Proportional Representation Discussion

[Smallc]

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

The system changes gradually over time. There are protections built in for smaller provinces, yes, but that hardly affects the larger provinces anyway. As for Quebec, the seats added (2) ensures that it maintains it's population percentage as a percentage of the house. It is the only province to be perfectly represented.

[jbg]

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.

We agree here but it would have to be one per state, except of course states with only one Representative.

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

Just about all democracies have a roundabout way of electing the head of government. Canada, Britain and Australia, and a few others, use FPTP. Most of Europe and Israel use PR. In both of those Parliament effectively picks the head of government. Most other Presidential countries, such as the U.S. and most of Latin America employ a runoff among the top two candidates, to avoid a head of government being chosen with minimal support.

It is only rare elections, such as 1824 and 2000 where the popular vote winner isn't the Electoral winner.

Also from your political views I assume you'd favor Democrats. Having a popular vote system may well get you more Republicans since the candidates would spend lots of time campaigning in suburban areas of New York City and major California cities. Those suburbs can easily vote Republican. The cities they are near really don't.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Remiel]

That would be a funny lobby group in the US: Canadians Against Gerrymandering United States Electoral Districts (CAGUSED) .

Anyway, proportional representation is, in my opinion, to the advantage of anyone living in an electoral stronghold. That might be a relative term in Canada, but they definitely exist. The Prairies, Alberta in particular, rural parts of Ontario. If your MP does not listen to you and you can not get a new MP, then in our system you are basically SOL.

[Argus]

Anyway, proportional representation is, in my opinion, to the advantage of anyone living in an electoral stronghold.

You will always find in a Proprep system, that tiny constituencies have power out of all proportion to their numbers due to the need to form coalitions. Imo that makes them worse than the fptp systems.

[On Guard for Thee]

We agree here but it would have to be one per state, except of course states with only one Representative.

Just about all democracies have a roundabout way of electing the head of government. Canada, Britain and Australia, and a few others, use FPTP. Most of Europe and Israel use PR. In both of those Parliament effectively picks the head of government. Most other Presidential countries, such as the U.S. and most of Latin America employ a runoff among the top two candidates, to avoid a head of government being chosen with minimal support.

It is only rare elections, such as 1824 and 2000 where the popular vote winner isn't the Electoral winner.

Also from your political views I assume you'd favor Democrats. Having a popular vote system may well get you more Republicans since the candidates would spend lots of time campaigning in suburban areas of New York City and major California cities. Those suburbs can easily vote Republican. The cities they are near really don't.

Be careful what you wish for.

You forgot to mention the main thrust of my comment, that being the electoral college system the US has.

[jbg]

You forgot to mention the main thrust of my comment, that being the electoral college system the US has.

That is not a complete sentence but I assume you meant to add the word "power" between "being" and "the."

By tradition and usage the Electoral College has almost no power at all. The power rests in the State Legislatures that formally pick the Electors. Those Electors are pledged and rarely if ever deviate from those pledges to a candidate. In 2000 the risk was that Florida's Republican legislature was going to instruct the Electors to vote for Bush in the face of uncertainty as to who the real choice was.

About the only time that any Elector exercised discretion was the vote by one, in either the 1816 or 1820 election, for a candidate other than James Monroe. The sole reason was to ensure that Washington was our only unanimous President. The 1800 and 1824 elections did involve horsetrading but that was at the House of Representatives, after the Electoral College couldn't muster a majority for a candidate. We don't have "minority Presidencies" in the U.S.

Edited January 29, 2015 by jbg

[On Guard for Thee]

That is not a complete sentence but I assume you meant to add the word "power" between "being" and "the."

By tradition and usage the Electoral College has almost no power at all. The power rests in the State Legislatures that formally pick the Electors. Those Electors are pledged and rarely if ever deviate from those pledges to a candidate. In 2000 the risk was that Florida's Republican legislature was going to instruct the Electors to vote for Bush in the face of uncertainty as to who the real choice was.

About the only time that any Elector exercised discretion was the vote by one, in either the 1816 or 1820 election, for a candidate other than James Monroe. The sole reason was to ensure that Washington was our only unanimous President. The 1800 and 1824 elections did involve horsetrading but that was at the House of Representatives, after the Electoral College couldn't muster a majority for a candidate. We don't have "minority Presidencies" in the U.S.

The electoral college has the power to elect the President and VP. Only just over half the states require them to vote IAW the popular vote.

[jacee]

Comment:

-low-voter-turnout-produces-bad-government-heres-why

Dictatorships provide clear examples: dictators main preoccupations are to retain power and enrich themselves and their families. They accomplish this by buying off those whose support they need to retain power a group of people academics call the selectorate. This is usually easy as dictators can funnel the resources of the entire state into providing the bribes required to keep the military brass or ruling party happy while leaving the less favoured out in the cold.Democracy has its origins in efforts to tame this inequity. Democratic leaders must appeal to a much larger selectorate to retain power than must dictators. Indeed, democratic selectorates theoretically consist of a majority of the electorate.

...

- Parties possess increasingly sophisticated abilities to micro-target critical swing voters.These and other factors have combined to create a dramatically shrunken selectorate that is the group of people whose support parties actually need in order to win elections.

'First past the post' was never designed to prevent this computer-assisted modelling, prediction and targeting from undermining democracy.

A healthy democracy has to constantly review and reform itself to acknowledge and avoid efforts to replace rule by a majority of the electorate with rule by a select few.

This is what proportionate representation addresses.

.

Edited February 6, 2015 by jacee

[eyeball]

But but but, with prop rep we STILL end up with governments catering to small handfuls of people. Apparently we're too stupid to get around this obstacle no matter which what we turn.

I'm reminded of how my little cat can just sit on the porch and make 3 rottweilers cringe at the bottom of the stairs and whine for someone to come and rescue them.

[jacee]

But but but, with prop rep we STILL end up with governments catering to small handfuls of people. Apparently we're too stupid to get around this obstacle no matter which what we turn.

Explain please?

I think we need an 'All' party, one that claims no right or left dogma, just the best policies for All.

I'm reminded of how my little cat can just sit on the porch and make 3 rottweilers cringe at the bottom of the stairs and whine for someone to come and rescue them.

That would be a female cat, right?

.

Edited February 6, 2015 by jacee

[eyeball]

Explain please?

Just what I said, everyone's main complaint is that a small handful of people wield all the power - the main complaint FPTP people have against prop rep is basically the same problem that prop rep people have with FPTP.

I think we need an 'All' party, one that claims no right or left dogma, just the best policies for All.

Impossible I think. I don't know if prop rep by itself would address the problem the article that you posted identifies. I think the selectorate it mentions is probably just a new term for the same old establishment that gets things done with money and lobbying. I think a good way to transcend that and partisan politics is to use jury-like citizen's assemblies to vet or not vet the legislation our representatives craft. A new jury every time picked at random that allows no time or access to lobbbyists to worm their way into the decision process.

That would be a female cat, right?

That it would.

[jacee]

Just what I said, everyone's main complaint is that a small handful of people wield all the power - the main complaint FPTP people have against prop rep is basically the same problem that prop rep people have with FPTP.

Still not understanding why.

Impossible I think. I don't know if prop rep by itself would address the problem the article that you posted identifies. I think the selectorate it mentions is probably just a new term for the same old establishment that gets things done with money and lobbying. I think a good way to transcend that and partisan politics is to use jury-like citizen's assemblies to vet or not vet the legislation our representatives craft. A new jury every time picked at random that allows no time or access to lobbbyists to worm their way into the decision process.

I think that's a concept that definitely needs exploring.

.

[eyeball]

Still not understanding why.

I don't know why that is.

[jbg]

The electoral college has the power to elect the President and VP. Only just over half the states require them to vote IAW the popular vote.

But the State legislatures determine the means of Elector selection. State legislatures very rarely deviate from the popular mandate. There was a real threat that would happen in Florida in 2000. In my opinion the USSCT threw the election to Bush to avoid triggering a constitutional crisis.

[On Guard for Thee]

But the State legislatures determine the means of Elector selection. State legislatures very rarely deviate from the popular mandate. There was a real threat that would happen in Florida in 2000. In my opinion the USSCT threw the election to Bush to avoid triggering a constitutional crisis.

I havent bothered to check stats to see how often they do deviate. Just pointing out that they still have to ability to do so in many states.

[jbg]

I havent bothered to check stats to see how often they do deviate. Just pointing out that they still have to ability to do so in many states.

Much of the way both of our governments operate is by tradition. One can't write for every possibility.

Is there a law that says you hold a door open for a person who is having trouble walking? If they drop money are you legally compelled to pick it up and return it to them rather than shove it into your wallet?

Same deal.

[On Guard for Thee]

Much of the way both of our governments operate is by tradition. One can't write for every possibility.

Is there a law that says you hold a door open for a person who is having trouble walking? If they drop money are you legally compelled to pick it up and return it to them rather than shove it into your wallet?

Same deal.

Well if you trace the reasons the electoral college was originally created one can see it may have made sense back then, but surely not present day.

[-TSS-]

The thing with FPTP is that as long as the two main parties get a combined share of over 90% of the votes the system works just fine. As soon as there is a third or a fourth strong party election results under FPTP become very capricious.

[jbg]

Well if you trace the reasons the electoral college was originally created one can see it may have made sense back then, but surely not present day.

Read my earlier posts. The problem from the point of view of people of a "progressive" bent with abolishing the college is that likely Republican votes in NYC and California city suburbs and rural areas would suddenly become meaningful.

[-TSS-]

How large a percentage of votes in Canadian elections are so called wasted votes? Meaning votes for unsuccesful candidates.

[jbg]

How large a percentage of votes in Canadian elections are so called wasted votes? Meaning votes for unsuccesful candidates.

What I mean by "wasted votes" are ones that have no influence on the outcome. In both California and New York State the majority of the geography is Republican. The city centers are Democratic by margins that except in exceptional years give the Republicans no hope of carrying their state.

If the elections were by popular vote Republicans would spend more time campaigning in "red" parts of New York than they do now in Ohio because of the winner-take-all system. Right now I would estimate that between 10% and 15% of the campaigning occurs in Ohio during an election year since it has a lot of Electoral votes and readily votes for either party. Ditto Florida.

Except for fund raising gigs neither candidates come to New York since it's outcome is predetermined. If there were a popular vote New York's large suburban cities would be quite interesting.

[overthere]

Canada should follow the lead of such stellar economic giants as Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain all of whom use some form of proportional representation.

It's really worked out well for them, why not us?

[webc5]

Anyone know when the 2015 Canadian Election Debate is?

[WIP]

Canada should follow the lead of such stellar economic giants as Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain all of whom use some form of proportional representation.

It's really worked out well for them, why not us?

And, since they all have systems of proportional representation (why not include other examples like Israel?) all of their problems are because of proportional voting, right?

I think Greece serves as one big reason why PR is so important! Because the rise of a brand new party(from the ashes of a fake socialist mainstream party that sold out the people and adopted the austerity measures handed to them by the troika) that can provide the kind of representation the majority of people were demanding, is something that cannot happen in the North American sham democracy systems! When there is a popular movement rising up and resisting being coopted by the two or at most - three mainstream parties, the movement will either run out of steam or be faced with the risky and usually fruitless task of engaging in a violent revolution to overthrow the existing government.

With FPTP and the increasingly autocratic political/business regimes taking away more and more decision-making power from the democratic process through ever-expanding "trade" and banking 'partnerships,' the democratic process is more and more left with the window-dressing of deciding on social policies...while economic decisions have to be in compliance with international binding agreements! Any government elected under an FPTP system has been either bought off or caved to international pressures by the time they form a government...even if they have declared themselves opposed to an unpopular treaty proposal....in case anyone remembers Chretien and NAFTA!

Edited February 11, 2015 by WIP

[WIP]

How large a percentage of votes in Canadian elections are so called wasted votes? Meaning votes for unsuccesful candidates.

Neither the establishment left/nor the establishment right, will give up on FPTP willingly! Because the present system almost guarantees the muddling, ineffective government that is out of touch with rising populist movements on issues like environment, economics, race relations etc.. The establishment likes things the way they are, and they want to keep it this way!