Conservatives For PR?

[Mighty AC]

Is it time to disunite the right? Many small-c cons think so. It seems that Harper's erosion of democracy, scandals, secrecy and 'anything for power' economic decisions have left conservatives without a palatable choice in the upcoming election. How do they hold Harper accountable for bad government, when the only other options are so ideologically different?

Just like Harper and Flanagan back in the 90's, cons are now calling for PR and the rebirth of a party like the Reform, dedicated to grassroots, conservative principles. Mulroney, was the corrupt figurehead that motivated a young Steve to create change. Now, Harper has become that highbinder for a new generation of conservatives seeking democracy and bottom up representation.

Personally, I am excited that there is movement towards PR from both the left and the right. We may actually ditch this dysfunctional electoral system sooner than later.

What we need is a new party dedicated explicitly to conservative ideas — a role that used to be fulfilled by the old Reform movement. In today’s political environment, such a party would not be a contender for power. But it would be able to maintain a consistent right-of-centre line without compromising its positions in order to stay in government. And it would serve as a needed opposition voice from the right, as well as an alternative for conservative voters when the big Tory party is not fitting the bill.

The creation of such a party would be helped by reforms to the electoral system — of a kind, ironically, that the left-wing opposition now proposes. Under a proportional model, the need to form post-election alliances would be the rule rather than the exception, thereby mitigating the significance of vote splitting. Indeed, it was Stephen Harper and his former adviser Tom Flanagan who argued, in a 1997 article in Next City magazine, for proportional representation as a means of forcing an alliance out of the right-wing parties.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/jackson-doughart-is-it-time-to-disunite-the-right

[Argus]

No.

[Shady]

LOL @ erosion of democracy! #OnlineCrazy

[PIK]

Flanagan is just a pissed off old man.

[Icebound]

Flanagan is just a pissed off old man.

So?

Harper was a pissed-off young man.... when he and Tom proposed that PR might be a path to Conservative power, or.... as they wrote it:

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.

Of course, once the winner-who-took-all happened to be Harper and he was the one imposing measures abhorred by 60 to 70 percent of the Canadian people..... it becomes a different story, right?

[Mighty AC]

Unfortunately for the small-c's Harper hijacked Manning's democratically based, grassroots Reform movement and turned it into what the CPC is now; almost the exact opposite. That's why conservatives are now starting to pursue the creation of new right wing options and are calling for PR. Deja vu all over again.

“Parliament can hardly be weakened any more than it already is. Harper can’t go much further without making the institution dysfunctional. He is trying to control every aspect of House business. In fact, it will have to be returned to its former state by someone if we are to have a democracy.” - Peter Milliken (speaker of the house)

“Canadians are sleepwalking through dramatic social, economic and political changes surreptitiously being implemented by a government abusing omnibus bills and stifling public and parliamentary debate.

Mr. Harper has not played within the rules. Having attained absolute power, he has absolutely abused that power to the maximum." - Robert Marleau (former Information Commissioner)

[Shady]

Using the term absolute power significantly cheapens what absolute power actually is. Just more intellectual dishonesty.

[ReeferMadness]

Just like Harper and Flanagan back in the 90's, cons are now calling for PR and the rebirth of a party like the Reform, dedicated to grassroots, conservative principles. Mulroney, was the corrupt figurehead that motivated a young Steve to create change. Now, Harper has become that highbinder for a new generation of conservatives seeking democracy and bottom up representation.

It's always the way it is. People who don't feel represented demand PR so that they can have some representation. And when those same people find themselves the beneficiary of the system they decried as unfair and dysfunctional, they magically forget the concerns they previously had.

A good example is the NDP. Where they are weak, they call for PR. Where they are strong and form government, they don't. In fact, during the last PR referendum in BC, it was a couple of NDP backroom boys who headed up the no campaign. The yes campaign tried to run a positive, educational campaign. The no campaign went with a negative, election-style campaign with attack ads against PR and the type of PR that was chosen by the citizens committee that made the recommendation. The result was as expected.

I personally attended a session where a senior NDP representative stood up and told the crowd that he didn't want PR because he felt that BC was a centre-right province and he thought that PR would produce a nothing but centre-right coalition governments. So, he would rather be in a position where the NDP wins maybe 20% of the elections than have PR. That is so cynical and part of the reason I never vote NDP is I think it is how the party thinks. If you believe in democracy, you should be willing to make your case to change peoples thinking instead of relying on a system to give you a majority you don't deserve.

And this is far from the only example of Harper the hypocrite. People have gone back and collected quotes from his time in the NCC. This is a guy who should never have been PM.

[ReeferMadness]

Using the term absolute power significantly cheapens what absolute power actually is. Just more intellectual dishonesty.

It's not far from wrong. The opposition can do little to prevent bad legislation particularly with the government writing enormous bills and then allowing little time for debate The Duffy scandal has proven that the senate is effectively under the thumb of the PMO. The PMO has effectively neutralized the press by refusing to talk to them. Harper is not a guy who encourages dissenting opinion. He's really not a guy who believes in democracy, frankly. He'd make a much better dictator.

The real opposition is the public but it is a sleeping giant. Harper has been careful to not move too far too quickly so he doesn't awaken the giant. Fortunately for him, most people care more about hockey than their country.

And by denying access to the press, Harper is blunting the ability of the press to hold him accountable.

Edited August 20, 2015 by ReeferMadness

[ReeferMadness]

Unfortunately for the small-c's Harper hijacked Manning's democratically based, grassroots Reform movement and turned it into what the CPC is now; almost the exact opposite. That's why conservatives are now starting to pursue the creation of new right wing options and are calling for PR. Deja vu all over again.

True dat.

The question is whether there is enough of the old idealistic movement left to get anything going. It seems like the people with integrity (like Clark and Manning) are the old timers.

[Mighty AC]

he question is whether there is enough of the old idealistic movement left to get anything going. It seems like the people with integrity (like Clark and Manning) are the old timers.

I don't know how anyone with a conscience could support the CPC. Sure it may mean abstaining, rather than voting for an ideological incompatible party, but I think most principled people would rather spoil a ballot than support a leader proven to be corrupt.

NP writer John Robson is demanding better options. I hope he and others help to rebuild a credible right of centre party. His scathing remarks are right on the money:

"Elections are such infuriating spectacles that sometimes one doesn’t know which obscenity to utter first. But I’ve decided to aim my initial outburst at the Harper Tories.

I cannot vote for them. I just can’t. They should be my natural choice but their coarse, vindictive, proudly unprincipled cynicism must not be rewarded with electoral success, regardless of the consequences."

"Power has corrupted [Harper]and his party. I wrote nearly two years ago that Harper is unfit for office because he lied to Parliament over the Wright-Duffy affair, insolently telling incompatible tales five days apart in October 2013, and lying about having contradicted himself.

Instead of recoiling from this cynical deceit, his party enthusiastically embraced it. If they think him worthy of public trust, they aren’t either."

"It doesn’t matter where you look. The Tories talk tough in foreign affairs and praise the military. But they gut defence to fund cynical handouts. They rope in the rubes by feigning concern about traditional marriage, abortion and God. But they do nothing. "

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-robson-i-cant-vote-for-the-harper-conservatives-i-just-cant

[Shady]

I suggest you don't vote for them then.

[Argus]

So?

Harper was a pissed-off young man.... when he and Tom proposed that PR might be a path to Conservative power, or.... as they wrote it:

The attraction for Harper and Flanagan then was that the Tories had been out of power for a long time and they figured PR would help get them power. That is the same attraction for the NDP and Liberals now.

I don't find the fact voters won't elect you to be a reason why we should change our election rules.

[Mighty AC]

I don't find the fact voters won't elect you to be a reason why we should change our election rules.

No...but there is a call for PR from righties, despite their side (though a corrupt, anti-democratic version) is still in power. That's huge.

I am just pleased that factions on the left and right want PR at the same time. This could happen. Imagine every vote being equal, regardless of how your neighbour leans politically.

[ReeferMadness]

The attraction for Harper and Flanagan then was that the Tories had been out of power for a long time and they figured PR would help get them power. That is the same attraction for the NDP and Liberals now.

I don't find the fact voters won't elect you to be a reason why we should change our election rules.

You're right. The reason that we should change the election rules is that the current ones fail to produce governments that properly represent the views of the population. In representative democracy, the purpose of an election shouldn't be to pick an ideological winner that makes the rest of the population miserable for 4 years. It should be to pick representative government.

[Argus]

No...but there is a call for PR from righties, despite their side (though a corrupt, anti-democratic version) is still in power. That's huge.

I am just pleased that factions on the left and right want PR at the same time. This could happen. Imagine every vote being equal, regardless of how your neighbour leans politically.

Yes, a chance to vote in a new election every year and a half. Yay. Politicians scrambling behind closed doors to make deals with other parties. Coalitions breaking up. Every party leader desperately offering expensive goodies in hopes of winning an extra percentage of support. And we'll get both a Muslim party, and an anti-Immigrant party in the same parliament. Should be interesting. Will the anti-abortion party work with both?

[Argus]

You're right. The reason that we should change the election rules is that the current ones fail to produce governments that properly represent the views of the population.

The population are morons. If we properly represented their views then 22% of MPs would have to believe Elvis was alive.

[Mighty AC]

Yes, a chance to vote in a new election every year and a half. Yay. Politicians scrambling behind closed doors to make deals with other parties. Coalitions breaking up. Every party leader desperately offering expensive goodies in hopes of winning an extra percentage of support. And we'll get both a Muslim party, and an anti-Immigrant party in the same parliament. Should be interesting. Will the anti-abortion party work with both?

Seems you are unfamiliar with how a proportional parliament could work. It wouldn't be like a minority parliament in our current system. For example, the opposition probably wouldn't have the ability to topple the government like they do now.

When the make up of parliament mirrors how people actually vote, then popular ideas, supported by a true majority of Canadians pass quickly and less popular ideas are haggled over. That's how politics should work.

Also there would have to be a significant percentage of the population backing a party before they would have any power. So, I doubt we would see a party anymore anti-immigrant than the CPC currently is.

[Mighty AC]

The population are morons. If we properly represented their views then 22% of MPs would have to believe Elvis was alive.

I find it funny that:

1) your support for FPTP hinges on actually wanting to distort the vote

2) that as a Christian you think belief in a living Elvis is somehow ridiculous. Hey pot...you know the rest.

Wait, as a con you might not. To you the start of the phrase 'Hey pot' might be followed by ', we'd better throw the book and mandatory sentences at that guy for possessing it.' That's a little outdated and authoritarian, concepts Boomers once railed on about. Anyway, the phrase is 'Hey pot, kettle called.'

Come mothers and fathers

Throughout the land

And don't criticize

What you can't understand

Your sons and your daughters

Are beyond your command

Your old road is

Rapidly agin'

Please get out of the new one

If you can't lend your hand

For the times they are a-changin'.

[TimG]

Seems you are unfamiliar with how a proportional parliament could work. It wouldn't be like a minority parliament in our current system. For example, the opposition probably wouldn't have the ability to topple the government like they do now.

So you expect the entire system to be rebuilt from scratch? The ability to defeat the government on a money bill is baked into the system and cannot be removed with consequences.

When the make up of parliament mirrors how people actually vote, then popular ideas, supported by a true majority of Canadians pass quickly and less popular ideas are haggled over. That's how politics should work.

That is not how it will work. What it will mean in practice no hard decisions will ever get made which will ensure the country will gradually stagnant under the endless streams of goodies handed out to minority parties that represent a fraction of voting electorate.

Also there would have to be a significant percentage of the population backing a party before they would have any power. So, I doubt we would see a party anymore anti-immigrant than the CPC currently is.

Again not true. An anti-immigrant party would only need 5% of the vote to be able to influence laws. Edited August 20, 2015 by TimG

[TimG]

your support for FPTP hinges on actually wanting to distort the vote

Your problem is you are obsessed with numbers and think representing the populace exactly is important when it is not. The real objective of voting is to select an effective and accountable government. You can't do that with PR systems. Edited August 20, 2015 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

Your problem is you are obsessed with numbers and think representing the populace exactly is important when it is not. The real objective of voting is to select an effective and accountable government. You can't do that with PR systems.

Do we have accountable government now? How about in the previous administration?

Why would electing a parliament that actually reflects how Canadians vote produce results that are somehow less accountable?

[cybercoma]

LOL @ erosion of democracy! #OnlineCrazy

#HarperDerangement LULZ!

[Icebound]

The real objective of voting is to select an effective and accountable government. You can't do that with PR systems.

That is exactly what you CAN do with PR systems. To govern, it will require "reasonable" policies, because there will be no support in the Chamber for those policies which the more extreme segments of the party might want.

[TimG]

Do we have accountable government now? How about in the previous administration?

Yep. The Conservatives are being held to account for their choices right now. As were the Liberals before them. With PR blame for bad decisions would never rest with a single party - blame will be distributed which means voters would not be able to hold those politicians to account.

Lets put it this way: every economist agrees that the GST is good policy but there is no way that policy would have passed a minority parliament. It took a majority willing to make the tough decisions. The fact that GST still exists shows it was the right decision.