Electoral Reform Abandoned

[dialamah]

"Do you think Kellie Leitch should have her own party?"

Why yes I do, as a matter of fact.  Just because I disagree vehemently with her 'values' test doesn't mean she doesn't get to have her say about it.   And if enough people support her that she can form a party and run a campaign then she should have the right to do that.   If I don't want her elected, then I also have the right to get my ass out there and run against her.

Honestly, that was a stupid justification for abandoning electoral reform in my opinion.

[Boges]

The whole point of PR is to give fringe parties a say. JT didn't need months of inquiry to discover this?

He's such a lying liar. 

Edited February 10, 2017 by Boges

[?Impact]

5 minutes ago, Boges said:

The whole point of PR is to give fringe parties a say

What do you define as 'fringe'? When many of those so called parties poll significantly higher between elections than what they receive during an election we know that many of the people who support them park their vote with one of the established parties because they feel it would be wasted otherwise. That was confirmed when Harper stole the financing for parties based on vote, and focused on something that would allow his party to get even more than the $30 million in annual welfare it receives. The 'fringe' green party has polled near 10% between elections, and the established parties in the 20's and NDP in the teens. That means that the fringe has a significant following compared to the established parties.

[Boges]

10% isn't enough to win more than 1 seat across the entire country. That's fringe.

The NDP and Bloc are popular in certain parts of the country therefore that's the party that represents them. The Greens aren't popular anywhere.  

The only system that gives those parties a say while keeping the regional representation of government is the MMP model. . . which was soundly defeated in a 2007 vote in Ontario. 

Edited February 10, 2017 by Boges

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, Boges said:

10% isn't enough to win more than 1 seat across the entire country. That's fringe.

That is because our so called democracy is based on the failed FPTP system. The Conservatives & Liberals have maybe 3-4 times the support of the Green party and regularly get 100% of the power while the Green get next to none. How is that fair?

[Boges]

Just now, ?Impact said:

That is because our so called democracy is based on the failed FPTP system. The Conservatives & Liberals have maybe 3-4 times the support of the Green party and regularly get 100% of the power while the Green get next to none. How is that fair?

It's fair if you value regional representation. If you want a system that only values proportional representation then have a congress that's 100 seats. You get a 1% of the vote, you get a seat. The members are only accountable to the party and not any constituency. All votes are whipped to what the leader says, so it's completely irrelevant who the person filling the seat is.

The MMP model keeps the regional model but ads seats based on PR. So you create two classes of MP, one that is answerable to actual people and one that answers to the party. 

If the Feds want to give either of those models a try, fine. The CPC support a referendum. Our PM would rather take his ball and go home. 

What I don't support is the idiocy of an easily hackable ranked ballot system where people are forced to give electoral powers to parties they may not want to form government. 

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

The members are only accountable to the party and not any constituency. All votes are whipped to what the leader says, so it's completely irrelevant who the person filling the seat is.

Isn't that the situation we have had for 150 years (minus a couple of months)?

[Boges]

3 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Isn't that the situation we have had for 150 years (minus a couple of months)?

Parties don't always whip votes. 

We see in Ontario that the Premiere actually reversed a policy position on Toll Roads in Toronto because some of her suburban MPP's felt they couldn't win an election if she supported a punitive toll on commuters. 

There's something to be said about having an actual constituency to answer to. 

Edited February 10, 2017 by Boges

[-TSS-]

7 hours ago, Boges said:

The whole point of PR is to give fringe parties a say. JT didn't need months of inquiry to discover this?

He's such a lying liar. 

In European PR-elections this is avoided by setting a threshold how large a proportion a party must gain votes in order to get representation. The threshold could be set at anywhere between 2-5% but 5% is the usual benchmark.

That way you ensure the proportionality of the outcome of the seat-distribution compared to the votes cast nationally but avoid parliament getting too fragmented with minor parties having 1-2 seats.

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

9 hours ago, Boges said:

10% isn't enough to win more than 1 seat across the entire country. That's fringe.

The NDP and Bloc are popular in certain parts of the country therefore that's the party that represents them. The Greens aren't popular anywhere.  

The only system that gives those parties a say while keeping the regional representation of government is the MMP model. . . which was soundly defeated in a 2007 vote in Ontario. 

10% of the electorate is certainly not what I would call 'fringe'. 

Multi-seat STV gives you both PR and regional representation. In this estimation, the Greens would have won 2 seats in 2015 and even more with what they call STV+

http://www.fairvote.ca/fvc-erre-submissions_appx_10_-made-in-canada_stv/

 

 

[ironstone]

I'm certainly not a Trudeau supporter but I'm pleased that he dropped this plan.Our current system isn't perfect but it has served us pretty well.Under a proportional representation system I would be concerned about fringe parties having too much power.I consider the Green Party to be in the fringe/radical groups out there.I don't want someone like Elizabeth May to have any more power than she has now.

[Boges]

12 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

10% of the electorate is certainly not what I would call 'fringe'. 

Multi-seat STV gives you both PR and regional representation. In this estimation, the Greens would have won 2 seats in 2015 and even more with what they call STV+

http://www.fairvote.ca/fvc-erre-submissions_appx_10_-made-in-canada_stv/

 

 

Ranked balloting, no thanks. Just a way to ensure the Liberals always win. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

36 minutes ago, Boges said:

Ranked balloting, no thanks. Just a way to ensure the Liberals always win. 

Regular multi-seat STV is a fair system that balances regional concerns and reduces the chance of ridiculous outcomes like 1993. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

2 hours ago, ironstone said:

I'm certainly not a Trudeau supporter but I'm pleased that he dropped this plan.Our current system isn't perfect but it has served us pretty well.Under a proportional representation system I would be concerned about fringe parties having too much power.I consider the Green Party to be in the fringe/radical groups out there.I don't want someone like Elizabeth May to have any more power than she has now.

A fringe party is one that gets a few thousand votes. Parliament should reflect what people vote for. 

[Argus]

13 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

10% of the electorate is certainly not what I would call 'fringe'.

Given Trudeau used Kellie Lietch as an example of 'fringe' despite her values test demand being emraced by the majority of Canadians, I think it safe to say Trudeau's belief in what constitutes 'fringe' is any opinion or belief not currently embraced by the progressive elites.

[-TSS-]

Once you get out of FPTP you don't want to get back.

The New Zealanders are unhappy with their electoral system of mixed PR and single-member constituencies but in a referendum whether to go back to FPTP they totally rejected it.

[eyeball]

Well, New Zealanders did have three other prop rep options to pick from.  How do they feel about holding further referendums until they get the one they like or that works best?

[jbg]

On 2/1/2017 at 2:42 PM, Ash74 said:

You mean a Liberal politician lied to the Canadian people?

I don't believe it. That can't happen. 

I live in Ontario and the Ontario Liberals would never do that. 

Liberals never lie.

[-TSS-]

I guess what you need is an election-result whereby one party gains most votes while another party gains the majority of the seats. Under the FPTP-system that is entirely possible.

Other than that you will keep on saying that the issue is not important or urgent.

[-TSS-]

I wouldn't favour the kind of system used in Germany and New Zealand. That would create two tiers of MP*s; those with the constituency-mandate and those from the party-lists. Those who have been elected from the single-member constituencies never stop reminding about it. Those who are defeated in the constituency-vote are the ones who sneak in through party-lists.

[-TSS-]

This issue seems to have been forgotten. No surprises there then.

[Boges]

13 hours ago, -TSS- said:

This issue seems to have been forgotten. No surprises there then.

Well this is how politics work in Canada. Get unpopular stuff out of the way relatively early so people forget about it then closer to re-election you only do populist things people like. See the Ontario Liberal Parties act right now. Everything is about sunshine and rainbows and will be for the next year and a bit. 

[PIK]

On 2/10/2017 at 10:35 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

10% of the electorate is certainly not what I would call 'fringe'. 

Multi-seat STV gives you both PR and regional representation. In this estimation, the Greens would have won 2 seats in 2015 and even more with what they call STV+

http://www.fairvote.ca/fvc-erre-submissions_appx_10_-made-in-canada_stv/

 

 

We have the best system going, yours has failed all over the world and will just cause anarchy here. We do not need a tribal system here and that is what we will get.

[SpankyMcFarland]

6 hours ago, PIK said:

We have the best system going, yours has failed all over the world and will just cause anarchy here. We do not need a tribal system here and that is what we will get.

You think the federal election result of 1993 was an example of the best system going? Or UKIP requiring millions of votes to get a seat? FPTP works well with two parties. Beyond that you get results increasingly unrepresentative of total vote share that favour regional parties e.g. the BQ and SNP and punish smaller national parties e.g. the Greens. Anarchy has long since left the bag. 

'My' system works fine in a country like Ireland, for example. Coalitions reflect the popular vote and Canada needs to grow up about them.

  

 

[-1=e^ipi]

On 2/10/2017 at 7:34 PM, -TSS- said:

In European PR-elections this is avoided by setting a threshold how large a proportion a party must gain votes in order to get representation. The threshold could be set at anywhere between 2-5% but 5% is the usual benchmark.

That way you ensure the proportionality of the outcome of the seat-distribution compared to the votes cast nationally but avoid parliament getting too fragmented with minor parties having 1-2 seats.

 

What's so bad about giving 'fringe' parties representation? If a Communist, ISIS or Nazi party gains enough support to justify a seat, I say let them have representation so that their ideas can be heard and then challenged.

The Netherlands have no such threshold. As a result, they even get Armenian genocide denying parties in parliament. I say that's a good thing because it means Armenian genocide denial can be addressed rather than ignored and swept under the rug.