Conservatives For PR?

[TimG]

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.

Nope. With PR you need policies that help the narrow interest groups that support the minor parties in parliament that are willing to support you. The current system forces parties to the center because that is the only way to get enough votes. With PR the system will be weighted to single issue parties with extreme views that can blackmail the centrist parties.

[Mighty AC]

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.

People would have far more power to hold politicians to account if their vote had the same value even if different from the majority of their immediate neighbours. Your comments make little sense.

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.

Conservative government finances were in such bad shape by the end that I expect it would have passed. On the positive, flip side the government would not be able to force legislation on the country with only 38% support.

[Argus]

Seems you are unfamiliar with how a proportional parliament could work.

I think you meant to say 'are very familiar with'

It wouldn't be like a minority parliament in our current system.

True. It would be worse.

For example, the opposition probably wouldn't have the ability to topple the government like they do now.

With a Prop rep there would never again be a majority. And in all likelihood, there would be numerous parties which means that an unstable coalition would have to be used to govern, one which would break up the instant one of the parties wasn't happy.

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.

The CPC which has the most immigrants of any party in the House, you mean?

Your view of reality remains bizarre in every way.

Any anti-Immigrant party would easily garner the support of enough people to form a party. So would an anti-abortion party. Mulcair has not stated, as far as I'm aware, how low he'd set the bar. In some prop rep countries, even 1% of the vote garners seats in parliament.

But let's say the bar is set at 5%. Both the two subjects I've mentioned would easily pass. We could also see ethnic groups. After all, while it's not spoken of a lot, it's well known that if there's a high percentage of a particular ethnic group in a riding, then the ethnic guy will win. That's why in some ridings you'll see three Sikh guys running against each other, or three Chinese guys, or three Tamils. Because all parties know they don't stand a chance if they don't run someone from that ethnic group. So we could have a Muslim party, a Chinese party, an Indian party -- actually two Indian parties since we'd also certainly have a native party

I doubt any of the above would have trouble garnering at least 5% of the vote except the Muslims for now. Their numbers won't reach 5% for another ten years or so.

[Argus]

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.

Nonsense. The governing coalition often has to make deals with smaller, single issue parties which insist on their issue (which is not supported by more than a fraction of the population) being catered to for their support. We see that happen in other countries all the time.

[Argus]

People would have far more power to hold politicians to account if their vote had the same value even if different from the majority of their immediate neighbours.

Not true. Most often in proportional rep the party has a slate of candidates, which are elected according to how many votes they get. These candidates are not responsible for any particular riding, nor do they care what that riding wants or thinks or says.

Conservative government finances were in such bad shape by the end that I expect it would have passed.

By whom? All other parties were opposed to it, largely for political reasons, I might add. Government finances were in bad shape when Joe Clark proposed a 7 cent a liter gas tax. The other parties knew this, and voted his party out of power anyway, loudly saying a gas tax would ruin the economy. A few months after they got in - with a majority, the Liberals imposed a gas tax which was actually larger.

That's how politics works, kid.

[Mighty AC]

Not true. Most often in proportional rep the party has a slate of candidates, which are elected according to how many votes they get. These candidates are not responsible for any particular riding, nor do they care what that riding wants or thinks or says.

Currently, CPC MPs are not permitted to represent their own ridings. Again, ask Bill Casey about the Atlantic Accord and subsequent Harper attacks on Nova Scotia towns.

Anyway, the Mixed Member Proportionals system that was voted for by a majority of BC residents but didn't get installed still has geographical ridings. The system can be setup to fill list MPs slots with the most supported candidates that didn't win their local riding. List MPs are then assigned to specific ridings afterwards.

By whom? All other parties were opposed to it, largely for political reasons, I might add. Government finances were in bad shape when Joe Clark proposed a 7 cent a liter gas tax. The other parties knew this, and voted his party out of power anyway, loudly saying a gas tax would ruin the economy. A few months after they got in - with a majority, the Liberals imposed a gas tax which was actually larger.

That's how politics works, kid.

That's how politics did work...but it doesn't have to...old man. With little chance for majority governments the game changes and politicians work together on more issues.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Mighty AC

[Mighty AC]

But let's say the bar is set at 5%. Both the two subjects I've mentioned would easily pass. We could also see ethnic groups. After all, while it's not spoken of a lot, it's well known that if there's a high percentage of a particular ethnic group in a riding, then the ethnic guy will win. That's why in some ridings you'll see three Sikh guys running against each other, or three Chinese guys, or three Tamils. Because all parties know they don't stand a chance if they don't run someone from that ethnic group. So we could have a Muslim party, a Chinese party, an Indian party -- actually two Indian parties since we'd also certainly have a native party

I doubt any of the above would have trouble garnering at least 5% of the vote except the Muslims for now. Their numbers won't reach 5% for another ten years or so.

Every time PR is discussed those whose political interests benefit from false majorities like to trot out the idea that somehow popular centrist parties would have little power, despite more seats, yet barely supported fringe parties would run the show. Your particular aged, conservatism shows when you chose to illustrate it with the fear of different cultures.

Try this quick and simple Canadian political quiz to see how many of your views are actually supported by other parties. There is a tonne of overlap for parties to work together on.

http://canada.isidewith.com/political-quiz

[TimG]

Every time PR is discussed those whose political interests benefit from false majorities like to trot out the idea that somehow popular centrist parties would have little power, despite more seats, yet barely supported fringe parties would run the show.

You seem to miss the point. The larger parties would obviously pass most legislation but to get their legislation passed they would always have to bundle it measures that various fringe parties want. This means that fringe parties would have outsize influence. This occurs because the two largest parties *never* co-operate because they are rivals and co-operation means death. So to get legislation passed a party has to turn to the small single issue parties. You really need to get out of your fantasy world and think about how the system would work in practice and in practice PR is tyranny of the fringe minority. Edited August 21, 2015 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

You seem to miss the point. The larger parties would obviously pass most legislation but to get their legislation passed they would always have to bundle it measures that various fringe parties want. This means that fringe parties would have outsize influence. This occurs because the two largest parties *never* co-operate because they are rivals and co-operation means death. So to get legislation passed a party has to turn to the small single issue parties. You really need to get out of your fantasy world and think about how the system would work in practice and in practice PR is tyranny of the fringe minority.

Not at all, without the chance of winning majority status parties do not simply oppose simply to oppose. Cooperation means death now, but the will of voters becomes more important under PR. Government beholden to the people is a good thing; 'our benign dictatorship' is not.

Fewer bills are bundled together, especially if much needed legislation preventing omnibus bills, like JT has proposed is in place. Cons, Libs and Greens agree on several economic and law issues. Libs, Dips and Greens agree on most environmental issues. Popular ideas pass easily, contentious ones do not and may requiring haggling or dealing.

A bill haggled over and amended to obtain majority support is likely better legislation than one crafted simply by party with absolute power.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Mighty AC

[ReeferMadness]

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

If you believe in democracy, then the way to correct this would be to do a better job of educating people. And have a political system that does a better job of engaging people.

If you don't believe in democracy, just keep voting for Harper.

[poochy]

That's how politics did work...but it doesn't have to...old man. With little chance for majority governments the game changes and politicians work together on more issues.

I wonder how many times someone has said that, I know it's the progressive thing to think that all things new and different must somehow be better, but no, that isnt true. You live in one of the best countries in the world, and it's not debatable, but no, not good enough for you, might be good enough for 90% of the population, but, lets risk that, lets fix what isnt broken. You have an unrealistic view of the world, it isn't surprising that you are attracted to JT's politics, they are going after the young, naive voter. There is no perfect world or system and this great country proves your desire for PR wrong every day.

[Mighty AC]

I wonder how many times someone has said that, I know it's the progressive thing to think that all things new and different must somehow be better, but no, that isnt true. You live in one of the best countries in the world, and it's not debatable, but no, not good enough for you, might be good enough for 90% of the population, but, lets risk that, lets fix what isnt broken. You have an unrealistic view of the world, it isn't surprising that you are attracted to JT's politics, they are going after the young, naive voter. There is no perfect world or system and this great country proves your desire for PR wrong every day.

I was going to say nice strawman, but it was quite pathetic actually. Government should be accountable to the people, there are better systems than FPTP at achieving that.

[Smallc]

I was going to say nice strawman, but it was quite pathetic actually. Government should be accountable to the people, there are better systems than FPTP at achieving that.

So you had nothing to refute what he said. You could have just said that.

[Icebound]

Nope. With PR you need policies that help the narrow interest groups that support the minor parties in parliament that are willing to support you. The current system forces parties to the center because that is the only way to get enough votes. With PR the system will be weighted to single issue parties with extreme views that can blackmail the centrist parties.

You say that, but serious students of PR find the opposite.

http://www.fairvote.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Why-Proportional-Representation.pdf

McDonald, Mendes and Budge (2004) looked at 254 elections producing 471

governments in 20 countries, with a major finding that:

...

Proportional systems created governments which better reflected the views of

the median voter

...

...

Carey and Hix (2009) also found that:

.

Countries with moderately proportional systems were less likely to have deficits

and more likely to have fiscal surpluses

Knutsen (2011) looked at 107 countries from 1820 to 2002 - 3710 country years and

found that:

.

Both proportional and semi-proportional systems produced higher economic

growth than plurality-majoritarian - "a strong, significant effect" (p.86)

[Mighty AC]

So you had nothing to refute what he said. You could have just said that.

What an odd comment. Do you really think poochy's premise which hinges on the idea that Canada is better than other places hence we should not improve, deserves a more detailed response? I think that ridiculous and lazy idea was adequately handled when I said "government should be accountable to the people, there are better systems than FPTP at achieving that."

Let's apply Poochy's ridiculous logic to other topics and see how it sounds. Why should we want cleaner air? Canadians breather cleaner air than most of the world's population. Why should we want better vaccines and medications? Canadians live longer than most of the world's population. Why should we want lower crime rates, higher incomes, improved quality of life, etc. etc. Shouldn't we always strive to improve?

The point of the story in the OP is that there is a growing faction of conservatives fed up with the corruption and bad government of Stephen Harper. They want something better and are calling for PR to help their small-c conservative values find representation. Thing is PR helps all voters achieve fair and equal representation.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Mighty AC

[Smallc]

A change in government could be a ) very dangerous, and b ) is not something that Canadians have chosen to support up to this point.

[Mighty AC]

A change in government could be a ) very dangerous, and b ) is not something that Canadians have chosen to support up to this point.

Well, it is a fairly new movement here and a majority did support it in BC. I'm hopeful that since we have growing factions on both the left and right demanding PR that it will happen sooner than later.

Why do you think that accurately representing how people vote in parliament could be dangerous?

[Icebound]

A change in government could be a ) very dangerous, and b ) is not something that Canadians have chosen to support up to this point.

Ah, good old-fashioned fear of change.

New Zealand changed over in1996 after a referendum, and re-confirmed with another referendum in 2011. They continue to tweak it, but there doesn't seem to be any significant reason to go back.

http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esy/esy_nz

[Smallc]

There doesn't seem to be any significant reason to change here, either. There are far more important things, like Senate reform.

[Mighty AC]

There doesn't seem to be any significant reason to change here, either.

Other than the fact that our electoral system doesn't produce the parliament Canadians vote for.

[TimG]

Other than the fact that our electoral system doesn't produce the parliament Canadians vote for.

And why is this a problem?

[poochy]

I was going to say nice strawman, but it was quite pathetic actually. Government should be accountable to the people, there are better systems than FPTP at achieving that.

Im currently basking in the light of your intelligent response...so cold, and btw, you don't know what a strawman is.

Edited August 21, 2015 by poochy

[poochy]

Ah, good old-fashioned fear of change.

New Zealand changed over in1996 after a referendum, and re-confirmed with another referendum in 2011. They continue to tweak it, but there doesn't seem to be any significant reason to go back.

http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esy/esy_nz

Yup, we sure do need change here, in maybe the best country in the world, the whole damn system needs changing. It's almost as if the system of government that we have now was developed over centuries and has worked pretty well considering the kind of country we live in. Mark my words, some of you are going to have to change the way you look at the world or spend you entire lives wondering why the big bad world just won't see things your way, why is it always keeping you down, you can trick yourselves into thinking you know something we don't but that won't help.

[Smallc]

Other than the fact that our electoral system doesn't produce the parliament Canadians vote for.

It never will barring direct democracy. You're simply trading one set of compromise for another. Our system has served us well. Don't fix what isn't broken or only needs small tweaks.

[poochy]

It never will barring direct democracy. You're simply trading one set of compromise for another. Our system has served us well. Don't fix what isn't broken or only needs small tweaks.

This seems to be a little too obvious, must be a scam to keep the little guy down.