Jump to content

Proportional Representation


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Because politics are fun.

This is highly relative.

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

It is our national sport.

And again, so easy to oversee the obvious difference: in a sport, one plays (and pays) voluntarily. In politics we have no choice. Can I not have that great employee-representative, and have my taxes reduced accordingly, I don't mind and wouldn't complain, honest! See?

You like sports where have no control over you bets, all is decided just sign here? Astounding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, myata said:

This is highly relative.

And again, so easy to oversee the obvious difference: in a sport, one plays (and pays) voluntarily. In politics we have no choice. Can I not have that great employee-representative, and have my taxes reduced accordingly, I don't mind and wouldn't complain, honest! See?

You like sports where have no control over you bets, all is decided just sign here? Astounding.

Politics is a participation sport. That gives us some control, just like in football. The harder and smarter you play, the better the chance you have of winning. First, you nominate a potential captain of your team. You sell memberships and knock on doors, get people out to meetings and work hard to get the captain nominated. Then, you canvass the riding. You determine where the support for the captain is. ie., you identify the vote. Finally, the team assembles for the championship. (election day) and you contact every supporter  and get them to the polls to cast their vote. You use your bingo sheets to keep track of who has voted. If a supporter has not voted, you find out why and overcome all obstacles -rides to the polls, child care, even cook their supper if that is an issue. Election day is the greatest (non-ski related) rush there is. 

Like the Stanley Cup, the outcome of the game doen't make a great differnence in the long run. It is all in the contest. Whether Pierre Poilievre or Justin Trudeau is Prime Minister will not have much effect on the major decisions the government must make. The professional staff in the Public Service, the people who have been advising political leaders and the executive for years, lay out the options for cabinet to consider, detailing the pros and cons of each option. The politician who presumes to know more than the guys who know what they are doing, is bound to screw things up. The politician who listens carefully is likely to make better choices. Most people who make it to the top, like the PM or Mr. Poilievre, are smart enough to listen to the experts (you know...the guys who know what they are doing.)

I know there are some pin-heads out there who whine about the "tyranny of experts." People who don't know how to do something should not try to tell people who do know, that they are doing it all wrong.

And you are NOT going to have your taxes reduced as long as you have to pay for services.

Edited by Queenmandy85
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Contrarian said:

I STUDIED AND WORKED/WORK you bum,

You are not getting it.

7 hours ago, Contrarian said:

You are never going to take control

No you're definitely just not getting it.

7 hours ago, Contrarian said:

via law enforcement if it starts metamorphosing into street action

You'll be surprised to observe (and then, who knows) what state of order entrenched authoritarian systems can descend into in no time at all (in historical terms). Not me saying it, only facts of history.

I've no interest in having anything to do with your forces. Roll happily wherever it takes you, all the way (that's pretty much given, in such cases) with my sincere wishes of luck. I'll just stand by and watch... when I have a free minute and nothing more fun to do.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

And you are NOT going to have your taxes reduced as long as you have to pay for services.

I like this interpretation! Just like that carbon charge service", right? And looks like it's becoming a smash in the management of public matters (in certain democracies"). Old people could still recall the sad old times when they chose what services they needed (and what they were willing to pay for them - or not) but that was so long ago and not quite right. Look really, if every peasant would begin to choose their own service, where would be the place for the wise, better people, you know? No, definitely wrong.

So welcome, brave new services (and don't be surprise where they will take you)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Contrarian said:

Is hard sport to be part of

Not every sport you want to be a part of.. the conclusion is natural, though it goes with the practice of critical questioning of the reality. Not all things you can change. But do you have to be a part of the things you disagree with, on principle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Contrarian said:

Is hard sport to be part of society

First this. Isn't it interesting (amusing too) that when it's about their business, salaries and many compensations they don't need any of you as part of their "society" in any role we'll sort it out here thank you though. It's only when you're needed to prop their pretty democratic (tuk-tuk) idyll you're suddenly called to be a part of (toy elections, happy sleigh ride interactions with your employee-representatives and other such silly useless stuff). Funny how some of us couldn't see though this blatantly simple game. No judging though everybody has their issues.

14 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Isn't that the role of a human, to take care of himself

Some human?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Contrarian said:

Which of the above would get more done for society?

Of the happy entitled bunch? They are doing quite fine there, as far as can be seen. Such a relief, can head on my way now. "Horse off the cart" as they say in some places.

.. next time they want to give me automatic annual rise, can be reached here. Keeping channels open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

 There are 2 ways to give back to "society:"     
(in my Bias, remember you are talking to someone that read Ayn Rand early on)

I think your advice is given to somebody that you would assume would never be an inner party member.  Even Winston Smith had a job to do, but if you were talking to someone in the top echelons there would be deeper advice to give - right ?

Like - "maximize" medium term gains for all, not short term; maintain a balance of unity and competition in your population; forge nations out of manageable and strong definitions - but not traditional ones.

One reason I get bored and put people on ignore is that they simultaneously act like a peasant mob while trying to criticize power structures, and even complex policy.  It's not hard for these folks to step up but they need to spend some time learning first.  We all have learning to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Contrarian said:

1. I agree, when you read some of the statements, there is IQ there and so much potential, the direction aimed however is towards non-productivity, towards a dream that will get one nowhere. 

2. If that energy would be focused on a product or a service, the things that @myata would achieve with his mind. 

Yet, he chooses to be ungovernable: 

anarchists-in-london.gif

1.  Canada has a lot of hard workers, good thinkers and capacity for compromise... lots of good traits in a connected world.
2. Well, or even to focus on the positive aspects of life.  I mean, who knows, but in any case believing in scary stories doesn't help anyone.  I'd rather sit in church and be lectured about hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

We all have learning to do.

Great thoughts Michael! Would learning to limit yourself (if there's no effective limits otherwise, as it happens in some great democracies) come into the picture somehow too?

Look: here's a lever. You press it, and out a little opening comes a glob of dough. Press twice, two globs. Four times, four come out and so on, you've got the picture. A question: when (and that's an assumption, not a definitive statement) would you stop working it? Even more importantly: why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give me a benevolent dictator if you have to, but one who cherishes individual liberty, equal opportunity, and a market economy. I'm tired of all these so called 'elites' always rigging the system for themselves. I'm tired of these so called 'socialists' (the ones who want the collective to run the means of production) with all their 'good intentions' if ever put into practice would not end well. We have a system of government that has served us fairly decently over the past 150 years. Maybe only a few tweaks are required but surely no major overhaul.

An old chinese proverb...  if it ain't broke, don't f**k with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2023 at 10:49 AM, 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? 

Right now the system is struggling because electoral ridings are so different in size.

I did some math a few elections ago and found that, on avg, votes in the maritimes were worth about 1.6 Alberta votes.

That was based on the fact that Alberta ridings had so many more people in them. Even after Alberta had new ridings added they were still casting 'discounted' votes.

If the difference was something like 1.1 - 1 that would be liveable, but it's not.

If they don't want to be constantly shifting boundaries and adding ridings, maybe they should just make ridings worth 1.1 votes or .8 votes, based on the ratio of their population/100,000.

It's just not fair that a riding with 74,000 people carries as much weight as one with 120,000. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

It's just not fair that a riding with 74,000 people carries as much weight as one with 120,000. 

Tweaking with a broken, in principle, system will not fix it. The problem with FPTP in general is not even funnies of "representation". It's that it suppresses the choice. The other side of stimulating exactly two monstrous power holding corporations is that it cannot reflect the complexities of a modern society; understand them; and manage them effectively and efficiently. And without any effective independent checks and controls over governments, stagnation is the only possible outcome. In the modern democratic world if my count is correct, only two such left. Both are remote, insignificant and rapidly losing significance backwaters of the democratic world.

The system needs fresh air, urgently. The system needs to have meaningful, full and uncontrolled choice of citizens.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2023 at 10:49 AM, 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? 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. 

Your questions about who sits in the House on a particular day can be easily handled by parliamentary procedures.  
 

There are plenty of countries that do a proportional system and work just fine.  
 

What is wrong with having Parliament reflect the way the population voted?  
 

In the case of the last election:

CON - 34%  115 seats

LIB - 33%  112 seats

NDP - 16%  54 seats

BQ - 8%   27 seats

GR - 7%  24 seats

MAX the nut - 2% 7 seats

(1 extra seat due to rounding error)

 

Edited to add:

I understand why the 2 main parties want to maintain the status quo;  40% of the electorate gives them 100% of the power.  

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

But when we vote, we are voting for a Member of Parliament, not a political party. Political parties are vehicles for electoral success. But they also carry the myth of ideology. Ideology is a concept that all problems can be solved by a single over riding theory. "If we only cut taxes and government spending..." or "if we only empower government to own and manage industry...: or "if we have...etc." we will solve the problems of unemployment, crime, healthcare and climate change. 

That is a myth. Each problem has its own solution. Government's first priority is to save the lives of as many citizens as possible. Its next priority is to do what it can to balance security of the person with personal freedoms. People will trade a lot of freedom for safety and security.  Next comes the economy. None of these issues can be solved by an ideological theory. 

When we vote, we are electing a neighbour to sit for our riding in Ottawa, not some bagman from Toronto for a political party, to sit for the constituants of Ducktooth-North, Saskatchewan.

PR leads to minority governments. The more parties we have, the less room a government has for making decisions. PR leads to more political parties and it is the extremist splinter parties that end up trading support to get their shoes under the cabinet table. You only have to look at Israel's situation right now. But whether it is Israel or Germany, it can take weeks or months to get a government in place. We cannot afford that kind of instability with the challeges we face now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

I understand why the 2 main parties want to maintain the status quo;  40% of the electorate gives them 100% of the power.

At the expense of accomplished inability to reflect and represent the complexity of interests and needs in a modern society.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Your questions about who sits in the House on a particular day can be easily handled by parliamentary procedures.  
 

There are plenty of countries that do a proportional system and work just fine.  
 

What is wrong with having Parliament reflect the way the population voted?  
 

In the case of the last election:

CON - 34%  115 seats

LIB - 33%  112 seats

NDP - 16%  54 seats

BQ - 8%   27 seats

GR - 7%  24 seats

MAX the nut - 2% 7 seats

(1 extra seat due to rounding error)

 

Edited to add:

I understand why the 2 main parties want to maintain the status quo;  40% of the electorate gives them 100% of the power.  

That will break down to a coalition of NDP, Grit and Greens for 190 seats to the CPC opposition of 115 and the BQ floating.

Currently we have an NDP caucus wagging the dog because nobody wants an election. If we had PR, there would be 20-30 parties, from the two existing communist parties to Tamara Lich's Western Front to Wreck the Country Party. We would have the Diagalongs (sic) Party or what ever it is called. If the CPC is three seats short of forming a government, I can see them dealing with whackos like Lich, Bernier and MacKenzie to get there. 

Countries need stability and continuity. Voters need an MP who is a neighbour, some one they know and trust.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, myata said:

At the expense of accomplished inability to reflect and represent the complexity of interests and needs in a modern society.

What is "accomplished inability?" Maybe you should get your ESL teacher to proof read your posts to help you make them comprehensible.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That will break down to a coalition of NDP, Grit and Greens for 190 seats to the CPC opposition of 115 and the BQ floating.

Or just Lib and NDP.   Like there is currently.    
 

26 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If we had PR, there would be 20-30 parties, from the two existing communist parties to Tamara Lich's Western Front to Wreck the Country Party.

Scare mongering.  Make a 5% threshold to get any seats.  Problem solved. 
 

27 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If the CPC is three seats short of forming a government, I can see them dealing with whackos like Lich, Bernier and MacKenzie to get there. 

The minimum threshold takes care of that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

But when we vote, we are voting for a Member of Parliament, not a political party

In reality, how many independents are elected?  Zero in the last election.  Every single MP has party affiliation.  Let’s deal with actual realities please.  
 

48 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

When we vote, we are electing a neighbour to sit for our riding in Ottawa, not some bagman from Toronto for a political party, to sit for the constituants of Ducktooth-North, Saskatchewan.

There are ways to solve this issue as well. Mixed-member, or whatever it’s called. 
 

49 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

PR leads to minority governments.

Good.  40% of the vote should never lead to 100% of the power.  

 

50 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We cannot afford that kind of instability with the challeges we face now.

Germany is not an unstable country.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Good.  40% of the vote should never lead to 100% of the power.  

The government remains responsible to Parliament. However, as the climate crisis gets nearer, the government will need to make decisions that will be very unpopular, mainly because we have procrastinated for 35 years. Government will need to be decisive or fail in its most important role, to save as many lives as possible. Cabinet is always divided, but we need cabinet solidarity to function

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...