Jump to content

Conservative Party can run on proportional representation reform


Recommended Posts

I guess the situation in Canada is the same as in the UK in the sense that even though a lot of people agree that the existing electoral system should be changed they strongly disagree on what it should be changed with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

I guess the situation in Canada is the same as in the UK in the sense that even though a lot of people agree that the existing electoral system should be changed they strongly disagree on what it should be changed with. 

There are similarities but also principal differences. The UK has centuries of democratic tradition with many unwritten rules and codes. The system is ingrained into the culture and tradition of the society. Canadian system is a copycat of the British system superimposed on a bureaucratic colonial system of government. It has never been created consciously as in the US; or developed naturally over time like British system. Both are extremely resistant to change; but for quite different reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Ontario, the writing is on the wall even now: the latest voter participation was around 42%. And when it gets below 40 that could very well be the next election, what next? Can we guess? A real, essential change or more panel discussions, blame the public for "apathy" and mandatory vote?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, here's a blueprint of a system that combines free unrestricted vote; correct representation of the political reality; and possibility to choose local representatives if people want to appoint them. It's not an impossibility; only a choice.

You vote for a party, just like now and can specify preferred representative, optionally. If not specified, they would be appointed by the party. Already implemented in some countries in Europe.

A ballot is anonymous, contains this information: district; party; and preferred candidate, if specified

Every vote counts, can be a threshold for fringe parties. Once proportional representation is determined, seats are matched to electoral districts, based on local vote.

Finally, in the district for the party that holds the seat the results of the candidate vote are tabulated. It can be either one of the preferred candidates; or the default one, determined by the party.

All is done by a modern computer in a fraction of a second. 21st century helps.

The result: representation closely reflects political reality of the country; the vote isn't constrained in any way; no outrageous barriers to entry in the election; and the public can appoint desired representatives. Yes it is possible. If you are not doing it, there has to be another reason.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

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?

They told fishermen we had no choice but to submit to 100% observer coverage or tie up and not fish.  If human observers on board were too much for industry it was told to come up with a system that DFO could live with.  Now we have a system by which every fish that comes aboard is captured by cameras from different angles and GPS records the location. This is attended by a written record.  DFO knows where we are at all times when we're fishing. Planes with powerful cameras also patrol fishing grounds for vessels to verify locations and look for pollution and such.  Human observers are at the dock when we arrive to offload to validate and verify that all the data matches up.  Make to many mistakes or get caught cheating and its human observers for you.

There were a thousand questions and a million doubts it would ever work.  The motivation to find a way was strong though...no fishing.  You need people who have no choice but to change the system - whether they like it or not.

I'm reminded of the old notion of locking politicians into their parliaments until they come up with a solution to a problem and cutting off food, water and finally bathrooms to help sharpen their motivation. 

Edited by eyeball
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'm reminded of the old notion of locking politicians into their parliaments until they come up with a solution to a problem and cutting off food, water and finally bathrooms to help sharpen their motivation

Haha, sure they'll come with a myriad of solutions - those that work for them though. The moment you handed the keys to your home to a helpful stranger without asking them any questions it's only a matter of time before they begin believing its theirs. This is how us, the humanity works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myata said:

Haha, sure they'll come with a myriad of solutions - those that work for them though. The moment you handed the keys to your home to a helpful stranger without asking them any questions it's only a matter of time before they begin believing its theirs. This is how us, the humanity works.

You have a dim view of us. Of course, there are some theives among us. 20% of humans will never steal. 60% will steal if they think they won't get caught, and 20% will steal regardless of the likelyhood of getting caught. Government is a reflection of the people. It is up to us to vet them through the electoral process to find competent administrators with integrity. That is why it is essential to get to know who you are voting for. Fortunately, the people who are chronic theives are unlikely to be involved as candidates. Running for election is hard work. If MP's are crooks, they aren't very good ones. Most of them are carrying heavy personal debt loads.

If people are too lazy to participate in one of the most important features of democracy, then the result is their fault.  The party lable doesn't mean much in governing. Governments have a narrow range of choices. That is why, when Saskatchewan elects an NDP government, they govern like Progressive Conservatives. So do most federal Liberal governments and CPC governments. It is competance of the individual that matters. Every once in a while, someone like Glenn Clark in BC gets elected, but not usually. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proportional Representation would change our electoral culture. Our election campaigns are local. The candidates we are voting for are from our community. In a PR system, the campaign is national. We don't know the participants on a personal level. It becomes a spectator sport. The joy of an election campaign is the participation. You have the all candidates meetings where you get together with the players from the other parties.  You don't get that in PR. Your MP is some person from the opposite end of the country who donated to what ever party and who has no idea where the contituancy she serves is. It lacks the fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@eyeball can we maybe have a separate thread on that DFO story? It almost seems like they redeem themselves in the end. I'd really like a separate thread, because your story in this has been a keystone of my skepticism and the government's ability to do anything right at all. I might never believe they're actually competent, but this may adjust my focus a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Queenmandy85 said:

Proportional Representation would change our electoral culture. Our election campaigns are local. The candidates we are voting for are from our community. In a PR system, the campaign is national. We don't know the participants on a personal level. It becomes a spectator sport. The joy of an election campaign is the participation. You have the all candidates meetings where you get together with the players from the other parties.  You don't get that in PR. Your MP is some person from the opposite end of the country who donated to what ever party and who has no idea where the contituancy she serves is. It lacks the fun.

Here's the thing, we are going to jump in with something as potentially Nation changing as PR... We need to change everything all at once, including online nonymous participation in community building.  That's a big one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 years ago New Zealand ditched the FPTP-system and had one referendum since whether to bring it back but that proposal was rejected.

They introduced a German-style mixed system whereby half of the seats are still from single-member constituencies but the outcome of the parliament is based on PR in the whole country with a threshold of 5%

Not sure whether NZ as a much smaller country is comparable to Canada but just pointing out that there is a precedent of changing the system.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

30 years ago New Zealand ditched the FPTP-system and had one referendum since whether to bring it back but that proposal was rejected.

They introduced a German-style mixed system whereby half of the seats are still from single-member constituencies but the outcome of the parliament is based on PR in the whole country with a threshold of 5%

Not sure whether NZ as a much smaller country is comparable to Canada but just pointing out that there is a precedent of changing the system.

Iwouldn't want New Zealand's system of elections, but I would love to switch Prime Ministers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Proportional Representation would change our electoral culture. Our election campaigns are local. The candidates we are voting for are from our community. In a PR system, the campaign is national. We don't know the participants on a personal level. It becomes a spectator sport. The joy of an election campaign is the participation. You have the all candidates meetings where you get together with the players from the other parties.  You don't get that in PR. Your MP is some person from the opposite end of the country who donated to what ever party and who has no idea where the contituancy she serves is. It lacks the fun.

Gee...that's bullshit.

MPs would have to actually reside in a riding to represent it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If people are too lazy to participate in one of the most important features of democracy, then the result is their fault.

The most important aspects of our democracy happen behind closed doors where ordinary people are not allowed.

That's definitely our fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

@eyeball can we maybe have a separate thread on that DFO story? It almost seems like they redeem themselves in the end. I'd really like a separate thread, because your story in this has been a keystone of my skepticism and the government's ability to do anything right at all. I might never believe they're actually competent, but this may adjust my focus a bit.

I prefer to view these threads as components of the larger tapestry of the forum.  The issues I point out with the state of our fisheries is a reflection of why economists view small fishing communities or publics if you wish as canaries in a coal mine - as the canaries go so do the miners.  Small fishing communities are dying all around the planet and the inability of governments to prevent it only seems to get worse.  In our case I blame the way our country is confederated and the inability of our democracy to correct for our confederation';s shortcomings.  I think it's fair to say both our confederation and democracy are increasingly beset by issues that are reflected by the fact Ottawa has more of a grip on our provinces then Washington DC has on its states.  American marine fisheries are managed by individual states and Canada's are managed by the feds.  BC chinook and everything that depends on them are trapped between these two fundamental differences.

Much of the chinook salmon Alaskans plan on catching this year (30% more than last year) are from BC where fishermen have been heavily curtailed to preserve chinook salmon to ensure opportunities for 1st Nations in-river fisheries and of course endangered Southern Resident Orca.  Efforts to conserve chinook by sacrificing the BC catch would be paying off if it wasn't for Alaska.

There used to be more equity before the 1st Salmon War. It needs to be said that Canadian fishermen are prevented from catching Washington, Oregon and California chinook but fishermen from these states can go to Alaska to catch BC chinook.  Canada also allows US sport fishermen to fish in Canadian waters but Washington State does not allow Canadians to fish in their waters.  BC's sport fishermen and 1st Nations were allowed to carry on in Canada because Ottawa largely eliminated Canadian commercial fishermen but things have continued to worsen for salmon and as sporties and 1st Nations get pissed off as the newest victims of Ottawa's inabilities we can probably expect new sparks to fly.  How Ottawa reacts will be telling but I suspect most Canadians won't be listening.  Just the way Ottawa likes it.

I know damn well Jimmy Pattison doesn't give a damn. He still gets his fish no matter what.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/terry-glavin-alaskas-salmon-bounty-coming-at-b-c-s-expense 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Gee...that's bullshit.

And more BS that you are electing a "representative" rather than, in reality an employee slave of the party office. Just fantasy upon an unbelievable stretch. But the onus was on us to make sure and keep assuring that it makes sense, for us. Always. The moment we go to the grill and leave it to itself it begins spinning - for itself.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, -TSS- said:

Not sure whether NZ as a much smaller country is comparable to Canada but just pointing out that there is a precedent of changing the system.

Thanks, it's a fact now that the system can be changed.

It is obvious that geographical differences have to be accommodated. But grossly outdated system that restricts meaningful choice to the absolute minimum is not an answer. Nor is the system designed in and for 17th century going to be effective and efficient in solving problems and answering to challenges of the 21st. If Canada can no longer change and adapt it's doomed to descend into the third world simply by the law of entropy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, myata said:

And more BS that you are electing a "representative" rather than, in reality an employee slave of the party office

you can fix that problem without scrapping FPTP

see America

you are just making FPTP a scapegoat for governance issues it has nothing to do with

PR wouldn't fix that problem either, it would just exacerbate it

 

you are essentially blaming FPTP for all the problems with the current system

then act like PR somehow fixes all those problems

while having zero proof of either being the case

let alone both

 

then you act like anyone who disagrees with you supports maintaining all the problems of the status quo

the only reason all the problems aren't solved is PR wasn't tried yet

and we can't know that isn't the case until we try it

your case for PR is circular garbage

no wonder you can't sell it

even Canadians aren't dumb enough to buy it

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

you can fix that problem without scrapping FPTP

see America

Correct. But it wouldn't address the other essential problem that is directly caused by FPTP: partisan politics. If not their gang then it has to be ours.

3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

you are just making FPTP a scapegoat for governance issues it has nothing to do with

Only in your eyes. The problem of Canadian politics is FPTP plus barriers plus transparency and accountability plus independence (or rather, an absence of it). If and once all other problems are fixed, we would still have to deal with FPTP and they aren't small either.

7 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

PR wouldn't fix that problem either, it would just exacerbate it

Yes there are options that allow to combine proportional representation with delegation of local representatives. Yes we can have: accurate representation of political reality; free, unconstrained vote; and local representatives preferred by the public. The problem is not that it isn't possible, but that for some it's a trouble and others couldn't care. And that's why the country is moving toward the third world. The vector points right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, myata said:

And more BS that you are electing a "representative" rather than, in reality an employee slave of the party office. Just fantasy upon an unbelievable stretch. But the onus was on us to make sure and keep assuring that it makes sense, for us. Always. The moment we go to the grill and leave it to itself it begins spinning - for itself.

How do you know so much about politics if, by your own admission, you have no experience in it. You make judgements about people you've never met. You are making blind accusations about something you claim to be ignorant about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, myata said:

Correct. But it wouldn't address the other essential problem that is directly caused by FPTP: partisan politics. If not their gang then it has to be ours.

Only in your eyes. The problem of Canadian politics is FPTP plus barriers plus transparency and accountability plus independence (or rather, an absence of it). If and once all other problems are fixed, we would still have to deal with FPTP and they aren't small either.

Yes there are options that allow to combine proportional representation with delegation of local representatives. Yes we can have: accurate representation of political reality; free, unconstrained vote; and local representatives preferred by the public. The problem is not that it isn't possible, but that for some it's a trouble and others couldn't care. And that's why the country is moving toward the third world. The vector points right there.

PR is more partisan

ask the Nazi's, they were elected under PR

you are championing Weimar Germany

more parties in parliament doesn't equal less partisanship

it equals more partisanship

none of the problems you claim are unique to FPTP are unique to it

none of the upsides you claim are unique to PR are unique to it and can exist in a FPTP system

you make no sense

you are just babbling

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

PR is more partisan

ask the Nazi's

Sorry, that's just nonsense. Coalitions are a regular, daily part of politics in proportional systems. It's nearly impossible to get a single party majority and to be successful one has to be able to negotiate, find common grounds and acceptable policies. And this is nearly exactly the opposite of "if not me then you" of FPTP.

Dunno where that professing tone comes from but it isn't working here. You need logical arguments based on facts and reality. Just professing wouldn't do it.

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...