Boges Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 so status quo is acceptable? as you pointed out those who benefit from it have no interest in changing it...I'm counting on the NDP to change if they revert to "status quo" I'll never support them again, I'll go green party... there are PR systems all over globe that work perfectly fine, democracy flourish there, minority governments are common but they're governments of compromise that reflect true majorities... Yeah those European democracies are doing well. Britain uses FPTP and they have a coalition minority government with no trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 so status quo is acceptable? as you pointed out those who benefit from it have no interest in changing it...I'm counting on the NDP to change if they revert to "status quo" I'll never support them again, I'll go green party... there are PR systems all over globe that work perfectly fine, democracy flourish there, minority governments are common but they're governments of compromise that reflect true majorities... I didn't actually say the things you're claiming that I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 Why would the NDP what to change the system? They made it to the opposition by basically dominating one province? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 What 40% are you referring to? The Alberta Liberal Party? In Alberta the PCs have increasingly received over 50% though No? They haven't been winning with only a plurality have they?Federally over 50% is very rare. The major failing of FPTP is that a party with 7% (The Bloc) can, in the past receiver 50 plus seats because they only run in one province. While the Green only one their first seat recently. But them's the breaks of the system. Each seat is won by a popular vote and the house is a good representation of the the popular will country-wide. the 40% represents progressives of all sorts, Liberals, ndp, greens...4 out of 10 people have no voice in alberta, and adding 6 more federal seats to alberta's total skews the lack of representation even more( and the probability is high that the provinces lone ndp riding will be gerrymandered when the seat reallocation are done)...it's the exact opposite of what happens federally where less than 40% popular vote equals a majority government, equally skewed....the fptp system has a huge democratic flaw... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) so status quo is acceptable?It is to me.I am facing a situation where a party I despise is likely going to win a landslide majority in the next BC election. But they will have free hand to implement their policies and if they fail they have no one to blame but themselves and they will be judged by the electorate in 4 years. This is preferable to me than a situation where the NDP had to form a coalition with the Greens which would mean even more objectionable policies that no one would take responsibility for if they go wrong. there are PR systems all over globe that work perfectly fine, democracy flourish there, minority governments are common but they're governments of compromise that reflect true majorities.No. They are governments where the majority interest is over ruled by the whims of fanatics on the fringes. FPTP forces parties to cater to the center. PR encourages parties to cater to narrow interest and use the threat of chaos to impose their minority view on the majority. Edited November 15, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 I don't like the fact that any party (read: ANY party) can get a majority with less than 40% of the vote. However, I recognize that in the interest of pragmatism, we can't be so stringent as to demand greater than 50% of the vote for a majority either. Nothing would ever get done because the parties would constantly be in gridlock vis-a-vis minority governments. The symmetry of the rules and numbers is irrelevant. What works is shown by the result. What works for Canada may not work elsewhere. What we have works. We need to pay more attention to discussion of issues than electoral politics - much more. "working this one out" - is beyond anybody's ability. The consequences of a change to electoral systems like this - so fundamental to everything - can't be predicted. We should concentrate on getting better decisions from our current system, and electoral reform such as the elimination of private election funding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 Yeah those European democracies are doing well. yes they are democracy is alive and well and thriving...you must be confusing democracy with economics, that would need to be in a different thread ...Britain uses FPTP and they have a coalition minority government with no troublebritain doesn't have provinces... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 People keep saying the Liberals and the NDP represent a progressives as a whole. The Liberals are left of the CPC but I'm sure many people that vote Liberal would choose the CPC over the NDP if given the choice so lumping the combined NDP and LPC vote together isn't being honest. Just look at all the Centrist Liberals that lost to the CPC in the last election in the Toronto area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 so we shouldn't look to improve democracy? Sure - let's improve it by equalizing our voices and raising the level of debate. Let me put it this way: do you find wide-ranging and multi-partisan debate such as on MLW anywhere else in Canada ? Wouldn't it be great if we could have discussions like this with someone in power watching them and taking notes ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 It is to me. No. They are governments where the majority interest is over ruled by the whims of fanatics on the fringes. FPTP forces parties to cater to the center. PR encourages parties to cater to narrow interest and use the threat of chaos to impose their minority view on the majority. but you believe in conspiracy theories and astrology so your opinion isn't really relevant in the world of reality... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 but you believe in conspiracy theories and astrology so your opinion isn't really relevant in the world of reality...WTF Who pissed in your wheaties? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 People keep saying the Liberals and the NDP represent a progressives as a whole. The Liberals are left of the CPC but I'm sure many people that vote Liberal would choose the CPC over the NDP if given the choice so lumping the combined NDP and LPC vote together isn't being honest. Just look at all the Centrist Liberals that lost to the CPC in the last election in the Toronto area. liberals and ndp are both progressive but that's irrelevant anyway it doesn't matter if a liberal would vote cpc..., it's the denial of adequate democratic representation that matters...saying "status quo" is good enough isn't good enough, it can be better... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 WTF Who pissed in your wheaties? andwho pissed in your's...you posted a flippant baseless generalization not in keeping with the spirit of the debate and I gave it the response it deserved... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 liberals and ndp are both progressive but that's irrelevant anyway it doesn't matter if a liberal would vote cpc..., it's the denial of adequate democratic representation that matters...saying "status quo" is good enough isn't good enough, it can be better... Tell me how it should be better. And Mixed Member Proportional Representation isn't better, it's an avenue for patronage to party hacks that don't have to face the electorate. What I would support is an American system where the executive is separate from the legislature. The leader of the country can be elected by a popular vote but not a house that's supposed to represent the country as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 you posted a flippant baseless generalization not in keeping with the spirit of the debateYou obviously did not read my [edited] post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) Tell me how it should be better. And Mixed Member Proportional Representation isn't better, it's an avenue for patronage to party hacks that don't have to face the electorate there are a number of different PR systems pick one or invent one that works better to address your concerns... patronage of party hacks? you mean like rob anders who even when his own riding executive sought his ouster he was protected by the PM? patronage of party hacks, the senate? canadians rarely vote for the individual, we vote for the party regardless what clown they choose to have run in our riding...it's rare we reject the parties choice based on individual character, rob anders as an example once again...local candidates run on the "party line" not their own merits... Edited November 15, 2012 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 Sure - let's improve it by equalizing our voices and raising the level of debate. Let me put it this way: do you find wide-ranging and multi-partisan debate such as on MLW anywhere else in Canada ? Wouldn't it be great if we could have discussions like this with someone in power watching them and taking notes ? it would be awesome...but status quo is self serving the powers that be don't give a crap what us minions think...how do you propose raising the level of debate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 canadians rarely vote for the individual, we vote for the party regardless what clown they choose to have run in our riding...it's rare we reject the parties choice based on individual character, rob anders as an example once again...local candidates run on the "party line" not their own merits... But at least they ultimately have to answer to the people that elected them. You would also assume they'd look out for the interests their constituents, they may not, but that means they may not be re-elected. I don't believe that people will always vote for the part regardless of who is running. Iggy lost his seat in 2011, likely because he sucked and he was Parachuted into that Etobicoke riding. Here in Ontario the last PC leader John Tory lost his election seat and forced a popular MPP to step down so he could try and win a seat. The riding (normally a Conservative stronghold) went Liberal in the Bi-election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) Timg- PR encourages parties to cater to narrow interest and use the threat of chaos to impose their minority view on the majority. and what do we have now with fptp? a minority of the poulation 39.5%(cpc) imposing their minority view on the majority of the population ... in a PR system that 39.5% would need to reach a consensus with a proportion of the electoral representatives that give them 50%+ of the electorate...be it liberals greens, bloc or Ndp or any combination that works...real democracy in action not a dictatorship of the minority... Edited November 15, 2012 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 But at least they ultimately have to answer to the people that elected them. You would also assume they'd look out for the interests their constituents, they may not, but that means they may not be re-elected. I don't believe that people will always vote for the part regardless of who is running. Iggy lost his seat in 2011, likely because he sucked and he was Parachuted into that Etobicoke riding. Here in Ontario the last PC leader John Tory lost his election seat and forced a popular MPP to step down so he could try and win a seat. The riding (normally a Conservative stronghold) went Liberal in the Bi-election. I disagree, we vote for the party not the individual...Ignateiff wasn't rejected his party was, liberals lost everywhere...ignatieff is highly qualified for the job of MP I doubt very very strongly he was rejected because of his ability, rob anders on the other hand is a repugnant human being yet he wins repeatedly despite his lack of ability... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted November 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 Sure - let's improve it by equalizing our voices and raising the level of debate. Agreed. However, FPTP assigns more or less power to your ballot/voice depending on where you live. One million voters for party X have a significant voice if they happen to live close to each other. The same one million voters have no voice if they spread out across the country or province. I think that is a fundamental problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 Agreed. However, FPTP assigns more or less power to your ballot/voice depending on where you live. One million voters for party X have a significant voice if they happen to live close to each other. The same one million voters have no voice if they spread out across the country or province. I think that is a fundamental problem. Yeah and PR ignores where you live completely. No system is perfect. I haven't been shown a system other than the MMP system that Ontario rejected that would work in Canada. We're too big a country to ignore the different type of voters in different regions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 .Yeah and PR ignores where you live completely. No system is perfect. I haven't been shown a system other than the MMP system that Ontario rejected that would work in Canada. We're too big a country to ignore the different type of voters in different regions. how does PR ignore where you live? if vote in a super riding how do I not get a representative who does not represent where I live? In a super riding I could have several representatives to choose from..we don't need to choose one existing system or another, we can devise one of our own design that works for us.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) Tell me how it should be better. And Mixed Member Proportional Representation isn't better, it's an avenue for patronage to party hacks that don't have to face the electorate. What I would support is an American system where the executive is separate from the legislature. The leader of the country can be elected by a popular vote but not a house that's supposed to represent the country as a whole. The leader of our country is not elected, nor is our prime minister. Edited November 15, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 The FPTP-system creates an impression that from time to time the electorate boots out an unpopular government. Small swings in a handful of marginal constituencies can overturn the share of the seats in parliament. However, the reality is that if you live in an area where one party has a safe seat then motivation for turning out to vote may be low especially if you happen to support a candidate from another party than the one which has a safe seat in your area, no matter how popular your party of choice is elsewhere in the country. Having said that, my understanding is that in Canada there are far fewer rock solid safe seats for one party than in Britain which also uses the FPTP-system. 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.