Buyer, beware: FPTP is a danger to the society

[myata]

12 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Assuming Canada is just a static place with static political parties and an electorate that never changes.

And never have enough interests or will to create new parties or split the existing ones, with the bounds of partisan duality cut; and no new essential questions, issues, matters and agendas emerge... ever. How do you call a place like that? There was a word for that.

Here's another way to look at the question though, not philosophical but more practical one: is Canada evolving, mentally, and physically, to a condition of Northern Mexico? Why wouldn't it? Name one reason.

A one-bedroom apartment in a major city, over 2K. Median income in the country, 40K. The plan is to double the population within a decade.

Edited February 4, 2023 by myata

[TreeBeard]

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

A Knesset!

Gesundheit!!

 

 

 

[TreeBeard]

Seriously though, why didn’t you pick the Australian or German model as an example?   
 

I would think Canada more closely resembles those countries.

Edited February 4, 2023 by TreeBeard

[myata]

"Because they can". It works perfectly as it is: MP salaries highest in the developed democracies, automatic annual rises rolling in. The army? The housing crisis? The health care? What? Where?! Here, would you like some brioches aren't they so good?

Edited February 4, 2023 by myata

[myata]

The AI may know something. Common knowledge?

Yes, extreme bureaucracy can definitely be very inefficient or even dangerous. Bureaucracy creates layers of complexity that can limit decision making. It encourages an environment where decisions are made for the 'greater good' rather than for the benefit of specific people or groups. This can often lead to an environment where individuals do not feel empowered to make decisions that could benefit them or the organization in  the longer run.

[blackbird]

As we speak there are countries that do not use the FPTP system but have a system that gives smaller parties who can't win any seats by the FPTP system seats in their legislature.  One of the problems with this is there is at least one country who does this and is paralyzed and unable to govern because there are about 14 parties represented in the legislature.  They are unable to reach agreement on essential matters.  The country is in a crisis.  This is what happens when you try to change the system to give every little party a representative in the government.  You create a disaster and paralysis.

Edited February 6, 2023 by blackbird

[myata]

36 minutes ago, blackbird said:

One of the problems with this is there is at least one country who does this and is paralyzed and unable to govern because there are about 14 parties represented in the legislature.  They are unable to reach agreement on essential matters.

Nonsense and untrue. Modern democracy works with coalitions. First citizens are represented by their representative bodies correctly and accurately (are those words there just by a coincidence?). Secondly, their representatives must find common ground to obtain the right to govern. That makes sense in a grown up, responsible society no?

Instead we have two default and by definition opaque governing cliques and a joke ritual to pick the next turn at the trough. The only reason the system is not yet in a deep crisis is the size, a lot of stuff to dig out and sell. But getting there, slow but steadily, no surprises.

[blackbird]

58 minutes ago, myata said:

Nonsense and untrue. Modern democracy works with coalitions. First citizens are represented by their representative bodies correctly and accurately (are those words there just by a coincidence?). Secondly, their representatives must find common ground to obtain the right to govern. That makes sense in a grown up, responsible society no?

Instead we have two default and by definition opaque governing cliques and a joke ritual to pick the next turn at the trough. The only reason the system is not yet in a deep crisis is the size, a lot of stuff to dig out and sell. But getting there, slow but steadily, no surprises.

There are several problems with so-called proportional representation. 

1.  It is proportional in the sense the proportion of the vote that a party gets determines who the representatives are in the legislature.  For example if a small fringe party gets 3% of the vote, then according to the PR system, they would be entitled to 3% of the number of MPs.  That means more fringe parties get to have MPs and the larger parties would end up with fewer MPs.  That's the reason one country has around 14 parties represented in the legislature and is unable to reach agreement on which parties form the government or pass a law.  With that kind of system, rarely does one party get a majority of MPs.  It is almost impossible to win a majority government because of the number of small parties.   So in one sense, you can see how democracy is harmed.  The will of the majority is taken away with the PR system in an attempt to give every fringe group or party a voice and vote.  You end up with nobody having any real authority or power to govern.  You need to seriously consider this.  Countries often face serious crisis or urgent matters that require a majority to take action.  If the legislature is always tied up by a pile of minorities trying to manipulate the system and blackmail the government to get their way, nothing can get done.  The government is paralyzed.  We are getting a little sample of this with the NDP-Liberal coalition.  The NDP is holding the government hostage in a way in order to get their demands through.

2. In a PR system, the voters in an individual riding lost their democratic rights.  In a PR system, it is not the majority of the voters in a riding that determine who the MP is.  The votes are counted and each fringe party gets to take some of the votes and use those votes.  Each fringe party's votes are added together from all ridings and those are what determines how many MPs the fringe party gets.  This is done at the expense of the people in each riding who did not vote for those fringe parties.  So its not really democratic any more.  You end up with small parties having MPs even though they did not win any one riding.  A small number of people in each riding gets to pick MPs from small parties.  Those votes are used by the party and the party selects who the MP will be, not the voters.  That's not democracy either.

3.  The MPs selected by the PR system are chosen by the small parties.  That means they are not accountable directly to any one riding.  The MPs chosen that way were not chosen by the voters in one riding.  They were chosen by the national party.  So they are not accountable to the people.  They are accountable only to the party.  That's not democracy either.

Edited February 6, 2023 by blackbird

[myata]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

That's the reason one country has around 14 parties represented in the legislature and is unable to reach agreement on which parties form the government or pass a law. 

You are describing some alternative fantasy world while most of first world democracies have some form of proportional representation, and exactly one dinosaur still stuck with FPTP. In Canada, dreams come true)

Edited February 6, 2023 by myata

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, myata said:

You are describing some alternative fantasy world while most of first world democracies have some form of proportional representation, and exactly one dinosaur still stuck with FPTP. In Canada, dreams come true)

these negatives are not "fantasy world" as you claim.  These are facts that you choose to ignore.  You need calm down and come back to reality.

These are some of cons (negatives) of a PR system:

"List of the Cons of Proportional Representation

1. It makes things easier for extreme parties to gain representation.
Under the system of proportional representation, any party with a high enough percentage of the vote will receive a seat in the government. That structure makes it easier for extremist views to find official representation. The seldom receive access to the majority coalition and rarely earn an absolute majority, but there is always the possibility that their voiced opinions will gain traction with the general population.

2. It can create political gridlock, just like in any other system of government.
Coalition governments are encouraged to compromise and pursue centrist views. The reality of this type of governing, however, is that each party wants to have its own way with things. That creates a system of government that tends to be indecisive and weak because everyone argues for their own best interests. More gridlock, instead of less, can be created, especially if more than two parties are involved in the coalition.

3. It does not provide direct representation to specific communities.
Under the system of proportional representation, seats are not awarded based on community or district voting. That means those who serve in the government are less likely to focus on local issues as they have no local representation responsibilities. It creates a system of government where more voices can be heard, but fewer actually receive a listening ear. Many communities under this system can come away feeling like they don’t matter to the governing coalition.

4. It is not always wise to compromise.
Even in countries that have encouraged proportional representation, some of the largest changes that have occurred in those societies happened when an absolute majority was present within the government. There are times when a strong majority in the government is required to push through needed reforms.

5. It can be an unstable form of government.
Italy has proportional representation built into their government structures. Over the last 4 decades, the government has been forced to dissolve its parliament 8 times. In Belgium, the negotiations required after their 2010 election to form a governing coalition took 18 months to complete, leaving a crippled government in its place where nothing got done. Having more voices can be a good thing, but it can also create a discord that makes it impossible to government.

These proportional representation pros and cons have certain benefits that allow for greater inclusion and variety. At the same time, greater inclusion can also lead toward higher levels of extremism within the government, while encouraging more gridlock if the political parties are unable to find a pathway toward compromise."

12 Proportional Representation Pros and Cons – Vittana.org

There are several serious negatives from a PR system.

A big one is it is more undemocratic than FPTP because it give the power to political parties to choose many of the MPs and removes the electoral choice from the ridings.

 

Edited February 6, 2023 by blackbird

[myata]

Let's talk about facts. Are you saying that in a modern complex society there cannot be fourteen or twenty five defined and expressed issues, topics or areas of interests for involved citizens?

Can a Great People's Party represent them all, accurately, fairly and importantly, effectively?

Can exactly two Great People Parties aka default governing cliques entitled to a place at the trough for perpetuity?

The answer is obvious to a smart three year old, faced with a dilemma milk or porridge says No! I want a banana! Just as easy as that. In the political sense this is a system for two year olds or those who couldn't care to think and create their living environment for themselves. Outdated, archaic and inefficient in a modern world as horse-driven carts.

No, you can't prove that PR doesn't work because it's the most used democratic system in the developed world proven in dozens of instances: the reality itself disproves your claim. But you can succeed in proving that you are a dinosaur, oblivious and stubbornly refusing to see and admit the reality and the last one at that. A fact, by the way, too.

[myata]

Amusing isn't it, that you just complained about governments treating you like a toddler, while advocating a system that allows them to do just that. Don't see the obvious connection, do you? Could it be because you have chosen to blindly believe a dogma, rather than think and examine things with your own brain?

Edited February 7, 2023 by myata