Your thoughts on the platform of the Libertarian Party of Canada?

[Second-class Canadian]

No it isn't, as ones party won't shake anything up sitting on the sidelines, out of Government.

True, but loss of power forces the losing party to reflect on what went wrong.

[Second-class Canadian]

You are fine with a system where large minorities have no representation in parliament?

What minorities? The last thing we need is to give parties more power. I even support removing party names from ballots, so why would I support prorep?

[-1=e^ipi]

What minorities? The last thing we need is to give parties more power. I even support removing party names from ballots, so why would I support prorep?

Because the whole point of having a parliament is to try to represent the country is it not? With the FPTP system, groups of people that are thinly spread out across the country get no representation. The green party got no seats for years despite 5% of the popular vote. In the UK, UKIP got 0.15% of the seats with 12.6% of the vote. You get parties with 38% of the popular vote winning majority governments.

The system encourages strategic voting and for people to only vote for on of the top 2 or 3 parties to make their vote count. As a result, the number of viable political parties in a FPTP system is very small, where as proportional representation systems give people far more choice about who they want to vote for.

[Evening Star]

As I see it, this is the problem: we only cast a ballot for our local representative. However, our local representatives, who are the only people who are directly elected by the public, have relatively little power in and of themselves because they have to vote along party lines most of the time. Proportional representation is one solution: it recognizes the power of parties and party leaders and, in most forms of PR, people cast votes for parties as opposed to individuals. The trade-offs could include: a loss of local accountability and connection between voters and their local representatives, and an even greater concentration of power in the hands of party leadership. This is not the only solution, though: FPTP with no political parties would be another way to resolve the contradictions in our system, for example. This would probably be going too far since it is hard for most people to keep up with all of each individual candidates' stances on each issue, even just within their riding. However, it is possible to have a FPTP system of voting for local reps where MPs belong to parties but have greater autonomy (e.g. by limiting whipped votes) and where party leaders are more responsible to their caucus.

Edited for clarity

Edited July 6, 2015 by Evening Star

[Evening Star]

Why give your vote to the CPC? Simple, they are the only party with a shred of Libertarian ethos that can form a Government......or elect an MP.

What is libertarian about the CPC other than tax cuts? (Even a lot of those are basically 'social engineering' moves to encourage social behaviours the government sees as desirable: any principled libertarian should despise this.) Harper is one of the most blatantly authoritarian PMs I can think of, and is a monarchist to boot. Anyone who would swallow C-51 for a few tax cuts is more concerned about their bank account than libertarian principle imo.

[Second-class Canadian]

Because the whole point of having a parliament is to try to represent the country is it not? With the FPTP system, groups of people that are thinly spread out across the country get no representation. The green party got no seats for years despite 5% of the popular vote. In the UK, UKIP got 0.15% of the seats with 12.6% of the vote. You get parties with 38% of the popular vote winning majority governments.

The system encourages strategic voting and for people to only vote for on of the top 2 or 3 parties to make their vote count. As a result, the number of viable political parties in a FPTP system is very small, where as proportional representation systems give people far more choice about who they want to vote for.

I've not voted for a winning candidate yet. I've always voted for the best local candidate independently of party affiliation. Again, remove party names from the ballot and that's the first step towards a viable solution. Prorep simply enslaved the MP to his party.

You might be voting strategically but I'm not. If you're voting strategically rather than on principle, then you're part of the problem.

Besides, prorep tends to benefit the extremists on the fringes more than anyone else.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Second-class Canadian

[Second-class Canadian]

As I see it, this is the problem: we only cast a ballot for our local representative. However, our local representatives, who are the only people who are directly elected by the public, have relatively little power in and of themselves because they have to vote along party lines most of the time. Proportional representation is one solution: it recognizes the power of parties and party leaders and, in most forms of PR, people cast votes for parties as opposed to individuals. The trade-offs could include: a loss of local accountability and connection between voters and their local representatives, and an even greater concentration of power in the hands of party leadership. This is not the only solution, though: FPTP with no political parties would be another way to resolve the contradictions in our system, for example. This would probably be going too far since it is hard for most people to keep up with all of each individual candidates' stances on each issue, even just within their riding. However, it is possible to have a FPTP system of voting for local reps where MPs have greater autonomy (e.g. by limiting whipped votes) and where party leaders are more responsible to their caucus.

Learn from Nunavut. A non-partisan FPTP consensus-based system.

[Evening Star]

Non-partisan FPTP seems to work in municipal and territorial politics, where the issues tend to be a bit simpler and more local, and sometimes in jurisdictions that are either quite small (e.g. South Pacific islands) and/or where there is a certain amount of ideological consensus (Nebraska). I can't think of a situation where it has worked for more than a couple of elections at the national level in a large developed country.

[cybercoma]

What is libertarian about the CPC other than tax cuts?

Most of them aren't even cuts. They're boutique credits.

[Evening Star]

Yeah, totally. If anything, Paul Martin probably came much closer to 'classical liberal' economic policy.

[-1=e^ipi]

Again, remove party names from the ballot and that's the first step towards a viable solution.

It won't solve anything because people can still see the candidates for each party by looking at lawn signs. It only provides people with less information.

Prorep simply enslaved the MP to his party.

This is silly. With prorep you will have more parties so can find an option that better represents your views. Heck, you could even have a party of 1 independent MP and the MP could try to get votes from across the entire county to be elected.

How is reducing peoples options so they can only vote for someone in their riding democratic? What if I want to vote for an MP all the way in Halifax because I think this MP better represents my views? As it is, if I want to vote for say the Freedom party, and there is no candidate in my riding, I can't vote for the party that I want to vote for.

You might be voting strategically but I'm not.

I don't.

[-1=e^ipi]

Learn from Nunavut. A non-partisan FPTP consensus-based system.

Nunavut has less than 30,000 people and is relatively culturally homogenous. With a country like Canada, obtaining a 'consensus' is impossible.

[Smallc]

Proportional representation in Canda would have to be at least divided on provincial lines.

[-1=e^ipi]

Proportional representation in Canda would have to be at least divided on provincial lines.

Why?

[Smallc]

Why?

Provinces have concerns that aren't uniform. I would go as far as to say that within that, thr CMAs would also have to be their own region. This is a giant federation, not a tiny piece of dirt.

[Evening Star]

This is the best proposal for PR that I've read (I've linked it on the NDP thread): http://www.threehundredeight.com/2015/05/a-proposal-for-electoral-reform.html

I could possibly support something like that.

[-1=e^ipi]

Provinces have concerns that aren't uniform. I would go as far as to say that within that, thr CMAs would also have to be their own region. This is a giant federation, not a tiny piece of dirt.

Why would provinces not get representation in a proportional representation system? Where is the logic in that? Also, don't we have these things called provincial governments that are supposed to deal with provincial concerns?

[Second-class Canadian]

http://bciconcoclast.blogspot.ca/2015/02/2015-might-election-to-pay-some.html?m=1

Interesting article. Should the Libertarians have a full slate this year, even if they don't win a seat, they could still win enough votes to worry the CPC concerning vote splitting.

[-1=e^ipi]

This is the best proposal for PR that I've read (I've linked it on the NDP thread): http://www.threehundredeight.com/2015/05/a-proposal-for-electoral-reform.html

I could possibly support something like that.

While that proposal isn't bad, I do disagree with some of the criticisms given of a proportional representation system.

One of the main premises of the argument is that under a proportional representation system, party leaders make up party lists. This isn't necessarily true. Parties can make up lists any way they want, it doesn't have to be by the leader. If you don't like the way the party is making up the list, don't vote for a party that does this (and there will be more parties to choose from under a proportional representation system).

And this whole idea that MPs need to be elected by the local population is flawed. Not everyone votes based on regional interests and not everyone is best represented by a candidate in their riding. You might be, but I certainly am not. Let's say hypothetically that I really like David Suzuki, who is running to be an MP, and want to vote for him instead of someone in my riding? Why should I not be allowed to?

Also, by restricting people to only vote for those in their riding, in many cases you prevent people from voting for the party they want to because they are not running in their riding (because they are a small party and cannot afford it). If I want to vote for say the Freedom Party, Libertarian Party or Communist Party, and they aren't running in my riding, why should I not be allowed to?

[Second-class Canadian]

The Libertarian Party is already well on its way. It already has a candidate for my riding and might, just might, have a full slate this year nationwide.

[Derek 2.0]

What is libertarian about the CPC other than tax cuts?

Privatization (which includes "contracting out" as opposed to hiring salaried staff) and the loosening of (Federal) Government oversight......furthermore, the (re)liberalization of several aspects to the private ownership of firearms and devolution of the Wheat Board (and Supply management?).......several more major free trade deals...etc etc

[Derek 2.0]

The Libertarian Party is already well on its way. It already has a candidate for my riding and might, just might, have a full slate this year nationwide.

Well on its way to what? I consider them "well on its way" once it looks like it could even come in 3rd place in a riding........not a real high bar set there.

[Second-class Canadian]

A full slate of Libertarian candidates nationwide could threaten some precarious Conservative ridings through vote splitting. If a Libertarian, without winning his seat, can cause a Conservative to lose his in a few ridings, this could pressure the CPC to become more cautious in dismissing the Libertarian movement too easily.

[Derek 2.0]

A full slate of Libertarian candidates nationwide could threaten some precarious Conservative ridings through vote splitting. If a Libertarian, without winning his seat, can cause a Conservative to lose his in a few ridings, this could pressure the CPC to become more cautious in dismissing the Libertarian movement too easily.

Could not the same be said for Christian Heritage or the Pirate Party though?

[Second-class Canadian]

Could not the same be said for Christian Heritage or the Pirate Party though?

Yes, but the Libertarian Party might actually have a full slate of candidates come this election.