Petition for voting system reform

[g_bambino]

It's tough to see how they will limit his power by biting the hand that feeds.

Can you please explain what the consequences of biting said hand would be and point to examples?

[cybercoma]

Look. Tyranny might be too strong of a word, but I think Jeffrey Simpson outlined the immense power of the PM well in The Friendly Dictator, talking about Chretien at the time.

I don't believe electoral reform is a partisan issue, so I'm genuinely surprised at the opposition that it receives from the Right. Perhaps it's because it favours you at the moment, but it was not so long ago that it was working against you. I strongly believe that electoral reform is in the best interests of all Canadians whether they're on the left or right. We need a more fair and representative House, not one where 40% of the vote gives a party over 56% of the seats, regardless of who the party is red, blue or orange.

[cybercoma]

Can you please explain what the consequences of biting said hand would be and point to examples?

The Prime Minister appoints people that are ideologically similar to him and his party. It's not so much biting the hand that feeds, but interpreting things from the ideological perspective of the PM that appoints them.

[ToadBrother]

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.

The Supreme Court and the Sovereign both play roles. The Supreme Court has the capacity to throw out laws and, as you say, to deprive the Government of the capacity to utilize executive or legislative power where constitutionality is in question.

The Sovereign also plays a key role because, while the Sovereign and their representatives almost never use the reserve powers, the mere fact that they hold those powers deprives the Government of the capacity to use them. It's sort of a negative power, but a core aspect of our constitutional system of government.

Beyond that, you're quite right. Harper is a politician first and foremost, and politicians want to achieve and maintain power. Going off and banning gay marriage or abortion, for instance, would likely doom his party to defeat. Worse, it could potentially fracture the Tory party, which has always been a coalition of Progressives and Conservatives (which was, after all, what Harper and Mackay did when they merged the PCs and the Alliance/Reform in 2003). Such a fracture, while likely leaving a Reform rump with the larger share of seats would end it right back in minority status and easily defeated.

Thus we have two different ways in which absolute power is deprived. We have constitutional restraints, and we have political restraints. Between the two, the Tories will behave like every other majority government in history.

[Black Dog]

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.

I can't see why it wouldn't work on a riding by riding basis.

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

The percentage thing is an issue in individual ridings as well: it's called vote splitting.

[ToadBrother]

Look. Tyranny might be too strong of a word, but I think Jeffrey Simpson outlined the immense power of the PM well in The Friendly Dictator, talking about Chretien at the time.

And yet, if you actually look at Chretien's government, you'll see that in many ways he was constrained, and that, for instance, his pushing for recognition of gay marriage did him so political damage within the Liberal ranks. Chretien certainly wielded substantial power, but it was not unlimited. There were no soldiers on the streets, and at the end of the day, a substantial scandal was his undoing and he was forced out of power as much by his own party as by anybody.

I don't believe electoral reform is a partisan issue, so I'm genuinely surprised at the opposition that it receives from the Right. Perhaps it's because it favours you at the moment, but it was not so long ago that it was working against you. I strongly believe that electoral reform is in the best interests of all Canadians whether they're on the left or right. We need a more fair and representative House, not one where 40% of the vote gives a party over 56% of the seats, regardless of who the party is red, blue or orange.

My problem with electoral reform is that it will not solve the problems that you're invoking. At best, you'll simply produce a situation in which the larger parties create semi-permanent alliances (as happens in Ireland and Germany), and at worst, you'll turn the whole thing on its head and give the smaller fringe parties enormous amounts of influence for beyond their actual voter percentages (as happens in Israel).

What we need is political reform, ways to limit the PM's power, or more generally the power that party leaders and party apparatchik have over elected representatives. I think I would term the reforms that will actually fix some of the democratic deficit as Caucus Reform.

We could start, for instance, by making it law that only elected MPs can choose their leader. The party membership should only get an indirect say by choosing candidates who, if they win, will then have a say. As it stands, actual MPs, who should have the full authority to pick the leadership, ultimately are muted by the larger party machine.

In other words, we should be seeking ways of liberating MPs, and altering the way they go to Ottawa will not fix that problem, as we can amply see from countries that use PR systems to elected representatives.

[Black Dog]

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.

Horseshit and codswallop. Negotiation, discussion and compromise among competing interests is the essence of democracy. Moreso than what amounts to an elected benign dictatorship (and I'm not usually one for hyperbole).

Edited May 4, 2011 by Black Dog

[ToadBrother]

I can't see why it wouldn't work on a riding by riding basis.

Because you're using national popular vote results to override the riding plurality.

The percentage thing is an issue in individual ridings as well: it's called vote splitting.

And so?

[cybercoma]

I agree with those reforms as well. I don't think they're mutually exclusive, however. The electoral reform criticisms you have are valid and I'm not suggesting pure PR because I believe that will be a trainwreck. We need some way of better representing the way people vote in elections, though. The problem with elections is that a party can have full control of parliament with much less than full support from the electorate. It's simply unfair and not any indication of how people voted.

[cybercoma]

Horseshit and codswallop. Negotiation, discussion and compromise among competing interests is the essence of democracy. Moreso than what amounts to an elected benign dictatorship (and I'm not usually one for hyperbole).

I just ignore Pliny because I can't for the life of me imagine that (s)he is being serious.

[Black Dog]

Because you're using national popular vote results to override the riding plurality.

How?

[cybercoma]

Thank you for the discussion, folks. Tyranny was too strong a word and it's good to read other perspectives on the matter to try and develop a better understanding of the issues.

[ToadBrother]

I agree with those reforms as well. I don't think they're mutually exclusive, however. The electoral reform criticisms you have are valid and I'm not suggesting pure PR because I believe that will be a trainwreck. We need some way of better representing the way people vote in elections, though. The problem with elections is that a party can have full control of parliament with much less than full support from the electorate. It's simply unfair and not any indication of how people voted.

I have yet to have someone convince me that a new or modified voting system will deliver us a Parliament that is more representative than our current one. There are lots of countries with alternative voting systems. Can you point one out to me that in fact fulfils this requirement?

[ToadBrother]

How?

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

[g_bambino]

The Prime Minister appoints people that are ideologically similar to him and his party. It's not so much biting the hand that feeds, but interpreting things from the ideological perspective of the PM that appoints them.

And, since personal political bias is afforded little room in the Supreme Court, it's rare that a prime minister has the opportunity to influence the appointment of the majority of the Supreme Court's nine justices, and the prime minister is chosen by the democratically elected House of Commons, what does that have to do with tyranny?

[ToadBrother]

And, since personal political bias is afforded little room in the Supreme Court, it's rare that a prime minister has the opportunity to influence the appointment of the majority of the Supreme Court's nine justices, and the prime minister is chosen by the democratically elected House of Commons, what does that have to do with tyranny?

We can look to the United States, where more than one president has used ideological and political motivations to appoint members to SCOTUS only to be disappointed that judges have this unusual capacity for biting the hand that supposedly fed them. In no small part that is because in both countries, once you're in the Supreme Court, you are now beyond political interference, and only, in American constitutional parlance, high crimes and misdemeanours can see you removed.

So this idea that somehow the Prime Minister gains control of the Supreme Court by making sure similar-minded justices get on it is absurd. Beyond that, it's not like the entire Supreme Court is vacated when a new government is elected. Vacancies do not match up to the electoral calendar, and it's unlikely that any PM is going to be able to actually stack the Supreme Court.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

Would we have healthcare today if the NDP governments of the day had to water down and negotiate with Conservatives and Liberals every step of the way ?

[Michael Hardner]

Why?

Why ? Because constant tinkering and compromises doesn't support a big vision or a big initiative being delivered - such as Healthcare.

We have a democracy. Mathematical alignment between % of vote and # of seats is just an exercise in purism. If that is a measure of democracy, then anything but direct voting on issues is not pure democracy, and therefore 'undemocratic' by the definition used by PR proponents.

[Topaz]

In my own area, people are saying they voted Tory only to stop these election we have all the time, they were sick of election. So that there sends a messge to any minority govern, keep causing elections and you will end up the a majority.

[Michael Hardner]

Horseshit and codswallop. Negotiation, discussion and compromise among competing interests is the essence of democracy.

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.

[ToadBrother]

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.

And just as importantly, and we should very cognizant of this, having had four elections in the last seven years, is stability. Representative democracy is, by its very nature, a balancing act between the will of the people and the necessity of stable government. Canada, no matter what folks here may think, is a damned well governed nation, and before we do any tinkering to change the formulation, I think we ought to ponder good and hard how such changes will effect that.

Britain is going to have a referendum on AV tomorrow, and it's looking like the British people are going to reject it and retain FPTP. That may be educational to us, who by and large share the same system of government.

Edited May 4, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Bonam]

And just as importantly, and we should very cognizant of this, having had four elections in the last seven years, is stability. Representative democracy is, by its very nature, a balancing act between the will of the people and the necessity of stable government. Canada, no matter what folks here may think, is a damned well governed nation, and before we do any tinkering to change the formulation, I think we ought to ponder good and hard how such changes will effect that.

I agree, what matters most is the results, and looking at Canada, it has been a very well governed nation when compared to most others.

In any case, there is nothing inherently more democratic about a PR system in which % of votes = % of seats. After all, the % of seats that a party holds in the house is far from directly proportional to the actual political power that it wields. In a minority situation, even a very small party can hold the balance of power on key issues, while in a majority situation, opposition parties hold almost no power even if they have large numbers of seats (like the NDP this time around). The power a party wields is also largely dependent on the political skill and maneuvering of the party leader. If the ideal is to give various viewpoints in Canadian politics representation based on the % of people that voted for them, simply dividing up seats to mirror that percentage will not achieve that goal any better than the present system.

Personally, the reform I'd like to see, is to discourage/ban the use of party discipline on votes. MPs should vote along their own ideals and for the benefit of their particular constituents, rather than always being forced to vote along party lines. That way they can have some actual power and influence, as opposed to merely being vote bots for their parties.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Bonam

[ToadBrother]

Personally, the reform I'd like to see, is to discourage/ban the use of party discipline on votes. MPs should vote along their own ideals and for the benefit of their particular constituents, rather than always being forced to vote along party lines. That way they can have some actual power and influence, as opposed to merely being vote bots for their parties.

This was actually a fairly big victory of Reform, and one that was all but eradicated by the minority governments of both Paul Martin and Stephen Harper. Reform worked damn hard to try to loosen the chains up with the essential idea that if it wasn't a confidence motion, votes shouldn't be whipped.

Our system cannot have unlimited free votes or we would have nothing but elections. Confidence votes by necessity are whipped, even in a majority government.

To my mind the real way to get at an MP over how they vote is to make caucus secrecy illegal, and force all minutes to be published. Then you'll know what your MP really wanted to do.

[Triple M]

I wouldn't mind seeing a preferential ballot or a run off between the top 2 candidates. I'm not sure anyone is proposing this. The NDP/Green parties seem to prefer Proportional Representation while CPC probably doesn't want to see changes because the current system favours them. What will be interesting to see is if the Liberals change their mind now that they are a 3rd party.

[noahbody]

Would we have healthcare today if the NDP governments of the day had to water down and negotiate with Conservatives and Liberals every step of the way ?

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