Electoral Reform a Must for Real Democracy in Canada.

[jacee]

You don't have to supply a second choice. However, in ridings without majority support for a single candidate it allows the candidate with the most secondary support to rise to the top.

Considering a riding only receives one representative, don't you think it is more democratic to elect the person that the most constituents can live with?

Can you explain this more, maybe make up an example?

The thing I don't like about STV is the transfers of votes make it a bit mysterious to the average voter, seeming possibly suspect of behind the scenes manipulation.

[Mighty AC]

Again I can live more with a Liberal candidate than I can an NDP candidate but I wouldn't put a Liberal candidate second EVER because I live in an area where the NDP aren't very popular and I'd just be making it easier for the Liberal to win.

It's just a method to make strategic voting easier.

Actually PR systems minimize strategic voting because vote wasting is kept to a minimum. Whereas our current FPTP system encourages the kind of strategic voting you see as a problem.

Currently, it makes no sense for an NDP hating Con voter to actually cast a ballot for the CPC candidate in a Montreal area riding. Casting a ballot for a losing Candidate is the same as not voting at all, so the smart play is to vote Liberal to help block a dipper win. If the dipper wins anyway with 40% of the vote don't fret, you can still rest assured that he/she is representing your interests in Ottawa. Now that's democracy.

If there was only away to count every vote and assign representation proportionally...

[TimG]

Actually PR systems minimize strategic voting because vote wasting is kept to a minimum. Whereas our current FPTP system encourages the kind of strategic voting you see as a problem.

Well almost no one wants a PR system so it is kinda irrelevant. The only systems that are even up for debate are variations on FPTP which are complex and will lead to even more strategic voting as people consider the impacts of choosing the 2 or third choices. Edited March 5, 2013 by TimG

[Peanutbutter]

No ones vote is wasted. Everyone's vote is worth the same. One. Just because the person you wanted to win doesn't, doesn't mean the vote the was wasted. It was counted just like every other vote.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Peanutbutter

[Michael Hardner]

Actually PR systems minimize strategic voting because vote wasting is kept to a minimum.

I forgot about that useless meme "vote wasting". It appears to mean "a vote not cast for a winning candidate".

And there we have it - the elementary school ethic of "everybody wins" has now seeped into adult society. If it works for co-ed handball, then it must work for governing a nation, right ?

I'm all for a system that will give a certain type of party a little more of a voice - the ideal example being the Green party, which polls in the double digits but didn't have a voice in parliament until recently.

But if any proposed system change actually has a significant effect on the balance of power, then we should pause - and remember that our current system has balanced compromise in times of contention with clear mandates at such times when the people of Canada gave sufficient support to a candidate's vision.

[Michael Hardner]

No ones vote is wasted. Everyone's vote is worth the same.

This may be the first time we've agreed on something.

[Peanutbutter]

This may be the first time we've agreed on something.

I'll mark my calender...hahaha.

[ReeferMadness]

The system you want would IMO not produce a parliament Canadians voted for. Most people vote, if on anything, based on local or regional issues, not grander ideology.

This is not true. Most people vote along party lines. Many don't even know who their local representatives are. Building constituencies based exclusively on geography makes perfect sense - assuming that you live in the 1700's.

That's the whole point of geographic representation. Issues are different for farmers in the prairies, auto workers in Hamilton and fishermen on the coasts. That's why regional representation makes the most sense. If you elect MP's based on national votes from everywhere, the MP's elected would actually have no clue how to represent their constituents since they have no idea who their constituents are.

Very few MP's care who most of their constituents are. They have much more to fear from their leaders and the party's unelected hangers-on than from the electorate. Most people vote along party lines and if you represent the right party, you win!!

Democracy at its core implies that you consent to the fact that you may not get the person you want. Misunderstanding of this is exactly why failing middle eastern states are having so much trouble setting up Democratic governance. They believe, mistakenly, that democracy means you vote and then the person you want wins. Then they get upset when it doesn't happen and things fall apart.

Democracy implies no such thing. Democracy is, in fact rule by the people. Since self-rule is commonly thought to be unfeasible, representative democracy (where someone else theoretically represents you) is in place.

I have uncommon political views and as such, my views are often entirely unrepresented. There is nothing inherently wrong with that - not all views can be represented. However, when you have a system where most of the people find themselves represented only in theory (that is, their local representative is opposed to most of their views), democracy becomes dysfunctional.

[ReeferMadness]

Well almost no one wants a PR system so it is kinda irrelevant. The only systems that are even up for debate are variations on FPTP which are complex and will lead to even more strategic voting as people consider the impacts of choosing the 2 or third choices.

That depends on how you ask the question. If you ask people if it's fair that 30% of the votes should get you 30% of the seats, most would agree. If you start describing in great detail how a PR system works, they'll start to find fault with it and get cold feet. Only a portion of the population could tell you the problems with FPTP

[ReeferMadness]

No ones vote is wasted. Everyone's vote is worth the same. One. Just because the person you wanted to win doesn't, doesn't mean the vote the was wasted. It was counted just like every other vote.

I guess that depends on your point of view. When I cast a vote knowing that most votes don't count towards a successful candidate, I feel like it's wasted.

[ReeferMadness]

Can you explain this more, maybe make up an example?

The thing I don't like about STV is the transfers of votes make it a bit mysterious to the average voter, seeming possibly suspect of behind the scenes manipulation.

STV is pure genius. You have the advantage of voting for real people (not parties) and the advantage of it producing proportional results. Since you will have multiple representatives (up to 7, depending on the riding), the chances of you having at least one you like are much better. People couldn't be bothered to learn about it which was why it lost in the referendum.

[TimG]

If you start describing in great detail how a PR system works, they'll start to find fault with it and get cold feet.

No - they realize that PR is a dumb way to elect a government for a large, diverse country and that the original question was intentionally deceptive. Local representation is a must.

Only a portion of the population could tell you the problems with FPTP

Probably because the "problems" are only in the minds of people who don't understand what the value of democracy is or why we have elections. Democracy does not mean that the outcome must exactly mirror public opinion - democracy is any system where a free election following clear rules results in different groups of people taking power over time.

A system where the same party is always at the center of a coalition is not a healthy democracy - even if the results match the popular vote.

Edited March 5, 2013 by TimG

[Bonam]

I am fundamentally opposed to having MPs that are answerable only to the party leadership who put them on their "lists". MPs elected in FPTP are at least nominally answerable to their constituents and have to answer to them come election time. Any changes we should make should be with the aim of empowering MPs to vote on issues in accord with their own principles and the desire/interest of their constituents rather than being forced/required to vote along party lines. All the alternatives I have heard here instead further empower and entrench parties by formally recognizing them in the election system.

[ReeferMadness]

I am fundamentally opposed to having MPs that are answerable only to the party leadership who put them on their "lists". MPs elected in FPTP are at least nominally answerable to their constituents and have to answer to them come election time. Any changes we should make should be with the aim of empowering MPs to vote on issues in accord with their own principles and the desire/interest of their constituents rather than being forced/required to vote along party lines. All the alternatives I have heard here instead further empower and entrench parties by formally recognizing them in the election system.

Perhaps you're not paying close attention. STV is a system where multiple individuals from the same party vie for the same seat. Party power is watered down while proportionality is maintained.

Under FPTP, the candidate's first loyalty is to the party, not the voters. Most seats are "safe" seats, meaning the MP is effectively determined when the candidate of the winning party is chosen.

Albertans may think they're voting for the representatives but unless they are members of the Conservative party, they effectively have no control over their representative. And even if they are members, the party leader has a veto over their choice. Whatever your definition of democracy, it's hard to make FPTP fit the bill.

[ReeferMadness]

No - they realize that PR is a dumb way to elect a government for a large, diverse country and that the original question was intentionally deceptive. Local representation is a must.

Yes, assuming that you live in a place like Stepford. Or are a member of the borg. If, on the other hand you live in a riding where there are diverse views, you might come to the conclusion that local representative is just another word for tribalism; and constituencies can be built on things more substantial than geography.

Probably because the "problems" are only in the minds of people who don't understand what the value of democracy is or why we have elections. Democracy does not mean that the outcome must exactly mirror public opinion - democracy is any system where a free election following clear rules results in different groups of people taking power over time.

Well, if only you were around all the time to explain to us people too dumb to understand democracy.

A system where the same party is always at the center of a coalition is not a healthy democracy - even if the results match the popular vote.

Of course. Democracy means forcing change on people whether they want it or not.

[Bonam]

Perhaps you're not paying close attention. STV is a system where multiple individuals from the same party vie for the same seat. Party power is watered down while proportionality is maintained.

So how big would the 3-5+ seat districts have to be in Canada? Are all three territories combined just one riding then? The bigger you make the ridings, the further removed the representatives become from their constituents, and STV necessarily requires much larger ridings since each riding now represents multiple seats.

[Bryan]

Whenever people start to argue in favour of these alternative electoral methods, I think of the mess Italy has with their system. No thank you.

[jacee]

I'm all for a system that will give a certain type of party a little more of a voice - the ideal example being the Green party, which polls in the double digits but didn't have a voice in parliament until recently.

But if any proposed system change actually has a significant effect on the balance of power, then we should pause - and remember that our current system has balanced compromise in times of contention with clear mandates at such times when the people of Canada gave sufficient support to a candidate's vision.

I think what you mean is we've been bamboozled into thinking that government can only operate autocratically - with a majority - as politicians are incapable of collaborating across ideological lines for our benefit.

I think you underestimate the potential of our system. I believe they can rise to the occasion, and we should expect no less.

I agree that some smaller parties with broadly-based support should be represented in parliament in proportion to their popular vote. I also think we're heading into another, longer Trudeau era and PR wil keep a lid on any temptation to devolve into a Chretien-like morass of backslapping, perks and payoffs and lock-step bamboozling of parliamentary process.

Edited March 5, 2013 by jacee

[jacee]

Whenever people start to argue in favour of these alternative electoral methods, I think of the mess Italy has with their system. No thank you.

It's not the system that's the problem.

The problem is that the G20 corporate autocrats are trying to impose their 'austerity-for-everyone-but-the-rich' agenda on the whole developed world through sham 'democratic' control. More representative democracies are more resistant to the power-brokers. What you are seeing is a struggle aagainst tyranny playing out through democracy, peacefully.

Would you prefer the off-with-their-heads uprisings of the French revolution?

Maintaining a balance is always a precarious challenge.

However, autocratic rule is never a solution as it make revolution inevitable, and bouncing from one extreme to another. (Look at Russia.)

PR helps maintain the balance and keeps the power struggles within the bounds of democratic process, allowing voices to all and challenging politicians to collaborate for the benefit of us all.

And that's their job.

Are our 'representatives' really earning their pay if all they're doing is standing up when they're told to?

Edited March 5, 2013 by jacee

[Mighty AC]

No ones vote is wasted. Everyone's vote is worth the same. One. Just because the person you wanted to win doesn't, doesn't mean the vote the was wasted. It was counted just like every other vote.

Wrong. Only the votes for a local winning candidate create representation. A vote for a local losing candidate is the same as not voting at all. With the minute exception of the couple of bucks the party receives per vote.

Under a PR system every vote creates the same amount of representation, hence there is no need to vote strategically.

[Mighty AC]

I forgot about that useless meme "vote wasting". It appears to mean "a vote not cast for a winning candidate".

Or a vote that does not create any representation.

And there we have it - the elementary school ethic of "everybody wins" has now seeped into adult society. If it works for co-ed handball, then it must work for governing a nation, right ?

If equal representation per vote is an elementary school concept then we've lost something along the way.

I'm all for a system that will give a certain type of party a little more of a voice - the ideal example being the Green party, which polls in the double digits but didn't have a voice in parliament until recently.

But if any proposed system change actually has a significant effect on the balance of power, then we should pause - and remember that our current system has balanced compromise in times of contention with clear mandates at such times when the people of Canada gave sufficient support to a candidate's vision.

So you favour systems that distort they way Canadians vote because you prefer the results? That's an honest answer I suppose, but far from fair or democratic. I prefer systems that allows people to directly choose who they want to govern and then actually produce the parliament Canadians vote for.

Granted PR would put an end to 'our benign dictatorship' as Harper put it, but that's a good thing. It is hard for people to see past the adversarial political environment we have now and imagine the, issue by issue, consensus building that would form in time.

[Mighty AC]

No - they realize that PR is a dumb way to elect a government for a large, diverse country and that the original question was intentionally deceptive. Local representation is a must.

PR can provide local representation as well as the correct seat allocation in Ottawa. Win, win.

Probably because the "problems" are only in the minds of people who don't understand what the value of democracy is or why we have elections. Democracy does not mean that the outcome must exactly mirror public opinion - democracy is any system where a free election following clear rules results in different groups of people taking power over time.

Your definition is off the mark. By your logic we can all vote according to clear rules and then just have a computer ignore the ballots and randomly assign seats in Ottawa.

[Mighty AC]

Whenever people start to argue in favour of these alternative electoral methods, I think of the mess Italy has with their system. No thank you.

Wait is that the only alternative to FPTP?

[TimG]

If equal representation per vote is an elementary school concept then we've lost something along the way.

Wrong. Equal representation means every has one chance to vote.

I prefer systems that allows people to directly choose who they want to govern and then actually produce the parliament Canadians vote for.

Yet you are not advocating that we have a PR system like Israel which allows fringe parties to control swing votes. So you also think that the job of governing the country is more important that ensuring that every minority has a voice. So you can hardly argue that you are arguing based on some principle of 'equal representation' - practical concerns matter.

It is hard for people to see past the adversarial political environment we have now and imagine the, issue by issue, consensus building that would form in time.

You have a naive and unrealistic view of how parliament works. No parliament in the world represents all views. They all create 'governing coalitions' between the 1 and 3 place parties or the 2 and 3rd place parties that leave a large chunk of voters who voted for the 1st or 2nd place party with no 'representation' (using your definition).

The only 'benefit' that PR brings is it gives parties representing minority views the power to impose their views on the majority because of the competitive dynamics between the two largest parties.

If we are to be ruled my parties representing a minority of the electorate it should be the party that has the largest number of votes rather than a party with 5% of vote.

Edited March 5, 2013 by TimG

[shortlived]

No parliament in the world represents all views.

The only 'benefit' that PR brings is it gives parties representing minority views the power to impose their views on the majority because of the competitive dynamics between the two largest parties.

If we are to be ruled my parties representing a minority of the electorate it should be the party that has the largest number of votes rather than a party with 5% of vote.

I would say and why doesn't the legislative system represent all views. Well if everyone had a vote on the issues they would. We have the capability to deliver that to the public, so we should do that. It is only corruption that prevents that from occuring.

Its not really a two largest parties system anymore its more of a three largest parties. It is just cult making rather than sane appraisal of how issues be resolved. The problem is some issues don't need to be dealt with by government but partisan interests force their values on others for issues that have no common ground in society at large, that is a problem.

I really do think that we should for the most part remove or rather reinforce the prohibition of legislators from holding executive office. There is to much room for corruption. Confirm heads of departments through parliament from qualified applicants the applicants should be non partisan also. But no corruption remains and that is why the Canadian system fails the public. Ministers should not be members of caucus or conspiring with legislators, they should be running their ministries not pushing personal agendas.

Set up ministerial committees to keep advised of issues but no don't make running ministries partisan, it is the bane of a non corrupt, and unbiased public administration.

Edited March 5, 2013 by shortlived