Equal Representation

[ndpnic]

I think YES!!!!!!

[caesar]

No thanks. True democracy my buttt. Manipulated democracy is what they will have.

[ndpnic]

No thanks. True democracy my buttt. Manipulated democracy is what they will have

.

I think the wide spread corruption and greed of the currant Canadian vesion of Democracy is proof of why we should embrace Equal Rpresentation!!!

[The Terrible Sweal]

Could you explain what you mean by "Equal Representation"?

What would be the point of voting if the representation is fixed to come out "equal"?

[cgarrett]

b.c. will be voting for an proportional representation system this march.

i suspect that it will succeed...

[ndpnic]

I think it only fair and Democratic that Every Canadian's needs and interests are represented and addressed.

It is not the fault of younger generations that Canadian economics and Government have forced us into having smaller fams., wich gives us a smaller voting voice than say, the Baby Boomers!!!!

Just because there are less of us, doesn't mean we count less!!!

And since the wants of Baby Boomers directly contradicts most of the beliefs of the younger generation, the only way to ensure a True, Balanced, Equal Democracy is to alter the way votes are counted.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Again ... what do you mean by "equal representation"??

[SirSpanky]

Generally, the percentage of votes you get will be directly proportional to the amount of seats in government....... generally

[yvestar]

However, not all votes will receive representation in the legislature with a common proportional representation system as used around the world.

I believe a better PR system is explained in my paper, Every Vote Doesn't Count: Common PR Not Good Either.

I'm not impressed with the BC proposal either as indicated in my paper currently under revision, Increasing Democracy in Parliament

The above are very short papers you can read in much less than 3-5 minutes each.

[Guest eureka]

ndpnic!

Are you suggesting that "Equal Representation" means equal numbers ofParliamentary for each demographis group regardless of their numbers?

Like TS, I would like to know what the question means.

[caesar]

Just because there are less of us, doesn't mean we count less!!!

You must have taken a new math than what I took.

The younger generation is the "ME generation.

Equal representation will not be done on an age basis. It is as far as I can see. A more expensive system with more fringe parties getting seats and we will have to pay for these insignificant people who will have no influence.

[caesar]

b.c. will be voting for an proportional representation system this march.

i suspect that it will succeed...

We do seem to like to vote for change here in BC. Any change without too much thought going into the question.

Personally, I prefer the way we have it now.

[Luke]

Equal representation would be nice for a change, as in equal reps per pop in the HOC and equal reps per province in the senate. Or in other words we would all like to be as "equal" as Quebec.

[caesar]

Well Luke, on that I agree; However, that is not what this "equal representation is all about.

The BC system being suggested was done by a handful of "regular citizens" under the leadership of a government picked moderator. Too much influence on people who are NOT experts. I would have more confidence in a group of experts coming up with the choices first; openly debating the various systems. Experts would be more knowledgeable of the downfalls of the systems. I am suspect on a system selected by non experts under the leadership of a ruling governments choice of moderator.

[daniel]

I believe there were about 800 or so political parties running in the Iraq election.

In Canada, 301 should be enough.

[yvestar]

Personally, I don't agree with an Equal Senate. I think it is majorly flawed. I've heard the most common proposal for an equal senate is: 10 seats per province and 3 seats per territory.

What is going to stop Yukon from splitting into 10 different territories? That's 30 seats where there was once 3.

Similarly, if I were to take an extreme case: What if PEI splits into 10 territories or 10 provinces?

Does anyone see as to what I'm getting at? Equal representation as described here is illogical and I think rather impossible to implement.

As for proportional representation of the population in the HOC or Senate? I'm all for this. I'm also for adding proportional representation of the land area into the HOC and Senate.

I don't like BC's proposed STV system or any other common PR electoral systems. I think a maximum of 2 most popular representatives who are the only ones involved in a runoff election should carry their proportional voter support from the runoff election into the HOC or Senate for legislative voting purposes.

[Guest eureka]

Would you then agree to the substantial increase of seats in the Senate for Ontario - the truly "underrepresented" province?

40% of the seats in line with its proportion of the population should about do it. Perhaps the same in the House and give Ontario the control that outsiders think it has.

[yvestar]

Based on the People and Land Democracy Premise Ontario would receive approximately 86 seats. Their population vote would count for about 39% of total population votes while their land area votes would count for about 18% of the total land area votes. This averages out to about 28% of all votes.

The number of seats is not the real indicator of power in the People and Land premise (because of rounding) but instead are, riding population and land area.

[Luke]

Well Luke, on that I agree; However, that is not what this "equal representation is all about.

The BC system being suggested was done by a handful of "regular citizens" under the leadership of a government picked moderator. Too much influence on people who are NOT experts. I would have more confidence in a group of experts coming up with the choices first; openly debating the various systems. Experts would be more knowledgeable of the downfalls of the systems. I am suspect on a system selected by non experts under the leadership of a ruling governments choice of moderator.

Caesar, I'm not a fan of PR in the first place, but this dogs breakfast the citizens assembly came up with is even worse than I imagined. I disagree that the outcome was influenced by the Libs. There is no reason for them to want such a system. I only hope that the people shoot it down on voting day.

[Grantler]

PR is not the answer in Canada. We are a nation that needs a national party. If there another country in the world that exhibits the samer regional characteristics as Canada? I think not.

We are truly a federation and to keep a federation moving forward you need to be able to put in power a single entity that speaks for everyone.

A PR system would promote the creation of fringe parties in every region of the nation. Obviously the answer to this by supporters is a minimum percentage cut-off for seats. But then, you have all of the regional fringe parties not being represented and all of those votes are wasted just like in the current system.

Then, you have to look at the party list that would obviously be the way of obtaining members. How is this list going to be more representative? No longer will you have a Member of Parliament in your riding to represent you directly. The members will be more preoccupied with power and maintaining their place on the list for the next election.

The problems with PR in a country like Canada can go on and on. I say if it isn't broke, don't fix it.

Canada is the greatest nation in the world as far as I am concerned and if you disagree, maybe it is you that should leave this awful land. That is your choice.

[ndpnic]

To me Equal rep is this :

Election results : (actual votes cast by voters on Election day)

Libs - 42%

NDP - 27%

Cons - 25%

indie - 6%

Each part then receives like # of seats.

This way, every Canadian's needs will be adressed, not just those who can afford to buy thier way through life.

[The Terrible Sweal]

hmmm. so basically, you mean proportional representation, but with only 100 seats?

well, i'll vote no, then. I think PR is an unwise method.

i think our problems stem party frm the failure of or politicians to be stand-up individals representing teir constituents. by disconnecting legislators frm their geographic roots, and making them creatures of party lists, i think we worsen this parliamentarians' malaise.

i think we should instead have prefernetial balloting, and legislator recall.

[Grantler]

Further arguments are here, I dont feel that I have the right to post some in from other people but you can still read them...

http://www.getfreebb.com/members/index.php...F&showtopic=60)

-----------------------

As for proportional representation, that five party system won't be the only party.

You will have the gay rights party, the beer party, the asians for control of Canada party, the white power party, canadian nazis....you will have it all...and in order to stop any from gaining power you will have to impose a 5% minimum on votes....therefore wasting tons of votes like in a FPTP system.....and...don't forget, you will have no national party and therefore be unable to get any laws passed that benifit one part of the country and not the other....how many Ontarians will support a goverment that passes $23 billion out to have not provinces? This is just one example.

[bbacon]

The Canadian system is very very rigged and corrupt. First off lets discuss the Premier/Prime Minister, he is handpicked by The Family Compact lead by Paul Desmarais of Powercorp and the Liberal Party of Canada in a safe seat and well financed by Paul Desmarais/Powercorp he is elected by 30,000 voters in his riding to speak for 30,000,000 voters. In a free state you have one equal man/woman and one equal vote. The Senate should be EEE or it should be abolished. The Privy council should consist of selections from each Province not flake buddies of the sitting PM/Premier. Each GG should be directly elected and wield power over the PM. Canada is a hopeless corrupt cesspool of corruption.

[Slavik44]

Personally, I don't agree with an Equal Senate. I think it is majorly flawed. I've heard the most common proposal for an equal senate is: 10 seats per province and 3 seats per territory.

What is going to stop Yukon from splitting into 10 different territories? That's 30 seats where there was once 3.

Similarly, if I were to take an extreme case: What if PEI splits into 10 territories or 10 provinces?

Does anyone see as to what I'm getting at? Equal representation as described here is illogical and I think rather impossible to implement.

Well right now every territory has one senator what is to stop nunavut at this point from spliting into 100 territories and dicatating Canadian policy? So right away that arguement is fundementally flawed, and ignoring the fact that such a system would not be so elementary or machine like. As far as P.E.I they can barely push out ten cities let alone ten provinces. Besides that your nightmare system is already happening

B.C 4 million people 6 seats

Newfoundland 500,000 people 6 seats

P.E.I 130,000 people 4 seats

Alberta 3 million people 6 seats

Anyways I will agree that some form of PR in the senate should be used, but..equal representation would be better then what we have now.

I don't like BC's proposed STV system or any other common PR electoral systems. I think a maximum of 2 most popular representatives who are the only ones involved in a runoff election should carry their proportional voter support from the runoff election into the HOC or Senate for legislative voting purposes.

Personally I like the SVT system, I do not like the idea of a single member majority system that you are advocating. After all not to many people get 50% +1 in there ridings in Canadian elections, having a run off election a week or two after a general election would just further piss people off, waste valuable time, and waste money....not needed a SVT system can accomplish pretty near the same thing, while giving smaller parties a chance and breaking up/weaking strogn centralised party politics.