wyly Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 Hear, hear. With power come accountability. i.e. if a part has the power to implement whatever policies they want then cannot excuse failure. oh BS accountability is not unique to FPTP...in the netherlands recent election the fanatic right wing was held accountable for their lunacy and punished in the polls... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 from wiki- how swedes do it Sweden uses open lists and utilizes apparentment between lists of the same party and constituency to form a cartel, a group of lists that are legally allied for purposes of seat allocation.[2] A single preference vote may be indicated as well.[3] Swedish voters can choose between three different types of ballot papers. The party ballot paper has simply the name of a political party printed on the front and is blank on the back. This ballot is used when a voter wishes to vote for a particular party, but does not wish to give preference to a particular candidate. The name ballot paper has a party name followed by a list of candidates (which can continue on the other side). A voter using this ballot can choose (but is not required) to cast a personal vote by entering a mark next to a particular candidate, in addition to voting for their political party. Alternatively, a voter can take a blank ballot paper and write a party name on it.[4] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 As I have pointed out earlier, there is one example of a country moving away from the FPTP-system into a PR-system and that is New Zealand. However, there have been complaints about how their MMP-system works and there were demands to return to the full FPTP-system. So, they had a referendum whether to ditch MMP and return to FPTP. 58% voted in favour of retaining MMP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform_in_New_Zealand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 in the netherlands recent election the fanatic right wing was held accountable for their lunacy and punished in the polls.Anecdotes do not equal data. It clear from the discussion hear that many PR systems are deeply flawed or are not suited for a country like Canada. But you support change no matter what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) As I have pointed out earlier, there is one example of a country moving away from the FPTP-system into a PR-system and that is New Zealand.A geographically small country with no significant regional divisions is better suited for PR than Canada. A small province in Canada could go to MMP and be reasonably happy with it. That success would not make MMP suitable for Canada as a whole. Edited November 17, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) Anecdotes do not equal data. It clear from the discussion hear that many PR FPTP systems are deeply flawed or are not suited for a country like Canada. But you do not support change no matter what it is. it's status quo only for you, your posts would indicate you're terrified of anything that you do not understand or threaten your parties cling to power...I mention actual results and it's "anecdotal" and you offer nothing but rhetoric and opinion and consider that sufficient and relevant? Edited November 17, 2012 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 A geographically small country with no significant regional divisions is better suited for PR than Canada. A small province in Canada could go to MMP and be reasonably happy with it. That success would not make MMP suitable for Canada as a whole. size makes absolutely no difference, mps can still be elected regionally in PR...you're scrambling searching for any straw that supports your defense of status quo... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 Elections under the FPTP-system are undeniably very entertaining as small swings in votes can cause massive changes in seats and the FPTP-system creates an impression that the electorate can kick out the whole bunch of government. Of course, in reality it is people in the marginal constituencies who decide elections in the FPTP-system. If you live in a region where one party holds sway but you support another party which may be nationally very popular but not in your area, your vote for that party counts for nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 it's status quo only for you, your posts would indicate you're terrified of anything that you do not understand or threaten your parties cling to power.Yawn. I have already explained why I think the FPTP system is better even if it leads to results that I do not personally like. Your agenda seems to be change for the sake of change - i.e. you would accept anything that was not FPTP no matter how flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 size makes absolutely no difference, mps can still be elected regionally in PR.But it would not be PR anymore since the regional representation is not equal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) Of course, in reality it is people in the marginal constituencies who decide elections in the FPTP-system. If you live in a region where one party holds sway but you support another party which may be nationally very popular but not in your area, your vote for that party counts for nothing.And why is this any different in a PR system where votes swing to marginal parties that can boot a coalition from power? No matter what the system a large block of people are partisan and rarely change their vote. The elections are always decided by the minority of people who will change their vote. Edited November 17, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) Elections under the FPTP-system are undeniably very entertaining as small swings in votes can cause massive changes in seats and the FPTP-system creates an impression that the electorate can kick out the whole bunch of government. Of course, in reality it is people in the marginal constituencies who decide elections in the FPTP-system. If you live in a region where one party holds sway but you support another party which may be nationally very popular but not in your area, your vote for that party counts for nothing. yup, democracy denied...democracy in FPTP is an illusionthe electoral college in the US where the presidential election is determined by a few states, they might as well just run the campaign in Ohio and leave the other states out of it... looking up voter turnout in the Netherlands(PR) 74% voted...61% in canada....how many of those who did not vote didn't do so because they knew it was pointless, their vote would count for nothing... Edited November 17, 2012 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 Yawn. I have already explained why I think the FPTP system is better even if it leads to results that I do not personally like. Your agenda seems to be change for the sake of change - i.e. you would accept anything that was not FPTP no matter how flawed. no, you've done nothing but voice opinion for status quo there is nothing of substance to back up your opinion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) But it would not be PR anymore since the regional representation is not equal. you really don't understand any of the debate here do you?...PR guaranties regional representation... Edited November 17, 2012 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 you really don't understand any of the debate here do you?...PR guaranties regional representation.And you don't understand that our current system guarantees non-PR provincial representation. Good luck ever changing that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 I can't put it more bluntly than this: If a party has 40% support then it is clearly wrong that the same party has 55-60% of parliamentary seats. Does someone really disagree with this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) I can't put it more bluntly than this: If a party has 40% support then it is clearly wrong that the same party has 55-60% of parliamentary seats. Does someone really disagree with this? well I don't, but clearly some do...that they voted for the party that got those 55-60% of the seats has nothing to do with it of course.. .how they continue to justify it as a fair democratic procedure is entertaining... Edited November 17, 2012 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) I can't put it more bluntly than this: If a party has 40% support then it is clearly wrong that the same party has 55-60% of parliamentary seats.The party with 40% has a plurality - i.e. it got more votes than any other party. There is nothing clearly wrong with them having the power to run the government. After all - we can only have one PM. Edited November 17, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 The party with 40% has a plurality - i.e. it got more votes than any other party. There is nothing clearly wrong with them having the power to run the government. After all - we can only have one PM. please list the countries that employ a PR electoral system that has more than one PM... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 please list the countries that employ a PR electoral system that has more than one PM.And list the countries where the PM was from a party that got more than 50% of the vote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) ahh we've seen this before...falling back to your usual cowardly position when you've made claims you can't support, answer a question with a question.... every country that uses PR has a PM chosen from representatives from 50%+ of the population.. now answer the question... name the countries that have multiple PM's...answer or have the balls to admit you can't... Edited November 17, 2012 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) every country that uses PR has a PM chosen from representatives from 50%+ of the population.Every country with a PM and FPTP has a PM selected by representatives of 50% of the population since MPs represent their entire riding - not just the party they belong to. Edited November 17, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) Every country with a PM and FPTP has a PM selected by representatives of 50% of the population since MPs represent their entire riding - not just the party they belong to. that's cowardly tim, you can't or won't answer a question ... you've proven yourself incapable of debating this topic intelligently, honestly or both... when you can answer the question put to you I'll respond to your posts in this thread again, otherwise you're wasting my time you have nothing relevant to offer.... Edited November 17, 2012 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 when you can answer the question put to you I'll respond to your posts in this thread again, otherwise you're wasting my time you have nothing relevant to offerA rather bizarre position considering you responded to a comment I made to another poster. Whatever turns your crank... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 18, 2012 Report Share Posted November 18, 2012 What Canada needs is to really challenge its citizens and give them something meaningfull to do. Picking between the Liberals and Conservatives is not enough, and I simply wont bother. Gimme a real job, where I have to do a little bit of research/reading and put some thought into it, and youll turn me back into a voter/citizen again. Let me vote on major policies, or let me vote on cabinet positions... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.