Tragedy of the Commons

[JamesHackerMP]

Again, forgive me for weighing in when it's not my own government. Then again, as one of you pointed out here, his countrymen are always ready to weigh in on US politics. So maybe it's just only fair that I return the favor?

One of the discussions, on the Canadian Senate, led to an allegation that the real problem is not the Senate itself but the Commons. A discussion led to the following: should Canadians elect their lower (and more important) house based on proportional representation, all of its problems of being held captive by party hacks/elites would magically vanish with PR.

Having been a political science major, I can tell you that, in the experience of other countries that use it, the Canadians who advocate PR in the Commons are way off. (Sorry if nobody likes hearing a Yank tell them what's not going to work in Canada, but fair enough, right?)

PR, ostensibly, represents the views of the people better because the percentages of the people voting for a party--which has a particular platform and a particular agenda along with it that it's going to do for the people--equal the number of seats it wins in the house.

The point this misses is responsible government: will PR actually foist the control of the executive government of Canada out of the hands of the party hacks and return power to the people because it's "more democratic"? Probably not. Because you've now just started voting for parties, rather than singular MPs in a plethora (338) of ridings across Canada, and it will make the party machine even MORE important to the mechanism of responsible government than it is now---which to some of you seems pretty hard to imagine. Well, imagine it. I've studied (yes, in a classroom) other systems of government, some of which use PR instead of FPTP. Both have their problems inherent.

My own personal verdict from south of the 49th parallel: you'd trade one set of problems for another.

[bjre]

I am just wondering why people from a country that is fulling problems still have so much enthusiasm in telling others how to do instead of solving their own problems.

We are riven by racial tensions. We have allowed the creation of an underclass with little hope of advancement. They are trapped in inner cities (where half of all minority students don’t graduate high school - and thus are effectively disqualified from real participation in our economy). We have exacerbated this problem of social tension with our deep and perverse national pathology about guns. And we have effectively made institutional and lasting change regarding both these problems impossible with a corrupt system of financing political candidates who empower special interests, all but ensuring the needs of the economically disenfranchised will be ignored.

These are the drivers behind the upheaval across the country during these past few weeks - in places like Baton Rouge, Dallas, and Minneapolis. But, or course, the forces underlying the shootings, protests, and political debates have been festering in the United States for a long time. They are so deeply entrenched that those in leadership positions have been unable to do anything meaningful about them - and that includes President Barack Obama.

-- from America Is Losing the High Ground

[Argus]

I am just wondering why people from a country that is fulling problems still have so much enthusiasm in telling others how to do instead of solving their own problems.

Don't you do the same from China?

[bjre]

Don't you do the same from China?

I have been living in Canada for many years, I have not visit China for many years. If you don’t agree I am belonging to here, then you are not too, because you are not one of the aboriginal people.

Unlike the United States, China do much better than Canada in the 21st century. That’s why from many aspect, learning from China is good to Canada.

[dialamah]

will PR actually foist the control of the executive government of Canada out of the hands of the party hacks and return power to the people because it's "more democratic"? Probably not. Because you've now just started voting for parties, rather than singular MPs in a plethora (338) of ridings across Canada, and it will make the party machine even MORE important to the mechanism of responsible government than it is now---which to some of you seems pretty hard to imagine.

Right now, each of these MPs represents a party so we're effectively already voting for a party anyway, not a 'person' we happen to like. I fail to see the difference, but am willing to admit that's my ignorance. Perhaps you could explain what I might be missing?

My own personal verdict from south of the 49th parallel: you'd trade one set of problems for another.

I'm sure that's true, but what I'd like to see is less of the constant "They're wrong" directed toward the sitting government, and more of a spirit of cooperation within all parties. I'd like to see the strengths from each political ideology contributed, rather than near-constant criticism and finger-pointing. Perhaps that's not really possible in PR either, but it certainly isn't happening now as far as can tell.

[JamesHackerMP]

I am just wondering why people from a country that is fulling problems still have so much enthusiasm in telling others how to do instead of solving their own problems.

We are riven by racial tensions. We have allowed the creation of an underclass with little hope of advancement. They are trapped in inner cities (where half of all minority students don’t graduate high school - and thus are effectively disqualified from real participation in our economy). We have exacerbated this problem of social tension with our deep and perverse national pathology about guns. And we have effectively made institutional and lasting change regarding both these problems impossible with a corrupt system of financing political candidates who empower special interests, all but ensuring the needs of the economically disenfranchised will be ignored.

These are the drivers behind the upheaval across the country during these past few weeks - in places like Baton Rouge, Dallas, and Minneapolis. But, or course, the forces underlying the shootings, protests, and political debates have been festering in the United States for a long time. They are so deeply entrenched that those in leadership positions have been unable to do anything meaningful about them - and that includes President Barack Obama.

-- from America Is Losing the High Ground

Um, I'm not telling you what to do. Read my first post. I'm here for the opportunity of "information exchange". If it helps, I was a political science major who's taken courses in comparative politics and international relations at university. Funny how everyone tells America everything we're doing wrong, but if an American questions--even just questions--something another country does, this very fascinating double-standard comes to light.

Dialamah at least had the decency to understand that I was trying to understand, not tell you what to do. Honestly, bjre, do you think that as an American I'm unaware of the problems in my own country? Why would I be on a discussion board like this if I were that ignorant.

Right now, each of these MPs represents a party so we're effectively already voting for a party anyway, not a 'person' we happen to like. I fail to see the difference, but am willing to admit that's my ignorance. Perhaps you could explain what I might be missing?

I'm sure that's true, but what I'd like to see is less of the constant "They're wrong" directed toward the sitting government, and more of a spirit of cooperation within all parties. I'd like to see the strengths from each political ideology contributed, rather than near-constant criticism and finger-pointing. Perhaps that's not really possible in PR either, but it certainly isn't happening now as far as can tell.

Well, the countries that use PR, they tend to just benefit the two largest parties even more so than with first past the post. They say the tail can wag the dog (the little parties thanks to PR being able to rise up), but in cases like that, I'm pretty sure the dog is doing a pretty fine job of wagging its own tail. Is it not possible that there is another solution to restore "responsible government" to the parliamentary system?

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Funny how everyone tells America everything we're doing wrong, but if an American questions--even just questions--something another country does, this very fascinating double-standard comes to light.

Indeed....funny how that works, eh ?

[dialamah]

Well, the countries that use PR, they tend to just benefit the two largest parties even more so than with first past the post. They say the tail can wag the dog (the little parties thanks to PR being able to rise up), but in cases like that, I'm pretty sure the dog is doing a pretty fine job of wagging its own tail. Is it not possible that there is another solution to restore "responsible government" to the parliamentary system?

Perhaps there is, do you have some ideas to share?

[JamesHackerMP]

Keep FPTP but drop the "whipping" that makes the cabinet a party elite.

[jacee]

Keep FPTP but drop the "whipping" that makes the cabinet a party elite.

Thanks for your thoughts.

You can borrow the 'whip' and use it on Trump, with my blessings.

?

[JamesHackerMP]

As far as him---not to get off topic---both candidates could use a whipping back into reality. I'm one of those Americans who's fed up with the behavior of both parties. This is where the flaws of both types of democracies become apparent.

[JamesHackerMP]

From what I have read, and this surprised me, there is no mention at all of a prime minister in the Constitution Act; as in our constitution, there is no mention of a cabinet, for example. But he does have an awful lot of power, that our presidents would only dream of having. Maybe that's where to start?

[Jovial Monk]

First past the post sucks, MPs often elected with 30% of the vote.

Now in Australia we have the perfect system: preferential voting. To win a seat a candidate must win the direct votes plus preferences of 50% + 1 vote at least.

Pity a bunch of deadshits whi couldn’t manage a chook raffle in a pub got [re-]elected to power but.

[The_Squid]

First past the post sucks, MPs often elected with 30% of the vote.

Now in Australia we have the perfect system: preferential voting. To win a seat a candidate must win the direct votes plus preferences of 50% + 1 vote at least.

Pity a bunch of deadshits whi couldn’t manage a chook raffle in a pub got [re-]elected to power but.

Welcome to the site.

[JamesHackerMP]

When you vote for MP, how many candidates are there on the ballot in the average riding? And which parties normally win; is is pretty much just the Conservatives or Liberals?

[Argus]

First past the post sucks, MPs often elected with 30% of the vote.

Now in Australia we have the perfect system: preferential voting. To win a seat a candidate must win the direct votes plus preferences of 50% + 1 vote at least.

Yes, and it seems to give you a fresh election every year and endless political infighting in between. No thanks.

[JamesHackerMP]

Australia does seem to have a system by which the Senate is useful, without being overly obstructive to the will of the People. I met someone playing Diplomacy who was a senator's aide in Canberra, and gave me a run down on the system. I think---and this is just my opinion---that Canada could adopt their method of internal checks & balances, via an elected Senate that the government cannot always control by political patronage instead.

There is a mechanism to prevent the political infighting between House and Senate that they've developed. It's actually pretty ingenious in my opinion, and for Canadians, who seem afraid of the Senate turning into an obstructive machine, it might actually work in Canada. Or not. Who am I to say?

In any case, PR would make your problem worse. I majored in political science, as my profile says, and we discussed and analyzed systems using PR and FPTP systems.

Would you have the ENTIRE Commons use PR? or would it be "half and half" like the Bundestag in Berlin?

Edited July 26, 2016 by JamesHackerMP

[cybercoma]

When you vote for MP, how many candidates are there on the ballot in the average riding? And which parties normally win; is is pretty much just the Conservatives or Liberals?

My riding had several candidates. Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green, and an independent. When I lived in another city there was also a Marxist-Leninist candidate and a Christian Heritage candidate on top of the aforementioned. I'd say almost every riding has at least four to five candidates. Edited July 26, 2016 by cybercoma

[eyeball]

In any case, PR would make your problem worse. I majored in political science, as my profile says, and we discussed and analyzed systems using PR and FPTP systems.

Did you ever analyze what the effects of outlawing in-camera lobbying might be?

I personally think that one policy measure alone would soon result in buses that run on time if not peace and prosperity for all.

[JamesHackerMP]

I don't understand what you mean by in-camera lobbying.

[eyeball]

Lobbying public officials in secret private - in the absence of cameras and tape recorders.

[JamesHackerMP]

ahhh. Very difficult to do. What do you expect to do about that? Big Brother every lobbyist in Washington?

[segnosaur]

Tragedy of the Commons

Hate to nitpick, but I just wanted to point out that the thread title "Tragedy of the Commons" is a little misleading (or it has a double meaning that you might not have intended.)

The term "tragedy of the commons" is an economic term that refers to a situation where you have some resource that has no single owner. Because of that, individuals may use that resource over and above what they might otherwise be entitled to (or what is sustainable)

Picture 3 people walking along the street and they see a pie... The first person cuts it in half and takes a piece. (After all, why not? Free pie! And he didn't take it all). The second person takes the second piece (And why not? He's not doing anything the first person didn't do.) The last person gets nothing, because the resource has been used by the first 2.

In the real world, "tragedy of the commons" could be applied to situations like fishing stocks (where a single fisherman may not have an incentive to limit his catch, resulting in a depletion of the species as each fisherman individually tries to maximize their catch). It could even be applied to environmental situations (where the common resource is a clean environment.)

[eyeball]

ahhh. Very difficult to do. What do you expect to do about that? Big Brother every lobbyist in Washington?

Every politician.

The greatest difficulty will be overcoming right-wing sycophancy.

[jacee]

ahhh. Very difficult to do. What do you expect to do about that? Big Brother every lobbyist in Washington?

Outlaw them in Ottawa.

.