Electoral Reform a Must for Real Democracy in Canada.

[Boges]

I pointed out numerous times on this thread how this could be fixed. Ridings are still used, but only the people who received the most votes in their ridings go to Ottawa. The proportional numbers determine the number of seats, then the people sent are those who received the most from their ridings.

And pointed out numerous times, in Ontario anyway, the idea of this got panned in a referendum.

This thread is just one big circular argument on both sides.

[kairos]

Well that's too bad for Ontario. Ontario doesn't speak for Canada.

[jacee]

And pointed out numerous times, in Ontario anyway, the idea of this got panned in a referendum.

This thread is just one big circular argument on both sides.

The information program was sabotaged. People weren't well informed.

People understand and mostly agree with the concept of party seats in proportion to popular vote.

We get bogged down in the details of how to do it, but it's doable.

[hitops]

I pointed out numerous times on this thread how this could be fixed. Ridings are still used, but only the people who received the most votes in their ridings go to Ottawa. The proportional numbers determine the number of seats, then the people sent are those who received the most from their ridings.

And the drawback is that it means some ridings would have a lot more influence over the results than others. Basically anywhere the result is very close, the loser is going anyway because of high percentage of the vote. Certain ridings would therefore systematically send 2 MP's while others never would. It seems unfair to allow some ridings to have double the influence. Parties could very easily identify those ridings and simply place favored people where they know they will be MP's even if they lose. Being a candidate who is therefore not able to win on your own merit but rather because of party placement, you are even more beholding to the party than they are now.

Not saying its the worst system, but it really just takes one kind of imbalance and replaces it with another.

Edited March 8, 2013 by hitops

[Mighty AC]

How much does this happen ?

Initially when you wrote that, I came up with a counter example but then I came up with an example where this does happen too.

The example I was thinking that supports your argument is Environmental Policy, specifically Kyoto support. The Liberals were behind it, and the Conservatives not.

But I also feel that issues of that magnitude are not well solved by democracies anyway. Look at the US where there is arguably more input into the political process ... congress, the senate etc.

Environmental policy, social policy, crime and punishment legislation... The majority of European countries use proportional electoral systems and they seem to be dealing with large environmental issues pretty well.

And the environment is one issue where endless compromise is not what is needed. China, a dictatorship, is in a far better position to make real change on this issue.You have to explain how FPTP causes apathy, as I don't see Italy or the other countries having a different view of their governments.

A huge number of Canadians do not even have a hope of creating representation for their views, based on the riding they live in. There really isn't an incentive to vote if you have an minority view point.

I'm pretty sure you would enrage any conservative in this country by getting rid of the only system that gives them (occasional) majority rule. All you would do by replacing FPTP is get the 5-10% Green Party voters excited at the expense of the 30% of conservative supporters.

I think we should elect the parliament Canadians actually vote for regardless of the result. It seems that much of the informed opposition to proportional systems hinges on the desire to engineer a preferred outcome. Conservatives like FPTP because, thanks to the united right, our system awards them with undeserved support. Not long ago, when the NDP was weak and the right divided, FPTP undervalued conservative votes.

Your point is something to be considered in the context of trying to build support for reform. Convincing the people in power to replace a system that gives them an undeserved advantage is tough. Harper, McGuinty and Chretien were in favour of PR until they benefited from the vote distorting power of FPTP. However, your point should not be considered when designing or choosing a system.

[Bryan]

Environmental policy, social policy, crime and punishment legislation... The majority of European countries use proportional electoral systems and they seem to be dealing with large environmental issues pretty well.

No they're not. They are wasting huge amounts of money chasing unicorns. If PR or the like would land us in the same soup as most European countries, that alone is good enough reason to stay away!

[Mighty AC]

I know, won't it suck if we make the world a better, cleaner, more sustainable place and climate change was just a hoax. Won't we look silly.

Anyway, the Brits still use FPTP to elect their parliament.

[Michael Hardner]

Environmental policy, social policy, crime and punishment legislation... The majority of European countries use proportional electoral systems and they seem to be dealing with large environmental issues pretty well.

Well, it varies. Some EU countries did well, and some worse than Canada.

I don't think that it's clear that such policies are actually reversed as time goes on, but that the general direction changes and there are changes.

A huge number of Canadians do not even have a hope of creating representation for their views, based on the riding they live in. There really isn't an incentive to vote if you have an minority view point.

A huge number, maybe, but not a huge percentage.

PR gives such people more of a voice (in perpetual minority governments) but less time at the helm with clear authority to govern.

I think we should elect the parliament Canadians actually vote for regardless of the result. It seems that much of the informed opposition to proportional systems hinges on the desire to engineer a preferred outcome. Conservatives like FPTP because, thanks to the united right, our system awards them with undeserved support. Not long ago, when the NDP was weak and the right divided, FPTP undervalued conservative votes.

If you persist on using such subjective language as "awards Conservatives with undeserved support" then I will respond in kind.

Namely - PR system eradicates the Conservative viewpoint from the map and eliminates them from having any meaningful power whatsoever. For a system that purports to correct unfairness and so-called wasted votes, this is beyond hypocritical, it is deceptive.

Your point is something to be considered in the context of trying to build support for reform. Convincing the people in power to replace a system that gives them an undeserved advantage is tough. Harper, McGuinty and Chretien were in favour of PR until they benefited from the vote distorting power of FPTP. However, your point should not be considered when designing or choosing a system.

I don't see how the conservatives, who have ruled for - by my count - 18 of the last 50 years have received distorting power. If anyone has, its the liberals who hold power even when the NDP only holds the balance of power.

And guess who would benefit the most from this arrangement ? The Liberals of course.

[kairos]

And the drawback is that it means some ridings would have a lot more

influence over the results than others. Basically anywhere the result

is very close, the loser is going anyway because of high percentage of

the vote. Certain ridings would therefore systematically send 2 MP's

while others never would. It seems unfair to allow some ridings to have

double the influence. Parties could very easily identify those ridings

and simply place favored people where they know they will be MP's even

if they lose. Being a candidate who is therefore not able to win on

your own merit but rather because of party placement, you are even more

beholding to the party than they are now.

Not saying its the worst system, but it really just takes one kind of imbalance and replaces it with another.

Yes there is some truth to that. There are advantages and disadvantages either way. Although there would be some imbalance in the number of seats coming from ridings, far more people who be getting their votes represented on a national level. I think the latter outweighs the first. For example say you have a riding cut 3 ways, and you have 3 really popular but closely ranked people in the running. If they are all 2 percent apart, and only one gets elected then just under 2/3s will not be represented with their votes on the national level, but with proportional representation everyone will be represented on the national level. There is even a chance that all 2 or even 3 candidates would go on to Ottawa, but that is like you say possibly a disadvantage when a riding with only one candidate might be sent or even none if there are say 6 popular candidates with neither gaining much of a percentage of a vote, but then those candidates weren't really popular from that riding anyway so why should they represent that riding when most of the riding didn't vote for that candidate? And in that scenario at least people are still having their vote reprsented on a national level.

Edited March 9, 2013 by kairos

[August1991]

I think your definition may be missing something. Fidel Castro handed the power of the state to Raúl Castro peacefully as well. I think things proceeded rather smoothly in North Korea as well.

In Cuba, a brother passed State power to another brother.

In North Korea? Same story. Dad dies, State power goes to a son.

Venezuela? Guy died. State power passed to another guy, chosen by State leader.

Soviet Union? Guy dies or is killed. Next guy is chosen, pre-determined.

Vatican? Guy dies. Gives power to next guy.

-----

Democracy?

Guy has State power and a vote/lottery decides that suddenly he doesn't. In a civilized manner, guy accepts to hand this State power to another Guy -who he despises. (George W. Bush gives the White House to Barack Obama. Imagine.)

The US is a civilized democracy because of the precedent set by John Adams.

What is the definition of "democracy"? It is a State where government power passes without death or violence, peacefully, between people who oppose one another.

Edited March 9, 2013 by August1991

[Pliny]

Michael Hardner and I prefer the status quo. That should end this discussion.

[kairos]

That doesn't seem very representative.

[hitops]

Yes there is some truth to that. There are advantages and disadvantages either way. Although there would be some imbalance in the number of seats coming from ridings, far more people who be getting their votes represented on a national level. I think the latter outweighs the first. For example say you have a riding cut 3 ways, and you have 3 really popular but closely ranked people in the running. If they are all 2 percent apart, and only one gets elected then just under 2/3s will not be represented with their votes on the national level, but with proportional representation everyone will be represented on the national level. There is even a chance that all 2 or even 3 candidates would go on to Ottawa, but that is like you say possibly a disadvantage when a riding with only one candidate might be sent or even none if there are say 6 popular candidates with neither gaining much of a percentage of a vote, but then those candidates weren't really popular from that riding anyway so why should they represent that riding when most of the riding didn't vote for that candidate? And in that scenario at least people are still having their vote reprsented on a national level.

I can see the appeal of that on a level. Again I would point out that pure PR would basically eliminate people's ability to vote for an MP and leave them only parties. It assumes people just vote on the 3 very general ideologies presented to them on the national stage rather than specific MP's. This may be true for some, but I prefer at least giving people the chance to vote for more specific, regional candidates. Even with the modified system where extra MP's are awarded to top up the party to their national vote percentage, this still means a higher emphasis on the party rather than the MP since the party determines which MP's run where.

A fairer representative system IMO is one where a voter can choose to vote for any MP in the country. Anybody who meets the requirements can run. They would declare their party, or no party, or any viewpoint imaginable. The number of MP's doesn't matter, but at least several hundred to accommodate the many potential viewpoints. The vote % is then divided exactly according to number voted received by each candidate. Total votes are determined, and divided by number of seats in the house. Rather than simply award the top 308 candidates the seats, the candidates are then awarded power to appoint MP's according to their vote share. So say Elizabeth May alone attracts 5% of the vote, she then assigns 5% of the seats. If everyone loves Jim Flaherty and he gets 15%, then Flaherty, not the CPC, assigns 15% of the seats. Actually a candidate with some vote power does not even need to assign themselves a seat, though I'm sure most of the time they would.

The has the benefits of the modified PR system without any of the dependence on party in filling the house. It would let people vote truly directly for the person they want and that person gets influence accordingly. Of course, parties would still be critical in fundraising, organizing etc for a candidate and that part of their influence would rightly remain as that is part if democracy as well.

Edited March 9, 2013 by hitops

[eyeball]

It assumes people just vote on the 3 very general ideologies presented to them on the national stage rather than specific MP's. This may be true for some, but I prefer at least giving people the chance to vote for more specific, regional candidates.

How about even more specific things like issues?

It sounds like this assumption is based on the observation that Canadians are too stupid to do much beyond singing eenie meenie miney moe every 4-5 years or so when it comes to their governance. I usually don't vote because I don't like encouraging the lying bastards but now I can see that voting also may only serve to deepen this peculiarly enculturated view of Canadians.

I'm not saying we need to vote on every single thing but we should be voting on a lot more than we are. I mean if we've determined that three ideological views are all we get or need we might as well just let them take turns or throw darts at a chart to determine our course.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael Hardner and I prefer the status quo. That should end this discussion.

I'm not sure what this means but I got a laugh out of it. Thanks, Pliny.

[kairos]

There should be a rule under pr that if in any riding a candidate wins the majority and is not affiliated with any of the partys the candidate should get a seat. That way the running would not be limited to party members.

[ReeferMadness]

There should be a rule under pr that if in any riding a candidate wins the majority and is not affiliated with any of the partys the candidate should get a seat. That way the running would not be limited to party members.

Use STV. It produces proportional results but still allows independents to run and win.

[ReeferMadness]

In Cuba, a brother passed State power to another brother.

In North Korea? Same story. Dad dies, State power goes to a son.

Venezuela? Guy died. State power passed to another guy, chosen by State leader.

Soviet Union? Guy dies or is killed. Next guy is chosen, pre-determined.

Vatican? Guy dies. Gives power to next guy.

-----

Democracy?

Guy has State power and a vote/lottery decides that suddenly he doesn't. In a civilized manner, guy accepts to hand this State power to another Guy -who he despises. (George W. Bush gives the White House to Barack Obama. Imagine.)

The US is a civilized democracy because of the precedent set by John Adams.

What is the definition of "democracy"? It is a State where government power passes without death or violence, peacefully, between people who oppose one another.

Well, I suppose that would be your definition of democracy.

[kairos]

Yes I like the idea of STV very much.

[eyeball]

STV is a superior system but the reality is that our present system is like a fly locked in amber - it's not going anywhere and probably never will without some sort of socio-economic interregnum lasting at least a few decades if not more.

[kairos]

I'm not so sure. Its in everyone, but the conservatives' interest at the moment. Lets say for example Trudeau wins a decisive election. He'll have one of two options: Institute a progressive voting system, or watch his party implode again the day after he leaves office.

[Bryan]

Use STV. It produces proportional results but still allows independents to run and win.

Independents already run (and win) under the current system. They actually have a better chance, because the representation is local.

[Bryan]

I'm not so sure. Its in everyone, but the conservatives' interest at the moment. Lets say for example Trudeau wins a decisive election. He'll have one of two options: Institute a progressive voting system, or watch his party implode again the day after he leaves office.

Right, and it was in everyone but the Liberals interest before. The winners are the ones who work within the reality of the system we have instead of demanding that the rules be changed just for them.

[kairos]

The winners like the system to stay the way it is they prefer to maintain their positions rather than have real democracy. This includes the NDP, the liberals and the Conservatives. However now its in at least two of those best interests to change to a true democratic system. If they get cocky and think because they hold power for awhile under a charismatic leader when that charismatic leader retired then its all back to square one, a minority government which only a small portion of the populace voted for.

As for indepdents I don't see your point. STV is the single best system for independent candidates.

[ReeferMadness]

Right, and it was in everyone but the Liberals interest before. The winners are the ones who work within the reality of the system we have instead of demanding that the rules be changed just for them.

This is a fair point. Dennis Pilon, a political scientist, did some research on how proportional systems came into being. He found that many of the European PR systems were a reaction to the rise of Socialism in the earlier part of the 20th century. In many countries, the socialists were on the brink of winning majority governments under the FPTP systems. To counteract this, the traditional parties banded together and changed the system to adopt PR.

The history of PR adoption shows that it is very rare for a country to adopt it at a time when it is not in the interest of the major parties of the day. And if you look at the actual behaviour of parties within Canada, you'll find interesting behaviour:

1. Parties who can win under FPTP either won't support PR or will support it in principle but never spend any political capital on it (provincial NDP are a classic case)
2. Parties who get significant amount of the vote but can't win under FPTP are strong proponents of PR (Green Party, both provincially and federally, NDP up until now).

I'm quite confident that if the federal NDP were to suddenly get to a position where it could command majority governments, it would suddenly forget its past dedication to PR.