Proportional Representation Discussion

[jacee]

Who's job should it have been to "educate" people? The province or groups that wanted whichever side to win. I can't really remember how that campaign went.

I don't know about who "should", but in both BC and Ontario the provincial government did an information campaign, but it was never really implemented in Ontario:

/Ontario_electoral_reform_referendum,_2007

Remarkably, although the Citizens' Assembly had produced a shorter version of their report and a short leaflet further summarizing it, Elections Ontario distributed neither, to the surprise and disappointment of the Citizens' Assembly. By contrast in British Columbia, the Citizens' Assembly material was distributed to every household.

...

The lack of information was such that by late September 2007, public understanding of the question remained very low, with 47% of respondents telling pollster Strategic Counsel they knew nothing at all about the new system, and another 41% saying they knew only "a little." Only 12% said they knew a lot.[11]

Edited January 13, 2015 by jacee

[WIP]

Yup that's exactly what happened in Ontario.

A lot of money was spent by the dalton libs to pretend to address PR while sabotaging the referendum.

It should not be in the hands of politicians, nor even party members, but a non partisan group.

.

Yep, they were scamming us right from the start; but so was the NDP! They were also only pretending to go along with proportional representation.

The Conservatives....well, they never claim to be friends of democracy in the first place! They know which side of the bread it's buttered on!

[WIP]

Ok. You must admit though that we're likely to have perpetual minority governments, and also more than likely Liberal-NDP coalitions more often than not.

I would rather have perpetual minority government, than what we have now! There would be greater public input into the system, since the FPP leads to the two or three leading parties ignoring some issues entirely, if they decide it's to their advantage. They are interested in governing/nor representing their constituents. And if Harper is able to get through the kind of American-style campaign reform he has in mind, then it will be even worse! Then we end up with a small, wealthy ruling elite deciding what issues are/and are not on the table for both parties. And that in a nutshell is why less than 50% of the American public is even bothering to participate in the system anymore.

[Keepitsimple]

....... And if Harper is able to get through the kind of American-style campaign reform he has in mind, then it will be even worse! Then we end up with a small, wealthy ruling elite deciding what issues are/and are not on the table for both parties. And that in a nutshell is why less than 50% of the American public is even bothering to participate in the system anymore.

You did know that the Liberals are now being advised by Obama's campaign people, right?

Edited January 14, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[Keepitsimple]

Imagine the horror of the Left if the balance of power in one of the resulting coalitions - was held by a "Far Right" party that only had 10 or 15% of the vote. Not only does it give legitamacy to extremist elements - but it potentially gives them access to the levers of power. Take a look at France's Jean-Marie LePen and his National Front Party for an example of how a party can have influence beyond its size. It's called the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[Michael Hardner]

It's called the Law of Unintended Consequences.

That's a great example that's relevant to the situation in France now too. Do you want the Christian Heritage Party to have the balance of power at any time ?

[Big Guy]

I believe that the results of the Ontario referendum was due to people afraid of the change. We do know how our first past the post system works and how it can be manipulated, its strengths and its weaknesses. Canada has managed pretty well with that system creating a country that continues to be a beacon of democracy.

I think that when the Ontarian was in that voting booth, he/she had a choice between the devil you know and the devil you don't know. The majority played it safe.

[WIP]

That's a great example that's relevant to the situation in France now too. Do you want the Christian Heritage Party to have the balance of power at any time ?

Is it better when the Christian Right grows big enough to take over a major party in a two-party duopoly....like on our southern border?

*I would say - let them have their voice and be heard too. Same with the Greens, and any other minority parties that are shut out from the system and can't get the issues they consider important, presented on the media, let alone be put up for vote.

Edited January 15, 2015 by WIP

[WIP]

You did know that the Liberals are now being advised by Obama's campaign people, right?

I heard about it....I don't see it as a positive development.

[Boges]

If a Minority Party can manage to win a single race then why should they have any say in how the country is governed?

[cybercoma]

Imagine the horror of the Left if the balance of power in one of the resulting coalitions - was held by a "Far Right" party that only had 10 or 15% of the vote. Not only does it give legitamacy to extremist elements - but it potentially gives them access to the levers of power. Take a look at France's Jean-Marie LePen and his National Front Party for an example of how a party can have influence beyond its size. It's called the Law of Unintended Consequences.

They did form a coalition: The Conservative-Reform-Alliance Party

[Boges]

They did form a coalition: The Conservative-Reform-Alliance Party

Some PCers left the CPC and moved to the Liberals.

[cybercoma]

Some PCers left the CPC and moved to the Liberals.

Which ones? How many?

[Keepitsimple]

Which ones? How many?

Look it up. Keith Martin and Scott Brison are the most prominent. Brison actually ran for the leadership of the PCs at one point.

[cybercoma]

So two?

[jbg]

If a Minority Party can manage to win a single race then why should they have any say in how the country is governed?

They can and do in the assembly of a coalition. Not a great solution.

[-TSS-]

Another problem with the FPTP-system apart from that it results in unrepresentative election-results is that all too often those single-seat constituemcies are very arbitrarily or more likely suitably drawn. I know that in the USA those boundaries are in many cases terribly gerrymandered but can you in Canada trust the boundary-commission or whatever authority you have which redraws the boundaries of the constituencies following changes in the population that they are absolutely objective and impartial?

[jacee]

Another problem with the FPTP-system apart from that it results in unrepresentative election-results is that all too often those single-seat constituemcies are very arbitrarily or more likely suitably drawn. I know that in the USA those boundaries are in many cases terribly gerrymandered but can you in Canada trust the boundary-commission or whatever authority you have which redraws the boundaries of the constituencies following changes in the population that they are absolutely objective and impartial?

No.

.

[Smallc]

know that in the USA those boundaries are in many cases terribly gerrymandered but can you in Canada trust the boundary-commission or whatever authority you have which redraws the boundaries of the constituencies following changes in the population that they are absolutely objective and impartial?

No.

.

Since it's done by an impartial federal commission with no partisan ties, I don't see why the answer would be no. I've never heard accusations of gerrymandering here.

[TimG]

Since it's done by an impartial federal commission with no partisan ties, I don't see why the answer would be no. I've never heard accusations of gerrymandering here.

You can also look at a map - the districts are design to align with municipalities and when that is not possible the divisions are straight lines along major roads. i.e. they look exactly like one would expect them to look if drawn by people told to keep municipalities in one piece but conform to min/max population requirements. Gerrymandering is a not a credible claim. Edited January 25, 2015 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Interesting thought, though...

Since responsibility for drawing federal and provincial electoral boundaries was handed over to independent agencies, this problem has largely been eliminated at these levels of government. Manitoba was the first province to authorise a non-partisan group to define constituency boundaries in the 1950s. In 1964, the federal government delegated the drawing of boundaries for national seats to the "arm's length" Elections Canada.

As a result, gerrymandering is not generally a major issue in Canada except at the civic level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

[jbg]

Another problem with the FPTP-system apart from that it results in unrepresentative election-results is that all too often those single-seat constituemcies are very arbitrarily or more likely suitably drawn. I know that in the USA those boundaries are in many cases terribly gerrymandered but can you in Canada trust the boundary-commission or whatever authority you have which redraws the boundaries of the constituencies following changes in the population that they are absolutely objective and impartial?

No.

U.S. districts often take ridiculous shapes. The term "gerrymandering" comes from a conflation of the name of the offending official, Elbridge Gerry, with the shape of one of the districts, a salamander.As for Canadian riding boundaries:

You can also look at a map - the districts are design to align with municipalities and when that is not possible the divisions are straight lines along major roads. i.e. they look exactly like one would expect them to look if drawn by people told to keep municipalities in one piece but conform to min/max population requirements. Gerrymandering is a not a credible claim.

U.S. disticts often have no logical basis.

[Argus]

U.S. districts often take ridiculous shapes. The term "gerrymandering" comes from a conflation of the name of the offending official, Elbridge Gerry, with the shape of one of the districts, a salamander.As for Canadian riding boundaries:

U.S. disticts often have no logical basis.

You really could learn from us in terms of handing such things off to a neutral commission. The way things are set up there is kind of a disgrace to democracy. The fact everything about federal elections is in the hands of whichever political party is in power in a given state is absurd.

[On Guard for Thee]

It is a disgrace to call it a democracy. All the power rests in the hands of the electoral college, not the people.

[overthere]

Since it's done by an impartial federal commission with no partisan ties, I don't see why the answer would be no. I've never heard accusations of gerrymandering here.

Um, the West gained some new seats recently (as did ON) and is still way underrepresented. Quebec is still overrepresented, as is PEI.

It's really hard to fix, there are conflicting laws that guarantee change is extremely difficult. The addition of seats in the West and ON was the best that could be done at this time.

Gerrymandering? Pretty much, since there is such wide variance in representation by population in the Commons.