Proportional Representation Discussion

[square]

This is the one promise Liberals better deliver on.

[alexmac]

You will see a big push for a preferential ballot by the Liberals.

They promised this change in the first 18 months of their term in government.

Just stating what they said with no expectations on either.

Our view is that preferential is no better than FPTP and it is to confusing for most voters.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Giorno puts the case well here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/guy-giorno-proportional-representation-1.3463105

[davidmike]

There are no mini-elections but just one whole election where all the votes are brought together to be tallied. A winning candidate may have accrued his votes from any or all parts of the country.

[PIK]

So someone that does not win, wins anyways??

[jacee]

A good read:

/only-proportionality-will-fix-our-democratic-malaise/

Given that most democracies have opted for greater proportionality, theres a good deal of evidence on how its working. And it is working.

Voter participation and trust in government are higher. There has been some increase but no proliferation of parties. It does become harder though not impossible for single parties to get a majority so these countries are often governed by coalitions. But coalitions in fact provide good, stable government. Elections are no more frequent and politics tend to be less polarized because parties know they may have to work together.

We just have to make sure that it is designed to serve our wishes, not those of politicians.

.

Edited May 10, 2016 by jacee

[The_Squid]

So someone that does not win, wins anyways??

How do you get that from anything that's been written?

[TimG]

A new coalition is a power transition

A new coalition that leaves most of the same politicians in place is NOT a power transition. A power transition is when the old guard is swept out of power and all of the old party hacks find their connections worthless.

[?Impact]

A new coalition that leaves most of the same politicians in place is NOT a power transition. A power transition is when the old guard is swept out of power and all of the old party hacks find their connections worthless.

That would depend on the representative power base between the different parties in the coalition. In the case we were talking about (Germany for the rest of you that haven't followed this thread - Thanks Tim for moving it to the right forum, hopefully the moderators will reward you) the second party was from a low of 43% that of the primary party and a high of 97%. I agree that there will still be some legacy connections to the dominant party that might be abused.

Going back to the comparison between Germany and Canada, even if we adhere strictly to a change of the dominant party then there were 3 transitions for both countries between 1982-2015, or 4 transitions between 1982-2016 for Canada and 1981-2015 for Germany (ie. cherry picking dates makes a big difference).

[TimG]

Going back to the comparison between Germany and Canada, even if we adhere strictly to a change of the dominant party then there were 3 transitions for both countries between 1982-2015, or 4 transitions between 1982-2016 for Canada and 1981-2015 for Germany (ie. cherry picking dates makes a big difference).

You numbers don't work. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestag

Since 1949 there has been exactly 1 complete power transition in Germany.

Every other election resulted in at least one coalition partner retaining power.

In Canada we have had 8 full power transitions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Canada

FPTP provides the best system for full power transitions.

This is something I see as essential for a healthy democracy.

Edited June 8, 2016 by TimG

[?Impact]

Since 1949 there has been exactly 1 complete power transition in Germany.

Since before the Union government, there have been zero power transitions in Canada. The Liberal and various incarnations of 'Conservative' government are all controlled by the same monied interests. We need a true people oriented party.

To put this in plain language:

In Canada, the corporatists have held power for over a century. The closest the socialists ever came to power was being in opposition for the recent 4 years.

In Germany, the corporatists have held power about 60% of the time (since 1949), and shared it with the socialists another 20% of the time. The rest of the time the Socialists have held power with the help of others. When out of power, the corporatists or socialists were always the primary opposition.

Edited June 8, 2016 by ?Impact

[TimG]

Since before the Union government, there have been zero power transitions in Canada. The Liberal and various incarnations of 'Conservative' government are all controlled by the same monied interests. We need a true people oriented party.

Your opinion does not change the facts. and the facts are that a full power transitions have occurred many more times in Canada than in Germany where the system tends to return the exact same set of MPs election after election. A full power transition where everyone associated with a government loses all power and is replaced by another group of people is an important part of any democratic system because:

1) It means there are consequences for losing an election which makes parties more accountable;

2) It injects new idealistic blood into government which can be a catalyst for meaningful change.

It really makes no difference if you don't happen to like the the parties that get power. My point is still valid and FPTP is the only system that can reliably produce full power transitions.

Edited June 8, 2016 by TimG

[eyeball]

Producing full power transitions is not the purpose of voting or the reason people do it.

[TimG]

Producing full power transitions is not the purpose of voting or the reason people do it.

Really. So you think people would be satisfied with an system that leaves the same group of parties in place in election after election?

[Guest]

Really. So you think people would be satisfied with an system that leaves the same group of parties in place in election after election?

I think the electoral system should simply accurately produce a parliament based on the actual votes cast. PR achieves that. Then whatever the will of the voters happens to be, parliament will reflect it.

[TimG]

I think the electoral system should simply accurately produce a parliament based on the actual votes cast. PR achieves that. Then whatever the will of the voters happens to be, parliament will reflect it.

Except most people are not electoral system geeks and care nothing for such things. What people so care about more is that it is possible to kick the bastards out when they are pissed off. That is very difficult to do with a PR system where coalitions can allow politicians to stay in power even after an electoral drubbing.

[Guest]

Except most people are not electoral system geeks and care nothing for such things. What people so care about more is that it is possible to kick the bastards out when they are pissed off. That is very difficult to do with a PR system where coalitions can allow politicians to stay in power even after an electoral drubbing.

If people are angry and vote for a different party PR will accurately reflect that and produce a parliament proportionally. You know, like a voting system should. What it won't do is grant any party more power than actually given by the voters. It also won't rob any party of power that was granted by the voters. Again, like a voting system should.

[TimG]

What it won't do is grant any party more power than actually given by the voters.

That is a categorically false statement. Any PR system gives minority an influence which is completely disproportionate to their vote and that is why parties like the Green party push for it. A government that represented the majority of the people would be a perpetual liberal-conservative coalition which won't happen because of the political dynamics that you ignore with your obsession with number crunching. Edited June 9, 2016 by TimG

[Guest]

That is a categorically false statement. Any PR system gives minority an influence which is completely disproportionate to their vote and that is why parties like the Green party push for it. A government that represented the majority of the people would be a perpetual liberal-conservative coalition which won't happen because of the political dynamics that you ignore with your obsession with number crunching.

No...it will grant parties like the Greens the same proportion of seats as they receive in votes. Same as any other party. Just like a voting system should.

[TimG]

No...it will grant parties like the Greens the same proportion of seats as they receive in votes. Same as any other party. Just like a voting system should.

Spare me the disingenuous arguments. The only reason PR is attractive to minority parties is because the real life political dynamics in parliament give them power that they do not deserve given their voter base.

IOW - Academic arguments about percentage of votes are meaningless. What matters is how a system works in the real world. You cannot defend a system by making an argument that ignores the real world consequences of the system.

[Guest]

Spare me the disingenuous arguments. The only reason PR is attractive to minority parties is because the real life political dynamics in parliament give them power that they do not deserve given their voter base.

IOW - Academic arguments about percentage of votes are meaningless. What matters is how a system works in the real world. You cannot defend a system by making an argument that ignores the real world consequences of the system.

Spare me the faux outrage. The system of counting votes shouldn't be determined by your desired political outcome, it should accurately translate voter support into seats in parliament. PR fairly gives each party the exact amount of seats and power they deserve based on the votes cast. Just like an electoral system should.

I understand that a fair voting system isn't currently favourable to your desired political outcome. However, it's up to the politicians to convince voters to support them, not an electoral system to unfairly grant power not given by the electorate.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Guest

[TimG]

it should accurately translate voter support into seats in parliament.

That is nothing but your opinion. From my point of view the point of the system to select a government. So from my perspective the real life consequence of any system matters a lot more that any academic discussion of vote allocation.

PR fairly gives each party the exact amount of seats and power they deserve based on the votes cast.

We elect representatives. Not parties. Making parties the primary basis for determining seat count is only seen as "fair" to someone blind to the real world dynamics of minority governments. The fact is those dynamics mean that fringe parties can hold the government hostage and demand concessions that are not reasonable given their small share of the vote.

The only place were a PR system works as you claim is in the fantasy world with no coalitions and a government freely negotiates each bill with the opposition party that gives them the most acceptable deal.

Edited June 9, 2016 by TimG

[Smeelious]

TimG you seem to be worried about a Party List system...Which, so far as I know, isn't on the table.

Even in FPTP small parties can have large influences on policies (Make or break a minority government type of thing).

I don't see a problem with coalitions tbh, it would like save us from the 1 year government scenario.

[Guest]

That is nothing but your opinion. From my point of view the point of the system to select a government. So from my perspective the real life consequence of any system matters a lot more that any academic discussion of vote allocation.

I get it, you would prefer an electoral system that offers the best chance at your desired political outcome over one that produces a parliament that accurately reflects the way Canadians actually vote.

[Big Guy]

I get it, you would prefer an electoral system that offers the best chance at your desired political outcome over one that produces a parliament that accurately reflects the way Canadians actually vote.

Where my concern rests is that I believe that when I vote I do so for the individual in my riding. I believe their first allegiance is to their riding and the party policies are secondary. With a pure PR system, I would have no control of the individual who will be representing me. Some elected officials do not follow party policies blindly.

For example, we live in a rural community. Lets say I support the Green party rep because she promises to fight for agricultural issues like wind farms, fertilizer restrictions, protection of local agriculture etc. I trust that he/she will prioritize that in Ottawa. Meanwhile, my vote is added and used to guarantee that 6 Green party reps (which do not include my candidate) are seated. Candidates based in urban areas are chosen. That was not my intention.

I believe that ranked ballots is the interim answer. If it results in the person most acceptable to the riding, them so be it. While it is not exact rep by pop it is far closer than FPTP system.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Big Guy