Will ranked voting mean the end of conservative party?

[segnosaur]

25 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

A proportional system would be silly because you'd never have a majority government and constant instability.

There is no daemon associated with proportional voting, that is something you created in your head. Many extremely stable governments around the world run very effectively with proportional voting. Next year will be the 19th parliamentary election of the German Bundestag since the war, during that same time we have already had 22 parliamentary elections in Canada.

It is true... there are governments out there who regularly have stable governments under proportional systems. But, a little context is important.

Germany basically has 2 "main" parties that have a reasonable attempt at gaining power (plus a collection of smaller parties that will pick up the cumbs.) Canada has 3 main parties (the NDP usually sits in 3rd spot, but it still soaks up a significant number of seats.) Thus, in a Canadian system, a system of proportional representation will more likely end up with a 3-way split of seats with no party forming a majority.

It should also be pointed out that the German system doesn't use pure-proportional voting but a mixed system...

 

 

 

[?Impact]

26 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

Germany basically has 2 "main" parties that have a reasonable attempt at gaining power (plus a collection of smaller parties that will pick up the cumbs.) Canada has 3 main parties (the NDP usually sits in 3rd spot, but it still soaks up a significant number of seats.) Thus, in a Canadian system, a system of proportional representation will more likely end up with a 3-way split of seats with no party forming a majority.

It should also be pointed out that the German system doesn't use pure-proportional voting but a mixed system..

Yes, in Germany there are 2 main parties that tend to lead (not gain power, understand there is a difference between a coalition government and minority one). Yes, the NDP makes the political landscape a bit different in Canada but then so does (did) the Bloc, Reform, and Canadian Alliance. In Germany the balance of power was held by the FDP (Free Democratic Party) for many years, and then the Greens for about a decade. I don't see any fundamental differences here, but you need to get off the concept of a majority as the only way to govern.

I agree that there are some advantages to a mixed system over pure proportional, as there are visa versa. Those should be given consideration before any system is selected. Canadians also need to be kept involved, educated, and informed throughout the process. I have no idea about BC & PEI, but I know the main reason for the referendum results in Ontario was very little involvement of citizens. That low involvement, and then holding a referendum was extremely dumb.

Edited December 13, 2016 by ?Impact

[segnosaur]

19 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, in Germany there are 2 main parties that tend to lead (not gain power, understand there is a difference between a coalition government and minority one). Yes, the NDP makes the political landscape a bit different in Canada but then so does (did) the Bloc, Reform, and Canadian Alliance. In Germany the balance of power was held by the FDP (Free Democratic Party) for many years, and then the Greens for about a decade. I don't see any fundamental differences here, but you need to get off the concept of a majority as the only way to govern.

 

Oh, its quite possible that if Canada used some version of proportional representation it might lead to stability. Its just that the stability I would be worried about occurring is one of successive Minority Liberal governments propped up by the NDPers, until the sun burns out or Jebus returns.

The NDP would never end up in a coalition with the conservatives due to ideological differences. The Liberals would never end up in a coalition with the conservatives because they view each other as their major rivals. This would mean that an NDP/Liberal coalition would make the most sense (due to ideological similarities and past history.)

And while I'm sure some on the left wing would be only too happy to have the conservatives kept far from power, some might consider it questionable that the party that gets ~30% of the vote would always get 0% of the power.

[?Impact]

12 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

The NDP would never end up in a coalition with the conservatives due to ideological differences

Yet Germany has a coalition between the far left socialists and the Christian democrats. I think the chances of a Liberal/conservative coalition are highly likely.  The big ideological differences are not between the NDP and conservatives, it is between the NDP and ultra right-wing reformists (who call themselves Conservatives). Perhaps this is an opportunity for the emergence of real conservatives in Canada.

[H10]

9 hours ago, ?Impact said:

There is no daemon associated with proportional voting, that is something you created in your head. Many extremely stable governments around the world run very effectively with proportional voting. Next year will be the 19th parliamentary election of the German Bundestag since the war, during that same time we have already had 22 parliamentary elections in Canada.

Ranked voting only gets power hungry politicians what they want - absolute control.

No, it gives voters the most choice.

[Michael Hardner]

12 hours ago, ?Impact said:

I think the chances of a Liberal/conservative coalition are highly likely.  The big ideological differences are not between the NDP and conservatives, it is between the NDP and ultra right-wing reformists (who call themselves Conservatives). Perhaps this is an opportunity for the emergence of real conservatives in Canada.

But can you understand why people who support the #2 party in Canada (the party that gets about 1/3 of the vote and has been in power about 1/3 of the time) are concerned ?  Is it not a contradiction that a large minority of Canadians are concerned that their democratic choices are going to be reduced under this plan touted as 'fair voting' ?

 

And if you want to dismiss their concerns, can you justify taking such a radical step in democracy without actually knowing what the results might be ?   Are you confident that we won't end up with an effective two-party system and how can you convince the large minority of conservative voters of that ?

 

And finally.... why ?  I hear that it is supposed to encourage voter engagement.  Well, we are at the point in history where we have in-home point-to-point communication via the internet.  Wouldn't a better change to democracy be to engage people better through that tool rather than re-arranging how our votes count in such a radical experiment ?  

 

A good friend of mine has similar politics to me and has never voted Conservative.  He is warning his NDP friends off of plunging into an unknown system that will create more coalitions and more backroom politics, as he has seen in Israel.  He is very convincing. 

[?Impact]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

But can you understand why people who support the #2 party in Canada (the party that gets about 1/3 of the vote and has been in power about 1/3 of the time) are concerned ?

Not sure what party that is. Since it's inception, the Conservative party has been in power 77% of the time. In the past 30 years, either the Conservative party or the progressive Conservative parties have been in power 57% of the time. It appears to me that people that think they are 'conservatives', because they are too damn lazy to understand politics, are getting far, far more than their fair share of 'power'. 

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

And finally.... why ?  I hear that it is supposed to encourage voter engagement.  Well, we are at the point in history where we have in-home point-to-point communication via the internet.  Wouldn't a better change to democracy be to engage people better through that tool rather than re-arranging how our votes count in such a radical experiment ?  

I agree that democracy is not static, and things need to involve and include better voter engagement. This is absolutely nothing, zero, zilch that is radical about proportional representation. It is a tried, tested, and true system the world over. I see it as only a step towards better democracy, the Swiss are light years ahead with their form of direct democracy that (yes, far from perfect) allows a representative government for efficiency reasons but keeps it in check. We need to be continually looking at improving the system.

[Michael Hardner]

Systems of democracy are not separable from culture.  NZ is often touted as a success but they had 2 parties.  Trying something in Switzerland doesn't mean much for Canada.

As for Conservative power, try going back 40 or 50 years. And try looking at majority governments.

[PIK]

150 yrs of stable governments and we want to change that? At least we know that since Trudeau is breaking promises as he goes,this one will not happen either. Trudeau misspoke and was probably had his knuckles wrapped for that.

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

And try looking at majority governments.

That is one of the problems we are trying to address. There is no reason a party with 30% of the support should get 100% of the power. We have a lot of people voting anti-Conservative or anti-Liberal because of our screwed up perception of how to govern in this country. Lets get people voting for who they want to govern, and then force the politicians to work together.

[Michael Hardner]

The reason why we have majority government is that a leader with a clear vision will have the chance to execute it.  I think a party with 30% of the vote getting to run things 30% of the time works, but admittedly that doesn't justify the Liberals dominant ownership of government over the past 50 years.

 

I doubt any Conservative voter will see this as advantageous to their way of thinking which is why I think a supermajority needs to approve this plan.  50%+1 approval is not enough IMO.

[?Impact]

28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I doubt any Conservative voter will see this as advantageous to their way of thinking which is why I think a supermajority needs to approve this plan.  50%+1 approval is not enough IMO.

Yet they cheered when Harper got rid of the per-vote financing, and brought in his Corrupt Elections Act on way less than that.

Other countries are able to function just fine by having the politicians do the job they are well paid to and reach compromises with other parties. We don't need dictators in this country, Conservative or Liberal. That is why I don't support ranked ballots either.

[poochy]

4 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Yet they cheered when Harper got rid of the per-vote financing, and brought in his Corrupt Elections Act on way less than that.

 

It's not corrupt if you follow the rules, it's not really the conservatives fault that liberals are generally so weak in character that they cannot follow the rules even after they make a big show of expecting to be better than the conservatives while doing so.  But you go ahead and keep spinning liberal, btw, is this the new official line of attack from the think tank or lobby group?  I see you've been spreading it around.

[The_Squid]

1 hour ago, poochy said:

It's not corrupt if you follow the rules, it's not really the conservatives fault that liberals are generally so weak in character that they cannot follow the rules even after they make a big show of expecting to be better than the conservatives while doing so.  But you go ahead and keep spinning liberal, btw, is this the new official line of attack from the think tank or lobby group?  I see you've been spreading it around.

 

Please post the rules for us to see.

[Michael Hardner]

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&document=index&dir=lim&lang=e

These are federal rules.  Contributions must be made by individuals, not companies or unions.  

Limits on Contributions, Loans and Loan Guarantees

Political entity	2017 annual limit	Limit per election called between Jan 1, 2017 and Dec 31, 2017
To each registered party	$1,550*	n/a
In total to all the registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates of each registered party	$1,550*	n/a
In total to all leadership contestants in a particular contest	$1,550*	n/a
To each independent candidate	n/a	$1,550*

 

[The_Squid]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&document=index&dir=lim&lang=e

These are federal rules.  Contributions must be made by individuals, not companies or unions.  

Limits on Contributions, Loans and Loan Guarantees

Political entity	2017 annual limit	Limit per election called between Jan 1, 2017 and Dec 31, 2017
To each registered party	$1,550*	n/a
In total to all the registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates of each registered party	$1,550*	n/a
In total to all leadership contestants in a particular contest	$1,550*	n/a
To each independent candidate	n/a	$1,550*

 

 

So no rules were broken....