Conservaphobia

[I miss Reagan]

I love all these easterners telling us to just bend over and take it up the a$$. Although separation is not likely you will see the fire wall go up. You'll see us opt out of the Canada Health Act. You'll see us start to collect our own federal taxes, form our own provincial police force, and militia. When you start shoving things like gay marriage down our throats you'll be seeing the notwithstanding clause used quite a bit. We may nominally still be part of Canada but will do things on our own even more. That diplomatic office Alberta set up in D.C. wasn't just for weekend get aways.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Is it because we're fed up with living in a country where the people in the east call us racists and rednecks.

You have a mistaken impression. No-one in eastern Canada sees 'Westerners' in general as racists and rednecks.

What has likely happened is that YOU personally or people you associate have been seen as racists or rednecks and you perceive that incorrectly as being related to being from the west.

The truth is, the vast majority of Easterners think of the vast majority of Westerners as just like us, our Fellow Canadians.

[I miss Reagan]

Is it because we're fed up with living in a country where the people in the east call us racists and rednecks.

You have a mistaken impression. No-one in eastern Canada sees 'Westerners' in general as racists and rednecks.

What has likely happened is that YOU personally or people you associate have been seen as racists or rednecks and you perceive that incorrectly as being related to being from the west.

The truth is, the vast majority of Easterners think of the vast majority of Westerners as just like us, our Fellow Canadians.

I know for a fact that isn't true. When I watch a CBC special on interracial marriage and Ian Henamansing says to a couple from Calgary "growing up in Calgary, I imagine there was a lot of pressure to marry within your own race" As if we are some backwoods Arakansas town. Or when I go to Ottawa on Canada day in 1998 and they have a film show where they portray Albertans as racially intolerant. Give me a break, the east loves to think of us as rednecks.

[Black Dog]

I see. So referendums are ruled out because they're impractical.

So when should we consider the practical and when the ideal ? When it suits the NDP apparently.

Impracticality is a pretty good reason to rule out a particular method of governance.

As for your second comment:

This system has produced a pretty good result. Why attempt radical reconstruction ? It will disturb people and further erode public trust in government.

The system, by its very nature, produces countless bad results. And as for people losing trust, well, this was the worst attended election in canadian history. People can't get much more cynical than they are.

A bid to bring in a form of PR would be a sign of good faith that show sthe government cares about democracy and making people's votes count for something.

But the NDP, at 20%, would shape policy 100% of the time. Is that fair ?

Wrong.They would have only as much influence as the process of negotiation and compromise would allow. At all times, the government must keep the will of the people foremost in mind.

The first part of that sentence deals again in the ideal, and the last part deals with the practical.

If you want to go 100% practical or 100% ideal in your reasoning, then ok. But you can't flip between the two when it suits your argument.

The practical result of PR would be the NDP holding the balance of power 100% of the time in practice.

I'm starting to realize you don't know what you're talking about. Grossly exaggerated levels of support for any given party is not practical. It's anti-democratic and backwards.

A party with 20% of the vote holding the balance of power 100% of the time is too much power.

A party with 30% of the vote never getting into office is too little power.

I'll leave it to you to explain your constant bleating about the party with 20 per cent of the vote holding 100 per cent of the power.

Well, it's good to know that you're willing to take a gamble on throwing out our entire way of governing because it works elsewhere. I'm not.

Even Layton would probably only want to implement partial PR.

I'm wiling to do what it takes to fix the system. Desperate tiems call for desperate soultions. But, as your next comment shows, you seem to be a Liberal supporter, which eexplains your support of an undemocratic system geared towards keeping the Grits in power.

If you think that Canada has a good way of life, then you do have the Liberal Party of Canada to thank for about 80% of that. The conservatives, reform and NDP contributed the other 20%.

Which bits are the grits responsible for?

Exactly. The PCs were a true national party capable of winning elections every few years or so.

And were as corrupt when they got there as the liberals ever were.

The PC's were also too centerist for the new Cons' base.

I love all these easterners telling us to just bend over and take it up the a$$. Although separation is not likely you will see the fire wall go up. You'll see us opt out of the Canada Health Act. You'll see us start to collect our own federal taxes, form our own provincial police force, and militia. When you start shoving things like gay marriage down our throats you'll be seeing the notwithstanding clause used quite a bit. We may nominally still be part of Canada but will do things on our own even more. That diplomatic office Alberta set up in D.C. wasn't just for weekend get aways.

I would hope that, with firewalls etc., that the feds would cut all funding for Alberta. This place would be a third-world banana republic in no time.

Why don't you just piss off to the States and have done with it? We don't need you crapping on our carpet.

I  know for a fact that isn't true. When I watch a CBC special on interracial marriage and Ian Henamansing says to a couple from Calgary "growing up in Calgary, I imagine there was a lot of pressure to marry within your own race" As if we are some backwoods Arakansas town. Or when I go to Ottawa on Canada day in 1998 and they have a film show where they portray Albertans as racially intolerant. Give me a break, the east loves to think of us as rednecks.

"I know it's true. I saw it on TV!"

No context to the first "anecdote" and no proof of the second. All hogwash.

[Michael Hardner]

Impracticality is a pretty good reason to rule out a particular method of governance.

Then why aren't you ruling out PR for that same reason ?

The system, by its very nature, produces countless bad results. And as for people losing trust, well, this was the worst attended election in canadian history. People can't get much more cynical than they are.

It's too radical an experiment. There's no evidence that PR won't increase this problem.

A bid to bring in a form of PR would be a sign of good faith that show sthe government cares about democracy and making people's votes count for something.

Until the press starts explaining that the Liberals will be permanently the government of power as a result.

Wrong.They would have only as much influence as the process of negotiation and compromise would allow. At all times, the government must keep the will of the people foremost in mind.

The process doesn't happen in a vaccuum. It unfolds according to the cards that the players hold.

I'm starting to realize you don't know what you're talking about. Grossly exaggerated levels of support for any given party is not practical. It's anti-democratic and backwards.

What is the result, though. That's what counts.

I'll leave it to you to explain your constant bleating about the party with 20 per cent of the vote holding 100 per cent of the power.

(Bleat) The NDP would hold the balance of power almost all the time.

I'm wiling to do what it takes to fix the system. Desperate tiems call for desperate soultions. But, as your next comment shows, you seem to be a Liberal supporter, which eexplains your support of an undemocratic system geared towards keeping the Grits in power.

Don't worry about who I do and don't support. It has no bearing on this argument. I'll tell you who I voted for in the last 6 elections if you PM me.

Which bits are the grits responsible for?

Since they've been in government for all but 9 of the last 40 years or so, a lot.

But the NDP and Reform did have an influence, in minority and in opposition, despite never holding power.

And were as corrupt when they got there as the liberals ever were.

Ok, well we strayed from what we were talking about here I think.

The PC's were also too centerist for the new Cons' base.

The next version of the Cons will also be centrist.

[Black Dog]

Then why aren't you ruling out PR for that same reason ?

Because its not impractical, but a demonstratably viable system.

It's too radical an experiment. There's no evidence that PR won't increase this problem.

Hardly. PR has been discussed at the provincial level in Quebec and elsewhere.

That said, there's many ways we can adopt PR. We just need to find a method that works for us. The status quo, however, is unacceptable.

Until the press starts explaining that the Liberals will be permanently the government of power as a result.

Make up your mind. I thought you said the ND's would be running the show.

You certainly haven't shown how PR would be more or equally undemocratic than FPP.

What is the result, though. That's what counts.

The result is: election results that fail to reflect the true feelings of the people, vast swaths of the population finding themselves completely without representation, grossly exaggerated regional differnces, rampant cynicism and dissillusionment and wasted votes.

Hmm...I can see why you'd support such a great set up.

(Bleat) The NDP would hold the balance of power almost all the time.

prove it.

Don't worry about who I do and don't support. It has no bearing on this argument. I'll tell you who I voted for in the last 6 elections if you PM me

You're the one who obliquely accussed me of partisan leanings in my support for PR, so I think it's only fair you disclose your political leanings, as I have no doubt they influence your views on the subject.

[Michael Hardner]

Because its not impractical, but a demonstratably viable system.

It's not demonstrable if it works in another country, with a different socio-political makeup and political topology

I can't give my cat my dog's medication.

QUOTE 

It's too radical an experiment. There's no evidence that PR won't increase this problem.

Hardly. PR has been discussed at the provincial level in Quebec and elsewhere.

How does the fact that it has been discussed provide evidence that PR won't increase the problem of political apathy and alienation ?

QUOTE 

Until the press starts explaining that the Liberals will be permanently the government of power as a result.

Make up your mind. I thought you said the ND's would be running the show.

The NDP and Liberal axis would share power. The Libs would form governmente, suppported by the NDP.

The result is: election results that fail to reflect the true feelings of the people, vast swaths of the population finding themselves completely without representation, grossly exaggerated regional differnces, rampant cynicism and dissillusionment and wasted votes.

Well, you're right there but I can't agree that your cure is worse than the disease.

Maybe if we talk brass tacks. I could agree with 10 new PR seats, with a minimum of 1 guaranteed to each party that wins at least 5%.

prove it.

Add the NDP+Liberal vote for the last, oh, 10 elections and tell me how many add up to less than 50% of the vote. Now, throw in the fact that those parties are idealogically closer than the Libs and CPC.

You're the one who obliquely accussed me of partisan leanings in my support for PR, so I think it's only fair you disclose your political leanings, as I have no doubt they influence your views on the subject.

I didn't say that. I'm saying it helps the NDP. I don't care who you support. First you thought I was a Con, now a Lib.

PM me and I'll tell you who I voted for. I don't care to post it.

[August1991]

We really should start a new thread on PR. Here are my comments (for what they are worth). I haven't seen these points in the discussion above.

1. You seem to think that if we had PR, people would continue to vote the way they do. They wouldn't. The equivalent might be like saying that if the city puts in a no parking sign, people will get lots of parking tickets. Voters will change their voting habits with a new system.

Moreover, the political parties will also change.

2. The right wing argument in favour of PR relies on the idea that a dictator (as FPTP tends to give us) is more likely to be interventionist because it is easy to do. A majority can easily respond to a request for pork. A minority government requires haggling and is often a recipe for non-action. (Admittedly, this was not Canada's experience in 1972-74 nor 1963-68.)

3. Canadian politics are primarily regional. The Tories and NDP got no seats in Quebec but many Quebec voters chose these parties. For a long time, the Libs got no seats west of Thunder Bay, yet many westerners voted Liberal. PR would correct this problem.

Ultimately, we want our electoral system to reflect accurately and cheaply as possible the wishes of Canadians.

The NZ system on a provincial basis might be very good for Canada. I am certain it would attract alot of interest in Quebec.

[Black Dog]

It's not demonstrable if it works in another country, with a different socio-political makeup and political topology

I can't give my cat my dog's medication.

This a complete logical abortion. PR is used in (to name a few) Argentina, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Czech Republic, Denmark,Germany, Iceland, Indonesia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Peru, Slovenia, and South Africa. Are you trying to tell me that none of these countries differ in "socio-political makeup and political topology"?

Just becaus esomething is different doesn't mean it won't work.

How does the fact that it has been discussed provide evidence that PR won't increase the problem of political apathy and alienation ?

How about the fact that countries with PR or a version thereof have very high voter turnouts?

I think the burden of proof here is on you to show how PR would increase political apathy and alienation.

The NDP and Liberal axis would share power. The Libs would form governmente, suppported by the NDP.

and

Add the NDP+Liberal vote for the last, oh, 10 elections and tell me how many add up to less than 50% of the vote. Now, throw in the fact that those parties are idealogically closer than the Libs and CPC.

Clinging to a bad system because you're ideologically or phiosophically opposed to the party or parties that the people would support is not an argument against PR.

Nor is arguing that such a system would be unfair (as though Conservatives-in this instance-have a god-given right to representation without ademocratic mandate), when nothing is further from the truth.

Simple fact is: the party with the largest percentage of the vote would have the largest number of seats.

If the Cons want to be that party, or have the balance of power, they just have to work harder to win over more voters.

PM me and I'll tell you who I voted for. I don't care to post it.

I don't really care. I just can't figure out your thinking: If a theoretical NDP/Liberal coalition accurately reflects the mood and will of the electorate, why is that a bad thing?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Is it because we're fed up with living in a country where the people in the east call us racists and rednecks.

You have a mistaken impression. No-one in eastern Canada sees 'Westerners' in general as racists and rednecks.

What has likely happened is that YOU personally or people you associate have been seen as racists or rednecks and you perceive that incorrectly as being related to being from the west.

The truth is, the vast majority of Easterners think of the vast majority of Westerners as just like us, our Fellow Canadians.

I know for a fact that isn't true. When I watch a CBC special on interracial marriage and Ian Henamansing says to a couple from Calgary "growing up in Calgary, I imagine there was a lot of pressure to marry within your own race" As if we are some backwoods Arakansas town. Or when I go to Ottawa on Canada day in 1998 and they have a film show where they portray Albertans as racially intolerant. Give me a break, the east loves to think of us as rednecks.

I think you're being over-sensitive. Hanomansing might as easily have said growing up in Fredericton.

I can't speak for the film you saw, of course, but I suspect that it may have shown SOME Albertans. Some other Albertans perhaps doth protest too much.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Questioning why Ontario continues to vote in a bunch of liars isn't insulting the voters of Ontario. Voting in this pack of liars IS insulting.

Questioning why Ontario voters continue to vote in a bunch of liars and then brazenly distorting or ignoring their reasons is insulting.

The voters quite conscienciously don't want what the Cons are offering. It's not about region, except to people predisposed to see it that way.

[idealisttotheend]

In the last twenty years this country has seen three new political parites created (Refrom, Bloc, and the Greens). This does not include the various incarations of the Reform/PCs. Two of these new parties have been the Official opposition. To argue that the political topography is so static in this country that PR would automatically lead to constant NDP/LIB coalitions is hard to support.

PR would necessarily favour the smaller parties of all types and would also favour the creation of new ones. It would probably lead to a lot of minority governments but the people who complain that we elect our dictator would be satisfied by more minority governments.

In short I agree with August and BD entirely (the mixed member system like NZ has is the best). Getting representation tied to the popular vote more accurately reflects the will of the people and is absolutely the logical and moral choice.

Not that the Liberals will ever go for it, without a strong shove.

[Michael Hardner]

This a complete logical abortion. PR is used in (to name a few) Argentina, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Czech Republic, Denmark,Germany, Iceland, Indonesia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Peru, Slovenia, and South Africa. Are you trying to tell me that none of these countries differ in "socio-political makeup and political topology"?

I'll tell you what. Explain to what degree you want to introduce PR, then show me a country similar to ours that did it successfully and I'll change my mind.

How about the fact that countries with PR or a version thereof have very high voter turnouts?

Well... that supports your case, yes, but I'm still unconvinced.

I think the burden of proof here is on you to show how PR would increase political apathy and alienation.

Not really. You're proposing it as a solution to our ills, so the burden of proof is on you to support your proposal.

I have no proof that PR will be worse, but it might be. My point is that it's a gamble.

Clinging to a bad system because you're ideologically or phiosophically opposed to the party or parties that the people would support is not an argument against PR.

I have supported both parties that would benefit. My point is that it would effectively legislate away the conservative viewpoint.

It's not my viewpoint, but I'll defend to the end of the thread someone's right to hold it.

Nor is arguing that such a system would be unfair (as though Conservatives-in this instance-have a god-given right to representation without ademocratic mandate), when nothing is further from the truth.

If you look at the current system, the most power goes to the Liberals, then the CPCs, then the NDP. Which is as it should be.

I don't really care. I just can't figure out your thinking: If a theoretical NDP/Liberal coalition accurately reflects the mood and will of the electorate, why is that a bad thing?

Because it effectively silences conservatism in our democracy, IMO.

But, who knows, as Auguste points out it may change things entirely. If the NDP consistently holds the balance of power, maybe they'll grow or alternately be drummed out entirely.

There would be a big change, is all, and I'm not sure it's worth the risk at this time.

And, as I've said, many structural changes to democracy sound good on the surface, but these arguments are always advanced by those who will ostensibly benefit most from it.

The Harris PCs, for example, rejigged the provincial riding boundries to match the federal boundries because it would "reduce administration costs" somehow. It made logical (common?) sense to do so, according to the PCs. But the new ridings concentrated heavy NDP ridings in Toronto too, and ended up with a couple of extra seats for the PCs.

Every party does it. Suspect everyone, even the one you vote for.

[August1991]

You have a mistaken impression. No-one in eastern Canada sees 'Westerners' in general as racists and rednecks.

I think you're wrong TS. The Liberal attack ads played precisely on that prejudice in Ontario. It worked with many voters.

This is the reason this past election was not good for Canada. That, plus the massive francophone rejection of the only federalist party in Quebec.

[I miss Reagan]

I think you're being over-sensitive. Hanomansing might as easily have said growing up in Fredericton.

I can't speak for the film you saw, of course, but I suspect that it may have shown SOME Albertans. Some other Albertans perhaps doth protest too much.

I don't think I am. Easterners obviously buy into this thinking like we have some hidden racist agenda. That is the only reason I can think of that they'd vote back in a bunch of theives.

I should have been more specific but the film I saw was a lazer projected show on Parliament Hill. It was a scripted dialogue which had the voices of two young girls having a telephone conversation. One was in Alberta the other Ontario. The girl in Alberta was saying to the girl in Ontario that she wished her father was more accepting of different cultures such as Natives. The Ontario girl said that someday he'll change. It was an obvious portrayal of Albertans as racist.

[Black Dog]

I'll tell you what. Explain to what degree you want to introduce PR, then show me a country similar to ours that did it successfully and I'll change my mind.

There are many systems that can be used. All require multi-seat districts - more than one representative per district. Here are a few examples.

Party List System - All parties provide lists of candidates which are displayed on the ballot. The voter votes for a party rather than an individual candidate. Some party list systems allow the voter to also give his preferences as to individual candidates, but those candidates must be in the same party that he is voting for. The seats up for grabs are then allotted to the different parties according to the percentage of the vote they received. It is a very straight forward system and ensures proportional representation.

Mixed Member Systems - This system is used in Germany and Italy. First representatives are elected in single member majority elections. The rest of the seats are then given to at-large members in a proportion which offsets the nonproportionality of the single member elections.

Preference Voting (also known as Single Transferable Vote) - This is a system that is presently in use in Australia and Ireland. Its unique value is that it provides a means of ensuring proportional representation while still allowing people to vote for individual candidates. The voter lists his preferences by placing a number beside the name of each candidate. "1" represents his first preference, "2" his second, etc. All first preferences are tallied. Anyone reaching the "quota" is elected to a seat. The quota is determined by the number of seats open and the number of ballots cast. Depending on the system used, in a three member district the quota would be between 25% and 33% of the total vote. If no one reaches a quota on the first count the candidate receiving the fewest first preference votes is eliminated. His ballots are then allotted to their second preferences. Anyone reaching the quota is then elected. If the seats have not all been filled then the last place candidate is eliminated and his ballots are assigned to the next preference. The process continues until all seats have been filled. This system is presently being used in Cambridge MA to elect the city council and school committee.

Cumulative Voting - In this voting system everyone is allowed the same number of votes as there are seats to be filled. Three votes in three member districts, five in five member districts, etc. The voter may distribute his votes in any way he sees fit. He may cast fractional votes or he may cast all his votes for a single candidate. In this way minorities can bunch their votes together behind one or two candidates while majorities are forced to spread their votes thin over many candidates. The top vote getters are elected to the available seats

Limited Voting - In this system voters are allowed no more than half the votes as there are seats to be filled. In five member districts voters would get two votes, in seven member districts no more than three. Minorities would then bunch their votes behind a limited number of candidates and thus ensure their election while majorities would be forced to spread their votes thin to ensure majority representation. The top vote getters are elected. This system has also been used in Voting Rights cases to ensure minority representation. A version of it is used in Japan.

Well... that supports your case, yes, but I'm still unconvinced.

Why?

I have no proof that PR will be worse, but it might be. My point is that it's a gamble.

Thing is, we have many, amny working examples of PR. We have a system here that we know doesn't work. To me, it's not a gamble, but an idea who's time has come.

When it comes to enhancing democracy, we shouldn't be afraid of taking risks, especially since the status quo is so awful.

I have supported both parties that would benefit. My point is that it would effectively legislate away the conservative viewpoint.

If the "conservative viewpoint" is not popular enough to survive without being propped up by a bogus electoral system, what good is it?

If you look at the current system, the most power goes to the Liberals, then the CPCs, then the NDP. Which is as it should be.

If that distribution of power is not a reflection of Canadians' actual views, it's decidedly not how it should be (not to mention you forgot about the BQ).

The Liberals, the Cons, the ND's, whoever: no one has a God-given right to a prescence in the House or on the political landscape: they must earn it with popular support. Popular support is best represented by a system of proportional representation.

[taxedman]

Thanks for the great discussion on PR. A person could only dream that our Gov't would even consider such reforms. I, being a redneck, anti-everything warm and squishy Albertan know that the only 2 ways any kind of reform to our political system would be if the all the east desired to, or the system was forced to change. (and for God's sake don't read too much between the lines).

[Reverend Blair]

Now is the time to force change, taxedman. The Liberals are in a minority situation. The next time around that is likely to change. If the Conservatives don't take a huge step to the left, becoming more like the Liberals, the Liberals will likely begin forming majority governments again.

Now is the time to press for proportonal representation.

[taxedman]

I will 'force' my opinion on my 'representative', but like I said, unless the east wants it, it isn't going to happen. Regardless of a minority.

[Reverend Blair]

That's the way I force things too. That's what MP's are for.

...unless the east wants it, it isn't going to happen.

The east isn't a huge monolithic block, taxedman. Parts of it, including in the urban areas, would benefit from pr as much as the rest of us. By making it an issue we can get them to push their MPs for it, especially now that they've been faced with the spectre of a far-right Conservative government from Calgary.