Jump to content

Buyer, beware: FPTP is a danger to the society


myata

Recommended Posts

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 by myata
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

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
      10,713
    • 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...