TimG Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 I know that lobbyists get too much traction in our system.The best way to limit the power of lobbyists is to limit the scope of government. People only lobby because they can benefit from preferential regulations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 Representation has little to do with democracy too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 The best way to limit the power of lobbyists is to limit the scope of government. People only lobby because they can benefit from preferential regulations. Sure - but complete deregulation is not an option and it's preferable to have lobbyists than no regulations at all in many cases. Openness is another approach - open feedback, open financial books... transparency. Yes, managing things is difficult but that means that if we learn to do it properly we'll reap rewards from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 Sure - but complete deregulation is not an option and it's preferable to have lobbyists than no regulations at all in many cases.Of course. But everything in moderation and sometimes just because government can regulate something does not mean it should.Openness is another approach - open feedback, open financial books... transparency.I tend to be cynical. Rules will be circumvented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 (edited) Rules should only be circumventable in the absence of transparency, ie televised lobbying. Edited November 16, 2012 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 Of course. But everything in moderation and sometimes just because government can regulate something does not mean it should. Right - so the example at hand is fish stocks. Ok ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 (edited) Right - so the example at hand is fish stocks. Ok ?Fisheries are a tough one. In the ideal world private ownership would solve most problems. The trouble is I have not heard of a private ownership scheme for fisheries that does not end up with the resource being controlled by the large corps with a lot of capital which creates problems for the existing fishing communites. Edited November 17, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 Is it the provinces in Canada which draw the boundaries of constituencies, or ridings as you call them, even for federal elections or is there some federal boundary-commisiion? How often are those boundaries reviewed to correspond to the changes of population? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) We have 3 parties, 2 of which are left-of-centre. We have 5 parties represented in the House. Edited November 17, 2012 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 A federation without regional representation. Awesome. Well done. the Senate offers NO representation. They're unaccountable partisan hacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 Fisheries are a tough one. In the ideal world private ownership would solve most problems. The trouble is I have not heard of a private ownership scheme for fisheries that does not end up with the resource being controlled by the large corps with a lot of capital which creates problems for the existing fishing communites. It would be a lot less tough if the management of our fisheries were located a lot closer to the regions the fish, fishermen and communities that depend on all these are. It's a lot harder for competing interests to stab each other in the back when they're all forced to sit across the same table from each other. Two solutions to the problem you cite are an owner-operator requirement and establishing community-owned quotas. That's what people on the coast said they wanted but it's about the farthest from what we wound up with. To change fisheries management in Canada to that extent would require opening up our Constitution which of course is impossible. I think the only alternative to opening the Constitution is souveillance souveillance souveillance. There's nothing in the Constitution that says we can't impose transparency when it comes to governance or lobbying. There is clearly a link between accountable effective management of a resource and the distance between the managers and the resource. The further apart they are the worse they are. Canada is, from a fishing communities point of view, ungovernable. We're living proof...or dying proof I should say. Speaking as a canary, the way international trade agreements involving natural resources have been negotiated by Ottawa these last few years seem a lot like the processes that have unfolded around our fisheries. If we'd instituted and become comfortable with some of that souveillance I've been talking about domestically we might have a better handle on our politician's international wheeling and dealing. Oh look there goes another little tweety-bird. I guess no one cares that when the going gets tough the vulnerable just die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) 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. ya there's the typical response, let's not use a more stable PR country as an example let's find the worst case possible...okay let's do that let's look at Italy.... so how many general elections has this PR instability triggered in Italy since WW2, 17....and how many general elections has our oh so much more stable canadian FPTP system resulted in since WW2 ? ...21 .....oopsie! that can't possibly be right... and three more, none of whom have had as many general elections as canada Germany PR/FPTP-17 Netherlands PR-20 Sweden PR-20 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 (edited) A federation without regional representation. Awesome. Well done. the senate actually does something other than suck on the public tit it does bugger all...they represent no one but themselves...MPs also represent their regions so the senate is useless duplication as well...you're probably the only person in the country other than the senators that actually believes they're relevant... and I don't think the senators actually believe it themselves they just play along with the game and collect their patronage cheques... 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) oopsie! that can't possibly be right...Italy does not have a Westminster system where an election call is automatically triggered by a lost vote. Not a fair comparison.What you are missing in your argument is the net benefit. Many people simply do not agree with your assertion that democracy requires that party representation mirror the popular vote. IOW - the current system is not a big problem for these people but a change could be a big problem therefore the status quo wins. Edited November 17, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 As the FPTP-system produces very capricious results why don't countries which use the system at least introduce a run-off in those constituencies where no-one has received more than 50% of the votes? Namely, one can get elected by a very small share of the vote as long as he/she receives more votes than anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 As the FPTP-system produces very capricious results why don't countries which use the system at least introduce a run-off in those constituencies where no-one has received more than 50% of the votes? Namely, one can get elected by a very small share of the vote as long as he/she receives more votes than anyone else. knocking off the lowest vote recipient? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 I was rather thinking having only two candidates on the second round, the two with most votes in the first round if no-one has received more than 50% of the votes in the first round. The French parliamentary elections are conducted by this system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 Italy does not have a Westminster system where an election call is automatically triggered by a lost vote. Not a fair comparison. bambino asserted that Italy was unstable because of PR and it isn't,looking at other countries with PR they are no more unstable than our FPTP,...contrary to urban myth Italy's record of general elections show it's clearly more stable where compromise/negotiation becomes part of the process which is essential to a democracy...What you are missing in your argument is the net benefit. Many people simply do not agree with your assertion that democracy requires that party representation mirror the popular vote. IOW - the current system is not a big problem for these people but a change could be a big problem therefore the status quo wins. what is apparent from other people's pov is they have never given this much thought and status quo if as long it benefits their political party want no part of change....for others it appears the PR is too complex to understand or they're just to lazy to try... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 I was rather thinking having only two candidates on the second round, the two with most votes in the first round if no-one has received more than 50% of the votes in the first round. The French parliamentary elections are conducted by this system. interesting, that might work...I've been trying to understand Sweden's system it has it's appeal as well , though the french method is appealing for it's simplicity... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 ... compromise/negotiation becomes part of the process which is essential to a democracy... Compromise and negotiation is part of every democratic system. The question is how will this change under PR ? It would be a big change in the degree and scale of these ongoing negotiations. In these times, my belief is that governments need more power to enact major changes according to their vision, not less power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 status quo if as long it benefits their political party want no part of changeROTFL. The ONLY reason you care about this is because you are not happy because the current system does not elect parties you want. As for myself, I do consider the possibility that the current system will produce results I don't like but I don't mind because the current system forces the winners to cater to the center. That makes it superior to the any of the PR systems which encourage single issue fringe parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 interesting, that might work...I've been trying to understand Sweden's system it has it's appeal as well , though the french method is appealing for it's simplicity... Swedish system? A PR-system with a 4% threshold. However, they vote for party-lists, not individual candidates. So, I prefer the Finnish system of PR. When you vote for party-lists you can only influence how many people become MP's from any list, you can't influence who those people are as parties have put them in order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 In these times, my belief is that governments need more power to enact major changes according to their vision, not less power.Hear, hear. With power come accountability. i.e. if a part has the power to implement whatever policies they want then cannot excuse failure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 Compromise and negotiation is part of every democratic system. The question is how will this change under PR ? It would be a big change in the degree and scale of these ongoing negotiations. In these times, my belief is that governments need more power to enact major changes according to their vision, not less power. so you lean toward less democracy ( one party rule because it's more efficient) as your democratic ideal, whereas I prefer to lean toward the Direct Democracy ideal...PR works in many countries without any apparent adverse effects which you imply... a system of government that requires 50%+ of the elected members of the elected body to come together would seem to me to have more power and legitimacy to enact changes than one that does not... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 Swedish system? A PR-system with a 4% threshold. However, they vote for party-lists, not individual candidates. So, I prefer the Finnish system of PR. When you vote for party-lists you can only influence how many people become MP's from any list, you can't influence who those people are as parties have put them in order. from what I read the swedes have a choice when voting, they can vote for the party or individual candidates...the 4% threshold is subjective, I'm not advocating following any countries exact method we can find our own... 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.