Proportional Representation Discussion

[cybercoma]

I did. It doesn't change the reality that the Westminster form of government is oppositional government. That's why most of the chambers are designed the way they are.

Ridiculous semantics. You're using oppositional in a different form. There is always consensus building, amendments to bills, etc. going on. You're being pedantic for no reason at all. Throughout most of our history our governments have negotiated their differences to create the strongest possible legislation. In recent years, it has become adversarial (which I think is a better description than playing semantics with the word oppositional).

[overthere]

Ridiculous semantics. You're using oppositional in a different form. There is always consensus building, amendments to bills, etc. going on. You're being pedantic for no reason at all. Throughout most of our history our governments have negotiated their differences to create the strongest possible legislation. In recent years, it has become adversarial (which I think is a better description than playing semantics with the word oppositional).

CBC was recently playing the "highlights" of the flag debate in 1965. It went on for months, and sounded exactly like Parliament does today.

Oppositional, confrontational, insulting, filled with rancour.

Lester Pearson forced closure and that was how we got a new flag.

What were you saying about consensus again?

[-TSS-]

I could understand the argument in favour of FPTP if it really every time guaranteed a single-party majority but as was in the case of Canada in 2006 and 2008 as well as in the UK in 2010 it even doesn't every time result in one party winning the majority which is really the only credible argument in favour of the system whereby the votes cast translates into seats in a totally capricious manner.

[Smallc]

Ridiculous semantics. You're using oppositional in a different form.

No, I'm not. You're making something up.

[jacee]

http://www.greenpartywatch.org/2015/02/18/atlantic-article-spotlights-proportional-representation/

... raises the question of whether using proportional representation ... could end the gerrymandering wars in the US.

... a recent Gallup poll found that 58% of Americans want a new major party.

I hadn't heard that. Interesting.

.

[jbg]

I would have the ability to topple a government removed from the system.

Then votes would fail until bills are endlessly compromised or stuffed with pork. That's how it works when nobody is responsible, I think.

The ability to topple the government would have made Watergate less agonizing. We went from March 1973 to August 1974 with what was effectively a non-functioning executive. I believe that various crises, such as the gasoline shortage, double-digit inflation and a major recession were thereby aggravated.

Michael Hardner also makes a good point about pork. That's what happens in the States.

[socialist]

Changing it for a specific goal, and by changing some specific part of the system in an understandable way might be a change we could get behind.

For example - if voters are misinformed, then perhaps meeting with focus groups of such voters, finding out how they get information and trying out programs to inform them then measuring the effectiveness. That might be a change we could try.

Adding some non-voting seats to ask questions in Question Period, to address specific concerns that aren't addressed by mainstream parties. That might be a change we could try.

Both of these are changes that could address specific areas that need attention.

What doesn't make sense is to change the entire balance of power and get rid of majority governments, effectively permanently. Keep in mind that minority/coalition governments are pretty rare in Canada and these are what we would have pretty much from now on.

The purpose of this change would be, ostensibly, to get people more engaged in democracy somehow.

Party politics is a necessary aspect of our system. It would simply be impossible to govern with more than 170 independent MP's seeking solutions.

Also, the first past the post system insures that party politics must resonate within the constituencies and that the constituencies,as such, are mini elections between the political parties; those parties with the most input from the entire country are most likely to gain the most seats.

And that's how it should be.

MP's have input. They attend caucus meetings and can voice an opinion at every opportunity.

If being an independent MP was all that desirable, then surely more people would run as independents come election time because more Canadians would vote for them. But Canadians do not favour independent candidates for the most part and the reason for that is obvious.

[cybercoma]

I'm having trouble reconciling a serious issue with PR here.

FPTP is clearly unfair for all the reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum. So I'm in favour of proportional representation, but here's the issue. One of the biggest problems with our "democratic" institutions today is a concentration of power in the PMO (and with party bureaucrats in the opposition), instead of with our democratically elected representatives. PR presents the problem of having members from party lists fill out the House (in mixed-member systems anyway). Those "top up MPs" are going to be entirely beholden to the party leaders. I think this would be disastrous.

I'm not sure if it was in this forum or elsewhere, but someone suggested a potential fix for this that I wasn't overly thrilled about. Rather than party lists being filled out ahead of time, the party list is made up in descending order of those who received the largest share of the vote in their ridings. So those candidates who lost the closest races would be given seats first, whilst those who were completely blown out would be at the bottom of the list. In this way, it's not the party leaders or party brass who decide which candidates get into the House, it's the electorate.

TL;DR Any ideas for a PR system that doesn't exacerbate the problem of MPs losing their autonomy?

[Michael Hardner]

Well I think that that suggestion addresses the problem as you point out.

[Evening Star]

I share your concern with MMP PR systems.

I'm not exactly sure why there seems to be little enthusiasm (since Reform!) for just keeping FPTP but weakening party discipline and giving MPs more autonomy.

I'm not sure if it was in this forum or elsewhere, but someone suggested a potential fix for this that I wasn't overly thrilled about. Rather than party lists being filled out ahead of time, the party list is made up in descending order of those who received the largest share of the vote in their ridings. So those candidates who lost the closest races would be given seats first, whilst those who were completely blown out would be at the bottom of the list. In this way, it's not the party leaders or party brass who decide which candidates get into the House, it's the electorate.

I think this was Eric Grenier's idea and it sounded better to me than other PR proposals: http://www.threehundredeight.com/2015/05/a-proposal-for-electoral-reform.html

[Smallc]

I'm not exactly sure why there seems to be little enthusiasm (since Reform!) for just keeping FPTP but weakening party discipline and giving MPs more autonomy.

I'm very in favour of that, while making the necessary constitutional changes to bring in true rep by pop.

[Argus]

I'm very in favour of that, while making the necessary constitutional changes to bring in true rep by pop.

And at what percentage would a party merit gaining seats in the new parliament?

Edited August 22, 2015 by Argus

[Smallc]

And at what percentage would a party merit gaining seats in the new parliament? Garner says 3%. Do you know how easy it is to get 3% of Canadian voters to support stupid things?

What I'm talking about is giving PEI the 1 seat it deserves (instead of 4), Manitoba the 13 it deserves (instead of 14), and Ontario the about 140 seats they deserve. That alone would go a long way towards bringing the seat count for each party in line with the actual vote without changing our electoral system (something I'm not in favour of).

[Argus]

I share your concern with MMP PR systems.

I'm not exactly sure why there seems to be little enthusiasm (since Reform!) for just keeping FPTP but weakening party discipline and giving MPs more autonomy.

I think this was Eric Grenier's idea and it sounded better to me than other PR proposals: http://www.threehundredeight.com/2015/05/a-proposal-for-electoral-reform.html

Grenier says 3% would make an official party with the right to 3% of seats. Do you know how easy it is to get 3% of Canadian voters to support stupid things?

All the NDP can think about is how this will get them votes. They aren't thinking, nor are the idiot Liberals, about the plethora of new parties which will spring up under such a system, particularly in a regionally, ethnically and linguistically divided country like Canada. In a FTPT system, even if a small party could get a few people elected, it was essentially meaningless and they'd be powerless because parliaments almost always have a majority party which controls everything. Not in a power sharing arrangement. In a prop rep system you can hope that if you elect just 3% of MPs, which would be about 10 MPs, you could swing some real power during tight negotiations among the major parties.

Among the parties which I think will likely take at least 10 seats under such an arrangement: Greens, Christian Heritage (anti abortion), Socialist Party (defecting from a more centrist NDP) Aboriginal rights party, Quebec separatists, Anti-Immigrant Party, and quite possibly at least one or two 'ethnic' parties aside from the natives, such as a Chinese party and an Indian party, for sure a Muslim party once Muslim numbers rise (they're projected to be 6% of the population within 20 years).

[cybercoma]

Well I think that that suggestion addresses the problem as you point out.

It does, but has its own problems. Some ridings are consistently blow outs, election after election. "Star" candidates tend to produce closer races. Candidates who lose in closer races are not necessarily going to make better MPs. And there's several more worth discussing.

[cybercoma]

I share your concern with MMP PR systems.

I'm not exactly sure why there seems to be little enthusiasm (since Reform!) for just keeping FPTP but weakening party discipline and giving MPs more autonomy.

I think this was Eric Grenier's idea and it sounded better to me than other PR proposals: http://www.threehundredeight.com/2015/05/a-proposal-for-electoral-reform.html

That's it! It was Eric Grenier's idea. Thanks for providing the link. I completely forgot who I heard it from.

[Evening Star]

Grenier says 3% would make an official party with the right to 3% of seats. Do you know how easy it is to get 3% of Canadian voters to support stupid things?

All the NDP can think about is how this will get them votes. They aren't thinking, nor are the idiot Liberals, about the plethora of new parties which will spring up under such a system, particularly in a regionally, ethnically and linguistically divided country like Canada. In a FTPT system, even if a small party could get a few people elected, it was essentially meaningless and they'd be powerless because parliaments almost always have a majority party which controls everything. Not in a power sharing arrangement. In a prop rep system you can hope that if you elect just 3% of MPs, which would be about 10 MPs, you could swing some real power during tight negotiations among the major parties.

Among the parties which I think will likely take at least 10 seats under such an arrangement: Greens, Christian Heritage (anti abortion), Socialist Party (defecting from a more centrist NDP) Aboriginal rights party, Quebec separatists, Anti-Immigrant Party, and quite possibly at least one or two 'ethnic' parties aside from the natives, such as a Chinese party and an Indian party, for sure a Muslim party once Muslim numbers rise (they're projected to be 6% of the population within 20 years).

As I've said before, I'd be more inclined to favour keeping FPTP and just giving MPs more autonomy. However, I have to say that, while I have concerns about PR (mainly the same ones that cybercoma raised), your arguments against it mostly seem to boil down to "it's too democratic", which I have trouble getting on board with. I have no real problem in principle with the possibility of a diverse Parliament like the one you describe.

[Argus]

As I've said before, I'd be more inclined to favour keeping FPTP and just giving MPs more autonomy. However, I have to say that, while I have concerns about PR (mainly the same ones that cybercoma raised), your arguments against it mostly seem to boil down to "it's too democratic", which I have trouble getting on board with. I have no real problem in principle with the possibility of a diverse Parliament like the one you describe.

Possibly because you aren't interested in a government which actually functions with any degree of efficiency. I, for one, don't want a pile of small parties wheeling and dealing in the back rooms with the ambitious leaders of the bigger parties, promising their support in exchange for laws and policies which only 3% of Canadians want. how is that democratic?

Edited August 24, 2015 by Argus

[ReeferMadness]

TL;DR Any ideas for a PR system that doesn't exacerbate the problem of MPs losing their autonomy?

MP's have so little autonomy and power, I'm not sure that even pure list PR would have an appreciable impact. If you want the system that would most emphasize the individual MP, then Single Transferable Vote (STV) is the answer.

[alexei_kz]

Since the dawn of civilization, mankind has been establishing pyramidal structures, where some people are on top, by standing on the shoulders of others. Or, as Orwell said, "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."

I don't think the problem is more autonomy for MPs or better Parliament, because those are symptoms of a problem, which is the fact that our society has a tendency to establish undemocratic structures, and only by remembering what real democracy is, and not giving up on our freedoms, can we make a balanced system.

We have to remember that the nexus of the ideas about how First past the post is the most efficient and democratic system, because we live in a "complex, oh so complex" world, come from those in power and from the status quo, which doesn't make it democratic at all. Proportional representation is not necessarily the best system either, if we forget where democracy comes from, if we forget that we have a voice.

[PIK]

Why do people here want to be like failed states in Europe.

[Icebound]

Why do people here want to be like failed states in Europe.

Oh really?

Below is an list of the 22 “MOSTstable” countries out a list of 178… (of the 22, the LEAST stable is at the TOP, MOST stable is at the bottom)

http://fsi.fundforpeace.org/

I marked those that have some form of PR… (PL=party list; MM= mixed member; STV=single transferable vote... % is threshold, if applicable)

So what makes you think PR produces "failed" states?

Japan ---

United States ---

Singapore ---

France ---

United Kingdom ---

Slovenia PL 4%

Belgium PL 5%

Portugal PL

Germany MM 5%

Netherlands PL

Austria PL 4%

Canada ---

Ireland STV (Dáil only)

Australia STV (senate only)

Iceland PL

New Zealand MM

Switzerland PL

Luxembourg PL

Denmark PL 2%

Norway PL 4%

Sweden PL 4%

Finland PL

[WIP]

I watched a speech Elizabeth May gave earlier today, and I was reminded once again of what we lose most in our first-past-the-post parliamentary system: alternatives to the homogenized political ideas and policies of parties who think they can score that majority win....and yes that includes you too NDP and Tom Mulcair!

The Greens are trapped at about 5% support and maybe able to win one seat in Parliament because Harpercons are so bad on environment, surveillance, corruption and many other issues, that the vast majority of Green Party potential supporters have to be anyone-but-Harper voters first, unless they live in clearly safe ridings and can afford to "throw away" their vote....like I do here in Hamilton Center.

[PIK]

Greens are a joke, that is why they are stuck at 5%. Harper understands that we are bit players when it comes to GHG. He also understands the foreign money being funneled into this country to bring down the oil sands, by our competitors. What I cant understand , is how people like you cant grasp that. Look at the amount of money that it takes for the constant attacks on our oil industry, that does not come from mom and pop. Even chretein understood that ,but he signed up for Kyoto ,for the optics, knowing he would never do it. I suppose you think the deal with Obama and china is a great thing, again, it is all about optics. Give china the right to keep pumping it out for 30 more yrs, that there proves my point.

[WIP]

Greens are a joke, that is why they are stuck at 5%. Harper understands that we are bit players when it comes to GHG. He also understands the foreign money being funneled into this country to bring down the oil sands, by our competitors. What I cant understand , is how people like you cant grasp that. Look at the amount of money that it takes for the constant attacks on our oil industry, that does not come from mom and pop. Even chretein understood that ,but he signed up for Kyoto ,for the optics, knowing he would never do it. I suppose you think the deal with Obama and china is a great thing, again, it is all about optics. Give china the right to keep pumping it out for 30 more yrs, that there proves my point.

Obviously you didn't watch, because she discussed other issues...nevertheless, centrists who can't think outside the box and are happy in either of the three tanks are happy with the status quo. But, FPTP is the first barrier shutting out new ideas from getting aired.

And our carbon footprint...largely thanks to going to tar sands, is very large per capita and as much of an embarassment internationally as having a Prime Minister playing sidekick to American presidents! Environment trumps all other issues, and they are all petty by comparison with keeping our human economies within the limits of what nature will allow.