ToadBrother Posted November 4, 2015 Report Posted November 4, 2015 That depends on the Green candidates ability to capture second choice votes. When you claim that STV seriously sacrifices proportionality, do you have a citation? It's true that STV doesn't force proportionality the way MMP does but my reading indicates that, providing you have a sufficient average magnitude, in practise it normally provides a high overall level of proportionality. And many people find it attractive that it does it in a way that forces voters to vote for real people, not a party. That's my understanding as well. Six to eight representatives per electoral district seems to be the magic range where STV becomes proportional in roughly equal terms to party list and mixed member systems. Quote
eyeball Posted November 4, 2015 Report Posted November 4, 2015 I don't know. It's hard not read your last post and your frequently deriding constitutional obstacles as "the bridles, harnesses, breeching dees and other parts and pieces of the buggy" as anything other than a variant on your bemoaning that you're notions of reform can't just automatically happen because, well, their just so darned great. If it's not fear of change I'd say the biggest obstacle to reforms is this notion that what we have is just so darned great. Maybe compared to Israel and Greece sure.... I'd support any type of reform at this point just so I know it's is even possible. We've had this dust up before and other topics. I think I've made my view clear; constitutional reform is very hard, and potentially damaging, and should be avoided unless there is a very good reason. Seeing as how I think electoral reform can be accomplished, providing the representation requirements of the Constitution are adhered to, it's probably a minor point, but with the potential that MMP could create a group of MPs who would not have a geographical constituency, it raises the question as to whether MMP is constitutional. I think the topic should be around how to defuse whatever it is that we fear will explode in our faces if we open the constitution. Maybe we need some process that analogous to backing up files and picking a restore point that we can reset things to in the the event we don't like the changes we make. I don't think we'll ever see reforms in our lifetimes myself. We'll be lucky if we see pot being legalized, what if Alberta threatens to withdraw from confederation if it is? STV, of course, does not have this problem, although it could mean PEI would get more representatives than it does now. It's this very sort of obstacle to reforms that drives me the craziest, reforms are verboten due to fears around it resulting in a lack of representation and power - the very same thing that's driving the push for change elsewhere. Round and round and round it goes...maybe the wheels will fall off the buggy. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted November 4, 2015 Report Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) Perhaps it will be the format and the wording of the question on a referendum: Two questions: Question 1 - "Do you favor election reform". (yes or no) Question 2 - If there was reform, rank your choices of A or B or C or D? The votes are counted - if the majority votes "no" then game over. Referendum complete. If the majority votes "yes" then the answer to question 2 is considered. The votes are counted - If there is no one choice getting 51% then the least popular choice (4th place) is dropped with the second choice on these ballots getting the vote - until one choice has 51%. That then is the new Canadian electoral system. This makes too much sense - it's too simple and to the point. It'll never fly. Edited November 4, 2015 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
ToadBrother Posted November 4, 2015 Report Posted November 4, 2015 I think the topic should be around how to defuse whatever it is that we fear will explode in our faces if we open the constitution. Maybe we need some process that analogous to backing up files and picking a restore point that we can reset things to in the the event we don't like the changes we make. I don't think we'll ever see reforms in our lifetimes myself. We'll be lucky if we see pot being legalized, what if Alberta threatens to withdraw from confederation if it is? I think pot is as good as legalized. I'm anxiously awaiting the precise rules, because I have a little nest egg I'd love to invest in that industry. As to Alberta seceding, that's the rumblings of a very tiny number of malcontents. The Western and Albertan separatist movements could probably fit in my basement. Beyond that, I think the election of the NDP in Alberta and even the increase in Liberal support suggests that Alberta is undergoing significant demographic changes that mean the province is becoming a lot less knee-jerk conservative. It's this very sort of obstacle to reforms that drives me the craziest, reforms are verboten due to fears around it resulting in a lack of representation and power - the very same thing that's driving the push for change elsewhere. Round and round and round it goes...maybe the wheels will fall off the buggy. There are realities in any polity, whether they are constitutionally entrenched or simply the reality of different regions, which have to be a consideration in any reform package. Top-down changes justified because "we know best" rarely are successful, and can, no matter how well intentioned, do more harm than good. As to PR in particular, I think there are ways to make it work. Some have mentioned that there are areas of the country, like PEI and the North, where ridings represent either very small populations, or very large geographical areas, or, in some cases both. If STV is the solution, then we simply create an exception for such circumstances, and those ridings remain single-member ridings, probably using straight IRV to decide the winner. If we went to an MMP-style system, then the obvious solution to the Constitutional requirements for regional representation can be met by requiring a different list for each Province, so that the party list MPs would still have a regional base. This will compromise the PR aspects of MMP to some extent, but as someone else pointed out, there's no perfect electoral system (well, maybe a pure party list PR system with no directly elected candidates could come closest), and all electoral systems involve compromises. The Constitutional requirements as far as electoral reform simply require that certain provinces get a guaranteed proportion of the seats in the House of Commons. Whether that's fair or not is a reasonable thing to debate, but I see no reason to make electoral reform contingent upon what could be a very fraught and possibly fruitless process of trying to get rid of that mandated electoral proportionality. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted November 4, 2015 Report Posted November 4, 2015 As to Alberta seceding, that's the rumblings of a very tiny number of malcontents. The Western and Albertan separatist movements could probably fit in my basement. Beyond that, I think the election of the NDP in Alberta and even the increase in Liberal support suggests that Alberta is undergoing significant demographic changes that mean the province is becoming a lot less knee-jerk conservative. Changing demographics is only part of the story. One of the driving factors behind Alberta separatism was the idea that. because Alberta has oil wealth, it would be better off on its own. Since the bottom fell out of the price of oil, the notion that Albertans will be forever rich has been punctured. The longer the price of oil stays low and the more the world focuses on low-carbon energy, the more likely it is that this won't change. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
eyeball Posted November 5, 2015 Report Posted November 5, 2015 In a few years I'll bet Albertans start looking at the NEP with a retrospective wistfulness. Forget, they had their chance. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
ReeferMadness Posted November 5, 2015 Report Posted November 5, 2015 In a few years I'll bet Albertans start looking at the NEP with a retrospective wistfulness. Forget, they had their chance. Even after he dumped the NEP, Mulroney could have kept Petro-Canada. Instead, we wound up being an anomaly. A petroleum exporting country without a national oil company. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted February 25, 2016 Report Posted February 25, 2016 Proportional representation is back in the news after former Harper chief of staff Guy Giorno came out in favor of PR. Clearly, he would never have been allowed to say this while working for Harper. Guy Giorno acknowledged that some Conservatives fear proportional representation would disadvantage their party and that it would be crazy to support it. But he acknowledged that proportional representation is about what's good for Canadians, not what is good for parties or politicians. "The blunt answer is that I and other individuals and organizations are supporting this because it's right for Canadians, not because it favours or disfavours particular politicians," Giorno said in an interview. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Big Guy Posted February 25, 2016 Report Posted February 25, 2016 Too many kinds of PR systems to choose from, Many depend on size of nation, demography etc. Let us start with ranked ballots first. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
ReeferMadness Posted February 25, 2016 Report Posted February 25, 2016 Too many kinds of PR systems to choose from, Many depend on size of nation, demography etc. Let us start with ranked ballots first. Ranked ballots are a voting mechanism, not a system. Some PR systems (like STV) use ranked ballots and still produce proportional results. It's comments like this that make me leery of going to a referendum. It seems like most people don't really understand voting systems at all. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Big Guy Posted February 26, 2016 Report Posted February 26, 2016 Ranked ballots are a voting mechanism, not a system. Some PR systems (like STV) use ranked ballots and still produce proportional results. It's comments like this that make me leery of going to a referendum. It seems like most people don't really understand voting systems at all. I fully agree. Most people will vote AGAINST change by default. Make the question based on the assumption that people make themselves familiar with an issue and the result is guaranteed as NO! Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
ParkdaleCon Posted February 28, 2016 Report Posted February 28, 2016 Proportional representation is back in the news after former Harper chief of staff Guy Giorno came out in favor of PR. Clearly, he would never have been allowed to say this while working for Harper. But he acknowledged that proportional representation is about what's good for Canadians, not what is good for parties or politicians. I think Guy Giorno obviously sees better paths to victory for the right in PR than ranked ballots, which would clearly favour the Liberals since they are almost everyone's 2nd choice party... I am all for electoral reform discussion, but not one that is fixed from the outset as the Liberal plan seems to be. If there is no referendum, the committee tasked with deciding this should not be stacked with a Liberal majority, and I think if all parties don't agree, it should not go through. Canadians didn't vote for ranked balloting, they voted for the issue to be looked at. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted February 28, 2016 Report Posted February 28, 2016 I think Guy Giorno obviously sees better paths to victory for the right in PR than ranked ballots, which would clearly favour the Liberals since they are almost everyone's 2nd choice party... Your posting makes no sense. Ranked ballots are a voting mechanism, not a type or class of voting system. Some voting systems (including some proportional voting systems) use ranked ballots. And yes, I know the same error is repeatedly made by the MSM. Which is why a referendum is not a great idea. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ParkdaleCon Posted February 28, 2016 Report Posted February 28, 2016 Your posting makes no sense. Ranked ballots are a voting mechanism, not a type or class of voting system. Some voting systems (including some proportional voting systems) use ranked ballots. And yes, I know the same error is repeatedly made by the MSM. Which is why a referendum is not a great idea. I don't believe I ever said ranked balloting was a system. The Liberals should be reminded on that too, because they seem to view changing the "mechanism" as a system change as well. All I was saying is the Conservatives obviously know with the ranked balloting mechanism, they would not fair well, so they figure they might as well push the discussion on changing the whole system forward because there is more potential for them and other parties there. I understand Giorno is acting independent of the Conservative Party in this new role, but I am sure the general consensus in the party brass is that of his. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 28, 2016 Report Posted February 28, 2016 I am a fan of STV although I didn't really understand it until it was put on the table prior to the last provincial election in BC. The problem seemed to boil down to, as you point out a lot of people don't get it and there wasn't enough time between when it hit the horizon and when the polls opened. Maybe next time around. Quote
Big Guy Posted February 28, 2016 Report Posted February 28, 2016 ... which would clearly favour the Liberals since they are almost everyone's 2nd choice party...Then I suggest the question is that of two choices: Do you want to be governed by a political party which is the first choice of one third of the electorate and despised by the others or a party which is the first choice of one third of the electorate and almost everybody else's second choice? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Machjo Posted March 3, 2016 Report Posted March 3, 2016 I see only one advantage with proportional representation: it allows unofficial religious, linguistic, and other communities to unite to remabrogate the separate school system and official language rights from the constitution. Under FPTP, if the English and French ethnic communities hold even the smallest of majorities in most ridings, they can continue to impose the separate school system and official bilingualism on all taxpayers to subsidize their own religions and languages. Under a more proportional system, members of unofficial religious and linguistic communities can better combine their votes against the religious and linguistic provisions of the constitution. Even with that though, I still see FPTP to be preferable at least in a non-parrisan electoral system for the sake of unity. That way, it would put pressure on members of unofficial religious and linguistic communities to educate the English and the French about the injustice of the separate school system and official bilingualism and so have the English and the French voluntarily relinquish their privileged status. In a partisan system though, unofficial religious and linguistic communities might have no choice but to support proportional representation to defend themselves more adequately. The drawback still comes down to the potential development of animosity between the English and the French on the one hand and everyone else on the other. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
Machjo Posted March 3, 2016 Report Posted March 3, 2016 Under proportional representation, I could imagine one new party forming. A new party, maybe moderately libertarian-leaning, called 'the Equality Party' or something similar with a focus on abrogating the separate school system and reducing the status of official bilingualism that would attract almost everyone but English and French Canadians. Another possibility would be that the Libertarian Party itself adapt to fill that role. Inversely, I could imagine English and French Canadians sticking with the present parties, but with these parties working together in Parliament to more aggressively defend these privileges. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
-TSS- Posted March 4, 2016 Report Posted March 4, 2016 I must admit that I have never before been as cynical about democracy and voting as I am these days. It actually worries me that I have turned into this mindset. Namely, earlier I used to spurn people who said about voting that it is a waste of time because all the politicians are just the same and they all lie and only think their personal gain. I used to say that if you don't do your tiny little bit about turning up for voting then you have no right to complain. I've ceased to think that way. Givebn what has been going on in Europe for the past few months and how it is flagrantly deliberately orchestrated despite the will of the people in almost every country I'm beginning to think that those people whom I previously ridiculed for not voting were the smart ones and we who bought the scam given to us by the establishment have been the fools all along. Sorry to say this but there is no other way out than some violent upheaval or even a civil-war of Europe if you can call a war happening in various countries a civil-war. History is repeating itself again. Another destructive war is in the making and originating from, guess where, dadaa Germany once again. Quote
Machjo Posted March 4, 2016 Report Posted March 4, 2016 But after WWII, we'd witnessed significant improvements in human rights. Maybe we do need another world upheavel to spur us to take another leaps of faith towards a better world. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
Guest Posted March 4, 2016 Report Posted March 4, 2016 Guy Giorno, the former Chief of Staff to Stephen Harper and Mike Harris has joined the Every Voter Counts Alliance, dedicated to the creation of a proportional electoral system in Canada. It's nice to see a high profile Con working together with the Broadbent Institute and prominent Grits, Dippers and Greens to achieve a fair voting system. "Electoral systems must be judged by how well they mirror voter choice. Proportional representation starts and ends with a focus on the voters and its purpose is to ensure that everyone's values and views have full and fair representation in Parliament,” said Giorno. “We come from different parts of the country doing different work, but we all agree on this simple idea -- Canada needs a fair voting system that provides all citizens a real opportunity to elect a candidate according to their values and reflects the choices of voters without producing skewed results with false majorities and exaggerated regional divisions. Only proportional representation can achieve this,” said Willy Blomme, spokesperson for the Alliance. http://www.broadbentinstitute.ca/organizations_launch_every_voter_counts_alliance_and_kick_off_campaign_for_proportional_representation Quote
nerve Posted March 4, 2016 Report Posted March 4, 2016 (edited) What about a governor general advisory committee. You know does all recommends appointments and recommends to the GG on gives advise on giving ascension to laws etc.. Could make them privy counsellors and call it a day without mucking up parliament. Just make them an executive council, Make x number of seats and split them up among the political parties based on total votes in the federal election. Call them "executive privy councellors of the Queens council of Canada" You know you could pass a bill such as The Queen's Executive Privy Council of Canada Act. and there you have it. Party rule instead of representation by election. Each party would submit their ranked candidates at the time of the election and vacancies would be filled from these order of succession lists. It would be advisable to insure representation a minority of the seats would be available for major second level parties such as christain heritage, and any others that exist so unrepresented people still had voice. Meanwhile get on with making senate byelections when seats become available. You could also make the Queen's Executive Privy Council Popular Review Standing Comittee that is elected from the whole of the Canadian population based upon total votes they receive individually. Then people who get votes can vote on and discuss decisions of the Queen's Executive Privy Council to insure figurative popular opinion meets with party objectives. If both agree then the matter is thereby advised to the Govenor General. There would be two paths to action 1 through parliamentary review for review of assent and appointments of parliament. and 2 those regarding the executive functions of government headed under the governor general. They could be paid like 1 dollar per vote they get as their election cycle salary for the standing committee. Meanwhile for the executive council the party would get to decide to pay their representatives or pocket the per vote per diem in the general election. They would be able to function as a not for profit and collect donations for costs associate with fullfilling the position. You know like political party donations to use to do political functions in effecting political policies. Edited March 4, 2016 by nerve Quote
eyeball Posted March 6, 2016 Report Posted March 6, 2016 Sorry to say this but there is no other way out than some violent upheaval or even a civil-war of Europe if you can call a war happening in various countries a civil-war. History is repeating itself again. Another destructive war is in the making and originating from, guess where, dadaa Germany once again. A civil war between who or what though? Whatever it is that's stirring in Germany is stirring everywhere and that suggests a near global clash of values is underway. When politicians like Stephan Harper openly accuse legitimately elected opposition members of essentially being terrorists, with all the apparent abandon of a web forum partisan blithely comparing fellow posters with mass murderers...the thread titles question sounds naively optimistic. The sorry state of our democracy is likelier being caused by far larger and more fundamental problem than the seating arrangements in Parliament. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
PIK Posted March 8, 2016 Report Posted March 8, 2016 This country was built by the English and french and there is nothing wrong with how we do things . Change will bring nothing but division and eventually a civil war. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
dre Posted March 8, 2016 Report Posted March 8, 2016 This country was built by the English and french and there is nothing wrong with how we do things . Change will bring nothing but division and eventually a civil war. There IS something wrong though. FPTP has problems that are well documented. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.