Proportional Representation Discussion

[-TSS-]

If Canada adopted PR it would probably mean that the Greens get 10% of the votes at the expense of the Liberals and the NDP.

[Michael Hardner]

On 11/24/2017 at 7:24 PM, -TSS- said:

For people who want to campaign against changing your current system of FPTP the best campaign-material is to refer to the currently ongoing total stalemate in Germany where the government-formation talks broke down and now they are pondering whether to have new elections or try some new combination of government. 

Your point seems to be that when an issue has 50-50 support we need to create the system so one side can impose their will, rather than figuring it all out.  That's a strange idea to me.  Why have democracy at all ?

[-TSS-]

When there is a total stalemate in trying to form a majority-government the most obvious and sensible solution is to have new elections but they won't do that in Germany because they fear that if there is a repeat-election the much-hated AfD would get even more support than two months ago. Perhaps they are right in their fear.

My guess is that the German president who is a social democrat will talk his former party to change its promise not to go to another coalition with Merkel's party.

 

[?Impact]

On 8/29/2017 at 10:48 AM, PIK said:

The others are just to give the fringe more say and we dont need anything from the fringe.

Tyranny by the establishment is no fun.

[Jariax]

Our 'democracy' is already fairly tenuous.

The party already has too much control over which candidates get accepted. In addition to having unelected people determine who is acceptable and who is not, to run in the nomination process, the party can also ignore the internal election, and simply appoint someone to run in the riding.

The nomination process generally involves being well known in the community and having many deep-pocketed friends. 

So, the idea of giving parties even more power, to simply create the party candidate lists, and put them in office. so that the top X (based on their share of PR vote), get their seats, gives the parties far too much power, and will ensure partisan hacks are greatly over-represented in Ottawa. Ranked ballots is a much fairer system. 

[PIK]

Don't worry, left wing governments will be falling over the next 4 yrs.

[-TSS-]

In New Zealand they switched over to PR because their electoral-system was clearly dysfunctional as it produced results whereby one of the two main parties was clearly ahead in votes nationally while the other won a vast majority of the seats.

However, I was looking at the election-history in your country and found out that there have been several occasions when none of the Canadian parties has won an overall majority and there has been a minority-government. Given that it is the most used argument in favour of FPTP that it "always" produces a stable strong government there wouldn't be very much support for keeping the system as experience with the system has proved to the contrary.

[-TSS-]

Is breaking this promise going to be harmful for Trudeau in the election? 

 

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, -TSS- said:

Is breaking this promise going to be harmful for Trudeau in the election? 

 

 

He has OTHER things to worry about, TSS. Like not going to prison.

[Realitycheck]

On 3/23/2019 at 12:24 PM, DogOnPorch said:

 

He has OTHER things to worry about, TSS. Like not going to prison.

Don't be silly. Trudeau is not threatened with jail. just not getting re-elected.   

[-TSS-]

If you insist on having single-member constituencies, or ridings as you call them, there should at least be a run-off between top2 candidates if nobody gets over 50% of the votes. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[August1991]

On 3/31/2019 at 4:18 PM, -TSS- said:

If you insist on having single-member constituencies, or ridings as you call them, there should at least be a run-off between top2 candidates if nobody gets over 50% of the votes. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This whole PR idea misses a fundamental point of democracy: one vote is one vote.

In democracy, a voter has one vote just like anyone else. There is no mathematical way to make one vote more important/valuable than another vote.

If you do, then you destroy democracy.

=====

The idea is that in PR, one vote is more important than a vote in FPTP.  But that's false: a vote is a vote.

We could move to a rating system - but that complicates voting.

We could move to a run-off (as US/France/Ukraine do) - but that is costly.

[Michael Hardner]

35 minutes ago, August1991 said:

  There is no mathematical way to make one vote more important/valuable than another vote.

You are good with words, which often a sign of not understanding math.  Here are some ways to make votes more important than others:

• Gerrymandering
• Unequal riding populations
• Electoral College
• First past the post

If we directly elected PMs based on national total votes, then the votes would be equal.

[August1991]

48 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You are good with words, which often a sign of not understanding math.  Here are some ways to make votes more important than others:

• Gerrymandering
• Unequal riding populations
• Electoral College
• First past the post

If we directly elected PMs based on national total votes, then the votes would be equal.

Should one vote value more than another? Is that even possible?

Imagine a national vote for PM. If Scheer wins with 9,256,236 votes. Would your single vote for/against change anything?

=====

Vote? Voter rules? Voter turn out?

I reckon the measure of a civilised society is not voter turn out or even voting rules.

The measure of a civilised society is tax compliance.

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, August1991 said:

1. Should one vote value more than another? Is that even possible?

2. Imagine a national vote for PM. If Scheer wins with 9,256,236 votes. Would your single vote for/against change anything?

3. The measure of a civilised society is tax compliance.

1. No, but I gave you examples.  A vote for Hillary Clinton counted less in 2016 as she got more votes and lost

2. It would change 1/9,256,236th which is how much I matter

3. You have used other criteria in the past I think.  In any case, I can force all the banks, or any cash transactions in Canada to automatically pay HST and can similarly collect income tax without any choice of compliance.  There will still be young Sikh boys giving up their streetcar seat to old white ladies in my town.  

[August1991]

On 4/2/2019 at 7:18 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1. No, but I gave you examples.  A vote for Hillary Clinton counted less in 2016 as she got more votes and lost

2. It would change 1/9,256,236th which is how much I matter

3. You have used other criteria in the past I think.  In any case, I can force all the banks, or any cash transactions in Canada to automatically pay HST and can similarly collect income tax without any choice of compliance.  There will still be young Sikh boys giving up their streetcar seat to old white ladies in my town.  

1. Imagine an election in which, among millions, one vote changed the result. To be honest, in elections among several thousand, my single vote has never changed the result. Whether FPTP or PR, in representative democracy, a single vote does not change the result.

2. True, in a market. Not in voting - whatever the scheme.

=====

At issue is how strongly that you feel. When voting, you have only one vote. When buying, you can buy more - according to the price.

==================

I return to my main point:

Canada is a civilised society because most Canadians pay their taxes. It is not voter turn-out, or even the right of women to vote that measures the civilisation of a society. It is tax compliance that is a measure of a society.

  

Edited April 4, 2019 by August1991

[marcus]

 

More

Edited October 27, 2019 by marcus

[Rue]

...then ridings would  not pick their own MP's....been there done that with you experts on reform...you are never happy until someone you vote for has the most seats....since your boy Trudeau won enjoy...you know why he won... 

[scribblet]

Trudeau will never change the system as it benefits him as it is now.

[-TSS-]

You can entertain yourself by calculating how the seats would have gone if there had been PR instead of FPTP. However, had there been PR people would probably have voted differently as in FPTP people try to avoid wasting their vote and if need be vote tactically. 

[WestCanMan]

Quick blurb about "Proportional Representation" regarding the weight of each vote cast:

Maritimes & Newf Population: 2.33M  Seats 32  pop/seat 72K

Que Pop: 8.5M  Seats 78 pop/seat 110K

Ont Pop: 14.6M Seats 121 pop/seat 120K

Alberta Pop: 4.3M Seats 34 pop/seat 126K

If you used a formula that said that every 100K people should get one seat:

Alberta gets .79 of that, Ont gets .82 of that, Que gets .91 of that, Atl voters get 1.27 of that.

A Maritimer's vote is actually worth 1.27 votes, and Albertan gets .79 of a vote, so essentially a Maritime voter gets (1.27 divided by .79) 1.6 votes compared to each Albertan. 

[Dougie93]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

...you are never happy until someone you vote for has the most seats....

Indeed.   Or as me ol' pappy used to say; you want what you want when you want it.

The central fallacy is that somehow voting solves problems.   It's the cult of democracy, to worship voting in of itself as if it was an universal tool. Magical thinking.

Voting only solves one problem, to stave off a violent insurrection, after that, it is of little utility.

The fantasy that PR results in more negotiation, when really,  it simply results in more gridlock and more pointless elections.

A pox on all reformers.

[Dougie93]

Careful what you wish for, Canada, for America is the greatest democracy in the world, far more democratic than Canada.

How's that working out for us?   Without good will, common ground, unity of purpose, it is simply a stalemate.

Absolute partisan grid lock resulting in national paralysis.

When you come to hate each other, it doesn't matter how you count the votes.

[Dougie93]

Oh the United Kingdom thought they might have a referendum, eh?

Let is hear the voice of the people?  Direct democracy, wot?

Hows that working out for them?

Gridlock.  Stalemate.  National paralysis.

Entirely predictable.

[Dougie93]

Can't wait for the Quebexit, then the Cult of Democracy here is gonna get what it's been asking for,

F@ck Canada ftw.