Electoral Reform a Must for Real Democracy in Canada.

ReeferMadness · March 6, 2013

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.

Yes. In addition, people vote directly for the party, rather that just for the candidate. This gives the party more legitimacy when it comes to enacting rules that siphon power away from representatives to the party.

kairos · March 6, 2013

There is no reason why proportional representation can't be based on ridings. The total number of seats nationally are divided by percentage of votes, and only the people who got the most votes from their ridings would get elected.

Mighty AC · March 6, 2013

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.

Parties are entrenched in FPTP.

Patronage appointments aren't a requirement of MMP. List seats can be granted to non-winning MPs with the greatest percentage of the vote.

Bonam · March 6, 2013

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

It's not a matter of "corruption" but of parties working in their own best

interest. That is the goal of a political party: to gain and keep power.

Parties don't care about the country they try to take power over, nor

about ethics except insofar as they must comply with legal requirements

in order to maintain an aura of legitimacy.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Bonam

Michael Hardner · March 6, 2013

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.

Ok - so are you suggesting that the percentage popular vote for the party should be reflected in parliament ? In other words, pure PR ? Because, if not then you're just like me.

All of this rhetoric asks for, no - DEMANDS - mathematical symmetry. So, then that's pure PR. But it's not. The next thing discussed is mixed vote, and a bunch of complicated other systems.

So, we're not trying to make the math perfect after all. Which is too bad, because that's supposed to be the main point of it all. Of course, we could talk about our problems instead - you know, healthcare, finance, the economy, but that's pretty boring I suppose.

Michael Hardner · March 6, 2013

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??

Yes - the theoretical math says that if there are 30 M people in Canada, then my vote should have exactly one thirty-millionth of an impact on the overall results.

It's theoretical because the actual impact of making this happen in Canada is unknown. What we do know is that majorities would be a rarity, conservatives would have far less power and Quebec wouldn't be able to elect a party like the BQ in numbers they had in the past.

Bonam · March 6, 2013

Parties are entrenched in FPTP.

Don't think so. Our electoral system could function exactly in the same way it does now if no such thing as a party existed. On the other hand, MMP explicitly requires and formalizes parties.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Bonam

Michael Hardner · March 6, 2013

There is no reason why proportional representation can't be based on ridings. The total number of seats nationally are divided by percentage of votes, and only the people who got the most votes from their ridings would get elected.

Huh ?

How would that work in, say, Quebec ? The BQ could win 51 seats with 10% of the national vote as they did in 2006. So, your system would not work.

Bonam · March 6, 2013

Of course, we could talk about our problems instead - you know, healthcare, finance, the economy, but that's pretty boring I suppose.

While I tend to agree with your point (that FPTP produces acceptably good government as we can see historically and thus there is no reason to change it), this statement is off the mark. There are plenty of threads to discuss those topics, if people want to have a thread about electoral systems, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Michael Hardner · March 6, 2013

While I tend to agree with your point (that FPTP produces acceptably good government as we can see historically and thus there is no reason to change it), this statement is off the mark. There are plenty of threads to discuss those topics, if people want to have a thread about electoral systems, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

How much do we discuss healthcare on MLW, really ? Is it proportional to the importance of the issue ? Do we have PR for discussions on here ? I say no.

Bonam · March 6, 2013

How much do we discuss healthcare on MLW, really ? Is it proportional to the importance of the issue ? Do we have PR for discussions on here ? I say no.

If you deem that there is an aspect of healthcare that we should discuss, you are fully free to start a topic on it, and I'm sure people interested in said topic will participate.

From what I recall, we've had quite a number of healthcare threads, but you generally weren't very happy with those threads, since they discussed the general merits of different types of healthcare systems, the origin and future of healthcare costs, etc, rather than your preferred topics of open government initiatives and nitty-gritty reporting of healthcare statistics.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Bonam

Bonam · March 6, 2013

Huh ?

How would that work in, say, Quebec ? The BQ could win 51 seats with 10% of the national vote as they did in 2006. So, your system would not work.

I think what he is saying would work like this. Let's say there are 10 seats, where candidates from two different parties got the following vote proportions:

1: Party A - 95%, Party B - 5%

2: Party A - 90%, Party B - 10%

3: Party A - 85%, Party B - 15%

4: Party A - 80%, Party B - 20%

5: Party A - 75%, Party B - 25%

6: Party A - 70%, Party B - 30%

7: Party A - 65%, Party B - 35%

8: Party A - 60%, Party B - 40%

9: Party A - 55%, Party B - 45%

10: Party A - 51%, Party B - 49%

In this example, in the national popular vote, party A for example got 70% of the national popular vote and party B got 30% of the national popular vote. Therefore, by PR, party A should get 7 seats and party B should get 3 seats. In this system, the seats are allocated by order of % of votes in a riding.

Therefore, to pick which 7 seats party A gets, you look at the 7 seats where they got the highest % of the vote, so they get seats 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. And Party B gets 3 seats, the ones where they got the highest percentage of the vote, which happen to be seats 8, 9, and 10.

The problem with said system is of course that even in ridings 8, 9, and 10, the majority of people actually voted for party A, not party B, and yet will be represented by members of party B.

Expanding on this example, here's what we'd get with the various other systems:

FPTP: 10 MPs from party A

STV: Super-riding 1-5 with 4 MPs from Party A and 1 from Party B, and Super-riding 6-10 with 3 MPs from Party A and 2 from Party B

MMP: All 10 of the Party A MPs get elected, but there are an additional 4 seats, which get allocated to people chosen by party B. In Mighty AC's proposal, these 4 seats would go to the party B candidates from ridings 7, 8, 9, 10.

Of these, I think the MMP result is the most problematic, since it means that ridings 7, 8, 9, and 10 get double representation (2 MPs, one of each party, representing them).

Edited March 6, 2013 by Bonam

Mighty AC · March 6, 2013

Don't think so. Our electoral system could function exactly in the same way it does now if no such thing as a party existed. On the other hand, MMP explicitly requires and formalizes parties.

The party with the most seats forms the government, the leader of said party becomes PM.

Bonam · March 6, 2013

The party with the most seats forms the government, the leader of said party becomes PM.

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.

August1991 · March 6, 2013

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.

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.

Look what is happening now in Syria. Or, how the Iranian State changes. When the Saudi's Arabia changes (and it will - like the Assad's Syria), such States can only change through violence.

We in the West are "civilized" because we have learned what is a State, what is a government, and how to create a State with a changeable government in a civilized manner. We have States that change governments peacefully.

Elsewhere in the world, these are confusing concepts.

------

As to "amount of control people have", I fear the tyranny of the majority. IMHO, the measure of the civilisation of any society - including the world itself - is how the majority treats the minority. Ultimately, each of us is a minority of one in any society.

Edited March 6, 2013 by August1991

shortlived · March 6, 2013

^^^ or atleast that is how it appears... propaganda is a well developed art....

there are winner and loosers in everything. In large part because of party rule, everything is very "Developed" so that a political class exists that is people who end up being professional politicians.

they rise and fall. But no you don't really see elections being skirmish lines for combat forces and tactical take over of regional resources by militant operations, that is called a coupe. Apparently though forming coalitions in Canada is coupe so maybe militancy isn't a coupe, but rather just terrorism, and all you have to do is forge a common ground to defeat the government for it to be a coupe even if it is peaceful.

I think it would be great if we could punch every politician once each for everytime they lie so that that they maybe stop lying to fool stupid people.

Edited March 6, 2013 by shortlived

eyeball · March 6, 2013

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

Look what is happening now in Syria. Or, how the Iranian State changes. When the Saudi's Arabia changes (and it will - like the Assad's Syria), such States can only change through violence.

Your measure belongs in a crock. It ignores how high and mighty democratic countries like our's have grown wealthier and more powerful by suppressing democracy in places like these - for so long that violence was inevitable.

It highlights an almost comical attempt to discuss democracy - fallaciously imagining that most people who practise democracy with gusto have some clue to the moral or ethical background it requires to make the exercise worthwhile.

I think disgust might be the real underlying reason for a growing dis-appreciation for democracy in Canada. It's like playing with shit.

We in the West are "civilized" because we have learned what is a State, what is a government, and how to create a State with a changeable government in a civilized manner. We have States that change governments peacefully.

In time even the most jaded worm will eventually turn.

Bryan · March 6, 2013

I think what he is saying would work like this. Let's say there are 10 seats, where candidates from two different parties got the following vote proportions:

1: Party A - 95%, Party B - 5%

2: Party A - 90%, Party B - 10%

3: Party A - 85%, Party B - 15%

4: Party A - 80%, Party B - 20%

5: Party A - 75%, Party B - 25%

6: Party A - 70%, Party B - 30%

7: Party A - 65%, Party B - 35%

8: Party A - 60%, Party B - 40%

9: Party A - 55%, Party B - 45%

10: Party A - 51%, Party B - 49%

In this example, in the national popular vote, party A for example got 70% of the national popular vote and party B got 30% of the national popular vote. Therefore, by PR, party A should get 7 seats and party B should get 3 seats. In this system, the seats are allocated by order of % of votes in a riding.

That's ridiculous. In that example, "Party A" won every one of the votes, they absolutely should get all ten of the seats.

kairos · March 6, 2013

kairos, on 05 Mar 2013 - 21:13, said:

There
is no reason why proportional representation can't be based on
ridings. The total number of seats nationally are divided by percentage
of votes, and only the people who got the most votes from their ridings
would get elected.

Huh ?

How would that work in, say, Quebec ? The BQ could win 51 seats with
10% of the national vote as they did in 2006. So, your system would
not work.

Why would you use the 2006 results? They got close to that number of seats in 2006 anyway without proportional representation. The last election was in 2011. The BQ got 6% of the national vote which would mean they'd get somewhere around 30 seats federally, which would be precisely fair based on the number of people who voted for them. Just because you may not like the BQ doesn't mean that the people who vote for them don't deserve fair representation. That's called Democracy.

Edited March 6, 2013 by kairos

Boges · March 6, 2013

That's ridiculous. In that example, "Party A" won every one of the votes, they absolutely should get all ten of the seats.

But then all the people that voted for Party B would be sad, and we can't have that.

shortlived · March 6, 2013

kairos, on 05 Mar 2013 - 21:13, said:

Why would you use the 2006 results? They got close to that number of seats in 2006 anyway without proportional representation. The last election was in 2011. The BQ got 6% of the national vote which would mean they'd get somewhere around 30 seats federally, which would be precisely fair based on the number of people who voted for them. Just because you may not like the BQ doesn't mean that the people who vote for them don't deserve fair representation. That's called Democracy.

Peronally I think it would be hilarious in an MMP where the liberals, ndp and conservatives split the vote outside of Quebec and the BQ came out as the top party.. and by "convetion" had the PM...

It would probably take a really low voter turnout though.

People need to understand this is more or less a tri party system in Canada with the bloc and green as secondary parties (But potentially influential in a minority government.

The problem with Canada is that there is no "national" elections. They are all riding based. There should also be open elections for a federal chamber. But no it should not be the senate, it should have nothing to do with the provinces. Any canadian citizen can run, and those with the most votes have preference for seating but people keep the votes they get until the next election and each vote they get counts as one vote when they vote on issues. People should be able to register their vote to who they want, and in that every citizen can run, ever citizen can run free. This 30,000 people vote for some 5000 people vote for someone else but the votes are equal and the 40,000 people who didn't vote for person one and the 7000 people who didn't vote for person two don't get a vote is nonsense.

But this should not be party based and it should not be riding based. It should be national and it should be seperate from the others. These positions would be unpaid. though so no extra cost to the taxpayer.

Edited March 6, 2013 by shortlived

Boges · March 6, 2013

What would you think about a more American system where people vote for their PM separately from from their local MP?

Municipal elections are run this way. You vote for regional and local representatives and the Mayor separately. In Canada the Mayor is just another vote (weak mayor system). If you did it federally I would support the PM having all the powers he/she has now except no control over his party's caucus in the House of Commons.

Michael Hardner · March 6, 2013

If you deem that there is an aspect of healthcare that we should discuss, you are fully free to start a topic on it, and I'm sure people interested in said topic will participate.

For years I tried to generate interest in a topic that I think is arguably the most important issue facing us: healthcare quality and costs, and there is little interest.

The fact of the matter is that discussion is entertainment for humans, and even a fine board like MLW is, in the end, an amusement parlor.

From what I recall, we've had quite a number of healthcare threads, but you generally weren't very happy with those threads, since they discussed the general merits of different types of healthcare systems, the origin and future of healthcare costs, etc, rather than your preferred topics of open government initiatives and nitty-gritty reporting of healthcare statistics.

They would lapse into the barren wasteland of Canada VS America discussions. But more to the point, the discussion itself could never be fact based because the facts are challenging and difficult to master - even for a board like MLW.

Michael Hardner · March 6, 2013

kairos, on 05 Mar 2013 - 21:13, said:

Why would you use the 2006 results? They got close to that number of seats in 2006 anyway without proportional representation. The last election was in 2011. The BQ got 6% of the national vote which would mean they'd get somewhere around 30 seats federally, which would be precisely fair based on the number of people who voted for them. Just because you may not like the BQ doesn't mean that the people who vote for them don't deserve fair representation. That's called Democracy.

I used them because from a single glance at Wikipedia they best supported my example.

I reject the term "Fair" as you use it, as it's entirely subjective. I don't think the people of Quebec would enjoy having 1/2 their MPs taken away and being told that that is "fair".

You seem to have got my example backwards. They received 51 seats in the actual election, so they would have lost almost 1/2 of them.

And it doesn't matter to me whether or not I like the BQ. In fact, I have probably voted NDP more than you have in my life, but I will not see our entire political system restructured based on some peoples' ideas of mathematical fairness. The system works, and that's it.