NB Election Results and Why FPTP is Outdated

[cybercoma]

Instead, you wish to have a multiparty fractured assembly with every party manouvering nonstop- not just at election campaigns but all the time- to improve their position for the next election, which will inevitably come very soon.

The assembly is only as fractured as the electorate. People's views should be represented and those representatives should work to compromise.

[ReeferMadness]

The election in New Brunswick proves once again that representative democracy isn't very representative. Of all the ballots cast, 52% of them went to losing candidates.

It's time to discuss how our representative democracy is not actually representative.

Well, Cybercoma this thread illustrates better than I ever could why neither New Brunswick nor anywhere else in Canada will get a. functioning system of voting anytime soon. Even when it does get raised as an issue to be voted on (and that alone takes a TON of work), established interests rise up and smother the idea with the exact same pig-headed, misleading, half-true (or less) excuses that all the Harperites here are coming up with. Then the voters get confused and scared and go with the devil they know.

And just like this thread, FPTP gets a free ride in the debate. Proponents talk about how it should work in theory, glibly ignoring that in actuality, it really doesn't provide any meaningful representation at all. We harp on how FPTP delivers results that don't reflect the will of the voting public. This alone should be the kiss of death. But many of the other effects of FPTP are not well understood and rarely discussed. Things like gerrymandering. Tactical voting. Wedge issues. Excessive focus on swing ridings. Negative campaigning. Voter suppression tactics. Robocalls. Tendency towards two-party systems. Suppression of innovative ideas. Waste votes. Spoiler candidates and other voter manipulation schemes.

At this point, a casual observer might be tempted to ask a reasonable question? If FPTP is so bad, why is it still around? The answer lies in the history of human injustice. FPTP is a form of systemic discrimination against minority constituencies - those that are part of a group large enough to matter but not large enough to gain a significant number of seats under FPTP (parties that command 5% - 20% of the popular vote). FPTP persists for the same basic reason that black slavery or apartheid or segregation policies or lack of universal suffrage persisted. The group that suffers the injustice isn't powerful enough to change the system and the group that is benefiting from the injustice will just rationalize the status quo. People are amazing at coming up with rationalizations as to why patently unjust systems are OK.

The reason that we still have FPTP is that those who benefit don't really give a shit about the Federal Green or NDP supporters whose votes they are usurping. The history of human rights is clear. If votes are to count equitably, the victories will be won in the courts or in the streets. Trying to convince people they should voluntarily relinquish their unjust privilege is a waste of time.

[Smallc]

We still have FPTP because it has provided us with good stable governance. That's the most important thing in a functioning democracy.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Smallc

[Michael Hardner]

We still have FPTP because it had provided us with good stable governance. That's thr most important thing in a functioning democracy.

I agree. I don't know that we would have things like healthcare without a party given the power to enact their vision. Endless compromises would continually water down any bold vision they may have had.

Also - in the case of the NDP, a party that gets 20% of the votes should get 20% of the power, not 20% of the seats. 20% of the seats represents more power than 20% of the votes because that number gives the balance of power.

I'm thinking about the conservatives, who were in power in the 80s and 90s roughly proportional to their national support. The NDP held the balance of power in the 2000s. Under PR, they would never have been able to implement their policy changes, nor would have the Liberals for that matter.

I'm thinking about major policy changes that were controversial, such as FTA NAFTA and changes to EI here.

What are you calling BS with? If FPTP is so wonderful compared to anything else shouldn't there be a big number of countries in which fed up populations are clamouring to go back to it? Where are they?

From the PR Wiki page there appear to be constituencies that have flipped back to FPRP from PR. I think you need to answer the question as to why they went PR, and why they went back. As for Canada, PR would give the NDP and Greens more power - to my mind, more than would be deserved given their support.

Canada is pretty much in the global middle when it comes to the balance between social programs and business environment. FPTP got us there. PR could result in a situation where Canada goes through unstable governments in a transition period. I could see the NDP disappearing under that scenario, and melding with the Liberals, giving us a two-party system.

Be careful what you wish for.

[cybercoma]

We still have FPTP because it had provided us with good stable governance. That's thr most important thing in a functioning democracy.

You know what's even more stable? Totalitarian dictatorships.

[cybercoma]

I agree. I don't know that we would have things like healthcare without a party given the power to enact their vision.

The first federal medicare act was passed by Lester B. Pearson with a minority government in 1966.

[Smallc]

That's not democratic. The system we have is arguably the best . It allows for a peaceful government transition while providing the people with representation. It also allows for leadership to take place even when people may not be able to see their way clear.

[cybercoma]

As for Canada, PR would give the NDP and Greens more power - to my mind, more than would be deserved given their support.

It's interesting that you say they would get more power than they deserve. They would get exactly the power that the electorate gives them with their votes. Take a look at those pie charts for NB. Every fifth vote cast was for the Green or NDP. The Greens miraculously won a single seat with half the vote as the NDP and the NDP won nothing. So two things if you're going to say it gives disproportionate power:

1) Under FPTP, the Green Party won a single seat due to a tight 4 way race in their riding. They got half the popular vote as the NDP who won zero seats. Overall 20% of the vote garnered a single seat in a 49 seat legislature. Giving them more seats wouldn't give them "more [power] than would be deserved given their support." In fact, I find it insulting that you would say that, given the clearly strong support the "third parties" received in the election. If we include the People's Alliance of New Brunswick--as Kris Austen, their party leader, almost won a seat--then the third parties are well over 20% of the vote, which means more than 1 in every 5 people were voting for them. Yet combined, they took a single seat due to vote splitting. How would giving those parties more seat give them disproportionate power?

2) The system gives disproportionate power to the parties who've won seats. Here is what the legislature (49 seats) looks like as elected in the first column, then as it would be as a proportion of the vote.

L 27 21

PC 21 17

NDP 0 6

GRN 1 3

PANB 0* 1

IND 0 1

*Kris Austen for the PANB is contesting his result, as he lost by only 26 votes and there's at least 1 known case of someone voting in the wrong riding, as well as the issues with reporting errors on election night.

There's clearly disproportionate power there, based on how people have voted and it all goes to the Liberals and Conservatives. Two-party systems stifle ideas and choke out democracy. Look at what's going on in other countries where you get two brands of conservatism and military interventionism with no voice for the voters who are against such things. You get candidates that are bought and paid for by lobbyists and corporate interests and you get to pick the lesser of two evils. I would say that's your disproportionate power right there.

The Liberals under that PR scenario are 4 votes away from a majority. Why shouldn't they have to get the support from 4 other MPs in the Legislature for their policies when their popular support was less than 40%? Why should a single party have unrestricted say over the province's policies when 52% of the votes cast in the election went to losing candidates? The other 48% of the vote was split between the winning Conservatives and Liberals, which were nearly tied. You know what else is true about that? The Conservatives actually got more votes than the Liberals in the election, but didn't win seats.

First Past the Post is ridiculously skewed. It's not at all representative of voters intentions or the policies they support. Yet here we are with a party that holds a majority in the legislature, able to pass whatever legislation it wants, and will go on the nightly news saying it was given a "mandate" by the voters when in reality it wasn't given a thing by the voters. More people voted for other parties than voted for the majority holding Liberals and that's a fact. More people in NB disagree with their policies than support them. Yet there is no opposition to their power in the legislature now. That's a problem for democracy and it greatly contributes to voter apathy.

[cybercoma]

That's not democratic. The system we have is arguably the best . It allows for a peaceful government transition while providing the people with representation. It also allows for leadership to take place even when people may not be able to see their way clear.

But it doesn't provide people with representation. That's what we're talking about. You yourself have admitted that MPs need more freedom, even if we put aside the notion of the vote being broken.

[Michael Hardner]

The first federal medicare act was passed by Lester B. Pearson with a minority government in 1966.

Hmmm... well done.

[Michael Hardner]

It's interesting that you say they would get more power than they deserve. They would get exactly the power that the electorate gives them with their votes.

No - they would be able to force policy changes on any government with the thread of bringing them down.

In fact, I find it insulting that you would say that, given the clearly strong support the "third parties" received in the election.

Don't take it personally. I vote NDP often enough, but I would hate to see them vilified and maybe eliminated.

How would giving those parties more seat give them disproportionate power?

My proposal is to give some representation to parties that receive a certain percentage. If that was 5%, then they would hold an amount of power in a minority government.

2) The system gives disproportionate power to the parties who've won seats. Here is what the legislature (49 seats) looks like as elected in the first column, then as it would be as a proportion of the vote.

There's clearly disproportionate power there, based on how people have voted and it all goes to the Liberals and Conservatives. Two-party systems stifle ideas and choke out democracy.

Yes, I'd like to see the multi-party system continue, and I see PR as a threat to that.

You get candidates that are bought and paid for by lobbyists and corporate interests and you get to pick the lesser of two evils. I would say that's your disproportionate power right there.

More coalition governments mean more lobbying and more backroom influence.

First Past the Post is ridiculously skewed. It's not at all representative of voters intentions or the policies they support.

And yet, we have a great result - much more balanced than two-party or multi-party countries IMO.

[cybercoma]

Hmmm... well done.

This is one of the reasons I see politics as fundamentally different under the Reform Alliance Conservative merger following Mulroney's epic implosion of the Progressive Conservative party. There was a time in this country when even Conservatives saw a need for a social safety net, for helping those who through no fault of their own found themselves unable to help themselves. Thatcher and Reagan destroyed those notions with supply-side economics and arguing for eliminating the social safety net and getting out of the way of big business, so they could be the ones who provide that safety net for people. If they do well, the money will trickle down to those who need it. Thirty plus years on now and it's quite obvious that those policies were a failure when you look at the Savings & Loan mess in the 80s, the tech bust in the 90s, and the near total economic collapse in 2008. The government getting out of the way of the banks and the wealthy leads to nothing more than a concentration of wealth that is entirely unsustainable. The growing gap between the rich and the poor is a serious problem, emphasis on growing. That there's a gap isn't a problem; nobody's arguing for equity. That growing gap, however, cannot be maintained. It will lead to either violent overthrow of the status quo or a police state to keep people in check. With military surplus hardware being doled out to local police forces, we can see which way it's going.

I guess my point is this: politics can and should be co-operative and negotiated. It was in the past, but sometime around the mid 1970s, early 1980s all of that changed. Conservatism was hijacked by corporate interests and radicalized by libertarians over the last few decades. Politics today about winning teams and dig your heels in partisanship. That's a serious problem when these decisions literally have people's lives in the balance.

[Smallc]

But it doesn't provide people with representation. That's what we're talking about. You yourself have admitted that MPs need more freedom, even if we put aside the notion of the vote being broken.

MPs needing more freedom is separate. And yes, this system does provide representation. You simply don't agree with how it's organized.

[cybercoma]

No - they would be able to force policy changes on any government with the thread of bringing them down.

9 votes is not enough to bring the governing party down. They would need 25.

Don't take it personally. I vote NDP often enough, but I would hate to see them vilified and maybe eliminated.

I'm not taking it personally, I find it insulting for the people who voted for them which is nearly 15% of the electorate. I mean, to say they don't have the support, yet 13% of the population voted for them? To put that into perspective, that's like the entire province of BC voting for them in a federal election. That's why saying they don't have the support is wrong in my opinion.

My proposal is to give some representation to parties that receive a certain percentage. If that was 5%, then they would hold an amount of power in a minority government.

Well then, you would be in favour of a more representative legislature or House. I'm not sure why all the fuss about disproportionate power then. Even at a 5% threshold the NDP and Greens in NB would have won seats. The PANB and independents would have been left out (independents would anyway).

Yes, I'd like to see the multi-party system continue, and I see PR as a threat to that.

But you just said your proposal was a form of PR with a 5% threshold. I'm not sure what you're arguing anymore.

More coalition governments mean more lobbying and more backroom influence.

More? I'll humour it. Can you point to anything that supports this argument?

And yet, we have a great result - much more balanced than two-party or multi-party countries IMO.

Well, I guess that's your opinion then. I feel like I've spent a lot of time showing why the result is not great, but you seem to still think that it is. That's your prerogative, but you've not offered anything to convince me.

[Smallc]

But if you want to know what I would like to see, it would be a House of Commons with true rep by pop where the provinces are divided into CMAs and rural. Each CMA would get representatives and the rest of the province would be pooled. True PR would be used in each case. The senate would become a chamber of FPTP where each senators would represent exactly 1/10 of the geographic province. Would it work? Dunno

[cybercoma]

MPs needing more freedom is separate. And yes, this system does provide representation. You simply don't agree with how it's organized.

People are given representation that they don't support under the current system. So great. They have a representative who they didn't vote for and who's policies they don't agree with. That's the issue. Just saying people have representation is moot.

[cybercoma]

But if you want to know what I would like to see, it would be a House of Commons with true rep by pop where the provinces are divided into CMAs and rural. Each CMA would get representatives and the rest of the province would be pooled. True PR would be used in each case. The senate would become a chamber of FPTP where each senators would represent exactly 1/10 of the geographic province. Would it work? Dunno

Nope. The Senate needs to be regional representation, as it is now, so we don't create tiers and competition between the Houses. The Commons must remain supreme, while the Senate vets legislation with their tenure, experience, and regional interests. They should always know their place is not to override the other chamber. Giving them a popular mandate through elections and voter support brings them into conflict with the other elected house and can create statutory gridlock, like we see in other nations with an elected and opposed senate. Edited October 2, 2014 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

We all have situations like that throughout our lives. We don't always get exactly what we can't. Unless we're going to have direct democracy people are always going to lack representation in some way. FPTP is working well for Canada. My ideal government system doesn't prevent me from seeing the danger in changing it. Not many countries do as well as Canada.

[cybercoma]

As an aside, to fix the senate I would like to see Governor General appoint Senators on the recommendation of the Lieutenant Governors.

[cybercoma]

We all have situations like that throughout our lives. We don't always get exactly what we can't. Unless we're going to have direct democracy people are always going to lack representation in some way. FPTP is working well for Canada. My ideal government system doesn't prevent me from seeing the danger in changing it. Not many countries do as well as Canada.

No offence, but these are just platitudes. I feel I've outlined clearly why it's not representative and noted that this contributes significantly to voter apathy. "You can't always get what you want" isn't exactly an argument that's going to persuade me that we shouldn't consider changing FPTP.

[Smallc]

Nope. The Senate needs to be regional representation, as it is now, so we don't create tiers and competition between the Houses. The Commons must remain supreme, while the Senate vets legislation with their tenure, experience, and regional interests. They should always know their place is not to override the other chamber. Giving them a popular mandate through elections and voter support brings them into conflict with the other elected house and can create statutory gridlock, like we see in other nations with an elected and opposed senate.

But you see, that's the problem. If you're going to go with true PR and give larger regions more power, you're going to need to compensate it somehow.

[cybercoma]

We have a Senate for that reason.

[Smallc]

No offence, but these are just platitudes. I feel I've outlined clearly why it's not representative and noted that this contributes significantly to voter apathy. "You can't always get what you want" isn't exactly an argument that's going to persuade me that we shouldn't consider changing FPTP.

I don't expect to persuade you, but don't expect people to be persuaded thst they need to change a system that has given them one of the best countries on the planet because it isn't fair to people that don't share the ideas of the general populace.

[Smallc]

We have a Senate for that reason.

Then they need to be elected. As it sits right now their role is to review. That's not enough.

[cybercoma]

Then they need to be elected. As it sits right now their role is to review. That's not enough.

They can do more than review. They can write legislation and pass it down to the House. They can end bills entirely. Most importantly though, their tenure allows them the time to research and evaluate things much more in depth than the relatively short time that MPs sit before elections are called. They also don't have to worry about the partisanship nonsense that comes with elections.

The problem currently is that it's filled with partisan hacks that couldn't make it in elections. They're not being appointed in good faith by the prime ministers of the day. There was a time when a prime minister would appoint senators across parties, but no more. Governing in good faith is a thing of the past, so the system needs to be codified to prevent the sorts of abuses we've seen in recent years. I say take the power to appoint senators away from the Prime Ministers and give it to the Lieutenant Governors. Electing the upper chamber will create competition and gridlock, if we don't sync the elections. Syncing the elections undermines the value we get from a Senate that can take its time to review things and has longer tenure than MPs in the House.