Petition for voting system reform

ToadBrother · May 4, 2011

What some of you don't seem to understand is i'm not throwing down majority governments, they are good, but they should only be awarded when they actually win over half of canadians.

Pure PR systems make majorities almost impossible. What's more, what most of them do, as we see in Germany, are semi-permanent coalitions; basically majority governments via the back door. Or worse, you get the Israeli system, where small fringe parties gain obscene amounts of influence because the main parties have to pander to them to form a government.

There's no panacea. The best I would probably go for at this point is some form of preferential voting.

g_bambino · May 4, 2011

60% of Canadians did NOT vote for mister harper. How can we say this is truly democratic?

Because parliament is elected by the majority of voters and parliament selects the prime minister. Ta-da!

ToadBrother · May 4, 2011

But here's a suggestion to consider. Maybe we should have second, run-off elections at the riding level. IOW, if a local candidate does not win more than 50% of the votes on the first election day, then one or two weeks later, we would hold a second riding level election day to decide between the two highest placed candidates.

This would ensure that at the riding level at least, each MP would have the support of a majority of constituents.

----

True, this would require some Canadians to vote twice but it would lead to better representation in Ottawa and would avoid many of the problems of PR.

You could implement some form of Alternative Voting; a preferential ballot system whereby you select in order of preference the candidates that you want. You can use this to run an instant runoff. If the winning candidate did not win outright on the first count, you run it again, removing the candidate with the least amount of votes and reassigning those votes based on the voter's second preference, until you are left with a candidate that ultimately gained over 50%.

The only issue with preferential voting systems that I know of is that they are more complicated to count. Still, it's not difficult mathematics and certainly anybody with high school algebra could tally the votes.

Edited May 4, 2011 by ToadBrother

guyser · May 4, 2011

Proportional Representation is nothing more than a battlecry for losers.

wHAT HE SAID.

juzt4me · May 4, 2011

Ok, since it seems most of you would prefer an alternative vote, i have altered my petition as so. i still feel it is a more democratic voting system. I will also be adding models and information to me site in the next coming days.

CPCFTW · May 4, 2011

There's no panacea. The best I would probably go for at this point is some form of preferential voting.

The best I would go for is our system. There's nothing wrong with it... conservatives take power when a plurality of people want to cut back on spending and taxation, and the left takes power when a plurality want social change. With majority governments they are able to do so... in PR or minority governments, the plurality is forced to placate the opposition which undermines their ideals and make the incumbent party seem like "liars".

Regarding the voter turnout thing, I know a lot of people don't show up because their riding is dominated by a certain party. For example, if you're a conservative in Jack Layton's riding it's pretty pointless to show up when Layton has 29k votes to 6k for the conservatives. This doesn't mean these people don't care about the election, just that the riding they live in has deemed Layton the best suited to represent their interests. Really, the voter turnout thing is overblown.

Black Dog · May 4, 2011

PR would radically change this pattern. Instead of a government being allowed to move forward with its vision, there would be a perpetual negotiation of compromises and smaller changes. It would be much more difficult to make the large changes that a visionary leader could move forward.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

And my question is always: why ? What practical problem would PR solve ? Why would we risk such a radical change, not knowing what would come out of it ?

The main problem to me is that the distribution of seats should match the percentage of the vote. It's pretty simple.

The answer is always that our system is "undemocratic" but the definition used to define that is merely mathematical. That's too abstract an interpretation for someone to say we don't have democracy, IMO. The proof of our democracy is in the results, and we have had great results in Canada with our system.

That's poor logic, Michael. Democracy is a process and an inherently imperfect one. It makes sense to me to look at any system where we can iron out some of the hiccups that skew the results.

It makes more sense for one party to drive the bus when they win FPTP than to have three parties with their hands on the steering wheel forever.

Why?

ToadBrother · May 4, 2011

The best I would go for is our system. There's nothing wrong with it... conservatives take power when a plurality of people want to cut back on spending and taxation, and the left takes power when a plurality want social change. With majority governments they are able to do so... in PR or minority governments, the plurality is forced to placate the opposition which undermines their ideals and make the incumbent party seem like "liars".

I'm just suggesting an alternative that, for certain definitions of "fair" would produce fairer results. To be honest with you, I've lost my zeal for electoral reform after three minority governments in a row. The idea of putting a voting system in place that in fact increases the likelihood of minorities, or as likely would just create semi-permanent alliances that are majorities in all but name, does not appeal to me. FPTP is not a perfect system, but any mathematician will tell you that no such system exists.

What's more I'm completely unconvinced that another electoral system would achieve either of its stated goals. I do not think it would radically increase voter turnout, which has been in decline in many jurisdictions in the Industrialized World for decades, nor will it make Parliament more democratic.

The real solution to the "democratic deficit" is to weaken political parties, to give MPs a greater individual voice. That can be done without tampering with the electoral system.

Regarding the voter turnout thing, I know a lot of people don't show up because their riding is dominated by a certain party. For example, if you're a conservative in Jack Layton's riding it's pretty pointless to show up when Layton has 29k votes to 6k for the conservatives. This doesn't mean these people don't care about the election, just that the riding they live in has deemed Layton the best suited to represent their interests. Really, the voter turnout thing is overblown.

I don't like low voter turnout, to be sure, but the only way I know of that would actually fix it would be mandatory voting, and I have a philosophical problem with forcing people to the polls.

ToadBrother · May 4, 2011

The main problem to me is that the distribution of seats should match the percentage of the vote. It's pretty simple.

I'm curious. Why should it? The only way that makes sense is if you get rid of the notion of constituencies. I can envision a system where a jurisdiction has a pure party list system, and voters just place a mark next to their preferred party and the party picks from the list based on the percentage of votes. Then I'd say that your logic would work.

But our system is built out of the notional of geographical representation. We have a single MP per riding, and the MP gets in if he or she achieves the plurality of votes. The whole issue of overall national (or provincial if we're talking about provincial elections) percentages does not make a lot of sense to me. I frankly don't think the overall percentage of votes means a helluva lot.

cybercoma · May 4, 2011

I absolutely hate the fact that Chretien won back-to-back majorities for 13 years. It's an affront to democracy to have full control of the government for any period of time when you have less than 50% of the voters supporting you. I agree that those who don't vote don't count because they don't care about the result; however, it looks even worse when you have 40% support of 60% of the voters. This actually means only about 25% of all voters elected you. Nevertheless, I will give the parties (please note that I'm not saying the Conservatives specifically because this applies equally to ALL parties) the benefit of the doubt and say that roughly 40% elected them. Chretien's 38% majority was disgusting.

We need to consider how much power is centralized in the Prime Minister. The caucus is whipped into voting along party lines. He controls the vote of the House. The Senate is appointed by the Prime Minister. He controls the "sober" second thought. While I want to agree with term-limits. In practice, this only serves to make the Senate even more ineffective as each PM will be more able to control the make-up of the Senate. The Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the Prime Minister. He controls the highest court that interprets the constitution and how it applies to the laws that the Prime Minister makes because he controls the House. The Prime Minister appoints the heads of Crown Corporations. The list goes on and on. It is not far from the truth to say that a majority government is a tyranny. Even the Governor General is appointed by the Prime Minister.

If we are going to have a majority government, it ought to represent the intersts of the majority of Canadians. The House ought to be representative of Canadians and how they have voted. FPTP does not allow this. The decisions are made based on the percentage of seats in the House and that percentage does not reflect the political makeup of the Canadian electorate. It is completely undemocratic, there is no other way to describe it, that a government holds 54.22% of the seats but only 39.62% of the popular vote. In business terms, for you Conservatives that fancy yourselves economists, that's like holding a controlling interst in a business (54.22%) by investing only 39.62% into it. Great deal for you, but someone else is picking up the tab somewhere and it's quite simply unfair. It was unfair when Chretien did it, particularly so because it was for so long and it's still unfair today when it happens.

Pure PR is not the way to go, however. I'm not entirely sure what the best system would be. I really like the idea of a run-off system of sorts, as suggested by August above. Yet, there are limitations to that system as well. It's confusing for some voters to have to rank the candidates in their riding. You have to be quite active politically to be able to make an educated decisions there. Nonetheless, the system is broken. Pure PR is not the answer, but we absolutely need some sort of hybrid system that solves the problems we're facing with First-Past-The-Post.

As for the OP, there is a much better project already underway that I would suggest looking into: http://leadnow.ca/majority

cybercoma · May 4, 2011

That post was way longer than I expected. Kudos to anyone that wades through it. :lol:

CPCFTW · May 4, 2011

As for the OP, there is a much better project already underway that I would suggest looking into: http://leadnow.ca/majority

hahaha could their logo be any more misleading? Makes it look like 50% voted NDP, 90% NDP or liberals, and that the cons are a fringe party with barely more support than the green party. You guys are funny.

CPCFTW · May 4, 2011

That post was way longer than I expected. Kudos to anyone that wades through it.

I read it. Tyrannies last more than 4 years. Any "tyrant" will be deposed by the electorate within that timeframe. Furthermore, MPs wont be "whipped" into voting to make Harper emperor and to begin construction on a death star. His power is still in check. Quit whining and grow up.

Edited May 4, 2011 by CPCFTW

ToadBrother · May 4, 2011

I read it. Tyrannies last more than 4 years. Any "tyrant" will be deposed by the electorate within that timeframe. Quit whining and grow up.

No kidding. This really ticks me off. You don't have elected tyrannies (well, I guess strictly speaking, the Romans during the Republic did, but anyways...) Yes, a PM of a majority government has vast powers, and yes, I think we can look at ways of trimming those powers, but I don't think we need to toss out our electoral system to do it.

If we look at other democracies that have instituted differing voting systems, I don't see how they are ultimately more democratic. I don't perceive Ireland or Germany as having any great advantage. They seem to suffer many of the same issues of centralization of power, and let's face it, once you have a ruling coalition, unless things go for a real crapper, the caucuses of the partners are going to be just as whipped.

I think the efforts should be put into giving our MPs a larger voice, in making them more accountable to their constituencies. That's where we fix the problem, not by mucking around with voting systems that probably won't solve the underlying problem, and at least some types might make things even worse (ie. Israel, whose PR system has created an utterly dysfunctional governing system).

Any "tyrant" will be deposed by the electorate within that timeframe. Furthermore, MPs wont be "whipped" into voting to make Harper emperor and to begin construction on a death star. His power is still in check. Quit whining and grow up.

Ultimately Canada has the Queen and Her Viceroy. As always, the underlying constitutional theory is that if the Queen holds the power, it deprives the Government of using it. If a Government were to ever behave in such a fashion as to set up some sort of dictatorship, it's almost certain that the GG and possibly even the Queen would step in, because with them lies the reserve power to dismiss a government. What's more, the Armed Forces do not swear allegiances to the Government, they swear allegiance to the Queen.

But I can't imagine why this is a concern. Every single federal election since Confederation has been free and peaceful, and governments who lose power have always accepted the will of the people and stepped down. Canada is not some Third World banana republic and Stephen Harper is not some sort of Colonel Ghaddafi.

Edited May 4, 2011 by ToadBrother

jacee · May 4, 2011

Ok, since it seems most of you would prefer an alternative vote, i have altered my petition as so. i still feel it is a more democratic voting system. I will also be adding models and information to me site in the next coming days.

You can't change a petition that people have already signed. Again I suggest that you inform yourself of, and work with other organizations that have been having this discussion for some time.

To those who prefer the 'omnipotent CEO' model of governance, I would remind you that a democracy is not a for-profit business serving a target market. There are other considerations, like quality of life for vulnerable populations.

cybercoma · May 4, 2011

CPCFTW, did you actually have something to counter what I said? Yes. We'll have an election in 4 years. A tyranny by definition is unrestrained power by a dictator and indeed for 4 years we will have a tyranny, given how much power rests with the PM. It was true for Chretien and it's true for Harper and you have offered nothing that suggests otherwise.

Restrained by the upper house? He appoints them.

Restrained by the Constitution and the SCC? He appoints the justices that interpret the Constitution.

Restrained by the Queen's GG? He appoints him/her.

Restrained by the electorate? Not for 4 years he won't be.

And with less than 40% of the vote... yeah. I would define that as a tyranny, no matter who is put in that position. You would think Conservatives, who are against gun legislation because they want a check on government's power, would be all about limiting the government's power. You're ideologically inconsistent and it hurts your credibility.

Grow up, indeed.

g_bambino · May 4, 2011

Restrained by the upper house? He appoints them.
Restrained by the Constitution and the SCC? He appoints the justices that interpret the Constitution.

Restrained by the Queen's GG? He appoints him/her.

And can't unappoint any of them. So, what would any of them be afraid of?

You also forget about the provinces.

Pliny · May 4, 2011

This idea of the Single transferable vote (STV) for better representation has been brought up and defeated twice in BC already. Why do you think it will be accepted federally?

We are not Europe. We still like some things to be unequal.

The problem is in the number of issues that the federal government should be concerned with. I don't really care if "children whose parents didn't have a cottage by the lake" or their sister charity "Children of parents who did have a cottage by the lake but smoked in the car on the way there" are sufficiently supported by the federal government. The problem is there are too many issues that too many people cannnot agree on. The agreement on those issues where we disagree should be worked out in society not by some pork-barrel politician buying votes and creating future liabilities that the the current generation becomes dependent upon and the next generation won't be able to pay for because of the non-consideration of changing economic or social demographics that government considered would never change, and if they did they could always do something about it later as if their revenue levels were guaranteed under any circumstance.

Shwa · May 4, 2011

CPCFTW, did you actually have something to counter what I said? Yes. We'll have an election in 4 years. A tyranny by definition is unrestrained power by a dictator and indeed for 4 years we will have a tyranny, given how much power rests with the PM. It was true for Chretien and it's true for Harper and you have offered nothing that suggests otherwise.

Does Parliament control the Supreme Court and limit the power of the SC to issue injunctions?

Just askin' ...

Uncle 3 dogs · May 4, 2011

Right. Ihate the outcome, Well, I hate the outcome, too, but I hate anything that further empowers parties (over voters) much, much more.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Uncle 3 dogs

cybercoma · May 4, 2011

Does Parliament control the Supreme Court and limit the power of the SC to issue injunctions?

Just askin' ...

The point of bringing up the SCC is that Parliament has no control over the laws being passed and the justices on the SCC are selected by the person creating the laws. It's tough to see how they will limit his power by biting the hand that feeds. Parliament doesn't control or limit the SCC, but the point is that Parliament can control and limit the power of the PM to push through whatever laws he feels like pushing through in a majority government.

Shwa · May 4, 2011

The point of bringing up the SCC is that Parliament has no control over the laws being passed and the justices on the SCC are selected by the person creating the laws. It's tough to see how they will limit his power by biting the hand that feeds. Parliament doesn't control or limit the SCC, but the point is that Parliament can control and limit the power of the PM to push through whatever laws he feels like pushing through in a majority government.

Ah, but you see, injunctions are an interesting tool that can limit the effectiveness of any power wielded by government. Especially Constitutional challenges.

As long as the Constitution remains as it is and the SC has the power to issue injunctions I believe we are safe from a true tyranny in government. And, considering that Prime Minister Harper - and the rest of the CPC - wishes to remain in power - I believe that they will not be so reckless and tear asunder what they have spent so much time, effort and money building up.

Sure, they can't please everybody, me included, but I doubt they will be totally reckless. As "conservative" as they may be, they are still pretty much liberal.

CPCFTW · May 4, 2011

Restrained by the upper house? He appoints them.

...

He's got 141 seats against him. If he starts to power trip then only 14/167 of conservative MPs have to vote against him... or even if 27 conservatives just don't show up to vote for moral reasons. His power is not as unrestrained as you seem to think.

Edited May 4, 2011 by CPCFTW

Pliny · May 4, 2011

And with less than 40% of the vote... yeah. I would define that as a tyranny, no matter who is put in that position. You would think Conservatives, who are against gun legislation because they want a check on government's power, would be all about limiting the government's power. You're ideologically inconsistent and it hurts your credibility.

I don't believe you have any idea what tyranny is, I think you have it confused with leadership and direction.

All that electoral reform means is that minorities can collude to form a majority on issues and agree to swap favours with each other to service their own special interests that have nothing to do with the general population. It's really barefaced voting for the entitlements of choice and the majority disappears forever in a system of constant barter and compromise on issues that should have nothing to do with a national government.

ToadBrother · May 4, 2011

CPCFTW, did you actually have something to counter what I said? Yes. We'll have an election in 4 years. A tyranny by definition is unrestrained power by a dictator and indeed for 4 years we will have a tyranny, given how much power rests with the PM. It was true for Chretien and it's true for Harper and you have offered nothing that suggests otherwise.

Restrained by the upper house? He appoints them.

He appoints some of them. Since Senators sit until age 75, some large fraction of the Upper House is going to be people other PM's have appointed.

Restrained by the Constitution and the SCC? He appoints the justices that interpret the Constitution.

Again, he appoints some of them. Their terms extend past most PM's time in office.

Restrained by the Queen's GG? He appoints him/her.

He appoints the GG, but does not control the GG, and a GG's term does not line up with a PM's, so they're not politically bound to each other. For most Harper's time as PM, he had a GG appointed on the advice of a Liberal PM.

Restrained by the electorate? Not for 4 years he won't be.

True enough, but he's going to have to face the electorate at some point in the not so distant future.

And with less than 40% of the vote... yeah. I would define that as a tyranny, no matter who is put in that position. You would think Conservatives, who are against gun legislation because they want a check on government's power, would be all about limiting the government's power. You're ideologically inconsistent and it hurts your credibility.

Grow up, indeed.

You throw the word "tyranny" around, but it's hard to see how we have one in fact. Even very strong PM's like Mackenzie King and Pierre Trudeau did not hold absolute power, and a tyranny pretty much requires some form of absolutism.

Some of your examples, in particular the Senate, the Supreme Court and the Governor General seem to be very poor indeed. You act as if these three divisions of power tidally locked to the current Prime Minister, and that is simply false. The PM can appoint people to these positions, but only as the position becomes vacant. The Senate is a special case in that the Constitution does allow the PM to go to the GG and Queen and ask for four or eight Senators to be added, but it's hard to view a power that has been used precisely once since Confederation as being a huge threat to democracy, and beyond that, one can view it as a key power of the Prime Minister to assure the Commons always has the upper hand.