On changing how Canadians vote

[dre]

Canada is far more than a voting system.

No no... If a more representative electoral system is implemented, we'll all be high on crack and sodomizing each other in the streets.

Well... except for the people that are DEAD. They wont be. And that will be most people.

ROFLMAO @ PIK.

Edited May 13, 2016 by dre

[dre]

Canada is not Europe. Britain made the mistake of joining Euroe and is now looking for a way out. Why should Canada leap from the frying pan into the fire?

Sweet! A post that has absolutely no relevance to either the thread or the post you're replying to.

Nicely done.

[OddSox]

What happened in Ontario and B.C.? No wonder the Globe editorial, which clearly favours the status quo, wants a process that guarantees their own preference.

So you're saying the Canadian people are too stupid to vote the right (your) way?

[overthere]

yes, pointing out the absence of a referendum for the Harper Conservatives 'Unfair Elections Act' is a most inconvenient truth for you. Perhaps the Liberals should have brought it forward buried in a Harper Conservative-like Omnibus bill, hey!

why yes, I did PVR the issues panel on the National last night and just watched it while chowing down my Capn'Crunch this morning! Seems to me the panel acknowledged change was needed... with Coyne also satisfying his Godfrey Postmedia overlord's anti-Liberal sentiments. I do believe Hebert spoke to an earlier point I made highlighting referendums typically result in the status-quo being returned. Must be why Rona/CPC proponents are so for it, hey! I do believe Hebert also laid out a path where she's calling for a more publicized/definitive statement of party positioning - considering 2 other party leaders, May and Mulcair, have both called for electoral reform... and neither have called for a referendum...

.

Yes, I mentioned that Trudeau might bribe the NDP into supporting him- they are a bit vulnerable after all and open to offers. But how is lame duck Tom going to sell this to his party? What bribe can Trudeau offer that is not as transparent as his reasons for wanting ranked ballots, and wanting them right now?

I get that you hate Coyne, he has switched from savaging Harper to chowing down on Trudeaus ass- and this is starting to grow exponentially into a big, big mistake for Justin..

The status quo returning? You're just parrotting LIberal talking points again. FPTP is not on the Lib list of flavours, neither is proprep. It is a lsit on One: ranked ballots. Stop pretending otherwise. Trudeau Jr could likely buy Mulcair with a promise of proprep, but that ain't gonna happen. There is no way the Liberals would accept a system that puts them into minority- and reliant on the NDP.

Tough day, eh Waldo? Just ever so briefly, the sheep have looked up. Trydeau was hoping that would not happen.

Edited May 13, 2016 by overthere

[?Impact]

So you're saying the Canadian people are too stupid to vote the right (your) way?

No, I am saying the Ontario did a terrible job of educating the public. I expect BC was the same, but I wasn't there at the time. People are not 'stupid', they just don't have background on the topic or for that matter the commitment. We elect representatives to, hopefully, be educated on the issues and make proper decisions. Are you promoting direct democracy, or just on the issues that you want?

[The_Squid]

No, I am saying the Ontario did a terrible job of educating the public. I expect BC was the same, but I wasn't there at the time. People are not 'stupid', they just don't have background on the topic or for that matter the commitment. We elect representatives to, hopefully, be educated on the issues and make proper decisions. Are you promoting direct democracy, or just on the issues that you want?

BC voted 58% in favour of changing the system. BC gov't said it needed 60% for change. It was a farce.

[overthere]

BC voted 58% in favour of changing the system. BC gov't said it needed 60% for change. It was a farce.

But 39% is acceptable today?

[The_Squid]

There are no rules about when to use referenda in Canada. It has only been used twice; once for prohibition and once for the Meech Lake Accord.

The 1982 Constitution Act didn't need a referendum. Harper never once thought about using referenda for any of his legislation. It doesn't need a referendum in this case either.

[The_Squid]

But 39% is acceptable today?

Referenda aren't necessary for a government to pass legislation. Never has been.

[segnosaur]

There are no rules about when to use referenda in Canada. It has only been used twice; once for prohibition and once for the Meech Lake Accord.

The 1982 Constitution Act didn't need a referendum. Harper never once thought about using referenda for any of his legislation. It doesn't need a referendum in this case either.

Legally they may not need a referendum. However, given the fact that this is such a major change to the way our leaders are selected (and ultimately our country is run) then morally they should hold a referendum.

As for the constitution act... perhaps it should have been put to a vote.

And as for Harper's legislation... Nothing he did had anywhere near the scale to affect Canada into the future as changing the election system.

more open and fair" does not imply holding referenda.

It also doesn't mean "rig the system to be self serving and give your party an electoral advantage for generations to come based on the thin veneer of "the subject was mentioned in the Liberal Platform".

Referenda were never in the Liberal platform as far as I am aware.

No they weren't. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be used here.

They also didn't specify that they wouldn't use a referendum, so its not like using a referendum would be breaking a promise.

Why didn't the CPC gov't hold a referendum on their electoral bill?

Because the conservative changes were relatively minor compared to what the Liberals are proposing.. There may have been flaws in things like the Fair Elections act", but they don't seem to have the ability to change election results for generations to come, as would a change to ranked ballots or proportional representation would.

A referendum also wouldn't work well for complex questions like this. The nature of this type of legislative change makes a referendum essentially useless.

Actually a referendum would actually be pretty easy... "Do you want to change our current election system to X. Yes or No".

And if your argument is "Understanding the options is too complex", then what does that say about how people can handle the elections in the future? If the options are too complex for people to understand during a referendum, then we may end up saddled with a voting system that people can't understand come election time.

Edited May 13, 2016 by segnosaur

[overthere]

Referenda aren't necessary for a government to pass legislation. Never has been.

You were the one complaining that 58% was too high, but applaud all and any measures passed by a government with 39% of the vote.

Sorry, that is unfair to you: you applaud all measures by a Liberal government passed at any level, and condemn all measures passed by a Conservative govt.

[overthere]

There are no rules about when to use referenda in Canada. It has only been used twice; once for prohibition and once for the Meech Lake Accord.

The 1982 Constitution Act didn't need a referendum. Harper never once thought about using referenda for any of his legislation. It doesn't need a referendum in this case either.

The 1982 CA had the support of 9 provinces and all the federal parties.

The Meech Lake Accord had the support of all the federal parties.

The current topic has all the support of you, your pals, and the Liberal Party of Canada. PASS IT!!!!!

[Argus]

more open and fair" does not imply holding referenda.

Referenda were never in the Liberal platform as far as I am aware. Why didn't the CPC gov't hold a referendum on their electoral bill?

A referendum also wouldn't work well for complex questions like this. The nature of this type of legislative change makes a referendum essentially useless.

You don't think Canadians should have the right to decide how their elections should work?

The Liberals are contemplating the most sweeping change in how Canadians elect MPs since confederation, with enormous consequences. They are doing so allegedly because the current system does not produce government properly reflective of the will of the people, yet at the same time are using the mandate they obtained from the current system to say they have the right make such changes on behalf of the people. Canadians are smart enough to see that as crap. They are also going to want a say, and if the Liberals refuse there is going to be a hell of a storm as people see it as an anti-democratic power grab, and the Liberals are going to take a hell of a hit, and will, in the end, have no choice but to offer a referendum.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

No no... If a more representative electoral system is implemented, we'll all be high on crack and sodomizing each other in the streets.

Well... except for the people that are DEAD. They wont be. And that will be most people.

ROFLMAO @ PIK.

So you're desperate for a system that is representative of the people's will but horrified at the prospect of letting the people vote on that system. Have I got that right?

[SpankyMcFarland]

A very basic criterion in a fair system would be that the percentage of seats gained would closely resemble the percentage of votes cast. Our 1993 federal election was a particularly egregious example of FPTP's shortcomings in this regard. A second desirable would be having multiple seats in a riding so that smaller parties would not be automatically excluded. Under the current system in many ridings the result is a foregone conclusion. STV with multi-seat constituencies would produce something close to this without a list system and would also allow choice within parties so that unsuitable candidates could not be foisted on the public.

However, in any process to change the system, all parties should be represented, none should have a majority and any proposal should be put to a referendum. I deeply dislike FPTP but it should be up to ordinary Canadians to decide if they want to change it.

[waldo]

What bribe can Trudeau offer that is not as transparent as his reasons for wanting ranked ballots, and wanting them right now?

again! You and at least 2 other MLW members keep talking up the Liberals/Trudeau as favouring/wanting/positioning/etc., for a 'ranked ballots' alternative. As I've done now repeatedly, I'll keep asking for citation to that end - citation please! Hey maybe its the case and I've missed it... dazzle me with your googly prowess, yes?

.

I get that you hate Coyne, he has switched from savaging Harper to chowing down on Trudeaus ass.

Coyne has always been a job protecting azz-kisser. No worries - Godfrey is watching his Postmedia empire vapourize and Coyne is simply pouring on the gas!

.

Tough day, eh Waldo? Just ever so briefly, the sheep have looked up. Trydeau was hoping that would not happen.

you keep talking about some... ''tough day". This is small potatoes, less than navel lint... or mice-nuts. Wake me up when Rona leads her troops on the cross-country rally screeching about "stealing democracy" - you know, just like they did under the threat of a possible Coalition government. Shyte, they're well practiced already; just dust off the playbook, hey!

.

[dre]

So you're desperate for a system that is representative of the people's will but horrified at the prospect of letting the people vote on that system. Have I got that right?

I never expressed any opinion on a referendum at all.

In any case there wont be one, because our current system (as usual) has given one party absolute power even with a minority of the vote. So we will get what the liberals want us to get.

[jbg]

I never expressed any opinion on a referendum at all.

In any case there wont be one, because our current system (as usual) has given one party absolute power even with a minority of the vote. So we will get what the liberals want us to get.

I think any changes in systems of voting should be put to either a super-majority (as in the U.S. where 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 75% of states have to agreed, but Senate conditions may not be amendable at all) or in Canada a referendum. The reason for requiring a referendum in Canada is that whipped voting makes super-majority provisions almost meaningless.

[andromeda]

I never expressed any opinion on a referendum at all.

In any case there wont be one, because our current system (as usual) has given one party absolute power even with a minority of the vote. So we will get what the liberals want us to get.

we will get what the liberals want us to get for a little while.... at least until the next election and their actions come under review. then the voters will decide whether this is a government that can be trusted with another 4 years. this is hardly 'absolute power' or anything close to it.

Edited May 14, 2016 by andromeda

[jbg]

we will get what the liberals want us to get for a little while.... at least until the next election and their actions come under review. then the voters will decide whether this is a government that can be trusted with another 4 years. this is hardly 'absolute power' or anything close to it.

Unless they can rejigger the voting system so the Conservatives can never win.

[Smallc]

Unless they can rejigger the voting system so the Conservatives can never win.

Has anyone proposed that?

[segnosaur]

Unless they can rejigger the voting system so the Conservatives can never win.

Has anyone proposed that?

No, but the main proposals that seem to be discussed (ranked ballot and proportional representation) make it less likely that the conservatives would ever win. (At least not with the way our political system has evolved.)

A system can be unfair (i.e. making it almost impossible for a certain party to gain power) without making it completely impossible to gain power.

[Smallc]

Then they'll need to adjust. A party doesn't have a right to win - especially if it's based on what many see as a flawed system.

[segnosaur]

we will get what the liberals want us to get for a little while.... at least until the next election and their actions come under review. then the voters will decide whether this is a government that can be trusted with another 4 years. this is hardly 'absolute power' or anything close to it.

But if the system they select (such as ranked ballots) gives them an advantage during elections, then they may end up maintaining power not because they deserve it, but because the system they put in place helps them. And in that case, why would they bother making any changes? (After all, they can still claim that voters have given their approval since, hey, they got elected under the new rules.)

And a voting system doesn't necessarily have to given any party "absolute power" to be unfair. Something that may sway even a significant number of elections (or even a significant number of ridings in one election) should be avoided.

[segnosaur]

Then they'll need to adjust.

Not sure what exactly you think they would need to do to "adjust'.

If your dealing with ranked ballots, the Liberals are in the political center, which makes them the most likely alternate vote, giving them an advantage. The only way that the conservatives or NDP would not have a disadvantage is for them to give up any sort of policies they have that make them different from one another.

A party doesn't have a right to win...

Nobody claimed they did. But no party should be at a disadvantage.

- especially if it's based on what many see as a flawed system.

Yup, first past the post is flawed. But so is Proportional Representation and Ranked Ballots (and probably every other alternative). So you're just replacing one flawed system with another.

At the very least, if Canada is going to do that, there should at least be a referendum on the issue.