Evening Star Posted October 4, 2015 Report Posted October 4, 2015 I had my objections to them too, but I really like Eric Grenier's suggestion about them. It's the least bad suggested version that I've seen. Quote
ToadBrother Posted October 4, 2015 Report Posted October 4, 2015 I had my objections to them too, but I really like Eric Grenier's suggestion about them. You're thinking of 308PR? http://www.threehundredeight.com/2015/05/a-proposal-for-electoral-reform.html It actually more reminds me of an electoral college system, and while it does maintain a direct link between voters and their representatives, it does minimize the notion of ridings per se, unless I'm reading it wrong. I'd have to study it again. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted October 4, 2015 Report Posted October 4, 2015 Great idea - Treat voting like filling out national census forms! Yeah. Isn't it funny that people who support the Conservatives arguing the mandatory census is an infringement (the same government that forces women to uncover their faces for a ceremony) are now in support of mandatory voting? Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted October 4, 2015 Report Posted October 4, 2015 NB: I dislike party-list PR systems. Has anyone ever suggested a party-list system for Canada? They're typically used in small countries with homogeneous populations. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ToadBrother Posted October 4, 2015 Report Posted October 4, 2015 Has anyone ever suggested a party-list system for Canada? They're typically used in small countries with homogeneous populations. The NDP has advocated an MMPR system. And Germany which is neither small nor homogeneous, uses MMPR. Quote
Evening Star Posted October 4, 2015 Report Posted October 4, 2015 The NDP has advocated an MMPR system. And Germany which is neither small nor homogeneous, uses MMPR. Yeah, there was even a referendum in Ontario on whether to do this in 2007. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 The NDP has advocated an MMPR system. And Germany which is neither small nor homogeneous, uses MMPR. Yeah, there was even a referendum in Ontario on whether to do this in 2007. Exactly. Party list is not the same as MMP. MMP is a hybrid of FPTP and party list. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Evening Star Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 Exactly. Party list is not the same as MMP. MMP is a hybrid of FPTP and party list. Very well. I'll edit my previous comment: I dislike, or at least am sceptical about, party-list PR systems and hybrid systems that include a party-list component. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 Very well. I'll edit my previous comment: I dislike, or at least am sceptical about, party-list PR systems and hybrid systems that include a party-list component. So if you care about proportionality, that leaves you with STV. Why are you against any party-list component? I thought in the Ontario proposal, the party-list component was much smaller than the FPTP component. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Smeelious Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 Couple things (this thread got everywhere awfully fast) 1. Mandatory Voting I can count on one finger how many times I haven't voted since being able. That one time was because I felt all the parties were the worst of the worst options. I feel like being forced to vote in that Election would have been denying my "right" to vote. Yes, I could have spoiled my vote. I was actually considering writing my own name in...Anyway, mandatory voting bad. 2. On PR and the lack of Conservative Majorities. One of the primary reasons to consider switching voting schema would be to increase voter turnout. Disenfranchising a large portion of the populous would have the opposite effect...should this actually happen. Although as other people have pointed out, the parties would likely change which would largely change how the votes are distributed. 3. On Schema STV baby! Quite honestly, since the removal of the "party funding per vote thing", my vote hasn't amounted to anything. My vote hasn't resulted in electing a member of parliament, as such I feel that "I" don't have representation. Although to be honest in my riding, I would vote for my incumbent MP, but not his party (though I doubt under STV he would be ...bleh this could go on forever. next. 4. On how the parties would change. (hopefully for the better) Given some form of more PR voting, I would hope that the party landscape would change significantly. More choice of parties would likely have the benefit of increasing voter turnout since the individual parties are more likely to find common ground with individual voters. Personally I would love to see a conservative party that had a much larger focus on the environment. The 'liberals' wouldn't have to pander as much to the far left, and the far left wouldn't have to pander to the center. And I think most importantly, the center right wouldn't have to pander to the far right, and as such would end up with a lot more votes. (The "anyone but" wouldn't be an issue) Quote
ToadBrother Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 So if you care about proportionality, that leaves you with STV. Why are you against any party-list component? I thought in the Ontario proposal, the party-list component was much smaller than the FPTP component. I can't speak for Evening Star, but for me, the objection is that party list representatives have no constituency. They are pure party apparatchik who owe nothing directly to voters, and everything to their party. STV or instant run off systems preserve the notion of an elected representative with an actual geographical constituency. Quote
Evening Star Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 I can't speak for Evening Star, but for me, the objection is that party list representatives have no constituency. They are pure party apparatchik who owe nothing directly to voters, and everything to their party. STV or instant run off systems preserve the notion of an elected representative with an actual geographical constituency. This is basically my reason. To expand, it concentrates even more power in the hands of party brass. MMP seems bizarre to me. If there is a problem with how people are elected via FPTP, adding extra members who are elected in a different way does not seem to address this. Moreover, I have trouble with the idea that MPs who are elected in two very different ways should sit in the same House and have similar powers, when some of them are supposedly representing constituencies and others are basically placeholders for parties. I want individual MPs to be more autonomous, to represent their constituencies, and to vote their consciences, whether they are chosen through FPTP or STV/IRV. Quote
Smallc Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 I have the same issues. MMP is hard to get my head around. It's a pretty complicated concept and the two classes of MOs created seems problematic. The more I read about STV, the more I like it. If we have to change (I'm not completely convinced we do - though it would require constitutional change I think true rep by pop would be a better place to start - my own province would lose a seat) that's the was I'd prefer to go. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 What version of STV do you favour? Explain how an election would work. Quote
69cat Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 One of the forums i am on has Ozzies posting often and a couple current threads regarding politics. They are on their 5th pm in 5 years. Also, they comment the media tends to dictate the outcome to a large extent by highlighting certain issues and not mentioning others. No doubt alot of this all ties into mandatory voting. I feel an uninformed voter is worse than someone who doesnt vote. And thus having to sort out what the media portrays compounds the issue of becoming informed. Quote
Smallc Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 What version of STV do you favour? Explain how an election would work. STV actually fits with what I had proposed earlier. There would have to be some modification though. PEI, with its four constituencies (already too many) would not be ideal bout would have to work. Other provinces could be split into large urban and rural constituencies with, for example, Manitoba ending up with 2 (probably 1 for Winnipeg and 1 for rural Manitoba). These constituencies would contain a number of members based on their population (there would have to be a cap in their size - say 10 members) but a floor would be difficult given places like PEI and the territories which would be defacto AV or FPTP depending on how we organized it. The counting method I'm kind of neutral on. I think the most simple one possible would be best. Elections and their mechanisms have to remain accessible. Quote
ToadBrother Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) One of the forums i am on has Ozzies posting often and a couple current threads regarding politics. They are on their 5th pm in 5 years. Also, they comment the media tends to dictate the outcome to a large extent by highlighting certain issues and not mentioning others. No doubt alot of this all ties into mandatory voting. I feel an uninformed voter is worse than someone who doesnt vote. And thus having to sort out what the media portrays compounds the issue of becoming informed. The reason they are going through so many leaders is because in Australia, the caucus can remove a leader. It has nothing to do with mandatory voting. And to be clear, this many leaders in this short a time is something of an anomaly. The British Conservative party has the same system, and the last Tory PM to be tossed out was Thatcher (and for good reason). Besides, can you blame the Liberal Party for throwing Abbott out? He had made himself political poison. Edited October 5, 2015 by ToadBrother Quote
dre Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 - I'm generally left-of-centre, but I think that right-of-centre voters need to have a voice. Canada has had two majority Conservative PMs since the 1960s, but with this system it seems that there would never again be a right-of-centre majority government. That seems unfair to me. I dont know if its true or not but if it IS true, then its absolutely fair. If they cant win with a representitive system it means that their ideas and brand are not very popular and obviously a party with unpopular ideas isnt going to win in a democracy. Having said that I DO think they would win. They would just have to adopt policies that a large number of Canadians want. What ISNT fair or democratic is for a party with 38% of the votes to have so much power they can impose their will on the other 62%. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
eyeball Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 What ISNT fair or democratic is for a party with 38% of the votes to have so much power they can impose their will on the other 62%. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 So does anyone have an example of a PR country where there is a lot of clamouring to go with FPTP instead? How about any that are pointing to Canada as the ideal model of FPTP they'd like to adopt? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
ReeferMadness Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 This is basically my reason. To expand, it concentrates even more power in the hands of party brass. MMP seems bizarre to me. If there is a problem with how people are elected via FPTP, adding extra members who are elected in a different way does not seem to address this. Moreover, I have trouble with the idea that MPs who are elected in two very different ways should sit in the same House and have similar powers, when some of them are supposedly representing constituencies and others are basically placeholders for parties. I want individual MPs to be more autonomous, to represent their constituencies, and to vote their consciences, whether they are chosen through FPTP or STV/IRV. The main problem with FPTP is lack of proportionality (and all of its attendant issues). MMP addresses it by assigning the regional MP's in such a way as to correct the imbalance. Others have complained about it creating 'two tiered' representation (1 type of MP directly elected and 1 indirectly elected). I prefer STV myself but MMP would still be vastly better than FPTP. If you really want MP's to be more autonomous, then you'll need to change more than the voting system. You need to change the political culture and perhaps even legislate how parties behave. Parties have a tendency to centralize power because it's easier to control the message that way. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 So does anyone have an example of a PR country where there is a lot of clamouring to go with FPTP instead? How about any that are pointing to Canada as the ideal model of FPTP they'd like to adopt? You're funny. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
eyeball Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 It's a valid question given how often we're told what a mess PR makes of other countries. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
ToadBrother Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 So does anyone have an example of a PR country where there is a lot of clamouring to go with FPTP instead? How about any that are pointing to Canada as the ideal model of FPTP they'd like to adopt? I'm sure there are no lack of major parties like the CDU in Germany or Likud In Israel that would love FPTP. Quote
Argus Posted October 5, 2015 Author Report Posted October 5, 2015 I would argue the general public is the one hurt. Because it's better to have disinterested people who don't follower, understand or care about politics just vote for whoever's name they last saw in a newspaper headline(Not that they read newspapers, of course)? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.