Electoral Reform a Must for Real Democracy in Canada.

[Bonam]

I dislike the condescending and insulting view that many in this thread seem to have of the general population. The unwashed masses don't understand my pet voting system, they are just too stupid to get it! If only they knew, if only they were as smart and educated as I, there's no way they wouldn't love my pet system!

Maybe the people do get it and your pet system just isn't that good?

[Mighty AC]

Having been part of an information campaign in Ontario I was able to talk with many people about this subject. In my experience very few understood our FPTP system and even fewer could comprehend the proposed MMP system. The volume of people was large enough that I feel the ignorance I encountered would hold true across the province.

I don't assume that people would necessarily prefer a proportional system once educated; but, I also don't think the results of a vote on a topic that few understand are meaningful.

[Boges]

Having been part of an information campaign in Ontario I was able to talk with many people about this subject. In my experience very few understood our FPTP system and even fewer could comprehend the proposed MMP system. The volume of people was large enough that I feel the ignorance I encountered would hold true across the province.I don't assume that people would necessarily prefer a proportional system once educated; but, I also don't think the results of a vote on a topic that few understand are meaningful.

It's the advocates fault people didn't understand. What makes you think said people will understand now?

Was the Ontario MMP proposal rushed? It was the McGuinty Liberals that proposed it. BTW the McGuinty Liberals came one seat from a majority with an only 2% lead over the PCs.

[shortlived]

A direct vote for every citizen is the only way to insure fair representation, these new party politics systems only serve to enfranchise the most dominant parties political bureaucrats (often who are controlled by either the party heads itself or a very small segment of the local population), limiting choice and effectively just reinforcing partisan interest in government.

The only democratic option is the direct vote, and open submission of legislation suggestions. We have the technology to allow direct vote via atm/id(with an id number which connects to their public moniker for vote verification although people could choose to use their real name as their monkier/online and phone in voting. We have internet to post legislation and to post amendment suggestions (a voting Wikipedia type "legisipedia" where people can amend and vote on amendments.

We need to insure open participation of all to insure enfranchisement. Anything else is just more of the old, more corruption and more ignorance of the little man.

It is just another form of party rule, that the west struggled against so greatly, why should our political systems offer as much freedom of those communist party rule systems that were fretted against so greatly?

We must insure power to the people not the hands of the few LIBERTY AND FREEDOM FOR ALL!

We shouldn't be voting on people, we should be voting on issues.

Edited February 27, 2013 by shortlived

[Boges]

A direct vote for every citizen is the only way to insure fair representation, these new party politics systems only serve to enfranchise the most dominant parties political bureaucrats (often who are controlled by either the party heads itself or a very small segment of the local population), limiting choice and effectively just reinforcing partisan interest in government.

The only democratic option is the direct vote, and open submission of legislation suggestions. We have the technology to allow direct vote via atm/id/online and phone in voting. We have internet to post legislation and to post amendment suggestions (a voting Wikipedia type "legisipedia" where people can amend and vote on amendments.

We need to insure open participation of all to insure enfranchisement. Anything else is just more of the old, more corruption and more ignorance of the little man.

It is just another form of party rule, that the west struggled against so greatly, why should our political systems offer as much freedom of those communist party rule systems that were fretted against so greatly?

We must insure power to the people not the hands of the few LIBERTY AND FREEDOM FOR ALL!

We shouldn't be voting on people, we should be voting on issues.

So every law being passed becomes a national referendum. Yeeeeeaaaahhhh Good Luck with that.

[shortlived]

So every law being passed becomes a national referendum. Yeeeeeaaaahhhh Good Luck with that.

Every federal law would be a federal referendum, I suggest at the beginning and end of the legislative process before ascent.

That is Mps are "rubber stamped" or well taken to a popular vote. on any law they propose, as well the people should have the ability to send legislation to the house of commons.

There should be a means of sending priority items to the house.

I think what we will discover is in large part laws are just make work projects for Mps who have nothing better to do than make laws.

I think it is well within the ability of most Canadians to go online once a month and vote on laws that concern them, or phone in and vote, etc.. what is so difficult about this concept for you?

I would suggest a super marjority of 2/3rds for any law to be passed. With the aim of limiting partisanship.

Likewise the effect of the public bringing forth the legislation would likely dumb stuff down, and address the issues people actually care about rather than an agenda of a stratified political party.

Edited February 27, 2013 by shortlived

[Mighty AC]

It's the advocates fault people didn't understand. What makes you think said people will understand now?

Was the Ontario MMP proposal rushed? It was the McGuinty Liberals that proposed it. BTW the McGuinty Liberals came one seat from a majority with an only 2% lead over the PCs.

My goal for a proportional voting system isn't to produce a favoured government. I simply want a system that produces the parliament Canadians vote for. As you have illustrated in your examples, the FPTP distorts the vote.

[hitops]

My goal for a proportional voting system isn't to produce a favoured government. I simply want a system that produces the parliament Canadians vote for. As you have illustrated in your examples, the FPTP distorts the vote.

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. 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.

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.

[Bryan]

FPTP distorts the vote.

It on occasion appears to distorts the losers, but accurately reflects the winners. The government we have now got the most votes in the most number of ridings. It doesn't get any more egalitarian than that.

Lets try to get away from the anti-conservative vitriol and look at a fairly recent election that predates their formation like the 1993 election:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993

The Liberals winning that election is without controversy. Most votes, Most seats. Simple. The only party with reason to bitch about their position is the PCs because they got more votes than both the second and fourth place parties. Even that still doesn't change the fact that they didn't get enough SPECIFIC votes on a riding by riding basis to have any right to say that they represent any more than the two ridings that they did win - those were the only two places where more people liked them than the other choices. Again, it doesn't get any more fair than that.

[shortlived]

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.

lol

[shortlived]

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.

lol

if the shoe fits right cause people from one area all think the same... (and mps vote for their constituents..)

I can only suspect you are from some sheltered backwater untouched by the nuances of modern society outside hickville.

I say that with love, not hate or contempt, or belittlement.

Hows the cult in those parts?

Edited February 28, 2013 by shortlived

[kairos]

"It on occasion appears to distorts the losers, but accurately reflects
the winners. The government we have now got the most votes in the most
number of ridings. It doesn't get any more egalitarian than that."

Except only a minority of Canadians voted for that party and they are in power, and have been despite having consistent minorities prior.

[Michael Hardner]

Having been part of an information campaign in Ontario I was able to talk with many people about this subject. In my experience very few understood our FPTP system and even fewer could comprehend the proposed MMP system. The volume of people was large enough that I feel the ignorance I encountered would hold true across the province.

I don't assume that people would necessarily prefer a proportional system once educated; but, I also don't think the results of a vote on a topic that few understand are meaningful.

They don't understand FPTP ? That's pretty surprising, considering how simple it is - you vote for your local rep, and the elected rep votes in the legislature.

The system needs to be held true to its original design: an informed public voting on issues they understand, with a much more simple agenda for government.

[eyeball]

The system needs to be held true to its original design: an informed public voting on issues they understand, with a much more simple agenda for government.

The only way to achieve that is with sousveillance.

The system's original design relied on the fiction that politicians would remain right and honourable and stay on the straight and narrow because the God that politicians swear their oaths to was looking over their shoulders. If constituents believe that I guess they'll believe anything.

[Mighty AC]

It on occasion appears to distorts the losers, but accurately reflects the winners. The government we have now got the most votes in the most number of ridings. It doesn't get any more egalitarian than that.

The Liberals winning that election is without controversy. Most votes, Most seats. Simple. The only party with reason to bitch about their position is the PCs because they got more votes than both the second and fourth place parties. Even that still doesn't change the fact that they didn't get enough SPECIFIC votes on a riding by riding basis to have any right to say that they represent any more than the two ridings that they did win - those were the only two places where more people liked them than the other choices. Again, it doesn't get any more fair than that.

One million supporters of party x living close together can create significant representation but spread across the country they receive none. One million voters deserve the same amount of representation regardless of their proximity to one another.

[Mighty AC]

On average FPTP leaves half of Canadian voters without representation.

A common example:

Party A, wins a riding with 40% of the vote. The MP now represents the entire riding but should vote in accordance with his/her campaign promises. Thus, on many issues the MP will vote in opposition to the wishes of 60% of the riding. In this example 40% of the vote created representation and 60% was wasted.

Under MMP, almost every vote counts towards the creation of representation in Ottawa. Plus, every riding still has one local person theoretically looking out for the good of that particular area.

[jacee]

They don't understand FPTP ? That's pretty surprising, considering how simple it is - you vote for your local rep, and the elected rep votes in the legislature.

The system needs to be held true to its original design: an informed public voting on issues they understand, with a much more simple agenda for government.

I don't think governance is simple, but what makes it more complex and frustrating for us is entrenched party politics.

We need our representatives to work together on items of importance to all Canadians, regardless of party dogma and jockeying for political points for THE PARTY.

They don't.

I lean toward de-powering the major parties somewhat, to force politicians to collaborate across party lines, and improving representation of the popular vote in parliament.

Edited February 28, 2013 by jacee

[PIK]

The system we have is the best.

[jacee]

The system we have is the best.

Then why are politicians considered the most untrustworthy profession?

Ninety-five per cent of Canadians dont trust politicians

The Ipsos-Reid online survey done for Postmedia News found 95 per cent of those asked feel politicians have little or nothing in common with them. Those same people also dont believe the political elite in Ottawa understands the values and aspirations of average people.

The poll also reveals we generally dont trust our elected officials, especially at the provincial and federal levels and that we feel we pay too much in taxes and dont get good value in return.

Pollsters say this part of a broader trend they call a decline in deference.

Why do only half of us even bother to vote?

Edited February 28, 2013 by jacee

[Mighty AC]

Electoral can't fix dishonesty or the abuse of power. PR will just ensure that if 10% of the country votes for a party X, said party will occupy approximately 10% of the seats. A PR system such as MMP may also increase voter turn out. At present there is no incentive for people to vote in safe ridings.

[jacee]

Electoral [reform] can't fix dishonesty or the abuse of power.

I think it can help, IF we do it in a way that reduces the power of the major parties and makes it more necessary for them to cooperate across party lines.

PR will just ensure that if 10% of the country votes for a party X, said party will occupy approximately 10% of the seats. A PR system such as MMP may also increase voter turn out. At present there is no incentive for people to vote in safe ridings.

That's all good!

[Peanutbutter]

While the system we currently have isn't perfect it's the best from the options available. The only way to really have a majority in each riding is to move to a two party system like the USA. Plenty of riding's are decided with a majority in favor however so it's not entirely true. While it's true that a majority is regarded as 40% of the popular vote, that's the thing about a three party system and having many riding's.

I don't like the idea of having people representing the party and being accountable to no one but the party leader. This will only encourage nepotism, which is the opposite of the direction we need our government to be.

[kairos]

That can be fixed in a proportional representational system where only the people with the most votes in their riding get accorded seats. That way the choice is not up to the party leader.

The US two party system is terrible. Its only one party different than One Party China.

Its not even close to a Democracy. Its a Plutocratic republican with only an illusion of real choice and where corporate nepotism is rife and endemic with the politicians paid off by lobbyists and major corporations.

Edited February 28, 2013 by kairos

[kairos]

Case in point why ridings without proportional representation can be used for the manipulation of election results. Its common practice in the States to design ridings by the demographics so that one's party gets more candidates elected.

The same problem exists in Canada.

http://www.canadianprogressiveworld.com/2012/10/29/new-ridings-to-give-harper-conservatives-unfair-electoral-advantage/#.US_ekzehzYQ

[jacee]

I don't like the idea of having people representing the party and being accountable to no one but the party leader. This will only encourage nepotism, which is the opposite of the direction we need our government to be.

I agree, so we must make them accountable to constituents.

However, with proportionate representation there is more opportunity for more parties to gain seats in the House via the national popular vote. This will challenge the major parties and loosen their grip a bit ... shake them up and make them more attentive to the people instead of their party dogma. They'll have to work at convincing us that they're listening, and making all elected reps march in lockstep to the party line won't be very convincing.

We can elect more people from smaller parties or independents who can break the party juggernauts iron grip.

That's the whole point ... challenge the entrenched parties to work for us, for a change, instead of doing the bidding of their rich benefactors.