Electoral Reform a Must for Real Democracy in Canada.

[Boges]

Even then you could have a president elected with fewer votes than the opposition but more electoral votes (and actually this has happened).

Not if you made it purely a popular vote.

I have the admit the Electoral College is very silly.

[Mighty AC]

I disagree.

I would argue that a "civilized State" is any State that changes State power peacefully. Paul Martin handed government power to Stephen Harper - peacefully. George W. Bush handed the power of the State to Obama -peacefully. While reluctant, both transfers of State power were peaceful.

IMHO, the measure of a civilized State (or democracy) is whether one person can pass the power of the State to another person, peacefully.

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.

[Bryan]

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.

Cuba also has a much more civilized society than most western democracies.

[TimG]

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.

Those were not "changes" of government. They were dynastic successions. The assumption implicit in August's definition is that the people giving up power were not doing so because they did not want to continue - they were forced out by the rules which they respected.

August is right - that is why democracy is important. Your desire to match the popular vote on one day every 4 years to representatives in parliament is not about democracy but about your idiosyncratic beliefs.

Edited March 6, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

Yeah or every MP is an independent and the house of commons has to pick one of them to be the PM. Unlikely, but our electoral system does not preclude it.

That is the way it works in NWT: http://www.gov.nt.ca/research/facts/ No parties at all. Premier elected by all MPs. Edited March 6, 2013 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

Those were not "changes" of government. They were dynastic successions. The assumption implicit in August's definition is that the people giving up power were not doing so because they did not want to continue - they were forced out by the rules which they respected.

August is right - that is why democracy is important. Your desire to match the popular vote on one day every 4 years to representatives in parliament is not about democracy but about your idiosyncratic beliefs.

So in your opinion democracy has very little to do with the power of people as long as parliaments are changed peacefully? I'd say your beliefs are a little idiosyncratic.

[cybercoma]

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.

It also increases representation in those areas, duplicating the position. Do "seat-filler" MPs have the same local responsibilities as the duly elected MPs? Who do they represent? What constituency work do they do? Are they paid the same as the other MPs?

[TimG]

So in your opinion democracy has very little to do with the power of people as long as parliaments are changed peacefully? I'd say your beliefs are a little idiosyncratic.

Democracy where the people have the power to force change with their votes. Insisting that the system is not democratic unless the representation exactly matches the popular vote is idiosyncratic.

Look, there is nothing wrong with discussing the pros and cons of different electoral systems or exploring the idea that a different system might be better. My pet peeve your endless repetition of these two fallacies:

1) people are not represented unless they voted for the party their MP belong to;

2) the system is not democratic unless the proportion of MP in parliament exactly matches national vote given to parties.

2) is most absurd when you consider that people are not choosing a party on their ballots - they are choosing a person to represent their riding. Does this means independents have no place in parliament because their percentage of the national vote is tiny?

Edited March 6, 2013 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

That's not what I've been insisting though. I've stated that systems that distort the vote are simply less democratic. FPTP trades away a little democracy in order to pick up a little of the efficiency enjoyed by dictatorships.

[TimG]

That's not what I've been insisting though. I've stated that systems that distort the vote are simply less democratic. FPTP trades away a little democracy in order to pick up a little of the efficiency enjoyed by dictatorships.

There you go ago again - repeating the same fallacy.

Systems are not *more* democratic because the proportion of MPs matches the party vote.

Democracy is about people being able to change governments with their votes. Our system allows that. That makes it fully democratic and your rhetoric is not useful in a discussion of the pros/cons of different systems.

[Mighty AC]

It also increases representation in those areas, duplicating the position. Do "seat-filler" MPs have the same local responsibilities as the duly elected MPs? Who do they represent? What constituency work do they do? Are they paid the same as the other MPs?

Great questions. It seems that the role of list MPs varies by country. I think the way they do it in NZ makes sense. List MPs for a party divide up and represent the ridings not occupied by a local MP from their party. They receive the same base pay, a reduced home office budget and secretary. If you're interested this is a letter by a Green list member from New Zealand, explaining his responsibilities.

[Mighty AC]

There you go ago again - repeating the same fallacy.

Systems are not *more* democratic because the proportion of MPs matches the party vote.

Democracy is about people being able to change governments with their votes. Our system allows that. That makes it fully democratic and your rhetoric is not useful in a discussion of the pros/cons of different systems.

The fact that you disagree with something does not make it a fallacy. I've already explained this but here it is again. A democracy is "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents." An electoral system that reduces or distorts the power of the people to choose and be represented by a government, in my opinion, reduces democracy and vice versa.

Democracy is in the counting, not just in the voting. The way votes are counted is an important part of how we choose governments with our votes.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Mighty AC

[TimG]

A democracy is "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents."

Absolutely nothing in this definition supports your assertions. If anything it supports my view: democracy is a system where voters can force a change of government with their votes. Nothing more - nothing less.

Democracy is in the counting, not just in the voting. The way votes are counted is an important part of how we choose governments with our votes.

Not according to the definition you quoted. This is a requirement that you have invented - which is fine - just don't claim that your 'counting methods' are more 'democratic'.

The only virtue they have is they produce a parliament with better matches the popular vote and that needs to be weighed against the disadvantages of a system which entrenches parties as the source of representation.

Edited March 6, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

That's not what I've been insisting though. I've stated that systems that distort the vote are simply less democratic. FPTP trades away a little democracy in order to pick up a little of the efficiency enjoyed by dictatorships.

"Efficiency enjoyed by dictatorships".

Dictatorships enjoy lots of things - also notably, cigars. But let's not blot such wonderful things as cigars and efficiency because there are louts that enjoy them, hm ?

It makes it seem like efficiency is a BAD thing.

[kairos]

1) people are not represented unless they voted for the party their MP belong to;

2) the system is not democratic unless the proportion of MP in parliament exactly matches national vote given to parties.

In over 10 years of voting, I've not once had one of my votes represented, yet most of the time I've been ruled over by people who have received a decisive minority of the Canadian votes.

I'm living under an oligarchy (rule of the few)

[TimG]

In over 10 years of voting, I've not once had one of my votes represented

Really? So on every issue all of your representatives voted against what you personally wanted? I find that hard to believe. The real problem here is you define your 'representation' by the party that the MP belongs to rather than the choices made by the MP on individual issues. Edited March 6, 2013 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

"Efficiency enjoyed by dictatorships".

Dictatorships enjoy lots of things - also notably, cigars. But let's not blot such wonderful things as cigars and efficiency because there are louts that enjoy them, hm ?

It makes it seem like efficiency is a BAD thing.

Efficiency is a great thing, not a fan of cigars though. I really wanted to achieve the Tony Soprano look with a cigar and brandy, but just couldn't enjoy them. Anyway, it seems to me that with electoral systems democracy and representation have an inverse relationship with efficiency. In my view dictatorships are extremely efficient and completely undemocratic. FPTP trades off some democracy and representation for some efficiency when compared to a MMP system.

[kairos]

Really? So on every issue all of your representatives voted against what

you personally wanted? I find that hard to believe. The real problem

here is you define your 'representation' by the party that the MP

belongs to rather than the choices made by the MP on individual issues.

A broken clock strikes twice correctly each day, that doesn't mean it represents my view of what the time is.

Edited March 6, 2013 by kairos

[TimG]

A broken clock strikes twice correctly each day, that doesn't mean it represents my view of what the time is.

You are a partisan who only cares about party affiliation. Your representative could vote exactly as you would want and you still would claim that you were not 'represented'.

We design electoral systems to provide representation. We don't design them to keep party partisans happy.

Edited March 6, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Anyway, it seems to me that with electoral systems democracy and representation have an inverse relationship with efficiency. In my view dictatorships are extremely efficient and completely undemocratic. FPTP trades off some democracy and representation for some efficiency when compared to a MMP system.

The point, to my mind, is efficiency and breadth/depth of representation are balanced off against each other to produce a RESULT. Like any complex machine, there are lots of possible outcomes and there are lots of reasons it may or may not work.

So, we're mostly in agreement there. What I disagree with is that the RESULT of our system proves that change needs to happen: the laws and policies of our land are an incredible balance of different forces and I can't imagine how that could be better, except by more due diligence on the part of the public through our existing system.

[TimG]

In my view dictatorships are extremely efficient and completely undemocratic. FPTP trades off some democracy and representation for some efficiency when compared to a MMP system.

Dictatorship are actually extremely inefficient because they waste a lot of resources squashing dissent.

FPTP is efficient because it treats choosing government like a hiring a manager for a business - i.e. you hire a manager to do a job and give him or her the power to do that. You evaluate performance regularly and terminate employment if the performance is unsatisfactory.

No business could function if the managers had to achieve consensus before making any decision. The same is true of government.

Edited March 6, 2013 by TimG

[kairos]

You are a partisan who only cares about party affiliation. Your

representative could vote exactly as you would want and you still would

claim that you were not 'represented'.

We design electoral systems to provide representation. We don't design them to keep party partisans happy.

Completely non sequitur. I've voted for 3 different parties. I have no party affiliation and am not the member of any party. What I find disgusting is that the parties that are most powerful maintain their power against the interests and realization of democracy. This includes all of the 3 main parties the NDP, the Liberals, and the Conservatives.

Edited March 6, 2013 by kairos

[kairos]

No business could function if the managers had to achieve consensus before making any decision. The same is true of government.

A democracy is not a business. Democracy requires a level of consensus, and democracy represents the interests of all (the demos) rather than simply those in the business hierarchy.

[Mighty AC]

The point, to my mind, is efficiency and breadth/depth of representation are balanced off against each other to produce a RESULT. Like any complex machine, there are lots of possible outcomes and there are lots of reasons it may or may not work.

So, we're mostly in agreement there. What I disagree with is that the RESULT of our system proves that change needs to happen: the laws and policies of our land are an incredible balance of different forces and I can't imagine how that could be better, except by more due diligence on the part of the public through our existing system.

I don't share your view of the results. I have a problem with the cycle of ideologies scrapping the old and installing their vision. I don't see that as a balance but rather a sequence of minority rule.

Since, FPTP prevents half of the country from creating representation, the general public has no real incentive to perform due diligence. FPTP is an incubator of apathy.

[TimG]

I have no party affiliation and am not the member of any party.

Yet you claimed that you don't care if your representative actually supports laws that you support. The only thing that matters to you is the party that the representative belongs to. If the representative belongs to a party you support then you claim you are 'represented' no matter how that representative votes on actual issues. If the representative belongs to a party that you did not support then you claim that you are 'unrepresented' no matter how that representative votes on actual issues.

Sorry - you may vote for different parties but you are still a partisan that defines representation by the party rather than by what actually happens.

A democracy is not a business. Democracy requires a level of consensus, and democracy represents the interests of all (the demos) rather than simply those in the business hierarchy.

Government is the largest business in the country that consumes nearly 40% of GDP. It needs to be managed. Edited March 6, 2013 by TimG