Objective of an electoral system

[jacee]

PR encourages parties to cater to narrow interest and use the threat of chaos to impose their minority view on the majority.

Ahhhhh ... the scary "threat of chaos" ...

Thing is ... nobody should be imposing their views on anyone.

Every Canadian's vote must count and be represented.

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...

"Any combination that works"

I agree ... and I liked wyly's phrase "coalition of the majority", and representation for the 40% of Albertans who have none ... throw their vote away every time, but still keep voting.

And Michael's right too, new ways of having input to broad discussions of what's best for us, across multiple party lines, using processes that maximize consensus-seeking and minimize the 'loudest voices' and 'squeaky wheel' and 'greasing the palm' phenomena.

And cybercoma reminds us - very IMPORTANT - that all PR representatives must all be accountable to constituencies of Canadians - ie those who voted for them, or identify with them on particular issues, within the geographic superriding.

They must NOT be accountable only to the parties.

Never.

Proportionate representation means every Canadian who votes gets represented in parliament, by the party of their choice and - we must insist - a person who is accountable to them.

I believe we will see many more people coming out to vote, more engagement in public processes. In predictable ridings, there are lots of latent votes - people who don't bother voting Conservative in hugely NDP ridings, for example - votes that could send a Conservative rep to Ottawa in that mostly NDP riding.

Are we seeing some possible ways forward ... ?

Edited November 16, 2012 by jacee

[wyly]

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.

Britain doesn't have provincial politics, electoral boundaries that don't cross provincial boundaries, it's a significant difference that influences voting..."firewall alberta" "let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark" it creates an us against them attitude, it becomes divisive...

[TimG]

"coalition of the majority"

The trouble is it never actually a coalition of the majority. It is a coalition of the minority together with smaller minorities. A coalition of the majority would be a coalition of the CPC, the Liberals and the NDP but that will never happen because each of these parties want to be the dominate party in government.

[wyly]

The trouble is it never actually a coalition of the majority. It is a coalition of the minority together with smaller minorities. A coalition of the majority would be a coalition of the CPC, the Liberals and the NDP but that will never happen because each of these parties want to be the dominate party in government.

and who leads the coalition in Britain the larger or the smaller of the the two parties? I've never heard of a coalition where the larger party didn't become the dominant power...parties need to reach a consensus/agreement that's what democracy is all about...a PR system would likely see more parties the cpc could split back into reform and PC, NDP could split into ndp and waffle(if they're still around) liberals could combine with conservatives forming a new party, there are members in each party who are not comfortable with who they team up and not all that different from members in another party, it's why MPs cross the floor...greens would become viable adding a voice that needs to be heard even if they never form part of any coalition...

coalition guarantees the more moderate center will always have a voice even if we have a center-left or center-right coalition..the center and a majority are always in control...

it's been mentioned that we will lose regional representation but I doubt it... party control will weaken over individual members and members of the same party coming from different regions have different interests, a liberal or ndp mp from Alberta will still be looking after Alberta interests...

[TimG]

and who leads the coalition in Britain the larger or the smaller of the the two parties?

That is not my point. My point is the normal situation is large party that represents a minority that teams up with smaller minority parties do not necessarily represent a majority together. You then have a situation where a government exists only at the pleasure of these tiny parties that represent a fraction of the electorate. It is a system that is much less representative of the electorate than the one we have now. We are much better off with a system that forces parties to target large blocks of voters in the center because this leads to true government for the majority. Edited November 16, 2012 by TimG

[jacee]

The trouble is it never actually a coalition of the majority. It is a coalition of the minority together with smaller minorities. A coalition of the majority would be a coalition of the CPC, the Liberals and the NDP but that will never happen because each of these parties want to be the dominate party in government.

... And impose their will on us all. Yes ... and it's not making us happy with or involved in our democracy.

We shrug and say "What can ya do!", meaning "We can't do a damn thing ... politics is politics."

But ya know what? It's not about what what the political parties want. (They want power, money. )

It's about what WE want.

Well we can shake them up a bit, break some of the crony ties, give voices to more and more Canadians.

Realistically, with the Harper one-man regime ending next election ... switching to PR and superridings won't upset many applecarts, and will improve the representation for all of us.

Edited November 16, 2012 by jacee

[-TSS-]

One problem with introducing a system of proportional representation in elections is to avoid parliament becoming too fragmented with tiny parties. That's why most European countries have introduced a threshold above which a party contesting an election must rise in order to gain representation. That threshold is most often at 5% but also 2-4% thresholds are being used, for example in Sweden and Denmark.

Of course, such thresholds are completely arbitrary but if there were no thresholds there could be numerous tiny parties and forming a workable government-coalition would be almost impossible. Israel is a good example of this problem. Ultra religious parties with only a fraction of support but being in a position to hold the balance of power between blocks.

[TimG]

It's about what WE want.

*I* want a system where we elect one party to drive the bus for 4 years and then pass judgement on their record. I don't want a government that has to cater to tiny minorities of voters.

[jacee]

One problem with introducing a system of proportional representation in elections is to avoid parliament becoming too fragmented with tiny parties. That's why most European countries have introduced a threshold above which a party contesting an election must rise in order to gain representation. That threshold is most often at 5% but also 2-4% thresholds are being used, for example in Sweden and Denmark.

Of course, such thresholds are completely arbitrary but if there were no thresholds there could be numerous tiny parties and forming a workable government-coalition would be almost impossible. Israel is a good example of this problem. Ultra religious parties with only a fraction of support but being in a position to hold the balance of power between blocks.

Makes sense ... but is that 5% nationwide?

What about regional parties?

[-TSS-]

The threshold is usually nationwide. Diferent countries have different rules but as some countries have strong regional parties which don't reach above the national threshold there are exceptions to the rule.

[Mighty AC]

*I* want a system where we elect one party to drive the bus for 4 years and then pass judgement on their record. I don't want a government that has to cater to tiny minorities of voters.

If proportional, any motion passed by parliament represents a majority of actual voters, unlike parliaments produced by FPTP. Under our current system minority governments are sometimes held hostage by opposition parties because parliament can be dissolved. Without this provision parties form coalitions on an issue to issue basis.

[jacee]

*I* want a system where we elect one party to drive the bus for 4 years and then pass judgement on their record. I don't want a government that has to cater to tiny minorities of voters.

What about when your party isn't driving the bus ... like the Chretien years, say. Wouldn't you want broader, across the country representation for - eg - the Conservatives then?

Seems to me that PR could help the parties represent areas of the country where they currently have no voice.

[TimG]

What about when your party isn't driving the bus ... like the Chretien years, say. Wouldn't you want broader, across the country representation for - eg - the Conservatives then?

First. I voted for Chretien every time. Second, I said this above:

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.

Edited November 16, 2012 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

"Our parliamentary government creates a concentrated power structure out of step with other aspects of society. For Canadian democracy to mature, Canadian citizens must face these facts, as citizens in other countries have, and update our political structures to reflect the diverse political aspirations of our diverse communities." - Stephen Harper and Tom Flanagan from Our Benign Dictatorship

Our Lego haired leader was calling for a more representative system back in 1996.

[Mighty AC]

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 several ways to elect list MPs. One method is to grant list seats to the MPs who garnered the highest percentage of their local vote without winning the riding. Those MPs are still accountable to local voters.

In situations where parties rank their list MPs prior to the election they are accountable to the party itself. List MPs voting out of step with the party platform soon find themselves out of a job; very much like current CPC members.

In either case, those list MPs provide previously non-existent representation for nearly half the voters in the country. That's a point that can only help voter turnout. I still show up to vote despite knowing that my vote will be wasted...I'm sure many wouldn't bother.

[dre]

I think we should look at reforms that would take power away from parties. Maybe people could elect the cabinet and prime minister. We might vote in a conservative minister of finance, a liberal minister of justice, and an NDP minister of human and resources, and so on.

[Michael Hardner]

What about when your party isn't driving the bus ... like the Chretien years, say. Wouldn't you want broader, across the country representation for - eg - the Conservatives then?

Seems to me that PR could help the parties represent areas of the country where they currently have no voice.

How would the BQ have done with PR ? Badly.

[wyly]

*I* want a system where we elect one party to drive the bus for 4 years and then pass judgement on their record. I don't want a government that has to cater to tiny minorities of voters.

what if I want a one party system where the bus driver gets a possible 2 terms of 5 years each and they don't cater to any minorities-china

if I wanted stability that's a better system than what you want...but I want a better democracy where all votes count, everyone is represented and the government reflects a true majority, it may be a little messy but it's a better democracy

[wyly]

One problem with introducing a system of proportional representation in elections is to avoid parliament becoming too fragmented with tiny parties. That's why most European countries have introduced a threshold above which a party contesting an election must rise in order to gain representation. That threshold is most often at 5% but also 2-4% thresholds are being used, for example in Sweden and Denmark.

the threshold is whatever we desire and we can change it if we desire more or less representatives...5 or 10% would be my initial choices

Of course, such thresholds are completely arbitrary but if there were no thresholds there could be numerous tiny parties and forming a workable government-coalition would be almost impossible. Israel is a good example of this problem. Ultra religious parties with only a fraction of support but being in a position to hold the balance of power between blocks.

and why is israel your go to model? you could have chosen an example from numerous countries that have few issues ....does our fptp system work flawlessly? prorogation would suggest otherwise...democracy is difficult at the best of times but it's better than no democracy... Edited November 16, 2012 by wyly

[wyly]

I think we should look at reforms that would take power away from parties. Maybe people could elect the cabinet and prime minister. We might vote in a conservative minister of finance, a liberal minister of justice, and an NDP minister of human and resources, and so on.

in an ideal world that's how it should be...a coalition of parties could give us something like that...

[CPCFTW]

The biggest mistake most FPTP haters make is to assume that anyone who didn't vote CPC disagrees with any legislation they enact. People dont vote on a single issue, they vote on a party representing a platform. I might vote CPC because I agree with their stance on lowering taxes, but I might not support any anti-abortion or gay marriage legislation. However, my support for lowering taxes outweighs my concern from the fear-mongering of those other issues.

Similarly, someone might vote NDP because they bought into the fear-mongering about gay marriage and abortion, and they didn't want to vote liberal because of adscam. However, they may also feel strongly that taxes and entitlements should be reduced.

A FPTP hater's claim/belief is that the above person believes in higher taxes and maintaining entitlements since they voted NDP.

"The will of the people" is a good catch phrase, but efficient governance created through a democratic process is a better goal for an electoral system.

[TimG]

what if I want a one party system where the bus driver gets a possible 2 terms of 5 years each and they don't cater to any minorities-china

Except in your silly examples the populace is not allowed to vote for the leaders. Every 4 years we do and if the populace chooses to annihilate a party for bad behavior and put a complete new set of people in charge it will. That will never happen in China.

.but I want a better democracy where all votes count, everyone is represented and the government reflects a true majority, it may be a little messy but it's a better democracy

Sorry - you have no monopoly on the word democracy. You want your version of democracy. It is not better. It is different. In many ways it is much worse than we have now. Edited November 16, 2012 by TimG

[eyeball]

If you look at where Canada is today, you wonder why anybody would want to change the balance we have.

Some of the main points of our system:

We give a large amount of power to the PM for a certain amount of time.

We have 3 parties, 2 of which are left-of-centre.

We have regional interests which need to be represented.

The questions:

What should be the goal of an electoral system?

Stability balanced with reflection of the national will (personified into in parties and individual leaders and a single PM) who are given the power to enact change for the overall goal of maximum long term happiness and prosperity of the people.

What special considerations or interests need to be protected?

Regional interests, especially Quebec. Also, acknowledgment of identified groups within Canada.

What is the best possible system to achieve your goal?

The current electoral system is fine. A better system of discussion of issues may be needed.

What about the fish? Who looks after them and the people that count on them?

[eyeball]

Exactly! In BC the minority ruled.

And yet, the fish still up and died...go figure.

[eyeball]

*I* want a system where we elect one party to drive the bus for 4 years and then pass judgement on their record. I don't want a government that has to cater to tiny minorities of voters.

Your system could theoretically give a federal government enough time to cause the near extinction of wild salmon populations in BC and there'd be nothing the rest of Canada could do until it was too late...never mind what British Columbians might think, but since when did that matter when it comes to BC's Canada's salmon? I guess it mattered when it came to Canada's Alberta's oil but I digress.

Anyway where were we...oh yeah...the objective of an electoral system...

Bwahahahahahaha....sob.