Proportional Representation

[Queenmandy85]

In another post, someone brought up electoral reform. The federal NDP are always trying to push Proportional Representation. However, they never explain how it would function. When the writs are dropped, people are nominated to run. Most of the candidates belong to the main political parties and in the current system, the candidate with the most votes wins. First past the post.

In PR, how would you decide the election by proprtion of the vote? The CPC candidate gets 40% of the vote, the NDP candidate gets 35%, the Liberal 25% for a total of 100% of the votes cast. How do you translate that into a proportion of membership in Parliament? Does the CPC candidate sit in Parliament 40% of the sitting days, the NDP 35% of the sitting days and the grit 25%? What happens if all the Liberals end up sitting in Parliament on the same sitting days? They have all the power. How does the Prime Minister maintain confidence of the House if on some sitting days, she doesn't have a majority of the House supporting the Ministry? I can see revolving door ministries. 

Edited January 21, 2023 by Queenmandy85

[Michael Hardner]

There are different approaches... The idea being that the proportion of MPS in the House of Commons should match the national vote percentage more closely.

 

That's the basic concept. I have been against it but I'm changing my mind slowly, since democracy itself is turning out to be in need of reform in some way.  My idea would be to take power out of the hands of the governing party for a lot of the nitty gritty, and put it on the community and House of Commons committee teams.

 

We know what we want from all this.. a government that executes policy according to our values, and in an efficient way.

[myata]

None of this is an impossible puzzle. Most functional democracies in the world have PR or mixed system. Only a handful of dinosaurs remain mostly in far back waters nobody really understands or cares about. Also can be the main reason they were able to make it this far.

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

In another post, someone brought up electoral reform. The federal NDP are always trying to push Proportional Representation. However, they never explain how it would function. When the writs are dropped, people are nominated to run. Most of the candidates belong to the main political parties and in the current system, the candidate with the most votes wins. First past the post.

In PR, how would you decide the election by proprtion of the vote? 

Percentage of seats is allocated depending on the percentage of the popular vote, nationwide. Most jurisdictions require a minimum percentage to have any seats, like 5%. Some don't. Here is how Germany's system works.

The German federal election system regulates the election of the members of the national parliament, called the Bundestag. According to the principles governing the elections laws, set down in Art. 38 of the German Basic Law, elections are to be universal, direct, free, equal, and secret. Furthermore, the German Basic Law stipulates that Bundestag elections are to take place every four years and that one can vote, and be elected, upon reaching the age of 18. All other stipulations for the federal elections are regulated by the Federal Electoral Act. Elections always take place on a Sunday. Mail votes are possible upon application.

Germans elect their members of parliament with two votes. The first vote is for a direct candidate, who is required to receive a plurality vote in their electoral district. The second vote is used to elect a party list in each state as established by its respective party caucus. The Bundestag comprises seats representing each electoral district, with the remainder of seats being allocated to maintain proportionality based on the second vote. Common practice is that direct candidates are also placed on the electoral lists at higher rankings as a fall-back in case they do not win their districts.

 

[Legato]

The problem with a PR system is we could end up with a Monkeykangorillapig government. Nothing would get done. Mind you, question time would be prime time viewing.

[Queenmandy85]

46 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Percentage of seats is allocated depending on the percentage of the popular vote, nationwide. Most jurisdictions require a minimum percentage to have any seats, like 5%. Some don't. Here is how Germany's system works.

The German federal election system regulates the election of the members of the national parliament, called the Bundestag. According to the principles governing the elections laws, set down in Art. 38 of the German Basic Law, elections are to be universal, direct, free, equal, and secret. Furthermore, the German Basic Law stipulates that Bundestag elections are to take place every four years and that one can vote, and be elected, upon reaching the age of 18. All other stipulations for the federal elections are regulated by the Federal Electoral Act. Elections always take place on a Sunday. Mail votes are possible upon application.

Germans elect their members of parliament with two votes. The first vote is for a direct candidate, who is required to receive a plurality vote in their electoral district. The second vote is used to elect a party list in each state as established by its respective party caucus. The Bundestag comprises seats representing each electoral district, with the remainder of seats being allocated to maintain proportionality based on the second vote. Common practice is that direct candidates are also placed on the electoral lists at higher rankings as a fall-back in case they do not win their districts.

 

In Canada, we only elect an MP. In a general election we actually have 338 writs. We don't vote for parties, we vote for people. The German system is a republic. Their system would give even more power to political parties. PR encourages small splinter parties with the danger of even more minority governments. It also takes power away from the MP's. In our system, if the Prime Minister or another minister does something egregious, the MP's can vote no confidence.  One problem is Canadian voters focus too much on the party affilliation of a candidate and not enough on their backbone. I look forward to the day when a leader of a party tells an independently minded MP that he (the leader) will not sign the MP's nomination papers and the rest of caucus stand up and says to the leader, "You won't have to because we no longer want you." I want to see the front bench terrified of the backbenches because the real power in Parliament sits in the back benches. They just don't use it enough.

I realize this is thread drift, but it is my thread and I can do what I want. ?

Edited January 21, 2023 by Queenmandy85

[I am Groot]

43 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

In Canada, we only elect an MP. In a general election we actually have 338 writs. We don't vote for parties, we vote for people. The German system is a republic. Their system would give even more power to political parties. PR encourages small splinter parties with the danger of even more minority governments. It also takes power away from the MP's. In our system, if the Prime Minister or another minister does something egregious, the MP's can vote no confidence.  One problem is Canadian voters focus too much on the party affilliation of a candidate and not enough on their backbone. I look forward to the day when a leader of a party tells an independently minded MP that he (the leader) will not sign the MP's nomination papers and the rest of caucus stand up and says to the leader, "You won't have to because we no longer want you." I want to see the front bench terrified of the backbenches because the real power in Parliament sits in the back benches. They just don't use it enough.

I realize this is thread drift, but it is my thread and I can do what I want. ?

They can vote no confidence in the German system, too. And our MPs currently have _ZERO_ power anyway. All power is vested with the party leaders. Sure, they can rebel. They don't. They're trained sheep and applaud whatever the party leader says and vote however they're told or are removed. 

I get the issue of splinter parties, but given the current lack of interest in compromise in parliament lately maybe we need some splinter parties to force minority governments into paying heed to minority views.

[PIK]

Just leave it alone. Tired of watching this country self destruct.

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

In Canada, we only elect an MP. In a general election we actually have 338 writs. We don't vote for parties, we vote for people.

By that token we don't vote for a Prime Minister, the MP's we elect do.  Perhaps we should continue to let them do so but by secret ballot with a majority vote, perhaps even a super-majority.  Take politics out of the PMO and future Cabinet entirely...at least for as long as it takes them to assert themselves.

[Queenmandy85]

The PM is appointed, not elected.

[Queenmandy85]

7 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Sure, they can rebel. They don't.

That is on us, the voters. We hire them. We need to select more carefully and when we get a good MP, make sure they are not harassed into quitting by the knuckle-draggers.

[myata]

Let's make it simple, no need to beat around the bush: in this world of 21st century political systems that do not represent accurately views of the population should not be considered full democracies. Traditions, backwardness, "we just like dinosaurs" should not count, it's easy and binary: either you open the system to real choice; or you are not a democracy (period). No bull, enough of this nonsense already.

Exceptions from this rule can be made for truly unique, originally, intelligently and intentionally constructed democratic systems (there are only two).

Edited January 22, 2023 by myata

[myata]

Freedom of choice, full, not only between the absolute minimum of allowed options is an essential, integral and necessary part of a functional democracy. Posters, bells and whistles, sleigh rides are not. No matter how long and cute you sing and dance around the issue you will not be able to hide it or change the inevitable, factual conclusion: you are not a democracy (in a full, modern meaning of the word) if you do not offer citizens the full, free, unrestricted, not censored and meaningful choice.

Edited January 22, 2023 by myata

[Queenmandy85]

8 hours ago, myata said:

Freedom of choice, full, not only between the absolute minimum of allowed options is an essential, integral and necessary part of a functional democracy. Posters, bells and whistles, sleigh rides are not. No matter how long and cute you sing and dance around the issue you will not be able to hide it or change the inevitable, factual conclusion: you are not a democracy (in a full, modern meaning of the word) if you do not offer citizens the full, free, unrestricted, not censored and meaningful choice.

But why are you so hung up on democracy. I cannot think of a single democracy. The world is devided into republics, dictatorships and monarchies.

If you could come up with a way to have PR in the Canadian system, we would never have majority governments. The system is already strained with the splinter parties we have now. Minority governments are detrimental to good governance. It makes clear decision making spotty at best. Government become hostages to the silly parties that flourish under PR. Look at Israel. Do we need to have the Bloc or the NDP influencing government decisions? Under PR, there would be more parties like the PPC or the Heritage Party and the Socialists, The CPC would probably split into the Social Credit Party and the Progressive Conservatives. The left wing of the Liberal Party would split off into their own party. It will force unstable revolving door governments on us and nothing will get done at the very time we need a stable government to make long term decisions on the most important decisions we've ever had to face. 

[myata]

18 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If you could come up with a way to have PR in the Canadian system, we would never have majority governments.

You just may not understand how it works. Majority coalitions are a normal state in a proportional Parliament. If you meant "single party majority government" that's something else and on the balance, it does more harm than good. Especially if at the expense of eliminating, factually, meaningful choice and accountability. Even speaking of non-proportional representation is a self-contradictory nonsense, an oxymoron. If it doesn't represent the population of the country, then who and why?

[Queenmandy85]

Good governance is more important that representing every little haywire ideology. We have a Liberal Party and an ersatz "conservative party." That is all we need. 

Edited January 22, 2023 by Queenmandy85

[eyeball]

14 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The PM is appointed, not elected.

By a majority of partisans or reasonable facsimile thereof in the case of a minority.

Electing the PM in Parliament would do immediately what you're hoping for, redistribute power to each seat in Parliament.

I think it was you who mentioned how being from PEI was an automatic opportunity for PEI to have a representative in Cabinet. An elected PM would give every seat in Confederation an opportunity to put someone in the PMO.

Edited January 22, 2023 by eyeball

[Queenmandy85]

I prefer to reserve that prerogative for the King. However, since convention requires the PM to have the confidence of the House, he is basically elected by the House. 

[eyeball]

Am I safe to assume making the PM's election by secret ballot would trigger some sort of Constitutional calamity that would destroy Confederation?

Dang, it's always something.

[Legato]

It's irrelevant how a government is elected. The bloated bureaucracy wields all the power.

[Queenmandy85]

56 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Am I safe to assume making the PM's election by secret ballot would trigger some sort of Constitutional calamity

Yup.

[eyeball]

Just now, Queenmandy85 said:

Yup.

It gets a little suspicious when that's the answer to every suggestion for reform.

Drive it till the wheels fall off I guess. Nothing ever lasts forever.

[suds]

I'm willing to give anything a shot, but take care you don't end up with kingmakers and nutjobs that finally get a voice. What I'm most amazed at is how a party (with a majority) can with a snap of their fingers just change the rules as to how elections are decided in this country.  Of course it would have to pass muster with the senate. I would prefer the government propose changes that only come into effect after the next election with the blessings of the new government. Only then would it be left in the hands of the people to decide.

Edited January 22, 2023 by suds

[blackbird]

Electoral reform at the federal level would require a Constitutional amendment which is very difficult and therefore unlikely to happen.  Its a dead issue.

[herbie]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

Am I safe to assume making the PM's election by secret ballot would trigger some sort of Constitutional calamity that would destroy Confederation?

Yeah it would. That's not how Parliamentary democracies work, the leader of the party with the most seats is the Prime Minister. His party elects him, and voters must elect him(or her) to a seat in Parliament. That's what a Prime Minister IS.
Now if you want to make the Governor General, the Head of State (like a President), I'm with you on that. So long as they have no more powers than the GG does now and is unable to be a genuine King Shit.