Electoral Reform a Must for Real Democracy in Canada.

g_bambino · February 26, 2013

Here's my problem: if we are all admitting that the public doesn't understand a proposed electoral system, how are we expecting them to understand trade issues ?

Or, how will a more complex electoral system make the public more engaged in the democratic process?

Michael Hardner · February 26, 2013

If anything it completely abolishes the notion of local representation.You have not made any argument to support this assertion.

Or maybe they understand it fine and simply do not agree with you.

Straight up PR would have made the BQ an impossibility, which supports your point.

Or, how will a more complex electoral system make the public more engaged in the democratic process?

Another good point.

Boges · February 26, 2013

I love that response, people don't understand this system so we shouldn't ask them their opinion on the change and just do it.

Nice defense of democracy.

If there's a will for electoral change then perhaps the NDP will put it in their platform. Oh wait they became the top opposition party by basically dominating one province. So perhaps they aren't to eager to change the system either.

Peanutbutter · February 26, 2013

So all the people who don't agree with changing the ysystem don't understand our current system or the proposed system?

I doubt that every person who understands the new proposed system would be in favor of it. Maybe they do understand it and are flat out rejecting it.

Mighty AC · February 26, 2013

Here's my problem: if we are all admitting that the public doesn't understand a proposed electoral system, how are we expecting them to understand trade issues ?

The public can't be expected to understand trade issues. We do ask the public to vote for the people we entrust to make decisions on trade issues, yet I would bet the majority do not even read an executive summary party platforms.

Still, I think we can discuss more than one problem at a time.

Mighty AC · February 26, 2013

So all the people who don't agree with changing the ysystem don't understand our current system or the proposed system?

I doubt that every person who understands the new proposed system would be in favor of it. Maybe they do understand it and are flat out rejecting it.

Understanding does not necessarily lead to acceptance. However, I was involved in an information campaign in Ontario and was able to talk with tonnes of people directly. I expected that few would understand the proposed MMP system, but was surprised at how little people knew about FPTP. Edited February 26, 2013 by Mighty AC

Mighty AC · February 26, 2013

And how exactly would assigning seats based on party vote improve that? If anything it completely abolishes the notion of local representation.

I don't understand your point that MMP abolishes the notion of local representation. Does local representation really exist now?

Voters would cast two ballots. One for a local rep, one for the party they would like to govern. Local reps receive a seat, the second ballot is used to determine popular vote and add list MPs in the correct proportion.

Local MPs represent a riding like they do now. List MPs follow the party platform. This system allows everyone to create an equal share of representation. It even offers you more choice locally, since your vote for government is not tied to your vote for the local rep.

Boges · February 26, 2013

I don't understand your point that MMP abolishes the notion of local representation. Does local representation really exist now?

Voters would cast two ballots. One for a local rep, one for the party they would like to govern. Local reps receive a seat, the second ballot is used to determine popular vote and add list MPs in the correct proportion.

Local MPs represent a riding like they do now. List MPs follow the party platform. This system allows everyone to create an equal share of representation. It even offers you more choice locally, since your vote for government is not tied to your vote for the local rep.

List MPs have no real constituency and no real mandate since they are just put on a list, likely based on service to the party. A party may stuff the list with party hacks that are horrible at campaigning. I see this as patronage.

Would a "List MP" be allowed in cabinet? Where would their office be?

If you like that, fine, but as a democracy the only way to change the system we've seen since confederation would be to take it to the people via a referendum or at the very least have a party put changing the system in their platform. None of these things have been done yet.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Boges

scribblet · February 26, 2013

There was lots of information out there about Ontario's proposal and I wouldn't under estimate the voter's understanding of it. The majority did not want it. Most people I know understand how our current system works, they might bitch about it but know enough of it and what was being proposed to reject it. Maybe in a few years we'll see change, but not right now.

Mighty AC · February 26, 2013

List MPs have no real constituency and no real mandate since they are just put on a list, likely based on service to the party. A party may stuff the list with party hacks that are horrible at campaigning. I see this as patronage.

Some systems select the losing local candidates who received the greatest percentage of the local vote as list MPs.

Would a "List MP" be allowed in cabinet? Where would their office be?

Why not? Harper appointed Fortier to his cabinet and he was not elected at all. As for the office location, it would be in Ottawa as they would only have one.

If you like that, fine, but as a democracy the only way to change the system we've seen since confederation would be to take it to the people via a referendum or at the very least have a party put changing the system in their platform. None of these things have been done yet.

Agreed, but as a proponent of fair voting and democracy I will continue to push for it. Edited February 26, 2013 by Mighty AC

Boges · February 26, 2013

One other thing about MMP. Using the 2011 federal election as a case study, since people object to a party winning a healthy majority with 40% of the vote. It wouldn't really change the balance of power. The CPC still won't the popular vote, therefore they would have the most List MPs to add to their majority of of representative MPs.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Boges

Boges · February 26, 2013

Some systems select the losing local candidates who received the greatest percentage of the local vote as list MPs.Why not? Harper appointed Fortier to his cabinet and he was not elected at all. As for the office location, it would be in Ottawa as they would only have one.

Agreed, but as a proponent of fair voting and democracy I will continue to push for it.

That would be ever worse. You fight a campaign against someone, beat them but they still get a seat because they're on a list.

Similar as to why the ranking model would never fly. You lose the election but you end up winning because more people select you their second choice than the winner.

BTW The only reason Harper appointed Fortier was because he was completely shut out in Montreal. He wanted a Montreal based cabinet minister. I don't think he's doing that anymore.

Newfoundlander · February 26, 2013

Why haven't the NDP implemented electoral reform in any province?

kairos · February 27, 2013

What's a "real democracy"?

A real democracy is a system where the Demos (the people in Ancient Greek) wield power. In the current system we have a minority wielding power. That isn't a Democracy, its an Oligarchy a rule of the few in Ancient Greek.

The way to fix this problem is by instituting proportional representation so that that Demos are wielding power, and thus we will have a True Democracy.

Edited February 27, 2013 by kairos

Paradox · February 27, 2013

I am a defender of the current system of single-member plurality.

Local Representation and Accountability

The current system ensures that every person elected to the House of Commons is elected by and accountable to one electoral district, and they act as a liaison between citizens and government, and frequently as an advocate for citizens. This local accountability also means that every member of the House of Commons, if they act unreasonably and as a poor representative of the electoral district, can be removed by constituents during a general election. Under a system of proportional representation, this would be compromised.

"Classes" of Members in the House of Commons

The blended model of both single-member plurality and lists is tremendously problematic. You then have a system where a member of the House of Commons elected by an electoral district, needs to consider the views of an electoral district and the needs of the political party under whose banner they stand. A list member, on the other hand, only has allegiance to the party, and has no such local accountability. A list member also has lower stakes when they make unpopular decisions, as a list member who disappoints and angers Canadians can be repeatedly reappointed to the House of Commons by a political party for as long as the share of the vote supports it.

What you have, then, are two classes within the House of Commons: one class of members who need to balance the needs of an electoral district with the views and campaign promises of the party; and, a second class of members who are beholden only to the prime minister or the leader of a party, as the case may be. A member who is appointed to the House only to support the agenda of the party is a member without critical thought, without responsibilities to the Canadian people, and who, in short, should not sit in the House of Commons.

Mighty AC · February 27, 2013

That would be ever worse. You fight a campaign against someone, beat them but they still get a seat because they're on a list.

Less of an issue than half the country casting meaningless ballots that create zero representation.

Similar as to why the ranking model would never fly. You lose the election but you end up winning because more people select you their second choice than the winner.

In that case the candidate didn't first lose the election and then win; they simply won.

BTW The only reason Harper appointed Fortier was because he was completely shut out in Montreal. He wanted a Montreal based cabinet minister. I don't think he's doing that anymore.

Great....but an unlected cabinet minister is far more objectionable than an elected list member who has a seat in the house.

Mighty AC · February 27, 2013

A member who is appointed to the House only to support the agenda of the party is a member without critical thought, without responsibilities to the Canadian people, and who, in short, should not sit in the House of Commons.

Except they do have a responsibility to create representation for nearly half the country that currently has none. They act according to their party's platform on behalf of Con voters in Montreal, Lib voters in Alberta or Green voters everywhere.

TimG · February 27, 2013

Less of an issue than half the country casting meaningless ballots that create zero representation.

You keep repeating this falsehood. Everyone has representation. The only issue is their representative may not belong to their first party choice.

Mighty AC · February 27, 2013

An MP representing their party's voters and platform is not representation. Half the country has an MP they did not vote for. An MP with an obligation to stick to their platform while voting in the house.

My MP once won the riding with 40% of the vote. He routinely responded to comments in the local paper by saying he would honour his party's campaign promises when voting. He certainly should vote as he promised but by doing so he was generally going against the wishes of 60% of the riding. Is this representation?

I would have no problem with my local MP representing his/her supporters if parliament actually matched the popular vote and every ballot created an equal amount of representation.

kairos · February 27, 2013

You keep repeating this falsehood. Everyone has representation. The only

issue is their representative may not belong to their first party

choice.

Every time I've ever voted my last choice ends up ruling with a minority of the votes of Canadians.

That's not democracy. That's an oligarchy using divide and conquer to maintain their power.

Edited February 27, 2013 by kairos

ReeferMadness · February 27, 2013

I agree for the most part. The only people who are raging against it now are those who lost and want the power themselves. Eventually another party will win then watch them change their tune.

I agree this is often true of political parties. The NDP federally, for example, supports proportional representation. Provincially, they've been in power often but have never made any move to implement it. Individually, however, there are lots of people who are in favour of proportional representation purely on principle. There is also Fair Vote Canada, an excellent organization lobbying for electoral reform.

ReeferMadness · February 27, 2013

There was lots of information out there about Ontario's proposal and I wouldn't under estimate the voter's understanding of it. The majority did not want it. Most people I know understand how our current system works, they might bitch about it but know enough of it and what was being proposed to reject it. Maybe in a few years we'll see change, but not right now.

I don't know what happened in Ontario. In BC, however, the no side ran a completely negative, mostly dishonest campaign. Practically nobody understood STV either before or after the campaign.

Ironically, voting systems are one of those things that make voters yawn. Relatively few people understand how 40% of the votes get you 60% of the seats. People only know that "whoever gets the most votes wins".

ReeferMadness · February 27, 2013

Here's my problem: if we are all admitting that the public doesn't understand a proposed electoral system, how are we expecting them to understand trade issues ?

That's a good point. However, I think it's true that most people don't really understand the voting system that we have, much less any others.

Mighty AC · February 27, 2013

One other thing about MMP. Using the 2011 federal election as a case study, since people object to a party winning a healthy majority with 40% of the vote. It wouldn't really change the balance of power. The CPC still won't the popular vote, therefore they would have the most List MPs to add to their majority of of representative MPs.

That's wrong and a poor argument for the current system even if true. First, let's pretend that nobody voted strategically and the 2011 popular vote is an accurate reflection of how Canadians would have voted under a proportional system.

The CPP would have received zero list seats since they occupy 54% of the house but only won 39% of the popular vote.

The NDP, Liberals, Bloc and Greens all have fewer seats than their percentage of the popular vote so they would have received some list seats.

kairos · February 27, 2013

I don't know what happened in Ontario. In BC, however, the no side ran a

completely negative, mostly dishonest campaign. Practically nobody

understood STV either before or after the campaign.

The Liberal Party of B.C. who are very right wing (largely made up of former socreds) cynically put forward the referendum on STV in a way as to try to make people vote for them simply on their opposition to STV as nobody knew what it was. Unfortunately both parties in B.C. use B.C. taxpayer dollars to push their party's propaganda via television commercials.

Edited February 27, 2013 by kairos