Proportional Representation Discussion

[?Impact]

Japan got rid of MMP in the 90s because it caused to many problems. It now uses FPTP for 60% of the seats and PR for the remainder.

Vega didn't say MMP, but MMM or sometimes called SM (Supplementary Member).

[Rupert S. Lander]

In a not-too-unrelated matter, the incresingly senile former CEO Kingsley's recent idiotic musings are completely irrelevant. At worst, the Referendum Act would merely forbid the Governor in Council (i.e. the prime minister and cabinet) from calling a referendum on electoral reform without Parliamentary approval. Then again, the Canada Elections Act would forbid the GiC from unilaterally changing the electoral system. At the end of the day, an Act of Parliament is required to change the electoral system. If that Act made its implementation subject to the approval of the electorate in a referendum, it would automatically supersede the Referendum Act.

The Referendum Act was intended, in large part, to prevent PM's from easily calling referenda on controversial issues. For example, had PM Harper in his minority days had wanted to call a referendum on the definition of marriage. That would not have passed Parliament, and if Harper had tried calling one through the GiC, it would likely have been ruled off-side by the courts.

I would add that if Parliament enacts any law that is subject to referendum approval for implementation, it has the right to choose any winning threshold it wants to, including 50% + 1.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Rupert S. Lander

[PIK]

Harper wins with 39%, that is bad the liberals say and must be changed.

Trudeau wins with 39% that is good the liberals say, we do not need to change it now, If this guys head gets any bigger.........

[Smallc]

That's not what he said.

[PIK]

That is what he means. He look like a idiot when he tried to explain it. Harper bad ,Trudeau good.

[cybercoma]

1 hour ago, PIK said:

the liberals say, we do not need to change it now

Can you show me the quote where he said this?

[cybercoma]

[PIK]

On 10/21/2016 at 5:00 PM, cybercoma said:

Can you show me the quote where he said this?

You need to learn to read between the lines. They are many cases where a computer does not have all the answers.

[cybercoma]

Just now, PIK said:

You need to learn to read between the lines. They are many cases where a computer does not have all the answers.

So he didn't say it. I'm just supposed to believe the things you make up?

[PIK]

Listen to what he said and if you cant see it, that is your problem.

[cybercoma]

I asked you to point out what he said and you told me he didn't say it.

[mowich]

Don't hold your breath waiting for election reform any time soon.  The multi-party committee tasked with the job of evaluating the various different systems and interviewing Canadians across the country,  did their part.  They produced an impressive 348 page report that recommended a system of proportional representation and a referendum. Unfortunately Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef wasn't happy with the result to the point where she berated committee members more than once in the House yesterday earning the immediate ire of opposition and committee members alike - 8 of whom are Liberal.  She offered profuse apologies today. The reason the Minister was so steamed is because she and her boss did not get the answer they wanted.  Justin wants a system that would see his Liberal government returned to power in perpetuity. 

Justin did not think this idea through all the way.  He did not do his due diligence.  He promised that 2015 would be the last FPTP election but had no understanding when he did so of just how difficult it might be to change a countries way of voting.    He said that a new system would be in place by 2019. That will not be happening. There is not enough time in the remaining years to uproot an existing system and replace it with another especially as they have yet to decide on a system. Liberal members on the committee are for scuttling the idea basically saying that Canadians are not engaged enough and that the committee recommendations are “rushed,” “too radical” and “unnecessarily hasty.”

In a further effort to 'engage' us, the Liberals are sending out millions of postcards - though I have no idea of their content  - and setting up an online survey site as early as next week.  It will be interesting to see the results of all that engagement. 

I am really looking forward to both. 

 

 

[eyeball]

28 minutes ago, mowich said:

He did not do his due diligence.  He promised that 2015 would be the last FPTP election but had no understanding when he did so of just how difficult it might be to change a countries way of voting.   

He knew and lied through his teeth anyway.

As duly diligent a Liberal as there ever was.

[Rue]

If someone has not figured out Justin Trudeau is a talking sphincter muscle by now get with it and see a proctologist if you have to soon.

Next, it is absolutely idiotic to change something that is not broken for a system that produces nothing but instability and chaos.

All you geniuses that want to change the system spend one day in Italy's  house of elected representatives, then go home.

Man oh man. Coalition splinter politics. The fools who wish it have no clue as to its implications.Zero.

 

 

[?Impact]

11 hours ago, Rue said:

All you geniuses that want to change the system spend one day in Italy's  house of elected representatives, then go home.

What about all the other European parliaments that have proportional representation, and thriving economies. Germany is one of many excellent examples, yet you non-geniuses don't look at them.

[segnosaur]

10 hours ago, ?Impact said:

What about all the other European parliaments that have proportional representation, and thriving economies. Germany is one of many excellent examples, yet you non-geniuses don't look at them.

I think the issue that needs to be looked at when examining any voting system is the current landscape of their political system.

Yes, Germany is successful, and they do use a system that has elements of proportional representation. (Although they don't actually use full proportional representation.) But, Germany really only seems to have 2 major parties that have a reasonable chance of forming a government (with a variety of smaller parties to grab the electoral crumbs.) Part of the reason their system works as well as it does is because of the way party support is distributed.

The problem with Canada is that traditionally we have had 3 major political parties that, due to history or geography, have a reasonable chance of forming the government. That means that in any sort of proportional representation, the party occupying the political center (i.e. the Liberals) will always hold an excessive amount of power (since, in a minority situation, it is unlikely the NDP and Conservatives would form a coalition because of policy differences.) So, a proportional representation will basically consist of Liberal governments, with regular coalitions with the NDP, continuing until the sun burns out. And while I'm sure those on the political left may be thrilled with that possibility, it could lead to a certain amount of arrogance and complacency from the government, as well as a feeling among many voters that "their votes don't matter" because its always going to be a Liberal/NDP coalition.

A ranked ballot would have been a problem for almost the same reason... having 3 main political parties would have favored the only party in the center, which would have caused a certain amount of arrogance to set in.

The time to have tried proportional representation (or some sort of mixture or variation) would have been when we had both the Reform party and Progressive conservative party. The possibility of a more even split (with the progressive conservatives possibly joining the Liberals closer to the political center) might have worked. But such large-scale shifts in the political landscape do not happen very often.

 

[carepov]

If it ain't broke....

Seriously, if there was a nation-wide referendum on an alternative voting system, what would the turnout be? I would guess 30-40 %.

This is a dead-end, let's focus on improvements that actually have a chance at success...

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, carepov said:

If it ain't broke....

Seriously, if there was a nation-wide referendum on an alternative voting system, what would the turnout be? I would guess 30-40 %.

This is a dead-end, let's focus on improvements that actually have a chance at success...

I'd outlaw in-camera lobbying. That one simple improvement alone would probably fix just about everything that ails our governance.

[drummindiver]

Here is the website Mowich mentioned. I was classified Guardian at the end. 

https://www.mydemocracy.ca/

[Smallc]

So was I. 

[segnosaur]

Just now, eyeball said:

I'd outlaw in-camera lobbying. That one simple improvement alone would probably fix just about everything that ails our governance.

My suggestion... loosen up the rules that force party unity during votes. Like in the U.S., allow MPs to vote how they want (except for money bills and on issues directly related to campaign promises). 

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, Smallc said:

So was I. 

Cooperator here.

[?Impact]

13 hours ago, segnosaur said:

Like in the U.S., allow MPs to vote how they want (except for money bills and on issues directly related to campaign promises). 

Agreed, if a completely new issue comes up during a term then the individual parliamentarians should be allowed free vote on them. Technically they are today, but of course can be kicked out of caucus. A political party should have a clear mandate (not just campaign promises, but general party principals and guidelines) and they can hold their members to that mandate, but outside of its scope there should be freedom.

That doesn't mean however there won't be a lot of grey area. A good example is when the party says it will not create an abortion bill, but a member brings out a bill on definition of beginning of life. That is certainly a grey area, some may say light grey and others dark grey. 

[poochy]

20 hours ago, Smallc said:

So was I. 

Me too, but that survey is an embarrassment, anything that isn't what we already have is made to sound like we are going to be run by a horde of extremists.  They were so desperate for a ranked ballot, and everyone knows why, now that they don't seem to be getting their way they are rigging the game in order to maintain the status quo.  I dont think things need to be changed, but what the liberals are doing is completely dishonest and far more dictatorial in nature than anything Harper (hitler) ever tried to do. 

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, poochy said:

...what the liberals are doing is completely dishonest and far more dictatorial in nature than anything Harper ever tried to do. 

Nah...they're just indistinguishable is all. As mediocre and bland as the other.