On changing how Canadians vote

[jacee]

I think if we can reduce the extreme partisanship by providing more options, it encourages all of us to look more carefully at candidates and platforms.

And I like the possibility of electing people from different parties in multiseat ridings.

I also think that there should be a consultation/advisory process. I'm not comfortable at all with the party in power deciding this for us.

.

[SpankyMcFarland]

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.

Why not just have one party, then, and be done with it? That would do away with all these risks.

[jacee]

Why not just have one party, then, and be done with it? That would do away with all these risks.

One (autocrat) CEO for 4 years is TimG's plan.

Except the current one. Lol

.

[TimG]

Why not just have one party, then, and be done with it? That would do away with all these risks.

That does not follow from what I said. Democracy requires that governments change hands periodically so a change to the system that results in a perpetual Liberal government propped up by the Greens or the NDP would be among the worst possible outcomes for our democracy. Edited May 22, 2016 by TimG

[TimG]

Except the current one.

I have not complained one bit about the fact that Trudeau has the power to pass all kinds of legislation that I disagree with. I complain about the legislation but I don't have a problem with how get got the power to pass it. Whining about a government only having 40% of the vote is something that only left wing partisans do when someone they don't like in power. Edited May 22, 2016 by TimG

[SpankyMcFarland]

I have not complained one bit about the fact that Trudeau has the power to pass all kinds of legislation that I disagree with. I complain about the legislation but I don't have a problem with how get got the power to pass it. Whining about a government only having 40% of the vote is something that only left wing partisans do when someone they don't like in power.

Well, with all due respect, I would still like to whine about it now that a lefty government that I voted for is in power. I would prefer a govt supported by a majority of the electorate.

Edited May 22, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland

[The_Squid]

I would also whine about it regardless of who is in power.

[TimG]

Well, with all due respect, I would still like to whine about it now that a lefty government that I voted for is in power. I would prefer a govt supported by a majority of the electorate.

The basic issue here is reject your premise that a FPTP government that gets 40% of the vote is some how not legitimate because that argument presumes that people are voting for parties rather than policies. This is false.

Most people who are not party loyalists look at the party platforms and see some things they like and some things they don't like. They end up picking the party that offered the best trade off good policies vs. bad policies. For this voter they don't really care what party is elected as long as their policies choices are reflected in government decisions. What this also means that PR systems will not represent them either because even if they vote for a particular set of policies there is little chance that they will be able to implement them because of the need for behind the scenes haggling after an election.

[jacee]

Well, with all due respect, I would still like to whine about it now that a lefty government that I voted for is in power. I would prefer a govt supported by a majority of the electorate.

We may never get there, but we can certainly do better than FPTP 'majority' governments that represent less than 40% of those who voted, so in fact less than 25% of adult Canadians.

.

[scribblet]

A poll here says that 73% want a referendum

http://globalnews.ca/news/2714474/73-of-canadians-want-national-referendum-on-electoral-reform-poll-suggests/

[Argus]

A poll here says that 73% want a referendum

http://globalnews.ca/news/2714474/73-of-canadians-want-national-referendum-on-electoral-reform-poll-suggests/

Sorry, but while some think it's desperately important to ensure that government accurately reflects the thoughts of the people, that doesn't count if the people are likely to think differently than they do.

Edited May 22, 2016 by Argus

[Topaz]

One of the news show talked about this and the 3 options, first pass the post and the other two, which was indicated the Libs and the Tories both stand to have an advantage, so perhaps the one we have now would be just as good but change the minds of voters to be more open minded and be more independent in their thinking and not support any one party.

[waldo]

A poll here says that 73% want a referendum

http://globalnews.ca/news/2714474/73-of-canadians-want-national-referendum-on-electoral-reform-poll-suggests/

astute (lack of) analysis! That would be respondents to... not "of Canadians". Wait, what's this... that would be respondents within the Ipsos online panel "community" - you know, the panel that provides sign-up rewards for joining. Ah yes, another Darrell Bricker gem!... and I can't believe MLW member Argus just accepted it, outright!

.

[jacee]

I think Canadians certainly want a say in any electoral reform, not just the Liberals using their majority to reform it in a way that benefits them immediately.

However, having seen up close how the Ontario Liberals sabotaged the referendum, I don't believe in a referendum implemented the way they did it.

There has to be an education component in nonpartisan hands so people can understand the rationale and the choices, and proper support for that process prior to any referendum.

Asking a question without educating first will just result in people choosing the familiar option.

.

[Smallc]

When is the last time people in Canada voted on a specific issue? People don't know anything about the subject, and people enjoy their ignorance.

[andromeda]

I think Canadians certainly want a say in any electoral reform, not just the Liberals using their majority to reform it in a way that benefits them immediately.

However, having seen up close how the Ontario Liberals sabotaged the referendum, I don't believe in a referendum implemented the way they did it.

There has to be an education component in nonpartisan hands so people can understand the rationale and the choices, and proper support for that process prior to any referendum.

Asking a question without educating first will just result in people choosing the familiar option.

.

a referendum will pretty much guarantee the media will be full of information and commentary. we can't do anything more for those who refuse to get 'educated'. or what else did you have in mind?

[andromeda]

When is the last time people in Canada voted on a specific issue? People don't know anything about the subject, and people enjoy their ignorance.

outside of provincial referendums... I believe that was the Charlottetown accord.

[andromeda]

electoral reform done unilaterally (even under the 'we will consult' promise) may set a precedent we will live to regret. left or right leaning coalition governments with a majority could change the way we vote at will. it may change with every new government that is put into power to skew the next election in its favour. is that really what we want? is this what some call 'democracy'? I can live with the results of a fairly worded referendum. nothing less.

[SpankyMcFarland]

The basic issue here is reject your premise that a FPTP government that gets 40% of the vote is some how not legitimate because that argument presumes that people are voting for parties rather than policies. This is false.Most people who are not party loyalists look at the party platforms and see some things they like and some things they don't like. They end up picking the party that offered the best trade off good policies vs. bad policies. For this voter they don't really care what party is elected as long as their policies choices are reflected in government decisions. What this also means that PR systems will not represent them either because even if they vote for a particular set of policies there is little chance that they will be able to implement them because of the need for behind the scenes haggling after an election.

A government supported by more people is more legitimate in my view. I would like to see you defend the 1993 federal election result in Canada

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993

Look at the percentage of votes for each party and the seats won.

or the recent UK result.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015

FPTP gives a massive advantage to regional parties over national ones, a fundamental flaw in the system, creates too many safe seats, encouraging voter apathy, and shuts voters out of choosing party candidates.

With all that said, I must say the government has not chosen a wise path to introduce such a major change. The process should be as open and democratic as possible, obviously.

Edited May 22, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland

[Big Guy]

The basic issue here is reject your premise that a FPTP government that gets 40% of the vote is some how not legitimate because that argument presumes that people are voting for parties rather than policies. This is false.

...

Any result of any electoral system is legitimate if it follows the electoral process of the time.

Personally, I believe that the ranked ballot system is MORE legitimate and more represents MY reasons for voting. I vote for the individual in my riding who I think will best represent me in Ottawa. With the FPTP system, too often the individual elected is the LEAST popular one in the riding while representing either the far left or the far right. When the moderate vote gets split between two or more candidates then the extremes on either end can get in with a mere 37% of the vote. That is wrong as far as I am concerned.

I would like to see a ranked ballot system imposed by the Liberals.

As to referendum, perhaps we should have a referendum on whether to have a referendum. I believe this issue was resolved in the last referendum - the last federal election.

I believe that Canada has had 3 federal referendums and the government of the times implemented public wishes in only one case.

And besides, it is not a referendum, it is a suggestion of a direction to the government. It is a plebiscite.

And if we want binding public input into government policy (referendum) lets then include: Capital punishment, assisted suicide, legalized prostitution, gun control, gay rights, military spending, military involvement in the Middle East, NAFTA, TPP, Abolition of the Senate, Aboriginal land claims ...

Edited May 22, 2016 by Big Guy

[Argus]

When is the last time people in Canada voted on a specific issue? People don't know anything about the subject, and people enjoy their ignorance.

When was the last time there was a specific issue which would radically change the basis of our democracy and political representation?

[Big Guy]

a referendum will pretty much guarantee the media will be full of information and commentary. we can't do anything more for those who refuse to get 'educated'. or what else did you have in mind?

A while ago, the Conservatives passed the "Fair Elections Act" that made major changes to the electoral process and party funding. It appears a referendum was NOT necessary for that legislation:

The Fair Elections Act was announced as implementing 38 recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer. However, in his testimony to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the Chief Electoral Officer stated that the bill contains measures that "undermine its stated purpose and will not serve Canadians well". The government broke the bill into eight broad changes to the Canada Elections Act and other acts and regulations surrounding federal elections in Canada:

1. It creates a mandatory public registry for political parties that engage in mass-calling, and increases penalties for individuals found guilty of impersonating elections officials or tampering with an election. This is a response to the claims of fraudulent calls being made during the 2011 federal election.

2. It gives the Commissioner of Canada Elections more freedom and independence in seeking tougher penalties for those found to be interfering with elections. It also prohibits 12 new elections offences. Finally, the Fair Elections Act moves the Commissioner of Canada Elections from reporting to the Chief Electoral Officer to reporting to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

3. It eliminates the use of vouching and Voter Information Cards as a form of ID.

4. It gives political parties the right to receive "advance rulings and interpretations" from Elections Canada within 45 days of making the request. This is to allow political parties to consult with Elections Canada for advice and clarification before they try to implement something.

5. It bans the use of loans to evade donation limit laws. This is a response to Liberal Party of Canada leadership contenders who, in 2006 for example, received "loans" from individuals that would have exceeded the donation limit, but were ruled as legal because the loans would eventually be paid back. However, as of 2014, several leadership contestants still owe money. The bill increases the annual donation limit from $1200 to $1500 per calendar year and raise election spending limits by five percent. The bans against corporate and union donations, as brought in by the Conservative government's Accountability Act in 2006 remain in effect.

6. It allows a Member of Parliament whose elections results are being contested by the Chief Electoral Officer to remain as a sitting Member of Parliament until that dispute is resolved.

7. It proposes to repeal the ban on the premature transmission of elections results. The rationale for the ban was that, due to Canada's large geographic size, different time zones would still be voting while others would have already been closed. According to the rationale, a voter in British Columbia could be discouraged from voting if she already know the election results in Ontario. The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously agreed that such a ban infringes on freedom of expression.

8. It proposes "better customer service" by re-focusing the mandate of Elections Canada by requiring that it remains focused on "the basics of voting: where, when, and what ID to bring." Another part is adding an extra day of advance polling, giving Canadians a total of four advance polling days - on the tenth, ninth, eighth, and seventh days before Election Day.

Edited May 22, 2016 by Big Guy

[scribblet]

The fair elections act was no where near as drastic nor did it change the our fundamental system .... there is no comparison.

The last time people voted in Ontario was against such a change... I'm curious... how did the Liberals sabotage that referendum?

[Big Guy]

The fair elections act was no where near as drastic nor did it change the our fundamental system .... there is no comparison.

...

I suggest that how drastic a change is viewed depends on your political affiliation. If you are a Conservative fan then of course you would feel there is no comparison. I think changing and enforcing the financing of political parties by the party in power, to the betterment of that party and the detriment of all other parties, is a pretty sound comparison.

BTW - What was the wording of that plebiscite in Ontario?

Edited May 22, 2016 by Big Guy

[The_Squid]

The fair elections act was no where near as drastic nor did it change the our fundamental system .... there is no comparison.

The last time people voted in Ontario was against such a change... I'm curious... how did the Liberals sabotage that referendum?

There is nothing in the referendum act about referenda on anything other than Constitutional matters. It says it right in the first line of the act.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/R-4.7/page-1.html#h-3

An Act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada

Edited May 22, 2016 by The_Squid