Proportional Representation Discussion

[overthere]

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.

Sorry, you cannot use Greece as a model of any kind of responsible govt, withthe possible exception of the city states of 2500 years ago. Since then, they have been pretty much pathetic and that defintiely includes their new government. Greece is not in trouble because of any external factors, they are in the crap because they have mismanaged themselves for many generations of corruption, dictatorship and rampant personal greed.

Your references to The Troika as some sort of evil empire is laughable and silly.

Tspiras represents a 'us vs. them' rallying screech because it is a convenient Orwellian bogeyman. Oldest trick in the book: invent an enemy because it is more pleasant than the truth.

And the truth is that the Greeks have been borrowing and spending other peoples money for a very long time, and now that is over. They need to start collecting and paying their own income taxes, for starters.

All the doors are closed for Tspiras, nobody except perhaps China will lend him a drachma, and he will not want to imagine the terms they will extract. He is going to be backpedaling furiously from all the idiotic overpromises he made during the election.

More bad management.

[jacee]

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!

True.

And lately they've been forced to mouth the words pr by popular demand among members.

Is it possible that pr is a nonpartisan interest among Canadians?

.

[PIK]

PR is suicide. The only people that really want it are on the fringe or worse and we don't need their input on anything.

[jacee]

http://www.macleans.ca/tag/election-2011/

PR is suicide. The only people that really want it are on the fringe or worse and we don't need their input on anything.

This is an interesting article. Harper & Flanagan in praise of pr and coalitions. Lol

"Many of Canadas problems stem from a winner-take-all style of politics that allows governments in Ottawa to impose measures abhorred by large areas of the country. "

[jbg]

PR is suicide. The only people that really want it are on the fringe or worse and we don't need their input on anything.

Isn't it interesting that we didn't hear many calls for PR from the usual suspects after the 1993 elections. The PCPC did not drop to 0.05% of the popular vote though they dropped to two ridings in Parliament. There has only been one election in modern times, 1984, where any party received over 50% of the popular vote, and even then just barely.

When the rules favor Liberal power or victories, i.e. the 1960's (the NDP governed arm-in-arm with the Pearson minority), the 1970's under Trudeau, or the 1990's or early 2000's under Chretien there was no call for PR, at least fromt he posters on this thread pushing it or their real-world allies. Now, having lost the 2006, 2008 and 2011 elections, and the latter with a majority government, they want to change the rules.

Interesting.

[Michael Hardner]

http://www.macleans.ca/tag/election-2011/

This is an interesting article. Harper & Flanagan in praise of pr and coalitions. Lol

"Many of Canadas problems stem from a winner-take-all style of politics that allows governments in Ottawa to impose measures abhorred by large areas of the country. "

I can't find the quote in your link, nor the words "proportional representation" or "pr".

[Mighty AC]

PR is suicide. The only people that really want it are on the fringe or worse and we don't need their input on anything.

Spoken like a true partisan. Why should every vote be treated equally when my party benefits from undeserved power?

This is an interesting article. Harper & Flanagan in praise of pr and coalitions. Lol

"Many of Canadas problems stem from a winner-take-all style of politics that allows governments in Ottawa to impose measures abhorred by large areas of the country. "

Before he had a taste of power Harper was very much in favour of improving our democracy. He used to refer to the system he now embraces as our "benign dictatorship." ...but you know what they say about power corrupting, thus he went on to strengthen that dictatorship and burn the grassroots.

[jacee]

I can't find the quote in your link, nor the words "proportional representation" or "pr".

I think the link went rogue! Try this:

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-stephen-harper-was-writing-in-1997/

a single commander with almost total power to appoint, discipline and expel ...

Among major democracies, only Great Britain so ruthlessly concentrates power. In the United States, President Clinton cannot govern without making concessions to the Republicans in Congress. In Germany, Chancellor Kohl needs to keep the support not only of the CSU but of the Free Democrats. In France, the presidency and the national assembly are often controlled by different party coalitions. In most of the rest of Europe, proportional representation ensures that coalition governments routinely form cabinets.

Ending with the "winner take all" quote above.

Edited February 12, 2015 by jacee

[Mighty AC]

I can't find the quote in your link, nor the words "proportional representation" or "pr".

It's a quote from the "Our Benign Dictatorship" essay written by Harper and Flanagan in 97.

[TimG]

Among major democracies, only Great Britain so ruthlessly concentrates power. In the United States, President Clinton cannot govern without making concessions to the Republicans in Congress. In Germany, Chancellor Kohl needs to keep the support not only of the CSU but of the Free Democrats. In France, the presidency and the national assembly are often controlled by different party coalitions. In most of the rest of Europe, proportional representation ensures that coalition governments routinely form cabinets.

And the evidence that these countries are better run than Canada? Zero. If anything the US system is a shining example of why not giving the elected leaders power to lead results in more deadlock and more corruption.

[Mighty AC]

And the evidence that these countries are better run than Canada? Zero. If anything the US system is a shining example of why not giving the elected leaders power to lead results in more deadlock and more corruption.

The US also uses a winner-take-all system, not PR.

[jacee]

And the evidence that these countries are better run than Canada? Zero. If anything the US system is a shining example of why not giving the elected leaders power to lead results in more deadlock and more corruption.

The US also uses a winner-take-all system, not PR.

He's talking about elements of systems that put constraints on leaders becoming all-powerful.

We have none.

.

Edited February 12, 2015 by jacee

[TimG]

He's talking about elements of systems that put constraints on leaders becoming all-powerful.

We have none.

Yes we do. MPs are supposed to be able to dispose the leader (as they do often in UK and Australia). We just have allowed parties to circumvent the process by having party constitutions where disposing the leader is prohibited. We should return balance to the system by returning to the original model.

If you hire someone to do a job you need to give them the ability to do the job. If they screw up they get fired. Systems that make it impossible for elected representatives to do their job without handing out bribes to every special interest group result in poorer governance because I judge governance by the quality of laws/regulations - not by number of POVs that were pandered to during the creation process.

Edited February 12, 2015 by TimG

[jacee]

Yes we do. MPs are supposed to be able to dispose the leader (as they do often in UK and Australia). We just have allowed parties to circumvent the process by having party constitutions where disposing the leader is prohibited.

Right.

We have no constraints on PM becoming a dictator.

.

[TimG]

We have no constraints on PM becoming a dictator.

Again not true: the PM faces election every 4 years and the courts limit the actions the PM can take.

Gross exaggeration does not help your argument.

[Mighty AC]

Yes we do. MPs are supposed to be able to dispose the leader (as they do often in UK and Australia). We just have allowed parties to circumvent the process by having party constitutions where disposing the leader is prohibited. We should return balance to the system by returning to the original model.

You quoted Jacee`s comment under my name.

[overthere]

MPs are supposed to be able to dispose the leader (as they do often in UK and Australia).

as did the Liberals with Jean Chretien.

The Cons were on the brink of canning Mulroney but he quit to save face before a ruinous election.

[Mighty AC]

I much prefer the idea of the equal votes and increased number of parties that would come as part of the PR package. Fewer parties leads to unpalatable choices for more people. For example, right now the promise of less government and spending is packaged with environmental destruction, anti-intellectualism and diminished democracy.

I want my vote to help elect people that share as many of my ideas as possible. I then want them to work with and against other representatives on an issue, by issue basis. The rep I support may work with a far right MP to improve access to information, but later oppose him/her on removing industrial environmental protections.

[TimG]

For example, right now the promise of less government and spending is packaged with environmental destruction, anti-intellectualism and diminished democracy.

More parties don't solve that issue because under PR you have no control over what back room deals will be made to create a coalition. The policies that your candidate ends up supporting could have little to do with what they claimed during the campaign. That is why I think PR leads to less accountable government because every politician can use the 'other guy made me do it' as an excuse for breaking promises.

I then want them to work with and against other representatives on an issue, by issue basis. The rep I support may work with a far right MP to improve access to information, but later oppose him/her on removing industrial environmental protections.

That is not how it works in the US congress. There candidates are often purchased by special interests and then collude with other congress people to add ridiculous provisions onto bills that benefit these special interests. This leads to cumbersome legislation that can often be worse than doing nothing. Edited February 12, 2015 by TimG

[WIP]

Sorry, you cannot use Greece as a model of any kind of responsible govt, withthe possible exception of the city states of 2500 years ago. Since then, they have been pretty much pathetic and that defintiely includes their new government. Greece is not in trouble because of any external factors, they are in the crap because they have mismanaged themselves for many generations of corruption, dictatorship and rampant personal greed.

Your references to The Troika as some sort of evil empire is laughable and silly.

Tspiras represents a 'us vs. them' rallying screech because it is a convenient Orwellian bogeyman. Oldest trick in the book: invent an enemy because it is more pleasant than the truth.

And the truth is that the Greeks have been borrowing and spending other peoples money for a very long time, and now that is over. They need to start collecting and paying their own income taxes, for starters.

All the doors are closed for Tspiras, nobody except perhaps China will lend him a drachma, and he will not want to imagine the terms they will extract. He is going to be backpedaling furiously from all the idiotic overpromises he made during the election.

More bad management.

Most of your screed has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of PR, which is the only reason I brought them up....not whether they can carry out their promises in government. But, PR gave them the opportunity to join together and form a coalition to topple the status quo much, much more rapidly than can be done in FPTP governing systems.

As for Greece....I'm not Greek, nor more than casually acquainted with the economic troubles regarding austerity...although my natural inclinations are to favour the people over international bankers. But it's ridiculous to accept the framing of this story as "the Greeks have been borrowing and spending other peoples money for a very long time". In reality, Greece had long been ruled by a fascist U.S.-sponsored military government, that mass executed leaders of unions and leftist parties under the excuse of "fighting communism." The autocratic post-coup leaders in Greece were allowed to borrow billions by the Eurobankers, just like they loaded up African nations in billions in debts to effectively retake their former colonies. And in all these cases, including impoverished nations like Haiti, or the Philippines (which I learned recently pays 44% of its federal tax revenue on interest payments to the international banking cabal), and after freely loaning dictators and virtual dictators enough debt to bankrupt their nations, the bankers demand full repayment by future governments that are saddled with debt in perpetuity! If the Greeks find a way to tell the Eurobankers and the IMF to go f*** yourselves, I'll be cheering for them from the sidelines!

[jacee]

Again not true: the PM faces election every 4 years and the courts limit the actions the PM can take.

Gross exaggeration does not help your argument.

Elections are distorted.

FPTP can't withstand computer prediction and targetting of votes.

Harper agreed in 1997, called it a "dictatorship".

.

.

Edited February 12, 2015 by jacee

[TimG]

Elections are distorted.

FPTP can't withstand computer prediction and targetting of votes.

The point of elections is to produce a government that people can live with. Canadian elections accomplish that pretty well. Despite the endless whining of the left the world has not ended because Harper is in charge. He has done some stupid things but he has also fixed many problems created by the previous Liberal governments. When the Liberals replace the Conservatives they will fix the problems created by the Conservatives but will do other stupid things which will need to be fixed by the next government. This is all part of good governance.

The virtue of our current system is problems *can* be fixed. That is often not the case in more consensus based systems where it is nearly impossible to change things once they are passed.

Edited February 12, 2015 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

More parties don't solve that issue because under PR you have no control over what back room deals will be made to create a coalition.

We don't have control now. Chretien was going to scrap the GST, Harper wasn't going to touch income trusts, etc. Coalitions get the common ground done first and then haggle over the contentious items. That's how it should work.

That is not how it works in the US congress. There candidates are often purchased by special interests and then collude with other congress people to add ridiculous provisions onto bills that benefit these special interests. This leads to cumbersome legislation that can often be worse than doing nothing.

I don't understand why you think the US has PR or multiple parties. Just like they do now politicians that go against their platform would still risk voter backlash under a PR system. However, if PR leads to an increase in the number of parties, voter backlash is a more serious threat. If Harper pisses off a tightie righie what are they going to do, vote Liberal? Of course not. However, with more options that is a possibility.

[TimG]

We don't have control now. Chretien was going to scrap the GST, Harper wasn't going to touch income trusts, etc. Coalitions get the common ground done first and then haggle over the contentious items. That's how it should work.

20 years and only two examples stand out (and those examples are where leaders made the responsible choice to break promises that should have never been made). If we had PR promises made on the election campaign would be largely irrelevant because back room deals made after the election would determine what actually happens. I don't see why you think that would be better government.

I don't understand why you think the US has PR or multiple parties.

Congressmen are free agents which is like a party of one. The US system is actually a good example of how multiple parties making back room deals to get consensus produce bad legislation. Edited February 12, 2015 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

20 years and only two examples stand out (and those examples are where leaders made the responsible choice to break promises that should have never been made). If we had PR promises made on the election campaign would be largely irrelevant because back room deals made after the election would determine what actually happens. I don't see why you think that would be better government.

You really think there are only two examples? C'mon.

It is a better system because items supported by the true majority of Canadians will pass easily. Contentious items will require haggling or not pass at all. That is how it should be. Right now a government representing much less than a majority of the country has complete power to install its own ideological views. That is far from superior. Our own PM called it our benign dictatorship.

Congressmen are free agents which is like a party of one. The US system is actually a good example of how multiple parties making back room deals to get consensus produce bad legislation.

When Congressmen were more beholden to their electors than their funders it was a superior system. Unfortunately, a minuscule percentage of the population contributes the bulk of political funding and thus owns the process. Still, their winner-take-all electoral system and just two parties is far from ideal.