jbg Posted August 8, 2015 Report Posted August 8, 2015 the ArgusStabilityArgument, apparently, presumes that within FPTP... majority governments are always the rule! And here I thought Canada has had minority governments where 'forced coalition in working together' was required - go figure. The difference is that in FPTP the minority governments have been far more durable. The only ones that lasted less than a year, since the "King-Byng" days was the first Diefenbaker minority government (which fell when an opposition rider to a government money bill passed with the money bill) and the Clark government. Martin lasted from June 2004 to November 2005 and even that was really the tail of the long string of Chretien majorities. Harper's first minority went from January 2006 to October 2008, and his second went from October 2008 to, I believe, March 2011. And minority governments have the advantage of not taking much time to form. Turkey's Erdogen right now is abusing the coalition system by essentially trying to precipitate new elections before forming a government. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
-1=e^ipi Posted August 8, 2015 Report Posted August 8, 2015 As I said at the time, the problem with the proportional rep type voting the opposition wants to initiate is that you wind up in a permanent minority government situation, with coalitions which tend to be of convenience only, with various parties looking always to their own advantage. Elections are held much more frequently because of this, and no party feels secure enough to propose tough medicine or unpopular measures. And if it does, it's likely its own coalition partners will jump on them and the government will disintegrate. There are many examples of this throughout the world, most notably in Europe, of course, but also in Israel and South American. Belgium took 541 days to form a government after an election in 2011! It took that long for the negotiations and manoeuvrings. And of course, after every election in Israel, the tiny religious parties make it known what high cost they place on their few votes as the major parties desperately try to form a government. FPTP minority governments are generally less stable than proportional representation minority governments because: 1. There is a greater swing in seat representation for leading parties given a swing in popular opinion. As a result, there is a greater incentive for leading parties to go to elections to try to get a majority government. For example, if the conservative government has a minority government with 35% of the popular vote in FPTP and their popular support swings to 40%, well now they have an incentive to have an election because 40% is majority territory for FPTP systems. 2. FPTP parties are used to this winner take all mentality so aren't used to negotiating with other parties. This creates a culture of hostility and lack of cooperation which you would not get if parties are used to a proportional representation system. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted August 8, 2015 Report Posted August 8, 2015 The difference is that in FPTP the minority governments have been far more durable. You are comparing FPTP minority governments with proportional representation minority governments. That's apples to oranges. Quote
jacee Posted August 8, 2015 Report Posted August 8, 2015 Everything you've said indicates you believe all business owners, all business managers, like CEOs and all people who enjoy a higher income are 'gougers and sharks". You have made zero distinction.Sure I did: I distinguished between sharp-dealing "sharks and gougers" who stomp on other people to take more than their fair share ... and the rest of us who try to conduct our lives by working smart and doing business fairly . ☺I think the suggestion you have strong communist or Marxist leanings is justified. And you think I care what you say about that ? ? Corporate control of Canada must end so free enterprise, entrepreneurship and small-medium businesses can thrive. Ya, I'm a real communist. . Quote
Argus Posted August 8, 2015 Author Report Posted August 8, 2015 I dunno, I'm not convinced that these things can be attributed to the presence or absence of proportional representation. Some of the most stable governments in the world (in the Nordic countries or Germany, for example) are elected using PR. India elects sometimes-unstable (and sometimes quite stable!) coalition governments using FPTP all the time, particularly at the state level. I'm not suggesting you can't have stable minority government. But I wouldn't use the nordic countries as an example. That is more due to the background culture of the Scandinavian countries. Same goes for the Germans. I would say, though, that the likelihood of unstable government is greatly increased with minorities. And let's not forget that the two-party FPTP US government actually shut down a few years ago, the pinnacle of the sort of gridlock with which it is continually plagued. There are so many factors involved when it comes to political stability. The American example is by design. Their country was deliberately set up to have different areas of power so as to make dictatorship more difficult. Their founding fathers were paranoid about what they'd experienced under the British and other European governments of the time. I think it was a workable notion back in 1776 but today, with a diverse population of well over three hundred million, it's experiencing a lot of problems. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted August 8, 2015 Author Report Posted August 8, 2015 the ArgusStabilityArgument, apparently, presumes that within FPTP... majority governments are always the rule! And here I thought Canada has had minority governments where 'forced coalition in working together' was required - go figure. We've had a few. And all the ones I can remember were shorter termed, and rife with constant politicking. They were also expensive, since everyone was trying to win popularity by making promises. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Evening Star Posted August 8, 2015 Report Posted August 8, 2015 I'm not suggesting you can't have stable minority government. But I wouldn't use the nordic countries as an example. That is more due to the background culture of the Scandinavian countries. Same goes for the Germans. I would say, though, that the likelihood of unstable government is greatly increased with minorities. The American example is by design. Their country was deliberately set up to have different areas of power so as to make dictatorship more difficult. Their founding fathers were paranoid about what they'd experienced under the British and other European governments of the time. I think it was a workable notion back in 1776 but today, with a diverse population of well over three hundred million, it's experiencing a lot of problems. See, now you're looking to other factors to explain how PR systems can produce stable governments (and how a FPTP system can do the opposite) in multiple other countries, supporting my view that stability has more to do with factors other than PR vs FPTP. What about India? Their Parliamentary system is really not so different from ours but look at some of the pizza Parliaments they've produced with FPTP (some durable, some not): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_Lok_Sabha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Lok_Sabha#List_of_members_by_political_party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Lok_Sabha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15th_Lok_Sabha#List_of_members_by_political_party Also, what's so wrong with minority governments that last for two or three years? Pearson's two minority governments were possibly the best we've had since WW2. Quote
Argus Posted August 8, 2015 Author Report Posted August 8, 2015 FPTP minority governments are generally less stable than proportional representation minority governments because: 1. There is a greater swing in seat representation for leading parties given a swing in popular opinion. As a result, there is a greater incentive for leading parties to go to elections to try to get a majority government. For example, if the conservative government has a minority government with 35% of the popular vote in FPTP and their popular support swings to 40%, well now they have an incentive to have an election because 40% is majority territory for FPTP systems. 2. FPTP parties are used to this winner take all mentality so aren't used to negotiating with other parties. This creates a culture of hostility and lack of cooperation which you would not get if parties are used to a proportional representation system. Really? I don't see this lack of bloody politicking taking place in PP countries. It certainly isn't in evidence in Brazil. It isn't in evidence in Israel. Belgium didn't take 541 days to form a government because everyone was in a cooperative spirit. The average length of an Italian government is less than one year. Dutch governments tend to last about two years. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted August 8, 2015 Author Report Posted August 8, 2015 See, now you're looking to other factors to explain how PR systems can produce stable governments (and how a FPTP system can do the opposite) in multiple other countries, supporting my view that stability has more to do with factors other than PR vs FPTP. What about India? Their Parliamentary system is really not so different from ours but look at some of the pizza Parliaments they've produced with FPTP (some durable, some not): Also, what's so wrong with minority governments that last for two or three years? Pearson's two minority governments were possibly the best we've had since WW2. India has over a billion people and 49 recognized political parties. I'm more than willing to admit that if we had dozens of parties we'd have a fractured parliament under any system. But that's thankfully not the case - yet. There are always numerous factors involving how anything works or fails to work. What I'm saying is that PP appears to increase the likelihood of frequent elections and unstable government. Based on our own experience, it leads to short term governments and a constant politicking on behalf of the parties who have to be ready for another election without notice. It involves parties making grandiose and expensive promises in earnest hope of winning more popularity, and not daring to take on difficult or unpopular issues. Not that we don't see that with FPTP too, look at the notable lack of ideas on health care by all three parties here, but we see more reluctance to do anything unpopular in minorities. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted August 8, 2015 Report Posted August 8, 2015 Canadians don't seem to want change anyway. They've had more than one chance to change their voting method provincially. Quote
Ash74 Posted August 8, 2015 Report Posted August 8, 2015 so... if not for Wynne... you had HarperDoubt? Really? I was thinking of voting the Libertarian Party. I actually dislike all three of the major parties Quote “Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.”― Winston S. Churchill There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. –Robert Heinlein
-1=e^ipi Posted August 8, 2015 Report Posted August 8, 2015 It involves parties making grandiose and expensive promises in earnest hope of winning more popularity, and not daring to take on difficult or unpopular issues. You act like the people have no say. If the people don't want parties making absurd promises, then don't vote for parties making absurd promises. It's not hard. Not that we don't see that with FPTP too, look at the notable lack of ideas on health care by all three parties here, but we see more reluctance to do anything unpopular in minorities. FPTP reduces competition between parties and reduces the number of viable parties to vote for. Under proportional representation, there would be far more choice, which increases the chances of a party having a differing opinion on say healthcare for example. Quote
Smallc Posted August 8, 2015 Report Posted August 8, 2015 You act like the people have no say. If the people don't want parties making absurd promises, then don't vote for parties making absurd promises. That assumes that enough people don't consider the absurd to be...non absurd. Quote
hitops Posted August 8, 2015 Report Posted August 8, 2015 (edited) No, they're not! Not that it has anything to do with the thread topic, but the argument of 'rising tide raising all boats' or that crap from Tom Friedmann 'The World is Flat' and other cheerleaders of corporatist globalization has completely unraveled during this century...even prior to that recession that began in 07. In the real world, the numbers of people living on less than a dollar a day is increasing, and the 85 richest people in the world own equal wealth to the poorest half (3.5 billion) of the world population. Thanks be to our capitalist overlords! Obviously the number people on a dollar per day is increasing, the number of people is rapidly increasing period. However the standard of living of huge chunks of the world, in particular in China and India, is vastly improved compared to generations past. The hard data, shows that more people in more places have better lives as a percentage of the world, than ever before. Because Detroit is falling apart, does not mean the rest of the world is having the same problem. And you are typing here because evil government payed for the research to create computers and an internet before that evil corporation could help themselves to free technology so that they could make money from it. And in today's example of monopoly capitalism, gouge us for unjustifiable profits as our high speed internet service falls way behind Europe, the Far East and even some third world nations. You don't have to sign up if you don't like it. As more and more professions are outsourced or replaced with automation, you may find yourself competing for those 30c an hour jobs yourself some day! It's possible, but 'bad things might happen to you one day, so you should hate rich people' is not a coherent argument. Everyone of of us has the opportunistic to position ourselves prudently for the future. The more we support unions, the more rapidly we accelerate the automatic, btw. Maybe you'd like to explain to us how as earnings for the highest income demographic has increased way above inflation rates over the last 30 years, those in the middle have stagnated, while those in the working poor have become even poorer! Because the working poor have skills that lose value over time, and the rich are largely asset-based, which is protected from inflation. The poor vs rich thing is half nonsense. Just look at the census data, the most glaring difference between the poorest and rich quintile is age. Young people have less money, what a shock. A huge chunk of the 'poor' in US census data are just the kids of the rich. The interesting thing is not that low wage workers in the west are losing, but that eastern ones are massively gaining. For reason we believe that because we are westerners, we are somehow owed those jobs by divine right, and should not face competition from overseas. As a poor person in Bangladesh has any less right to a job than you. Thanks for reminding me why I haven't bought one of those bullshit "smart" phones yet! I'll agree that consumers should ask themselves whether they really need the products they are bombarded with through advertising and promotion, or if they are responding on impulse because every other idiot walking around (and driving around) has got one these days. Making rational choices before buying isn't rewarded in this day and age....certainly less than it was 40 years ago when there actually was a consumer advocacy movement and critics of the process could make their case in mainstream media. I am 100% certain that your house and life is completely full of things produced for you by evil capitalists and corporations small and large. You want the stuff, you pay the money, then you don't like that the money went to somebody. Edited August 8, 2015 by hitops Quote
hitops Posted August 8, 2015 Report Posted August 8, 2015 The IMF report does say that all savings from 'labour deregulation' have gone into CEO'S pockets. How is that right? It wasn't about staying competitive. It was about taking more than a fair share of the wealth, faster all the time. . CEO's don't 'take' a share of anything. They are paid it, by the boards representing the shareholders of companies. It is not your money. Whether those boards want to pay them $1 or $100M, it makes absolutely no difference to you, me or any poor or rich person. The only people it affects, are the company shareholders. More pay for CEO = less for them. It is absolutely not rational for them to pay huge dollars if they are not getting value for those dollars. They have NO incentive to overpay. They have EVERY incentive to get the best person for as cheap as possible. If a $10M CEO increases corporate profits by billions, he was probably underpaid. That $10M was an incredibly good investment. The reason you dislike massive CEO pay is not because it takes anything from you or anyone else, it is simply because you don't have it, and that bothers you. If any person can do what the $10M CEO can do, then go ahead and do it. Start your own company and show those morons who's boss. Of course, we both know that 99% of the people who complain about CEO's could not run a KFC franchise competently, much less a fortune 500 company. Meanwhile, every last one of them continues to consume all the stuff those companies make, happily giving their money (exactly in response to the CEO's plans for them to do so) in exchange for goods they want. And then keep complaining. Quote
Argus Posted August 8, 2015 Author Report Posted August 8, 2015 (edited) You act like the people have no say. If the people don't want parties making absurd promises, then don't vote for parties making absurd promises. It's not hard. Actually, it is. When you take into account that a third of voters pay no income tax, you begin to realize how attractive it can be for political parties to offer lots of goodies, since three out of ten voters won't care about the cost. So right away you've locked up 30% of the vote. It's not hard to convince some of the rest that it's in their interest, that the schemes can be easily paid for, won't cost what people say they will, or, best yet "We'll just increase taxes on "the wealthy"! FPTP reduces competition between parties and reduces the number of viable parties to vote for. Under proportional representation, there would be far more choice, which increases the chances of a party having a differing opinion on say healthcare for example. Also more chance of extremist parties getting into parliament and in a close race, demanding certain things from the major parties in order to support them in a pizza parliament. Look at the rise of extremist parties in European parliaments as an example. Edited August 8, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Bob Macadoo Posted August 8, 2015 Report Posted August 8, 2015 If any person can do what the $10M CEO can do, then go ahead and do it. Start your own company and show those morons who's boss. Of course, we both know that 99% of the people who complain about CEO's could not run a KFC franchise competently, much less a fortune 500 company. Actually I think the converse is true.....that $10M CEO would have no clue how to run a KFC shop (watch those undercover boss things). I've directly observed the last 4 CEO's at my company.......know their trick......continue on with the botched policies of the retired CEO til it gets them their severence package or just doing the exact opposite of the turfed CEO until the board doesn't like that.......and we still make 100's millions in profit..........that MBA degree is working overtime I tell's ya. I bet those yahoos couldn't organize a long weekend schedule for KFC. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted August 8, 2015 Report Posted August 8, 2015 Also more chance of extremist parties getting into parliament and in a close race Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Parliament should try to represent the people, that includes extremists. I'd rather that the minority of Canadians that want to impose Sharia try to implement their policies through peaceful democratic means than through terrorism. Actually, it is. When you take into account that a third of voters pay no income tax, you begin to realize how attractive it can be for political parties to offer lots of goodies, since three out of ten voters won't care about the cost. So right away you've locked up 30% of the vote. 30% isn't enough to form a government under proportional representation. But it might be under a FPTP system. Quote
TimG Posted August 9, 2015 Report Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) 30% isn't enough to form a government under proportional representation. But it might be under a FPTP system.You judge voting systems by how the system changes the politics. With FPTP parties have to cater to the center to get any power. So you see both the conservatives and NDP moderating their extreme policies to get a chance at a majority. What this means is even if their actual voters are minority the legislation is generally palatable to the majority. With any kind of PR parties are encouraged to go after niche voting blocks and then the demand that their niche be catered to if their 2 or 3 seats are needed to pass legislation. This give niche votes way more power than they deserve. Note that this only happens because in practice the two largest parties never form coalitions because there are rivals. This means possible coalition partners are always drawn from the fringes. If, in some alternate reality, a PR government was always a coalition of the two largest parties then it would be worth considering. The other problem with perpetual minorities is politicians are no longer accountable. i.e. if a party promises something, has a majority and does not deliver then they can be accused of breaking their promise. But with perpetual minorities promises mean nothing because what they can actually deliver depends on their coalition partners. In the long term this lack of accountability for promises will lead to worse government - not better. Edited August 9, 2015 by TimG Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted August 9, 2015 Report Posted August 9, 2015 With FPTP parties have to cater to the center to get any power. In proportional representation, you have to cater to other parties in order to get laws passed. Some of these other parties will be centrist parties. So you see both the conservatives and NDP moderating their extreme policies to get a chance at a majority. And they are still terrible options. With any kind of PR parties are encouraged to go after niche voting blocks and then the demand that their niche be catered to if their 2 or 3 seats are needed to pass legislation. If one party is making ridiculous demands, go to another party for a better deal. The more parties you have, the more competition you will have in negotiation. You are making a flawed argument here since there are multiple potential coalition partners. The other problem with perpetual minorities is politicians are no longer accountable. Sure they are. If you don't like them, vote for another party. Quote
jbg Posted August 9, 2015 Report Posted August 9, 2015 In proportional representation, you have to cater to other parties in order to get laws passed. Some of these other parties will be centrist parties. I didn't pick this particular post to quote except that it is about PR. Does every single thread about a Canadian election turn to discussions about PR? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
eyeball Posted August 9, 2015 Report Posted August 9, 2015 I'll be voting NDP because I've seen how Conservative voters think and what they value. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Bryan Posted August 9, 2015 Report Posted August 9, 2015 FPTP reduces competition between parties and reduces the number of viable parties to vote for. Under proportional representation, there would be far more choice, which increases the chances of a party having a differing opinion on say healthcare for example. The only real problem with our current system is that it already encourages too many parties to participate. The campaigns are a clusterf**k of screaming inconsistencies, and when you end up with minority governments, that simply means the whole campaign was a farce because you now can't implement the platform that you were elected on. If you don't have official party status, you should not be allowed to speak or vote in the house. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted August 9, 2015 Report Posted August 9, 2015 The only real problem with our current system is that it already encourages too many parties to participate. The campaigns are a clusterf**k of screaming inconsistencies, and when you end up with minority governments, that simply means the whole campaign was a farce because you now can't implement the platform that you were elected on. If you don't have official party status, you should not be allowed to speak or vote in the house. Too many parties? Why is it that there are no good options then? Again, you're comparing a FPTP minority government with a proportional representation government. They aren't the same. The incentives to negotiate are different and the culture of cooperation is not there with the FPTP system. Quote
Bryan Posted August 9, 2015 Report Posted August 9, 2015 Too many parties? Why is it that there are no good options then? We have an excellent option already in power. The best government this country has ever had, and one of the best in the world right now. Again, you're comparing a FPTP minority government with a proportional representation government. They aren't the same. The incentives to negotiate are different and the culture of cooperation is not there with the FPTP system. I would not call the results you get with most examples of PR "cooperation". More like extortion. PR gives you minorities and perpetual coalitions where the party with the plurality is incapable of carrying out the platform they were elected on. Fringe parties are on the fringe for a reason, we need to get them further away from power, not closer to it. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.