the people must unite.

[TimG]

concerns like food, shelter, safety, social well being of the group, oh ya we're so different...

It much easier to govern a society where every member has known every other member since birth. This personal relationship creates bonds that simply do not exist in large societies. Most human societies try to use religion and nationalism to replace those personal bonds with mixed success. The purpose of a democratic government is to provide a mechanism to allow groups of people who do not know each to participate in a shared government. This means that providing equality of representation to geographic regions is often more important than one person one vote. Edited May 18, 2012 by TimG

[g_bambino]

as our current government demonstrates it pays no attention to experts unless they are their experts, they're driven by ideology not relevant expertise...

In other words, you admit the government has expert advisors, they're just not the expert advisors you personally want the government to listen to, which could also be interpreted as you bitching that the government doesn't do what you want and the way to fix that "problem" is to overhaul the entire system of governance so it adheres to your own version of (otherwise known to you as "true") democracy. Good luck with that.

If the majority of the electorate finds that the government hasn't been listening to the right expert advisors, that opinion will be expressed via the ballot box.

[ed.: +]

Edited May 18, 2012 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

It much easier to govern a society where every member has known every other member since birth.

Which is, essentially, a family. It might be easier to govern such a tight group, but, the thing is, families aren't democracies.

[August1991]

Then perhaps what he should've said was: To be a democracy, there must be a regular oppportunity to change governments.

I'd agree with that definition, with the added point that changing governments should be peaceful without death or mayhem.

A stronger definition of "democracy" (or civilized society) would be that leaders willingly hand government power to someone they bitterly oppose. One of the first instances of this in history was when John Adams gave up the US presidency to Thomas Jefferson in 1800. It was a watershed in establishing the US Constitution.

-----

I think this thread ignores two critical points: first, Canada is a federal state with two sovereign levels of government. That means that government power is diluted and the federal government is not supreme. Canadians typically live in a jurisdiction with a provincial government at odds with the federal government.

Incidentally, Germany, India, Australia (noted above in thsi thread for their stability) and the US - all functioning democracies - are also federal states. I think federalism is more important to civilized society than voting method. The success of the US is surely based on federalism; most rich countries (high GDP/capita) in the world are small and the US is a singular exception. In effect, it is 50 small "countries" in a federal union.

Second, as to voting methods, what everyone seems to forget is that voters will change their behaviour according to the voting method. It would be wrong to simply take current voting patterns and apply them willy-nilly to a PR system. (When the price of gasoline doubles, people don't spend twice as much on gasoline. They buy less of it.)

In this sense, it is wrong to believe that a PR scheme means that "every vote counts" . It doesn't. In Israel, a party must get above 2% of the vote to be eligible for seats and each seat in the Knesset requires about 26,000 votes. If a party were to receive 60,000 votes or 60,001 votes, it would still have only 2 seats.

Edited May 18, 2012 by August1991

[Topaz]

We've all heard about the "silent majority"? Well I think Canadians are listening and watching and waiting for the next election. Hopefully, by then we will have the answer to the voting fraud and IF its the Alliance/Tories, directly or indirectly, voters will kick their as* to their curb. The Harper government is not good for Canadians, the richer are getting richer and the poorer are getting poorer and the middle is losing ground. Social programs are changing and the only things Harper's gang seems to care about is the pipeline and the F-35. I think people will unite in the next election and perhaps we will have a larger turn out than ever before.

[wyly]

Which is, essentially, a family. It might be easier to govern such a tight group, but, the thing is, families aren't democracies.

they were largely egalitarian, non-hierarchical societies, decisions reached and disputes settled by consensus=democracy...hunter gather societies were fluid members or groups of members leaving or joining other clan/tribal groups...

[TimG]

they were largely egalitarian, non-hierarchical societies, decisions reached and disputes settled by consensus=democracy

Consensus is not democracy. Consensus requires that everyone agree and 'votes' are public - not private. This means that social stigmatization can be used to create the illusion of consensus when there is none.

[wyly]

Consensus is not democracy. Consensus requires that everyone agree and 'votes' are public - not private. This means that social stigmatization can be used to create the illusion of consensus when there is none.

consensus is absolutely democracy in it's purest form and votes are public just like in the HoC...

[Smallc]

consensus is absolutely democracy in it's purest form and votes are public just like in the HoC...

And we can all see from the HoC that open votes come with no pressure, or control.

[TimG]

consensus is absolutely democracy in it's purest form and votes are public just like in the HoC...

Democracy means 51% gets whatever they want. 49% can pound salt. Consensus has nothing to do with democracy and if you think the concepts are the same then that explains your obsession with voting systems that give the loony extremes the balance of power.

[wyly]

Democracy means 51% gets whatever they want. 49% can pound salt. Consensus has nothing to do with democracy and if you think the concepts are the same then that explains your obsession with voting systems that give the loony extremes the balance of power.

60% of the population is a looney extreme? that's strange new math that you on the right use, 39% equals mainstream middle, there's something I never learned in school...

Edited May 18, 2012 by wyly

[wyly]

And we can all see from the HoC that open votes come with no pressure, or control.

discussion, disagreements and compromise resulting in consensus is an essential part of a democratic society...

[TimG]

60% of the population is a looney extreme?

Voting patterns change if the voting system changes. A big chunk of those 60% would go to single issue or lunatic parties that would hold the balance of power. I also think consensus is a dumb way to run a country. The fact is tough decisions need to be made and it is impossible to please everyone - especially in the tribal society that exists today where people vilify people who are not from their tribe. Edited May 18, 2012 by TimG

[Smallc]

discussion, disagreements and compromise resulting in consensus is an essential part of a democratic society...

No, it isn't actually. And that's not what I was talking about. In the HoC, because of public votes, there is pressure to vote a certain way from parties and leaders.

[wyly]

No, it isn't actually. And that's not what I was talking about. In the HoC, because of public votes, there is pressure to vote a certain way from parties and leaders.

as there would be in hunter gather society as well, a yay or nay, show of hands or casting of stones there were no secret ballots in illiterate societies...

[Smallc]

as there would be in hunter gather society as well,

Which was the point. Consensus isn't really a desirable outcome on it's own.

[Michael Hardner]

Consensus is not democracy.

Consensus is a form of democracy. Democracy is a broad term from the Greek meaning the people rule. Consensus Democracy is even participated in Canada. Tribal relations are the earliest forms of power sharing, which evolved into more complex systems when people started accumulating in cities.

[Moonbox]

How did such an inane OP end up being a 7 page thread??

[Michael Hardner]

PR as a topic is like white sugar to ants around here.

IMO

[fellowtraveller]

You're reaching with that answer... the party in power hasn't shifted radically at all. The right wing extremists just decided they wanted to push the province further to the right and formed the Wild Rose.

Right wing governments have held power there since 1935... the Social Credit Party from 1935-1971 and the current Conservative part since then... that's not exactly democracy

As usual, you do not have a clue about Alberta. Why do you continue to embarrass yourself by demonstrating such gross ignorance about the place?

The shift to the center by the PCs was begun with Stelmach, which led to the defection of the right within the PCs to Wild Rose. I'll summarize for you on words you can undertsand, though I'll warn you in advance the minimum I can do is one syllable per word.

- Stelmach took the party strongly to the middle

- the right fled the party to WildRose

- the party elected a leftie in Redford, who moved it even further left

- PCs wiped the floor with Wildrose in an election

The Liberals are toast, the NDP have maxed out, the Wildrose have maxed out.

The PCS own the middle, the happy place for all parties who prefer to form governments. They'll be hard to budge from there now.

Oh, and this was the founding principle of Social Credit in the 1930s: "The basic premise of social credit--that all citizens have the right to the wealth they jointly produce". Their surprising ascent to power in Alberta and later BC and Quebec was a poplulist reaction to the control of resources by banks and big business. They supported nationalizing banks within Alberta and created one of their own to counteract chartered(read Ontario based) banks that survives to this day(Albertas Treasury Branch). They also introduced mortage rules that stopped banks from foreclosing on farmers that applied until very recently. Sound like rightwing stuff? Duh.