Proportional Representation Discussion

[TimG]

large segments of the Canadian population are either not fairly represented or not represented at all.

Says who? Just because someone votes for a party that does not mean another party is not able to address concerns that are important to them. As a general rule there is a huge overlap between party policies and it is not reasonable to say that the CPC or Libs do not represent the interests of people who did not vote them. You could say they do not represent all the issues of the non-voters but that is inevitable in any system where people have interests which are at odds with the majority opinion.

[bush_cheney2004]

Slavery in the US functioned exactly how it was designed prior to the US civil war. Does that mean slavery should have never been abolished?

That's not exactly how slavery functioned or was regulated in the U.S. There were numerous pre-war changes and compromises to the design of "slavery" as more territories sought statehood in the first half of the 19th century.

Several provinces have already dabbled in changes towards proportionality in the past, then going back to FPTP.

Edited October 22, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[-1=e^ipi]

Says who?

Me.

Just because someone votes for a party that does not mean another party is not able to address concerns that are important to them.

In that case, why not just get rid of democracy and have a dictator? Because it is possible for the dictator to address the concerns of the people?

The green party is barely represented, NDP/Bloc are under represented, Libertarian/Communist/etc. have no representation.

[TimG]

The green party is barely represented, NDP/Bloc are under represented, Libertarian/Communist/etc. have no representation.

And how much overlap is there between the policies of these parties and the Libs and CPC? Your assumption that no representation for the party means the voter is not represented. This is demonstrably false. Policy overlap ensures that multiple parties do represent a voter's interests even if the voter did not vote for them. Edited October 22, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

Policy overlap ensures that multiple parties do represent a voter's interests even if the voter did not vote for them.

Key word here is ensures.

So even if a voter's preferred political party gets zero representation, somehow they are ensured to be represented by other parties since other parties overlap with other parties?

That doesn't make sense.

Okay, who am I represented by?

And before you go 'but you spoiled your ballot so you aren't a voter and I'm intolerant of differing view points on voting like cybercoma' let's say hypothetically I voted for the libertarian party. Who represents my interests? Name 1 MP. Because somehow I don't feel represented by any of them.

[TimG]

So even if a voter's preferred political party gets zero representation, somehow they are ensured to be represented by other parties since other parties overlap with other parties?

Well there are two possibilities:

1) The selected party has a considerable overlap with other parties;

2) The selected party has little overlap with other parties;

If 1) then representation is ensured.

If 2) representation is moot because the party desires policies that no one else wants so the voter has no right to expect representation.

Okay, who am I represented by?

Depends on the policies you care about. Libertarians share policies with CPC and the Libs so either of those parties would provide you with partial representation which should be fine because there is no chance a Libertarian MP could achieve more given current support levels. Edited October 22, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

2) representation is moot because the party desires policies that no one else wants so the voter has no right to expect representation.

This is 1, irrelevant, and 2 false.

It is irrelevant because as long as the voter's views represent a sufficient portion of the population (say 0.3% + for a 300+ seat parliament) then it would make sense for that voter's views to be represented in parliament. Isn't that the whole point of representational democracy? To represent people, including minorities?

And it's false. I'll just give 1 counter example. The majority of Ontarians want the Catholic system abolished. Yet 0 of the parties in the legislature support this view (green party has 0 seats).

Libertarians share policies with CPC and the Libs so either of those parties would provide you with partial representation which should be fine because there is no chance a Libertarian MP could achieve more given current support levels.

The Libertarian party obtained over 0.2% of the vote and they only have seats in about half the ridings. It is extremely likely under a proportional system where voters in all ridings can vote for them and there will be not strategic voting that their support level would justify seats in parliament.

But you want examples of policies/positions that none of the parties in parliament support?

Which parties want to get rid of supply management?

Which parties support dealing or even mentioning men's issues such as the life expectancy gap, the suicide gap, the violent crime victim gap, the university attendance gap, or the fact that millions of infant males have their genitals mutilated without consent?

Which parties dare to even acknowledge the existence of tradeoffs, such as the tradeoff between CO2 mitigation and economic output?

Which parties make decisions based on empirical evidence rather than dogma or whatever is popular?

None.

[TimG]

It is irrelevant because as long as the voter's views represent a sufficient portion of the population (say 0.3% + for a 300+ seat parliament) then it would make sense for that voter's views to be represented in parliament.

Why? The only way 1 MP would have any influence on legislation is if there are other parties with overlapping policy choices. If none of the other parties overlap then the MP changes nothing and the block of voters will still complain they are "not represented".

Isn't that the whole point of representational democracy? To represent people, including minorities?

Democracy does not mean everyone gets what they want. No matter what the system a certain percentage of the population is going to feel that they are being forced to accept policies they don't like.

And it's false. I'll just give 1 counter example. The majority of Ontarians want the Catholic system abolished. Yet 0 of the parties in the legislature support this view (green party has 0 seats).

So? If the Green Party had one seat nothing would change because getting legislation passed requires co-operation with other parties which are against it. Obviously in badly designed systems small parties may be able to use extortion to force their pet policies on the population but that is wrong and the main reason why I think PR is bad. Edited October 22, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

If none of the other parties overlap then the MP changes nothing and the block of voters will still complain they are "not represented".

Way to not understand the difference with power and representation. The point of a representative democracy is to REPRESENT people. In our current government, the liberals have all the power, but the conservatives and NDP are still there to represent the people that did not vote liberal.

If you don't think representation is a desirable goal, then why not just get rid of parliament completely?

Democracy does not mean everyone gets what they want.

Way to purposely misunderstand what I wrote. Getting what you want isn't the same thing as representation.

If the Green Party had one seat nothing would change because getting legislation passed requires co-operation with other parties which are against it.

No, something does change; the green party gets representation.

and the main reason why I think PR is bad.

Because.... You want the libs-cons to have an eternal duopoly on power, view giving others representation a threat to your desired eternal duopoly and don't realize that systems like FPTP encourage radicals to infiltrate mainstream parties which is why you have people like Trump and Sanders doing well?

Edited October 22, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[TimG]

Way to not understand the difference with power and representation.

What is the point of representation without power? The fact is the people pushing PR want it not because it provide representation for fringe views but because it provides the power to impose fringe views on the majority.

If you don't think representation is a desirable goal, then why not just get rid of parliament completely?

People ARE represented by the parties that get into parliament because there is always SOME policy overlap. Obviously not all policies will be represented but that is the nature of democracy.

Because.... You want the libs-cons to have an eternal duopoly on power, view giving others representation a threat to your desired eternal duopoly and don't realize that systems like FPTP encourage radicals to infiltrate mainstream parties which is why you have people like Trump and Sanders doing well?

Parties come and go. What FPTP does is create an incentive for broadly focused moderate parties. PR creates an incentive for narrow focused extremist parties. I believe we have better government if the incentives force parties towards moderation. Trump and Sanders will not get the nomination because their respective parties understand the need to appeal to the majority. Edited October 22, 2015 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

It was designed to have one party often running the country with only a third of the vote?

To be replaced by a third of the vote never running the country... how is that "fair" ?

The only "fair" system is direct democracy - every representative system has some distortions. You only need tweaks to improve these things, you don't need to implement a widespread experiment such as PR. There are many things that could go wrong.

[-1=e^ipi]

What is the point of representation without power?

1. Allows dissenting opinion to be heard which may influence those in power by creating doubt, skepticism and re-evaluation of policy. Perhaps if we had more dissenting opinion heard, we wouldn't have funding all those wonderful Islamists in Syria.

2. Allows the non-governing parties to be heard between elections by the public, which may help the public better inform their choices in the next election.

3. Has psychological benefits for the public and reduces the number of people that feel alienated. If you look at the mass shootings that have occurred over the past few years, they are often by people that feel alienated. Also, if people feel that their views are being heard, this increases their happiness, which makes them more productive, which results in more goods and services for Canada.

Trump and Sanders will not get the nomination because their respective parties understand the need to appeal to the majority.

Just like Abbot and Harper never got the nomination, eh?

[TimG]

1. Allows dissenting opinion to be heard which may influence those in power by creating doubt, skepticism and re-evaluation of policy. Perhaps if we had more dissenting opinion heard, we wouldn't have funding all those wonderful Islamists in Syria.

You don't need to be in parliament to express dissenting opinions.

2. Allows the non-governing parties to be heard between elections by the public, which may help the public better inform their choices in the next election.

Parties don't matter. Policies do. People are free to advocate for policies they want between elections.

Also, if people feel that their views are being heard, this increases their happiness, which makes them more productive, which results in more goods and services for Canada.

I doubt it. People dissatisfied with the system will be just as dissatisfied with representatives that have no power.

Just like Abbot and Harper never got the nomination, eh?

They aren't extremists. Almost all of the policies implemented by conservatives over the last 9 years had broad support from the public. Abbot was disposed but many of his policies were left in place. Edited October 22, 2015 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

1. Allows dissenting opinion to be heard which may influence those in power by creating doubt, skepticism and re-evaluation of policy. Perhaps if we had more dissenting opinion heard, we wouldn't have funding all those wonderful Islamists in Syria.

Goal: To foment discussion.

2. Allows the non-governing parties to be heard between elections by the public, which may help the public better inform their choices in the next election.

Goal: To foment discussion

3. Has psychological benefits for the public and reduces the number of people that feel alienated. If you look at the mass shootings that have occurred over the past few years, they are often by people that feel alienated. Also, if people feel that their views are being heard, this increases their happiness, which makes them more productive, which results in more goods and services for Canada.

Goal: To reduce mass shootings (?)

When PR discussions revolve around improving discussion and enhancing public engagement, I feel that we have a real possibility of a problem that we can look into. It's far better than the vague term of "fairness" that left-of-centre voters bandy because you can measure engagement more easily.

The first thing to ask is whether engagement/discussion is sufficient, and to set up parameters to monitor these things. We can then put together efforts to engage people better.

This study produced some exciting suggestions for improving public engagement, for example:

https://www.gnb.ca/0012/PDF/LLA-e.pdf

Most of our problems come from living in a highly systemized and specialized political environment where there is little personal connection, IMO. Changing around the chairs in parliament so that we never again have Conservative majority governments will not improve social cohesion. It's more likely to inflame and enrage conservatives, and regional parties.

[-1=e^ipi]

You don't need to be in parliament to express dissenting opinions.

I think you missed the word 'heard'.

Or do you like the fact that we've funded Islamists in Syria? A bit of doubt and skepticism can go a long way, especially when politicians surround themselves with sycophants and live in a bubble of confirmation bias.

It's far better than the vague term of "fairness" that left-of-centre voters bandy because you can measure engagement more easily.

It's more than just left-of-centre people that think our system is unfair.

Changing around the chairs in parliament so that we never again have Conservative majority governments will not improve social cohesion.

If the majority of the population are not conservatives, why should the conservatives ever have a majority?

How about instead conservatives either try to convince the population of the superiority of their position and convert people to conservatism, or work with other groups to form government, such as libertarians and classical liberals? In Australia and BC the conservatives work with Liberals to obtain power.

Edited October 22, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[Guest]

If the majority of the population are not conservatives, why should the conservatives ever have a majority?

How about instead conservatives either try to convince the population of the superiority of their position and convert people to conservatism, or work with other groups to form government, such as libertarians and classical liberals? In Australia and BC the conservatives work with Liberals to obtain power.

Well said.

Why should any party receive undeserved power? I don't understand how, when being honest, people can endorse a winner-take-all, vote distorting system, like FPTP. I do understand that current conservatives like the chance at undeserved power but rewarding a minority of the population with absolute control is simply ridiculous. Should the Green party get absolute power once every 20 years or the Libertarians once every 500? Of course not.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Guest

[TimG]

I don't understand how, when being honest, people can endorse a winner-take-all, vote distorting system, like FPTP.

Because the purpose of the system is to choose a functioning government. Nothing more. Giving one party the authority to set policy for a period of time also ensures they are 100% responsible for any choices made. If the public disapproves of the choices another party will be given a chance to manage the country. Perpetual minorities make elections irrelevant because the promises that will be kept depend on backroom haggling because no party ever has the power to implement their platform. Edited October 22, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

Coalitions work fine in many countries.

[TimG]

Coalitions work fine in many countries.

And in many others they lead to dysfunctional government. That is not an argument for change. Multi-member constituencies were abandoned in Japan in 1993 because they created too many problems. Edited October 22, 2015 by TimG

[Guest]

And in many others they lead to dysfunctional government. That is not an argument for change. Multi-member constituencies were abandoned in Japan in 1993 because they created too many problems.

While 85% of OECD countries have them. Regularly granting absolute power to a party that represents less than a majority of voters is not democracy and not fair. This isn't a vague term or something hard to understand. Edited October 22, 2015 by Guest

[ToadBrother]

Nothing was ever hidden. All bills are posted in their entirety for all to read if they so choose. And not one scintilla of democracy was thwarted. They went before the people multiple times, and when enough people decided they liked the other guy, they were voted out. Democracy in action.

When you have massive bills with very little time for debate, and the government invokes closure because, apparently, Parliament has better things to do, then there's a problem. Omnibus bills are an abuse of Parliament, pure and simple.

[Smeelious]

First, there is a lack of relevancy of these issues. The omnibus bills we have before us attempt to amend several different existing laws.[/size]

Second, in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?

We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse? Dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill.

The bill contains many distinct proposals and principles and asking members to provide simple answers to such complex questions is in contradiction to the conventions and practices of the House.

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper on the topic of omnibus bills...(in this case [/size]Bill C-17, for reference)[/size]

[eyeball]

The first thing to ask is whether engagement/discussion is sufficient, and to set up parameters to monitor these things. We can then put together efforts to engage people better.

This study produced some exciting suggestions for improving public engagement, for example:

https://www.gnb.ca/0012/PDF/LLA-e.pdf

We talked about all this stuff 15 years ago where I live. Visioning, building community processes, finding consensus, identifying stakeholders, engaging the public...hasn't made a smudge of difference as far as better representation goes. It's a largely condescending exercise that only breeds more cynicism and less engagement.

I think it's really just the broken promises and lies of politicians and the sense that everything is done behind closed doors that most people want something done about. Unfortunately there seems to be as much resistance to doing anything meaningful about that as there is changing our electoral system, mostly from people who like things just the way they are.

[cybercoma]

Except it is broke.

The MPs in the Atlantic Region prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. There's not a single voice of opposition for the entire region. It's a democratic disaster.

[cybercoma]

Because the purpose of the system is to choose a functioning government.

You need to look up Responsible Government again.