Conservative Party can run on proportional representation reform

[myata]

Yes, it should. First, it would make a real, lasting difference. Because this innocent senile play with unlimited and unrestricted by anything power isn't going to end well. One day one authoritarian majority or quasi PM will take it one, just a single step further. We have just seen it's very possible and there's nothing, none at all sheer airless vacuum to check and stop it.

Besides it would be immense fun to watch Liberals squirm trashing their own heartfelt pledge to Canada (now long forgotten). I may even vote.

Will they dare? Let's see.

Edited June 14, 2022 by myata

[-1=e^ipi]

If the conservatives did this, I might vote for them. For me, electoral deform and democracy are the most important issues because they affect all the other issues. For example, if we had more competent people in power at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, maybe we would of had better results.

Edited June 14, 2022 by -1=e^ipi

[RedDog]

Can they explain why NS and NB have more Senators than Alberta?

Also, why does PAYbec have more MP’s than AB and BC with a larger population?

CanaDUH needs a reset. 

[eyeball]

If this was promised I might vote for them.  I'd sure like to see some sort of surety in place before I did though. I don't know what form that would take but there must be something they could put up.  I'd need more than just their word though.

[myata]

They can say it clear and open: the time has come for a real, meaningful change, it's here. Nothing can coast thoughtlessly forever.

Or they can keep playing in the senile sandbox pretending that nobody knows it for what it has become. That is a choice, sure. I don't want to bet just see - is there anything in this environment that is still alive, can think, move and change?

[Yzermandius19]

why would the Conservatives run on something that is going to reduce their political power and increase the political power of their competitors?

it makes no sense at all, they aren't THAT stupid

both the Liberals and Conservatives benefit from FPTP

they aren't going to pass it, even if they run on it

because they are well aware of that

Edited June 14, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[myata]

13 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

both the Liberals and Conservatives benefit from FPTP

That is obvious, and that is the question. Can any of the happy duo still think of the country, the future over their partisan interest, or it's a done deal already? We know that Libs tried real hard. OK, noted. And that leaves only one option.

And sure no "discussions, considerations, consultations, evaluations" escapes, just forget it. A solid, clear commitment, majority government means implementation. If minority then with anyone interested on board BQ, Greens. The country will see who is interested in its future, not a bad thing either.

[Yzermandius19]

16 hours ago, myata said:

That is obvious, and that is the question. Can any of the happy duo still think of the country, the future over their partisan interest, or it's a done deal already? We know that Libs tried real hard. OK, noted. And that leaves only one option.

And sure no "discussions, considerations, consultations, evaluations" escapes, just forget it. A solid, clear commitment, majority government means implementation. If minority then with anyone interested on board BQ, Greens. The country will see who is interested in its future, not a bad thing either.

the Liberals didn't try

they had a majority

they could have passed PR

they didn't, because they never intended to

I don't think PR is what's best for the country though

it will fix nothing and undermines regional representation

PR just let's the party choose the representative instead of the people

it's a half baked voting system

propped up in people's minds by a grass is always greener on the other side effect

Edited June 15, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[SpankyMcFarland]

PR is most attractive to small parties with lots of votes and few seats, and such parties have no influence in a country that has a morbid fear of both change and coalition government. 

[myata]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

country that has a morbid fear of both change and coalition government. 

That is the main point here. With the system in place, no change is possible ever period. Proportional is not a perfect system, not by far and a perfection may not even exist. But it's the only realistic direction of a meaningful change and visible way forward short of running full steam into a wall. It will bring variety, change and fresh blood to politics, it will allow people to chose the agendas and questions that are important to them, not a face label on a default governing corporation.

[myata]

Also, coalitions go naturally with proportional system. Parties respond to matters and questions that are important to the people. Among the elected, those that can align their policies and get enough popular support form the government. This is a direct connection between public's interests and will and the government.

Of course nothing like that can be found here. The default governing corporations need the public only for a formal stamp of approval once in a rare while to sail on forever. Coalitions can be needed only to stick to the power, no other reasons. They just aren't the same parties and coalitions, the words are deceptive in this case.

[Yzermandius19]

13 hours ago, myata said:

Also, coalitions go naturally with proportional system. Parties respond to matters and questions that are important to the people. Among the elected, those that can align their policies and get enough popular support form the government. This is a direct connection between public's interests and will and the government.

Of course nothing like that can be found here. The default governing corporations need the public only for a formal stamp of approval once in a rare while to sail on forever. Coalitions can be needed only to stick to the power, no other reasons. They just aren't the same parties and coalitions, the words are deceptive in this case.

coalitions don't work well

and when the coalitions will just be between parties that are virtually identical

that is even more the case

the problem isn't the system

it's the electorate

[myata]

6 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the problem isn't the system

Not "not", and. The system doesn't have a single working and functional mechanism of keeping majority governments accountable. Ridiculous show commissions and periods where nobody has to answer anything and that's pretty much it. Judiciary that looks the other way till decades after the fact.  And the public is oblivious, lighthearted and complacent about it. And that is not a good combination, in this century most certainly.

Proportional representation may have its problems but there are natural mechanism that keep governments on their toes. US has a true representative system they elect independent representatives, not party employees. Britain has near 1000 years of democratic tradition. The system we have is none of the above, basically a thin smiley poster stuck to virtually unlimited bureaucratic power that thrived only when nothing happens. But who promised that to the dinosaurs?

[myata]

But I fully expect that they wouldn't. And that would mean a political field completely devoid, vacuum cleaned of any chance of a meaningful change in the foreseeable future. Meaningless faces, useless questions in the circus period with no intelligible answers. A dim and boring landscape. What will it do when a real movement is needed? It hasn't been designed for that, sorry. Please surprise me.

[Yzermandius19]

18 minutes ago, myata said:

Not "not", and. The system doesn't have a single working and functional mechanism of keeping majority governments accountable. Ridiculous show commissions and periods where nobody has to answer anything and that's pretty much it. Judiciary that looks the other way till decades after the fact.  And the public is oblivious, lighthearted and complacent about it. And that is not a good combination, in this century most certainly.

Proportional representation may have its problems but there are natural mechanism that keep governments on their toes. US has a true representative system they elect independent representatives, not party employees. Britain has near 1000 years of democratic tradition. The system we have is none of the above, basically a thin smiley poster stuck to virtually unlimited bureaucratic power that thrived only when nothing happens. But who promised that to the dinosaurs?

PR has no such mechanisms to keep governments on it's toes

it doesn't address any of the problems you are talking about at all

the problem isn't FPTP

as America and Britain clearly demonstrates by your own admission

the problem is Canada

Edited June 15, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[myata]

3 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

PR has no such mechanisms to keep governments on it's toes

Well, it obviously has. In PR a single party majority is near impossibility. Parties in the coalition hold each other and the coalition, accountable. Particularly, smaller parties have much more direct links to their electorate. They are additional and strong check on the policies and actions of the government. Because there are no default governing parties, offices like attorney, justice system tend to be more independent as well.

3 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

as America and Britain clearly demonstrates by your own admission

And the examples are in no way perfect. Britain is a one-off case. US is plagued by partisan divisions that FPTP naturally engenders, if not me has to be you. When you begin thinking what is the party of your doctor or lawyer, something has to be quite not right.

Edited June 15, 2022 by myata

[-1=e^ipi]

9 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

coalitions don't work well

and when the coalitions will just be between parties that are virtually identical

that is even more the case

the problem isn't the system

it's the electorate

What about the traffic light coalition in Germany? That includes 3 distinct parties. Or are you telling me that the Free Democrats in Germany are the same as the Green Party?

Edited June 15, 2022 by -1=e^ipi

[Queenmandy85]

How would you get PR to work in our system?  As voters, we are electing our Member of Parliament. So, you have about 4 names on the ballot. One candidate receives 41% of the vote, another 31%, another 16% and the fourth one gets 12%. How do they divide up the seat?  Does one get 41% of the sitting days per session? etc. What order would they sit over the session. Do they share a second residence in Ottawa? Are they paid proportionally? PR is a slick NDP trick that would only result in Parliamentary chaos like they have in Italy, Germany and Israel.

 

[Queenmandy85]

If we absolutely wanted to change the voting system, about the only way would be have run-off elections in those ridings where no candidate received a majority. Two weekes after the first vote, the two candidates that received to most votes in their constituency would be on the second ballot. Of course, it would be much more expensive. 

[Queenmandy85]

The cheapest and simplist system would be to get rid of the splinter parties altogether. No Social Credit, no NDP, PPC, Greens, or Bloc. We return to a two party system with the Grits and Tories. Lets forget idiotic ideology and vote on the basis of who is the best administrator.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The cheapest and simplist system would be to get rid of the splinter parties altogether. No Social Credit, no NDP, PPC, Greens, or Bloc. We return to a two party system with the Grits and Tories. Lets forget idiotic ideology and vote on the basis of who is the best administrator.

Okay, just outlaw in-camera lobbying as well. The reason I say this is that it didn't matter a single bit who was in charge of fisheries and oceans that collapsed on both coasts and where the whiff of influence and corruption was often smellier than a pile of rotting fish.

There is a good reason some economists view small fishing communities as canaries in an economic mine. When they start keeling over it means something in their environment is killing them...mismanagement is usually the undoing of every fishery. It's the offspring of mis-administration.

Edited June 15, 2022 by eyeball

[Yzermandius19]

8 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

What about the traffic light coalition in Germany? That includes 3 distinct parties. Or are you telling me that the Free Democrats in Germany are the same as the Green Party?

Germany is a classic example of the lameness of coalitions

as is Israel

FPTP is better

[Yzermandius19]

10 hours ago, myata said:

Well, it obviously has. In PR a single party majority is near impossibility. Parties in the coalition hold each other and the coalition, accountable. Particularly, smaller parties have much more direct links to their electorate. They are additional and strong check on the policies and actions of the government. Because there are no default governing parties, offices like attorney, justice system tend to be more independent as well.

And the examples are in no way perfect. Britain is a one-off case. US is plagued by partisan divisions that FPTP naturally engenders, if not me has to be you. When you begin thinking what is the party of your doctor or lawyer, something has to be quite not right.

there are minority governments all the time

we have one now

did it hold the Liberals accountable for stripping Canadians of their rights?

no, it cheered them on

the problem is Canada

not FPTP

Edited June 15, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[myata]

6 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Lets forget idiotic ideology and vote on the basis of who is the best administrator.

That "idea" works on an average two year old, sure. Three, not with the smarter ones. Who, what revelation promised you that the best can be found only among the default twin duo, attached to the power without any meaningful checks for decades? Wouldn't it be entirely logical to expect exactly the opposite?

Edited June 16, 2022 by myata

[myata]

48 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the problem is Canada

not FPTP

and First past the post. There are no real parties here, of true agendas and interests. It's all a mirage, smoke same words for a different essence. What we have here is two default governing corporations, one or the other no other choices allowed de facto. And a small outlet for "original" or "protest" vote (both are meaningless of course, as any three year old can see clearly).

The aren't your normal parties, they have completely different priorities and dynamics. The highest priority for them is to maintain the system that feeds them. You can't hear a single straight and meaningful answer in the circus period yet they keep going at it earnestly and diligently year on year and decades on so you've got to be asking yourself, which of you is not entirely sane? And the second is to get a grab on the power, with no checks or controls. Where's "holding accountable" in this picture why, what would be the incentive? They've been at it for so long, look we have a democracy, parties, minorities talking heads talking politics just like everyone else only with our cute little quirks, fuzzy. But words don't mean the same thing! You've got to look at the essence and meaning, past the words. Everything in the political environment hugely skewed toward the status quo pseudo parties, without open and honest competition, functional checks and balances changes the perspective entirely. You've got to be naive thinking that bringing good people into a distorted system could change much or anything.

Edited June 16, 2022 by myata