Proportional Representation Discussion

[-1=e^ipi]

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!

Saudi Arabia has higher CO2 emissions per capita than Canada. Yet so many people find it more acceptable to purchase Saudi oil, which is used to fund wahabbism, than Canadian oil.

[PIK]

And so does California. But it is all the anti-oil money coming to Canada from our competitors, and the left sucks it up. And guys like WIP cant grasp that. We produce 1.6%, for us even to do a 30% cut, we will all be walking. But they never discuss the 1.6%. Mean while chine gets 30 more yrs to keep pumping it out. So if people like WIP were really concerned about it, they would go after china, not Canada.

Edited August 26, 2015 by PIK

[Charles Anthony]

Guys,

Try to keep the discussion focussed on the Opening Post as you carry forward.

[WIP]

Saudi Arabia has higher CO2 emissions per capita than Canada. Yet so many people find it more acceptable to purchase Saudi oil, which is used to fund wahabbism, than Canadian oil.

Saudi Arabia is going to run out of their cheap light crude long before tar sands are done in Alberta....and don't forget: there's lots more where that came from! Venezuela has about three times the tar sands deposits as Canada and hasn't started tapping in to them yet. and

Mean while chine gets 30 more yrs to keep pumping it out. So if people like WIP were really concerned about it, they would go after china, not Canada.

China is reversing course on their disastrous Neoliberal economic aims, and those coal-fired generating stations that have been planned are never going to be built because so many Chinese cities have air that is toxic most of the year. But that aside, pointing fingers at others is an idiotic ruse to pull out when arguing any environmental issue, since we have ONE atmosphere and the living biosphere collectively shares water and nutrients regardless of human borders.

How does this connect with proportional representation? Looks like another example of how highly motivated and financially motivated interests can drown out new issues and new ideas and approaches on solving political issues from reaching the attention of most people. If two parties in the US and three parties in Canada offer a choice of

1. denial that a problem exists or

2. minimal...mostly irrelevant and ineffective solutions to the problem, no surprise that the problem will just keep getting bigger and bigger until it goes critical and maybe already too late to deal with.

[Vega]

I think Proportional Representation is only part of the problem. Automatic voter registration, stricter campaign finance laws are needed too, etc.

[WIP]

I think Proportional Representation is only part of the problem. Automatic voter registration, stricter campaign finance laws are needed too, etc.

Welcome aboard, and I'd say we have to act fast because we have a government in Ottawa right now that wants to shift Canadian politics more and more to the pay-to-play system they have in the US.

[Argus]

Welcome aboard, and I'd say we have to act fast because we have a government in Ottawa right now that wants to shift Canadian politics more and more to the pay-to-play system they have in the US.

Evdience? Or is this coming from your toaster?

[bush_cheney2004]

Welcome aboard, and I'd say we have to act fast because we have a government in Ottawa right now that wants to shift Canadian politics more and more to the pay-to-play system they have in the US.

Oh no...not that ! Before you know it, Canadian politics will have leadership debates on national television....American style !!

[On Guard for Thee]

Oh no...not that ! Before you know it, Canadian politics will have leadership debates on national television....American style !!

I would venture a guess he is talking less about TV debates, and more about elections being bought and paid for by the highest bidder.

[Vega]

Welcome aboard, and I'd say we have to act fast because we have a government in Ottawa right now that wants to shift Canadian politics more and more to the pay-to-play system they have in the US.

I just wish the parties (*cough* Grits and NDP *cough*) had more about it in their policy proposals. I'm obviously not a scholar on it, despite knowing it's wrong that money has the role it does now, so I hardly no where to start with it.

I suppose bringing back the Per vote subsidy would be better. Any ideas?

[ToadBrother]

I just wish the parties (*cough* Grits and NDP *cough*) had more about it in their policy proposals. I'm obviously not a scholar on it, despite knowing it's wrong that money has the role it does now, so I hardly no where to start with it.

I suppose bringing back the Per vote subsidy would be better. Any ideas?

I deeply dislike any party list PR system, and that's what the NDP's MPR proposal is. It means that there is one class of MP which has a fixed geographic constituency, and hence actual constituents. To create the proportionality, parties then get a certain percentage of candidates on a party list become MPs. These MPs have no actual constituency, are not actually directly answerable to any constituent, and are thus essentially little more than party apparatchik, owing their position largely to the party itself.

The Liberals have suggested a ranked voting system, though, as you say, there's not a lot of detail. I happen to like ranked voting systems. They are not truly proportional, in that there is no tight correlation between popular vote percentages and percentage of seats in Parliament. However, it does mean that the successful candidate will have won his or her position with an absolute majority of votes, although some of those votes may have come from second or third preference on the ballot (or maybe fourth or fifth if there are a lot of candidates in a riding that get a considerable number of votes). So, it's not proportional, but it is still closer to proportionality than FPTP.

[Evening Star]

I deeply dislike any party list PR system, and that's what the NDP's MPR proposal is. It means that there is one class of MP which has a fixed geographic constituency, and hence actual constituents. To create the proportionality, parties then get a certain percentage of candidates on a party list become MPs. These MPs have no actual constituency, are not actually directly answerable to any constituent, and are thus essentially little more than party apparatchik, owing their position largely to the party itself.

The Liberals have suggested a ranked voting system, though, as you say, there's not a lot of detail. I happen to like ranked voting systems. They are not truly proportional, in that there is no tight correlation between popular vote percentages and percentage of seats in Parliament. However, it does mean that the successful candidate will have won his or her position with an absolute majority of votes, although some of those votes may have come from second or third preference on the ballot (or maybe fourth or fifth if there are a lot of candidates in a riding that get a considerable number of votes). So, it's not proportional, but it is still closer to proportionality than FPTP.

Yeah, I agree about MMP: it seems like a mess to have two sets of MPs that are elected through totally different means who will have similar powers.

Ranked voting would basically guarantee Liberal governments until Kingdom Come, right?

[ReeferMadness]

I suppose bringing back the Per vote subsidy would be better. Any ideas?

The per vote subsidy was a good system for reducing the influence of money in politics. That's why the Cons eliminated it.

[ToadBrother]

Yeah, I agree about MMP: it seems like a mess to have two sets of MPs that are elected through totally different means who will have similar powers.

Ranked voting would basically guarantee Liberal governments until Kingdom Come, right?

How does that follow? The solution for right and left of center parties in either a PR or ranked system is obvious. Split in two pieces; more centrist parties which would be competitive with the Liberals, and more left and right wing parties that would gather the votes of the more ideologically partisan base and like-minded travelers. For instance, you might have a Conservative Party of Canada which is quite centrist, and a, say, traditionalist conservative party that would take a more traditionalist, pro-Western stance. In essence you would break the Tories back into the Red (PCs) and Blue (Reform) Tories, who would compete for seats, but would tend to coalesce into stable coalitions if a government was in the offing.

Besides, I'd say the days of the Liberals as the sort of default centrist choice are done, whether we stick with FPTP or go to another voting system. Mulcair and Harper have both forceably steered their parties to the political center, which is why the Liberals still sit at third, and even if they catch up will likely mean we have close to a three way split. I see little advantage granted to the Liberals at this point, though if either the NDP or Tories were to become more radically left and right wing, then I suppose the Liberals would gain the advantage.

[Argus]

Yeah, I agree about MMP: it seems like a mess to have two sets of MPs that are elected through totally different means who will have similar powers.

Ranked voting would basically guarantee Liberal governments until Kingdom Come, right?

Do you really think there is any sort of idealism behind the Liberal or NDP plans? The Liberal plan is indeed designed to benefit them, just as the NDP plan is designed to benefit them. Big surprise.

[Argus]

The per vote subsidy was a good system for reducing the influence of money in politics. That's why the Cons eliminated it.

The per vote plan had nothing to do with reducing the influence money in politics. It was designed to allow parties which couldn't raise money from their so-called supporters to pay for their election efforts. Your continuing attempt to suggest the Conservatives are some sort of 'big money' party flies in the face of the facts about election fundraising as well as the historical fact that the big money party was the Liberals for many decades prior to the rules being changed.

[ReeferMadness]

I deeply dislike any party list PR system, and that's what the NDP's MPR proposal is. It means that there is one class of MP which has a fixed geographic constituency, and hence actual constituents. To create the proportionality, parties then get a certain percentage of candidates on a party list become MPs. These MPs have no actual constituency, are not actually directly answerable to any constituent, and are thus essentially little more than party apparatchik, owing their position largely to the party itself.

I find it odd that people think that MP's are somehow going to be more beholden to the parties than they are now. Is that even possible? Watch this.

I would say they are like trained seals but trained seals show some modicum of individuality.

If you want proportionality without party assigned seats, check out Single Transferable Vote.

[ToadBrother]

I find it odd that people think that MP's are somehow going to be more beholden to the parties than they are now. Is that even possible? Watch

I would say they are like trained seals but trained seals show some modicum of individuality.

If you want proportionality without party assigned seats, check out Single Transferable Vote.

STV is a ranked voting system, so isn't generally considered truly proportional.

[ToadBrother]

Do you really think there is any sort of idealism behind the Liberal or NDP plans? The Liberal plan is indeed designed to benefit them, just as the NDP plan is designed to benefit them. Big surprise.

Which makes electoral reform wrong how?

[ReeferMadness]

STV is a ranked voting system, so isn't generally considered truly proportional.

Your statement isn't accurate. Instant runoff voting doesn't produce proportional results but STV does. The degree of proportionality can vary depending on there are many districts with low magnitude. Canada, with its population highly concentrated in urban areas could have an STV design where most districts are high magnitude districts and this would ensure overall proportionality.

In any case, the results would be vastly superior to FPTP in terms of proportionality.

However, the small district magnitude used in STV elections has been criticized as impairing proportionality, especially when more parties compete than there are seats available,[9]:50 and STV has, for this reason, sometimes been labelled "quasi proportional".[59]:83 While this may be true when considering districts in isolation, results overall are proportional. In Ireland, with particularly small magnitudes, results are "highly proportional".[2]:73[18] In 1997, the average magnitude was 4.0 but eight parties gained representation, four of them with less than 3% of first preference votes nationally. Six independent candidates also won election.[45] STV has also been described as the most proportional system.[59]:83 The system tends to handicap extreme candidates because, to gain preferences and so improve their chance of election, candidates need to canvass voters beyond their own circle of supporters, and so need to moderate their views.[60][61] Conversely, widely respected candidates can win election with relatively few first preferences by benefitting from strong subordinate preference support.[34]

[ReeferMadness]

Ranked voting would basically guarantee Liberal governments until Kingdom Come, right?

Ranked voting would no more guarantee Liberal governments than the fact that you clearly have no idea what you're talking about guarantees that you won't express your opinion anyway.

[Evening Star]

Ranked voting would no more guarantee Liberal governments than the fact that you clearly have no idea what you're talking about guarantees that you won't express your opinion anyway.

I'm not sure what you're on about but I like you, generally, so I'll refrain from shooting back. I just thought that the Liberals would be the most likely 'second choice' for either Conservative or NDP voters, which would help them out in a ranked/preferential voting system. "Guarantee until Kingdom Come" was meant to be obvious hyperbole. I don't think that's that radical of a suggestion (and centre parties usually do well in STV systems such as Ireland's, I thought?). Even if the CPC and NDP were to splinter as ToadBrother suggests, I'm not sure that would negate this effect THAT much.

[Evening Star]

I mean, the Libs managed to dominate Canada in the 20th century in a FPTP system anyway, so

Edit: + STV might strengthen MPs and weaken the power of party leaders, which I would favour.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Evening Star

[ReeferMadness]

I'm not sure what you're on about but I like you, generally, so I'll refrain from shooting back.

Sorry. I just find that there is so much misinformation when it comes to PR, after a while, I just get cranky responding to it.

I just thought that the Liberals would be the most likely 'second choice' for either Conservative or NDP voters, which would help them out in a ranked/preferential voting system. "Guarantee until Kingdom Come" was meant to be obvious hyperbole. I don't think that's that radical of a suggestion (and centre parties usually do well in STV systems such as Ireland's, I thought?). Even if the CPC and NDP were to splinter as ToadBrother suggests, I'm not sure that would negate this effect THAT much.

I think that's an assumption and I'd need to see some hard evidence. And the effect would certainly not be large enough to guarantee anything. If it did, then STV would not produce proportional results.

Which it does.

[ReeferMadness]

I wonder if people are confusing STV with instant runoff voting.

STV is a proportional system with multi-member districts. It isn't as intuitive as other systems but it is genius in its ability to produce proportional results while actually decreasing the amount of power held by the party over the candidates. It was recommended in BC by an assembly of citizens who studied proportional systems.

Instant runoff voting is a way of forcing a majority where a natural majority wouldn't exist. It's useful for choosing a single leadership position (like president or mayor) but when used to choose representatives, it often produces even more disproportionate results than FPTP. It has a tendency to favor large parties even more than FPTP.