Proportional Representation Discussion

[ToadBrother]

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.

Or maybe people actually do live in one place, and that people within regions have specific needs and aspirations, and despite the illusion of the Internet, there is value in politicians having an actual constituency.

I fail to see how a bunch of apparatchik who owe their existence as politicians to a list formulated by a party, without even the niceties of a riding association, is somehow "progress". Perhaps you can enlighten me.

[Guest]

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.

Do you believe that MPs, especially the CPC variety, have had any real loyalty to their local ridings over the last 10 yeaars? Also, list MPs are beholden to the party platform, which is what we are all voting for anyway. Additionally, list MPs are responsible for ridings not locally represented by their party, thus the typical 60% of people in a riding who did not vote for their MP have someone to call.

We are all better and more accurately represented by PR. MMP adds in local and regional voices and a ranked ballot for the local vote means that the local voice is a slightly better fit than a simple plurality. That's why MMP with a ranked ballot locally is the best fit for this large, diverse, and mostly empty country.

[ToadBrother]

Do you believe that MPs, especially the CPC variety, have had any real loyalty to their local ridings over the last 10 yeaars? Also, list MPs are beholden to the party platform, which is what we are all voting for anyway. Additionally, list MPs are responsible for ridings not locally represented by their party, thus the typical 60% of people in a riding who did not vote for their MP have someone to call.

I believe they would be more representative than MPs that voters had no direct control over.

We are all better and more accurately represented by PR. MMP adds in local and regional voices and a ranked ballot for the local vote means that the local voice is a slightly better fit than a simple plurality. That's why MMP with a ranked ballot locally is the best fit for this large, diverse, and mostly empty country.

On that I disagree. I firmly believe every elected representative must be directly elected so that their constituents can directly hold them to account.

[Guest]

I believe they would be more representative than MPs that voters had no direct control over.

Under our current system the previous CPC government fired MPs who placed their ridings ahead of the party. Also under our current system, nearly two-thirds of Canadians are "represented" in Ottawa by someone representing a platform they did not vote for. Do you think an MP really worries about the 60% of voters in their riding that cast ballots for someone else?

So, I believe a parliament that accurately reflects the way Canadians vote is more representative.

On that I disagree. I firmly believe every elected representative must be directly elected so that their constituents can directly hold them to account.

Yet at the federal level, constituents vote for a party and a platform not so much the local person. However, regions differ in their wants and needs and some geographic ties are important, which is why I support MMP. It combines local reps with a proportional parliament.

[ToadBrother]

Yet at the federal level, constituents vote for a party and a platform not so much the local person. However, regions differ in their wants and needs and some geographic ties are important, which is why I support MMP. It combines local reps with a proportional parliament.

And I think STV is better, as it still means that every single person who ends up in Parliament must have a geographical constituency. MMP just invites parties to even further overawe members of Parliament. We don't need two kinds of MPs.

[eyeball]

Or maybe people actually do live in one place, and that people within regions have specific needs and aspirations, and despite the illusion of the Internet, there is value in politicians having an actual constituency.

Of course they normally live in one place, the problem is trying to meet their specific needs and aspirations from hundreds and thousands of miles away.

I fail to see how a bunch of apparatchik who owe their existence as politicians to a list formulated by a party, without even the niceties of a riding association, is somehow "progress". Perhaps you can enlighten me.

I haven't got a clue how that's possible, I think I fail to see it even more than you do. What I can see is the pointlessness of sending my local representative thousands of miles away and expect them to properly govern the people to whom they owe their existence from there.

Especially from a horse and buggy.

Edited November 2, 2015 by eyeball

[eyeball]

And I think STV is better, as it still means that every single person who ends up in Parliament must have a geographical constituency. MMP just invites parties to even further overawe members of Parliament. We don't need two kinds of MPs.

I think STV is better too but I also think the importance of a local representative especially in today's far busier and bigger ideological world is way way over-rated, just like their influence on local affairs.

[ToadBrother]

I think STV is better too but I also think the importance of a local representative especially in today's far busier and bigger ideological world is way way over-rated, just like their influence on local affairs.

The world isn't that much bigger, and I have no idea what "more ideological" even means. I'd say our world is probably a lot less ideological, at least in the West, then it has ever been before.

It strikes me that one of the problems here is this notion that democracy has but one purpose; to represent the populace. It seems reject the idea that any democratic jurisdiction has multiple polities, that somehow vote share alone should determine the outcome.

The fact is that there are still regional concerns, indeed riding concerns, and that the Federal government's actions can have effects even at that level, so Parliament should reflect that diversity at the riding and regional level.

Beyond that there is the fact that Canada is a confederation; a federal state, of which seven of its thirteen constituent parts (I'm including the Territories) existed prior to that confederation. The Constitution guarantees a certain amount of representation at that level, so no matter what electoral system you want, unless you plan on tearing open the Constitution, those constitutional seat counts are still going to have to be met.

[Guest]

And I think STV is better, as it still means that every single person who ends up in Parliament must have a geographical constituency. MMP just invites parties to even further overawe members of Parliament. We don't need two kinds of MPs.

This discussion really depends on what you mean by STV. Are you referring to a ranked voting system with multi-member constituencies or are you simply talking about a ranked ballot within our current single member ridings?

A ranked ballot within single member constituencies unfairly rewards centrist parties and still leaves the majority of people in a riding unrepresented.

STV with multi-member constituencies is a proportional system and works well in highly populated or at least evenly populated areas. The problem in Canada is that it is sparsely populated so outside of a handful of urban areas, the multi-member constituencies would have to be absolutely massive, geographically. Then you lose any ties to a local region anyway.

[eyeball]

The world isn't that much bigger, and I have no idea what "more ideological" even means. I'd say our world is probably a lot less ideological, at least in the West, then it has ever been before.

I think I meant to say it's more black and white at bigger scales and a lot more nuanced when you zoom in on a region.

It strikes me that one of the problems here is this notion that democracy has but one purpose; to represent the populace. It seems reject the idea that any democratic jurisdiction has multiple polities, that somehow vote share alone should determine the outcome.

It strikes me that democracy is sold as the end all and be all of what it means to be self governing.

The fact is that there are still regional concerns, indeed riding concerns, and that the Federal government's actions can have effects even at that level, so Parliament should reflect that diversity at the riding and regional level.

The government can't possibly have much focused effect at a local level. There's just way too many regions and issues to do much more than try and apply grease to the squeakiest parts and the grease only comes in two coloured flavours...black or white.

Beyond that there is the fact that Canada is a confederation; a federal state, of which seven of its thirteen constituent parts (I'm including the Territories) existed prior to that confederation. The Constitution guarantees a certain amount of representation at that level, so no matter what electoral system you want, unless you plan on tearing open the Constitution, those constitutional seat counts are still going to have to be met.

Yes, the bridles, harnesses, breeching dees and other parts and pieces of the buggy.

The longer we shy away from "tearing open" the Constitution the likelier we'll just be tearing it up at some point.

Edited November 2, 2015 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

Yes, the bridles, harnesses, breeching dees and other parts and pieces of the buggy.

The longer we shy away from "tearing open" the Constitution the likelier we'll just be tearing it up at some point.

It is what it is, and the provinces will not vote themselves out of existence or surrender their constitutional rights simply because of your desire for unbridled expediency.

[eyeball]

If you really think that's what I desire then you haven't heard a thing I've said. I mean, just a couple of posts back you seemed to think I support representation by partisan apparatchik.

Edited November 2, 2015 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

If you really think that's what I desire then you haven't heard a thing I've said.

I don't know. It's hard not read your last post and your frequently deriding constitutional obstacles as "the bridles, harnesses, breeching dees and other parts and pieces of the buggy" as anything other than a variant on your bemoaning that you're notions of reform can't just automatically happen because, well, their just so darned great.

We've had this dust up before and other topics. I think I've made my view clear; constitutional reform is very hard, and potentially damaging, and should be avoided unless there is a very good reason. Seeing as how I think electoral reform can be accomplished, providing the representation requirements of the Constitution are adhered to, it's probably a minor point, but with the potential that MMP could create a group of MPs who would not have a geographical constituency, it raises the question as to whether MMP is constitutional.

STV, of course, does not have this problem, although it could mean PEI would get more representatives than it does now.

[Smallc]

STV, of course, does not have this problem, although it could mean PEI would get more representatives than it does now.

PEI would probably just be one riding of 4 MPs. It wouldn't be as proportionate as others, but would still be closer to the actual vote.

[ToadBrother]

PEI would probably just be one riding of 4 MPs. It wouldn't be as proportionate as others, but would still be closer to the actual vote.

It's one solution, but it could leads to accusations that PEI is being unfairly disadvantaged.

[Smallc]

It's one solution, but it could leads to accusations that PEI is being unfairly disadvantaged.

And adding more seats would further advantage them against others. No thanks. They're already over represented by 100 - 300%.

[ToadBrother]

And adding more seats would further advantage them against others. No thanks. They're already over represented by 100 - 300%.

The reason I suggest that may be preferable is because PEI could level a constitutional challenge against any new electoral bill if it does, in their interpretation, disadvantage them. It's one of the major pitfalls of any PR system; STV requires multi-member ridings to be truly proportional, but PEI's small population doesn't warrant six or eight MPs, whereas MMP systems create MPs who may not easily be attached to a Province, and thus there will have to be modifications to MMP to assure that the Constitutional requirements for representation are maintained.

[ReeferMadness]

It's one solution, but it could leads to accusations that PEI is being unfairly disadvantaged.

Not sure who would make that argument or how they would justify it.

[Michael Hardner]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-electoral-reform-first-past-the-post-1.3292694

If a new system is chosen, new electoral boundaries would likely have to be drawn, a process, depending on the change, that could take a year. Not to mention the time Elections Canada would need to launch an information campaign.

Trudeau could save time and forgo a referendum. And electoral reform initiatives in Ontario, B.C. and P.E.I. in the past have gone down to defeat."If he wants to do it, he's got to get going," McLaughlin said.

"I think that would tell us how committed [Trudeau] is to it. Because if he goes the referendum route, it pretty much says he wants it to fail," said York University poli

In other words, "don't ask - tell". The ultimate irony of this would be if the Liberals, having received a minority of the vote, push a major reform of Canada's "democracy" without asking people.

[Guest]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-electoral-reform-first-past-the-post-1.3292694

In other words, "don't ask - tell". The ultimate irony of this would be if the Liberals, having received a minority of the vote, push a major reform of Canada's "democracy" without asking people.

The NDP and Green Party also listed electoral reform as major planks in their respective platforms, combined the three parties received two thirds of the vote.

[Michael Hardner]

The NDP and Green Party also listed electoral reform as major planks in their respective platforms, combined the three parties received two thirds of the vote.

Then why does this person in the article think a referendum would fail ?

[Smeelious]

Then why does this person in the article think a referendum would fail ?

Although I'm sure most people would welcome electoral reform, I'm not sure a majority of people would vote for Reform type B. Getting agreement on the type of system to use just wouldn't happen.

A lot of people like STV, (myself included) but it just isn't viable in Canada, unless you want to increase the size of parliament significantly. AV would tend to favour the Liberals, MMP has it's own issues etc etc etc.

NDP and the Greens won't support AV, and niether I think would the Conservatives. If JT put it to a referendum it would fail.

[ToadBrother]

A lot of people like STV, (myself included) but it just isn't viable in Canada, unless you want to increase the size of parliament significantly. AV would tend to favour the Liberals, MMP has it's own issues etc etc etc.

Why would you need to make Parliament larger. You would just create new multi-member ridings? There might be a few more MPs, but the number shouldn't be that much greater than the 338 that are there now.

Edited November 3, 2015 by ToadBrother

[Smeelious]

Why would you need to make Parliament larger. You would just create new multi-member ridings? There might be a few more MPs, but the number shouldn't be that much greater than the 338 that are there now.

How big would said ridings be? Would they still be "local"? We already have ridings that are far too large.

[ToadBrother]

How big would said ridings be? Would they still be "local"? We already have ridings that are far too large.

I think we're talking about six to eight member ridings. And why is big bad? Ridings are more based on population than on geographical size.