-1=e^ipi Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 But it is an accurate description of what we have now. When I talk of party lists I am talking of closed party lists where voters cannot control who gets to be an MP. I can't control who is nominated as the candidates for my riding, the parties control that. So my choices are already restricted by the parties internal choices. Quote
TimG Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 I can't control who is nominated as the candidates for my riding, the parties control that. So my choices are already restricted by the parties internal choices.You can join the riding association and vote for the candidate. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 I like ranked voting systems because they preserve the notion of an elected representative with a fixed geographic constituency. Why is that desireable to preserve? Some people want to vote regionally, but others want to vote nationally. Why should the regional people prevent the national people from having proper representation? Here's an idea, how about 1 region with fixed geographic constituency: Canada. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 You mean like Mauril Belanger? A monkey in a suit could win any of these safe ridings, which means you can have perpetual politicians in safe ridings. I'm not sure he'd need the suit in many cases. 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
-1=e^ipi Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 STV is considered, with the right parameters (larger multi-member ridings) to be roughly as proportional as PR systems. If the Communists, Libertarians or other minor parties get 0.3%+ of the vote do they have representation in an STV system? No. The voters would instantly reject it because it gives too much control to the party and no guarantee of local representation. If voters want local representation, can't they just vote for a local party under a proportional system? Also, allowing for dynamic lists as opposed to static lists would help alleviate this issue. Quote
Smallc Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 I'm not sure he'd need the suit in many cases. Tell that to the Conservative in Fundy Royal. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 The problem with lists is the power to control who is an MP rests with the party rather than the voters. In the case of Mauril Belanger, how do voters have a say over him being chosen every year as the liberal candidate of Ottawa-Vanier? It's a safe liberal riding and people vote for Belanger because he's liberal, that's the primary reason. Yet he has the worst attendance record in parliament (supposedly). Yet at any election the voters could choose to get rid of them. With party lists it is impossible for voters to get rid of favored politicians higher on the lists. Sure there is a way. It's called don't vote for a party if you don't like the people at the top of the list. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 You can join the riding association and vote for the candidate. And you can also join a political party and try to change how they chose their lists. How is that significantly different. Tim can you ask me the following questions? 1. If the libertarian party obtains over 0.3% of the popular vote, should the libertarian party get representation in parliament to represent that 0.3%+ of voters? 2. If the libertarian party does get a single seat in parliament, who would best represent them? The leader of the party or a person in the party that happens to live in the riding with the highest % of libertarian support? Quote
ReeferMadness Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 Tell that to the Conservative in Fundy Royal. I guess he should have kept the suit on. 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
TimG Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 1. If the libertarian party obtains over 0.3% of the popular vote, should the libertarian party get representation in parliament to represent that 0.3%+ of voters?You seem to misunderstand the point of elections. The point is not to give every variation on political opinion representation. The objective is to choose a government via a process that the majority of the population accepts as legitimate. Achieving that objective does not require that parties with 0.3% of vote be given representation. More importantly, giving these kinds is narrow interests representation undermines the legitimacy of the government because the nature of the system would give these kinds of narrow interest too much influence on government policies (the example of the religious extremists in Israel is a warning). Quote
eyeball Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 My concern about STV are ridings that have are too large will lead to MPs getting elected with tiny proportion of the popular vote. MPs should require a minimum threshold before they can be considered. This also increases the scope for gerrymandering because a party can tweak the algorithm used to determine riding boundaries to suit them. Make the threshold proportional to each riding according to its population so the percentage of the popular vote would stay the same. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
-1=e^ipi Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 You seem to misunderstand the point of elections. The point is not to give every variation on political opinion representation. And here I thought the purpose of a representative democracy was to 'represent' the electorate. The objective is to choose a government via a process that the majority of the population accepts as legitimate. Achieving that objective does not require that parties with 0.3% of vote be given representation. In that case, why not just do away with the house of commons? You don't need seats. Just directly elect a prime minister every 4 years (using a run-off voting system) and then have the prime minister be essentially the dictator for 4 years. If the house of commons isn't suppose to represent the diversity of our country then it is unnecessary. More importantly, giving these kinds is narrow interests representation undermines the legitimacy of the government because the nature of the system would give these kinds of narrow interest too much influence How does it give extremists 'too much influence'? The balance of power will be held by the centrist/moderate parties. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 Make the threshold proportional to each riding according to its population so the percentage of the popular vote would stay the same. Don't mess with the math of STV - it works fine. Designing a good voting system is surprisingly hard and I recommend leaving it to the experts. 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 October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 In 2004, the Law Commission of Canada produced a report on voting system reform. It recommended a mixed member proportional system with regional open lists. It's a good read-if you have some time to spare. I don't remember the government discussing this at the time. I'm guessing it was overshadowed by the sponsorship scandal. 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
TimG Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 How does it give extremists 'too much influence'? The balance of power will be held by the centrist/moderate parties.You are ignoring the dynamics of parliament that ensure that the main centrist parties can never work together because they are rivals. This means they will need to seek the minor parties to pass legislation and this could require policies which most of the country does not want simply because it is the only way to secure the support of these minor parties. This means these parties have way more influence than they deserve. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 You are ignoring the dynamics of parliament that ensure that the main centrist parties can never work together because they are rivals. The main parties only have this behaviour because of the first past the post system, which has encouraged a winner take all mentality. This means they will need to seek the minor parties to pass legislation and this could require policies which most of the country does not want See here is how you don't have to cave into the demands of a minor extremist party. Threaten the minor extremist party that if they don't agree with you, you will go to another minor extremist party with completely different policy demands. Like threaten the communists you will go to the christian heritage, or visa versa. Or, you could try to form coalitions with other centrist major parties. This means these parties have way more influence than they deserve. They get representation proportional to vote share. The only reason you think this is more influence is because you are stuck in the mentality that mainstream party behaviour will be the same under a proportional system. Quote
TimG Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 The main parties only have this behaviour because of the first past the post system, which has encouraged a winner take all mentality.It would not change because the second largest party will want position itself as an alternative to the government and it can't do that if it co-operates. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 It would not change because the second largest party will want position itself as an alternative to the government and it can't do that if it co-operates. It doesn't have to cooperate during elections. Just during the formation of coalitions if it wants to govern. Quote
PIK Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 We don't. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Smeelious Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 It would not change because the second largest party will want position itself as an alternative to the government and it can't do that if it co-operates. In a government where you have a choice of co-operating with different parties to get your agenda through, this is less of an issue. This system favours an adversarial style of politics. Critics suggest that parties that do not win the majority of seats in the legislature or House of Commons are left with few options but to attack and criticize other parties’ policy positions, thereby contributing to a culture of adversarial politics.--http://www.publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/J31-61-2004E.pdf Quote
TimG Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) In a government where you have a choice of co-operating with different parties to get your agenda through, this is less of an issue.You are assuming that the government can 'shop around'. In many cases the government will need to support of multiple small parties to pass legislation and will not be able to play one party against the other. The adversarial politics is the function of the need for party branding - not the parliamentary make up. During elections parties have to show why they are different from the guys currently in charge. This makes co-operation toxic. Edited October 21, 2015 by TimG Quote
ToadBrother Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 You are assuming that the government can 'shop around'. In many cases the government will need to support of multiple small parties to pass legislation and will not be able to play one party against the other. The adversarial politics is the function of the need for party branding - not the parliamentary make up. During elections parties have to show why they are different from the guys currently in charge. This makes co-operation toxic. It makes cooperation toxic now. In an electoral system where majorities are rare, in the end parties will learn how to ring fence electioneering from coalition construction. You see it in most places with PR systems; coalitions dissolve at election time, fight like cats and dogs, and then, when it's time to form a government again, they wipe off the blood and bandage the scars and get about negotiating coalition agreements. Quote
Guest Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) You are assuming that the government can 'shop around'. In many cases the government will need to support of multiple small parties to pass legislation and will not be able to play one party against the other. The adversarial politics is the function of the need for party branding - not the parliamentary make up. During elections parties have to show why they are different from the guys currently in charge. This makes co-operation toxic. That's the way it works under a winner-take-all style electoral system. Under PR where perpetual governing coalitions are the norm, cooperation is not toxic; rather it is expected. Of course, during elections the gloves come off and parties still attack the differences in platforms. However, when they get down to business the parties are expected to uphold their platform where possible and comprise when needed. In Canada, for example over 75% of the Green, NDP and Liberal platforms overlap. Those items are passed easily. When dealing with the more contentious items the parties barter and compromise. The important thing is the players in Ottawa actually represent the voter's intentions; which, in my opinion is important in a representative democracy. And that is something our current system definitely does not deliver. Edited October 21, 2015 by Guest Quote
TimG Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 Under PR where perpetual governing coalitions are the norm, cooperation is not toxic; rather it is expected.Not between the two largest parties that see themselves as rivals. If deals are made it is almost always with the smaller parties. Quote
ToadBrother Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 Not between the two largest parties that see themselves as rivals. If deals are made it is almost always with the smaller parties. Exactly. And that's what will happen. I fully expect there to end up being one or more smaller conservative parties if we go to a PR system, much as there are multiple smaller right wing parties in Germany; what you might call "natural allies". Quote
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.