Electoral Reform a Must for Real Democracy in Canada.

[kairos]

With only a minority of the Demos being represented by the people they vote for, and with the cons successfully unite the right and divide and conquer the rest tactics, its time for Canada to make the reforms it needs to make to have a real democracy.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/national/improve+politics+have+repair+broken+electoral+system/8014896/story.html

[jacee]

I agree electoral reform is necessary.

I'm not sure combining the Libs and Ndp is the way to do it, but it may be all we can accomplish for now.

I doubt they'll manage it though.

[Bryan]

The article doesn't really make a case as to why electoral reform is needed.

[roy baty]

The left needs to get their act together and shift a bit more to the centre if they have a hope in hell defeating the Cons. It's as simple as that. Democracy really only takes place when an election occurs in Canada so we'll see if the left unites before then

[scribblet]

Forming an alliance in order to defeat the Tories is hardly 'electoral reform'. It's about using any means necessary to defeat a party and gain power for yourselves.

Electoral reform is changing our current system but as the article says, once in power the new gov't isn't likely to do anything. There needs to be a coalition of all parties who can debate and present the options for a referendum. Judging from provincial referendums the public doesn't want it, not yet anway.

[PIK]

We have the best system going.

[eyeball]

Electoral reform is changing our current system but as the article says, once in power the new gov't isn't likely to do anything.

The lack of reform is probably changing the country even more, as the article notes...

— the phoney majorities, the exaggerated regional divisions, the lack of competition for so many seats, the obsession with a narrow slice of swing voters, the lack of serious debate, the sheer partisan nastiness —

And Stephan Harper claims to be restoring Canada back into whatever it was in the before times.

[scribblet]

I agree for the most part. The only people who are raging against it now are those who lost and want the power themselves. Eventually another party will win then watch them change their tune.

We have the best system going.

[Mighty AC]

I agree that electoral reform is required. I think it is ridiculous that the proximity of voters can decide if representation is achieved.

1 million total voters for party X, spread across the country achieves 0 representation
1 million total voters for party X, spread across a single province may lead to some representation

1 million total voters for party X, spread across a single city will definitely create representation.

Should those 1M votes be worth more or less depending on the proximity of the voters to each other? I don't think so.

[Michael Hardner]

There are more important issues to deal with than electoral reform.

The erosion of a strong informed public, paired with the increasing complexity of government have made the system less attuned to the problems that face us.

Ensuring that all of Canada understands the course that has been plotted for us for globalization, environmental planning, foreign policy, taxation reform should be paramount. Also, please don't say that electoral reform will address these issues, because they won't. Until the people understand what is going on, it's pointless to engage in large scale change of how the votes break down.

[TimG]

I agree that electoral reform is required. I think it is ridiculous that the proximity of voters can decide if representation is achieved.

Why? Votes are often based on local issues.

1 million total voters for party X, spread across the country achieves 0 representation

A completely false premise. They are represented by who ever their local MP no matter what party they belong to.

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of a representational system. The objective is not create some perfect representation of voter feelings on 1 day once every 4 years. The purpose is to provide a fair means to elect local representatives who will represent all voters in their riding all year round.

The only change that needs to be made is a ban on party constitutions that prevent sitting MPs from disposing their leader. Get rid of those rules and the back bench will mean something again (this is how most other Westminster democracies work).

Changing the party constitution is something the Liberals and NDP can do without a constitutional change.

Edited February 26, 2013 by TimG

[Boges]

I agree that electoral reform is required. I think it is ridiculous that the proximity of voters can decide if representation is achieved.

1 million total voters for party X, spread across the country achieves 0 representation

1 million total voters for party X, spread across a single province may lead to some representation

1 million total voters for party X, spread across a single city will definitely create representation.

Should those 1M votes be worth more or less depending on the proximity of the voters to each other? I don't think so.

You're being represented by someone locally. In our system we only vote for our local representative. A system of popular votes would take local representation completely out of the equation. You're just giving people seats based on a national vote count.

The only solution is a Mix-Member system where some representatives are local and others are popular. This system has been defeated twice in votes in Ontario and BC. In Ontario, the province that pretty much decides federal elections, it was defeated soundly in 2007

Going to keep trying?

I think a popular vote model works in smaller countries but voters in different parts of this country need their own representatives because Ontarians are very different from Quebecers, Easter Coaster, Westerners and people in BC. It's a big country and the House of Commons is a good representation of the will of a nation on the whole.

[Topaz]

My view is we MUST have more than two parties, or we will have the same situations as the US, the back and forth of the Reps and the Dems. and that no choice.

[Boges]

My view is we MUST have more than two parties, or we will have the same situations as the US, the back and forth of the Reps and the Dems. and that no choice.

Well that's the thing. Many Liberals have more in common with the Conservatives so a merger isn't a simple solution to remove the 35-40% of people that vote Conservative out of power.

[g_bambino]

[A] real democracy.

What's a "real democracy"?

[Michael Hardner]

A random point to add: have a look at how many years the various parties have held absolute power, balance of power and opposition over the last two decades. You'll find that there is indeed a balance there.

[g_bambino]

The only change that needs to be made is a ban on party constitutions that prevent sitting MPs from disposing their leader. Get rid of those rules and the back bench will mean something again (this is how most other Westminster democracies work).

I wasn't aware there was anything in party constitutions that prevented caucus from toppling the party leader; I thought it has happened, but rarely and, when it has, in a clandestine way, because the party leader is elected by the party membership only. But, otherwise, I agree totally; MPs carry out their job as constituency representatives and party leaders (including the prime minister) are less tyrannical (for lack of a less dramatic term) in Australia and Britain, where the caucus chooses the party leader and, thus, can bring one down, too.

[ed.: -]

Edited February 26, 2013 by g_bambino

[Boges]

I wasn't aware there was anything in party constitutions that prevented caucus from toppling the party leader; I thought it has happened, but rarely and, when it has, in a clandestine way, because the party leader is elected by the party membership only. But, otherwise, I agree totally; MPs carry out their job as constituency representatives and party leaders (including the prime minister) are less tyrannical (for lack of a less dramatic term) in Australia and Britain, where the caucus chooses the party leader and, thus, can bring one down, too.

Team Paul Martin did a pretty good job elbowing Chretien and his loyalists out.

[TimG]

I wasn't aware there was anything in party constitutions that prevented caucus from toppling the party leader; I thought it has happened, but rarely and, when it has, in a clandestine way, because the party leader is elected by the party membership only.

Nope. It is the party constitutions that limit 'leadership reviews' to once every 2 years. This is how Chretien was able to stop Martin from taking over sooner. The party constitutions decide how a new leader will be elected (by direct votes of members rather than at the will of sitting MPs). They may not explicitly prohibit MPs from diposing their leader but they make it politically impossible.

Aside: whenever you here about a leadership candidate trying to make the selection process 'democratic' what they really mean is they want to emasculate sitting MPs.

Edited February 26, 2013 by TimG

[g_bambino]

Nope. It is the party constitutions that limit 'leadership reviews' to once every 2 years... The party constitutions decide how a new leader will be elected (by direct votes of members rather than at the will of sitting MPs).

Yes, that's what I said was the problem. I took what you said about the party constitutions barring the caucus from bringing down the leader to mean the constitutions explicitly said so, not that it is just the result of what the constitutions actually say.

[DFCaper]

I think changes need to happen. Only changes that are to weaken the parties and strengthen the power of the elected MPs.

To me, both Chretien and Harper have way too much power. The MPs are just puppets to the leaders. I would love to see reforms that make the Leader responsible to the MPs. I think the Leader and Cabinet should be chosen by the elected MPs after an election. That way they are responsible to the MPs. The way the leader is able to pick and choose who runs in a riding, etc discusses me.

I always fear that the parties are the most effective way that special interest groups (Corporations, unions, etc) can highjack the agenda away from the people. One stop shopping....

I believe that is more along the lines of what TimG was referencing in the difference between us and Australia and Britian

[Michael Hardner]

To me, both Chretien and Harper have way too much power.

I always fear that the parties are the most effective way that special interest groups (Corporations, unions, etc) can highjack the agenda away from the people. One stop shopping....

I believe that is more along the lines of what TimG was referencing in the difference between us and Australia and Britian

First of all Chretien doesn't have much power today - unless his influence from being on 'As It Happens' occasionally is what you mean.

Secondly, let's ask when we want the "people" to have say over "special interests". When are they at odds ?

[Mighty AC]

Why? Votes are often based on local issues.A completely false premise. They are represented by who ever their local MP no matter what party they belong to.

It is very common for a local MP to win with less than 50% of the vote. Thus, the majority of a riding actually voted for someone else. I think you are naive if you believe the average MP puts the need of the riding ahead of the party.

When electing a national government our proximity to like-minded individuals should not be a factor.

The only solution is a Mix-Member system where some representatives are local and others are popular. This system has been defeated twice in votes in Ontario and BC. In Ontario, the province that pretty much decides federal elections, it was defeated soundly in 2007

Going to keep trying?

Canada is large and geographically diverse enough to require local representation. MMP is my preferred solution, but there are others that maintain local rep while improving the proportionality.

I think BC opted for a single transferable vote system and not MMP but I may be wrong. The first reform referendum held in BC received 57% support, but the threshold was set at 60%. So, ultimately a majority voted for change but the minority ruled.

The public doesn't really understand MMP or even how our current electoral system works. It will be a monumental task to educate enough people on the topic in order to have an informed vote, but it is worth pushing for.

[Michael Hardner]

The public doesn't really understand MMP or even how our current electoral system works. It will be a monumental task to educate enough people on the topic in order to have an informed vote, but it is worth pushing for.

Here's my problem: if we are all admitting that the public doesn't understand a proposed electoral system, how are we expecting them to understand trade issues ?

[TimG]

It is very common for a local MP to win with less than 50% of the vote. Thus, the majority of a riding actually voted for someone else. I think you are naive if you believe the average MP puts the need of the riding ahead of the party.

And how exactly would assigning seats based on party vote improve that? If anything it completely abolishes the notion of local representation.

When electing a national government our proximity to like-minded individuals should not be a factor.

You have not made any argument to support this assertion.

The public doesn't really understand MMP or even how our current electoral system works.

Or maybe they understand it fine and simply do not agree with you. Edited February 26, 2013 by TimG