Poll: Potentially Achievable Reforms

[fellowtraveller]

I find lefties very hypocritical when it comes to FPTP. The lefties I am forced to associate with were crying for proportional representation when the CPC won the federal election. However not one mention of PR this morning after the Manitoba election in which the NDP beat the PC by 2% yet scored 18 more seats.

Yep. And it was the same in SK when the NDP were in power there. A few years ago, I checked every provincial NDP website(two provinces, Quebec and PEI I think did not have one) to review their policies on PR. Every one supported implementation of proprep except the two NDP govts in MB and SK, both of whom would have been minorities at best under that system.

[ToadBrother]

Yep. And it was the same in SK when the NDP were in power there. A few years ago, I checked every provincial NDP website(two provinces, Quebec and PEI I think did not have one) to review their policies on PR. Every one supported implementation of proprep except the two NDP govts in MB and SK, both of whom would have been minorities at best under that system.

I wasn't even aware the BC NDP were in favor it. Probably as a generic policy statement at most. I can tell you right now that senior NDP members in BC were absolutely terrified that STV would pass in the last referendum, and while both the BC Liberals and the BC NDP publicly refused to take a side, there were a whole lot of former high profile members from both parties; ex-cabinet ministers and the like, on talk radio and writing letters to the editor decrying STV.

Populist parties, left or right, inevitably have to make the appropriately pleasing sounds about issues like electoral reform. That doesn't mean they actually want it. It's not a left-wing hypocrisy, it's the hypocrisy of pretending to be populist while at the same time not wanting to rock the boat so much that you end up upsetting your own chances at forming government.

I think the only parties that actually want any kind of electoral reform are the small and fringe parties, because they stand to gain considerably from any kind of PR.

Edited October 6, 2011 by ToadBrother

[wyly]

Well, I've already stated that I don't think PR is a panacea. You either get the "meta" parties that I discussed or you get what I consider a pretty dysfunctional system like Israel, where what amount to small fringe parties having influence on governments well beyond any level of popular support. I'm just saying there's not getting around the mathematical problems of FPTP.

Israel is the extreme, few countries using a PR system have the issues that divide israel...on the other extreme is our FPTP which is one of the worst, where less 40% gives majority control with extremely limited checks on power...and that's 40% of 60% voter turnout so in effect 25% of the population has near dictatorial rule without the checks on power found in the US system...if someone in a country with PR suggested switching to a FPTP system opponents would point to canada as the worst example of it's failings...

[wyly]

.

I think the only parties that actually want any kind of electoral reform are the small and fringe parties, because they stand to gain considerably from any kind of PR.

I don't belong to any party I just want my vote to count...

[ToadBrother]

Israel is the extreme, few countries using a PR system have the issues that divide israel...on the other extreme is our FPTP which is one of the worst, where less 40% gives majority control with extremely limited checks on power...and that's 40% of 60% voter turnout so in effect 25% of the population has near dictatorial rule without the checks on power found in the US system...if someone in a country with PR suggested switching to a FPTP system opponents would point to canada as the worst example of it's failings...

Look at the situation in Germany. For all intents and purposes the CDU/CSU coalition, when they achieve power, act essentially as one party. There may the illusion of greater choice in Germany, but it's just that, an illusion. Germany's way of creating stability from an electoral situation that invites instability is to just create two semi-fictional parties.

[TimG]

I don't belong to any party I just want my vote to count...

Your vote does count. Your only problem is you seem to think that voting for your 'team' is more important than having your policies implemented.

[ToadBrother]

Your vote does count. Your only problem is you seem to think that voting for your 'team' is more important than having your policies implemented.

That's really a meta-argument, almost like saying "Why would Soviet citizens need to vote for anyone other than the Communists?"

Representative democracy, at its core, is about electing representatives, not about parties or policies. It is a pity that the concept of the political party has become so vast that it's impossible to see that underneath it all those men and women sitting in Parliament are first and foremost representatives of their constituents, and only secondary is their representation of any particular party or set of policies.

[TimG]

It is a pity that the concept of the political party has become so vast that it's impossible to see that underneath it all those men and women sitting in Parliament are first and foremost representatives of their constituents, and only secondary is their representation of any particular party or set of policies.

And they represent all of their constituants whether they voted for them or not. The real issue is whether 'representatives' should represent a piece of geography or a political ideology. PR proponents believe that representing ideology is more important than geography. The 'votes are wasted' argument is a red herring since votes will always been 'wasted' since there are winners and losers.

[Michael Hardner]

Since I'm not getting any traction on my take on this, I'll throw this into the existing argument.

The argument that says people want a say, and they want their vote to count ... and therefore we need PR ... inevitably leads to a system where PCs never have a majority of votes, given our 3 party system.

As it is, Conservatives get majority governments every 20 years or so but under PR there would be fully 1/3 of Canadians who would never have a government representing them in power, and would therefore never have their vote 'count'.

[TimG]

As it is, Conservatives get majority governments every 20 years or so but under PR there would be fully 1/3 of Canadians who would never have a government representing them in power, and would therefore never have their vote 'count'.

Yet we had a very conservative "Liberal" government in the 90s largely because the Liberals had to appeal to conservatives in order to stay in power. So I would say conservative views were represented by the government. Maybe not all of conservative views but enough to say that they were represented. Edited October 6, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Yet we had a very conservative "Liberal" government in the 90s largely because the Liberals had to appeal to conservatives in order to stay in power. So I would say conservative views were represented by the government. Maybe not all of conservative views but enough to say that they were represented.

Not to mention the fact that governments are always moderated by the prevailing view, even more so in minority governments.

[wyly]

That's really a meta-argument, almost like saying "Why would Soviet citizens need to vote for anyone other than the Communists?"

Representative democracy, at its core, is about electing representatives, not about parties or policies. It is a pity that the concept of the political party has become so vast that it's impossible to see that underneath it all those men and women sitting in Parliament are first and foremost representatives of their constituents, and only secondary is their representation of any particular party or set of policies.

or one have an efficient one party government as china does...

[lukin]

or one have an efficient one party government as china does...

:lol:

Mao was a peach

Typical embarrassing comment by the uneducated left.

[wyly]

Since I'm not getting any traction on my take on this, I'll throw this into the existing argument.

The argument that says people want a say, and they want their vote to count ... and therefore we need PR ... inevitably leads to a system where PCs never have a majority of votes, given our 3 party system.

we have now a 5 party system....with a PR system any party can have a majority if has 50% of the vote, which is as it should be...

As it is, Conservatives get majority governments every 20 years or so but under PR there would be fully 1/3 of Canadians who would never have a government representing them in power, and would therefore never have their vote 'count'.

no that's not true at all those 1/3 need to learn to compromise and moderate their ideology...apparently you have no issue when it's the left side of the spectrum that has been shut out indefinitely...

a PR system that produces minority or coalition governments are the equivalent of a check on government, something with a rubber stamp senate full of political flunkies will never be...

[wyly]

Not to mention the fact that governments are always moderated by the prevailing view, even more so in minority governments.

minority governments work very well IMO...

[ToadBrother]

minority governments work very well IMO...

They do? They may be more representative, but after having witnessed a couple in a row now, I'd say they spend as much time over parliamentary battles as they do accomplishing anything.

[ToadBrother]

:lol:

Mao was a peach

Typical embarrassing comment by the uneducated left.

Not that I'm going to defend China's one-party system, but Mao's been dead for well-nigh forty years now, and the China of today is substantially different from the China of his day. I think it would be more useful to discuss the technocracy that Deng Xiaoping created. In terms of absolute economic gain, the reforms that he ushered in have probably been the most successful in the history of humanity, to the point where by his death he had managed to erase a good deal of the mismanagement, madness and malice of both the Kuomintang under Chiang Kai-shek and the Communists under Mao.

At any rate, the way you seem to worship the Tories, I can only imagine how gleeful you would be if Parliament was made up of 308 Conservative MPs all dutifully applauding the Government's every initiative and passing every bill that came across their desk.

[wyly]

They do? They may be more representative, but after having witnessed a couple in a row now, I'd say they spend as much time over parliamentary battles as they do accomplishing anything.

that's the fault of the leading party in this case the conservatives, there was no effort to find common ground it gets ugly it was always about how can we destroy our opponents not how can we govern...had the liberal ndp coalition taken hold it would have demonstrated two parties trying to find common ground in order to govern...the conservatives could have done so as but they were continually angling for a majority government or acting as if they were a majority government and not trying to make the government functional...

[ToadBrother]

Since I'm not getting any traction on my take on this, I'll throw this into the existing argument.

You're probably not getting any traction because altering the actual engine of government is REALLY HARD. I recommend Yes, Minister, that greatest of TV shows/commentaries on the relationship between the civil service and the politicians. There's a sort of general philosophy in most modern civil services that governments may come and governments may go, but they'll still be there regardless. I know for a fact that there's nothing worse for senior and mid-level bureaucrats in any department than a minister who actually wants to manage them.

But yes, you're quite right. Most people tend to concentrate on the head of the beast; the politicians, and tend to forget that our normal interaction is not with our MP, let alone ministers, but with someone answering phones or manning a counter at the government departments we have to interact with, and there's likely a good deal more that could be done to make that vast ocean of people and offices in the government departments that we have to deal with.

[ToadBrother]

that's the fault of the leading party in this case the conservatives, there was no effort to find common ground it gets ugly it was always about how can we destroy our opponents not how can we govern...

I don't exactly recall the Martin minority being a wonderment of cooperation and goodwill.

had the liberal ndp coalition taken hold it would have demonstrated two parties trying to find common ground in order to govern...

If it had taken hold it would probably have torn itself to pieces in a year. The only good thing to come out of it was the Governor General calling Harper to task for being so damned belligerant and forcing his government to play nice with the Opposition. I was always against the actual Coalition itself, but being what I'd call a strong constitutionalist, I took it as my mission around here to insist that the Tory supporters be accurate, and quit using words like "coupe" to describe a perfectly legitimate and constitutional way to transfer power.

the conservatives could have done so as but they were continually angling for a majority government or acting as if they were a majority government and not trying to make the government functional...

Well, they've got a majority now...

[wyly]

Not that I'm going to defend China's one-party system, but Mao's been dead for well-nigh forty years now, and the China of today is substantially different from the China of his day. I think it would be more useful to discuss the technocracy that Deng Xiaoping created. In terms of absolute economic gain, the reforms that he ushered in have probably been the most successful in the history of humanity, to the point where by his death he had managed to erase a good deal of the mismanagement, madness and malice of both the Kuomintang under Chiang Kai-shek and the Communists under Mao.

At any rate, the way you seem to worship the Tories, I can only imagine how gleeful you would be if Parliament was made up of 308 Conservative MPs all dutifully applauding the Government's every initiative and passing every bill that came across their desk.

in china's case I would have no problem their one party state, it would be complete chaos with multi-party democracy...1.3 billion people with no experience with multi party democracy, evolving from from one of the most dismal economies to a global powerhouse in a span of 20-30 years? managing a giant like this requires a firm hand able to implement long range economic,demographic, environmental policies in the 50-100yrs, something that would be impossible our 4 yr election cycle...in time china's leaders will loosen it's political grip but not until it is no longer in danger of imploding...china with a one party rule is no different than what they experienced for the last few thousand years, the periods of instability came when multiple warlords and foreign imperial powers held sway...

[ToadBrother]

in china's case I would have no problem their one party state, it would be complete chaos with multi-party democracy...1.3 billion people with no experience with multi party democracy, evolving from from one of the most dismal economies to a global powerhouse in a span of 20-30 years? managing a giant like this requires a firm hand able to implement long range economic,demographic, environmental policies in the 50-100yrs, something that would be impossible our 4 yr election cycle...in time china's leaders will loosen it's political grip but not until it is no longer in danger of imploding...china with a one party rule is no different than what they experienced for the last few thousand years, the periods of instability came when multiple warlords and foreign imperial powers held sway...

India has nearly that number, and while not exactly pretty, it seems to function.

[wyly]

Well, they've got a majority now...

and with a senate full of lackeys, we have a 4 year dictatorship the equivalent to one party rule in china

[ToadBrother]

and with a senate full of lackeys, we have a 4 year dictatorship the equivalent to one party rule in china

Except that in China there's no "every four years". In other words, it's nothing like the same situation. Beyond that, China's laws and constitution are ignored at a whim by the central leadership, whereas in Canada we have division of powers that would make some of what the Chinese government does outright impossible.

[Oleg Bach]

I would like to see an elected group to do real judgements in all the courts - if we had this reform we would not need that stupid self serving - Human RIGHTS Commission...If we had justice from the lowest level to the highest - human rights abuse would not exist...that is the reform I would like to see - a true judicial system...and not some perverse and parasitic con job called a "legal system"....I don't want legal - I want justice that is based on the ancient and common concepts of right and wrong.