eyeball Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 I'm speaking to the general motivation of 'getting people to vote'. By itself, it's not a good motivation IMO. Well, this is or was a thread about making things more democratic as opposed to simply getting more people to vote, which is not the same thing. We could vote till the cows came home and still wonder what the hell democracy means. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
ToadBrother Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 (edited) Yes, but democracy is not an end, but a means to an end. Who's to say that restricting voters to a few thousand land owners wouldn't actually produce a higher quality of government than what we now have? History, mainly. A government dominated by wealthy landowners, as our system was for a considerable length of time, tends to become quite self serving towards the gentry and aristocracy, at the expense of lower classes and the mercantile classes. The beginnings of our system came from the rise of the mercantile classes to challenge and supersede the landed classes, in no small part because the system of landed gentry attempted to perpetrate an increasingly outmoded feudal governing system. To put it simply (too simply perhaps), the mercantile classes began to realize that they were in fact putting a helluva lot more economic input into the system than political influence they were permitted. The English Civil War, when you pull off the political trappings, was the war between the landed classes that represented Old England and the mercantile classes that represented the new England, and the landed classes began their long, slow fading into history with Charles I's execution. But if I get your underlying point correctly, good government is not a singular thing. It depends on time and place. In Medieval Europe, a landed gentry owing fealty to a landed aristocracy worked reasonably well, considering much of the economic activity was agrarian. I'd hesitate to call democracy the path to optimal government. What's more, as good as democracy is (and I think the governed being able to jerk the chains of those that govern is indeed a good thing), it has to be balanced off against the ability for a government to do its job. Nations like Italy and Israel have gone through considerable upheavals and instability because of unbalanced PR systems that permit a plethora of minor fringe parties to punch above their weight. In many other European democracies that use PR, permanent or semi-permanent coalitions have been formed to overcome the sheer difficulty of forming majority governments, in essence recreating the FPTP Westminster system, with slightly more awkwardness. Edited April 10, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote
eyeball Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 In many other European democracies that use PR, permanent or semi-permanent coalitions have been formed to overcome the sheer difficulty of forming majority governments, in essence recreating the FPTP Westminster system, with slightly more awkwardness. The awkwardness is a benefit to the system in that it makes people face more direct responsibility for the governments they get or don't get. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
wyly Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 Well, you're never going to get a formula that gives every person the representative they want. Our system is designed to create stable, responsible government. I'll take that over fringe voter pipe dreams. define fringe...20-30% of the population are fringe, really? that's more than the total liberal vote...and the conservatives aren't a fringe because they can pull in 30+% ...your definition of fringe seems to be any position that doesn't happen to agree with your's... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Smallc Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 define fringe...20-30% of the population are fringe, really? that's more than the total liberal vote...and the conservatives aren't a fringe because they can pull in 30+% ...your definition of fringe seems to be any position that doesn't happen to agree with your's... So because I don't consider the Bloc to be a fringe party, I want Quebec to separate from Canada? The Green party, and to a lesser extent, the NDP, are fringe elements that never really gain much traction. If they want to get more votes, they have to go more mainstream. The NDP can start by dumping Jack. The Greens can start by dumping May. Quote
Scotty Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 History, mainly. A government dominated by wealthy landowners, as our system was for a considerable length of time, tends to become quite self serving towards the gentry and aristocracy, at the expense of lower classes and the mercantile classes. I grant you the point, though if we scattered the electors across a broad strata of society, but insisted they be men and women of known wisdom and integrity, would that not produce an electorate more capable of selecting those in office and keeping an eye on them? Who's to say ten thousand such people wouldn't produce better politicians than universal suffrage. They could hardly do much worse. But if I get your underlying point correctly, good government is not a singular thing. It depends on time and place. In Medieval Europe, a landed gentry owing fealty to a landed aristocracy worked reasonably well, considering much of the economic activity was agrarian. I'd hesitate to call democracy the path to optimal government. I would say that in a smaller nation, or perhaps, a nation and culture where people took the time, and had ready knowledge at hand, so that they made informed choices, democracy could be quite optimal. I don't think those conditions exist here. I don't think we have a very informed electorate. And the type of media which that electorate relies on is not adequate to the task, and easily manipulated. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
ToadBrother Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 The awkwardness is a benefit to the system in that it makes people face more direct responsibility for the governments they get or don't get. Nope, it means even further entrenchment of the political parties. It has had quite the opposite effect to what you think. Quote
wyly Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 Hmmm... my distaste for it has nothing to do with my political affiliations. One thing that puts me off, and I suspect puts others off too, is the scale of the hyperbole that's trotted out to support it. Ghaddafi, really. what puts me off and I suspect others off too, is the contempt you have for fair democratic representation...the hyperbole is accurate you just enjoy making more of it than is intended...I think the concerns about representation could be better met if the fringe parties did a better job of being popular. If there's concern about NO representation for some parties, such as the Greens, then some amendments could be made to the current system. However, there are other fringe parties (right wing ones for example) that can equally take advantage of any rule changes.the NDP often poll between 20-25% so how do you define that as a fringe?...you're using the results FPTP as justification for your definition of fringe...the liberals poll 2.5 or 2.7 out of every 10 voters so they're not fringe but if the NDP poll 2.2-2.3 so they're the looney fringe...Really, though, the hyperbole around this is silly and hypocritical.the hyperbole for lack of representation stands, the political system denies full representation every bit a efficiently as a one party state... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Smallc Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 the NDP often poll between 20-25% so how do you define that as a fringe Often? Like....almost never? Quote
Shady Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 the political system denies full representation every bit a efficiently as a one party state... That's complete nonsense. Now you're just acting like a crazy person. And when you act that way, you just do more harm than good. Canadians will never take people like you seriously. Try being a little less bat-shit crazy, and you might get a better response. Quote
wyly Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 It's certainly my chief concern. As you say, it's one thing to have a few "second tier" parties like the Greens getting a few seats, but I look at Israel and I can't help but think that the desire for democracy can go too far and you end up with a system that turns everything on its head, and you end up with the lunatics running the asylum. A few seats for the Greens, I can buy it, but granting them the keys to the kingdom to punch far above their weight and effectively deprive the majority of their will in favor of fringe interests, that's counterproductive to my mind.strange that Harper is all in praise of Israel's great democracy a coalition government the result of a PR system while coalitions like in England are for losers talk about hypocrisy...the resistance to PR and resulting coalitions has nothing to do with efficient government it's all about power...the system is only turned on it's head because politicians crave power instead of seeking a rational consensus...democracy isn't what 30-40% of what a population wants it must include all of the population...why is using Israel as an example the horrors of the PR system any less extreme than my example of using a single party state for denial of representation... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
ToadBrother Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 strange that Harper is all in praise of Israel's great democracy a coalition government the result of a PR system while coalitions like in England are for losers talk about hypocrisy...the resistance to PR and resulting coalitions has nothing to do with efficient government it's all about power...the system is only turned on it's head because politicians crave power instead of seeking a rational consensus...democracy isn't what 30-40% of what a population wants it must include all of the population... why is using Israel as an example the horrors of the PR system any less extreme than my example of using a single party state for denial of representation... I'm having a hard time seeing anything in this post that even passes as a coherent thought. Since your question is nonsensical and absurd, the answer is "chocolate spaghetti sauce", which seems to fit the general pattern of incoherence quoted above. Quote
wyly Posted April 11, 2011 Report Posted April 11, 2011 No kidding. FPTP has been, in one form or another in use in our system of government for several hundred years. If you only count things after the various reform bills, it still comes out as better than 170 or 180 years, far longer than any major PR electoral system I'm aware of. Our electoral and governmental systems have produced some of the longest periods of uninterrupted constitutional rule in the history of the world and China has had stable dictatorial rule for over 2000yrs but that doesn't make it right, that dictatorial rule is more efficient than a democracy doesn't make it right either...democracy is cumbersome, having a less democratic system because it's more efficient doesn't make it better, if'it's efficiency we want then lets have a one party state... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Michael Hardner Posted April 11, 2011 Report Posted April 11, 2011 what puts me off and I suspect others off too, is the contempt you have for fair democratic representation...the hyperbole is accurate you just enjoy making more of it than is intended... "contempt for fair democracy" Hyperbole. the NDP often poll between 20-25% so how do you define that as a fringe?...you're using the results FPTP as justification for your definition of fringe...the liberals poll 2.5 or 2.7 out of every 10 voters so they're not fringe but if the NDP poll 2.2-2.3 so they're the looney fringe... the hyperbole for lack of representation stands, the political system denies full representation every bit a efficiently as a one party state... The NDP isn't fringe. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Smallc Posted April 11, 2011 Report Posted April 11, 2011 (edited) The NDP isn't fringe. It is in that it never really captures the popular sentiment. It's certainly less fringe than the Green Party, or the Communist Party, or the Marxist - Leninist Party, or the.... I consider it a major party with a strong fringe element. Edited April 11, 2011 by Smallc Quote
wyly Posted April 11, 2011 Report Posted April 11, 2011 Well, this is or was a thread about making things more democratic as opposed to simply getting more people to vote, which is not the same thing. We could vote till the cows came home and still wonder what the hell democracy means. yup...we could have mandatory voting in a one party state how democratic would that be... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Smallc Posted April 11, 2011 Report Posted April 11, 2011 yup...we could have mandatory voting in a one party state how democratic would that be... Of we could just kill everyone who didn't vote Conservative. There, my point was just as valid. Quote
wyly Posted April 11, 2011 Report Posted April 11, 2011 (edited) It is in that it never really captures the popular sentiment. like the reform party? It's certainly less fringe than the Green Party, or the Communist Party, or the Marxist - Leninist Party, or the.... I consider it a major party with a strong fringe element.I consider the conservative party a major party with a strong fringe element...it's all POV...but in the end the two parties want nothing to do with changing to a more democratic system that would require them to give up power, it has nothing to do with any benefit's of stability and FPTP... Edited April 11, 2011 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Bryan Posted April 11, 2011 Report Posted April 11, 2011 like the reform party? : Reform permanently replaced one of the established top two parties, and always increased support in every election. NDP is fourth place, and has never made a legitimate push to even be opposition, let alone government. That's a huge difference. Quote
Smallc Posted April 11, 2011 Report Posted April 11, 2011 like the reform party? Yes, like them (although in fairness, they polled higher). but in the end the two parties want nothing to do with changing to a more democratic system that would require them to give up power, it has nothing to do with any benefit's of stability and FPTP... Maybe that's not why they want to keep FPTP, but that's why I want to keep it. Quote
Shady Posted April 11, 2011 Report Posted April 11, 2011 This is all just about people like wyly, that can't convince enough Canadians during election times to vote for their types of ideas. So wyly et al seek to change the system in order to grab more power than they otherwise could achieve at the ballot box. It's changing the rules of the game and moving the goal posts all at the same time. If wyly et all were in positions of power, my guess is that they'd be just as comfortable fighting against schemes like PR. Quote
SF/PF Posted April 11, 2011 Report Posted April 11, 2011 We don't have a democracy, we have an elected aristocracy. I'm not sure anyone has suggested a better alternative, though. Quote Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -4.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15
g_bambino Posted April 11, 2011 Report Posted April 11, 2011 Also we need to make our legislatures independent from the executive to help break up party discipline. Eliminating responsible government is not the solution to overly-strong party discipline. Quote
punked Posted April 11, 2011 Report Posted April 11, 2011 Still think run off elections are the way to go. You couldn't get 50% the first time drop everyone but the top two and find out who 50% of the people support. I worry my party would suffer but I don't like having a MP 35% of my ridding chooses. Give me a run off. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted April 11, 2011 Report Posted April 11, 2011 This is all just about people like wyly, that can't convince enough Canadians during election times to vote for their types of ideas. So wyly et al seek to change the system in order to grab more power than they otherwise could achieve at the ballot box. It's changing the rules of the game and moving the goal posts all at the same time. If wyly et all were in positions of power, my guess is that they'd be just as comfortable fighting against schemes like PR. I just resent the accusations of hating democracy if you don't buy into this specific voting system. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
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.