Proportional Representation Discussion

[cybercoma]

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.

Those who support them are afraid their party will have exactly as much power as it deserves.

[ToadBrother]

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.

If the country is roughly 60%-70% progressive/left of center, why should a conservative party that represents only 30% of the population have a handicap?

But really, do you truly think that in a PR system that the Tories, or at least some combination of right of center parties could never achieve power, or that we will have Liberal governments in perpetuity?

[Michael Hardner]

But really, do you truly think that in a PR system that the Tories, or at least some combination of right of center parties could never achieve power, or that we will have Liberal governments in perpetuity?

Yes, probably.

[TimG]

If the country is roughly 60%-70% progressive/left of center, why should a conservative party that represents only 30% of the population have a handicap?

I would say that 60-70% of the country is centrist that wants fiscally responsible government, reasonable taxes and a good social safety net. The trouble with the political dynamics in Canada is the center cannot form a government on its own because it is split between tow rival parties. This means in a PR system the conservatives have to ally with extreme right parties and the liberal have ally with extreme left parties. In Canada the extreme right is non-existent which means a perpetual series of left leaning governments that do NOT represent the interests of the majority of Canadians because the only viable coalition would be held hostage to by the extreme left.

That said, conservatives could run minority governments as they had in past. There is no requirement for a coalition but I suspect the left would be keen to form coalitions because it is will ensure they grip on power.

[angrypenguin]

If the country is roughly 60%-70% progressive/left of center, why should a conservative party that represents only 30% of the population have a handicap?

But really, do you truly think that in a PR system that the Tories, or at least some combination of right of center parties could never achieve power, or that we will have Liberal governments in perpetuity?

I believe the latter.

[Bryan]

If the country is roughly 60%-70% progressive/left of center,

They're not. If they were, we'd have had many NDP majorities by now.

60-70% are right down the middle, easily willing to go slightly on either side of the equation if they like the options presented. That's why the centrist options are the only ones that ever form government.

[ToadBrother]

I would say that 60-70% of the country is centrist that wants fiscally responsible government, reasonable taxes and a good social safety net. The trouble with the political dynamics in Canada is the center cannot form a government on its own because it is split between tow rival parties. This means in a PR system the conservatives have to ally with extreme right parties and the liberal have ally with extreme left parties. In Canada the extreme right is non-existent which means a perpetual series of left leaning governments that do NOT represent the interests of the majority of Canadians because the only viable coalition would be held hostage to by the extreme left.

That said, conservatives could run minority governments as they had in past. There is no requirement for a coalition but I suspect the left would be keen to form coalitions because it is will ensure they grip on power.

I think we're reading a lot into the dynamics of the parties that we cannot say for certain. I can well imagine if the Tories were to emulate the Christian Democrats in Germany, which, by and large fit your description, there's no reason that they couldn't lead governing coalitions. Frankly, I think the Liberals and NDP's mutual notions that they can own the government in perpetuity through another electoral system is in error. Let's remember here that even in PR systems, sooner or later governments screw up so badly, or at least accrue so much baggage that they become unelectable, and at that point voters will find the alternatives.

The problem for the Tories, in their current incarnation, isn't necessarily that their policies were out of whack to what the populace wanted (although I think some initiatives or tendencies certainly opened them up to attack), it was, to be quite blunt that the Tories behaved like contemptible jerks, demonstrating paranoia and a vengeful mindset in equal parts. I think once the worst excesses of Harperite hyperpartisanship have been eliminated from the party (and by that, I mean, guys like Ray Novak are quietly shown the door like Ezra Levant finally was), there's no reason they can become a fiscally conservative alternative to any "progressive" coalition.

That's the crux for me. I'd happily go back to the right-of-center camp if it meant I didn't have to vote for very nasty people, or rank the Tory candidate if we go to that sort of system.

So I suppose the answer to "Does the Harper version of the Conservative Party have a hope in hell in a PR or ranked system?" is definitely no. But then again, I'm not even sure such a party would have much hope in four years even in an FPTP system. But if the Tories were to look to the CDU in Germany, which runs incredibly successful right-of-center coalitions (Angela Merkel may very well be one of the most successful leaders of an industrialized country in recent history), then why not?

[ToadBrother]

They're not. If they were, we'd have had many NDP majorities by now.

60-70% are right down the middle, easily willing to go slightly on either side of the equation if they like the options presented. That's why the centrist options are the only ones that ever form government.

So explain to me why the Conservatives couldn't have as much chance to form a government under another electoral system as the Liberals? Sure, it might mean some more right-of-center parties get formed, but that's how it works in countries like Germany.

[Bryan]

So explain to me why the Conservatives couldn't have as much chance to form a government under another electoral system as the Liberals?

How am I supposed to explain something that only exists inside your head?

[eyeball]

I think once the worst excesses of Harperite hyperpartisanship have been eliminated from the party (and by that, I mean, guys like Ray Novak are quietly shown the door like Ezra Levant finally was), there's no reason they can become a fiscally conservative alternative to any "progressive" coalition.

The problem will still fester in the base. Stir up the base a little and watch the worst of the excesses sprout like Scotch broom.

That fiscal conservatives can't seem to shake them off is their own dumb fault and to everyone's misfortune. A synthesis of fiscal conservatism with progressive environmentalism could go a long way towards balancing the ecological capacity of the planet to provide natural capital with our human economies liquidation of that capital. Maybe FC's just don't care.

Edited October 31, 2015 by eyeball

[-1=e^ipi]

So explain to me why the Conservatives couldn't have as much chance to form a government under another electoral system as the Liberals?

Have the conservations split back into 2 parties. If you have a right-of-centre party that keeps the crazies out then it would be possible for this right-of-centre party to appeal for centrist voters.

Edited November 2, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[ToadBrother]

Have the conservations split back into 2 parties. If you have a right-of-centre party that keeps the crazies out then it would be possible for this right-of-centre party appeal for centrist votes.

Well, I think however many right of center parties there are, any that are interested in being part of a coalition are going to have to at least keep a lid on the crazies. But yes, the most obvious solution to how Tories form a government in a PR or ranked system is for the party to split up. I might suggest that the divisions for the junior parties might be more regional than ideological, myself (ie. a Western right of center party, a Quebec right of center party), although providing the ideology isn't some sort of hard right social conservatism, I suppose some ideological differentiation would be useful.

[-TSS-]

FPTP can only be defended when it really produces a majority-government. When it even fails to do that as it has been the case in a couple of the Canadian elections or in the UK in 2010 and yet those results have still been hugely disproportionate compared to the share of the votes cast, one can rightfully call into question the very legitimacy of governments formed out of such elections.

[ReeferMadness]

FPTP can only be defended when it really produces a majority-government. When it even fails to do that as it has been the case in a couple of the Canadian elections or in the UK in 2010 and yet those results have still been hugely disproportionate compared to the share of the votes cast, one can rightfully call into question the very legitimacy of governments formed out of such elections.

I'm not sure what exactly is defensible about a party getting 38% of the votes, 55% of the seats and 100% of the power.

ETA: Certainly Trudeau has promised to be less dictatorial than the disastrous Harper government but how that pans out remains to be seen. And even if he is less dictatorial, it doesn't mean that the next PM will be.

Edited October 31, 2015 by ReeferMadness

[-TSS-]

How about a compromise: A run-off in constituencies, or ridings as you call them, where none of the candidates has received more than 50% of the votes?

[ReeferMadness]

How about a compromise: A run-off in constituencies, or ridings as you call them, where none of the candidates has received more than 50% of the votes?

Instant run off voting heavily favors centrist parties that will attract 2nd choice votes. So, in Canada, with the current party setup, the Liberal Party would be in power forever. Smaller parties are punished and banished to the sidelines for eternity.

So it's no solution. If you like it, you're welcome to adopt it in Finland.

[-TSS-]

Instant run off voting heavily favors centrist parties that will attract 2nd choice votes. So, in Canada, with the current party setup, the Liberal Party would be in power forever. Smaller parties are punished and banished to the sidelines for eternity.

So it's no solution. If you like it, you're welcome to adopt it in Finland.

No, we have PR here in Finland.

[ReeferMadness]

No, we have PR here in Finland.

Lucky you. We need it here in Canada.

[cybercoma]

ETA: Certainly Trudeau has promised to be less dictatorial than the disastrous Harper government but how that pans out remains to be seen.

And that doesn't even matter. The votes in the house are still not representative of the voting intentions of the public, since the MPs are not representative of the voting intentions of the public.

[cybercoma]

How about a compromise: A run-off in constituencies, or ridings as you call them, where none of the candidates has received more than 50% of the votes?

Run-offs still aren't proportional.

[-TSS-]

We in Finland are due to have next parliamentary elections in 2019 but due to the chaos of the migrant crisis my firm bet is that by that time we will have a state of emergency declared and elections cancelled.

Edited November 1, 2015 by -TSS-

[angrypenguin]

We in Finland are due to have next parliamentary elections in 2019 but due to the chaos of the migrant crisis my firm bet is that by that time we will have a state of emergency declared and elections cancelled.

Don't worry, Canada will take them.

[Guest]

Run-offs still aren't proportional.

Exactly. Ranked ballots are a better way to elect single member constituencies but are far from proportional. The best compromise for a sparsely populated country that is regionally diverse is the Mixed Member Proportional system, favoured by the NDP. This system allows voters to choose their local representative and with a second ballot choose the party they wish to govern. All local winners receive a seat and then parliament is adjusted to proportionally match voter intention on the second ballot.

Using run offs to elect the local winners would improve the system further by finding a local rep that more people could live with.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Guest

[ToadBrother]

Exactly. Ranked ballots are a better way to elect single member constituencies but are far from proportional. The best compromise for a sparsely populated country that is regionally diverse is the Mixed Member Proportional system, favoured by the NDP. This system allows voters to choose their local representative and with a second ballot choose the party they wish to govern. All local winners receive a seat and then parliament is adjusted to proportionally match voter intention on the second ballot.

Using run offs to elect the local winners would improve the system further by finding a local rep that more people could live with.

The problem being that if we're trying to create a more empowered Parliament, having a bunch of MP's who are owned completely by their political parties, and have no actual direct association to any real greographic constituency, seems counterproductive.

[eyeball]

I certainly get what you're saying about a governing system that's beholden to and serves political interests but when I think about a geographical constituency in the context of the world's problems these days I see MP's getting together with other MP's from around the world to better govern the planet. I'm quite certain our provincial and local governments could manage on our own but apparently we're a bunch of knuckle-dragging Neanderthals that couldn't be trusted to manage a fish fry on our own never mind a fishery without cocking things up ever worse.

We govern ourselves with the same basic mindset of the Amish, clinging to the olde ways of horses and buggies when we have electric google cars and spaceships at our disposal. Maybe I'm just impatient but events unfold at a pace now that all to often leaves our governments in the dust. I'm left with the impression that our traditions and centuries olde ways are to signal that our best days are behind us. These days it's easier to believe that.