Proportional Representation Discussion

eyeball · February 12, 2015

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.

No people on Earth have ever had control over what happens in the back rooms no matter what type or system of government.

The best PR might do is move us a step closer towards a remedy for that. Even one step would represent staggering progress...staggering I say again.

TimG · February 12, 2015

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.

Actually, no, that is not how it should be. Sometimes the right thing to do is not the popular thing to do. I also don't agree that everyone with a megaphone should be entitled to have their views considered. Sometimes people have stupid ideas (stupid ideas are different than ideas that I disagree with but have a rational basis) and even if they have support of some minimal set of the population their ideas are still stupid.

The system we have now where a party can be wiped out in a subsequent election is more than sufficient to ensure that parties are careful when it comes to passing legislation that might appeal to their base but not Canadians at large.

Edited February 12, 2015 by TimG

jacee · February 12, 2015

british-columbia/bc-ndp-favours-switch-to-proportional-representation-system-if-elected-in-17

No people on Earth have ever had control over what happens in the back rooms no matter what type or system of government.

The best PR might do is move us a step closer towards a remedy for that. Even one step would represent staggering progress...staggering I say again.

(learning to navivate new device and paste function is bizarre!)

overthere · February 12, 2015

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!

You should have stopped with 'nor more than casually acquainted'. Shooting off your mouth about fascism and military juntas that deaprted 40 years ago just reinforces your ignorance. The Greeks have been plagued not by vicious bankers or people who twisted their arms to take billions they could not afford- they did it all themselves. They are victims all righty, but victims of their own horrible lack of basic management skills.

Now they have leadership that is filling their heads with the kind of self serving bullshit that is applauded by the usual morons in the West. It is almost criminal , what Ts[piras and his gang of idiots is spewing. How can any intelligent Greek believe any of this selfish, cowardly nonsense? How can you believe it?

What GReece wanted for the last few decades was this: all the lovely bits of massive social contract that is the cornerstone of the EU. And they got it, by racking up staggering debts that nobody forced on them. They thought they could take the money and never do anything internal to balance their own books- like simply assess income taxes like their EU partners. And now the bill has come due.

There is no free lunch, not even when they are serving souvlaki.

overthere · February 12, 2015

BTW, a similar beginning to the Greek tragedy was the case of New Zealand in the 1980s. They were at the point of national bankruptcy, and chose to completel;y reform their society and culture to dig themselves out of the mighty hole they had dug for themselves with an unaffordable social contract..

Now they do OK for themselves. Greece should read their book.

Keepitsimple · February 12, 2015

What GReece wanted for the last few decades was this: all the lovely bits of massive social contract that is the cornerstone of the EU. And they got it, by racking up staggering debts that nobody forced on them. They thought they could take the money and never do anything internal to balance their own books- like simply assess income taxes like their EU partners. And now the bill has come due.

There is no free lunch, not even when they are serving souvlaki.

To quote a famous Prime Minister wannabe:

".....and the budget will balance itself".

Edited February 12, 2015 by Keepitsimple

jacee · February 12, 2015

You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society.

S. Harper

To quote a famous Prime Minister wannabe:

".....and the budget will balance itself".

Aw come on... Have the courage to cite the entire quote.

Here's a whole Harper quote:

Oops... It's up there. Lol

.

Michael Hardner · February 13, 2015

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).

Chretien was going to scrap the GST, Harper wasn't going to touch income trusts, etc.

I agree with TimG. These are examples of choices that the leader might not have been able to make under PR. With a strong mandate, they can make the choice that could offend their supporters without triggering a new election.

Mighty AC · February 13, 2015

I agree with TimG. These are examples of choices that the leader might not have been able to make under PR. With a strong mandate, they can make the choice that could offend their supporters without triggering a new election.

So you like the fact that fewer options and FPTP makes representatives less accountable to voters? I guess that's an honest answer. A friend of mine once told me that he prefered FPTP because only centrist votes should count anyway.

In both examples given the PM candidates lied to help win an election. It wasn't a case of making a tough choice.

Also note that ability to topple parliament doesn't have to and probably shouldn't exist.

Michael Hardner · February 13, 2015

So you like the fact that fewer options and FPTP makes representatives less accountable to voters?

I guess so. I don't believe in direct democracy either.

In both examples given the PM candidates lied to help win an election. It wasn't a case of making a tough choice.

Well, they shouldn't have lied but it's better to lie and do the right thing than to lie and do the wrong thing.

Also note that ability to topple parliament doesn't have to and probably shouldn't exist.

How... would you prevent votes of non-confidence ?

jbg · February 14, 2015

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.

The only trouble is that you can vote for your perfect party, and even if that perfect party makes the governing coalition one can't be sure which ministry they're getting. They're getting a ministry or department, not a government.

Mighty AC · February 18, 2015

I guess so. I don't believe in direct democracy either.

Nor do I. Though I would prefer that politicians convince voters of the wisdom in their flip flops, rather than being protected by a lack of choice.

How... would you prevent votes of non-confidence ?

I would have the ability to topple a government removed from the system.

Michael Hardner · February 18, 2015

Nor do I. Though I would prefer that politicians convince voters of the wisdom in their flip flops, rather than being protected by a lack of choice.

If you don't believe in direct democracy, then you believe in some restriction of choice. The only difference between us is where you see that balance as optimal.

This is why I bristle at the term "fair voting".

I would have the ability to topple a government removed from the system.

Then votes would fail until bills are endlessly compromised or stuffed with pork. That's how it works when nobody is responsible, I think.

jacee · February 20, 2015

What about the concept of our representatives working together to create laws that are in the best interests of all Canadians?

National parties become somewhat less relevant under PR, and local representation more important.

.

Smallc · February 20, 2015

What about the concept of our representatives working together to create laws that are in the best interests of all Canadians?

That goes against the very foundation of Westminster Parliament.

On Guard for Thee · February 20, 2015

That goes against the very foundation of Westminster Parliament.

It certainly does not, under Westminster the elected legislative assembly, The Crown and the House of Lords must all agree for legislation to be passed.

Smallc · February 20, 2015

It certainly does not,

Why do you think that the benches face each other in most Westminster parliaments? It is the job of the opposition to oppose and present an alternative.

On Guard for Thee · February 20, 2015

Why do you think that the benches face each other in most Westminster parliaments? It is the job of the opposition to oppose and present an alternative.

The elected government proposes and the opposition opposes, thats correct.

jacee · February 20, 2015

That goes against the very foundation of Westminster Parliament.

Do you even realize how funny this is? :lol:

God FORBID a government that works cooperatively for the benefit of all Canadians! The HORROR! :lol:

.

Smallc · February 20, 2015

The elected government proposes and the opposition opposes, thats correct.

So why post something that appeared to contradict what I said? We don't have consensus government by tradition.

cybercoma · February 20, 2015

That goes against the very foundation of Westminster Parliament.

lol what!?

Keepitsimple · February 20, 2015

So why post something that appeared to contradict what I said? We don't have consensus government by tradition.

On Guard has never admitted to someone else being right - or himself being wrong. A little humility now and then would work wonders for one's credibility.

Smallc · February 20, 2015

lol what!?

Consensus building (grand coalitions for example) are not generally sought or resulted in under the type of system we have. The largest party or coalition generally governs, and the second opposes with alternative.

Mighty AC · February 20, 2015

Then votes would fail until bills are endlessly compromised or stuffed with pork. That's how it works when nobody is responsible, I think.

Sometimes it is hard to think beyond our current oppositional minority parliament situations. Opposing all votes simply to topple the government or to force an early election in an attempt to grab more power disappear along with confidence votes. With more parties, nearly impossible majority governments and fixed election dates, politicians are freed from the permanent campaigning and mudslinging. Plus, we are spared from the consequences of the "benign dictatorship" of false majorities. There is a fair amount of overlap and agreement between parties. Consensus bills pass easily, ideas with little support do not. Unlike our current minority parliaments, the power of the fringe is limited to their seat count....as it should be.

cybercoma · February 20, 2015

Consensus building (grand coalitions for example) are not generally sought or resulted in under the type of system we have. The largest party or coalition generally governs, and the second opposes with alternative.

Except for all those times we have minority governments. Except for the idea that the government benches are supposed to be beholden to the legislature, including their backbenchers. You've been drinking that Harper-Chrétien Kool-Aid where they liked to pretend that the entire party is the government. They're not, nor should they ever be. The Westminster System is fundamentally about consensus building. That's the only way they government bench is able to actually govern.