Jump to content

Conservative Party can run on proportional representation reform


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, myata said:

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.

changing the system will not change the parties or the electorate 

wishful thinking is a helluva drug

FPTP is not the problem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

changing the system will not change the parties or the electorate

Let's say, changing the electoral system can and will change the entire political ecosystem, including the parties, but it, the change has to come from the people. No one and nothing can help those who are chronically asleep. If tomorrow, with a new proportional system we have a slew of new energetic parties, with clear agendas and plans, a strong and vigorous as proven by a bold act renewed Conservative party why would many vote for SNC-Liberals? What would be their popular vote, and the fair and honest representation? Of course it would change the parties.

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

FPTP is not the problem

A big part of the problem. It allows happy twins to play their happy game for as long as the people keep their deep democratic slumber. We only get what we accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, myata said:

Let's say, changing the electoral system can and will change the entire political ecosystem, including the parties, but it, the change has to come from the people. No one and nothing can help those who are chronically asleep. If tomorrow, with a new proportional system we have a slew of new energetic parties, with clear agendas and plans, a strong and vigorous as proven by a bold act renewed Conservative party why would many vote for SNC-Liberals? What would be their popular vote, and the fair and honest representation? Of course it would change the parties.

A big part of the problem. It allows happy twins to play their happy game for as long as the people keep their deep democratic slumber. We only get what we accept.

the twins will play their game in a proportional system

the Conservatives will win even less often

and when they do, they'll be bigger cucks than ever

the left doesn't need the right to form a coalition

the right needs the left to form a coalition

if you want Canadian governance even further to the left

PR will do that

 

FPTP isn't even a small part of the problem

PR will not wake up the electorate

it has never woken up any electorate ever

total pipe dream

wishful thinking is a helluva drug

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the twins will play their game in a proportional system

Not if they have real competition in a fair and open process. Why would anyone vote for a dull and dusty when there's a cool, modern and exciting alternative? Sure it would wake many, they are asleep not only because something is wrong with them but because the reality, political reality of the country is incurably boring.

 

8 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the Conservatives will win even less often

Between the status quo twins I wouldn't give a grain of a fraction of a darn. There's not a slightest difference which sticker face would "win". The system wins and cements its rule to the detriment of the society.

 

8 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

wishful thinking is a helluva drug

Note how you are mirroring our wise shepherds now. Why change anything, the system is perfect as it is, it has been created that way by divine inspiration itself (yes we heard that - if not hard work of conscious and responsible citizens), contrary to the laws of nature and evolution. Good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myata said:

Not if they have real competition in a fair and open process. Why would anyone vote for a dull and dusty when there's a cool, modern and exciting alternative? Sure it would wake many, they are asleep not only because something is wrong with them but because the reality, political reality of the country is incurably boring.

 

Between the status quo twins I wouldn't give a grain of a fraction of a darn. There's not a slightest difference which sticker face would "win". The system wins and cements its rule to the detriment of the society.

 

Note how you are mirroring our wise shepherds now. Why change anything, the system is perfect as it is, it has been created that way by divine inspiration itself (yes we heard that - if not hard work of conscious and responsible citizens), contrary to the laws of nature and evolution. Good luck!

the same reason they don't vote for any real alternatives now

Canadians don't want real alternatives

they are happy with the status quo

they like dull and dusty

not cool, modern and exciting

you are projecting on the electorate

they don't think like you do

you expect Canadians to react as you would to PR

which is ridiculous

are you really so oblivious as to think your political views are shared by most Canadians?

get real, bro

Edited by Yzermandius19
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the same reason they don't vote for any real alternatives now

That is a dream. FPTP limits real alternatives to the bare minimum: two. If not their gang then we have to come together as ours, or it'll be their gang forever.

2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Canadians don't want real alternatives

they are happy with the status quo

There's only one way to find out. These happy twins happily munching in a bottomless buffet of public cash for decades for a useless circus show only have to ask. Come on, give it a try, will ya? And if you wouldn't, whose choice and responsibility it would be? And should the public again choose the status quo it will have only itself to blame for the outcomes. No surprises here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, myata said:

That is a dream. FPTP limits real alternatives to the bare minimum: two. If not their gang then we have to come together as ours, or it'll be their gang forever.

There's only one way to find out. These happy twins happily munching in a bottomless buffet of public cash for decades for a useless circus show only have to ask. Come on, give it a try, will ya? And if you wouldn't, whose choice and responsibility it would be? And should the public again choose the status quo it will have only itself to blame for the outcomes. No surprises here.

we already found out

you're just in denial about it

you refuse to believe Canadians want the status quo

just because you don't

and you then project those views on Canadians

FPTP is not why they are making their choices

you just want that to be the case so that there is an easy fix

but there isn't

the sooner you get your head out of the sand

and stop denying the obvious reality

the better

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

you're just in denial about it

you refuse to believe Canadians want the status quo

No I'm not. I only insist that those who year on year, decade on decade happily consumed all kinds of delicacies and benefits on behalf of "Canadians" for a mostly useless show, only, just ask. Ask, and the matter is closed. No you cannot just say it. No we have to see - or it would be only you saying and it cannot even be counted anymore how much have been said and promised here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, myata said:

No I'm not. I only insist that those who year on year, decade on decade happily consumed all kinds of delicacies and benefits on behalf of "Canadians" for a mostly useless show, only, just ask. Ask, and the matter is closed. No you cannot just say it. No we have to see - or it would be only you saying and it cannot even be counted anymore how much have been said and promised here.

it has been seen

FPTP doesn’t prevent anyone from voting for alternatives

if they were going to vote for alternatives

they'd already be doing it

they don't because they don't want alternatives

Edited by Yzermandius19
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

t has been seen

FPTP doesn’t prevent anyone from voting for alternatives

No - not the same question, sorry. If politicians love brainless double speak games in the circus period I have no slightest interest, nor time for that. No, they have nowhere to hide: if they aren't asking a direct, simple question, then it has to be the answer in its own right. Not interested? Only interested in the business as usual? Quickly back to circus games and cutting the public pie? Ok, can see. Gotcha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, myata said:

No - not the same question, sorry. If politicians love brainless double speak games in the circus period I have no slightest interest, nor time for that. No, they have nowhere to hide: if they aren't asking a direct, simple question, then it has to be the answer in its own right. Not interested? Only interested in the business as usual? Quickly back to circus games and cutting the public pie? Ok, can see. Gotcha.

what does any of that have to do with PR?

non-sequitur

you'd be hard pressed to.find someone who dislikes the status quo more than me

but PR will just entrench that further and make actual change even more difficult

if you want to change the status quo

get rid of Confederation

not FPTP

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

what does any of that have to do with PR?

If we agree that the political status quo is a dead end, then proportional is the easiest and most understandable by the public direction of change. Every vote counts all votes count, what can be easier? Every other option is more convoluted. FPTP + whipped default parties is the status quo. FPTP without whipping, you've got a US-style representative system with the default duo intact only less predictable results. You've got to change something to see a change.

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

get rid of Confederation

Every province is entitled to that. With a referendum where every vote counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

if you want to change the status quo

get rid of Confederation

LOL.

Sure, I suppose this would be a lot easier and more preferable to simply making a few changes to the Lobbying Act.

Maybe get rid of the Monarchy while we're at it...how hard could it be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proportional Representation, PR, is not an improvement and it is not democratic.  People who advocate for PR definitely do not understand what it means.  What it does though is it deprives ridings (electoral districts) from having the candidate with the most votes be their representative.  This is not democracy.  PR allows political parties, not the voters, choose a certain number of candidates.  Each party gets to choose a certain number of candidates depending on the percentage of total votes they receive.  But those candidates are not elected by any particular riding.  They are the anointed favourites of a political party.  So these hand-picked, unelected members of Parliament are not responsible to any particular riding because they were not chosen by a riding.  The result of this is democracy is subverted by taken over by political parties.  People lose direct control of the electoral process.   

You also end up with more MPs from tiny fringe or small political parties because they are given MPs according to the percentage of the total national vote even though they could not elect any candidates in any ridings.  This is a gross subversion of the established democratic system.  It also means there will be fewer MPs elected in the governing party most of time and increases the chances that there will be no majority government.  That means the government is weakened greatly and unable to get important things done especially in times of crisis.  You could end up with mostly minority governments because there would be far more MPs who were not elected by a riding, but are hand-picked by the small political parties.  That means likely more governments will be defeated in Parliament and more elections as the endless cycle of elections is repeated more frequently.  The people lose their rights to choose the candidate for their riding and some hand picked elites of other political parties are appointed to be MPs.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, blackbird said:

What it does though is it deprives ridings (electoral districts) from having the candidate with the most votes be their representative. 

And again, we've got to be looking beyond words, to the meaning because it's the meaning that defines the word and not the other way around. So: what is a "representative" doing and can do, in Canada? Can they for example, vote the will of the constituents over that of the party office, often unelected functionaries?

Next, would you vote for a good independent with a practical zero chance of having anything done, or a candidate of a major party with a chance of majority? And if you choose the party, would it be any different from PR except you're throwing a lot of votes away, skewing the representation?

What is the outcome, the result of being able to appoint a face, if it cannot do anything? What democracy would that achieve?

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

Proportional Representation, PR, is not an improvement and it is not democratic.  People who advocate for PR definitely do not understand what it means.

Thanks for the point though, got me to understand that what we have here is in fact, a grossly disfigured, contorted PrR, party representation, not proportional, counter to and anything but proportional. You still vote for a party no matter how hard trying to convince yourself and the talking heads in the TV; only a vote is constrained and restricted in so many ways, here's just some:

- by a limited choice, due to inevitable reality of FPTP;

- by hugely unreasonable entry barriers for candidates making it viable only for the default parties

- by constrained voting (no you don't vote your will, 99% do not; no matter lectures and stories, everyone knows that a vote that is not for the winner is thrown in the trash)

- by additional constraints on parties and representatives that didn't make it to the threshold like "official party status" as though it had any relation to the proportional where they are needed to cut off fringe groups.

As a result you get vote that is anything but free and a distorted quasi-representation that looks nothing like the country, like another planet. And a bunch of talking heads to cheer and explain away that this is exactly as should be. That's some democracy eh?

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seemingly unrelated, some days back I had to talk to a government office (Ontario). I'm trying very hard now to stay cool and relaxed if / when faced with these issues but gosh it was bad. Dismal, incompetent and abusive and entirely unapologetic at that at the same time. It would be extreme naivite to think that it would be only an isolated case not related to the topic. The connection is direct and strong: why would a system designed from day one to be absorbed in itself and now irrevocably entrenched; that knows only how to reward itself for whatever it does or haven't done; and throw public millions with unknown result and in known cases, no results except the millions spent; why would such a system have any incentive to change, adapt and improve itself?

We will be in the third world. The vector, direction is clear and there's nothing left here to hold at bay the laws of nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a democracy, it is important that the government be a reflection of the voters. The major parties are similar because they reflect the voters. That is how they became and remain major parties. If they cease to be a reflection of the voters, they cease to be a major party. That is why Mr. Poilievre is a poor choice for the CPC. He caters to a small constituency, in the same way as the NDP does. Mr. Bernier caters to a microscopic constituancy.

Edited by Queenmandy85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are more political parties than one might imagine. With proportional representation it might get kind of crazy. 

National Results Election Result Help | Elections Canada

Interesting that the PPC got more then twice the votes that the Greens did but of course no seats.

Many of the other parties I've never heard of before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

Many of the other parties I've never heard of before.

These aren't real parliamentary parties because they have no ways, paths to the political reality to test their ideas and concepts and filter those that have some relevance to the society. PR allows that; the status quo system in Canada disconnects from political reality all but the the default twins, and maybe some regional parties. Same word does not assure, and in this case translate to the same meaning. Somewhere there are parliamentary parties; the "parties" in Canada are in essence, default governing corporations or a parody, caricature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The major parties are similar because they reflect the voters.

Good try. First limit the choice to the minimum, then use the result to justify the premise. Wrong, obviously. You can say who reflects the voters only with open, fair competition and unrestricted choice. "King is the best because they are the king", right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myata said:

Good try. First limit the choice to the minimum, then use the result to justify the premise. Wrong, obviously. You can say who reflects the voters only with open, fair competition and unrestricted choice. "King is the best because they are the king", right.

there is a fair and open competition under FPTP

the idea that only PR allows that is false

the Canadian Overton Window is so narrow because the electorate only finds a narrow range of views acceptable

that wouldn't change under PR

there would be more brands offering the same product

that is all

any brands offering a different product would fail and have next to no say in governance

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, myata said:

Good try. First limit the choice to the minimum, then use the result to justify the premise. Wrong, obviously. You can say who reflects the voters only with open, fair competition and unrestricted choice. "King is the best because they are the king", right.

You still haven't said how it would work. If you have four candidates running in your riding, how would you determine how the proportion is done? As I asked earlier, "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." How much does each one get paid? Is the pay and expenses prorated?

Edited by Queenmandy85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

there is a fair and open competition under FPTP

Just saying it just not good enough. You can broadcast your supreme knowledge of all things all you like, but specific and concrete examples were given how the status quo system limits the choice and restricts competition.

2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

he Canadian Overton Window is so narrow because the electorate only finds a narrow range of views acceptable

that wouldn't change under PR

And again just saying it isn't enough and in no way convincing. You've got to show it to prove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

ou still haven't said how it would work. If you have four candidates running in your riding, how would you determine how the proportion is done?

Oh that's so hard, indeed. In PR you vote for a party - exactly the same as almost everyone votes in reality these days by the way, forget the cute faces I've no clue who the "candidates" were in my riding parties somehow came up with some faces. The only difference is that parties get the representation reflecting their vote not a finger stuck in the sky (like Greens had less than a half of the PPC vote yet two seats vs none).

If you still want local representatives this is possible too - there are examples in Europe, and with genuine desire for change a fair process can be established. For example, we can map the seats (the fair number, based on the popular vote) to the results in the ridings AND take into account people's preferences for party candidates in the ridings. Yes it's possible to have it all: fair representation, free vote and good local representatives the century is 21st not 17th and the reason that we have some convoluted parody instead is not that it's not possible, but very likely because 17th century system works best for someone.

Does it mean for the country, though?

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...