Petition for voting system reform

[eyeball]

The way we vote isn't going to change.

The country is going down the toilet then.

Where's my plunger?

[Bryan]

I cant even really participate in what we have now. Theres no slot that I fit in. It would be quite impossible for me to vote for any of our major parties so the most I can possibly do is spoil a ballot. The last three elections I just stayed home.

I felt the same way you did back in the last 80's/early 90's. A lot of people did. We hated the parties being presented to us, and we thought the system that entrenched them wasn't fair. So we did something about it. That's a big reason why so many CPC supporters are such die-hards: we worked very hard to replace the established right of centre party. Then we worked even harder to replace the 'natural ruling party' in government. It took a lot of people a lot of hours and a lot of money to get it done, but we did it.

If enough people of other political persuasions had similar ideas, and a similar work ethic, they could do it too.

[Newfoundlander]

The country is going down the toilet then.

Where's my plunger?

If a party can form government with FPTP then why would they change the system? Harper had believed in electoral reform when the right was split, but when he started winning governments under FPTP he abandoned that idea.

[cybercoma]

It took a lot of people a lot of hours and a lot of money to get it done, but we did it.

And now you're flushing it all down the toilet, as Harper shows greater arrogance than Chretien ever did and Reformers like Trost get restless.

[Battletoads]

You miss the point! Essentially, assuming many if not most of the critics here were alive at that time, the fact that they never complained about the situation when the Liberals were in power is proof that in truth they approved of it!

In other words, if their guy does it it's ok! It's only bad if the OTHER guy does it!

THAT"S why so many "conservatives" (actually, not really just conservatives - just people who disagree with YOU!) keep bringing it up! They're highlighting the hypocrisy.

Quite a few assumptions you're making there, can't say I expected much from the con shills however.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Battletoads

[MiddleClassCentrist]

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.

AV does that.

AV allows you to rank your votes.

If your first choice doesn't win, then your second choice is tallied in until someone wins with a majority.

It's cheaper than runoff too.

[Battletoads]

And now you're flushing it all down the toilet, as Harper shows greater arrogance than Chretien ever did and Reformers like Trost get restless.

I do wonder how Harper will keep the insane members of his base quiet now that they no longer need to fear an election. After all if they can't force their unpopular social/fiscal plans on Canadians now, when else will they get a chance? I expect a lot of the language coming out of the former reformers to start mirroring what we're hearing from the American republicans.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Battletoads

[Guest Derek L]

Clearly youre not going to have a referendum on a defending our soil from a foreign invasion. Thats obvious. But that only accounts for a tiny tiny tiny percentage of our military activities.

As I suggested in the “if you were PM thread”, one solution on consensus building with foreign military intervention could be a requirement that the Government forms a “War Cabinet” with the Official opposition {see Churchill/Atlee}……….In this way, you’re likely to have over 50% of the MP's on side, and the war itself won’t become a political football.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Derek L

[August1991]

Old thread. God knows what I posted above.

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.

However this is done, it seems to me that our parliament should reflect the popular will at the local level.

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.

I happen to prefer the idea of a clear majority vote at the riding level for the MP. A run-off is simple, allows voters to know see candidate support and requires that citizens vote twice. (I happen to believe that citizens who exert effort to vote are probably better voters.)

----

Pliny and TB, I simply think that having a federal MP with easy-to-understand majority local support is a good thing. The US election system and the French presidential elections are based on this simple majority principle of run-offs.

[August1991]

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....

I agree 100%.

A British friend of mine told me via e-mail that in his opinion, and he is fairly politically astute, that this was more an anti-Lib-Dem vote than an anti-AV vote.

The problem with the FPTP system is that everyone and his brother-in-law has an explanation for how the others would have voted.

If local candidates had at least a majority of votes, or a majority of second choices, we could resolve this question - and then argue endlessly about what the extra data means.

[August1991]

We're going further afield, MH. I realize now that you have resurrected this thread because you want to redesign the democratic State.

Direct democracy not required. Instead, have government departments engage with the public as institutions should do. We can still elect parties to design policy...

New Zealand tried such a system. Political parties "hired" bureaucrats, signed contracts, to accomplish specific goals.

Or, maybe, we could do as Germany for health care: the government is a single payer but all services are provided through the private sector.

For example, we could privatize all schools but let the provincial government pay the tuition fees of these now private schools. The private schools would set curricula, standards and establish their reputation in the market place just as heart transplant surgeons, American universities and investment advisors now do.

----

MH, the 19th century was the era of Grand System Builders. The 20th century suffered from this ideology. In this 21st Century of cheap air travel and communication, it is absurd to try to build a Grand System.

Nevertheless, I admire MH your attempt to improve life.

Edited February 25, 2012 by August1991

[Bryan]

Or, maybe, we could do as Germany for health care: the government is a single payer but all services are provided through the private sector.

That's mostly how our healthcare works now.

[Michael Hardner]

Well... no democracy at all is "required". But a little more might be a really good thing.

I meant that you don't need to engage with direct democracy to make things more democratic.

Especially with the trend we have seen towards large unfunded ideological mandates. These are causing a lot of damanage in the west. Parties dont get elected so they just competently manage the countries affairs... legislation isnt even usually required for that. When they get in there, they want to go large and score a big victory in the culture war, because it cost them a shitload of money to get in, and they know that once its the "other guys" turn, theyre gonna do the same.

What is a "large unfunded ideological mandate" ? Let's call them LUIMs. What are some examples ?

So we spend billions on a gun registry, which is promptly shut down when the government changes, and replaced with an internet registry, and new prisons to house potheads for free, which will be closed down next time theres a left of center majority.

We need to make these people less powerfull and us more powerfull. That should be pretty much clear to everyone.

The spending billions on a gun registry was a waste of resources IMO. But efficiency in the way your describing wouldn't be helped by direct democracy in any way I can see.

And really... youre calling for big changes yourself... you talk about wanting a transparent government, and educated interested voters with access to all the information. Thats just as radical of a sea change as anything Iv proposed.

No, it's not. It's the restoration of the way democracy worked in the beginning: informed voters, reasoned debate and governments built from strong vision alternating with compromise. I'm not calling for a redo, just a tune up.

And people that hate your freedom just flat out ARENT gonna set things up that way. Furthermore whats the point of educating the public about the issues if youre just going to ignore them until the next election anyways? Let em weigh in on the big items in a referendum.

The problem today is that there are too many issues, more complex issues, there are no good forums of discussion, and things are going well enough for most that they don't participate in democracy IMO. Direct democracy will still have to deal with the problems I listed here.

All Im trying to do is bring big ticket items up for referendums. Something that is possible and legal even in todays constitutional framework and in todays political process. YOU wanna change the way 30 million people and politicions approach politics and somehow turn a group of people that hates freedom and transparency into people that embrace it.

The classic criticism of referrenda: "Do you want more spending ?" YES "Do you want lower taxes?" YES

[Michael Hardner]

They have access to a hell of a lot more information than you or I

I know. Its because they think were too stupid to see it for the most part. And the fact we let them do it, actually is evidence that they are right.

They don't have access to that much more information. We're not organized to use the information to our advantage is all.

[Michael Hardner]

Im losing confidence in our current system to the point where I have an open mind to trying some other things.

I cant even really participate in what we have now. Theres no slot that I fit in. It would be quite impossible for me to vote for any of our major parties so the most I can possibly do is spoil a ballot. The last three elections I just stayed home.

And Im not the only one. As more and more people realize this isnt effective representation, and the political pendulum becomes more and more of a wrecking ball, with governments taking turns implementing ideological mega programs, and cancelling the megaprograms of their predecessors that number will keep dropping.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Voter_turnout_in_Canada_1957-present.png

What we have now is just a devolution of a system that worked. We let it crumble because we got complacent and self-satisfied. Our mechanisms for discussion and monitoring of government feel into disuse because no one is interested. If you want to put them on their toes, help to organize a grass roots monitoring club that crosses party lines. This is what will happen at some point anyway, the seeds of these groups have been sown in various groups that exist today.

[Michael Hardner]

We're going further afield, MH. I realize now that you have resurrected this thread because you want to redesign the democratic State.

No, I resurrected it because PR was being discussed on another thread, so I diverted that discussion back here. I'm not in favour of PR, either, so your realization is dead wrong.

----

MH, the 19th century was the era of Grand System Builders. The 20th century suffered from this ideology. In this 21st Century of cheap air travel and communication, it is absurd to try to build a Grand System.

Nevertheless, I admire MH your attempt to improve life.

Thanks for the admiration. If I were to suggest any changes, they would be to attune our institutions to the contemporary mode of working, which in our age is more interactive and responsive. Government is old and slow, hierarchical and unresponsive. People don't respond to these old ways today.

[dre]

What we have now is just a devolution of a system that worked. We let it crumble because we got complacent and self-satisfied. Our mechanisms for discussion and monitoring of government feel into disuse because no one is interested. If you want to put them on their toes, help to organize a grass roots monitoring club that crosses party lines. This is what will happen at some point anyway, the seeds of these groups have been sown in various groups that exist today.

I dont think the system devolved, I think that various interests besides the PUBLIC interests just got good at manipulating it over time. They locked it down and re-purposed it. Political systems are not static and just because something works at one time doesnt mean it will always work. Corruption and the "crowding out" of the publics interest happens slowly over time, so every once in a while you have a mix things up. Reboot the system, implement a "new deal", or whatever.

These problems are happening in MOST of the west not just Canada so I dont think its really just about our political system.

I think corporate and special interests have "mastered" the social democracy, and learned how to crowd the public out. It took quite a long time but they figured out how to take real effective power back from the people which seems to be the ultimate goal of most political philosophy.

This system is almost done. Almost everyone that uses it or its different variants faces the same set of problems, and it appears to be unfundable. Social democracies on fiat legal tender are in a lot of trouble, and things are going to look very different in a few decades.

No, I resurrected it because PR was being discussed on another thread

I wasnt really recommending PR. Im not sure what will replace the current system, but make no mistake about it, its going to change. You have to realize that these western democracies have evolved during a time of incredibly fast economic growth. Exponential growth in fact. But we are on the steep part of that curve now and growth in the west is slowing. Thats going to make it harder to borrow against future GDP in order to fund these massive powerful, world policing, mega printing governments.

We will soon need a political and economic system capable of staying stable in a much lower growth environment, and we are going to have to redefine the concept of credit.

Edited February 25, 2012 by dre

[PIK]

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.

So we can be more like europe? Why do people insist on changing something that has worked well for us ,lib, con, lib, con and keep the NDP where they belong , nowhere near real power.

[Michael Hardner]

So we can be more like europe? Why do people insist on changing something that has worked well for us ,lib, con, lib, con and keep the NDP where they belong , nowhere near real power.

The NDP holds power in other ways: supporting minority governments, and as a strong opposition.