On changing how Canadians vote

[TimG]

The federal government is supposed to deal with federal issues, not local issues.

Local representation has nothing do with local issues. It is about ensuring the concerns of your region are adequately communicated to the federal government. In a large country like Canada such regional representation is essential.

[TimG]

Example A.) Conservatives against large deficits, NDPs against large deficits, and Liberals for large deficits. Under this proposal Liberals need to compromise

Example B.) Both NDP and Liberals for some social thing, bill passes

Except parties are don't win elections by co-operating with the government. This means the main rivals for government (the Liberals and Conservatives) will never co-operate which means we have government ruled by the whims of the smaller parties. It is the complete anti-thesis of democracy.

If the imaginary world you propose existed where the major parties regularly collaborated then I would no issue with PR. But that is an imaginary world.

Edited May 20, 2016 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

Except parties are don't win elections by co-operating with the government. This means the main rivals for government (the Liberals and Conservatives) will never co-operate

It only appears that way because they are used to the winner-take-all first-past-the-post system. Implement a proportional system and parties will start to cooperate very quickly, like they do in other countries.

[Martin Chriton]

Local representation has nothing do with local issues. It is about ensuring the concerns of your region are adequately communicated to the federal government. In a large country like Canada such regional representation is essential.

Sure, do this with the senate or a combination of PR and another scheme.

Except parties are don't win elections by co-operating with the government. This means the main rivals for government (the Liberals and Conservatives) will never co-operate which means we have government ruled by the whims of the smaller parties. It is the complete anti-thesis of democracy.

If the imaginary world you propose existed where the major parties regularly collaborated then I would no issue with PR. But that is an imaginary world.

Valid concerns, however, today they're always campaigning with hopes of winning a majority, with what I suggest neither of them would likely ever get a majority again. Further, if they can't collaborate I'd be glad to put on the breaks and avoid all the damage that Justin and Wynne are doing.

I don't also don't believe any change should be made without a referendum. I don't believe what we have now is perfect but it's much better than what I've heard that Liberal's are thinking.

[TimG]

It only appears that way because they are used to the winner-take-all first-past-the-post system. Implement a proportional system and parties will start to cooperate very quickly, like they do in other countries.

In other countries "Grand Coalitions" are rare and only occur when the minority parties are too extreme to deal with. In PR systems coalitions are usually formed between the 1st place party and the 3rd or 4th party because the 2nd place party needs to position itself as an alternative government and it can't do that if it is collaborating. No system can change this because that is the nature of politics/marketing. The net result is PR means fringe views have way too much influence on policy. Edited May 20, 2016 by TimG

[jacee]

In other countries "Grand Coalitions" are rare and only occur when the minority parties are too extreme to deal with. In PR systems coalitions are usually formed between the 1st place party and the 3rd or 4th party because the 2nd place party needs to position itself as an alternative government and it can't do that if it is collaborating. No system can change this because that is the nature of politics/marketing. The net result is PR means fringe views have way too much influence on policy.

Examples please?

It seems to me we could all benefit from shaking up the system a bit, so it becomes less about entrenched partisan politics (and party connections, financing and payoffs) and more about good governance.

.

[TimG]

It seems to me we could all benefit from shaking up the system a bit, so it becomes less about entrenched partisan politics (and party connections, financing and payoffs) and more about good governance.

.

We can get good governance from the current system. If we don't it is because politicians are constantly trying to market themselves to the voters and the voters don't reward compromise and good governance. They reward partisan pandering and showmanship. PR would only make this worse because small parties will only need to cater to a narrow slice of the electorate to have power and they will need to keep that narrow slice happy with policies that few other people want.

[SpankyMcFarland]

In other countries "Grand Coalitions" are rare and only occur when the minority parties are too extreme to deal with. In PR systems coalitions are usually formed between the 1st place party and the 3rd or 4th party because the 2nd place party needs to position itself as an alternative government and it can't do that if it is collaborating. No system can change this because that is the nature of politics/marketing. The net result is PR means fringe views have way too much influence on policy.

PR generally means that a government is backed by a majority of voters in the country, something that hasn't happened in Canada in a long time. Shoddy deals can be made with Independents but generally you get a centrist government based on compromise. Ireland has been a good example of this. A right wing party and a left wing party formed a coalition that has managed to navigate the country out of its worst financial crisis ever. This may inhibit radical change which is a mixed blessing anyway.

Edited May 20, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland

[Argus]

Except parties are don't win elections by co-operating with the government. This means the main rivals for government (the Liberals and Conservatives) will never co-operate which means we have government ruled by the whims of the smaller parties. It is the complete anti-thesis of democracy.

Look to Israel for this sort of thing, where today the Israeli defense minister resigned because the government is desperate to bring a small hardline party with just 6 members into its ranks. The new defense ministers is likely to be a fanatic from this group. In the normal course of a events such a person would have no chance of power in a western country, but the multitude of parties in Israel and how hard it is to get a majority of them together allows for strange things to happen and allows laws opposed by the majority to pass.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israels-defense-minister-abruptly-resigns-in-protest-of-growing-extremism/2016/05/20/c5a3d99b-bc00-4143-a4e7-15c17c9ae05d_story.html

Edited May 20, 2016 by Argus

[TimG]

PR generally means that a government is backed by a majority of voters in the country, something that hasn't happened in Canada in a long time.

Except this line of thinking is nonsense. You don't measure who people 'support a government' just because someone voted for a party one day once every four years. Once elected governments represent all Canadians and if we are choosing a government we want a system that encourages parties to focus on the middle instead of the extremes because that type of government will truly represent the interests of the majority. PR simply encourages extreme parties and policies. Edited May 20, 2016 by TimG

[poochy]

I say we throw all the candidates names in a hat, pick names until the seats are full, the last chosen to also be PM, it will be as effective as most of the proposed new, because we can't have conservative governments anymore, systems.

[jacee]

We can get good governance from the current system. If we don't it is because politicians are constantly trying to market themselves to the voters and the voters don't reward compromise and good governance. They reward partisan pandering and showmanship.

That's a really good description of the distortions of democracy that occur in our current FirstPastThePost system, all good reasons to update to a more responsive system that better serves the people instead of the parties and their financial backers.

PR would only make this worse because small parties will only need to cater to a narrow slice of the electorate to have power and they will need to keep that narrow slice happy with policies that few other people want.

They'll get some power, if they cooperate with others. But no one party will get four years of absolute power without even a simple majority of the votes as they do now with the fake majorities that occur with FPTP.

.

Edited May 20, 2016 by jacee

[TimG]

That's a really good description of the distortions of democracy that occur in our current FirstPastThePost system

Except that is fantasy you created. That is the nature of politics no matter what the system and the FPTP system has the virtue is it leaves parties without any excuses if they fail to deliver. This, in turn, leads to greater accountability than in any system where no decision can be made without buying votes other other parties.

But no one party will get four years of absolute power

Absolute power = no excuses = accountability. This is a good thing. If we are shareholders in a corporation we hire a CEO to do a job and let her do for a period of time. If, after that period of time has elapsed, we decide we are not satisfied with the performance then the CEO is fired. There is no need for the CEO to seek approval for every decision made in the meantime.

BTW: no party ever has absolute power. They are limited by the courts and the constitution. The are limited by the GG and they are even limited by their own MPs who could stage a revolt at any time. But most importantly they are limited because they want to be re-elected in 4 years.

Edited May 20, 2016 by TimG

[eyeball]

Look to Israel for this sort of thing,...

...the multitude of parties in Israel and how hard it is to get a majority of them together allows for strange things to happen and allows laws opposed by the majority to pass.

Hah...here I was imagining it was the result of living in the middle of a failing region that did that. Go figure.

[jacee]

Absolute power = no excuses = accountability.

Ah!

So I'll just put you in the 'I'm opposed to democracy' category.

.

[TimG]

So I'll just put you in the 'I'm opposed to democracy' category.

Democracy is a requirement and any time we elect a government it has a maximum lifetime before another election must be called. The same would be true in a PR system where coalitions will be formed which would have absolute power for 4 years. The only real difference is in our current system parties that cater to the middle of spectrum are preferred. Under PR, parties that pander to the extremes or single issues are given way too much power. That kind of system is much less democratic. Edited May 21, 2016 by TimG

[Argus]

Ah!

So I'll just put you in the 'I'm opposed to democracy' category.

.

Aren't you on the side which is opposed to a referendum to let people decide on any new system?

[jacee]

Democracy is a requirement and any time we elect a government it has a maximum lifetime before another election must be called. The same would be true in a PR system where coalitions will be formed which would have absolute power for 4 years. The only real difference is in our current system parties that cater to the middle of spectrum are preferred. Under PR, parties that pander to the extremes or single issues are given way too much power. That kind of system is much less democratic.

Nonsense.

PR just means that the democratic choices of Canadians are more accurately represented in government.

It also means that the two entrenched major parties have to do business differently and pay more attention to the wishes of the electorate instead of the party brass and financial 'interests'.

I think that's the major advantage of PR, shaking loose the control on government and our country of longstanding corporate 'financial interests'.

.

[jacee]

Aren't you on the side which is opposed to a referendum to let people decide on any new system?

I'm not a fan of referenda that are in the control of governments. The process is too easily distorted and manipulated to government advantage. (EG, Ontario 'referendum' on PR)

I would be interested in referenda if they were the responsibility of an independent and nonpolitical agency.

.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Except this line of thinking is nonsense. You don't measure who people 'support a government' just because someone voted for a party one day once every four years. Once elected governments represent all Canadians and if we are choosing a government we want a system that encourages parties to focus on the middle instead of the extremes because that type of government will truly represent the interests of the majority. PR simply encourages extreme parties and policies.

PR does not necessarily do that. Again, look at the Irish example. The two centrist parties have been in power for nearly a hundred years. If anything, PR could be blamed for a centralizing tendency, forcing coalitions between parties with very different platforms. Coalitions are probably the biggest problem with PR.

Anyway, elections are a marketplace for ideas. Parties should be rewarded for giving people what they want, 'extremist' or otherwise. The main thing for me is that 40% or less of the electorate should not be calling the shots. The popular vote should matter.

FPTP only works well in a simple two party contest. Beyond that, it gives rise to weird results that greatly favour regional parties over small national ones. Look at the recent UK general election and compare UKIP against the SNP - ridiculous. I cannot see FPTP surviving in Britain if the races continue to be this complex. Look at our 1993 result that gave way too many seats to a separatist party confined to one province.

Anther nice thing about multi-seat STV is that it allows you to choose between candidates from the same party, so you are not forced to take some nutter the party wants. Furthermore, in multi-seat constituencies, it's actually worthwhile to vote even when one party is dominant because they will rarely win all the seats. In my constituency, there was no question at all that the Liberals would win. The Conservatives and NDP had grave difficulty finding somebody to run in what was a foregone conclusion. This is not good for democracy.

Edited May 21, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland

[TimG]

PR does not necessarily do that. Again, look at the Irish example.

I see your anecdote and raise: Look at the Israeli example where religious extremists have huge influence on the government.

It it is not enough to show that under some situations in some countries PR works OK. It is necessary to look at the risks that are inherent with PR.

More importantly, you have to establish that the current system is not providing good government and I don't believe you can. The only complaint that people have with the current system is:

1) Their pet party can't win power so they want to rig the game so their pet party has power;

2) The nonsense argument that a party in power only represents the interests of the people that voted for it;

I say 2 is a nonsense argument because party platforms overlap significantly and so if a centrist party is in charge there is a good chance the policies that they implement will be supported by a majority no matter who people voted for on election day.

Edited May 21, 2016 by TimG

[SpankyMcFarland]

I see your anecdote and raise: Look at the Israeli example where religious extremists have huge influence on the government.It it is not enough to show that under some situations in some countries PR works OK. It is necessary to look at the risks that are inherent with PR.More importantly, you have to establish that the current system is not providing good government and I don't believe you can. The only complaint that people have with the current system is:1) Their pet party can't win power so they want to rig the game so their pet party has power;2) The nonsense argument that a party in power only represents the interests of the people that voted for it;I say 2 is a nonsense argument because party platforms overlap significantly and so if a centrist party is in charge there is a good chance the policies that they implement will be supported by a majority no matter who people voted for on election day.

My 'pet party' won power so my argument is not motivated by such concerns.

Israel uses a party list system and is often quoted as an argument against PR but it is an outlier. The situation there is unique from many points of view. One of the things they could do is raise the threshold of national vote needed to get seats. Theirs is lower than many other countries with a party list system. How extreme and unstable have Latvia, Finland and Sweden been?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

Germany has also got a higher threshold for representation and its system has worked well by any standard.

Bottom line - our system has worked well enough but it could be improved.

Edited May 21, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

The nonsense argument that a party in power only represents the interests of the people that voted for it;I say 2 is a nonsense argument because party platforms overlap significantly and so if a centrist party is in charge there is a good chance the policies that they implement will be supported by a majority no matter who people voted for on election day.

Well, I suspect most people would subscribe to that 'nonsense argument'. The PM may represent all of us in theory and most of us in times of crisis, e.g. the fires in Alberta, but, in general, he or she is a partisan figure. Do I think the last government represented me on marijuana or safe Injection sites? Of course not and I am sure Conervatives feel the same way about the current lot.

[Argus]

Israel uses a party list system and is often quoted as an argument against PR but it is an outlier. The situation there is unique from many points of view. One of the things they could do is raise the threshold of national vote needed to get seats. Theirs is lower than many other countries with a party list system. How extreme and unstable have Latvia, Finland and Sweden been?

Proportional rep works best in homogeneous societies. Canada is not such a place. If you look at the voting habits of Canadian minorities you will note that, given the opportunity, they will almost always vote for their own kind. You can see it in riding after riding. We could, for example, have an aboriginal party (or several of them), which almost all the aboriginals would vote for, a Sikh party, a Muslim party, a Sri Lanka party, a Pakistani party, a Hindu party, a French party, a Chinese party, etc., all campaigning among their own people in their own language. We could wind up with a pizza parliament, a mini UN, with all the ethnic groups operating out of the same cultural tableau as their homelands. And instead of uniting us such a scenario would serve to magnify our differences and be a constant reminder to ethnic groups that they are "other".

Edited May 21, 2016 by Argus

[TimG]

Do I think the last government represented me on marijuana or safe Injection sites?

You can pick an choose particular policies but that misses the point since I was talking about platform. The most of legislation that the Conservatives passed was not inconsistent with the Liberal platform and it was not that different from the majority of people wanted. The main parties differ on symbolism but a PR system would exacerbate that problem as main parties are forced to cater to extremists. For example, the Conservatives refused to do anything on the abortion file because they knew it was only a concern to a minority of people. That would not be an option in a PR system where an anti-abortion party holds the votes needed to keep the government in power.

Of course, many on the left think that giving their equivalent of a right wing Christian evangelical party (the Greens) power is wonderful only because the can't imagine how they would feel if a similar party with values they fundamentally abhor had the same power.

Edited May 21, 2016 by TimG