Buyer, beware: FPTP is a danger to the society

[myata]

Boris Johnson noticed an interesting trend: even high level Republicans (or even more so) fear of being chastened by certain media characters. This is not the first time of course, but the trend is becoming more pronounced of recent, or can one say, persistent and continuous? The names, change. The trend, keeps popping up. Why though? Why independent representative of the free people, in a proud one of the oldest true democracies on the planet, in particular leaders should and would be fearful of anyone?

But there's nothing partisan about it of course. On the other side across the isle we just observed trigger-syringe happy "for your own good" politics that couldn't be questioned in a calm and rational manner. The direction appears to be universal. And the cause, in the root and foundation: FPTP, first past the post wins all.

- From a forum of free and independent representatives of citizens only one logical step: effectiveness takes to forming of political groups, cliques.

- Only one more, creates a setting, ecosystem of exactly two major ones not counting insignificant fringe. Same point: if you aren't as big or bigger than your opponent, you lose, always.

And the final one, partisanship. Because there are only two possible outcomes, you win or you lose, your opponent becomes more than a fellow citizen with different views; an adversary and eventually, the enemy.

One more time: with FPTP all of this is a package, a given. It will happen, you will get it and no theatrics would change anything in the essence.

But it doesn't stop here. Even within your own clique you aren't secure. You have to constantly look out for and beware of groups and smaller cliques because the one that is louder and stronger will have more chances standing up to the strong sworn enemy, and a weaker ones, calling for understanding and compromise, can be seen as helping them. Not can, were in fact.

Tucker, Fauci, Trump and all the other cases before them are the symptoms. FPTP creates a real problem in the society, that of political polarization and all the way to extreme partisanship. It cannot solve or rectify it by its very nature. Starting with independent and free you end up anything but. And that's in a real democracy.

Now US is a strong democracy with intelligently and thoroughly thought through and constructed system of checks, balances and controls. Canada is not. So when an authoritarian clique forms here the society will be helpless and then: anybody's guess. 

FPTP is also (or should one say, naturally?) the preferred system of communist dictatorships and third-world quasi democracies. "Your representative" on paper or in a pretty pic, so easy to manage in any number of ways behind the curtains.

Beware, you were warned. No blissfully blind walking into this paradise.

Edited February 3, 2023 by myata

[Boges]

6 hours ago, myata said:

FPTP is also (or should one say, naturally?) the preferred system of communist dictatorships and third-world quasi democracies. "Your representative" on paper or in a pretty pic, so easy to manage in any number of ways behind the curtains.

Beware, you were warned. No blissfully blind walking into this paradise.

So what system are you advocating for? FPTP is not the system in the US or other Republics.

Liberals would much prefer a system that blocks Conservatives out by letting voters rank their choices.

[myata]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

So what system are you advocating for?

Any fair democratic system can work. You can have a system of independent representatives (like the US) with a legal prohibition of interference with elected representative's will and other related essential changes.

Proportional representation is a clear alternative that works in many or most developed democracies.

Preferential vote is less common but it can work too, combined with removal of all barriers to entry of new parties.

Canada now is the only FPTP in the (supposedly) developed world. In addition, with tightly controlled parties and hand-managed deputies and an absolute lack of checks and controls, there are severe barriers to entry of new political players. That makes legitimate the question, is Canada still a real, genuine democracy; by what virtue(s) and for how much longer?

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Boges said:

 

Liberals would much prefer a system that blocks Conservatives out by letting voters rank their choices.

A permanent NDP-Liberal coalition with 5 PPC seats.

 

Guess which part of this epic fail gets the right excited?

[myata]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Guess which part of this epic fail gets the right excited?

It's perfect as it is (for us). Abandon all hope (the motto).

[TreeBeard]

2 hours ago, Boges said:

Liberals would much prefer a system that blocks Conservatives out by letting voters rank their choices.

What evidence do you have that the Liberals want anything but the status quo?   They ran away from electoral reform as quickly as they could and haven’t uttered those words since!

[TreeBeard]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

A permanent NDP-Liberal coalition with 5 PPC seats.

 

This is hyperbolic.  If parliament was representative of the current vote, the Conservatives would have the most seats.  

[myata]

God couldn't create a stone they couldn't lift. But Canada is mightier!

[myata]

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

This is hyperbolic.

Michael says that in a market that you open up to competition, remove fences, guards and police, crazy unreasonable taxes, levies and just so fees - and in ten years you will find there the same three faces. Smart thinking, no?

Or maybe he indeed knows something deep, inherent, about the place?

Edited February 3, 2023 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

This is hyperbolic.  If parliament was representative of the current vote, the Conservatives would have the most seats.  

Who would form a coalition with them?

[Boges]

10 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

What evidence do you have that the Liberals want anything but the status quo?   They ran away from electoral reform as quickly as they could and haven’t uttered those words since!

Well they want it when they aren't in power. . . 

[Boges]

9 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

This is hyperbolic.  If parliament was representative of the current vote, the Conservatives would have the most seats.  

It wouldn't be representative though. A federal legislature should be dictated by the fact that Albertans REALLY hate Trudeau. So they run up the popular vote numbers but in more populous areas of the country the political make-up is more balanced. 

If FPTP does anything, it establishes broad support. 

Stephen Harper couldn't win the big cities but he was able to win in broad swaths of Canada. 

[Boges]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Who would form a coalition with them?

I've always wondered if Small L Liberals would bolt if the party merged with the NDP. 

 

[myata]

22 minutes ago, Boges said:

I've always wondered

Nah why bother. The trough is right there and it's great as it is, complete with automatic annual rises. All the way to the third world, just check the peers in the FPTP team.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

I've always wondered if Small L Liberals would bolt if the party merged with the NDP. 

 

Are they doing this today?

[Boges]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Are they doing this today?

They didn't merge, they're just propping them up. 

If we had an effective 2-party system would the Liberals or a merged party, manage 60%+ of the electorate? This is always the talking point against any Conservative party elected to a majority with 40% of the popular vote. See DoFo in Ontario. 

Never seems to work when the Liberals get under 40% because the Dipper are seen as similar. I suggest that often the Conservatives and Liberals are often more similar. 

[myata]

32 minutes ago, Boges said:

Conservatives and Liberals are often more similar.

Yeah, exactly. They are both happy with the status quo (at the trough), and why would they want anybody else there? This happy idyll worked well in swimming in the minerals backwaters of the world of twenty million, but it's changing rapidly and they want to make it to 100 millions, with majority first or second generation third world. Is Canada becoming more like Northern Mexico? What's there to prevent it?

[SpankyMcFarland]

There are a few fences to jump before replacing FPTP in Canada. Who likes FPTP? Well, the biggest party does no matter what its leader may say. FPTP gives it more seats. Conservatives like FPTP. They’d have no chance of winning a majority without it. The entire Canadian political establishment has a fear of what PR would bring - coalitions! There, I said it. What a terrifying prospect. Canadians in general don’t seem to pushed on changing FPTP either. They can barely summon the energy to vote these days and understanding PR would be a major effort for them cutting into valuable TikTok time. So I’m afraid FPTP is probably here to stay. 

[myata]

9 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

There are a few fences to jump before replacing FPTP in Canada.

I think what you are saying is that a real, meaningful change doesn't have strong stakeholders in Canada. One cannot argue with observed reality, but it seems to me it may not be a healthy disposition going forward in this world.

[TreeBeard]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Who would form a coalition with them?

Why does that matter?  If they can’t get enough support in parliament, then it goes to those who can. 

[TreeBeard]

6 hours ago, Boges said:

Well they want it when they aren't in power. . . 

Only once….  And only briefly.  

[TreeBeard]

6 hours ago, Boges said:

It wouldn't be representative though. A federal legislature should be dictated by the fact that Albertans REALLY hate Trudeau. So they run up the popular vote numbers but in more populous areas of the country the political make-up is more balanced. 

If FPTP does anything, it establishes broad support. 

Stephen Harper couldn't win the big cities but he was able to win in broad swaths of Canada. 

Albertan hatred isn’t enough to control parliament.    They would be a minority government, at best.  However, the Libs and other parties are much more likely to form government, so the concern that Alberta could somehow control parliament is hyperbolic.  

[Michael Hardner]

56 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Why does that matter?  If they can’t get enough support in parliament, then it goes to those who can. 

Which would be Liberals pretty much forever.

[TreeBeard]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Which would be Liberals pretty much forever.

Assuming Canada is just a static place with static political parties and an electorate that never changes.  Yeah, then I guess you’re right.  
 

Edited February 4, 2023 by TreeBeard

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

Assuming Canada is just a static place with static political parties and an electorate that never changes.  Yeah, then I guess you’re right.  
 

A Knesset!