Electoral Reform a Must for Real Democracy in Canada.

[Mighty AC]

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.

Other countries using an MMP system fill their list seats with non-winning local candidates who received the greatest percentage of the vote. That tweak rules out nepotism and still creates representation for the nearly 50% of voters whose ballots are wasted by our current FPTP system.

[kairos]

Bingo.

[hitops]

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?

I live in a major city, and have 12+ years of post-secondary education including 6+ years of post-graduate. I am work daily in academia Perhaps its you who are from the 'backwater', or at least the intellectual backwater, as your quickness to make judgments you know literally nothing about demonstrates aptly. The fact that you deride the backwater in any case, supports that further as you have just demonstrated yourself to be willing to paint with the widest brush and the least thought. Or maybe you're just an angry person, who's to say? You've made no argument, just veiled insults.

In any case, your post has nothing to do with mine, so I'm unsure why you made it....other than to indulge your emotions. If you're interested some particular point, maybe you'll let us know.

[hitops]

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.

They are not left without representation, they are just left without the representative they want. Even if every person got to elect the MP they wanted 100% of the time, people still would not be perfectly represented because there are as many opinions as people. Whenever a single person represents more than just him/herself, they are not necessarily representing their constituents. Nature of the beast

Other countries using an MMP system fill their list seats with non-winning local candidates who received the greatest percentage of the vote. That tweak rules out nepotism and still creates representation for the nearly 50% of voters whose ballots are wasted by our current FPTP system.

This might confer representation if the votes went directly to the candidates, not the party. For example you login online and spend your vote on whichever MP you want (not party), and the top MP's sit.

Edited March 2, 2013 by hitops

[shortlived]

You must either be in the field of lying and are trying to manipulate facts, or you honestly must be clueless because quite frankly your statements were a bunch of malarkey. My point was simple PEOPLE DONT THINK THE SAME WAY, and MPs are highly partisan often representing on a very small segment of their constituents views if any.

As stated it wasn't insult it was just my opinion. If I wanted to insult you I'd pick much better means than overt insults and vulgarity.

None the less whatever you studied didn't seem to clue you in to the real world. Good luck with that.

I live in a major city, and have 12+ years of post-secondary education including 6+ years of post-graduate. I am work daily in academia Perhaps its you who are from the 'backwater', or at least the intellectual backwater, as your quickness to make judgments you know literally nothing about demonstrates aptly. The fact that you deride the backwater in any case, supports that further as you have just demonstrated yourself to be willing to paint with the widest brush and the least thought. Or maybe you're just an angry person, who's to say? You've made no argument, just veiled insults.

In any case, your post has nothing to do with mine, so I'm unsure why you made it....other than to indulge your emotions. If you're interested some particular point, maybe you'll let us know.

Just to recap your argument was

" 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"

How does this differ from how all MPs are put in the house currently?

On the contrary I think regional HIVEMIND is far less prevalent than VOTE FOR WHO YOU WANT from a national list. People will be able to find someone to represent their views on a national scale much easier than pick one of 4 on a local scale. This parties pick the people they want though is just partisan BS and counter democratic.It is just party rule systemology.

The only democratic vote is a free vote, were everyone has the vote.

But a vote for a representative anywhere in Canada is far more democratic than the current first past the post riding system.

Edited March 2, 2013 by shortlived

[jacee]

Mighty AC, on 01 Mar 2013 - 09:16, said:

Other countries using an MMP system fill their list seats with non-winning local candidates who received the greatest percentage of the vote. That tweak rules out nepotism and still creates representation for the nearly 50% of voters whose ballots are wasted by our current FPTP system.

This might confer representation if the votes went directly to the candidates, not the party. For example you login online and spend your vote on whichever MP you want (not party), and the top MP's sit.

No I think you miss Mighty AC's point, and it's a good one.

FPTP

Currently, people vote for candidates of different parties in their riding and one wins the MP seat.

PR

Additional seats are assigned to each party, so their percentage of seats matches their percentage of the national vote.

Mighty AC says those additional seats could be filled by the party's best losing candidates - ie, those who got the biggest percentage of the vote in their riding (but didn't win).

Advantages:

FPTP stays as is - people vote the same way.

It can all be calculated from the same vote.

The additional reps make the House reflect the national popular vote.

The additional reps are tied to constituencies - perhaps regional, not just riding, to represent the people who didn't vote for the winning party.

The additional reps are known, and people voted for them personally.

They answer to people, not just the party.

But ... I would also suggest that these new reps have to fulfill some of the duties of the current 'political staffers' to avoid bloating government.

Also, likely redrawing ridings to make them larger, again to avoid making government bigger.

[hitops]

You must either be in the field of lying

I guess that's where the reading stops, you're not making yourself very much worth the time. Could use a refresher in communication skills as well. If you're interested in saying something intelligent, please do so.

Edited March 3, 2013 by hitops

[hitops]

No I think you miss Mighty AC's point, and it's a good one.

FPTP

Currently, people vote for candidates of different parties in their riding and one wins the MP seat.

PR

Additional seats are assigned to each party, so their percentage of seats matches their percentage of the national vote.

Mighty AC says those additional seats could be filled by the party's best losing candidates - ie, those who got the biggest percentage of the vote in their riding (but didn't win).

Advantages:

FPTP stays as is - people vote the same way.

It can all be calculated from the same vote.

The additional reps make the House reflect the national popular vote.

The additional reps are tied to constituencies - perhaps regional, not just riding, to represent the people who didn't vote for the winning party.

The additional reps are known, and people voted for them personally.

They answer to people, not just the party.

But ... I would also suggest that these new reps have to fulfill some of the duties of the current 'political staffers' to avoid bloating government.

Also, likely redrawing ridings to make them larger, again to avoid making government bigger.

I see the logic in it, I also think that candidates in less voter-dense ridings would be at a disadvantage, and the party could place its friends and loyalists in voter-dense but unlikely-to-win ridings. Or would this be purely on a percentage of vote/riding basis?

There is also the issue that obviously, with PR you will get unending minority governments that get little done and constantly lurch from confidence crisis to confidence crisis.

Another issue I see is that essentially what would be happening is voters from some other part of the country would be helping a candidate of their party and not necessary their own candidate. Perhaps they actually really love their candidate because that candidate stands up for values they like even in the face of the party. Well if votes transfer to the 'best loser', that eliminates that independence and increase lock-step party line loyaly which diminishes representative democracy.

Edited March 3, 2013 by hitops

[shortlived]

I guess that's where the reading stops, you're not making yourself very much worth the time. Could use a refresher in communication skills as well. If you're interested in saying something intelligent, please do so.

No actually I'm fine, I share my opinion, your are clearly prone to being obtuse. As stated your opening statements were either intentional deception or out of touch with the real world. Have your pick. You are just denying the fallacy of your opening statements, and offer absolutely nothing to back that up. It comes off as nothing more than a scarecrow.

I sincerely doubt you are a post doc academic, an academic would have backed up their statements rather than whining.

Edited March 3, 2013 by shortlived

[jacee]

I see the logic in it, I also think that candidates in less voter-dense ridings would be at a disadvantage, and the party could place its friends and loyalists in voter-dense but unlikely-to-win ridings. Or would this be purely on a percentage of vote/riding basis?

"Voter-dense" doesn't matter.

The number of additional seats per party is determined by national popular vote. Who fills those seats is determined by the local percentage of votes.

There is also the issue that obviously, with PR you will get unending minority governments that get little done and constantly lurch from confidence crisis to confidence crisis.

With more parties in the House, it's less likely there will be the combined action needed for confidence votes. And there are more opportunities for the winning party to form alliances to pass legislation and to stay in power, and to actually accomplish things Canadians want done.

Another issue I see is that essentially what would be happening is voters from some other part of the country would be helping a candidate of their party and not necessary their own candidate. Perhaps they actually really love their candidate because that candidate stands up for values they like even in the face of the party. Well if votes transfer to the 'best loser', that eliminates that independence and increase lock-step party line loyaly which diminishes representative democracy.

PR decreases the lock-step party line loyalty because more parties are in the House and major parties have to form alliances with reps they can't threaten and order around.

PR specifically breaks the grip of of 'lock-step' party line imposed on all Canadians by false majority governments fulfilling corporate agendas.

Edited March 4, 2013 by jacee

[August1991]

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

I disagree. It is critical that voters near each other choose a representative. Regionalism, not ideology, drives Canada's federal politics. It makes sense that we have FPTP representation.

PR depends critically on party lists and such a system would concentrate power further, placing even more power in the hands of the party leader (or the party's apparatchiks).

PR decreases the lock-step party line loyalty because....

On the contrary, jacee, PR increases "lock step" party control. Under PR, to become an MP, one must first be on the party list. Ambitious politicians lobby within the party to put their name higher.

Edited March 4, 2013 by August1991

[August1991]

Canada is large and geographically diverse enough to require local representation. MMP is my preferred solution...

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.

I tend to agree. My preference is for a ballot with rankings. (Wikipedia refers to this as the Condorcet method.) We cannot expect voters to know all the complexities of public issues. But surely, in a civilized democracy, it is possible for the average voter to put a number beside a list of names. If voters want, they can pick one name only - as we do now.

Among the various failings of modern democracies is that voters have no way to express the strength of their opinion. A voter can at best choose one party/candidate or not vote at all. I think voters should have the additional option of saying: "I definitely don't want this guy."

----

I don't like MMP if only because it tends to lead to complex machinations, and too much party power: like PR. In countries where it is used, election night is uneventful because no one really knows who won. It can take months to decide that, and voters typically feel that they decide nothing.

Edited March 4, 2013 by August1991

[August1991]

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 fundamentally disagree.

If I spend time researching a car purchase, I benefit directly when I get the car that I want.

Why should I spend hours researching a proposal to build a new bridge across the St-Lawrence when I can let my "smart" neighbour across the street do the work for me?

----

As anyone who has done a home reno knows, a lot of the critical work occurs during the planning stage. And as the Soviet Union shows, if something belongs to everyone, it belongs to no one.

The incentives in a private car purchase are correctly aligned since buyers exert effort to seek the best car. For government decisions, no individual has an incentive to research, decide or even reveal a true preference. The result is a shared resource.

The typical voter wisely spends far more time researching the purchase of a car than they ever do researching a political party/candidate. And yet, the typical voter spends more in monthly taxes than they do in a car lease.

-----

Gawd, I hate editing/using this forum with Windows 8.

Edited March 4, 2013 by August1991

[jacee]

I disagree. It is critical that voters near each other choose a representative. Regionalism, not ideology, drives Canada's federal politics. It makes sense that we have FPTP representation.

I'm in favour of a system where we keep FPTP and add proportional representation to it.

PR depends critically on party lists and such a system would concentrate power further, placing even more power in the hands of the party leader (or the party's apparatchiks).

Not if we control the party lists with our votes - ie, as Mighty AC said, the PR reps are losing candidates who got the largest percentage of votes in their ridings (without winning a seat in FPTP).

On the contrary, jacee, PR increases "lock step" party control. Under PR, to become an MP, one must first be on the party list. Ambitious politicians lobby within the party to put their name higher.

That's only one version. The parties only want to propose that version, but we are free to propose alternatives like above, that give voters more control than parties.

The best way to break lock-step party control is via PR: More parties, more collaboration across party lines, and if we do it right, more accountability to constituents.

[TimG]

The best way to break lock-step party control is via PR: More parties, more collaboration across party lines, and if we do it right, more accountability to constituents.

Sorry. Does not compute. Perpetual minorities means the parties will always be grandstanding and putting their desire to increase their vote ahead of the national interest. If you throw fringe parties into the mix then we will have a tiny minority dictating policy for the majority in some situations.

The best way to improve the system is to affirm the right of MPs to dispose the PM and replace him/her with one elected from their number - no matter what the party constitution says. This would mean the PM would have to listen to backbenchers and be a break on the power of the party whips.

Edited March 4, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

I don't like MMP if only because it tends to lead to complex machinations, and too much party power: like PR. In countries where it is used, election night is uneventful because no one really knows who won. It can take months to decide that, and voters typically feel that they decide nothing.

That's true in some versions of PR, but not the version we're discussing here.

- Your single vote is used to elect FPTP MP's as usual.

- National popular vote determines how many additional seats each party gets, to match the percentage of seats to the popular vote.

- Local riding votes determine who fills the extra seats for each party - non-winning candidates with the largest percentage of local votes.

And it's all calculated quickly from the same votes on election night.

That's the version I prefer.

[August1991]

And it's all calculated quickly from the same votes on election night.

It's not.

----

Jacee, I think that in a democracy, voters should work a bit on election day and indicate more than a single choice: voters should also decide a second choice.

Rather than put an X beside one name, why not put a 1? And then a 2 beside another name? And why not a 100 beside the name of someone the voter does not want.

Voters should have the ability to vote for one candidate, but also vote against another candidate.

[shortlived]

It's not.

----

Jacee, I think that in a democracy, voters should work a bit on election day and indicate more than a single choice: voters should also decide a second choice.

Rather than put an X beside one name, why not put a 1? And then a 2 beside another name? And why not a 100 beside the name of someone the voter does not want.

Voters should have the ability to vote for one candidate, but also vote against another candidate.

Its hard enough finding even one candidate I'd vote for let alone 2.

[jacee]

It's not.

Yes it is.

You are talking about a different kind of PR.

----

Jacee, I think that in a democracy, voters should work a bit on election day and indicate more than a single choice: voters should also decide a second choice.

Rather than put an X beside one name, why not put a 1? And then a 2 beside another name? And why not a 100 beside the name of someone the voter does not want.

Voters should have the ability to vote for one candidate, but also vote against another candidate.

That's another possibility.

[Mighty AC]

It's not.

----

Jacee, I think that in a democracy, voters should work a bit on election day and indicate more than a single choice: voters should also decide a second choice.

Rather than put an X beside one name, why not put a 1? And then a 2 beside another name? And why not a 100 beside the name of someone the voter does not want.

Voters should have the ability to vote for one candidate, but also vote against another candidate.

The version of MMP proposed for Ontario would have required two ballots to be cast. One for the local candidate and one for the governing party, with the latter determining the popular vote. By the time the polls close out west we would know what parliament will look like. We may not know who the exact list MPs would be for a day or two (depending on the list selection method used), but we would know all the local MPs and the percentage of the house each party would occupy.

I like the idea of raking candidates and would prefer a system like STV or an instant runoff used to elect the local representative under an MMP system. That would ensure a representative parliament and a better fit for local candidates.

[Boges]

The Ranking idea is absolutely horrible. Let's say you only support one party? Is your ballot spoiled if you don't provide a second choice?

The ranking system could allow a candidate that is the first choice of very few people win because the most people don't find him totally objectionable. For example if I HAD to rank the major parties I might to put the Liberals second, but what if I don't want them to win and they have more perceived support than the NDP? I would never put the Liberals second, I would always put the NDP second in-order to dimish the Liberals chance or winning. So with this system you're more voting for who want to lose more than who you want to win. How many people who hate the Conservatives would put them last (behind the Communist party and the Christian Heritage Party just to keep them from being elected)

It's a system fraught with problems and I hope it never sees the light of day.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Boges

[Mighty AC]

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?

You can read up on STV here. It happens to be the voting system that the majority (58%) of BC residents chose as their electoral system in 2005 but was still defeated by the minority.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Mighty AC

[Boges]

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.

[Bryan]

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.

That's exactly what it is. "You wouldn't vote for us normally, but we're going to force you to do it".

[jacee]

That's exactly what it is. "You wouldn't vote for us normally, but we're going to force you to do it".

Not true. You are not "forced" to rank all or any parties but one ... or none ... as you choose.

And ranking parties is just one form of proportionate representation voting.

This is the best discussion I've seen yet about PR.

The purpose is to ensure that the percentage of seats each party gets is the same as their popular vote.

Here's a wikilink for basic info

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

STV - single transferable vote was proposed for BC

MMP - mixed member proportional was proposed for Ontario.

In any proposal we have to be alert to the fact that the political parties will propose and try to impose something that gives them more power. Thus, in my opinion, the best way to sort out what works best for us is in forums such as this and other informal grassroots discussions.

For example, the Ontario Liberals insisted that the parties control who gets selected for their extra party seats - the party list. I strongly disagree with that: Those reps must also be selected by OUR votes, I believe. The Ont Libs sabotaged the whole process anyway, so it didn't matter.

But I think it's a really good thing for the democratic process to have the discussion and consider the pros and cons of the alternatives.

What's important, I think, is that an improvement benefits us, not political parties.

It also helps if it's fairly simple to understand, similar to current voting, and cost effective.

Edited March 5, 2013 by jacee