Objective of an electoral system

[eyeball]

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.

I think what you really need for far-flung regions of the country is greater local autonomy and decentralized management of things like...salmon for example. Ottawa is 1500 miles from the nearest ocean and almost 4000 miles away from the nearest sockeye spawning channel. How on Earth could the people in Ottawa possibly know more about sockeye or oceans than the people closest to them?

[Michael Hardner]

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

How we manage things is different from our electoral system. Your description of the situation with Pacific fishing described failure, however it included all of the pillars of democracy in that failure IMO: the government ministry, industry, the press and the people.

From my recollection, there was a general concern that government was more responsive to industry than to individual fishers - fair enough, but not a smoking gun that the system itself contributed to the problem.

[Michael Hardner]

I think what you really need for far-flung regions of the country is greater local autonomy and decentralized management of things like...salmon for example. Ottawa is 1500 miles from the nearest ocean and almost 4000 miles away from the nearest sockeye spawning channel. How on Earth could the people in Ottawa possibly know more about sockeye or oceans than the people closest to them?

Alternately: How can the people of a small community keep Spain, Japan and the like out of their waters ?

You need a local voice with federal support - which you could have today if it were managed properly.

[eyeball]

How we manage things is different from our electoral system. Your description of the situation with Pacific fishing described failure, however it included all of the pillars of democracy in that failure IMO: the government ministry, industry, the press and the people.

From my recollection, there was a general concern that government was more responsive to industry than to individual fishers - fair enough, but not a smoking gun that the system itself contributed to the problem.

The smoking gun is that the system is utterly incapable of preventing or doing anything about the problem. It has mattered not a single bit who was in or out of power. Politicians to this day continue to lie while fish and the people who depend on them die.

In the meantime the band, as the saying goes, plays on.

[eyeball]

Alternately: How can the people of a small community keep Spain, Japan and the like out of their waters ?

They can't obviously, but OTOH how can the federal government be everywhere at once? If it was fairly certain the small communities were adequately managing their domestic affairs amongst themselves, they could devote more time and energy to dealing with the foreign trespass against our nation's fishing grounds. More often than not it feels like local interests are sacrificed to help expedite the resolution of some completely unrelated issue the federal government is embroiled with amongst such nations.

You need a local voice with federal support - which you could have today if it were managed properly.

If we managed what properly, the federal government? The only thing we need to do to accomplish that is to make public every meeting that takes place between a public official and a lobbyist.

[Michael Hardner]

The smoking gun is that the system is utterly incapable of preventing or doing anything about the problem. It has mattered not a single bit who was in or out of power. Politicians to this day continue to lie while fish and the people who depend on them die.

In the meantime the band, as the saying goes, plays on.

Lie ? Really ?

Keep in mind that the system describes how we collectively address problems. It doesn't guarantee that we solve them.

[Michael Hardner]

If we managed what properly, the federal government? The only thing we need to do to accomplish that is to make public every meeting that takes place between a public official and a lobbyist.

You can remind me if you want, but there was no smoking gun there that the larger players in your industry had caused the environmental problems to worsen.

As I recall the process was what was managed poorly - the people felt that they didn't have a voice.

[eyeball]

Yes lie, you've seen the recent government ads extolling it's protection of the environment while it also reduces what it protects and the departments responsible for doing the protecting, of salmon habitat specifically.

Keep in mind fish and fisheries have been dying under our system for decades now so I think it's fair to say w'ere guaranteed to see this continue given we're doing nothing at all to change it.

I guess a better thread title would have been what is the objective of a nation or governance never mind the system by which a government is chosen.

[eyeball]

You can remind me if you want, but there was no smoking gun there that the larger players in your industry had caused the environmental problems to worsen.

As I recall the process was what was managed poorly - the people felt that they didn't have a voice.

Ah, we're talking about two different things now, you the recent Cohen report, and me decades of mismanagement that's been going on since before Cohen was even born.

[-TSS-]

The FPTP-system works well as long as the combined share of votes of the two largest parties is at least 95%. If there is a strong third party not mention even more parties then the system really becomes capricious.

In Germany and NZ there is a system of mixing proportional representation and single-member constituencies. A voter has two votes, one for a local candidate and another for the party-list. The party-list vote is more important as it determines the share of seats between parties in parliament. The problem with this system is that those who have been elected from the single-member constituencies are considered as to having a heavier mandate than those from the party-lists. Who are the people who are elected from the party-lists? Mostly people who were unsuccesful in the single-member constituency votes. So, if you are rejected by your constituents, you still sneak in through a party-list.

A year ago there was a referendum in NZ on whether to return to full FPTP or to retain the MMP-system. Despite people having expressed dissatisfaction at the working of the MMP_system, a large majority of people preferred to keep it.

You do realise that if Canada moves to some kind of proportional representation it will mean coalition governments? If you don't have a tradition of coalition-governments then it may appear as very alien to most voters as it involves such a lot of horse-trading and compromises.

[TimG]

it involves such a lot of horse-trading and compromises.

In the Canadian system this horse trading and compromise takes place *before* the election. For example, the CPC had to promise to leave social issues off the agenda in order to get elected despite the wishes of many of their supporters. In a PR system the Conservatives may have made this pledge but could easily be forced to do something because of a anti-gay/anti-abortion party with the two seats needed to keep the government in power. This is government by minority and not democratic. Edited November 16, 2012 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

In a PR system the Conservatives may have made this pledge but could easily be forced to do something because of a anti-gay/anti-abortion party with the two seats needed to keep the government in power. This is government by minority and not democratic.

This is a semi-common misconception. The ability to topple a government, granted by our parliamentary system is what gives power to parties with only a few seats. It's not the coalition situation itself. Even if stuck with FPTP I think confidence motions should be removed.

[Michael Hardner]

Ah, we're talking about two different things now, you the recent Cohen report, and me decades of mismanagement that's been going on since before Cohen was even born.

We're talking about 3 different things then: there's your summary of the situation wherein the government did a bad job of communication with local stakeholders, which caused dissent.

Then there's the Cohen report.

Then your 'decades of mismanagement' point.

The more things we bring up, the more people to blame. But we still don't have anything that we can hang our hats on to assign absolute blame. At least not as far as I can see. Was the environment battered ? Sure - as it was in all aspects of life here.

I want to know what we're going to change moving forward. As far as I can tell the current system can be adjusted and I haven't heard any reason yet why it can't.

[wyly]

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.

actually the populace does vote for the leaders, everyone can join the party and become part of the process...the populace has as much say in who the leader is as we do...which like is zero if you don't belong to a political party, we do not pick our leaders the parties do...it's essentially the same procedure...on the surface one party rule may seem less democratic then multi-party democracies but with in that one party there are still left, center and right factions...

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.

ya I do, Direct democracy being the ultimate democracy and working back from that position is a lessening of democratic ...PR is more democratic than fptp because it's more inclusive and closer to the direct democracy ideal ... Edited November 16, 2012 by wyly

[wyly]

In the Canadian system this horse trading and compromise takes place *before* the election. For example, the CPC had to promise to leave social issues off the agenda in order to get elected despite the wishes of many of their supporters. In a PR system the Conservatives may have made this pledge but could easily be forced to do something because of a anti-gay/anti-abortion party with the two seats needed to keep the government in power.

oh please, the cpc/harper makes and breaks promises to the electorate whenever it suits them...compromise "before" elections is bogus as agreements are unenforceable ...

This is government by minority and not democratic.

which is exactly what we have now....a government elected by 39.5% of the electorate having the majority of the representation, a phoney majority, in fact a government of the minority ... not democratic and far removed from the Direct democracy ideal and further than away than PR would be..,

[eyeball]

The more things we bring up, the more people to blame.

All I'm saying is that our electoral system has proven to be utterly ineffective at protecting fish and regions/communities that depend on them. I'm only reiterating this because when I usually raise this I'm told to wait another four years or so and try electing another representative. Been there done that, it hasn't made an iota of difference yet and I see zero reason to believe why that will ever change.

[Michael Hardner]

All I'm saying is that our electoral system has proven to be utterly ineffective

The economy is more to blame than the electoral system. Do you think Cuba did better on the environment than a FPTP democracy ? How about direct rule ?

It's not the fault of the electoral system, the education system, the system in general as much as it is a human failing.

[-TSS-]

There are also different forms of proportional systems. Here in Finland we have a system of open lists, which means we have multi-member constituencies but we still vote for individual candidates on those lists. If there are 10 seats available in a constituency and a party receives 30% of the votes it gets three seats in that constituency and the three are those candidates who have received most votes on the list.

In many other European countries there is no such system. People just vote for the party-lists and have no influence on the order of the people getting elected. People can only influence how many MP's any party receives, not which people become MP's. Needless to say, the party-leader's and his best friends' names are usually at the top of the list.

[eyeball]

The economy is more to blame than the electoral system. Do you think Cuba did better on the environment than a FPTP democracy ? How about direct rule ?

It's not the fault of the electoral system, the education system, the system in general as much as it is a human failing.

Yes well, that's why I keep saying we need far better monitoring of the humans who are failing our system the most, the people we elect to run it.

As for Cuba's fisheries...

Four fisheries were analysed: lobster, shrimp, tuna and other fishes, and the results show

that at the current effort levels the catches are sustainable both in ecological and

economic terms, not surpassing reference points like Maximum Sustainable Yield and

Maximum Economic Yield. Even though there seem to be other factors influencing the

outcome, they prove that the management regime has been successful.

CUBAN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT REGIME: CURRENT STATE

AND FUTURE PROSPECTS

[g_bambino]

dump the senate, one chamber with some sort of PR electoral system...

A federation without regional representation. Awesome. Well done.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes well, that's why I keep saying we need far better monitoring of the humans who are failing our system the most, the people we elect to run it.

As for Cuba's fisheries...

I was in Cuba and it was not a pleasant place when it comes to industrial waste and sewage.

If you have a closed system, then there's nobody to complain to. That's why our system needs to be opened up to feedback too.

[g_bambino]

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

Not when it leads to instability.

You seem to imagine coalitions between numerous parties will spring up like pleasant meadow flowers and last for years. Governments would fall left, right, and centre. Just look at Italy.

[Mighty AC]

Why do governments have to fall? What if removed the idea of "confidence"?

[eyeball]

I was in Cuba and it was not a pleasant place when it comes to industrial waste and sewage.

I'll take your word for it. It's no surprise to me that the poorer people are in terms of both wealth or power the poorer a steward of the environment they make.

If you have a closed system, then there's nobody to complain to. That's why our system needs to be opened up to feedback too.

What's the point if you have a distant system that's too far away to hear it? Of course with the din of lobbyists and a closed door to further muffle the feedback...

All the talk about how well our system was designed to serve regional interests in the face of multiple fisheries collapses and corporate enrichment at opposite ends of the country is a joke to put it mildly.

[Michael Hardner]

What's the point if you have a distant system that's too far away to hear it? Of course with the din of lobbyists and a closed door to further muffle the feedback...

I know that lobbyists get too much traction in our system. But... Democracy isn't necessarily either lobbyists or people. The story you told in the past sounded more like Cuba than Canada.