Proportional representation

[realwannabe]

Sure, sometimes minority governments have worked. They only work for at most 2 years. We can't have happening. Plus, our electoral system is completely fair right now.

The only reason minority government is short lived is becuase the governning party WANTS IT TO. It likes to have a majority government so they can rule as they please.

The system "works" for SOME people, its "fair" for SOME people, namely the Liberals. Case in point, NDP got 15.69 percent of the popular vote in the 2004 election, and it has 19 seats, whereas the Bloc has only 12.40 percent of the popular votes but got 54 seats.

FPTP favors regionally concentrated party and punishes small party that has national support.

The very fact that you can say say that FPTP is completely fair shows that you are incapable of seeing the other side of the issue.

[Big Blue Machine]

The Bloc got 12% of the vote NATIONALLY. They got more than 40% in quebec.

[realwannabe]

exactly, i am comparing NATIONAL votes. Why does a vote for the Bloc in Quebec worths more than a vote for the NDP in anywhere else?

The NDP receives 23 percent of the vote in

Saskatchewan but got ZERO seat. Liberal got 27 percent of the vote in Sask with only 1 seat whereas Conservative got 41 percent of the vote and took 13 seats.

50 percent of voters in Saskatchewan did not vote Conservative and yet almost 99 percent of the seats are taken by the conservatives in Sask.

[Big Blue Machine]

Because the Conservatives got the votes in the right places. Maybe the Liberals got all their votes in one seat riding.

[maplesyrup]

2004 federal/national results

Liberals received 36.71% of the vote and 135 seats,

but 36.71% of the seats is only 113 seats. So Liberals received 22 extra seats because of our current First-Past-The-Post voting system

Conservatives received 26.91% of the vote and 99 seats, but 26.91% of the seats is only 83 seats. So Conservatives received 16 extra seats because of the FPTP voting system.

Bloc Quebecois received 12.40% of the vote and 54 seats but 12.4% of the seats is only 38 seats. So Bloc Quebecois received 16 extra seats under FPTP.

New Democrats received 15.69% of the vote and 19 seats, but 15.69% of the seats is 48 seats. so New Democrats received 29 seats less under FPTP.

Greens received 4.3% of the vote and no seats, but 4.3% of the seats is 13 seats. So the Greens received 13 seats less under FPTP.

Our voting system should reflect how people vote, and everybody's vote should be equal, or as equal as possible, if one is a true democrat, and really does believe in democracy.

That is why a multitude of provinces are already exploring changing their voting system to make it FAIRER and MORE DEMOCRATIC system It is only a matter of time before Ottawa succombs as well.

We live in a changing world.

Canada is in a state of constant change dealing with issues such as women voting, divorce, homosexuality, SSM, gun control/registry, and now proportional representation.

The Citizen's Assembly in BC deliberated for a year and are recommending a form of PR to BC which will be on the ballot during the May, 2005 election.

[realwannabe]

Because the Conservatives got the votes in the right places. Maybe the Liberals got all their votes in one seat riding.

What is wrong with this system is that it shouldnt matter who you vote for or where you vote, rather your party is regionally concentrated in its support or not, all votes should have the same weight or close to.

In a representative democracy, all citizens are supposed to have an equal share /power to participate in the electoral process, FPTP distorts voters ' intention and favors certain party over another, underrepresents a significant group of people, leaving them with no proper representation. This is all unacceptable and damages Canadian democracy.

Say in a single riding, an extream example

33 percent support NDP

33 percent support Liberal

34 percent support Conservatives

The conservative mp would win, and the rest of the 66 percent of the voters would have no representation which amounts to alot of wasted votes and contribute to voters apathy.

[maplesyrup]

In the 2003 election in Saskatchewan

New Democrats recieved 44.62% of the vote, and 30 seats forming a majority government.

Saskatchewan Party received 39.35% and 28 seats.

Liberal Party received 14.17% of the vote and no seats.

Do you thik this is FAIR?

I don't.

Do you think the New Democrats earned majority government status, with only 44.62% of the vote, from the voters?

I don't.

[maplesyrup]

In the 2003 election in Manitoba

New Democrats received 48% of the vote, and 35 seats forming a majority government, but 48% of the seats is only 27 seats.

Conservatives received 37% and 20 seats

Liberal Party received 13% of the vote and 2 seats.

Do you thik this is FAIR?

I don't.

Do you think the New Democrats earned majority government status, with only 48% of the vote, from the voters?

I don't.

[Guest eureka]

I do think it might be helpful to, consider the pros and cons of the systems rather than throwing around numbers like newly discovered ideas. There are more things behind numbers.

And the constantly repeated assertion that such and such a percentage is not represented is simply not true.

In almost every historical case where one partty has a majority of seats with less than a majority of votes, that party is also the most common second choice and has a great majority of combined first and second choices.

That alone takes away some of the supposed need for reformation. Minority governments, a common consequence of PR, often does not produce legislation that is the wil of the people. Quite the contrary. Some legislation will be the wishes of a minority only as represented by the minority party with the balance in its hands.

Meanwhile, the great majority of the poulation, as represented by the largest party through first and second choices, are subjected to the whims of a minority.

That can be bad as often as good.

[realwannabe]

Governning party often gets less than 50 percent of the votes and therefore cannot produce any legislation that is representative of the will of the people.

You talk about pro and cons , but it seems you are only interested in talking about the pro of the FPTP, so you are not that different.

[maplesyrup]

I doubt that very much. Do you think Conservatives in Saskatchewan second choice would be New Democrats? - I don't think so!

A good PR can take into account your second and third choices.

But the present FPTP system creates an inappropriate situation like this:

You have a Conservative supporter living in an NDP riding all her/his voting life. Not once will his vote ever count in the election results. Do you think that is right? Or fair? I certainly don't. Everybody's vote should count.

The way it is now it just depends on which riding you live in whether or not your vote will be impacting on the electoral results.

[Guest eureka]

I live in a riding that has swung between Conservative and NDP for half a century with a short Liberal interlude. The percentage vote swing is never more than a few points AS IT IS in all electionswith very few exceptions.

No matter who wins the majority of the electorate is represented.

What I am saying is that this discussin is pointless unless it goes beyond throwing around statistics.

What system should we introduce: what woud it accomplish: and what would a likely result for important legislation be given a minority government dependent on small party support.

I hav given examples of that in the Free Trade idea. We might not have had Free Trade with proportional representation. Whether that is a good or bad thing is open to question. It should, though, give you pause to think that PR has to be carefully considered before rushing into it.

[maplesyrup]

I agree that it has to be carefully thought out. The CA in BC deliberated for one year, without any political influence, and are recommending an STV system similar to the N Irish system. It is a form of PR.

You will have an opportunity to prioritize your candidates.

If adopted federally it effectively reduces the power of the PMO, and put more power into the hands of the MPs, which most Canadians would agree, I'm sure, is a good thing. It will reduce the power of the political parties. Usually minority governments work very well as the government party is kept on its toes.

[realwannabe]

Well in my riding, there is no chance in hell that the Conservatives or the NDP could ever win it. I waste my vote every election voting for the NDP, so your single riding is not representative of the whole picture here compared to the real numbers, (they do mean something)

And i dont think free trade should have happened.

But anyways, I support a form of MMP, where some seats will still be perserved for FPTP and some seats will be conducted using PR so there would be greater and more fair representation of seats for the actual votes.

FPTP encourages strategic voting and increases voters' apathy, people should not have to vote in fear or feel like they cant vote for their true perferences because of the "wasted votes" factor.

FPTP is absolutley not perfect and something should be done. Only France, U.S, India and Britain still use FPTP, all other countries have adopted some form of PR into their electoral systems.