The_Squid Posted October 26, 2015 Report Posted October 26, 2015 You mean where fringe parties constantly act as kingmakers who choose the government? The only exception has been in the last few years where you have a 'grand coalition' but those are rare and only brought on by desperation. The trouble with 'grand coalitions' is the voters have no where to go when they eventually want change which why the main parties prefer to stay as rivals. PR a is tyranny of the fringe whether you want to believe it or not. You haven't shown a single example where this is the case. Quote
TimG Posted October 26, 2015 Report Posted October 26, 2015 (edited) You haven't shown a single example where this is the case.Germany. The government always needs the support of a fringe party with the recent exception for a 'grand coalition'. Edited October 26, 2015 by TimG Quote
The_Squid Posted October 26, 2015 Report Posted October 26, 2015 Germany. The government always needs the support of a fringe party with the recent exception for a 'grand coalition'. Saying so doesn't actually make it so.... Quote
TimG Posted October 26, 2015 Report Posted October 26, 2015 (edited) Saying so doesn't actually make it so....So you deny the fact that left wing fringe party propped up the prior government and prior to that it was propped up by a right wing fringe party? The dynamics of parliament don't give the mainstream parties a lot of flexibility. They cave to demands of the fringe or they can't run a government. The theory behind PR rests on the assumption that 'grand coalitions' are the norm but they almost never happen because the main parties see themselves as rivals. That is why there is huge disconnect between the theory of PR and the reality of PR. Edited October 26, 2015 by TimG Quote
Guest Posted October 26, 2015 Report Posted October 26, 2015 Germany. The government always needs the support of a fringe party with the recent exception for a 'grand coalition'.So parties representing the majority of the population worked together to pass legislation? Are you suggesting that is somehow worse than a party representing one third of the population having absolute power? Quote
TimG Posted October 26, 2015 Report Posted October 26, 2015 So parties representing the majority of the population worked together to pass legislation? Are you suggesting that is somehow worse than a party representing one third of the population having absolute power?What I saying is 'grand coalitions' are rare occurrences because the main parties cannot cooperate because they are rivals. The last 'grand coalition' in Germany was in the 60s. Quote
Guest Posted October 26, 2015 Report Posted October 26, 2015 Even if a major party works with a smaller party, legislation is still passed by politicians who actually represent a majority of voters. Right now, we grant absolute power to a group elected by 1/3. In my opinion, minority rule is far less palatable. Quote
Smeelious Posted October 26, 2015 Report Posted October 26, 2015 40% of the vote, 55% of the seats, 100% of the power. So. Very. Broken. Quote
Bryan Posted October 26, 2015 Report Posted October 26, 2015 40% of the vote, 55% of the seats, 100% of the power. So. Very. Broken. No. It's not 40% of the vote. It's actually winning those 55% of the seats. 338 separate local elections that everyone has an equal opportunity to grab. Quote
Big Guy Posted October 26, 2015 Report Posted October 26, 2015 As to the OP - create a blue ribbon committee, all party including political science "experts" to discuss the pro's and con's of the different variations of PR. Committee reports to government of appropriateness to our form of democracy with recommendations. A non binding referendum across Canada (this will be the trickiest part because the wording will dictate the results) looking for Canadian feelings. The government decides which, if any, to support. Just like Ontario. The process may take a while and become the key issue separating the parties in the 2020 election. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
hitops Posted October 26, 2015 Report Posted October 26, 2015 (edited) As to the OP - create a blue ribbon committee, all party including political science "experts" to discuss the pro's and con's of the different variations of PR. Committee reports to government of appropriateness to our form of democracy with recommendations. A non binding referendum across Canada (this will be the trickiest part because the wording will dictate the results) looking for Canadian feelings. The government decides which, if any, to support. Just like Ontario. The process may take a while and become the key issue separating the parties in the 2020 election. What will happen is whoever is in power will be against it, so it will probably not happen. However I do agree that some kind of committee to at least get discussion on the topic is at least in the realm of possibility. Edited October 26, 2015 by hitops Quote
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 26, 2015 Report Posted October 26, 2015 No. It's not 40% of the vote. It's actually winning those 55% of the seats. 338 separate local elections that everyone has an equal opportunity to grab. It's 40% of the votes however you cut it. The idea that these performing seals are conducting separate elections while chanting the party line is hard to swallow. Local issues do not loom large in these contests. I suspect Sunny Boy won't be so keen on PR, now that FPTP has served him so well. That's the sad pattern in these things. I believe the only truly legitimate government is one supported by a majority of voters, which would mean a coalition. Quote
TimG Posted October 26, 2015 Report Posted October 26, 2015 I suspect Sunny Boy won't be so keen on PR, now that FPTP has served him so well. That's the sad pattern in these things. I believe the only truly legitimate government is one supported by a majority of voters, which would mean a coalition.We have minority governments all of the time without any coalition. They are usually short lived and unable to make difficult decisions. Quote
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 26, 2015 Report Posted October 26, 2015 We have minority governments all of the time without any coalition. They are usually short lived and unable to make difficult decisions. What I mean is, I would prefer a coalition whose combined vote was greater than 50% of votes cast e.g. liberal/NDP. Of course, they don't need to do that in FPTP. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted October 29, 2015 Report Posted October 29, 2015 We have minority governments all of the time without any coalition. They are usually short lived and unable to make difficult decisions. The reason they are short lived is that parties are always jockeying for advantage because they know that under the current system a small bump in the polls can mean a huge bump in the number of seats. And countries that use PR don't have, on average, shorter parliamentary durations that ones that have FPTP. 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
ToadBrother Posted October 29, 2015 Report Posted October 29, 2015 No. It's not 40% of the vote. It's actually winning those 55% of the seats. 338 separate local elections that everyone has an equal opportunity to grab. And in most of those 338 races, the winner still didn't achieve an actual majority of the vote. Even Trudeau, in his own riding, just barely scraped over 50%. FPTP isn't even fair at the riding level. Quote
hitops Posted October 29, 2015 Report Posted October 29, 2015 What I mean is, I would prefer a coalition whose combined vote was greater than 50% of votes cast e.g. liberal/NDP. Of course, they don't need to do that in FPTP. Or even if not, at least enough noise gets to be made by various parties that the end result is somewhat reflective of a compromise position generally representing the range and proportion of Canadian opinion. Quote
angrypenguin Posted October 29, 2015 Report Posted October 29, 2015 The idea that the majority of the people should have their way is scary. The majority of the people believe that the wealthy should pay 89% in taxes. (as a joke, and serious at the same time). If the majority of the people have it their way, that will happen. Then in time, those wealthy people will leave, and then unemployment will go up. So.....................................how is that good long term again? Quote My views are my own and not those of my employer.
ToadBrother Posted October 29, 2015 Report Posted October 29, 2015 The idea that the majority of the people should have their way is scary. The majority of the people believe that the wealthy should pay 89% in taxes. (as a joke, and serious at the same time). If the majority of the people have it their way, that will happen. Then in time, those wealthy people will leave, and then unemployment will go up. So.....................................how is that good long term again? How do you get from PR to this? You seem to misunderstand the purpose of a representative democracy and PR. Quote
Bryan Posted October 30, 2015 Report Posted October 30, 2015 And in most of those 338 races, the winner still didn't achieve an actual majority of the vote. Even Trudeau, in his own riding, just barely scraped over 50%. FPTP isn't even fair at the riding level. The winner is the one the most people in that riding support. The same way it is for mayoral elections. It's the most democratic method that exists. Quote
Bryan Posted October 30, 2015 Report Posted October 30, 2015 It's 40% of the votes however you cut it. No it isn't. How people vote in Charlottetown has no bearing on how people in Churchill vote. None of those votes carry over from one riding to the next. Quote
ToadBrother Posted October 30, 2015 Report Posted October 30, 2015 No it isn't. How people vote in Charlottetown has no bearing on how people in Churchill vote. None of those votes carry over from one riding to the next. And yet popular vote is party of everyone's calculations, even the political parties. BEyond that, as I said to you earlier, even at the riding level FPTP leads to deep inequities. Quote
ToadBrother Posted October 30, 2015 Report Posted October 30, 2015 The winner is the one the most people in that riding support. The same way it is for mayoral elections. It's the most democratic method that exists. No, it's not. It ends up frequently disenfranchising well over 50% of the voters in any given riding. I get why Conservatives don't want to switch from FPTP, I just don't see why we should give in the slightest concern to any political party's fortunes when we talk about an electoral system. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted October 30, 2015 Author Report Posted October 30, 2015 I get why Conservatives don't want to switch from FPTP, I just don't see why we should give in the slightest concern to any political party's fortunes when we talk about an electoral system. Because they represent the first choice of 30% of Canadians ? Those who support them have real fears that they will permanently have less power than the party with 20% of Canadians. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
cybercoma Posted October 30, 2015 Report Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) And yet popular vote is party of everyone's calculations, even the political parties. BEyond that, as I said to you earlier, even at the riding level FPTP leads to deep inequities. At the riding level it's the worst inequalities since it's winner-take-all. Edited October 30, 2015 by cybercoma 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.