Proportional Representation Discussion

[TimG]

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".

And these parties need to extract visible concessions in order to ensure they can get the votes in the next election. This leads to a situation where the political interests of tiny fractions of the population are pushed on the majority. You don't see this with FPTP because the big tent parties have to keep have to keep the extremists under control because that is the only way to get re-elected. This is why PR leads to worse government than FPTP. Edited October 21, 2015 by TimG

[Guest]

Not between the two largest parties that see themselves as rivals. If deals are made it is almost always with the smaller parties.

The seat count for the largest parties would diminish under a proportional system with the largest parties existing near the centre. Centre-left and centre-right factions would still have significant overlap.

[hitops]

A system with perfect proportionality and near-perfect regional rep is the following: A ranked list of all the candidates from all parties. You rank them. It could be in the thousands. You spend many hours filling out your ballot.

Leaving crazy land, a similar plan approaching the margins of logistical plausibility: Leave ridings as they are. All parties list candidates by riding, like now. As a voter, you choose a party first. Then you get a list of that's party's candidates, and rank them 1 through 338. Number 1 gets 338 points, number 2 337, down to number 338 who gets 1 point (or some other mathematical system for ranking). Using Monday's result, Libs get 40% of the popular vote, meaning 135 MP's. Those must be the 135 with the most points from that list of 338. As a candidate, if you rank 136th by points, sorry, no seat for you. Same for the other parties according to their popular vote.

Obviously this still borders on comedy when considering the logistics. An alternative would be a candidate ranking system where perhaps you simply write your top ten into ten empty spaces. First choice gets 10 points, last one gets 1 point, same as above. The 135 liberals seats are again made up of the top 135 liberal candidates in points. This allows anyone to vote for their local guy first, the riding next door guy second, or whoever they want, and not spend all day doing it. If they hate their local guy but want to vote for Lib, name whatever Lib you would rather give points to.

You could expand this beyond party and simply give the 10 empty spaces. If you want to list all Libs, fine. If you love Michael Chong a few Libs, and few other independents, malcontents or other assorted disturbers, fine. Whoever gets the most points can re-assemble into their parties, or not. Party affiliation would give them brand recognition and campaign support but not make them nearly as beholden afterward.

All these are similar in concept to STV but;

- more accurately representative

- ranking based on candidates rather than parties

- ranked choices do not transfer but rather hold different weights

Another even simpler alternative that would require no administrative or procedural changes:

Again give 135 seats for a 40% win, but no closed party list. Mandate that the parties must put the 135 best performers in those seats, determined by percentage win in the riding. In this system the winning party will never send all their winners to Ottawa, and the losing parties will send all their winners and their best-performing losers. In this scenario, using Monday's numbers as an example, Megan Leslie would be an MP but Bob Nault (Kenora) would not.

Edited October 21, 2015 by hitops

[-1=e^ipi]

You don't see this with FPTP because the big tent parties have to keep have to keep the extremists under control because that is the only way to get re-elected.

You say that, yet Trump and Sanders could win their respective leadership races even though they aren't moderate. Heck, Harper won and he wasn't the most moderate. Tony Abbot also won the Australian Liberal Party leadership and he is no moderate either.

In FPTP systems, you have less competition between parties and the most vocal in a major party can get their preferred Candidate chosen. Often this means the extremists within 'big tent' parties.

[ToadBrother]

You say that, yet Trump and Sanders could win their respective leadership races even though they aren't moderate. Heck, Harper won and he wasn't the most moderate. Tony Abbot also won the Australian Liberal Party leadership and he is no moderate either.

And in the unlikely event that Trump wins, he will face a Congress which has enormous powers of its own to block him. The US system was explicitly designed so no single branch of government could just run amuck.

And I think you need to be reminded that the President is not directly elected, but is chosen by an electoral college, precisely to curb what the Founding Fathers viewed as a risk of democratic excess.

In FPTP systems, you have less competition between parties and the most vocal in a major party can get their preferred Candidate chosen. Often this means the extremists within 'big tent' parties.

No system I am aware of prevents extremists, though the intent of the system put in place the 1970s of requiring any candidate's nomination papers be signed by the leader was meant as a control on real wing nuts. Still, at the end of the day, if a party becomes populated by large hoards of nuts, then what do you suppose is going to happen to that party at the election? Here's a hint, the bozo eruptions of a number of Reform candidates and MPs during the 1990s, and even into the early 2000s pretty much foiled Manning's and Day's attempts to break into Ontario and have a shot at forming a government. It was only under Harper that the bozo eruptions finally faded away, because he used his powers as party leader to suppress the nuts.

In other words, even under FPTP, a party who has an image as fostering kooks, or at least allowing them to spout off unchallenged and unpunished won't form a government.

Edited October 21, 2015 by ToadBrother

[-1=e^ipi]

And I think you need to be reminded that the President is not directly elected, but is chosen by an electoral college, precisely to curb what the Founding Fathers viewed as a risk of democratic excess.

I have a better suggestion for a 'check and balance'. It's called proportional representation.

[ReeferMadness]

And in the unlikely event that Trump wins, he will face a Congress which has enormous powers of its own to block him. The US system was explicitly designed so no single branch of government could just run amuck.

How much of an obstacle would a republican congress be?

[ToadBrother]

How much of an obstacle would a republican congress be?

As much as was needed to protect Congress's interests. I have a feeling that Trump became president (an outcome I doubt many people seriously contemplate), and he was half the nut he portrays (which I don't actually believe), then Congress and the Supreme Court would occupy a good deal of their time holding him in check, and the Trump presidency would end up a lot like the final days of the Nixon presidency; an isolated, besieged Administration with no allies on Capitol Hill, or anywhere else.

One of the more admirable features of the American system is that power is not only distributed between the three branches, but has been intentionally carved up so that there is overlap.

Think of it this way. A lot of Trump's "promises" would involve a lot of appropriations, and Congress could simply say "We're not doing that", and cut off any new money. Obviously others could be accomplished using money already earmarked by Congress, and attempts to muck with that would run up against presidential vetoes, but even there, the Constitution gives Congress the ability to override.

At the end of the day, Republicans, just like Democrats, are interested in power, and if there is a President who acts as crazily as Trump talks (again, I don't actually believe he's the nut he portrays on TV), then that would become a threat to even a Republican-controlled Congress; in that it could very well threaten their re-election.

Beyond that, if I've read some of Trump's promises, I would suggest that they would represent blatant abuses of power and Executive overreach, so if necessary, there's always the nuclear option of impeachment.

[TimG]

How much of an obstacle would a republican congress be?

The US congress is more like a collection of independent agents than a party system because the party has little ability to compel votes. So the US congress with its extremists on both ends of the spectrum ensconced in safe seats is a harbinger for what Canada would face if it went for a PR system. Each bill that makes it through congress is an incoherent mess filled with ear marks and other goodies necessary to secure the votes necessary for passage. Once passed bills - even if they contain gross errors - are near impossible to amend. The system we have in Canada has served the country well for 148 years and I see no compelling reason to change it. Edited October 22, 2015 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

You could expand this beyond party and simply give the 10 empty spaces. If you want to list all Libs, fine. If you love Michael Chong a few Libs, and few other independents, malcontents or other assorted disturbers, fine. Whoever gets the most points can re-assemble into their parties, or not. Party affiliation would give them brand recognition and campaign support but not make them nearly as beholden afterward.

You seem to be missing the fundamental point of our representative voting system. You vote for your representative, not someone else's.

All these are similar in concept to STV but;

- more accurately representative

- ranking based on candidates rather than parties

- ranked choices do not transfer but rather hold different weights

In STV, you already vote for candidates, not parties.

Another even simpler alternative that would require no administrative or procedural changes:

Again give 135 seats for a 40% win, but no closed party list. Mandate that the parties must put the 135 best performers in those seats, determined by percentage win in the riding. In this system the winning party will never send all their winners to Ottawa, and the losing parties will send all their winners and their best-performing losers. In this scenario, using Monday's numbers as an example, Megan Leslie would be an MP but Bob Nault (Kenora) would not.

So, random ridings are going to be represented by people who maybe came in 3rd, 4th, even 5th in their riding. And I should point out that when people win by large percentages, it isn't always because they're star candidates, it's often that they are in safe seats. So, picking the people who got the largest percentage of their votes is not always the smartest thing to do.

Honestly, PR systems aren't perfect. And it isn't because the people who came up with them were idiots. It's because you're trading off a lot of different factors.

[ReeferMadness]

The US congress is more like a collection of independent agents than a party system because the party has little ability to compel votes. So the US congress with its extremists on both ends of the spectrum ensconced in safe seats is a harbinger for what Canada would face if it went for a PR system. Each bill that makes it through congress is an incoherent mess filled with ear marks and other goodies necessary to secure the votes necessary for passage. Once passed bills - even if they contain gross errors - are near impossible to amend. The system we have in Canada has served the country well for 148 years and I see no compelling reason to change it.

Is the problem in the US the system or something else?

Your statement that Canada would face similar issues with PR is utter conjecture. Does that happen everywhere with PR?

Edited October 22, 2015 by ReeferMadness

[ToadBrother]

The US congress is more like a collection of independent agents than a party system because the party has little ability to compel votes. So the US congress with its extremists on both ends of the spectrum ensconced in safe seats is a harbinger for what Canada would face if it went for a PR system. Each bill that makes it through congress is an incoherent mess filled with ear marks and other goodies necessary to secure the votes necessary for passage. Once passed bills - even if they contain gross errors - are near impossible to amend. The system we have in Canada has served the country well for 148 years and I see no compelling reason to change it.

For all that "mess", the US became the predominant military power by 1942-43, and has remained so ever since. The political system is messy, but works.

And really, a PR-governed Parliamentary democracy works rather differently than the US. Coalitions certainly involve negotiation, but you don't think spending bills in FPTP Parliaments don't involve the exact same compromises that end up in Congressional legislation. How can you say that, after the Tories made omnibus budget bills that included the kitchen sink?

I don't need BushCheny to tell you what you just wrote is absurd and obviously not true.

[TimG]

For all that "mess", the US became the predominant military power by 1942-43, and has remained so ever since. The political system is messy, but works.

The same can be said for the current Canadian system except it is a lot less messy. The 'if-it-aint-broke-dont-fix-it' rule should apply.

How can you say that, after the Tories made omnibus budget bills that included the kitchen sink?

I am not sure of the rational behind the omnibus bills other than trying minimize the time it takes to get various issues passed while making it harder for the opposition to complain. Edited October 22, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

The same can be said for the current Canadian system except it is a lot less messy. The 'if-it-aint-broke-dont-fix-it' rule should apply.

I am not sure of the rational behind the omnibus bills other than trying minimize the time it takes to get various issues passed while making it harder for the opposition to complain.

Omnibus bills were a attempt to hide things, especially that had nothing to do with budgets. Minimizing the time was accomplished by invoking closure. A sort of two pronged approach to thwarting democracy. And look where it got them.

[ReeferMadness]

Anybody who wants to know why we've never gotten PR in this country just has to read through this thread. First, there are the naysayers - party insiders, members of the political industry, the mainstream media and people who think PR is some sort of plot.

Then, once you get past that, you have a new threat from people who support PR - but not a particular form of PR. People with strong party affinities only want MMP but others will only accept STV. And then to top it all off, people want to take a crack at designing their own systems.

[Bryan]

Omnibus bills were a attempt to hide things, especially that had nothing to do with budgets. Minimizing the time was accomplished by invoking closure. A sort of two pronged approach to thwarting democracy. And look where it got them.

Nothing was ever hidden. All bills are posted in their entirety for all to read if they so choose. And not one scintilla of democracy was thwarted. They went before the people multiple times, and when enough people decided they liked the other guy, they were voted out. Democracy in action.

[-1=e^ipi]

The 'if-it-aint-broke-dont-fix-it' rule should apply.

Except it is broke.

[On Guard for Thee]

Nothing was ever hidden. All bills are posted in their entirety for all to read if they so choose. And not one scintilla of democracy was thwarted. They went before the people multiple times, and when enough people decided they liked the other guy, they were voted out. Democracy in action.

Yeah when you throw out a 400 plus page "budget bill" that actually impacts 60 odd laws that have nothing to do with a budget, and then you invoke closure so the bill can't be properly investigated, you thwart way more than a shred of democracy. The people showed Harper the door because of those type actions.

[Bryan]

Anybody who wants to know why we've never gotten PR in this country just has to read through this thread. First, there are the naysayers - party insiders, members of the political industry, the mainstream media and people who think PR is some sort of plot.

Then, once you get past that, you have a new threat from people who support PR - but not a particular form of PR. People with strong party affinities only want MMP but others will only accept STV. And then to top it all off, people want to take a crack at designing their own systems.

The majority of the naysayers aren't any of those people. They're just people who actually understand how our system works, and how many other systems don't.

You're definitely right on the second part though. Everyone has a different idea of what PR means, and once it gets designed by committee, you end up with a complex monstrosity that few understand, and even less want to see implemented.

[Bryan]

Except it is broke.

It's not broken. Our system still functions exactly as it was designed.

[G Huxley]

It was designed to have one party often running the country with only a third of the vote?

[On Guard for Thee]

The majority of the naysayers aren't any of those people. They're just people who actually understand how our system works, and how many other systems don't.

You're definitely right on the second part though. Everyone has a different idea of what PR means, and once it gets designed by committee, you end up with a complex monstrosity that few understand, and even less want to see implemented.

Well then you'll be happy to know that your buddy Harper got thrown out of office in a landslide majority by slightly less of the popular vote than Harper got his previous mandate from. At least we made a more progressive choice this time around.

[Bonam]

Except it is broke.

How so?

[-1=e^ipi]

It's not broken. Our system still functions exactly as it was designed.

Slavery in the US functioned exactly how it was designed prior to the US civil war. Does that mean slavery should have never been abolished?

[-1=e^ipi]

How so?

large segments of the Canadian population are either not fairly represented or not represented at all.