Petition for voting system reform

[juzt4me]

Hello there,

I have recently begun a petition, hoping that many canadians across the country will sign for voting system reform. How is it that mister Harper's government got 53% of the seats, with only a mere 40% of the vote? 60% of Canadians did NOT vote for mister harper. How can we say this is truly democratic? I hope, with this petition, to bring it to the house of commons with as many signatures as possible, in an attempt to pressure Mr. Layton to apply pressure on Mr. Harper to usher in this new kind of change for Canadians, for a more fair, equal Canadian vote. Don't let our voting system drop turnout rates below 60%, and certainly don't let governments get a FALSE majority! sign my petition to prevent this at :

http://www.proprepcanada.weebly.com

Edited May 4, 2011 by juzt4me

[lukin]

Hello there,

I have recently begun a petition, hoping that many canadians across the country will sign for voting system reform. How is it that mister Harper's government got 53% of the seats, with only a mere 40% of the vote? 60% of Canadians did NOT vote for mister harper. How can we say this is truly democratic? I hope, with this petition, to bring it to the house of commons with as many signatures as possible, in an attempt to pressure Mr. Layton to apply pressure on Mr. Harper to usher in this new kind of change for Canadians, for a more fair, equal Canadian vote. Don't let our voting system drop turnout rates below 60%, and certainly don't let governments get a FALSE majority! sign my petition to prevent this at :

http://www.proprepcanada.weebly.com

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.

Edited May 4, 2011 by lukin

[juzt4me]

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.

This new system does not just apply to mr Harper, it applies to all parties and all past, present and future PM's. Why should they be elected on the basis that they don't actually get 50%+1 of the vote, yet get more than enough seats to do so? This is far from democratic, especially when they have such control on the Senate.

[Molly]

Right. You hate the outcome, so it must be better to fundamentally change the way we elect our representatives than it would be to earn the win via current rules.

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

[lukin]

Proportional Representation is nothing more than a battlecry for losers.

[Michael Hardner]

The arguments for pure PR always decry our system as being undemocratic, but yet we vote, and we get governments that reflect the general sentiments of the people and of the time, and we our system has provided us a balanced result. The results that Canada has enjoyed have come from governments who have the ability to enact their vision while they're in power.

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.

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 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.

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.

[juzt4me]

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. 60% of Canadians did not want Harper, not to mention the other 40% who didn't even vote, cause half of them feel their vote is wasted. So in theory, Harper hardly represents 205 of those eligible to vote, yet he makes decisions for every single person this country? Kind of seems like an oligarchy to me, only a handful of canadians, about 1 in 5 actually want Harper, and this rule could apply to many, many other PM's. Some half won over 50% off the vote, it is them who deserve majorities, even tomorrow, the UK, the system on which we are BASED votes tomorrow for proportional representation, and it is current in all of europe without any problems, so i don't understand why you people are such against it, there's nothing flawed with it, look at countries like Germany, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the last 3 rank top of the list for human development index, and voter turnouts are FAR above ours, exceeding up to 80-85% in some areas, even more in some countries. What is wrong with you people?

[Shwa]

Hello there,

I have recently begun a petition, hoping that many canadians across the country will sign for voting system reform.

Get in line.

How is it that mister Harper's government got 53% of the seats, with only a mere 40% of the vote? 60% of Canadians did NOT vote for mister harper.

That is the way the system works, the rules as it were.

How can we say this is truly democratic?

Because our system is first past the post and it is very democratic. The system is democratic in this election because winning candidates got the most votes in their riding, thus electing more members to Parliament, thus being able to select a member among them to lead the Government.

I hope, with this petition, to bring it to the house of commons with as many signatures as possible, in an attempt to pressure Mr. Layton to apply pressure on Mr. Harper to usher in this new kind of change for Canadians, for a more fair, equal Canadian vote.

Hope is free and I hope you enjoy a wealth of it.

Don't let our voting system drop turnout rates below 60%, and certainly don't let governments get a FALSE majority!

Why you are correlating FPTP with low voter turnout illustrates that you are not too familiar with our democratic system. Secondly, with FPTP, the government got a TRUE majority since they elected more members to parliament than all of the other parties combined.

It is pretty simple really.

sign my petition to prevent this at :

Nope.

[August1991]

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. 60% of Canadians did not want Harper, not to mention the other 40% who didn't even vote, cause half of them feel their vote is wasted.

The problem with your argument is that while 60% of voters did not choose Harper (in fact, they didn't choose a local candidate in Harper's party), this percentage is even higher for other candidates. In short, Harper received a plurality of votes. (As a minor point, if you remove Quebec, then Conservatives received very close to 50% of all votes.)

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.

[juzt4me]

Run off elections are but one type of proportional representation, i have not included which system may or may not work best, however, if you support the run-off voting system, i suggest you sign my petition, to fight for canadian electoral reform.

[Topaz]

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?

[bush_cheney2004]

...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.

Well gosh yes....the only way Canada can define itself it to be different from the Americans. Three party minimum!

[noahbody]

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.

Citation?

[August1991]

Run off elections are but one type of proportional representation, i have not included which system may or may not work best, however, if you support the run-off voting system, i suggest you sign my petition, to fight for canadian electoral reform.

Your website asks me to sign the following:

For years, Canada's "first past the post" voting system has given false majority governments, and has not represented the Canadian people, dropping voter turnout rates. Change this by signing for proportional representation, a fair, equal and democratic way of voting!

That statement is far too vague. Your refer to "false majority governments". What do you mean? And even you admit that "proportional representation" has different forms. Which form do you propose?

----

When the Reform Party proposed a Triple-E Senate, they at least had some precision.

[juzt4me]

i'm suggesting something similar to the system proposed for BC, a single transferable vote system. and by false majorities, i mean a majority government, which is not supported or voted by a majority of canadians.

Edited May 4, 2011 by juzt4me

[noahbody]

i'm suggesting something similar to the system proposed for BC, a single transferable vote system. and by false majorities, i mean a majority government, which is not supported or voted by a majority of canadians.

Only three governments in Canadian history have every had a majority of the popular vote: Mulroney, Diefenbaker and McKenzie King (during WWII).

[juzt4me]

In that case, it will force parties to work together, instead of this constant arguing, which is the whole point of proportional representation. the model works quite well in europe. I'm aware there have only been 3.

[jacee]

I do believe that parliament should reflect the popular vote more accurately than FPTP does at present, due to leaders like Harris and Harper and Chretien who simply ignore the majority of people who don't vote for them. I've heard it said that FPTP worked ok before the electronic age, but with the speed and precision of information and prediction now, FPTP is more easily manipulated to give a result that doesn't reflect the popular vote - eg by targeting "ethnic and very ethnic" communities that will vote as a block and are large enough to swing key ridings.

It seems even democracy has to be updated from time to time. However the trick is to do so without increasing the cost and size of government and in a way that people can easily understand. The reform must stay in the hands of the people as if we give it to the politicians to do, they'll simply distort it to their advantage. 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!)

So while I may sign your petition, I think we have a lot of work to do before we ask politicians to get involved as they all have a vested interest in the system as it is, since it got them where they are.

I would suggest instead working with nonpartisan groups such as Fair Vote Canada or the Council of Canadians to design a cost effective and efficient updated system.

Edited May 4, 2011 by jacee

[juzt4me]

Thank you for your support, Jacee. First person it seems around here that finally think it's a good idea.

[fellowtraveller]

The NDP drew about 4.5 million votes, 15% of Canadas population. I guess that means 85% of Canada utterly rejects them.

What I find interesting is that the NDP has had longterm majority govts inSK, MB and BC, yet has never acted to implement proportional representation in any of them. A few years ago, I researched each provincial NDP site and discovered that every one of them had PR as a policy. All of them- except the two that actually had NDP govts and could actually implement the system if they chose, though of course it would cost them seats and likely cost them power in both provinces. A more cynical person than myself would conclude that the NDP are the same hypocritical opportunists as the rest.

it will force parties to work together, instead of this constant arguing, which is the whole point of proportional representation. the model works quite well in europe.

That is highly debatable. Europe is dominated economically by layers of overlapping govts fighting over turf. A number of countires are in or on the verge of bankruptcy. Every country in the EU is obliges to surrender some sovereignty. Is that how you see Canada. a junior partner in a North American Union?

I understand that you and Layton may feel every job should be a govt job, but understanding does not have the same meaning as agreement.

Edited May 4, 2011 by fellowtraveller

[jacee]

Thank you for your support, Jacee. First person it seems around here that finally think it's a good idea.

I think it's a good idea to have the discussion, but I have strong reservations about it being twisted to serve political instead of popular purposes.

[juzt4me]

Well i'm sorry you feel that way, i do truly think it would be a great shift in canadian politics, and a great win for canadians as a whole.

[CPCFTW]

Wow quit whining. The reason our system works is because a party can gain the full power of a majority government without having to win a majority of votes. Governments have their hands tied in minority governments and the same would be true in your retarded proposal. Harper has had to spend to placate the entitlement mentality of the left and then they used that spending as a point of contention during the election. This entitlement mentality needs to die. "Waaaaaah we need to know more details about that jet purchase... Canadians demand change now!!! Wahhh we need free daycare and more pensions and welfare!!! Wahhh elections Canada says we can't tweet results... I'm tweeting them anyway because I'm such a rebel!!! Waaahhhh these election results didn't go our way, I'm gonna start retweeting a bunch of dictatorship comments that I think are clever then create an online petition for electoral reform!!!!" Grow up man.

[ToadBrother]

Hello there,

I have recently begun a petition, hoping that many canadians across the country will sign for voting system reform. How is it that mister Harper's government got 53% of the seats, with only a mere 40% of the vote? 60% of Canadians did NOT vote for mister harper. How can we say this is truly democratic? I hope, with this petition, to bring it to the house of commons with as many signatures as possible, in an attempt to pressure Mr. Layton to apply pressure on Mr. Harper to usher in this new kind of change for Canadians, for a more fair, equal Canadian vote. Don't let our voting system drop turnout rates below 60%, and certainly don't let governments get a FALSE majority! sign my petition to prevent this at :

http://www.proprepcanada.weebly.com

Could someone demonstrate to me that PR in fact leads to higher voter turnouts? The only thing I know of that increases voter turnout is mandatory voting.

At any rate, and for the umpteenth time, the people elect a Parliament, it is Parliament that chooses the Government. You're not voting for a government, you're voting for a representative. PR does not change that one little bit. The problem isn't the voting system, the problem is political parties, and PR will not solve that.

[Shwa]

Thank you for your support, Jacee. First person it seems around here that finally think it's a good idea.

Well then, according to your own criteria, a legitimate majority thinks your idea blows. You should stop supporting such rubbish ideas because the majority has voted (in an way) and has settled the issue.