NB Election Results and Why FPTP is Outdated

[Michael Hardner]

Those vast swaths of uniform color present a uniform view of reality that the third grader in your soccer comment would recognize as patently false.

Maybe, but you're taking my answer to the question that was posed and moving the conversation in a different direction. The point is that regions do vote differently.

There simply is no way to reflect that while implementing an exact mirror of the overall vote. It can't be done, mathematically.

[cybercoma]

That's pretty much how our representatives form an executive now.

OTOH we have a Queen and GG who could execute the will of our representatives.

I thought of that, but I'm not sure how the chosen reps would decide how an executive is formed. It would be a long and arduous process, no? How do they decide the Prime Minister?

Edited September 28, 2014 by cybercoma

[ReeferMadness]

It's about governance, actually. And the reason politics exists is that people don't agree. The system works to establish leadership and opposition to work through those disagreements.

The voters wish for many things, but gridlock is not one of those things.

Well, if it's governance the voters wish and gridlock that they hate, the answer is obvious, isn't it? Modern history is replete with leaders who focused amply on governance and never suffered gridlock. Mussolini. Stalin. Mao. There seems to be a lack of available polling data but I'm going to surmise that each of these leaders at some point during their rule enjoyed a level of popular support similar to what Chairman Harper has today.

And you say that our system has the opposition? What a joke!! The opposition has no power and the government has essentially stopped even answering their questions. The media have been treated by disdain by a government drunk with power.

The real opposition that has prevented Harper from ramming through his agenda has been the courts. Also a few heroic senior civil servants (like Kevin Page) have done something to keep the government honest.

[ReeferMadness]

Maybe, but you're taking my answer to the question that was posed and moving the conversation in a different direction. The point is that regions do vote differently.

There simply is no way to reflect that while implementing an exact mirror of the overall vote. It can't be done, mathematically.

So, you're making perfection the enemy of good.

We can do much better than we are today,

[eyeball]

There simply is no way to reflect that while implementing an exact mirror of the overall vote. It can't be done, mathematically.

No one's talking about achieving a perfect reflection, just one that's a lot less distorted.

[Michael Hardner]

So, you're making perfection the enemy of good.

We can do much better than we are today,

Yes that is very true.

[TimG]

The real opposition that has prevented Harper from ramming through his agenda has been the courts. Also a few heroic senior civil servants (like Kevin Page) have done something to keep the government honest.

In the 90s the Conservatives rammed through FTA and the GST. Prior to that we had medicare and canada pension rammed through by Liberals. Yet all of the decisions have not been reversed because subsequent governments realized they were the right thing to do. These governments also made bad decisions which WERE subsequently repealed by later governments so no matter how much you hate a policy if it is truly bad it will be gone by the time the next government gets power.

The last thing we need is a grid lock like they have in the US where the government is incapable of reforming anything because every special interest group gets their say. Our system works extremely well and I say that even when parties I disagree with have their turn to pass a bunch of laws which really piss me off but please their base.

Edited September 29, 2014 by TimG

[jbg]

In the 90s the Conservatives rammed through FTA and the GST. Prior to that we had medicare and canada pension rammed through by Liberals. Yet all of the decisions have not been reversed because subsequent governments realized they were the right thing to do.

One minor quibble. It seems that FTA (now NAFTA) and GST, as well as Medicare (I don't know much about the pension situation) were not reversed because they couldn't be. The changes had worked deeply into the economic system and price structure so that even if a future majority government wanted to reverse them it couldn't.

I fear the same result here with Obama-care a/k/a Affordable Care Act.

[TimG]

The changes had worked deeply into the economic system and price structure so that even if a future majority government wanted to reverse them it couldn't.

In the US any law creates a pack of vested interests that have the power to block any changes. In Canada, the power of those vested interests is a lot less and a suitably motivated government does have the power to reverse changes (the elimination of the gun control registry and the Canadian Wheat Board are two recent examples). In your specific examples: the FTA had a 6 month termination clause that could be invoked by either party and the GST could have been replaced by increasing income taxes. They weren't because despite the grandstanding at the time the Liberals realized the laws made a lot of sense.

[jbg]

In the US any law creates a pack of vested interests that have the power to block any changes. In Canada, the power of those vested interests is a lot less and a suitably motivated government does have the power to reverse changes (the elimination of the gun control registry and the Canadian Wheat Board are two recent examples). In your specific examples: the FTA had a 6 month termination clause that could be invoked by either party and the GST could have been replaced by increasing income taxes. They weren't because despite the grandstanding at the time the Liberals realized the laws made a lot of sense.

A better example is Medicare (Canada). The wages that workers receive are lower because a major component of their living costs are apparently, to them, free. It would be very hard to re-sort the wage structure in a repeal of Medicare. The gun registry was ineffective and expensive and its elimination posed no danger of economic disorder. I can't really speak on the Canadian Wheat Board because I'd be speaking from ignorance.

I suppose that the GST moneys could have been reallocated to the income tax but as we've learned in the U.S. that comes with its own complexities and problems. If I recall correctly, the GST replaced the MST so it wasn't as fundamental a change as dropping ad valorem taxes entirely. In short, fundamental changes are hard to come by.

[Mighty AC]

Because it can't be done. PR (as a general term) is about making sure that the proportion of power that ends up in the legislature reflects the overall vote. That can only be done by reducing the effects you describe, which means reducing the number of representatives that a local group can potentially win.

That's specific to how the house of commons works, and it's a qualitative assessment not a numeric one.

Under a Mixed Member Proportional system ridings still elect a local rep. However, by separating the local vote from the government vote MMP gives voters more freedom to vote for the best person for the riding. This creates incentive for better local representation.

[Smallc]

And that kind of system is cumbersome and generally nonsensical.

[ReeferMadness]

In the 90s the Conservatives rammed through FTA and the GST. Prior to that we had medicare and canada pension rammed through by Liberals. Yet all of the decisions have not been reversed because subsequent governments realized they were the right thing to do. These governments also made bad decisions which WERE subsequently repealed by later governments so no matter how much you hate a policy if it is truly bad it will be gone by the time the next government gets power.

The last thing we need is a grid lock like they have in the US where the government is incapable of reforming anything because every special interest group gets their say. Our system works extremely well and I say that even when parties I disagree with have their turn to pass a bunch of laws which really piss me off but please their base.

Oh, I see. Instead of compromise, you prefer to see a system where Conservatives and Liberals alternate dictatorships. Makes me wonder how decisions are made in your household.

[Mighty AC]

And that kind of system is cumbersome and generally nonsensical.

Why?

[Michael Hardner]

This creates incentive for better local representation.

Better perhaps, but also less powerful if you count the numbers.

[cybercoma]

And that kind of system is cumbersome and generally nonsensical.

Cumbersome, maybe. Nonsensical, no.

[cybercoma]

Better perhaps, but also less powerful if you count the numbers.

What's the sense of all that power when it's not representative? In fact, one could agree with your point and say that it's a problem because its un-representative and much more powerful. That's a bad combination.

[Michael Hardner]

What's the sense of all that power when it's not representative? In fact, one could agree with your point and say that it's a problem because its un-representative and much more powerful. That's a bad combination.

The only way I can see it not being representative, is in that the MPs vote according to the party leader's instructions. But in that sense, if you had independent MPs who could free vote then yes you would have more local power.

What about getting rid of local ridings entirely ? Or banning parties ? Or having direct votes ?

My proposal to add a "top up" for parties that meet a minimum requirement, ensuring they're representative is a small evolutionary step - we could see how that addresses the discontent first, then move forward.

[Smallc]

Cumbersome, maybe. Nonsensical, no.

Well then I must be stupid because I just can't get my head around it.

[cybercoma]

The only way I can see it not being representative, is in that the MPs vote according to the party leader's instructions. But in that sense, if you had independent MPs who could free vote then yes you would have more local power.

That's a big "if" and even then there would likely be a tacit understanding that they vote with the party.

What about getting rid of local ridings entirely ? Or banning parties ? Or having direct votes ?

All ideas. All problematic.

Although getting rid of ridings sounds insanely radical with modern technology it might not be as radical as it first appears. When people get involved politically, they're signing petitions online and talking about things through social media these days. In that environment, is a local representative really necessary? More to the point, I know people who've had issue that can't even get a meeting with the local MP because he knows they don't support his party (CPC for the record). This is a big problem, when an MP is supposed to represent his/her entire constituency, not just his own party and the interests of the minority of voters who voted for him.

Perhaps there is a better, more representative way we can put people in Ottawa or the legislatures that represents the voting intentions of the electorate, while still giving them access to representatives through email or other types of communication.

The argument might then be that these people wouldn't understand the particular issues in certain locales. Certainly those things need to be considered at times when it comes to federal policy. However, those local concerns aren't heard as it is anyway. They just vote with the party regardless of what the majority of constituents want. So the system doesn't work the way those who have objections to change think it does.

My proposal to add a "top up" for parties that meet a minimum requirement, ensuring they're representative is a small evolutionary step - we could see how that addresses the discontent first, then move forward.

I like this idea, but then it creates "tiers" of MLAs or MPs. Do the representative ones then have more power than the "top up" ones or are their votes diluted like you said? Are we going to see more respect for representative MPs and MLAs than their proportional counterparts? We've got to consider how this would change the way people perceive and interact with the government.

[Mighty AC]

Well then I must be stupid because I just can't get my head around it.

You can't get your head around what exactly? The Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) concept or PR in general?

[Michael Hardner]

I like this idea, but then it creates "tiers" of MLAs or MPs. Do the representative ones then have more power than the "top up" ones or are their votes diluted like you said? Are we going to see more respect for representative MPs and MLAs than their proportional counterparts? We've got to consider how this would change the way people perceive and interact with the government.

No - the additional MPs would just have no constituencies per se.

Honestly, though, I think we should focus on making the existing system more responsive, more personal, and more understandable to people. That can be done without any changing of the mathematics behind elections.

[Mighty AC]

No - the additional MPs would just have no constituencies per se.

Honestly, though, I think we should focus on making the existing system more responsive, more personal, and more understandable to people. That can be done without any changing of the mathematics behind elections.

When we have some parties winning seats for every 30,000 votes received and others winning zero despite receiving over 750,000 votes, I think the mathematics are a problem.

[Smallc]

You can't get your head around what exactly? The Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) concept or PR in general?

MMP. It seems so cumbersome and difficult to understand.

[Mighty AC]

MMP. It seems so cumbersome and difficult to understand.

Voters cast two ballots. One for a local representative, just like we do now, and one for the party they would like to form the government. The second vote is used to determine the percentage of seats in parliament allocated to each party.

Every winning local MP gets a seat and then additional MPs are added so that each party occupies the correct proportion parliament.

This system is useful if local representation is deemed important. It incentives local representation while also creating a parliament that matches how we actually vote.