Could Canada be more democratic?

[wyly]

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.

if that 60% banded together and won election after election decade after decade winning 90-95% of the seats that 40% would be screaming for a PR system...

[M.Dancer]

They have representation, just not from the party they'd like to have in their riding.

That is lost on a lot of people....it's not like it's the NHL playoffs where as a Maple Leafs fan when the Habs win the cup, your team is out...I have not voted for my MP in 2 elections....but she is still my MP regardless.

[Chippewa]

If i actually cared about Canadian Democracy then i would be loude not to think about the products of this system. Democracy almost seems like a fold-over word that gets citizans of its commonwealth all propped up and excited about being different from the next system communist or not. Look at world war 2, the North American governments had everybody holding hands with Russia who is communist, then after the war, they have an entire system talking about democracy. Canada can never be democratic, just look at how they neglected First Nations with the "Indian Act". This act is ment to dumb down Nationhoods of people down to an "Indian".

The Commonwealth has neglected, and broke every Treaty in Canada with First Nations, then without even telling First Nations, they advertised immigration, and sold lands they never owned, and made a country called Canada. First Nations are not even considered Canadian, but would have to enfranchise to sell there aboriginal rights.

[GostHacked]

why haven't constitutional amendments in the USA haven't caused instability or the end of democracy there???

It's a slow process, but it is happening.

[TimG]

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.

You are living in a dream world if you think every vote is of equal value. In Canada, votes in small provinces and rural areas count for a lot more than votes in large provinces and urban areas. That will never change.

[ToadBrother]

If i actually cared about Canadian Democracy then i would be loude not to think about the products of this system. Democracy almost seems like a fold-over word that gets citizans of its commonwealth all propped up and excited about being different from the next system communist or not. Look at world war 2, the North American governments had everybody holding hands with Russia who is communist, then after the war, they have an entire system talking about democracy. Canada can never be democratic, just look at how they neglected First Nations with the "Indian Act". This act is ment to dumb down Nationhoods of people down to an "Indian".

The Commonwealth has neglected, and broke every Treaty in Canada with First Nations, then without even telling First Nations, they advertised immigration, and sold lands they never owned, and made a country called Canada. First Nations are not even considered Canadian, but would have to enfranchise to sell there aboriginal rights.

Apart from the moronic absurdities you write, the last paragraph is utterly false.

[M.Dancer]

First Nations are not even considered Canadian...

So you are saying then, they can't vote....what about the other aboriginals, can they vote?

[Michael Hardner]

when literally millions of people election after election and in alberata for many decades have no representation then yes our democracy is VERY flawed...

They do have representation. If everybody's candidate WINS the election, then democracy is meaningless.

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...

Democracy is many things but it isn't math. Nobody will start a revolution over math, unless it's bad math.

[Michael Hardner]

If absolute voting equality is the goal, then really the only democracy is for all of us to vote directly on issues. If that isn't "practical" then we're back to a subjective valuation of what is democratic and what is practical.

If that's what we're doing, then the current system is proven to be practical and democratic enough.

[eyeball]

If absolute voting equality is the goal, then really the only democracy is for all of us to vote directly on issues. If that isn't "practical" then we're back to a subjective valuation of what is democratic and what is practical.

If that's what we're doing, then the current system is proven to be practical and democratic enough.

Clearly there are millions and millions of Canadians and dozens of other democratic countries who disagree that the electoral system you insist we cling too is democratic enough.

How about a direct 50% + 1 vote to put a finer point on what's practical?

[Michael Hardner]

Clearly there are millions and millions of Canadians and dozens of other democratic countries who disagree that the electoral system you insist we cling too is democratic enough.

Your take is that I insist we cling to it. My take is that the system works well enough that there isn't a popular will to change it. Certainly, if we are going to change it we would have to build a national consensus on why and how.

That would be an enormous undertaking.

I would rather have us engage in a national dialogue on how we manage government-run services. That is more bang for our buck.

How about a direct 50% + 1 vote to put a finer point on what's practical?

Direct vote on what ? Changing the system ? What is the question ? A national referendum on "Do you agree that the government needs to change our FPTP system ?". As such, I'm not sure that 50% + 1 would be enough. And, even if that passed, the fun would start from that point on.

Do you remember Meech Lake ? Charlottetown ? Like that. People aren't usually magnanimous about giving up their powers and Quebec is especially prickly about that. So are you prepared to have Quebec split from Canada when their BQ is cut down to 1/2 their representation by a national initiative ?

Now - is that really worth it to give the NDP a permanent balance of power ? I don't think so.

[eyeball]

Do you remember Meech Lake ? Charlottetown ? Like that. People aren't usually magnanimous about giving up their powers and Quebec is especially prickly about that. So are you prepared to have Quebec split from Canada when their BQ is cut down to 1/2 their representation by a national initiative ?

Sure if it increases my region's voice in it own governance - in a heartbeat.

Now - is that really worth it to give the NDP a permanent balance of power ? I don't think so.

I do if it results in my region having more say in it's own governance.

Edited April 13, 2011 by eyeball

[Saipan]

just look at how they neglected First Nations with the "Indian Act".

Indians, natives, aboriginals, and first nation, are all very lucky. No other nations and races are getting money for sitting on their butts and freebies.

[eyeball]

Indians, natives, aboriginals, and first nation, are all very lucky. No other nations and races are getting money for sitting on their butts and freebies.

Well, to be fair Europeans did get pretty rich squatting on indigenous land.

[Michael Hardner]

Sure if it increases my region's voice in it own governance - in a heartbeat.

Uh, no. I thought we already established that any regional representation is hurt by PR.

Example: Let's say the BC party has widespread support in BC. They get 2M members and can elect 20/36 MPs.

With pure PR then are 6% of the total population, their support is spread out over the country.

[ToadBrother]

Sure if it increases my region's voice in it own governance - in a heartbeat.

I do if it results in my region having more say in it's own governance.

I think you'll find that you're in the minority on this. Are you prepared to accept that? People, when railing on about democracy, usually are concerned about winning, but the other part of democracy is accepting that you haven't won, that your view isn't shared by the majority of your fellow citizens.

A helluva lot of Canadians do not want to split Confederation over constitutional issues. My guess is that that probably is most Canadians, and certainly polls during the lead up to the 1995 referendum demonstrated that a majority of Canadians outside Quebec do not want Quebec to secede.

[eyeball]

Uh, no. I thought we already established that any regional representation is hurt by PR.

We did? Who's this we you're talking about?

Example: Let's say the BC party has widespread support in BC. They get 2M members and can elect 20/36 MPs.

With pure PR then are 6% of the total population, their support is spread out over the country.

There are lots of different ways to skin this cat.

I can always start a West Coast fishing communities party.

OTOH Ottawa can start paying attention and start addressing our region's issues. Remember you're the one who said I should get voters in your region to make my region's issues your issues too. This is why, you stand to see your country break up if Ottawa keeps ignoring us.

[ToadBrother]

Well, to be fair Europeans did get pretty rich squatting on indigenous land.

Yes yes yes, and the Normans conquered the English, the Romans conquered the Gauls, the Germans conquered the Romans and on and on. We can do our best to redress the wrongs done to native peoples, but they're not going to get the landmass of Canada back, and trying to assert that somehow people who have been here generations are squatters isn't a recipe for redressing old wrongs, it's just pointless sloganeering.

[ToadBrother]

There are lots of different ways to skin this cat.

I can always start a West Coast fishing communities party.

OTOH Ottawa can start paying attention and start addressing our region's issues. Remember you're the one who said I should get voters in your region to make my region's issues your issues too. This is why, you stand to see your country break up if Ottawa keeps ignoring us.

It always seems the same at the end of the day. The country won't break up because the fisheries were buggered up. Get over yourself, you and your industry just are not that important.

[ToadBrother]

Indians, natives, aboriginals, and first nation, are all very lucky. No other nations and races are getting money for sitting on their butts and freebies.

And I take task with that. It's pure racism and bigotry. As much as our native friend spouts absurdities, you do your fair share too. You, in your own way, are just as ugly, moronic and hateful as he is. A pox on both your houses, I say.

[eyeball]

I think you'll find that you're in the minority on this. Are you prepared to accept that? People, when railing on about democracy, usually are concerned about winning, but the other part of democracy is accepting that you haven't won, that your view isn't shared by the majority of your fellow citizens.

A helluva lot of Canadians do not want to split Confederation over constitutional issues. My guess is that that probably is most Canadians, and certainly polls during the lead up to the 1995 referendum demonstrated that a majority of Canadians outside Quebec do not want Quebec to secede.

Better representation doesn't require Constitutional changes.

It's my region's issues that need addressing, my views on the possible consequences on what might happen if they remain un-addressed are secondary. In any case these consequences are just a reflection of your fears not my goals. Personally I don't want to see the break-up of my country but my strongest loyalty is too my region not Canada so if that's the result then so be it.

[Tilter]

If i actually cared about Canadian Democracy then i would be loude not to think about the products of this system. Democracy almost seems like a fold-over word that gets citizans of its commonwealth all propped up and excited about being different from the next system communist or not. Look at world war 2, the North American governments had everybody holding hands with Russia who is communist, then after the war, they have an entire system talking about democracy. Canada can never be democratic, just look at how they neglected First Nations with the "Indian Act". This act is ment to dumb down Nationhoods of people down to an "Indian".

The Commonwealth has neglected, and broke every Treaty in Canada with First Nations, then without even telling First Nations, they advertised immigration, and sold lands they never owned, and made a country called Canada. First Nations are not even considered Canadian, but would have to enfranchise to sell there aboriginal rights.

Just have to ask one question Chip--- how many of your First Nation get off their butts on election day. You should only feel disenfranchised if you try to do something LEGAL about it. Burning roadways and smashing hydro towers will always be looked at by most people (even First Nation people if they owned the stuff destroyed)as vandalism.

Try gettin attention by being the only segment of the population that has a 95% voting record and a lot of politicians will pay a lot of attention to you.

By the way, the following paragraph is TOTAL Bullshit

The Commonwealth has neglected, and broke every Treaty in Canada with First Nations, then without even telling First Nations, they advertised immigration, and sold lands they never owned, and made a country called Canada. First Nations are not even considered Canadian, but would have to enfranchise to sell there aboriginal rights.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Tilter

[eyeball]

It always seems the same at the end of the day. The country won't break up because the fisheries were buggered up. Get over yourself, you and your industry just are not that important.

Presumably my region isn't either so why are you so obsessed with holding onto it?

[ToadBrother]

Better representation doesn't require Constitutional changes.

I agree. There are ways to do things, such as electoral reform, that don't. But the decision shouldn't just be based on "FPTP is old and creaky, so here's a nifty PR voting system!" There's more than just vote counting to consider. Certain types of PR can lead to unstable systems; systems that produce small fringe parties capable of commanding enormous amounts of influence. I don't mind if we make it more likely for a few Green seats, but if it's going to create a situation where the Greens get so many seats so out of line to actual levels of support, then I'd say we've made the situation worse, not better.

That's why I more in line with preferential voting systems like AV, which do give parties like the Greens a reasonable chance at getting a few seats, but reduces greatly the likelihood of them being able to punch above their weight.

The Greens, of course, are big fans of MMR because it both exaggerates their influence in Parliament and allows them to insert political apparatchik with no real constituency and no electoral debt save to their party. I am an absolute opponent of MMR or any party list system.

It's my region's issues that need addressing, my views on the possible consequences on what might happen if they remain un-addressed are secondary. In any case these consequences are just a reflection of your fears not my goals. Personally I don't want to see the break-up of my country but my strongest loyalty is too my region not Canada so if that's the result then so be it.

You're saying that if you don't get your way, Confederation is at risk. That can meaningfully be said, to a certain degree, of Quebec, which does have a longstanding and reasonably well organized separatist movement. But when some trots out Western separatism, I just laugh. It's a meaningless threat, because so few Westerners are actually in agreement with it. It's a fringe view.

Edited April 13, 2011 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Presumably my region isn't either so why are you so obsessed with holding onto it?

From what I can tell, you and I are in the same region, and I can assure you, your view is a fringe view. Your all bark, but you have no bite.