Michael Hardner Posted January 5, 2015 Report Posted January 5, 2015 I heard Elizabeth May on the radio a couple of weeks ago enthusiastically endorsing PR. I don't know where or how you generated the fantasy that political parties do not support PR. Here's the PR discussion, OT: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24184-proportional-representation-discussion/page-3#entry1021393 Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
jacee Posted January 5, 2015 Report Posted January 5, 2015 No, that is just wishful thinking. Of course PR is an initiaitive of political parties- but only when it suits them. Interest in PR was not initiated by politicians. They never would have said a word about it if people weren't bugging them about it. Yes they will play politics with it. I once reviewed the national and provincial platforms of the NDP across Canada. It was when there were NDP govts in SK and MB, and the federal party was languishing in distant third place as it has historically. In all the larger provinces and federally the NDP had PR as a party policy. It was policy in SK because it would have enhanced their seat count. It was policy federally because it would not enhance their seat count. It was not policy in MB because it would hurt their seat count. Funny how that works. I heard Elizabeth May on the radio a couple of weeks ago enthusiastically endorsing PR. I don't know where or how you generated the fantasy that political parties do not support PR. The Green Party legitimately does support PR. The other parties play politics with it.. Quote
Newfoundlander Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 The Green Party legitimately does support PR. The other parties play politics with it. How do you know that? Quote
jacee Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) How do you know that?The Green Party would benefit most from PR. Their 4% of the popular vote would give them 12 seats in the House (not 1). I suppose its all politics, but outside of political parties' agendas, it's really about the House reflecting and representing the votes of Canadians proportionately. . Edited January 11, 2015 by jacee Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 The Green Party would benefit most from PR. . Two statements: "The Green Party legitimately does support PR. The other parties play politics with it." "The Green Party would benefit most from PR. " So, I take from this that you think the Green Party does NOT play politics with it. Which would mean that, when asked why the Green Party supports it, they would REFUSE to spin it, and truthfully state "because it's good for US". Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
jacee Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 Two statements: "The Green Party legitimately does support PR. The other parties play politics with it." "The Green Party would benefit most from PR. " So, I take from this that you think the Green Party does NOT play politics with it. Which would mean that, when asked why the Green Party supports it, they would REFUSE to spin it, and truthfully state "because it's good for US". petty cherry picking, Michael.Quote my next sentence too. . Quote
Big Guy Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 That works on the theory that the Green Party would be the only one with an environmental priority policy. There might be the "No Pipelines" Party and the "Clean Air" Party and the "Carbon Footprint" Party and the "Sierra Club" Party and the ... If the trigger was a 5% support then we may end up with no one party with an environmental policy that had enough support for a rep. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
jacee Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 That works on the theory that the Green Party would be the only one with an environmental priority policy. There might be the "No Pipelines" Party and the "Clean Air" Party and the "Carbon Footprint" Party and the "Sierra Club" Party and the ... If the trigger was a 5% support then we may end up with no one party with an environmental policy that had enough support for a rep. Speculation. . Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 petty cherry picking, Michael. Quote my next sentence too. . Uh... sure ? "Their 4% of the popular vote would give them 12 seats in the House (not 1)." The assertion that any political party doesn't play politics strikes me as naive though. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
jacee Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) Uh... sure ? "Their 4% of the popular vote would give them 12 seats in the House (not 1)." The assertion that any political party doesn't play politics strikes me as naive though. Not that (edit) sentence.. Edited January 12, 2015 by jacee Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 Harper as we all know won a majority with 37% of the popular vote. That tells me something needs to be changed. At least some electoral boundaries if we aren't ready to move to PR. Anybody laying any bets on whether Harper will try Robocalls again? Quote
Big Guy Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 While it is speculation it is a very real possibility. At the moment we have only three legitimately possible ruling political parties. No one party is a single issue party and each has a number of policies that are different from the others. It is quite possible that single issue parties can gain either a single religion support or regional support of foreign policy support. For example, the Peace Party, the Jewish Party, the Sikh Party, the Maritimes Party, the GTA Party etc. I think the question would also be the trigger for legitimacy. If it is 4% then I believe it would be very different from 2%. Yes, it is speculation but it is quite possible and has been proven to happen in PR countries. Would people group into special interest parties? I do not know but if a region thought it was not getting recognition or power in a federal government then I can see provincially based federal parties. If the Maritimes had a federal party that could easily garner the 4% trigger would that give the Maritimes a bigger say in government than they now have? I do not know. But look what the Bloc Quebecois did for Quebec interests in the federal government. For those misguided who feel that Muslims are plotting to take over the earth (or Canada) there are over a million of Muslims now in Canada. If someone would organize them into an active political group I think they might easily satisfy the trigger. If they would want to or if that would be a good for Canada I do not know. Yes it is speculation but it is also a possibility and I believe that is one of the reasons many Canadians are afraid to change our electoral system. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Keepitsimple Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 Harper as we all know won a majority with 37% of the popular vote. That tells me something needs to be changed. At least some electoral boundaries if we aren't ready to move to PR. Anybody laying any bets on whether Harper will try Robocalls again? You just don't seem to get how our elections have always worked - or are in complete denial (more likely). First of all, the majority that Harper achieved in 2011 was accomplished with 39.6% of the popular vote - not 37% - and there is nothing abnormal about that. Keep in mind that with the addition of the Bloc and Green parties, they have siphoned off about 10% of the popular vote that used to be shared amongst the three major parties. Here's a recap going all the way back to 1968.....although you are so blinded by your partisanship, I doubt you'll see the significance: 2011 Conservative Majority 39.6% 2008 Conservative Minority 37.7% 2006 Conservative Minority 36.3% 2004 Liberal Minority 36.7% 2000 Liberal Majority 40.8% 1997 Liberal Majority 38.5% 1993 Liberal Majority 41.3% 1988 PC Majority 43.0% 1984 PC Majority 50.0% 1980 Liberal Majority 44.3% 1979 PC Minority 35.9% 1974 Liberal Majority 43.1% 1972 Liberal Minority 38.6% 1968 Liberal Majority 45.5% Link: http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Compilations/ElectionsAndRidings/ResultsParty.aspx#PageTop Quote Back to Basics
On Guard for Thee Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 You just don't seem to get how our elections have always worked - or are in complete denial (more likely). First of all, the majority that Harper achieved in 2011 was accomplished with 39.6% of the popular vote - not 37% - and there is nothing abnormal about that. Keep in mind that with the addition of the Bloc and Green parties, they have siphoned off about 10% of the popular vote that used to be shared amongst the three major parties. Here's a recap going all the way back to 1968.....although you are so blinded by your partisanship, I doubt you'll see the significance: 2011 Conservative Majority 39.6% 2008 Conservative Minority 37.7% 2006 Conservative Minority 36.3% 2004 Liberal Minority 36.7% 2000 Liberal Majority 40.8% 1997 Liberal Majority 38.5% 1993 Liberal Majority 41.3% 1988 PC Majority 43.0% 1984 PC Majority 50.0% 1980 Liberal Majority 44.3% 1979 PC Minority 35.9% 1974 Liberal Majority 43.1% 1972 Liberal Minority 38.6% 1968 Liberal Majority 45.5% Link: http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Compilations/ElectionsAndRidings/ResultsParty.aspx#PageTop I know quite well how they work. Looking fwd to yet another Liberal majority, especially before Harper can piss away even more of the (finally) surplus we have on wasted efforts like income splitting. But I'd rather see it done on an RP system, wouldn't you? Quote
Boges Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 We can't have the CPC win a fourth election the same way the Liberals won their 4 elections! We gotta change the rules! Quote
Keepitsimple Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 I know quite well how they work. Looking fwd to yet another Liberal majority, especially before Harper can piss away even more of the (finally) surplus we have on wasted efforts like income splitting. But I'd rather see it done on an RP system, wouldn't you? No. Canada's a great place with a tremendously stable government legacy - whether that's been Liberal or Conservative. Our Federal election system has served us well - and the secret is that our two-party heritage have traditionally reflected the times - edging a little to the left or a little to the right - but always within reach of the center (by Canadian standards). Times change - and along with it, the back-and-forth between Liberals and Conservatives. Sp please don't be spouting your 37% fallacy - it's actually closer to 40% - as if somehow it's an abomination. As Waldo would have said - you've been "schooled" on that enough times......and don't worry, your LIberals will get back in - probably not this time but it's not that far off. History says so. Quote Back to Basics
PIK Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 We do n ot need fringe parties getting any hold of power in this country or even muslim .IMO we will see some sort of sharia law in Canada if trudeau gets in, he will sell us out. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
cybercoma Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 Uh... sure ? "Their 4% of the popular vote would give them 12 seats in the House (not 1)." The assertion that any political party doesn't play politics strikes me as naive though. And saying that they're simply playing is overly cynical. So what? Quote
cybercoma Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 You just don't seem to get how our elections have always worked - or are in complete denial (more likely). First of all, the majority that Harper achieved in 2011 was accomplished with 39.6% of the popular vote - not 37% - and there is nothing abnormal about that. Keep in mind that with the addition of the Bloc and Green parties, they have siphoned off about 10% of the popular vote that used to be shared amongst the three major parties. Here's a recap going all the way back to 1968.....although you are so blinded by your partisanship, I doubt you'll see the significance: 2011 Conservative Majority 39.6% 2008 Conservative Minority 37.7% 2006 Conservative Minority 36.3% 2004 Liberal Minority 36.7% 2000 Liberal Majority 40.8% 1997 Liberal Majority 38.5% 1993 Liberal Majority 41.3% 1988 PC Majority 43.0% 1984 PC Majority 50.0% 1980 Liberal Majority 44.3% 1979 PC Minority 35.9% 1974 Liberal Majority 43.1% 1972 Liberal Minority 38.6% 1968 Liberal Majority 45.5% Link: http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Compilations/ElectionsAndRidings/ResultsParty.aspx#PageTop The significance is that the electoral system is broken and it's a non-partisan issue, despite your "breathless hysterics" about people who criticize your home team. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 We can't have the CPC win a fourth election the same way the Liberals won their 4 elections! We gotta change the rules! We can't have the Liberals, NDP, or any other party having absolute control over legislation with less than 40% of the vote. Quote
Big Guy Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 One way to guarantee that no party with 40% of the vote gets a majority is to go to a two party system. This was already implied in the rumours of the NDP and Liberals joining to form a coalition government. The problem that I see with that is that it tends to encourage divergent views into two different camps and consequently allow the "radicals" to take control of the party - as has happened in the USA. If there was a legitimate third party for the moderates on both sides to gravitate to then the extremists would not be able to exert dominant power. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Boges Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 The US system has it right by separating the legislator and the executive. If you wanted a system where 40% doesn't mean a defacto dictatorship, allow people to vote for their legislator and the head of the executive separately and they have to collaborate to pass laws. But then we might see the paralysis that we do in the US. Quote
TimG Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 The US system has it right by separating the legislator and the executive.I disagree. A better system is the Westminster System with more controls on the power of the PMO. PMs in the UK and Australia have been deposed by sitting MPs but in Canada party constitutions prohibit that. Michael Chong's bill should be passed and we should see how that works to fix some of the issues we have. Quote
eyeball Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 Michael Chong's bill should be passed and we should see how that works to fix some of the issues we have. Any chance his bill will be passed before the next election? If it isn't, it should be what the election is all about. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
cybercoma Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 One way to guarantee that no party with 40% of the vote gets a majority is to go to a two party system. This was already implied in the rumours of the NDP and Liberals joining to form a coalition government.A coalition does not make a two-party system. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.