Electoral Reform a Must for Real Democracy in Canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

The U.S. Constitution in this case did not prevent tyranny. The weasels managed to get away with it despite it. The U.S. violates the world, especially after the Bush authoritarian government was installed by the Supreme Court.

OK...it was so much fun....that U.S. voters re-elected President Bush in 2004. Sorry "world"...better luck next time.

No, I've only voted in Canadian elections. The Queen is not democratically elected. The fact one un-elected head of state recognizes the legitimacy of another doesn't change the fact its still a non-elected Head of State.

This does not help your credibility...the Canadian head of state isn't even elected but you have time to rail against another nation's elections process. Maybe you can vote for one of her hats.

[Paradox]

This does not help your credibility...the Canadian head of state isn't even elected but you have time to rail against another nation's elections process. Maybe you can vote for one of her hats.

Oh, please.

The electoral process in Canada has nothing to do with the order of succession to the throne.

Her Majesty the Queen of Canada is the head of state, whereas The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (Calgary Southwest), the Prime Minister, is the head of government. This is very much a structural contrast between the Canadian system and the United States system, whereby the president is simultaneously the head of state, and the head of government. Our system has the advantages of an appointed executive branch that is accountable to an elected legislature (in the directly-elected House of Commons).

Ours is a system which allows for legislative decision-making and supervision of the executive to be driven by the elected House of Commons, with broad authority and mandate for Her Majesty's Government for Canada to make the decisions and to take the actions that are, in the opinion of the Government, the most responsible decisions for the executive governance of Canada.

A decision is not the right one only because it is the decision of the majority, and this is an aspect of single-member plurality electoral system of which I am tremendously supportive. A Government should have some latitude, as should the legislature, to make decisions that are at times at odds with popular opinion, with the mature understanding (on the part of legislators, government, and the people) that it is the responsibility of the Parliament of Canada to act not only in ways that we want, but in ways that are in the best interests of the peace, order, and good government of Canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh, please.

The electoral process in Canada has nothing to do with the order of succession to the throne.

Yes...we violently agree. Canadians have no direct influence on their reigning head of state. Democracy at its finest !

...A decision is not the right one only because it is the decision of the majority, and this is an aspect of single-member plurality electoral system of which I am tremendously supportive. A Government should have some latitude, as should the legislature, to make decisions that are at times at odds with popular opinion, with the mature understanding (on the part of legislators, government, and the people) that it is the responsibility of the Parliament of Canada to act not only in ways that we want, but in ways that are in the best interests of the peace, order, and good government of Canada.

Agreed....which is also the intent of the U.S. A.'s constitutional republic. But I guess it is more exciting to whine about elections in the U.S. and George Bush instead than to stay on topic.

[jacee]

LIFE is not endless compromise,

You'll have to defend that opinion.

We carve ourselves spaces within which we operate autonomously personally it's true, but governance by the people means collaboration, combining information and ideas, and sometimes compromise ... even within a political party.

but at least you are acknowledging that we will have endless compromise.

Oh for pete's sake.

How else do 34m diverse people govern themselves?

A few muscleman imposing their will on the rest of us?

Edited March 6, 2013 by jacee

[kairos]

OK...it was so much fun....that U.S. voters re-elected President Bush in 2004. Sorry "world"...better luck next time.

Yes that was the saddest plebiscite on the Nations' collective unintelligence in its entire history. It made the US the laughing stock of the world, and almost caused the world economy to collapse. Its nothing to be proud of.

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/X/_/bush_dailymirror_dumb_people.jpg

This does not help your credibility...the Canadian head of state

isn't even elected but you have time to rail against another nation's

elections process. Maybe you can vote for one of her hats.

Its a constitutional monarchy, which means the queens' power is almost limited to obscurity. That said I consider that power to even be too much as happened when her representative allowed the conservatives to prorogue the government, and stop the no confidence vote that would have had another election happen. In that there is not so much difference to what the Supreme Court did in Florida.

[Michael Hardner]

You'll have to defend that opinion.

We carve ourselves spaces within which we operate autonomously personally it's true, but governance by the people means collaboration, combining information and ideas, and sometimes compromise ... even within a political party.

Oh for pete's sake.

How else do 34m diverse people govern themselves?

A few muscleman imposing their will on the rest of us?

1. Today, I got up and went to the bathroom. I didn't have to negotiate with anyone - I just went. Proof concluded.

2. You concur in the 2nd paragraph.

3. Sometimes compromise is necessary, always compromise is something we've never had so why do we need to do it ? To satisfy some theoretical math of the will of the people ? There's no real reason to do this - our governance system at this point in history appears to be superior to others.

4. China has very little democracy at all - so there are other options in the world, yes.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes that was the saddest plebiscite on the Nations' collective unintelligence in its entire history. It made the US the laughing stock of the world, and almost caused the world economy to collapse. Its nothing to be proud of.

More obsessing on the U.S. election, eh? Does this mean that the "world" doesn't give a damn who gets 'elected' in Canada ?

...Its a constitutional monarchy, which means the queens' power is almost limited to obscurity. That said I consider that power to even be too much as happened when her representative allowed the conservatives to prorogue the government, and stop the no confidence vote that would have had another election happen. In that there is not so much difference to what the Supreme Court did in Florida.

Except that it was much funnier in Canada, where permission from the Queen to proroque Parliament was compared to "asking for Mommy's permission".

[kairos]

What's the difference between the U.S. two party state and the Chinese one party state?

One Party.

[kairos]

More obsessing on the U.S. election, eh? Does this mean that the "world" doesn't give a damn who gets 'elected' in Canada ?

Yes because Canada isn't invading any country that has large enough oil reserves to garner its interests.

Edited March 6, 2013 by kairos

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes because Canada isn't invading any country that has large enough oil reserves to garner its interests.

Guess again......Canadian mining companies have the largest footprint in the world and Canadian contractors scrambled like cockroaches from Libya when PM's party with Gaddafi was over.

Canada has less direct democracy than the United States....have fun waiting until 2015 for the first shot at unseating PM Harper.

Edited March 6, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Mighty AC]

I don't know what we're trying to fix here, except possibly denying the conservatives power and adjusting some theoretical mathematics that we don't agree with.

We're trying to fix an electoral system that distorts the way Canadians vote and leaves 50% of the population without representation. Proportional rep systems will not deny any party power. Instead they will provide every party with the amount of power Canadians actually grant them at the ballot box.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, this is the theoretical math I referred to. Basically minority governments forever, not impressive.

[Topaz]

I really don't care if the senate is elected or appointed but the problems seems to be the "quality" of the person appointed. I not sure how Harper selected his bunch, maybe he pulled their names out of a hat. I can't agree with the NDP to get rid of it, not yet anyway, but we need better quality of people..

[Mighty AC]

Yes, this is the theoretical math I referred to. Basically minority governments forever, not impressive.

Yeah, electing the parliament Canadians actually vote for sure is theoretical. It's not supposed to be impressive...just democratic. Majorities are possible if more than half of the electorate chooses one party, you know, like the word majority suggests. Pretty darn theoretical.

I find the vote distorting FPTP system that leaves half the country without representation to be far more problematic.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Mighty AC

[ReeferMadness]

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.

Who cares?? I communicate with my MP mainly by email. It doesn't matter where he is.

I'd rather have a representative 1000 miles away who will represent my views in parliament than someone down the street who will just represent the party line to me. Honestly, what have we to lose?? Under the current system, MP's are nobodies who job it is to parrot the party speaking notes. The real power is held by some unelected hanger-on in the PMO.

[Mighty AC]

I agree that STV is a problem for sparsely populated areas, that's why I prefer MMP.

[Bonam]

Who cares?? I communicate with my MP mainly by email. It doesn't matter where he is.

I'd rather have a representative 1000 miles away who will represent my views in parliament than someone down the street who will just represent the party line to me. Honestly, what have we to lose?? Under the current system, MP's are nobodies who job it is to parrot the party speaking notes. The real power is held by some unelected hanger-on in the PMO.

Umm the majority of MPs would still be nobodies who do nothing but tow the party line whether we had STV or any other voting system. That is the nature of parties in Canada.

[ReeferMadness]

Umm the majority of MPs would still be nobodies who do nothing but tow the party line whether we had STV or any other voting system. That is the nature of parties in Canada.

I agree that there are issues with parties that transcend voting systems. However, I will say that STV will encourage loyalty to the constituency over loyalty to the party. The reason is as follows: Under FPTP, if you are running in a "safe seat", you owe your loyalty to the party because the party is getting you elected. It doesn't matter how good the candidate is, an NDP candidate isn't getting elected in central Alberta. Under STV, however, if you have a 7 seat district, now each party will probably field 7 candidates and some of them won't be elected. Candidates will have to battle to get re-elected every election. They are competing, not just with other parties but against other members of their own party.

[ReeferMadness]

I agree that STV is a problem for sparsely populated areas, that's why I prefer MMP.

It's only a problem if you think it's a problem. Tell me the last time you say your MP in person. And did it really need to be in person or would a phone call have sufficed?

The issue with MMP is that it gives the party more power and the parties have too much already.

Having said that, I would still prefer MMP (or any proportional system) to FPTP.

[ReeferMadness]

Yes, this is the theoretical math I referred to. Basically minority governments forever, not impressive.

Theoretical math? Could you point to some of that theoretical math for me? I've seen how STV is calculated and it requires mathematical operations like addition and division. Are they theoretical??

[Mighty AC]

It's only a problem if you think it's a problem. Tell me the last time you say your MP in person. And did it really need to be in person or would a phone call have sufficed?

The issue with MMP is that it gives the party more power and the parties have too much already.

Having said that, I would still prefer MMP (or any proportional system) to FPTP.

I live in the same hood as my MP so I run into him occasionally...unfortunately not yet with my car. Local representation is considered important because the MP should be familiar with a district and potentially be able to advocate for it. Under STV proportionality increases with the number of members per super riding. In sparse areas a super riding will have to be geographically massive which reduces an MPs familiarity with local issues.

How would MMP increase party power?

[Bonam]

They are competing, not just with other parties but against other members of their own party.

Says who? Parties will look at polls, see that they are polling say 40% in a riding, and select enough party loyalists to fill up 40% of the seats (i.e. 4 in a 10 seat riding), with maybe 1 or 2 extra throwaway candidates in case the party experiences a sudden surge in the last days of the campaign. The throwaways would be instructed not to compete with the presumed winners lest their future in the party be terminated by the leadership. Parties are well organized and would run these things so as to ensure party cohesion, meaning little/no internal competition, as that's the last thing they want.

[Bonam]

How would MMP increase party power?

Umm, isn't it obvious? MMP involves party lists, lists of people who get seats by virtue of the party leadership allocating said seats to them, rather than being personally elected. These people are accountable to no one besides the party leadership. Not only does this further increase the power of the party, it also entrenches and formalizes the idea of parties in our electoral system.

[ReeferMadness]

I live in the same hood as my MP so I run into him occasionally...unfortunately not yet with my car. Local representation is considered important because the MP should be familiar with a district and potentially be able to advocate for it. Under STV proportionality increases with the number of members per super riding. In sparse areas a super riding will have to be geographically massive which reduces an MPs familiarity with local issues.

How would MMP increase party power?

Sounds like you don't exactly love your MP. Under STV, you would have multiple MP's and the chances of getting at least one you like increase greatly.

As far as local representation goes:

• If your MP's party is not in power, then your local representation is worth squat.
• If your MP's party is in power, then your local representation could be in the form of pork-barreling (e.g Tony Clement).

[ReeferMadness]

Says who? Parties will look at polls, see that they are polling say 40% in a riding, and select enough party loyalists to fill up 40% of the seats (i.e. 4 in a 10 seat riding), with maybe 1 or 2 extra throwaway candidates in case the party experiences a sudden surge in the last days of the campaign. The throwaways would be instructed not to compete with the presumed winners lest their future in the party be terminated by the leadership. Parties are well organized and would run these things so as to ensure party cohesion, meaning little/no internal competition, as that's the last thing they want.

If parties are going to be that corrupt, then we might as well give up now. No system is going to fix that.