing legal status you remove the legal restraints that govern party spending and campaigning. By treating them like any club, you open up the world to unlimited election ads, mailers, demos...etc etc...

I don't think you put any thought into your random ideas.

[ToadBrother]

I would like to say that is intersting, but i can't. What you think would limit their ability, would only increase it...such as by removing legal status you remove the legal restraints that govern party spending and campaigning. By treating them like any club, you open up the world to unlimited election ads, mailers, demos...etc etc...

I don't think you put any thought into your random ideas.

Basically it would be rolling back the clock 250 years.

[Machjo]

Then you keep things as is except:

Remove the tax exemptions and write-offs for donations, and get them off the ballot. That alone would already be a positive start.

[Remiel]

The Senate's purpose is not to be regional representatives, but rather to represent the Provinces in Ottawa. Think of it more as jurisdictional representation.

Yes and no. Seat allocation in the Senate is divided up into regions. 24 for the West, 24 for Ontario, 24 for Quebec, 24 for Atlantic Canada and, this I am a little sketchier on, 1 per terroritory and 1 for natives? (I thought it was 105 though, so I am not sure where I am missing the extra four, unless I just need to double the territories and native Senators).

[Smallc]

24 for the west, 24 for Ontario, 24 for Quebec, 24 for the Maritimes, 6 for Newfoundland and Labrador (because they were added much later) and 1 for each territory...who, IMO, should have none.

[Remiel]

...and 1 for each territory...who, IMO, should have none.

Why? Proportionately, there are more people represented by each of those seats than every one specifically allocated to PEI.

[Smallc]

Because they are not partners in Confederation. They are simply creations of it. They are not sovereign in their own right.

[Mr.Canada]

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.

Just because the guy someone voted for doesn't get in doesn't mean that person has no representation in Ottawa. The MP represents everyone in the riding no matter if they voted for them or not.

This proportional representation stuff is just more of the try to make everyone happy crap and don't offend anyone touchy, feely politically correct hippy garbage.

The person with the most votes wins, end of story. With Proportional representation the people have no control over who gets in and who doesn't, the party decides. No thank you. There'd be even less accountability then their is now.

[bloodyminded]

This proportional representation stuff is just more of the try to make everyone happy crap and don't offend anyone touchy, feely politically correct hippy garbage.

The hippies came up with the idea of proportional representation?

[Mr.Canada]

The hippies came up with the idea of proportional representation?

won't be answering stupid questions. Go troll someplace else.

[nicky10013]

won't be answering stupid questions. Go troll someplace else.

We have a saying in our house. Stupid questions for stupid people.

[bloodyminded]

won't be answering stupid questions. Go troll someplace else.

You brought up the hippies, not me.

If you don't want people to respond to certain points, don't summon the points in the first place.

[Machjo]

If the Us ever adopted proportional representation, the folowing would not even be possible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP8CpXd4i74

Imagine, a conservative Republican (even as far as Republicans go) and a left-leaning Democrat (even among Democrats) teaming up for a common cause.

We need to learn from our northern neighbours here. Even the US is too partisan for my taste, yet quite honestly if we had the same level of partisanship they do, that would already be an improvement. Could you imagine such a coalition between a Dipper and a CPC member in Canada?

[ToadBrother]

Just because the guy someone voted for doesn't get in doesn't mean that person has no representation in Ottawa. The MP represents everyone in the riding no matter if they voted for them or not.

This proportional representation stuff is just more of the try to make everyone happy crap and don't offend anyone touchy, feely politically correct hippy garbage.

The person with the most votes wins, end of story. With Proportional representation the people have no control over who gets in and who doesn't, the party decides. No thank you. There'd be even less accountability then their is now.

Proportional representation systems have been around for a long time. Are you trying to channel Eric Cartman here? I think that's how I'll envision you from now on, loud, brash, twisted and stupid.

[Jack Weber]

Proportional representation systems have been around for a long time. Are you trying to channel Eric Cartman here? I think that's how I'll envision you from now on, loud, brash, twisted and stupid.

Well he's openly wished for two(2) very "interesting" ideas in the last week or so...

1.A Tea Party movement in Canada that would foment some sort of civl war against the "socialist" traitors running this country.

2.Openly hoped for a leader like Generalissimo Francisco Franco to run this country with an iron fist.He feels Franco was one of the greatest men of the last century.

I'm not making this up...I can't...It's so ridiculous that only Mr.Falange...er..Canada could say something like that...

He's been back for a while so I guess the film is in the can?

[charter.rights]

He's been back for a while so I guess the film is in the can?

Nah. He's probably still sitting in front of his computer "editing" the tape to his own delight.....in the middle of the night....with the lights out... ;)

Edited July 12, 2010 by charter.rights

[Machjo]

Just because the guy someone voted for doesn't get in doesn't mean that person has no representation in Ottawa. The MP represents everyone in the riding no matter if they voted for them or not.

BS. My MP sends out brochures every few months bragging about what the COnservaive Party, that's right, not the government, not him, but what the conservative Party has done. This would irk me whatever his party affiliation, but clearly he intends to represent his party, not his constituents, and his propaganda pamphlets paid for by our taxes proves that.

This proportional representation stuff is just more of the try to make everyone happy crap and don't offend anyone touchy, feely politically correct hippy garbage.

I can agree with you here to a degree, but when parties pull stunts like what I've just described above, that certainly does not help the tide of support for PR. You can't have it both ways. We can't have FPTP and then have so much partisanship. Something will have to give sooner or later.

The person with the most votes wins, end of story. With Proportional representation the people have no control over who gets in and who doesn't, the party decides. No thank you. There'd be even less accountability then their is now.

That's fine if he's acting as an independent non-partisan person, but if he's acting like a party clone, then it's a different story. Overall I agree with your leanings, but unless you support toning down the parstisanship, it's unsustainable in the long run. We can't play both sides of the fence.

[M.Dancer]

BS. My MP sends out brochures every few months bragging about what the COnservaive Party, that's right, not the government, not him, but what the conservative Party has done.

Whether you agree or not has no bearing on reality. If you need the services of the MP, they don't ask how you voted...they will try to help you regardless of your voting intentions.

....with a PR member, they have no ties to the local community, and very little incentive to help with local issues.