Proportional Representation Discussion

[TimG]

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.

And your position (despite your protests) is based entirely on the fact that you don't like the outcomes that the current system offers and you want to rig the system to produce outcomes more to your liking. There is simply no rational basis for insisting that the *party* that representatives belong to should be the only criteria that matters when it comes to evaluating an electoral system. Edited June 9, 2016 by TimG

[Big Guy]

And your position (despite your protests) is based entirely on the fact that you don't like the outcomes that the current system offers and you want to rig the system to produce outcomes more to your liking. There is simply no rational basis for insisting that the *party* that representatives vote for should be the only criteria that matters when it comes to evaluating an electoral system.

What happens if someone runs as an independent?

[TimG]

What happens if someone runs as an independent?

Exactly. Parties should not have a legislated monopoly on who is allowed to be an MP.

[Guest]

And your position (despite your protests) is based entirely on the fact that you don't like the outcomes that the current system offers and you want to rig the system to produce outcomes more to your liking.

I suppose that is true, I simply support a system that produces a parliament that actually reflects the way Canadians vote and our current system does not achieve that. Though, I'm pushing for simple, fair, proportional results regardless of who is being voted for; not an advantage for my personal politics.

There is simply no rational basis for insisting that the *party* that representatives belong to should be the only criteria that matters when it comes to evaluating an electoral system.

The party need not be the only criteria.

[Guest]

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.

MMP would allow you to vote for a local candidate and also the party you would like to see govern. Your local representative could be independent or from a different party than you would like to see run the show.

[Smallc]

MMP isn't really accessible though. It's way to complicated. I'm kind of married to the idea of STV.

[Big Guy]

MMP would allow you to vote for a local candidate and also the party you would like to see govern. Your local representative could be independent or from a different party than you would like to see run the show.

Chances are I still that I would not get the individual whom I voted for. In theory, small region parties might hold the balance of power (like BQ had for a time and NDP holds in most minority governments) - so what is wrong with that? It is the stage for compromise, discussion, deal making and co operation - what is wrong with that? Is that not how our form of democracy is supposed top operate?

There are some structures for PR are quite complicated and if asked, the normal person would vote against any change they did not fully understand. I followed how it was handled in Ontario a few years ago and how the question was bungled. I suspect that the government of the time did not want any change in the system and set the question up for defeat. It was not a binding question anyway so I doubt if it would have become law even if given majority support.

"Which electoral system should Ontario use to elect members to the provincial legislature? / Quel système électoral l’Ontario devrait-il utiliser pour élire les députés provinciaux à l’Assemblée législative?

The existing electoral system (First-Past-the-Post) / L’actuel système électoral (système de la majorité relative)

The alternative electoral system proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly (Mixed Member Proportional) / L’autre système électoral proposé par l’Assemblée des citoyens (système de représentation proportionnelle mixte)"

Please note that ranked balloting was not an option.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Big Guy

[Guest]

MMP isn't really accessible though. It's way to complicated. I'm kind of married to the idea of STV.

It's pretty basic really. Plus, it would allow us to vote for a local rep while still having a say in who governs the country. The ability to chose a local rep who may be independent or of a different party than the governing party you support is quite a powerful feature. I expect it would actually force local MPs to put their ridings ahead of the party itself; which is a rare thing these days.

[Guest]

There are some structures for PR are quite complicated and if asked, the normal person would vote against any change they did not fully understand. I followed how it was handled in Ontario a few years ago and how the question was bungled. I suspect that the government of the time did not want any change in the system and set the question up for defeat. It was not a binding question anyway so I doubt if it would have become law even if given majority support.

It was setup for defeat in Ontario and BC. Governments rarely want to tamper with the system that got them into power in the first place. Actually, in BC a majority of voters did vote to implement PR but a ridiculous super-majority condition was in place.

[overthere]

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.

Germany is not a good example for you at all. Corporations, unions, governments all work pretty much together for the common wealth of all. It s a reason for their extreme success in the last half century, and their form of govt is not an issue. There are occasional bumps on that road, but everybody knows where their national bread is buttered and works toward that end.

[TimG]

It was setup for defeat in Ontario and BC.

In Ontario the proposed system was a monstrosity with party lists. It went down to well deserved defeat.

a ridiculous super-majority condition was in place.

Why should the electoral system be changed based on a 50%+1 vote? Some changes require a consensus and there was no consensus on the changes to BC system.

[eyeball]

Why should the electoral system be changed based on a 50%+1 vote? Some changes require a consensus and there was no consensus on the changes to BC system.

Says who or what? The Constitution? The Queen? Whoever is holding Canada's debt? Aliens in space maybe?

Why couldn't we just have a clause that allows us to revisit the decision after, say...three election cycles? Really drive the thing around the block a few times before deciding to adopt it 'forever'.

[Big Guy]

Says who or what? The Constitution? The Queen? Whoever is holding Canada's debt? Aliens in space maybe?

Why couldn't we just have a clause that allows us to revisit the decision after, say...three election cycles? Really drive the thing around the block a few times before deciding to adopt it 'forever'.

Placing a sunset clause on legislation is nothing new. I would go along with the concept in this case but would not support any change beyond ranked ballots.

[TimG]

Says who or what? The Constitution? The Queen? Whoever is holding Canada's debt? Aliens in space maybe?

You seem to think that consensus is necessary for all kinds of decisions related to resource development. I see you don't like consensus so much if it is used to block initiatives that you support. Edited June 9, 2016 by TimG

[Guest]

In Ontario the proposed system was a monstrosity with party lists. It went down to well deserved defeat.

Why should the electoral system be changed based on a 50%+1 vote? Some changes require a consensus and there was no consensus on the changes to BC system.

Requiring 60% created a minority rule situation. That's a problem.

[Guest]

Says who or what? The Constitution? The Queen? Whoever is holding Canada's debt? Aliens in space maybe?

Why couldn't we just have a clause that allows us to revisit the decision after, say...three election cycles? Really drive the thing around the block a few times before deciding to adopt it 'forever'.

Sounds reasonable.

[TimG]

Requiring 60% created a minority rule situation. That's a problem.

Major changes should not be instituted based on a majority so small that a change in the weather could affect the result. This means a super majority is a reasonable requirement. It could be 55% or 60% or 75% but there is no situation where 50%+1 should be enough.

BTW - there was a second referendum in BC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_electoral_reform_referendum,_2009

FPTP won with 60% which is a clear majority.

Edited June 9, 2016 by TimG

[PIK]

150 yrs of peaceful democracy and you want to blow all that. You will never have peace with 10 parties sitting at the table. We do not need any fringe parties having any say in this country.

[?Impact]

150 yrs of peaceful democracy and you want to blow all that. You will never have peace with 10 parties sitting at the table. We do not need any fringe parties having any say in this country.

Yes, we don't need those right wing reformers with 30% of the vote having 100% of the power, yet that is what the corrupt FPTP system gave us. I would rather have 10% of the vote having 10% of the power.

[TimG]

Yes, we don't need those right wing reformers with 30% of the vote having 100% of the power, yet that is what the corrupt FPTP system gave us. I would rather have 10% of the vote having 10% of the power.

Changing the electoral system because ideological partisans don't like it when parties they don't like get power is a stupid idea. A system where power flips back and forth between parties with ~40% of vote better represents the will of population than a system where parties representing 80% of population has to constantly make concessions to parties representing 20% of the population to get anything done.

I would rather have 10% of the vote having 10% of the power.

No such system exists in the real world (PR certainly does not produce that outcome). Edited June 9, 2016 by TimG

[eyeball]

You seem to think that consensus is necessary for all kinds of decisions related to resource development. I see you don't like consensus so much if it is used to block initiatives that you support.

I notice you seem to love consensus when it comes to blocking an initiative you loath. Interesting irony given how one way or another consensus is usually the mother of all PR's banes when you're busy critiquing it.

[Guest]

Major changes should not be instituted based on a majority so small that a change in the weather could affect the result. This means a super majority is a reasonable requirement. It could be 55% or 60% or 75% but there is no situation where 50%+1 should be enough.

BTW - there was a second referendum in BC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_electoral_reform_referendum,_2009

FPTP won with 60% which is a clear majority.

PR won the first time through and a minority of respondents got their wish. That's the unfortunate side effect of requiring super majority thresholds, it becomes a minority rule situation. In any vote that allows 30% or 40% to dictate the outcome to 70% or 60% there is a problem.

If a situation requires something approaching unanimity, a vote probably wasn't the appropriate mechanism to base a decision on.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Guest

[Vega]

I know it won't be considered, but I feel like I have to bring up a fantastic voting system in Mixed Member Majoritarian (or MMM, if you prefer acronyms). A good many countries use it including Japan and South Korea. Essentially you have MPs elected by voting on part of the ballot for the party, which has an open list by which the MPs are selected. Then separately, you have your normal constituency elections.

If you were to have 50% of the MPs elected via the open party list, and the other by constituency where things stay the same, it would be really great.

[TimG]

PR won the first time through and a minority of respondents got their wish.

The point of super majorities is people are indecisive. They may think something sounds good on one day and change their mind on the next day. IOW, it is simply silly to claim that the 'minority got their way' because of a single vote at a single time. The fact that second referendum failed is pretty strong evidence of the fickleness of the so called majority.

[TimG]

A good many countries use it including Japan and South Korea.

Japan got rid of MMP in the 90s because it caused to many problems. It now uses FPTP for 60% of the seats and PR for the remainder.