[email protected] Posted April 12, 2011 Author Report Posted April 12, 2011 I agree that the political parties have too much power. But altering the electoral system won't change that, and in fact, I can see how PR systems like MMR would only make it worse. Reducing the powers of the political parties is something that can be accomplished, in my view, without substantial alteration to our system of government. And here goes this "real democracy" tag. We live in a representative democracy, not a direct one. I have no idea what you think a replacement to our system would be. Other than the direct democracy aspects of Switzerland, no major democracy functions without a layer between it and the political leadership. Even in parliamentary republics, in general, the elected president has powers pretty similar to the Queen's, used very rarely. 1+2. It has nothing to do with PR just lets us vote for our PM directly at election time for a fixed term, they then form a cabinet that is 'our' government, preferably not from other elected party members. Since the PM is directly elected he/she's attention will be on the people, not party powerbrokers. 3. By political you mean we just have to somehow get 'nicer' party leaders(which is a problem since we don't pick) and then hope they stay nice in a highly partisan environment. Rather than hope why not do this. You can't get rid of party discipline, and in cases it is a valid influence. We just need to introduce some 'structural' changes to move us in the direction of free-er voting, Recall, CI taking the government out of the legislature will help. 4. Why not just introduce Recall and CI, why hope for a 'political' solution. Isn't that just playing into the old 'trust us' mantra we always get from the status-quo? 5. I already answered above Quote
eyeball Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 Local issues get less attention under PR, just by the numbers. More regionalism would work better for me, just by the facts on the ground. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
ToadBrother Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 (edited) 1+2. It has nothing to do with PR just lets us vote for our PM directly at election time for a fixed term, they then form a cabinet that is 'our' government, preferably not from other elected party members. Since the PM is directly elected he/she's attention will be on the people, not party powerbrokers. That is completely alien to our system of government. What you're talking about, effectively, is a presidential system of government, and I'd dearly love for you to point me to the presidential system in any democracy where the president isn't every bit the political animal that other politicians are. This seems to be one of these idiotic recommendations whereby everything is contingent on your fantasy notions of a non-partisan politician. We already have a non-partisan head of state; the Queen. Anybody who gets elected, even if its to a largely ceremonial presidential position like the president of Ireland, is still fundamentally a politician. 3.By political you mean we just have to somehow get 'nicer' party leaders(which is a problem since we don't pick) and then hope they stay nice in a highly partisan environment. Rather than hope why not do this. You can't get rid of party discipline, and in cases it is a valid influence. We just need to introduce some 'structural' changes to move us in the direction of free-er voting, Recall, CI taking the government out of the legislature will help. An idea floated yesterday was to put strict limits on how much influence a party can have over a riding association, and more importantly to make the party leader selected by the elected MPs in the caucus. In essence, the party leader would only be indirectly chosen by the members of the party; they would choose their candidate who, if he got elected, would then decide who the leader was. I would further say that there be a stronger notion of caucus confidence, so that a leader could be turfed solely by the caucus. 4. Why not just introduce Recall and CI, why hope for a 'political' solution. Isn't that just playing into the old 'trust us' mantra we always get from the status-quo? I don't have a big issue with recall, in and of itself, but citizens initiatives are a dangerous area, and I really think we ought to proceed with caution, otherwise we can end up with a rather dysfunctional model like California's. As I've said repeatedly, there can be such a thing as too much democracy, and if we are to have citizens initiatives, then I think we need to find some reasonable limits, and some areas that would be off limits, or at the very least have some sort of judicial review. Edited April 12, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote
[email protected] Posted April 12, 2011 Author Report Posted April 12, 2011 As we saw in the UK when Thatcher was given the boot by the Tories, even a majority isn't an absolute guarantee. Parliament is still supreme. And again, the problem with caucus discipline, and the solution there is a political one, not a structural one. But if you assume that political party dominance is only a problem in Westminster-styled democracies, then you know very damned little about systems of government, period. Yes the leader of the nation was given the boot privately by a small group of people. Well if there is a 'political' problem why not fix it with a structural change? Otherwise it is likely to keep cropping up. No there are other problems as well. You have not addressed the PM's de-facto control of parliaments voting, unless you don't have a problem with it. Quote
ToadBrother Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 Yes the leader of the nation was given the boot privately by a small group of people. The Prime Minister is not the leader of the nation. The Monarch is in constitutional parliamentary democracies, or an elected president is in republican parliamentary democracies. The PM is the head of government. Well if there is a 'political' problem why not fix it with a structural change? Otherwise it is likely to keep cropping up. Because structural changes are complex affairs, particularly in a country like Canada, where the provinces have to sign off on it. I see little point in further pursuit of substantial constitutional changes where all we're going to do is open up more wounds and potentially fracture the country. If a change can be made politically via our current institutions, then why should we open the constitution up? No there are other problems as well. You have not addressed the PM's de-facto control of parliaments voting, unless you don't have a problem with it. The PM, at best, only controls his own party. Since our system of government requires that the government always have the confidence of Parliament, short of changing to another system of government, this is the way things will be. What we can do, I think, is to alter the relationship between party leaders and their caucuses (and in the case of the governing party, between the Prime Minister and his caucus) to give MPs more of a say. In the UK, political leaders are often far more vulnerable to caucus revolts, so clearly as much as anything, the problem in Canada is more of a cultural one. Quote
wyly Posted April 13, 2011 Report Posted April 13, 2011 (edited) I wouldn't let China off the hook yet. As I said, the standard of living is reasonably high in the cities, but China is by no means an industrialized country, and the continued inability after several decades to raise the standard of living in rural China is creating some substantial unrest in those areas. it makes no difference, having a democracy does not mean you will have a high standard of living...and not having a democracy does not mean you can't have a high standard of living... Edited April 13, 2011 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted April 13, 2011 Report Posted April 13, 2011 Is that a good thing ? I don't think so. But in any case, somebody has to explain why we should decide to change our system to semi-permanent centre-left minority governments without resorting to hyperbole such as "we don't have a democracy".china a one party state has elections is it a democracy?...we have a very flawed democracy and that's not hyperbole, it's only hyperbole when it happens to disagree with your POV...living in alberta my POV is that we have a one party state/province a million albertans have no representation... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
ToadBrother Posted April 13, 2011 Report Posted April 13, 2011 china a one party state has elections is it a democracy?...we have a very flawed democracy and that's not hyperbole, it's only hyperbole when it happens to disagree with your POV...living in alberta my POV is that we have a one party state/province a million albertans have no representation... That is the choice of the majority of Alberta voters. You can't blame the system for that. Quote
TimG Posted April 13, 2011 Report Posted April 13, 2011 That is the choice of the majority of Alberta voters. You can't blame the system for that.Actually - the system has produced a new party that will turn the next election in a race. The problem with Alberta politics is it is too far right to fit into the mould of the traditional parties. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted April 13, 2011 Report Posted April 13, 2011 china a one party state has elections is it a democracy?... No. we have a very flawed democracy and that's not hyperbole, "Very flawed" - why ? If the answer is some mathematical reason why some groups are over/under represented then that's not enough to say "very flawed". We had a debate last night with no women leaders and women are under represented. Cities have less representation per-capita. The regions have more strength if they vote together. We live with these flaws, so I don't see why we can't live with the NDP continually holding the balance of power to make the math more consistent. Democracy isn't math. it's only hyperbole when it happens to disagree with your POV...living in alberta my POV is that we have a one party state/province a million albertans have no representation... There is an opposition in Alberta right ? Politics is a negotiation and even a majority government can't do everything it wants to do. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
g_bambino Posted April 13, 2011 Report Posted April 13, 2011 Parliament is not the boss... Then do please explain what just transpired on Parliament Hill on the 25th of March this year. Quote
[email protected] Posted April 13, 2011 Author Report Posted April 13, 2011 Because structural changes are complex affairs, particularly in a country like Canada, where the provinces have to sign off on it. I see little point in further pursuit of substantial constitutional changes where all we're going to do is open up more wounds and potentially fracture the country. If a change can be made politically via our current institutions, then why should we open the constitution up? I like to think that we agree in theory, your objections are that making the changes is not do-able. I tend to agree with you ToadBrother. It could be that making Canada where citizens have a real voice in government is a doomed project. Unfortunately we have come to the point where the system cannot evolve but yet is not practical for the 21st century. It remains to be seen if eventually there is some kind of crisis, such as very low voter turnouts or a province or region breaking away from the country in order to seek greater democracy. For our part the Atlantica Party is at least trying to make a difference at the provincial level. Quote
g_bambino Posted April 13, 2011 Report Posted April 13, 2011 I like to think that we agree in theory, your objections are that making the changes is not do-able. I tend to agree with you ToadBrother. It could be that making Canada where citizens have a real voice in government is a doomed project. Unfortunately we have come to the point where the system cannot evolve but yet is not practical for the 21st century. It remains to be seen if eventually there is some kind of crisis, such as very low voter turnouts or a province or region breaking away from the country in order to seek greater democracy. More revisionism (no province has tried to separate to seek "greater democracy") and more rhetoric; "real voice", "practical for the 21st century". Sloganeering; nothing more. Why is it that, when your miconceptions about our present systems are corrected and your opinions are questioned, you just ignore it all and carry on repeating the above again? Quote
ToadBrother Posted April 13, 2011 Report Posted April 13, 2011 (edited) I like to think that we agree in theory, your objections are that making the changes is not do-able. I tend to agree with you ToadBrother. It could be that making Canada where citizens have a real voice in government is a doomed project. Unfortunately we have come to the point where the system cannot evolve but yet is not practical for the 21st century. It remains to be seen if eventually there is some kind of crisis, such as very low voter turnouts or a province or region breaking away from the country in order to seek greater democracy. For our part the Atlantica Party is at least trying to make a difference at the provincial level. Your whole premise is faulty. Who said the system wasn't evolving? The vote in the House to find the entire government in Contempt is the first time anywhere in the Commonwealth, so far as I know, and is thus precedent setting. All you're doing is throwing slogans like "21st century" around, but it has no meaning. I don't give a damn what you do at the provincial level, although I'm sure your destined to swim at the bottom somewhere below the Communists, but the fact remains that even if I thought anything you were suggesting had the least bit of use, this country is not yet ready for massive constitutional alterations, and may not be for a long time to come. The risks of substantial damage to Confederation far outweigh what I believe are marginal benefits, and some of the recommendations tossed around here, potential detriments. We have found something of an equilibrium, it may doom us to a few more minority governments, to be sure, but the nation remains united, all in all we are well governed and enjoy our civil and political liberties. Voter turnout is a problem throughout the industrialized world, whether its here or in a different system like the US, so clearly it isn't the system that is at fault, it's apathetic electorates and the politicians, and neither of these will be magically changed by smashing our system to pieces. I do not believe in change for change's sake. I think it's foolish and irresponsible. That's probably why marginal fringe parties are the ones that most loudly demand it, because ultimately, for them, it's self-serving. What they're really hoping isn't for a better system, but rather for a system that gives them some substantial electoral and political advantage, to shortcircuit having to actually build a party up. I include the NDP in here because they long ago hit a ceiling and now, rather than make the painful ideological changes necessary to grow voter support, want to hitch a free ride on some sort of PR to give them a boost. Edited April 13, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote
ToadBrother Posted April 13, 2011 Report Posted April 13, 2011 Actually - the system has produced a new party that will turn the next election in a race. The problem with Alberta politics is it is too far right to fit into the mould of the traditional parties. The claim was that Alberta is essentially a single party state because of our system of government. That claim is false. Alberta has essentially the same system of government as the Federal government, the other nine provinces, three territories, Australia and its six states, the United Kingdom and its devolved assemblies, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands and Tuval. In most of these cases there are multiple parties, some of which that have sufficient support to get into their national parliaments. As you say, Alberta is more right wing, per capita, then other areas of Canada, so ultimately it will be right wing parties that will benefit. Wild Rose seems ready to steal some of the Tory thunder, so the underlying message is the same as it in all jurisdictions that use our system, you need to convince voters to vote for you in sufficient numbers and concentration to get a seat. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted April 13, 2011 Report Posted April 13, 2011 I do not believe in change for change's sake. I think it's foolish and irresponsible. That's probably why marginal fringe parties are the ones that most loudly demand it, because ultimately, for them, it's self-serving. What they're really hoping isn't for a better system, but rather for a system that gives them some substantial electoral and political advantage, to shortcircuit having to actually build a party up. I include the NDP in here because they long ago hit a ceiling and now, rather than make the painful ideological changes necessary to grow voter support, want to hitch a free ride on some sort of PR to give them a boost. That paragraph completely summarizes the issue for me. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted April 13, 2011 Report Posted April 13, 2011 To add: I am a frequent NDP voter. I would say I vote for them more often than I don't. That said, I wouldn't support any attempt to skew the system so that they get an unfair amount of power, as in permanent status as holding the balance of power. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
wyly Posted April 13, 2011 Report Posted April 13, 2011 "Very flawed" - why ? If the answer is some mathematical reason why some groups are over/under represented then that's not enough to say "very flawed".when literally millions of people election after election and in alberata for many decades have no representation then yes our democracy is VERY flawed... We had a debate last night with no women leaders and women are under represented.there are no restrictions on women...we could demand a 50/50 representation but if we're all equal that would run counter to equality...Cities have less representation per-capita.and that is wrong and needs to be corrected an urban vote needs to be equal value to a rural voteThe regions have more strength if they vote together.that's democracy...We live with these flaws, so I don't see why we can't live with the NDP continually holding the balance of power to make the math more consistent. Democracy isn't math. democracy is math one person one vote, every vote must be equal, one segment of population cannot marginalize 20% of the population merely because they don't like their POV, this is how revolutions begin...There is an opposition in Alberta right? Politics is a negotiation and even a majority government can't do everything it wants to do.there is no meaningfull negotiation in alberta other than within one party... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted April 13, 2011 Report Posted April 13, 2011 I include the NDP in here because they long ago hit a ceiling and now, rather than make the painful ideological changes necessary to grow voter support, want to hitch a free ride on some sort of PR to give them a boost. what complete bullshit...asking for equality of vote is a free ride?...the free ride is putiing more value on a conservative vote than a ndp vote, giving a party 70-80-or even 90% of the seats in a legislature on 40% of the vote is the free ride...democracy is every vote is of equal value, no one is asking for a free ride what is being asked is just and fair representation... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
blueblood Posted April 13, 2011 Report Posted April 13, 2011 when literally millions of people election after election and in alberata for many decades have no representation then yes our democracy is VERY flawed... there are no restrictions on women...we could demand a 50/50 representation but if we're all equal that would run counter to equality... and that is wrong and needs to be corrected an urban vote needs to be equal value to a rural vote that's democracy... democracy is math one person one vote, every vote must be equal, one segment of population cannot marginalize 20% of the population merely because they don't like their POV, this is how revolutions begin... there is no meaningfull negotiation in alberta other than within one party... There are 4 legit parties in alberta. Just because you want us to have a pity party for you because your team sucks doesn't mean the system's broken. Perhaps if some of the loser parties could come out with policies more palatable to voters, perhaps they would win. Why is the wild rose gaining ground in alberta? Quote "Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary "Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
wyly Posted April 13, 2011 Report Posted April 13, 2011 There are 4 legit parties in alberta. Just because you want us to have a pity party for you because your team sucks doesn't mean the system's broken. Perhaps if some of the loser parties could come out with policies more palatable to voters, perhaps they would win. Why is the wild rose gaining ground in alberta? when a million people have no representation decade after decade the system is BROKEN!...this isn't a difficult concept to understand...we want fair representation and equality of vote... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
ToadBrother Posted April 13, 2011 Report Posted April 13, 2011 (edited) what complete bullshit...asking for equality of vote is a free ride?...the free ride is putiing more value on a conservative vote than a ndp vote, giving a party 70-80-or even 90% of the seats in a legislature on 40% of the vote is the free ride... democracy is every vote is of equal value, no one is asking for a free ride what is being asked is just and fair representation... In practical mathematical terms, what you ask is impossible. Giving a party like the Greens that in almost every riding were a distant fourth seats is indeed a free ride. I'm not necessarily against electoral change. I'm anxious to see if AV passes in the UK and we'll see how much effect that has. AV and other preferential voting systems may offer a reasonable compromise between PR and FPTP, allowing some proportionality but at the same time assuring that parties have to reach a certain minimal level of support before they can hope to win a seat. But let's be very clear here, parties like the Greens sit very damned low in voter percentage not how you cut it. If they deserve any seats, its very damned few, and they certainly do not deserve to hold the keys to the kingdom like some of the fringe Israeli parties so often do. Edited April 13, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote
eyeball Posted April 13, 2011 Report Posted April 13, 2011 There are 4 legit parties in alberta. Just because you want us to have a pity party for you because your team sucks doesn't mean the system's broken. Perhaps if some of the loser parties could come out with policies more palatable to voters, perhaps they would win. Why is the wild rose gaining ground in alberta? How long do you think it will be until 60% finally get fed up with the other 40% referring to them as losers? Keep it up though I can't think of anything that will have them barking back in your face faster. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
wyly Posted April 13, 2011 Report Posted April 13, 2011 (edited) In practical mathematical terms, what you ask is impossible. Giving a party like the Greens that in almost every riding were a distant fourth seats is indeed a free ride. it's not, it's done in many countries ...a 10% thresh hold for a seat is very viable option and one even the greens would find fair... Edited April 13, 2011 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
ToadBrother Posted April 13, 2011 Report Posted April 13, 2011 when a million people have no representation decade after decade the system is BROKEN!...this isn't a difficult concept to understand...we want fair representation and equality of vote... They have representation, just not from the party they'd like to have in their riding. 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.