Petition for voting system reform

Moonlight Graham · May 5, 2011

I do believe that parliament should reflect the popular vote more accurately than FPTP does at present.

As do I. Our current system is not "undemocratic", it is just less democratic than what it could be under a proper PR system. Democracy, at its most ideal, is 1 vote for 1 person. Each person has an equal vote with equal represention. If ie: the Bloc can get so many seats in the past with so few votes, and the NDP and Greens traditionally get fewer seats with more popular vote, this is an area that can and should be improved.

In a system like PR, every vote counts. I live in a consistently strong conservative riding, so if i wanted to vote for any other party it is usually virtually useless & somewhat of a useless vote. Many people in my situation don`t even bother to vote because voting in the past has made no difference, therefore they just stay at home. With PR this gives everyone everywhere even more of a reason to vote.

The Ontario proposal, for example, involved adding reps from a pool appointed by the parties who would answer only to the party, not to any constituency of voters. (yikes!)

This was a major flaw in the Ontario PR proposal. Pools should not be chosen by parties. How about a system where a party candidate who runs but loses in their riding but finishes with the highest percentage of votes in their riding compared to other are members of their party are plucked to be added as an MP? This makes them more accountable, and maybe they can serve in a larger or overlapping regional district located in or near their original riding so that they are still representing voters somewhere & are accountable.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

icman · May 5, 2011

What do you mean how? This whole thread starts with "60% of Canadians did not want a Harper government".

How? There are PR systems that use the percentage vote of the local riding, where a "riding" has multiple MP slots to fill - say 5. The national ratios will be determined by the makeup of the MPs selected in those ridings, which themselves are proportional, so the national overview will also be roughly proportional. This method achieves proportionality at the national and riding level, without using national numbers to override local voting.

So, again, how is it that PR means ipso facto that national numbers will override local voter desires?

icman · May 5, 2011

As do I. Our current system is not "undemocratic", it is just less democratic than what it could be under a proper PR system. Democracy, at its most ideal, is 1 vote for 1 person. Each person has an equal vote with equal represention. If ie: the Bloc can get so many seats in the past with so few votes, and the NDP and Greens traditionally get fewer seats with more popular vote, this is an area that can and should be improved.

In a system like PR, every vote counts. I live in a consistently strong conservative riding, so if i wanted to vote for any other party it is usually virtually useless & somewhat of a useless vote. Many people in my situation don`t even bother to vote because voting in the past has made no difference, therefore they just stay at home. With PR this gives everyone everywhere even more of a reason to vote.

This was a major flaw in the Ontario PR proposal. Pools should not be chosen by parties. How about a system where a party candidate who runs but loses in their riding but finishes with the highest percentage of votes in their riding compared to other are members of their party are plucked to be added as an MP? This makes them more accountable, and maybe they can serve in a larger or overlapping regional district located in or near their original riding so that they are still representing voters somewhere & are accountable.

The Ontario PR proposal was ridiculous, and it was ridiculous on purpose to prevent Ontario from ever considering PR again.

Edited May 5, 2011 by icman

Michael Hardner · May 5, 2011

Our medicare system came in under a Liberal minority government, so that's not a good example.

What about the first one in Saskatchewan ? Wikipedia says he had a majority.

Michael Hardner · May 5, 2011

The Ontario PR proposal was ridiculous, and it was ridiculous on purpose to prevent Ontario from ever considering PR again.

A conspiracy, you think ?

Black Dog · May 5, 2011

That doesn't mean that adding more debate and negotiation is more democratic. The system has to aggregate public opinion at some level, and so we use FPTP to do that.

The system already does by the fact that we are electing people to serve as the voice of public opinion.

I think more debate and negotiation is more democratic because it means a more complete range of views is being brought forward. No one party can possibly represent the will of the majority on every issue, but that's effectively what FPTP assumes.

ToadBrother · May 5, 2011

I think more debate and negotiation is more democratic because it means a more complete range of views is being brought forward. No one party can possibly represent the will of the majority on every issue, but that's effectively what FPTP assumes.

And here's where things completely fall down for me. We do not live in a direct democracy. The popular will, whatever that may be at any given time (and let's be blunt, it's neither consistent in the short term nor non-contradictory in the longer term) is filtered by our representatives. We elect them to represent us, not to be our mouthpieces. In fact, to some extent, representative democracy seeks to curb the will of the majority, and a good government is not one that simply does what opinion polls tell it to do, but one with the wisdom and experience to navigate tricky waters. At the end of the government's term, the voters can decide whether the government governed them well.

Black Dog · May 5, 2011

And here's where things completely fall down for me. We do not live in a direct democracy. The popular will, whatever that may be at any given time (and let's be blunt, it's neither consistent in the short term nor non-contradictory in the longer term) is filtered by our representatives. We elect them to represent us, not to be our mouthpieces. In fact, to some extent, representative democracy seeks to curb the will of the majority, and a good government is not one that simply does what opinion polls tell it to do, but one with the wisdom and experience to navigate tricky waters. At the end of the government's term, the voters can decide whether the government governed them well.

Who said anything about direct democracy? Beyond that, none of what you say here is incompatible with a system of compromise and negotiation.

PIK · May 5, 2011

I rather see something that the PEOPLE have a power that gives them the right to call for an election with the party in power, does something that harms Canadian sovereignty, or rights or freedoms to stop it from happening. In these times, everything is going global and we really know what this perimeter security is all about and I don't anyone should trust the government in power, no more who it is. Another example would be the hatred Harper has for the liberal party, he vows to destroy it and that would leave just he Tories and the NDP with any power. Harper is going ahead with the 2.00 party subsidies and as a voter, we should always have THREE parties to chose from or we will end up the US with two. Should ANY PM use his power to destroy another party for his personal revenge and his party's advantage?

Really the 40% that did not vote really voted for the status quo, which means harper got 80% of the vote

scribblet · May 5, 2011

It's funny I never heard much about this when Chretien won three majorities with around 40% of the popular vote. What a useless thread.

and Bob Rae in Ontario when his party got less than 40% of the popular vote.

scouterjim · May 5, 2011

Under the "Single transferrable vote" system, YOUR vote may be given to somebody you do NOT want elected.

cybercoma · May 5, 2011

What about the first one in Saskatchewan ? Wikipedia says he had a majority.

The original healthcare plan in Saskatchewan was nothing like our current universal healthcare. It was hospital insurance that covered your stay in a hospital. It did not cover diagnostics, doctors visits or any care outside a hospital.

Remiel · May 6, 2011

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.

There is still a definite sense in which Harper's majority is more egregious than Chretien's. If you ask look at the percentage of the voters instead of the percentage of the votes, you find that it has declined in every single election since Mulroney's first win in '84. Chretien's majorities had 28.7%, 25.77%, and 25.04% of voters respectively. Harper has, in comparison, 24.33% of voters. We can perhaps argue about what is the proper metric, but the fact remains that they both have a claim to saddest winner.

TimG · May 6, 2011

There is still a definite sense in which Harper's majority is more egregious than Chretien's.

Only among shameless hypocrites.

If you ask look at the percentage of the voters instead of the percentage of the votes...

A vote not cast is a vote in support of the result - whatever that may be. Edited May 6, 2011 by TimG

Remiel · May 6, 2011

A vote not cast is a vote in support of the result - whatever that may be.

Only among shameless sophists.

TimG · May 6, 2011

Only among shameless sophists

If you don't vote you are sending one message: that you don't care about the outcome. If you don't care then cannot say you opposed who was elected to goverment. It is even more nonsencisal that the claim that 60% of people don't want Harper - a statement that only makes senses if you presume the second choice of the voters is another opposition party. Edited May 6, 2011 by TimG

RNG · May 6, 2011

Only among shameless sophists.

OK, you categorize a vote not cast.

cybercoma · May 6, 2011

If people supported the Conservatives, they would vote for the Conservatives. Since they don't know the outcome before hand that does not mean they supported them because they won the election. It means that they don't support the entire process because they removed themselves from it. You can't claim those that didn't vote for the winning party.

TimG · May 6, 2011

If people supported the Conservatives, they would vote for the Conservatives.

Nonsense. They did not vote for anyone else either. The message they send is they support whatever outcome. If they actually disagreed with the choices they would go an spoil their ballot.

cybercoma · May 6, 2011

Yeah. Ok. Everyone that didn't vote supports the Conservatives. They had what, 79% support then? :rolleyes:

Edited May 6, 2011 by cybercoma

scribblet · May 6, 2011

I voted against it in Ontario, would do so again. I might go along with a mixture of both, were part are elected under the FPTP and part under the other system.

Just to note that the U.K. just voted a major NO to their referenda on an AV system.

RNG · May 6, 2011

Yeah. Ok. Everyone that didn't vote supports the Conservatives. They had what, 79% support then?

That's the type of math some die-hard NDP'er offered us previously on this forum to prove that -89% were in favour of the Cons, or whatever drivel they used.

TimG · May 6, 2011

Yeah. Ok. Everyone that didn't vote supports the Conservatives.

I said they supported the outcome. That means if the NDP won they would have supported that.

You seem to take the position that people who did not vote can be counted as oppossing the result. It is nonsenscial and self serving position.

Edited May 6, 2011 by TimG

cybercoma · May 6, 2011

I said they supported the outcome. That means if the NDP won they would have supported that.

You seem to take the position that people who did not vote can be counted as oppossing the result. It is nonsenscial and self serving position.

I never took that position once, you liar. I've been saying that they don't count for anything because you don't know where they stand. Don't put words in my mouth.

cybercoma · May 6, 2011

That's the type of math some die-hard NDP'er offered us previously on this forum to prove that -89% were in favour of the Cons, or whatever drivel they used.

so? they're wrong too.