NB Election Results and Why FPTP is Outdated

[cybercoma]

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

And with that, will they be paid the same? If they don't have to run a constituency office and meet with constituents, etc., should they make the same amount of money?

I think there's a lot of considerations with a new system, even though I don't believe the old system is particularly representative.

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.

I would be interested in how we accomplish this. Do we give MPs more power over party leadership? Will that give them the autonomy they need? But then what do you do about local riding associations being hijacked by fringe interests? If you give MPs too much power, then you end up with the problem Preston Manning had with the Reform Party. Out of control populism reflecting poorly on the party.

I'm sure I can sit here and find challenges with everything, which isn't constructive. I think giving MPs and MLAs more autonomy is a step in the right direction, but I'm not exactly sure what would be the easiest and most effective way of doing that since they're supposed to be autonomous already....in theory.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

Yes, and my proposal addresses that very thing. I do think that democracy exists outside elections, and that needs attention.

[Michael Hardner]

And with that, will they be paid the same? If they don't have to run a constituency office and meet with constituents, etc., should they make the same amount of money?

I doubt that the MPs have to do much of the 'running' themselves. National MPs would ostensibly have more work to do anyway.

I think giving MPs and MLAs more autonomy is a step in the right direction, but I'm not exactly sure what would be the easiest and most effective way of doing that since they're supposed to be autonomous already....in theory.

Press the parties for more free votes.

[Mighty AC]

Yes, and my proposal addresses that very thing. I do think that democracy exists outside elections, and that needs attention.

Do you mean the 'top up' you referred to? How do we calculate the amount of the top up?

[Mighty AC]

And with that, will they be paid the same? If they don't have to run a constituency office and meet with constituents, etc., should they make the same amount of money?

I doubt that the MPs have to do much of the 'running' themselves. National MPs would ostensibly have more work to do anyway.

Under MMP, list MPs, are paid the same but cost less since they do not receive a constituency office budget.

[Michael Hardner]

Do you mean the 'top up' you referred to? How do we calculate the amount of the top up?

I would give a seat for every 5% that a party receives that otherwise isn't represented in parliament.

[cybercoma]

Press the parties for more free votes.

Again, I think there will be a tacit expectation of voting with the executive for the governing party. The PMO can still reward MPs and backbenchers with parliamentary secretary positions and cabinet posts. They could give the impression of a "free" vote, but then treat it like career suicide.

Free votes are a start. Though if the executive still has control over the legislators to whom they're supposed to be accountable, then we haven't changed very much.

[Mighty AC]

I would give a seat for every 5% that a party receives that otherwise isn't represented in parliament.

I see two problems. The first is 5% should equate to roughly 15 seats (federally), so there is still a math issue.

Seondly, FPTP being a 'winner take all' system often encourages strategic voting within a riding. Thus, a single ballot cannot accurately determine the true wishes of the electorate. Additionally, a single ballot does not allow voters to support a local candidate who belongs to a different party than we want to form the government.

[Michael Hardner]

I see two problems. The first is 5% should equate to roughly 15 seats (federally), so there is still a math issue.

FPTP being a 'winner take all' system often encourages strategic voting within a riding. Thus, a single ballot cannot accurately determine the true wishes of the electorate.eAdditionally, a single ballot does not allow voters to support a local candidate who belongs to a different party than we want to form the government.

1. True - but it's a step towards giving some representation without affecting the balance of power. Changing the balance of power to effectively create perpetual minority governments is too big a change IMO.

Of course pretty much everybody who wants this change is an NDP supporter, so I can see why they would want it but it's too big a change to give them perpetual ability to hold the government hostage.

2. The local voter could vote for a different party, as long as they had national support. Local independents are another story, and some systems proposed would be better for them others would not. For example, "pure" PR would guarantee that no independent ever sat in the house of commons.

[Mighty AC]

Of course pretty much everybody who wants this change is an NDP supporter, so I can see why they would want it but it's too big a change to give them perpetual ability to hold the government hostage.

I have personally never voted NDP, but regardless, the kingmaker idea is a bit of fallacy, based on experience with our current system.

2. The local voter could vote for a different party, as long as they had national support. Local independents are another story, and some systems proposed would be better for them others would not. For example, "pure" PR would guarantee that no independent ever sat in the house of commons.

I'm saying that if voters can only cast one ballot they cannot choose a local candidate who belongs to a party they do not support without also helping them nationally. MMP allows greater freedom in this area.

[Michael Hardner]

I have personally never voted NDP, but regardless, the kingmaker idea is a bit of fallacy, based on experience with our current system.

Really ? The NDP has held the balance of power in most minority governments I can think of.

[Mighty AC]

Really ? The NDP has held the balance of power in most minority governments I can think of.

The fallacy I'm referring to is that parliaments produced by PR would operate like Canadian minority governments. Currently, politicians see minority governments as a temporary situation and simply play politics as they battle for majority status. When coalitions are the norm and toppling the government becomes pointless and/or impossible, the endless campaigning disappears and parties form coalitions on an issue by issue basis.

[overthere]

When coalitions are the norm and toppling the government becomes pointless and/or impossible,

When majority govt is the norm, it is also impossible to topple the govt.

Obviously, if the situation is one where -as you say- coalitions form and reform on every issue, toppling the govt is quite easy. It may be pointless, but clearly far from impossible

Is that your objective, to make it easier to topple a govt?

Edited September 30, 2014 by overthere

[TimG]

When coalitions are the norm and toppling the government becomes pointless and/or impossible, the endless campaigning disappears and parties form coalitions on an issue by issue basis.

IOW - you expect the elect a dictator system to continue but with backroom horse-trading taking place after the election instead of in the open at party conventions before the elections. I don't see this as an improvement.

[Mighty AC]

IOW - you expect the elect a dictator system to continue but with backroom horse-trading taking place after the election instead of in the open at party conventions before the elections. I don't see this as an improvement.

Not at all. I see parties creating and running on their individual platforms and working together, post election, on issues that overlap. Grits and Tories may jointly pass some overlapping economic policies that are opposed by the NDP. The Libs may later work with Dippers and Greens to pass environmental legislation which is opposed by Cons. This would all be in the open and based on party platforms.

[jbg]

.....the endless campaigning disappears and parties form coalitions on an issue by issue basis.

The coalitions are not "issue by issue." A coalition means that competing parties sit in government together. A minority government is an issue by issue coalition. A coalition government is agreement to govern in condominium with opponents. Thus the electorate never really knows what it's going to get. Coalition governments are generally, though not always, undemocratic.

Exceptions are Saskatchewan's recent experience where a party was near a majority and needed a few extra MPs to govern. Ditto Cameron in Britain. Otherwise, they are the foe of democracy.

Edited September 30, 2014 by jbg

[Mighty AC]

The coalitions are not "issue by issue." A coalition means that competing parties sit in government together. A minority government is an issue by issue coalition.

I'm not referring to Coalition Governments, just how parliament would operate in the perpetual minority situation produced by a proportional electoral system.

[TimG]

Not at all. I see parties creating and running on their individual platforms and working together, post election, on issues that overlap.

No - you just described a system where the 1st or 2nd largest party engages in secret negotiations with the 3rd, 4th or 5th place party to create a majority which would then rule like any other majority that this country has ever had. The platforms the parties run on will be tossed out the window because horse trading will require it which will leave voters even more cynical because now politicians have excuses for not keeping their promises.

The idea that the 1st and 2nd party representing the majority of the populace would collaborate in a regular fashion is naive at best. The only outcome of such a system will be to give small single issue parties way more influence than they deserve.

Edited September 30, 2014 by TimG

[jbg]

I'm not referring to Coalition Governments, just how parliament would operate in the perpetual minority situation produced by a proportional electoral system.

In that situation the governments are usually coalition rather than perpetual minority governments. The latter isn't nearly as anti-democratic as the former but may be too unstable. It remains to be seen if the MPs in that kind of a Parliament would avoid ceaseless elections. When Upper and Lower Canada were merged under "responsible government" before confederation, there were almost annual government dissolution and probably almost as many elections.

[Mighty AC]

The idea that the 1st and 2nd party representing the majority of the populace would collaborate in a regular fashion is naive at best. The only outcome of such a system will be to give small single issue parties way more influence than they deserve.

It happens all the time in most of the world. We're stuck picturing the adversarial minority parliaments we've seen in Canada.

[Mighty AC]

In that situation the governments are usually coalition rather than perpetual minority governments. The latter isn't nearly as anti-democratic as the former but may be too unstable. It remains to be seen if the MPs in that kind of a Parliament would avoid ceaseless elections. When Upper and Lower Canada were merged under "responsible government" before confederation, there were almost annual government dissolution and probably almost as many elections.

Under a proportional system majorities would be very rare, so the adversarial minorities we've witnessed as Harper pursued a majority would disappear when the incentive vanishes. When reforming the electoral system, we should also eliminate the ability to topple the government. Like New Zealand did when switching from FPTP to MMP in the 90's, I would propose fixed 3 year election dates. Edited October 1, 2014 by Mighty AC

[TimG]

It happens all the time in most of the world. We're stuck picturing the adversarial minority parliaments we've seen in Canada.

I call BS. Every legislature I can think of has the two largest parties in perpetual opposition as they negotiate back room deals with the various special interest parties to get a majority. Once in a while there may be a 'unity' government but these are the exception as opposed to the rule.

[eyeball]

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?

Edited October 1, 2014 by eyeball

[overthere]

It happens all the time in most of the world. We're stuck picturing the adversarial minority parliaments we've seen in Canada.

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.

[overthere]

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?

right back at you- the only clamour I hear in Canada for a change from FPTP is from chronic losers unable to rally significant support for their cause.

Lemme see- FPTP in the seat of our system- UK- and many others including really big ones like the US and the biggest of them all chose FPTP - India.