NB Election Results and Why FPTP is Outdated

[Smallc]

Of course they can do more now, but watch what public opinion would do if they tried. Goodbye Senate, no matter what it takes (and yes there are far better ways to select them than current).

Edited October 2, 2014 by Smallc

[TimG]

I feel I've outlined clearly why it's not representative and noted that this contributes significantly to voter apathy.

This is nothing but your opinion based on your own world view. It is not an established fact.

[eyeball]

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

It stands to reason we're going to have to make some changes to the way we govern ourselves if we change the way we form our government. The ability to toss a government on a whim is just plain stupid. Fixed terms as was suggested is the most obvious and easy way to correct this problem.

[eyeball]

Just saying people have representation is moot.

It also just pisses people off. It's condescending and insulting like writing off 'losers' as whiners. It's easy to see where a good amount of the trend towards violence might come from when the tipping point of a un-representative political system is reached.

[eyeball]

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.

Where does this idea that our system of governance alone has been the end all and be all of everything that's contributed to that? I think we can attribute a lot of our well being to the sheer abundance of natural capital that ordinary Canadians have had access to for generations as much as anything. But now that access is becoming more limited as opportunity, like wealth, power and influence is being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.

The danger now is in not changing our system.

[cybercoma]

It stands to reason we're going to have to make some changes to the way we govern ourselves if we change the way we form our government. The ability to toss a government on a whim is just plain stupid. Fixed terms as was suggested is the most obvious and easy way to correct this problem.

That's not the way our government works, but you could say for instance that only the budgets are confidence votes.

[cybercoma]

It also just pisses people off. It's condescending and insulting like writing off 'losers' as whiners. It's easy to see where a good amount of the trend towards violence might come from when the tipping point of a un-representative political system is reached.

I mean, I don't think we're there yet, but you can see the resentment people have for the government and politics in general as a symptom of this.

[eyeball]

I mean, I don't think we're there yet, but you can see the resentment people have for the government and politics in general as a symptom of this.

I don't either but I also don't see why that'll remain the case. You don't have to look too far around the world or in history to see what happens when a people do get there - which is to also say when a system refuses to change.

[Mighty AC]

This is nothing but your opinion based on your own world view. It is not an established fact.

Taken from this very website:

According to the World Policy Institute, voter turnout is higher in countries with proportional representation. The following table compares voter turnout rates in democracies with different electoral systems: (Click the link below to see the page containing the table)

http://mapleleafweb.com/features/voter-turnout-canada

From Wikipedia:

Since most votes count there are fewer "wasted votes", so voters, aware that their vote can make a difference, are more likely to make the effort to vote, and less likely to vote tactically. As compared to countries with plurality voting systems voter turnout improves and the population is more involved in the political process.^[2][15][13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#Voter_participation

Edited October 2, 2014 by Mighty AC

[Smallc]

That shows nothing. Every country is an apples to oranges comparison to other countries. What matters is good governance and functioning democracy. We have both, and that's why change is a dangerous idea.

[Mighty AC]

That shows nothing. Every country is an apples to oranges comparison to other countries. What matters is good governance and functioning democracy. We have both, and that's why change is a dangerous idea.

Do you think distorting the outcome of votes so greatly diminishes the value of our 'democracy'? Shouldn't every vote be treated equally regardless of how your neighbours vote? Should righties in big cities or lefties in Alberta have absolutely no say or representation just because our system produces stable, short term dictatorships?

[Smallc]

The outcome isn't distorted. The outcome is the prevailing will of the largest number of people. If not enough people can agree, then the 'short term dictatorship' (sic) doesn't even happen.

[cybercoma]

The outcome isn't distorted.

It isn't?

Hmm.....

[Smallc]

It's not. Every riding is represented by the person who got the most votes. Going to true rep by PPP would fix much of the problem.

[cybercoma]

That outcome looks pretty distorted to me. If people vote for the kind of government and policies they want to see, then that government on the right has absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to voting intentions. That's distorted. It takes some serious pretzel twisting to argue that it isn't.

[overthere]

Should righties in big cities or lefties in Alberta have absolutely no say or representation just because our system produces stable, short term dictatorships?

Lefties in Alberta are permitted to vote. I do not know where you got the idea they cannot. Their vote is treated and counted exactly the same as anybody else,

That outcome looks pretty distorted to me.

Life can look like that when you're always on the losing side.

[Smallc]

True rep by pop would fix much of the distortion.

[TimG]

Taken from this very website:

In New Zealand there was a one time bump when they went to MMP but since then turnout has been hitting record lows each election. There is no reason to believe a change in Canada would have any effect in the long term trends.

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-social-indicators/Home/Trust%20and%20participation%20in%20government/voter-turnout.aspx

Of course, that assumes we should care about the number of people who are too lazy to vote.

Edited October 2, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

That outcome looks pretty distorted to me. If people vote for the kind of government and policies they want to see, then that government on the right has absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to voting intentions.

And a government created by a coalition between a major party and one or more fringe party would be even less representative because the policies of the fringe party would be imposed on the majority.

[cybercoma]

And a government created by a coalition between a major party and one or more fringe party would be even less representative because the policies of the fringe party would be imposed on the majority.

Who's talking about a coalition? Write sensible legislation and you'll get bipartisan support. Churn out stupidity and it gets shot down.

Not every party is as ridiculous, spiteful, and unprofessional as the Harper Conservatives.

[TimG]

Who's talking about a coalition? Write sensible legislation and you'll get bipartisan support.

Nonsense. Opposition political parties have absolutely no incentive to make the government look good and will never co-operate on a regular basis. You would be better off believing in leprechauns.

You are also ignoring the general practice in all countries with perpetual minorities: coalitions where fringe parties with a small percentage of the vote get to impose their pet policies on the nation because the largest or second largest party needs those few extra votes to govern with a majority and shut out all of the other voices in the legislature.

Edited October 3, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

You are also ignoring the general practice in all countries with perpetual minorities: coalitions where fringe parties with a small percentage of the vote get to impose their pet policies on the nation because the largest or second largest party needs those few extra votes to govern with a majority and shut out all of the other voices in the legislature.

Yes, this is what I'm thinking of. Specifically, Israel where tiny fringe parties get power because of the coalition situation there.

[Michael Hardner]

Another point. Conservative voters will lose power from the voting schemes being discussed here. They are politically more distant from the Liberals and the NDP than those parties are to each other. Also, the Liberals+NDP together take more than 50% of the vote together. ( That also makes me think they would merge at one point, but that's another discussion. )

The Conservative voters of Canada would definitely lose what little power they have had. They would never support such a thing as PR.

[Mighty AC]

In New Zealand there was a one time bump when they went to MMP but since then turnout has been hitting record lows each election. There is no reason to believe a change in Canada would have any effect in the long term trends.

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-social-indicators/Home/Trust%20and%20participation%20in%20government/voter-turnout.aspx

Of course, that assumes we should care about the number of people who are too lazy to vote.

New Zealand and most of the democratic world have seen declines in voter participation since the 1960's.

This general explanation has appeared in multiple studies:

"While experiencing declining turnout, this period has also experienced decreasing levels of personal interest in politics and lowering levels of civic culture (including trust in political institutions and in the political system). Declining trust in traditional democratic institutions as vehicles for personal fulfilment and well-being has eroded the sentiment of civic duty."

http://www.e-ir.info/2012/09/27/why-is-turnout-at-elections-declining-across-the-democratic-world/

Anyway, NZ is still near the top of participation rates among nations that don't make voting mandatory. Older, established democracies are seeing declines across the board but the fact remains that, on average, countries with PR see higher participation rates than countries with 'winner take all' single member plurality systems.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Mighty AC

[cybercoma]

Yes, this is what I'm thinking of. Specifically, Israel where tiny fringe parties get power because of the coalition situation there.

You mean kind of like parties that receive a fraction of the actual votes get to impose their will completely unopposed now? The proportion of votes cast for winning candidates in the NB election was 48%. Less than half the voters cast a ballot for a winning candidate. The governing party received a fraction of that vote and got a majority government.

You can sit here and talk about this nightmare situation where tiny coalitions get to make absurd policies, but it's no more absurd than a party with less than 40% of the popular vote sitting in a majority position, able to pass whatever legislation it wishes because backbenchers are toothless and FPTP is unrepresentative.

What exactly do you think would happen if one of those "fringe" parties (which are wings of larger parties now anyway) got their policies endorsed by the larger parties? Those larger parties would be thrown to the curb in the next election, which on a confidence motion could happen quickly. The combination of seats has to equal a majority to get passed. A majority in a proportional system is made up of a majority of legislators who are actually representative of voters intentions.

TimG is scaremongering because his political view is the minority view in this country, yet the party he supports is sitting on a majority of the seats in the legislative house. What he worries about as "fringe" is the consensus that could be reached by like-minded parties, which represents the views of like-minded voters. His party doesn't work towards consensus and is largely adversarial even on legislation that fits its political ideology. Look no further than a handful of Tory backbenchers supporting the NDP motion to reword Standing Order 11(2), yet it was still voted down. Accountability is one of the cornerstones of conservatism and they can't even support their own ideology when it comes to another party presenting it.

Think about this, when the Liberals and NDP were talking about a coalition with BQ support, do you honestly think the Liberals and NDP would accept a motion for secession from the BQ? They would lose the BQ's support before becoming the governing party that broke up the country, even if it meant going down in a confidence motion.

I'm tired of this political illiteracy that claims coalitions are undemocratic when they are integral part of the Westminster system. They are a result of the tenets of parliamentary supremacy and responsible government. The attack that Stephen Harper has launch on our institutions is an affront democracy itself, as its only end is to mislead the voters and keep them ignorant about the functioning of our government. And that's because he's the kind of person that refuses to have any sort of accountability to anyone other than his own base. That's not so bad when you're an MP. It's completely undemocratic when you're in the executive though.