On changing how Canadians vote

[marcus]

The current system is not working so we have to discuss the other options. Why does my vote in Vancouver count 3-4 times less than someone in a small town B.C.?

Edited October 6, 2015 by marcus

[Gleason]

If they start filling seats from "lists' then the question becomes who compiles these lists and how are they compiled. I think the current system is about as fair and impartial as we can get. I think the Canadian system is far more democratic than America's electoral voting.

[Evening Star]

It's less of a problem with STV and open list systems; because voters can choose which of the candidates to vote for. Under FTP, you can only choose or reject the person the party chose for you.

Well, you could conceivably have FPTP without political parties at all (although this is almost never done in large countries) or with very weak parties.

Most countries that use FPTP, including the US and UK, do not have the same level of party discipline that we see in Canada. Individual representatives can have a great deal of independence from party positions. (See the amount of trouble Obama has sometimes had with getting other Democrats to go along with him.) Any MP who was chosen from some kind of party list would be highly irresponsible if he or she did not go along with party policy.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Evening Star

[Argus]

So let me get this straight, you're attributing the far right and bureaucracy to PR systems? You don't think there could be other factors.

I didn't attribute all of it to PR governments. Much of it is the result of a particular left wing world view among most of the government's there. But I will say that many of the PR governments in Europe tend to be insular and contemptuous to those who disagree with their political and social views. If you didn't have PR many of the 'right wing' people would join one of a few large parties, while the far right would be left out in the cold. With PR the far right form their own parties without anything braking or restraining them and can publicly agitate under their banners. Being a member of parliament grants people a certain cachet and attention they would not otherwise receive, and can attract support from those who would otherwise support more moderate parties. Do you think Jean Marie Le Pen would have become as big without the National Front?

[ToadBrother]

I didn't attribute all of it to PR governments. Much of it is the result of a particular left wing world view among most of the government's there. But I will say that many of the PR governments in Europe tend to be insular and contemptuous to those who disagree with their political and social views. If you didn't have PR many of the 'right wing' people would join one of a few large parties, while the far right would be left out in the cold. With PR the far right form their own parties without anything braking or restraining them and can publicly agitate under their banners. Being a member of parliament grants people a certain cachet and attention they would not otherwise receive, and can attract support from those who would otherwise support more moderate parties. Do you think Jean Marie Le Pen would have become as big without the National Front?

First of all, Europe has a pretty long history of far right and far left movements, so it's not as if the electoral system created them. Most of North America has no significant history of such parties. Yes, there have been some white supremacist movements, and for a time they had considerable sway in the former slave states in the US, but even in the heart of Old Dixie, the KKK and its affiliates and fellow travelers are viewed as jokes these days, with no political influence to speak of.

I see no reason to expect any large number of Neo-Nazis or Marxist-Leninists suddenly blasting into Parliament under a PR system. Heck, even under a normal MMPR system, the minimum requirement of 5% would probably kill even the Green's chances of being elected.

Again, I will repeat, PR didn't create these movements, and they have only gained a considerable amount of strength in countries where there is a lot of public sentiment in support of them. Even under FPTP, it's almost certain Victor Orban and his Fidesz Party would still be the government.

Edited October 6, 2015 by ToadBrother

[Argus]

First of all, Europe has a pretty long history of far right and far left movements, so it's not as if the electoral system created them. Most of North America has no significant history of such parties. Yes, there have been some white supremacist movements, and for a time they had considerable sway in the former slave states in the US, but even in the heart of Old Dixie, the KKK and its affiliates and fellow travelers are viewed as jokes these days, with no political influence to speak of.

Sure, because the Democrats and Republicans want no part of them. Change the American political system to allow anyone who gets 3-5% of the popular vote to have representatives in congress and what do you think will happen? There would most definitely be a new far right party and it would most definitely start building up its seat count in Congress. I have little doubt there will be a far right party in Canada under PR, and a far left party. Whether they can get into parliament depends on several factors not the least of which is how low the % is set for obtaining seats.

[ToadBrother]

Sure, because the Democrats and Republicans want no part of them. Change the American political system to allow anyone who gets 3-5% of the popular vote to have representatives in congress and what do you think will happen? There would most definitely be a new far right party and it would most definitely start building up its seat count in Congress. I have little doubt there will be a far right party in Canada under PR, and a far left party. Whether they can get into parliament depends on several factors not the least of which is how low the % is set for obtaining seats.

So you're worry isn't that they'll get a few seats, but somehow a seat is like a gateway drug. You really are stretching to find something that even vaguely looks like a rational objection, but this, even for you, is spurious.

[Argus]

So you're worry isn't that they'll get a few seats, but somehow a seat is like a gateway drug. You really are stretching to find something that even vaguely looks like a rational objection, but this, even for you, is spurious.

I don't have to stretch for an objection to PR. I've already explained that I accept that the present system has produced almost 150 years of good, stable government, while your system might or might not. I don't like minorities or coalitions because they're in constant election mode, which means everyone is offering presents to the electorate and no one is willing to say no, not to mention there will be more elections because of more instability.

[ToadBrother]

I don't have to stretch for an objection to PR. I've already explained that I accept that the present system has produced almost 150 years of good, stable government, while your system might or might not. I don't like minorities or coalitions because they're in constant election mode, which means everyone is offering presents to the electorate and no one is willing to say no, not to mention there will be more elections because of more instability.

And everyone isn't offering presents to the electorate right now?

[ReeferMadness]

And everyone isn't offering presents to the electorate right now?

Sounds like boutique tax cuts to me.

[ToadBrother]

Sounds like boutique tax cuts to me.

Indeed. As usual, Argus's objections end up being pointless asides.

[Smeelious]

Any MP who was chosen from some kind of party list would be highly irresponsible if he or she did not go along with party policy.

This is probably the main reason why some form of partly list thing wouldn't work. You would be beholden to the party, and not to "Canadians". Also...what the heck is the "Party" anyway? Do we need a supreme court ruling that political parties deserve the same rights as citizens (ala Citizen's United)

[ReeferMadness]

Well, you could conceivably have FPTP without political parties at all (although this is almost never done in large countries) or with very weak parties.

Most countries that use FPTP, including the US and UK, do not have the same level of party discipline that we see in Canada. Individual representatives can have a great deal of independence from party positions. (See the amount of trouble Obama has sometimes had with getting other Democrats to go along with him.) Any MP who was chosen from some kind of party list would be highly irresponsible if he or she did not go along with party policy.

Voting system is only one part of the problem - nobody should expect that changing it will fix everything.

But the makeup of the parliament should, to the greatest extent possible, represent the views of the people.

[Smeelious]

Voting system is only one part of the problem - nobody should expect that changing it will fix everything.

But the makeup of the parliament should, to the greatest extent possible, represent the views of the people.

while still being functional...

[PIK]

Voting system is only one part of the problem - nobody should expect that changing it will fix everything.

But the makeup of the parliament should, to the greatest extent possible, represent the views of the people.

We don't need the fringe people having any say in this country.

[ToadBrother]

We don't need the fringe people having any say in this country.

And why would they have any more say than they do now?

[ReeferMadness]

We don't need the fringe people having any say in this country.

We have right wing evangelical Christians in power right now.

[ReeferMadness]

while still being functional...

I don't think there is any PR system in existence that is unworkable. Even in Italy and Israel, the countries that everyone uses to "prove" PR can't work, the main problem is the politics, not the voting system.

[ReeferMadness]

This is probably the main reason why some form of partly list thing wouldn't work. You would be beholden to the party, and not to "Canadians".

There are a lot of countries that use party list PR. Before people dismiss it outright, it wouldn't be a bad idea to do some research.

[Smeelious]

There are a lot of countries that use party list PR. Before people dismiss it outright, it wouldn't be a bad idea to do some research.

Actually, that's what I'm doing right now.

[ToadBrother]

I don't think there is any PR system in existence that is unworkable. Even in Italy and Israel, the countries that everyone uses to "prove" PR can't work, the main problem is the politics, not the voting system.

Yes, I'd say in a lot of cases it is political culture, and a lot of that has to do with history. Italy, as an example, was until the final decades of the 19th century divided into several different states, some under foreign domination, some under Italian control, with marked differences in political culture. The rise of Fascism stunted a lot of the young Italian institutions, and then the post-WWII struggle to keep the Communists from seizing control lead to a lot of divisions.

Israel, as well, is very diverse, despite ethnic and religious commonalities, and this diversity plays out on the political stage. It also has a pretty small parliament, so I think that tends, along with PR, to exaggerate the influence of the fringe parties.

There are plenty of non-FPTP jurisdictions, like Australia, Germany, New Zealand and the Western European states that in general are reasonably well governed. The only real exception in Western Europe is Belgium, but that has very little to do with the electoral system, and everything to do with the Walloons and Flemish living in such a sharp cultural divide that it makes the division between Anglophones and Francophones in Canada seem like healthy and constructive by comparison.

I see nothing in Canada's political culture that would indicate that fringe parties are going to gain a foot hold, or that right or left wing extremist parties are going to suddenly gain influence (I can't imagine them even getting many if any seats). And it's not as if FPTP didn't prevent the rise of regional parties; the 1990s saw the rise of both the Western-based Reform Party and the Bloc Quebeocois. Reform, in particular, was simply the latest iteration of Prairie populism that had seen the rise of Social Credit and the CCF before it, so regionalism has always played a part in Canadian politics.

Argus's "points" are little more than fearmongering. The fact is that if we went to STV or some other PR system, there would be adjustments. Parties couldn't rely on majorities anymore, so you would probably see some fracture on the left and the right to create a sort of continuum of left and right wing parties who could coalesce in some form around the dominant parties to form stable coalitions. And really, that's what the parties are now; stable coalitions with various wings or blocs of members with often decidedly different views. The difference would be that they wouldn't sit under big tents, and it would to some extent undermine the autocratic nature of party leadership that has infected Canada over the last half century.

[Hydraboss]

We have right wing evangelical Christians in power right now.

Really?? You keep saying this but I'm not seeing it. Aren't you one of those members that gets all bent out of shape at "gross generalizations" ala pot smoking threads, etc - and here you are doing it. I'd love to see where you're getting this.

[Argus]

And everyone isn't offering presents to the electorate right now?

Sure. Now double the number of elections. That doubles the number of presents. At the least.

What I most dislike about the idea is the constant election mode, and the fact that every 1% drop or increase in your party's popularity will guarantee you lose or gain several seats if an election were held tomorrow (which it might be). That means nobody will dare make the hard choices, nobody will dare present the electorate with the facts, nobody will dare propose cutbacks until they're so desperately obviously necessary that even the herd can see it.

[ToadBrother]

Sure. Now double the number of elections. That doubles the number of presents. At the least.

What I most dislike about the idea is the constant election mode, and the fact that every 1% drop or increase in your party's popularity will guarantee you lose or gain several seats if an election were held tomorrow (which it might be). That means nobody will dare make the hard choices, nobody will dare present the electorate with the facts, nobody will dare propose cutbacks until they're so desperately obviously necessary that even the herd can see it.

I'm going to state openly that I think you're point of objection here is pure concoction. You are quite literally pulling it of thin air.

[dialamah]

Really?? You keep saying this but I'm not seeing it.

The New Conservative Party of Canada

If forced to define themselves, today’s Conservatives would describe their party as one that favours low taxes, smaller, less intrusive government, a strong regime of law-and-order, a strong military and respect for traditional values. Though the party is officially neutral on social matters like abortion and gay rights, the Conservatives also possess a large and important constituency of Christian conservatives who oppose both.

- See more at: http://www.thecanadaguide.com/political-parties#sthash.B7M8HzGb.dpuf

The Alliance Church, to which Harper has belonged for decades, believes Jesus Christ will return to Earth in an apocalypse, won't ordain women, strongly opposes abortion and divorce, condemns homosexuality as the most base of sins and believes those who aren't born-again are "lost."

http://www.thecanadiancharger.com/page.php?id=5&a=862

More on the Christian Alliance church: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_and_Missionary_Alliance

Savvy conservative politicians likely recognize this. Stephen Harper has steered well clear of most hot-button social issues, and indeed he has been so committed to this course that his nearest brush with back-bench mutiny arose out of his refusal to permit Langley MP Mark Warawa to introduce a private member’s bill on sex-selective abortion. When the time comes to feed the base, Harper is more likely to turn to Senate reform or tough-on-crime measures than to abortion or gay rights. When the Prime Minister does make a policy change suited to the social conservatism of his party’s base, it is likely to be in the projection of values abroad. His government’s choices of which international health-promotion initiatives to fund appear driven to some extent by moral and/or religious conviction: a maternal health foreign aid initiative was first announced as excluding both contraception and abortion (the government later indicated that contraception would be funded).

http://policyoptions.irpp.org/issues/the-age-of-man/adams/

My brother, a devout Christian, posts helpful information on his wall to advise Christians which party comes out ahead on Christian Values, and those posts clearly favor the Conservatives, even as they claim to be neutral.