On changing how Canadians vote

[Argus]

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.

Sure, because that doesn't happen in Europe. And because human nature will utterly change once we get PR.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

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

Yeah, I see this kind of thing all the time. OH! Those evil Christians! They dissaprove of gay people! Aaaaah!

Of course, none on the Left will ever dare question the non-Christian religions, whose social values are far more conservative.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

Sure, because that doesn't happen in Europe. And because human nature will utterly change once we get PR.

I think we both know you're just fear mongering. You just don't want the Tories to lose what really is a rather temporary vote efficiency advantage. Do you think the Tories will always enjoy that advantage?

If you have serious issues with other voting systems, then by all means bring them up. But "issues" that are literally figments of your imagination don't interest me in the least. It's almost as if you know absolutely nothing about the issue.

[dre]

Yeah, I see this kind of thing all the time. OH! Those evil Christians! They dissaprove of gay people! Aaaaah!

Of course, none on the Left will ever dare question the non-Christian religions, whose social values are far more conservative.

Thats because the group that you constantly whine about called "the left" exists only in your head.

I cant speak for the imaginary people in your head, but I personally think Islam is one of the most obviously bogus belief-sets ever, and many of its adherents might as well be living in the stone age. All kinds of horrendous things have happened the name of Islam, everything from misogyny, to misery and death.

I would love it if nobody believed any of that crap.

The difference between you and people like me isnt that I deny this behavior exists, or like it any better than you. Its that I dont project it onto people that are not guilty of it.

[ReeferMadness]

Yeah, I see this kind of thing all the time. OH! Those evil Christians! They dissaprove of gay people! Aaaaah!

Of course, none on the Left will ever dare question the non-Christian religions, whose social values are far more conservative.

I guess it makes as much sense to blame the Christians' issues one the Muslims and Sikhs as it does to blame Harper's failures on Chretien and Wynne. At least you're consistent.

[ReeferMadness]

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.

Very little has been written in the mainstream media about Stephen Harper's belonging to an evangelical church, the Christian and Missionary Alliance.

Religion explains why Harper appointed a creationist, Gary Goodyear, as science minister in 2009; why the party employs Arthur Hamilton, as its hard-nosed lawyer (he's an evangelical too and a member of the Christian and Missionary Alliance); why Conservative MP Wai Young would defend the government's highly controversial spying legislation, Bill C-51, by saying it reflects the teachings of Jesus; and why Canada's new relationship with Israel dominates what's left of the country's shredded foreign policy.

The founder of the Harper's chosen Christian and Missionary Alliance church certainly leaned towards dispensationalism. Given his church's own website lists as a core belief that the end of the world is nigh, Harper himself may be a dispensationalist. No Ottawa journalist has asked him. (It's unlikely the smartest evangelical politician you never heard of would answer the question.)

But Canada's foreign policy in the Middle East can sound a lot like dispensationalism. Defending Israel wasn't just the right thing to do, Harper preached to Israel's parliament in 2014. "Through fire and water, Canada will stand with you," he thundered in closing his speech.

It seems like it would be more than fair to ask and expect and answer to the question of how much Harper's faith has influenced his policy. It's possible that Harper is nothing more than a fiscal conservative who throws bones to the fundamentalists to retain their support. However, it's also possible that Harper's own views are informed by some of the scarier fundamentalist Christian teachings.

Under our broken form of government that has been distorted by parties sucking the power away from elected MP's this guy exercises near-dictatorial authority, If he does believe that Jesus is literally coming back to Israel for a big war with Satan, I would find that a pretty scary thing.

[ScottM]

One thing to consider here: This election appears destined for a minority government of some sort. Even if the Liberals and the NDP have a majority of seats between them, that's no guarantee of any kind of change to the system, because they may not be able to agree on what to change it to.

[Smeelious]

This election appears destined for a minority government of some sort.

I'm fairly sure that was true of the last election as well...then all hell broke loose

[angrypenguin]

I'm fairly sure that was true of the last election as well...then all hell broke loose

To be fair, the Conservatives were polling in the 35-40% range. They aren't doing that this time, neither is any other party. If the Conservatives pulled a majority, I'd get really really drunk and celebrate. I don't think that will happen.

[cybercoma]

Apparently it's up to voters to to solve the party system problem. How is still a bit of as mystery, we're all supposed to join the political parties and devote our lives to charging at windmills changing the system from within or some such thing.

That's not exactly what was said. You asked why the Queen doesn't step in.

[ScottM]

I'm fairly sure that was true of the last election as well...then all hell broke loose

It could happen again, true, but unless the Mainstreet poll is the most accurate, I highly doubt it. Considering that polling in recent elections has tended to underestimate the incumbent party, I think a majority should have probably been viewed as a little more likely than it was. With the Conservatives polling 36-38%, it didn't take much of a bump for them to get there. I could be dead wrong. I admit that. I don't think we'll know what will happen until election night is actually here, but where things stand now, it seems highly unlikely to see a majority.

[eyeball]

That's not exactly what was said. You asked why the Queen doesn't step in.

Not between the parties but between her subjects and her government. She could remind people of their responsibilities and encourage them to be more engaged. I'm repeatedly given the sense that most of the responsibility for the problems with our governance are voters not partisanship. Presumably if less voters engage government will get worse and so on.

If she doesn't care any more than anyone else then so be it.

[ReeferMadness]

Not between the parties but between her subjects and her government.

She has subjects? Besides her corgis?

[cybercoma]

Not between the parties but between her subjects and her government. She could remind people of their responsibilities and encourage them to be more engaged. I'm repeatedly given the sense that most of the responsibility for the problems with our governance are voters not partisanship. Presumably if less voters engage government will get worse and so on.

If she doesn't care any more than anyone else then so be it.

Voting is a choice and we get the government that we elect. It's a democratic process. I'm not really sure what you want the Queen to do in this case. Spearhead a program to encourage people to vote? It's not really her place, is it? Hell, even Elections Canada can no longer legally do that.

[eyeball]

She has subjects? Besides her corgis?

I'm pretty sure we're below the corgis.

[eyeball]

Voting is a choice and we get the government that we elect. It's a democratic process. I'm not really sure what you want the Queen to do in this case. Spearhead a program to encourage people to vote? It's not really her place, is it? Hell, even Elections Canada can no longer legally do that.

I'm not really sure what I want the Queen to do either, I'm just exploring what's possible. I get it, its another dead end.

To hell with it.

[Smeelious]

Given that signal this morning is showing that the liberals will form the government, and that the conservatives will have a higher % of the popular vote...

Can we agree that election reform shouldn't just be an issue for "progressives"?

[waldo]

today, the Trudeau Liberal Government announced the formation of an all-party committee to study alternatives to the way members of Parliament are elected - promising an "open and transparent engagement process that is inclusive to all Canadians."

- WHY REFORM THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM: In a multi-party democracy like Canada’s, (the current) First-Past-The-Post system (FPTP) distorts the will of the electorate. It is part of the reason that many Canadians don't engage in or care about politics. Our electoral system must ensure that Governments appeal beyond a narrow base of Canadians and encourages the building of national consensus. Our country is better when governments address the needs of all Canadians, including women, young people, Indigenous Canadians, new Canadians, those of lesser means, Canadians living in rural and remote parts of our nation, and people with disabilities and exceptionalities.

We need to move beyond a system that appeals to narrow constituencies. Elections should unite Canadians and not pit them against one another Canadians deserve a government that treats their views with respect.

- WHY AN ALL PARTY COMMITTEE: The Government wants the views of all Canadians to inform the debate on electoral reform. The proposed all-party committee to study electoral reform is an open and transparent vehicle for ensuring that there are meaningful consultations with individuals, experts and organizations across Canada.

- KEY GUIDING PRINCIPLES:

1. Restore the effectiveness and legitimacy of the voting by reducing distortions and strengthening the link between voter intention and the electoral result.
   
2. Encourage greater engagement and participation in the democratic process, including inclusion of underrepresented groups.
   
3. Support accessibility and inclusiveness to all eligible voters, and avoiding undue complexity in the voting process.
   
4. Safeguarding the integrity of our voting process.
   
5. Preserve the accountability of local representation.

- MANDATE OF THE SPECIAL ALL-PARTY COMMITTEE:

• To identify and study viable reform options and assess each option against the five key guiding principles;
  
• To take into account the applicable constitutional, legal and implementation parameters, seeking out expert testimony on this matters;
  
• To conduct meaningful consultation with a broad cross-section of Canadians, travelling widely and making a range of input opportunities available to citizens;
  
• To develop its plans and recommendations with the goal of strengthening the inclusion of women, Indigenous peoples, youth, seniors, Canadians with disabilities, new Canadians, and residents of rural and remote communities.

- IS THERE A TRUDEAU LIBERAL GOVERNMENT PREFERENCE?: The Government pledged to make 2015 the last election under the current first-past-the-post system and it is proposing that the special all-party committee study electoral reform - including preferential ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting and online voting - and assess options against the five key guiding principles that the Government has outlined. There is no consensus amongst experts as to a single best electoral system. The Government is proposing to engage all Canadians in a discussion on the balance that should be struck between different principles when it comes to changing how we vote. It is looking forward to receiving the special all-party committee’s final report and will carefully review its recommendations before deciding how to proceed with electoral system reforms.

.

[BC_chick]

High five!

[waldo]

possible electoral reform alternatives:

- First past the post, or single-member plurality: The person with the most votes in a riding wins the seat. The candidate doesn't need a majority (50 per cent plus one vote) but rather a plurality of votes cast — more than any of the other candidates. The party that collects the most seats in this way gets to govern.

Benefits: Simple and familiar, it's been used in Canada for 150 years.

Drawbacks: First past the post routinely results in MPs elected to represent a riding even though more than half of their constituents didn't vote for them. Since Confederation, there have been only six governments take office with more than 50 per cent of the popular vote, as Maryam Monsef, minister of democratic institutions, noted in a statement Wednesday.

- Preferential, or ranked, ballot: Voters rank the candidates on the ballot — first choice, second choice and so on. If no candidate emerges with a majority after the first count, the lowest-ranked candidate comes off the ballot, and their votes are redistributed according to the second choices cast. This continues until one candidate achieves a majority of 50 per cent plus one vote.

Benefits: It would eliminate vote-splitting and strategic voting and lead to "more choice, more voices, more engagement and more diversity," according to Dave Meslin, founder of the Ranked Ballot Initiative of Toronto.

Drawbacks: Fair Vote Canada says a ranked ballot would be useless in a system like ours in which we elect only one member per riding. "It would continue to waste about half of votes cast, produce distorted overall results (false majorities) and replicate many of the problems experienced under our current system," the group says on its website. A ranked ballot is more effective when it's built into a proportional system, Fair Vote Canada says.

- Proportional representation: The percentage of seats a party holds corresponds to the percentage of votes it receives. It's a simple idea employed by many Western democracies, but with many variations.

Benefits: Proponents say proportional representation more accurately reflects the will of the people.

Drawbacks: The main criticism is that it leads to coalition governments, which can be fragmented and ineffectual because they cannot find enough common ground. Tiny parties — or even extremist parties — can hold larger parties ransom in legislative negotiations.

- Mixed-member proportional representation: Voters have to make two choices on the ballot: one for a candidate to represent them and one for a party. Roughly half to two-thirds of seats would be filled by the individual candidates who win their ridings, as in our current first-past-the-post system; the remaining seats would be allotted according to each party's share of the popular vote, with the candidates taken from a predetermined list.

Benefits: "The overall results in these systems are highly proportional, that is, for each party, the percentage of seats it obtains in the legislature closely mirrors its share of the vote," says the Law Commission of Canada, which recommended Canada switch to mixed-member proportional representation in its 2004 report to then justice minister Irwin Cotler.

Drawbacks: "MMP can create two classes of legislators — one group primarily responsible and beholden to a constituency, and another from the national party list without geographical ties and beholden to the party," says the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network, a collaborative elections information project of which Elections Canada is a partner. "This may have implications for the cohesiveness of groups of elected party representatives."

- Single-transferable vote system: The number of electoral districts is greatly reduced, with each represented by two to seven members. Voters rank some or all of the candidates in order of preference. In the first count, any candidate who has enough first-preference votes is elected automatically. In subsequent counts, the elected candidate's surplus votes are transferred to the next choices in fractional amounts. After each successive count, candidates who reach the quota are elected, and those who don't are eliminated.

Benefits: The B.C. Citizens' Assembly, which proposed moving to a single-transferable vote for provincial elections, says the system is easy and fair and empowers voters.

Drawbacks: B.C. voters twice rejected a proposed move to the single-transferable vote, in 2005 and 2009. The No STV campaign said the newly drawn electoral districts would be too large, with populations between 200,000 and 300,000, and that the system made it possible for a district to elect all of its candidates from one part of the community and leave others unrepresented.

- P3 (proportional-preferential-personalized): Each riding elects between three and five MPs (determined by population density). Voters rank parties in order of preference, then pick their preferred candidate from their top-choice party. The seats in each riding are distributed according to the party rankings. If any party fails to get enough votes to win a seat, they are dropped off and their votes redistributed according to voters' second choices. Then, the candidates are installed into the number of seats the party won: the top two Conservative candidates take the two Conservative seats in the riding, for instance.

.

[Argus]

today, the Trudeau Liberal Government announced the formation of an all-party committee to study alternatives to the way members of Parliament are elected - promising an "open and transparent engagement process that is inclusive to all Canadians."

Liberals are totally committed to a fair and open Liberal-dominated review of Canada’s electoral system where Liberals will decide who is to be heard and Liberals will decide which resolution is best for Liberals... er Canada. And don't even think about a referendum. It's none of the public's business which electoral system the Liberal party chooses for them.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/robyn-urback-liberals-are-totally-committed-to-a-fair-and-open-liberal-dominated-review-of-canadas-electoral-system

[Argus]

possible electoral reform alternatives:

Yes, yes. Of course we must go through the proper motions, but we all know that ranked ballots has already been selected as the system most likely to benefit the Liberal party, and therefore, in their eyes, the obvious answer.

[PIK]

We have the best country in the world and we have the best system for voting, why do people want to bring our country down to the level of the failed states that use that system now. Is it too keep trudeau in power for ever?

[jacee]

Yes, yes. Of course we must go through the proper motions, but we all know that ranked ballots has already been selected as the system most likely to benefit the Liberal party, and therefore, in their eyes, the obvious answer.

Ranked ballots are a distraction. They can be used in a proportionate system too. That's the real issue. Don't fall for the Liberal distraction.

We have long recognized the flaws in our first-past-the-post system, inherited when democracy was not nearly so valued, but we are one of the few remaining countries that has not undertaken the needed reforms.

.

With proportionality, national unity would be strengthened.

As the Law Reform Commission and numerous other commissions have recognized, we need an alternative to winner-take-all and that means a proportional system in which all votes are equal and every vote counts, precisely what the Liberals promised.

The government has announced eight principles to guide electoral reform that do not include this particular language. We note, nonetheless, that only a proportional system can meet the governments first principle: To ensure that votes are fairly translated into elected results.

No more staying at home because our preferred candidate cannot win. No more so-called strategic voting in which we vote to stop a party we like the least rather than choose the candidate or party that best reflects our views.

Not surprisingly, countries with some form of proportional representation ... the majority of advanced democracies and 85 per cent of OECD countries

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/only-proportionality-will-fix-our-democratic-malaise/article29944241/

The proportions of MP's in the House of Commons must reflect the proportions of voters who voted for each party.

There are several ways to accomplish that, but that is the result we are looking for.

Every vote counts toward representation in the House.

No votes are 'wasted' because your candidate didn't win.

Your vote always counts toward the proportion of each party's MP's in the House.

.

Edited May 12, 2016 by jacee

[waldo]

Liberals are totally committed to a fair and open Liberal-dominated review of Canada’s electoral system where Liberals will decide who is to be heard and Liberals will decide which resolution is best for Liberals... er Canada. And don't even think about a referendum. It's none of the public's business which electoral system the Liberal party chooses for them.

the committee process appears most rigorous - significant opportunity for Canadians (as individuals and groups) to present themselves, raise questions/concerns to the cross-country traveling road-show... there are 10 MP votes on the committee - 6 Liberal, 1 NDP, 3 Conservative. What party won the election again?

ya ya, Rona has really been beating that referendum-drum... hey didja know, traditionally, referendum's bring forward the status-quo...hmmm! By the by, was there a referendum when Harper Conservatives brought forward their "Unfair Elections Act", hey?

.