Electoral Reform a Must for Real Democracy in Canada.

[Mighty AC]

I think the majority of us can agree that representative democracy is a must. On average, we the people, are not equipped to offer intelligent insight into many of the complex issues governments deal with. Thus, we elect people to do this for us and we vote for the people whom we think are most in sync with our own viewpoints.

It is my belief that democracy is measured by the amount of control people have in choosing their own representation. So democracy is not just in the voting, but also the counting. There may be good reason to distort the count and limit the amount of democracy we provide. I already mentioned that most people simply do not have enough information for direct democracy to work. Others have argued in favour of the vote distorting properties of FPTP for similar reasons.

I think we can all see that FPTP is less democratic but it does effectively choke out minority opinion, unless that minority lives in one area. For some, stripping the minority of their small voice and providing major parties with additional bonus power is a feature not a bug.

Anyway, for those that understand PR vs Winner Take All systems the divide seems to be clear.

PR is more democratic, provides more accurate representation but will rarely deliver absolute power and will require consensus building.

FPTP is less democratic and strips many of representation but it routinely provides a major party with efficient dictatorial power.

[Mighty AC]

The only 'benefit' that PR brings is it gives parties representing minority views the power to impose their views on the majority because of the competitive dynamics between the two largest parties.

If we are to be ruled my parties representing a minority of the electorate it should be the party that has the largest number of votes rather than a party with 5% of vote.

There are some misconceptions about various PR systems you need to deal with, but I have already covered that in my previous post. You like the vote distorting properties of FPTP. Even though it offers less democracy or fair representation, the resulting outcome is preferable to you. Fair enough. If you are aware of the trade offs but prefer the results of FPTP then I am not going to change your mind.

If MPs are to represent our wishes in Ottawa, I would prefer that parliament more closely match voter intentions. Once we have an accurate parliament it is the responsibility of the politicians to work out agreements in the interest of the people they represent. Ideas shared by the majority are passed easily. Ideas with less support require compromise, consensus building, and may require tweaking to pass. It's my belief that laws crafted in this fashion will more accurately reflect the majority of actual people and thus be subjected to less of the doing and undoing of successive dictatorships.

[TimG]

PR is more democratic, provides more accurate representation but will rarely deliver absolute power and will require consensus building.

An opinion - not a fact.

The level of 'democracy' is not determined by the distribution of seats.

It is determined by the process.

FPTP is less democratic and strips many of representation but it routinely provides a major party with efficient dictatorial power.

Again - pure opinion - not fact.

Everyone has representation.

Edited March 5, 2013 by TimG

[Bonam]

I think the majority of us can agree that representative democracy is a must. On average, we the people, are not equipped to offer intelligent insight into many of the complex issues governments deal with. Thus, we elect people to do this for us and we vote for the people whom we think are most in sync with our own viewpoints.

Disagree. Our politicians are just as stupid as the rest of us. Governments don't deal with or debate issues in complex nuanced ways, they go by partisan ideology, gut feelings, and other nonsense, just as would most of the general population.

[Fletch 27]

There are some misconceptions about various PR systems you need to deal with, but I have already covered that in my previous post. You like the vote distorting properties of FPTP. Even though it offers less democracy or fair representation, the resulting outcome is preferable to you. Fair enough. If you are aware of the trade offs but prefer the results of FPTP then I am not going to change your mind.

If MPs are to represent our wishes in Ottawa, I would prefer that parliament more closely match voter intentions. Once we have an accurate parliament it is the responsibility of the politicians to work out agreements in the interest of the people they represent. Ideas shared by the majority are passed easily. Ideas with less support require compromise, consensus building, and may require tweaking to pass. It's my belief that laws crafted in this fashion will more accurately reflect the majority of actual people and thus be subjected to less of the doing and undoing of successive dictatorships.

There are FAR more countries with FPTP that are exceeeding than those with PR that are FAILING/FAILED.

PR is the ideal solution for the left.. It would ensure that the reighning party panders to the gimme-gimme's to stay in power but at the same time, driving the country into the ground. I find it odd (possibly fitting) that its always the left crying for FPTP. The NDP are the loudest.. As long as they get the shirt from someone elsess back,, all is "good" in thier world...

[eyeball]

An opinion - not a fact.

Everyone has representation.

This is simply an opinion as well. It is a claim that cannot be verified.

[Boges]

I like Michael's analysis that the demand for different election models are a byproduct of a society where people aren't taught that there are winners and losers everyone should win.

It seems a generation is coming up that can't handle failure.

[Boges]

This is simply an opinion as well. It is a claim that cannot be verified.

No, your MP is elected to represent you even if you didn't vote for them. Whether they actually do that is what's subjective.

[Bonam]

I like Michael's analysis that the demand for different election models are a byproduct of a society where people aren't taught that there are winners and losers everyone should win.

It seems a generation is coming up that can't handle failure.

Not a fault of that generation, however, but of the absurd ideology of the current one that decides to teach such things.

[Peanutbutter]

Of course. Democracy means forcing change on people whether they want it or not.

The left has been forcing change on society since the fifties now. Largely against our will. All this.progressive ness is shoved down our throats. So I guess its OK as long as its your interests doing the forcing right?

[Boges]

Saying votes cast for a losing candidate are wasted votes is sort of like saying the goals a team scores in a losing effort are wasted. There should be a way that goals scored in a losing effort should go towards helping said team in the standings.

[Mighty AC]

An opinion - not a fact. The level of 'democracy' is not determined by the distribution of seats.

It is determined by the process.

Which is your opinion. I stated that, "it is my belief that democracy is measured by the amount of control people have in choosing their own representation."

Sticking with this definition democracy is really a continuum from an unelected dictatorship or fiefdom all the way down to direct democracy. Assuming we insist on the need for a governing authority, otherwise, I guess anarchy is the other end of the spectrum. Systems that limit control over representation slide closer to the fiefdom end of the spectrum while those that increase control sit closer to direct democracy.

FPTP, clearly limits representation by assigning a representative to a population based on a simple plurality. The representative, if at least somewhat honest, must try to adhere to their platform; thus, they do not represent the riding, but rather their own voters. Since, those that did not vote for the MP did not help to create any other representation we can say their votes are wasted or useless. By limiting or distorting the will of the people FPTP gives up a certain amount of democracy, however, it does pick up some of the benefits of a dictatorship.

If we can be honest about the pros and cons of the various systems we can at least relate the reasoning behind our preferences. However, asserting that your points are fact while others are opinion is a waste of time. I have explained why I believe, for example, that an NDP MP clearly does not represent their Conservative constituents, but you have simply asserted that "everyone has representation." Why not explain your points?

[TimG]

However, asserting that your points are fact while others are opinion is a waste of time.

Pot meet kettle: that is what you are doing all whenever you claim that FPTP is not 'democratic'. If you really want a reasonable dialog you should dispense with such claims and simply state the facts: you don't like the type of governments that FPTP produces and think that better government could be produced with a different system. I don't. I think the governments produced by PR systems are less effective because they are more focused on party posturing than governing. Edited March 5, 2013 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

There are FAR more countries with FPTP that are exceeeding than those with PR that are FAILING/FAILED.

PR is the ideal solution for the left.. It would ensure that the reighning party panders to the gimme-gimme's to stay in power but at the same time, driving the country into the ground. I find it odd (possibly fitting) that its always the left crying for FPTP. The NDP are the loudest.. As long as they get the shirt from someone elsess back,, all is "good" in thier world...

Actually, one of our most prolific anti-FPTP writers was Stephen Harper, who always referred to it as 'our benign dictatorship.' However, like Chretien before him, once in power he learned to love it.

Also, most of the western world now uses a form of proportional representation. The popularity of FPTP is probably more attributable to the size and recency of the British empire, and not its merit as a voting system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

[Fletch 27]

Actually, one of our most prolific anti-FPTP writers was Stephen Harper, who always referred to it as 'our benign dictatorship.' However, like Chretien before him, once in power he learned to love it.

Also, most of the western world now uses a form of proportional representation. The popularity of FPTP is probably more attributable to the size and recency of the British empire, and not its merit as a voting system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

Yes, the Western World as in Greece, Itally, Portugal, etc.etc..

[Mighty AC]

Pot meet kettle: that is what you are doing all whenever you claim that FPTP is not 'democratic'. If you really want a reasonable dialog you should dispense with such claims and simply state the facts: you don't like the type of governments that FPTP produces and think that better government could be produced with a different system. I don't. I think the governments produced by PR systems are less effective because they are more focused on party posturing than governing.

I've explained what I mean by both democracy and representation and then went on to explain why various systems provide or limit both. You however have yet to explain your position. Please, tell me why you believe that Con voters are currently being represented by their NDP MP.

[Mighty AC]

Yes, the Western World as in Greece, Itally, Portugal, etc.etc..

Most of Europe, etc.etc..

[Fletch 27]

Most of Europe, etc.etc..

And they are doing GREAT!!!!!!!!! OMG...

HAve a look here... More insanity from FPTP and the coalitions.... Sheer stupidity and your all for this...

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/26/silvio-berlusconi-poised-for-power-broker-role-as-early-election-results-in-italy-point-to-complete-gridlock/

Is THIS what you really want????

[TimG]

Please, tell me why you believe that Con voters are currently being represented by their NDP MP.

If they live in an NDP riding then the NDP MP is their representative. It is a truism. If you are asking if the NDP MP will always vote in ways that every voter likes then the answer is no because that is impossible.

[Mighty AC]

If they live in an NDP riding then the NDP MP is their representative. It is a truism. If you are asking if the NDP MP will always vote in ways that every voter likes then the answer is no because that is impossible.

Yes it is impossible. The NDP MP will most likely honour his/her platform and campaign commitments. Thus, even though he/she figuratively represents a riding, in reality he/she represents the viewpoint of just the NDP voters. This means that any vote cast for a losing MP does not help to create any representation for one's values and points of view.

In my opinion, this is a problem because roughly 50% of the votes cast are not for the winning MP. We have huge pockets of citizens that may never help to contribute to the representation of their own viewpoint. Imagine being a lefty in Alberta or a righty in Montreal.

If one believes that in a representative democracy each vote should create an equal share of representation then FPTP is a horrible system. However, if one believes that it is prudent to distort the will of the people to produce a more 'desirable' outcome, then it is effective.

[TimG]

Thus, even though he/she figuratively represents a riding, in reality he/she represents the viewpoint of just the NDP voters.

That is an artifact of the system that enforced party loyalty - a system that you want to strengthen.

In my opinion, this is a problem because roughly 50% of the votes cast are not for the winning MP.

This is true no matter what. Increasing the size of the districts is a hack that is no different than saying a Conservative voter in Vancouver is represented by the MP for Richmond.

[Michael Hardner]

In my opinion, this is a problem because roughly 50% of the votes cast are not for the winning MP. We have huge pockets of citizens that may never help to contribute to the representation of their own viewpoint. Imagine being a lefty in Alberta or a righty in Montreal.

But this is a basic result of there being more than 2 widely popular opinions. If there are 3 divergent opinions on something, who gets to choose which opinion will be followed ?

Endless compromise does not make sense in every case, and endless compromise is what PR proposes.

In the US, you have filibusters and lobbying with extreme factions blocking important legislation. I would even say that our problems today involve too much democracy. In some situations, it's better for one viewpoint, one vision to be implemented with minimal consultation believe it or not.

If one believes that in a representative democracy each vote should create an equal share of representation then FPTP is a horrible system. However, if one believes that it is prudent to distort the will of the people to produce a more 'desirable' outcome, then it is effective.

Why would any conservative voter support a PR or partial-PR plan ? It virtually guarantees that their point of view will never be executed in Canada. They would be giving up power.

[jacee]

No ones vote is wasted. Everyone's vote is worth the same. One. Just because the person you wanted to win doesn't, doesn't mean the vote the was wasted. It was counted just like every other vote.

Wrong. Only the votes for a local winning candidate create representation. A vote for a local losing candidate is the same as not voting at all. With the minute exception of the couple of bucks the party receives per vote.

Under a PR system every vote creates the same amount of representation, hence there is no need to vote strategically.

I agree, AC.

peanutbutter, you're right in some idealistic pink cloud sense, in theory. But the reality is that many or most ridings predictably go to the same party time after time. The dedicated people in those ridings who continue to trudge to the polls time after time to vote for non- winning candidates, get absolutely nothing for their efforts. One has to wonder why they do it.

Alberta, for example, has about 2.5m eligible voters and a relatively low voter turnout at 52%.

2/3 of them (780k) vote Conservative, electing 27 MP's.

1/3 (350k) vote for other parties, electing 1 NDP MP.

Except for Edmonton, non CPC voters, frankly, may as well stay home ... but they still go out and vote. Bless their hearts. They, and the ones who do stay home deserve some incentive, some democratic representation in Ottawa.

With PR, they'd send about 7-9 non CPC reps to Ottawa.

Edited March 5, 2013 by jacee

[Mighty AC]

I would even say that our problems today involve too much democracy. In some situations, it's better for one viewpoint, one vision to be implemented with minimal consultation believe it or not.

I agree to some extent. The most beneficial system would probably be a benevolent dictatorship. However, humans being who we are, pretty much guarantee that a benevolent mindset would be short lived in the presence of absolute power. I find the trade off between Liberal and Conservative temporary dictatorships to be an unacceptable substitute. Lawmaking becomes a cycle of the removal and installation of ideology. However, I do respect your honest position that we are trading democracy for a distorted but potentially desirable outcome for those with power.

But this is a basic result of there being more than 2 widely popular opinions. If there are 3 divergent opinions on something, who gets to choose which opinion will be followed ?

Endless compromise does not make sense in every case, and endless compromise is what PR proposes.

Let's say every 10 seats are filled by 4 Cons, 3 Dippers, 2 Libs, 0.5 Greens and 0.5 Blocheads. Laws are passed with compromise and coalition building on an issue by issue basis. Some bills will suit the vast majority and will pass easily. Some bills are more contentious and will require coalition building, deal making or tweaking in order to pass.

In one instance the Cons and Libs may combine to craft and pass a bill but oppose each other on the next. However, in every case when a law is passed it will done so by representatives that speak for an actual majority of Canadians.

Imposed ideology will, for the most part, disappear and committees will be active in crafting and shaping bills again. That's a good thing.

Why would any conservative voter support a PR or partial-PR plan ? It virtually guarantees that their point of view will never be executed in Canada. They would be giving up power.

The social cons will no doubt have trouble finding support for some of their social ideas. However, a united right is still the largest voting block and would carry the most power. Conservatives will find common ground with other parties on many fiscal and crime related issues.

Your question focuses on the current party landscape and is built around engineering a set outcome rather than producing a representative parliament. Within today's landscape the Liberals or Dippers could ask, why would we support a system that practically ensures we will never form the government?

[Fletch 27]

I agree to some extent. The most beneficial system would probably be a benevolent dictatorship. However, humans being who we are, pretty much guarantee that a benevolent mindset would be short lived in the presence of absolute power. I find the trade off between Liberal and Conservative temporary dictatorships to be an unacceptable substitute. Lawmaking becomes a cycle of the removal and installation of ideology. However, I do respect your honest position that we are trading democracy for a distorted but potentially desirable outcome for those with power.Let's say every 10 seats are filled by 4 Cons, 3 Dippers, 2 Libs, 0.5 Greens and 0.5 Blocheads. Laws are passed with compromise and coalition building on an issue by issue basis. Some bills will suit the vast majority and will pass easily. Some bills are more contentious and will require coalition building, deal making or tweaking in order to pass.

In one instance the Cons and Libs may combine to craft and pass a bill but oppose each other on the next. However, in every case when a law is passed it will done so by representatives that speak for an actual majority of Canadians.

Imposed ideology will, for the most part, disappear and committees will be active in crafting and shaping bills again. That's a good thing.The social cons will no doubt have trouble finding support for some of their social ideas. However, a united right is still the largest voting block and would carry the most power. Conservatives will find common ground with other parties on many fiscal and crime related issues.

Your question focuses on the current party landscape and is built around engineering a set outcome rather than producing a representative parliament. Within today's landscape the Liberals or Dippers could ask, why would we support a system that practically ensures we will never form the government?

Just like in Italy this week! It sounds like a really neat proposal! Well, unless you dont feel like bankrupting your children and grandchildren. Please, have a look at what Burlesconi has achieved! Then comment on how nice it is!