Tragedy of the Commons

[JamesHackerMP]

In China, with less people owning their own cars, it makes a lot of sense. Ditto for Europe. As the American president once said "I have a million ideas; the country cannot afford them all."

[JamesHackerMP]

But before we get TOO far off topic, I have a couple of questions.

I understand they added 30 seats to the House in the 2015 election. I read that this was to bring the electoral quotients of the provinces more in line with each other (reduce the overrepresentation of the smaller provinces). Are the electoral quotients now pretty even?

[Vega]

But before we get TOO far off topic, I have a couple of questions.

I understand they added 30 seats to the House in the 2015 election. I read that this was to bring the electoral quotients of the provinces more in line with each other (reduce the overrepresentation of the smaller provinces). Are the electoral quotients now pretty even?

Yeah, with population growth, it was needed. We should probably have more seats to give more representation, and bring our average of people per seat down to where the UK Parliament's is.

I don''t believe the Commons would accommodate that many MPs, though, so the current number of seats is likely to stick.

[Smallc]

Have you seen the UK House of Commons? There's lots of room in ours yet.

[cybercoma]

Weren't they talking about renovating ours to make it larger?

[JamesHackerMP]

Is the electoral quotient between the more and less populous provinces still disproportionate?

[Smallc]

Is the electoral quotient between the more and less populous provinces still disproportionate?

Yes

[Vega]

Weren't they talking about renovating ours to make it larger?

If there is ever a spare 50+ million laying around, it would be nice if they could renovate the whole chamber. It looks rather dingy.

[Smallc]

If there is ever a spare 50+ million laying around, it would be nice if they could renovate the whole chamber. It looks rather dingy.

The entire building is being renovated for over $1B starting in 2018. I was just there last summer though. There's nothing dingy about it. It's kept immaculate.

[?Impact]

It would be interesting to compare present day legislatures to see which ones use bench style seating and which ones have desks. Certainly the Canadian Parliament, EU Parliament, US Congress, Bundestag, etc. all use desks. I believe the US Capitol building was built prior to the current Palace of Westminster so age of the facility is not the only factor, but the old Palace which it replace stood many centuries prior so heritage may have been a bigger factor than practicality. The House of Commons of England (predecessor to current House of Commons of the United Kingdom) predates the printing press, certainly a very important factor on how (government) business is conducted.

[Argus]

It would be interesting to compare present day legislatures to see which ones use bench style seating and which ones have desks. Certainly the Canadian Parliament, EU Parliament, US Congress, Bundestag, etc. all use desks.

I've spent some time in our HoC in the gallery, and never saw the desks used for anything of substance. Most MPs are only in there for question period anyway. I wouldn't see anything wrong with removing the desks in order to fit more MPs in and seating them bench style like the Brits do.

[Vega]

The British House of Commons is actually in serious disrepair and will need several billions of dollars put into it in order to get it back up to speed. I'm glad we're working on things in our Parliament so that things don't get that way.

There is something about our Commons chamber that just seems so drab. It's probably the dull green and brown that makes it looks rather bad. The BC Legislative Assembly is gorgeous, and if we were ever to abolish the Senate, it would be nice to renovate and use that chamber for the Commons.

None of this really matters, of course.

[Smallc]

That chamber (The Senate) is too small for the commons. The history of the current Centre Block explains why it looks like it does. It was built during a somber time.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Smallc

[JamesHackerMP]

The senators have desks, the congressmen do not. It's bench seating in the House (just in a semicircle shape, however).

Actually, the House of Commons was blown up in WWII. Winston Churchill ordered that the chamber be rebuilt exactly like it was before being hit by a German bomb.

In Annapolis, the current State House is the oldest surviving one in the United States (I was told). The chambers are pretty nice-looking. One of the two was used as the "US Senate" chamber in House of Cards (American version) so they didn't have to build a set for it.

Edited August 15, 2016 by JamesHackerMP

[JamesHackerMP]

But speaking of electoral quotients, I was told that, as of the last census, ours is well over 725,000 per one member of the House of Representatives. The number of constituents per senator, on the other hand, varies widely: Wyoming's two senators share 563,626 constituents, whereas the two California senators share a constituency of 37,253,956.

I can see why some people would think proportional representation would solve certain problems: like the over representation of the small provinces; (I checked) wherein New Brunswick has a much smaller electoral quotient than Ontario. Kind of strange that you'd allow that to happen.

One wonders how large the chamber would have to be if you brought the EQ to a uniform, say, 50,000 or something. Probably pretty big.

Edited August 15, 2016 by JamesHackerMP

[JamesHackerMP]

Just answered my own question: 700 members. Probably a bit big to fit in that wing of the Centre Block.

Another dumb question: is the process by which electoral quotients--and representation--are determined written into the Constitution Acts?

Sorry, I answered again my own dumb question. I looked up on Wikipedia the "formula" under the Fair Representation Act, which it says replaces what was originally in the Constitution Act, 1867. Wow that's....well, heck at least you do not have gerrymandering, eh?

Edited August 15, 2016 by JamesHackerMP

[Vega]

It would be rather hard to gerrymander most of Canada. I'm sure you could try to do it, but it really wouldn't be worth it like it is in the U.S where you can pack one of the other party's voters into one confined district.

[JamesHackerMP]

Why; because the ridings are larger? or because there are too many parties?

[Vega]

Why; because the ridings are larger? or because there are too many parties?

The latter. Multi-party gerrymanders are very challenging and wouldn't benefit those doing it.

[JamesHackerMP]

Ah. Not only that, you have an independent authority that does the boundaries. In the US, the constitution is completely silent on the matter; so it's left up to the states to do it. And what a great job they do of it!

[ReeferMadness]

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.

Wow. You're a Poli-Sci major and you start your debate with a blatant straw man?

Anyone who claims that problems would "magically vanish" under PR isn't to be taken seriously. PR simply allocates political power in better accordance with the wishes of the people. It's that simple. If the people are idiots (which they frequently are), it that will be reflected in the results. But that's democracy.

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?)

Another sweeping generalization. Is this how you write your term papers?

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.

And representing the views of the people is EXACTLY what a voting system is supposed to do. So what's the problem?

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.

As a Poli-Sci major, perhaps you're familiar with MMP where you vote for both the party and a local candidate? Or STV where you actually only vote for local candidates?

And, maybe because you're an American, you have no clue the overwhelming degree to which Canadian political parties control the behavior of the MP's. Studies show most people vote for the parties rather than the candidates and experience shows that MP's who are too independent tend to get marginalized or leave their parties.

I don't mind that you're an American weighing in on Canadian politics. I just don't like you presenting yourself as some sort of expert if you can't demonstrate some basic knowledge.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I don't mind that you're an American weighing in on Canadian politics. I just don't like you presenting yourself as some sort of expert if you can't demonstrate some basic knowledge.

Clearly not a requirement for all the other "experts" presented here and in US Politics threads.

[ReeferMadness]

By the way, the name for this thread came from a book about Canadian politics, contributed to by former MPs. I'm not here trying to bash your system. I rather admire it in fact.

I'm not surprised.

If I lived in a country where it was distinctly possible that the most powerful person in government could be a man described in the mainstream media as proto-fascist, a racist sexist demagogue, a mendacious racist, a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully and other choice epithets, I would probably look favorably at other systems too.

Now, I'm flattered that someone as learned as you would choose to spend your time on whether a rather insignificant country such as ours chooses PR but...

For the love of God, don't you think you should be spending every ounce of your energy ensuring that the world's biggest nuclear arsenal isn't placed in the hands of a reality-show wingnut?

And then, if you have any time left over, maybe you could look at fixing your own, deeply dysfunctional system.

[bush_cheney2004]

If a political party in Canada campaigns and wins an election promising electoral reform, it is readily apparent where the most dysfunction can be found. Oh, please mess with regional Supreme Court representation while power is consolidated.

[TimG]

If I lived in a country where it was distinctly possible that the most powerful person in government could be a man described in the mainstream media

Considering all of those pathetic epithets are lies all they really say is the media is filled with partisan hacks that don't like it when their party is not in power. I don't see how the childish immaturity of people in the "mainstream" media is an argument for changing the system. If anything, it illustrates why it is so difficult to get consensus on anything in the country when it is filled with children that throw a tantrum when they don't get their way. Edited August 21, 2016 by TimG