Big Guy Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 It appears to me that our Canadian democratic system that has evolved into a three major party system has great advantages over the American two major party system. This year, the weakness in the American system has come to the forefront. With only two choices, the population has only two choices. The extremists in each party have dragged the moderates to the extremes of each party. Eventually, gridlock ensues since the radicals on both sides are now in control and compromise on legislation (which is the basis of democracy) is lost. At this point in time the Republicans can't find anybody who wants to be House leader. The election process in which members of the same party compete with each other in primaries, force the participants to cater to their far right and far left bases. The best campaign videos for the subsequent presidential campaigns against candidates is filmed during the primaries where members of the same party try to take each other apart. In Canada, with the three major party systems, extreme polarization seldom takes place. Traditionally, the far left (NDP) stays far left. The far right base (Conservative) stays far right and the more central (Liberals) try to peel off enough of the moderates of both the left and right to take power intermittently. This election is a bit different since Mulcair has brought the NDP into the middle, the Liberals find themselves to the left of the NDP on some issues and to the right on others. Harper maintains a grip on right wing views and voters. Everyone is fighting for the moderates. The Canadian voter is not forced to vote only left or only right, there are other choices. For this reason I think minority governments are most effective for Canadians. A minority gives us another check and balance to keep any one group from pushing Canada too much in any direction. http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilations/ElectionsAndRidings/TriviaMajorityMinority.aspx The most efficient form of government is a benevolent dictatorship with its weakness of forcing and enforcing the views of only one person. The most democratic form would probably be some form of proportional representation with the weakness of too many parties making governing difficult. I think we have it just right here in Canada. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Smeelious Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 I think we'd be better off with four parties left, center-left, center-right, right...go to STV...profit? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 I think that some Canadians will always compare and contrast their choices and political parties with those in the United States regardless of what those choices actually are. It is how many Canadians define and try to understand such things. They will decry "American style" campaigns while supporting identical tactics for their favoured party. They will argue over the glaring differences in voter representation by region and FPTP while doing nothing about it, so it must be better. Strangely, any talk of a ruling coalition by multiple parties is cause for great concern. Oh well, there is always the American political system and campaign season to watch when all the excitement over more than two major parties is over in Canada. In 2008, 15% of polled Canadian voters said they would prefer to vote in the U.S. election, giving up their vote in Canada, so their two party system seems to get a lot of attention. Let's see how many Canadians watch the Democratic presidential debate tonight. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Bonam Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 I think having more legitimate choices to pick from is certainly beneficial. A system where two parties are deeply entrenched and present the only two options for generation after generation is too prone to polarization, corruption, and party insider elitism. The Canadian system not only has more than two parties, but these parties evolve over time, some splitting apart, merging with others, etc. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) I think having more legitimate choices to pick from is certainly beneficial. A system where two parties are deeply entrenched and present the only two options for generation after generation is too prone to polarization, corruption, and party insider elitism. The Canadian system not only has more than two parties, but these parties evolve over time, some splitting apart, merging with others, etc. U.S. voters actually have more party choices to make and candidates to choose from in the polling booth than do Canadians. The American party system did most of its evolving in the 19th and early 20th century....Canadian system is still doing so...and seems far more fragile with ultimate fears of a minority outcome, dreaded "coalition", and the strange discontent over the possibility of having to call for another election in short order. Add in other Westminster quirks, the GG, and a queen to make things even more different from a republic...not necessarily better. Edited October 13, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Scott Mayers Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 [i hate the software of this site. I keep forgetting that you have to sign in before posting and lose what I expended on writing. They should fix this to at least save one's work to allow them to sign in or remove the post button unless you ARE signed in.] I see the advantages and disadvantages of varying systems. But not all are equal. In our Canadian system, our constituent MPs who get elected favor only those who favor their party. In contrast, the American 'representative' is free to deal with their constituents independently and makes them way more democratic. Also, the Americans can create a petition to a create a bill and it can act to allow the public a true means to participate in politics that 'skip' the party differences as such bills act on particular issues. Here in Canada, a petition has no force as it requires only the politicians to decide whether they care to bother with it. Thus our system is party-dependent and acts more strict. Another major contention I have with our system is how we classify issues based on 'culture' inappropriately to issues that relate to individuals without respect to culture. For instance, we classify poverty as a function of culture; the Americans classify poverty as poverty. The distinction is about the difference between the significance to whom we consider is the true minority. In the States, the individual is the ultimate minority, even while other groups are also recognized. Here we think that only groups are the significant minority and base them arbitrarily on heritage. It makes our system disrespectful of individuals and change. On 'change', this means we think that one's historical roots should be conserved. And to me, this makes our system ironically more conservative than the Americans. Even with a conservative government in the States, progress is still more probable as they are more easy to adapt to changes through time given their present environment. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 In Canada, with the three major party systems, extreme polarization seldom takes place. Traditionally, the far left (NDP) stays far left. The far right base (Conservative) stays far right and the more central (Liberals) try to peel off enough of the moderates of both the left and right to take power intermittently. This election is a bit different since Mulcair has brought the NDP into the middle, the Liberals find themselves to the left of the NDP on some issues and to the right on others. Harper maintains a grip on right wing views and voters. Everyone is fighting for the moderates. I wouldn't consider the NDP "far left" nor the CPC "far right", not even close in either case. NDP is leftwing, CPC is right, nothing radically LW or RW from either. Liberals appear left-center, in fact that they make pains to have their policies fall somewhere "balanced" between the NDP and CPC this election, to appear more moderate. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Big Guy Posted October 14, 2015 Author Report Posted October 14, 2015 I wouldn't consider the NDP "far left" nor the CPC "far right", not even close in either case. NDP is leftwing, CPC is right, nothing radically LW or RW from either. Liberals appear left-center, in fact that they make pains to have their policies fall somewhere "balanced" between the NDP and CPC this election, to appear more moderate.My point was that there is really no legitimate or serious political parties left of the NDP or right of the Conservatives. I believe that in Canada, the left is guaranteed about 30% of the vote and the right about 30% of the vote. It is that middle 40% that makes the difference. If/when Liberals have policies that will draw a few from the left and other policies that draw a few from the right then they stay in power. Remember, the Chretien/Martin Liberal powerhouse was not brought down because of policy decisions, it was brought down because the public believed that it had become corrupt and it was time for a change. I agree that left center and right center are nuanced and depend on the definitions of the labeller. I believe that one could list a number of issues and explain what the far right position and the far left positions are on them but the "mushy middle" is a moving target. I believe that the advantage the Liberals have had in our three major party system is that they can move towards the right or the left depending on changing public sentiment. The extremes in the left and right cannot move towards the center without losing the strength of their convictions. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
-1=e^ipi Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) The Canadian voter is not forced to vote only left or only right, there are other choices. Yeah... For example, take Supply Management. If you disagree with supply management because it harms poor people and reduces our ability to get good trade agreements then you can vote for... no one. Or if you think that it would make sense to increase the GST and use it to offset other taxes such as income or corporate taxes in order to increase savings and because there is a large amount of empirical evidence in support of this you can vote for... no one. Or if you think that there is a tradeoff at the pareto frontier between reducing CO2 emissions and economic output and that politicians should at least recognize this you can vote for... no one. Politicians would rather live in a fantasy land where trade offs don't exist (Harper and Mulcair are especially bad at this). Or if you think that we should not be allies with a country that commits genocide against apostates and gay people, as well as funds ISIS and funds wahabism, the ideology that has lead to ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Shabab and other groups, then you can vote for... no one... well maybe the bloc if you live in Quebec. Apparently the Saudi's are our BFFs for life, and it's really the Russians that are our evil enemies... for some reason. Or if you think that men's issues such as the 3.5 to 1 suicide rates, lower university attainment, male infant genital mutilation, life expectancy wage gap, etc. deserves any attention at all, then you can vote for... no one. Or if you think that the existence of the Monarchy is inherently unegalitarian and that the disgusting concept of birth right should be rejected in favour of becoming a republic, you can vote for... the bloc, if you live in Quebec. Instead, we embrace birth right and our next prime minister will essentially get his position because he was born to have the correct last name. Forget having policy, or electing people based on their merit, Justin Trudeau could feel that he needed to be prime minister in his bones! Not to mention the unanimous party support for other unegalitarian birth-right-based policies such as the reserve system, the Indian act, and affirmative action. Or in Ontario, if you disagree with catholic school systems because it's unnecessarily expensive and goes against secularism, you can vote for... well the green party finally changed their position last year... So much choice! *sarcasm* I think we have it just right here in Canada. I think New Zealand has a far superior system. Edited October 14, 2015 by -1=e^ipi Quote
Big Guy Posted October 14, 2015 Author Report Posted October 14, 2015 ... I think New Zealand has a far superior system. New Zealand is about the same population as British Columbia. Why do you feel the New Zealand system could be applicable to Canada which has about 9 times the population of New Zealand? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
-1=e^ipi Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) New Zealand is about the same population as British Columbia. Why do you feel the New Zealand system could be applicable to Canada which has about 9 times the population of New Zealand? Preference should be given to the null hypothesis. The burden of evidence is on the people that think it wouldn't be applicable. I can not think of a reason why it would not be applicable. Also, Germany has a similar system to New Zealand. Edited October 14, 2015 by -1=e^ipi Quote
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.