What would Canada's political landscape look like with a fair parliamentary representation system?

[myata]

An election or two after the change. Shouldn't take too long. What I think:

CPC would split into two or three fractions: progressive or "red tories"; traditional soc cons; and further right nationalist maybe along the lines of PPC.

Liberals split into two fractions: right of center and left. The right of center may join with the progressive faction of CPC to make a national right of center liberal market party.

NDP splits into left of center - labor, and far left. Left of center NDP and left Liberals make a national left of center, European-like socialist party.

We may have an immigrant party and of course, Greens (that's seven)

Regional parties, at least BQ, Alberta Rose and possibly Ontario and the Maritimes (Ocean party?)

It's going to be fun! And more importantly, represent the composition and the interests of the modern democratic society. Not some dusty script two centuries old.

[Nexii]

Regional parties would be less popular and probably die off. The BQ gets an outsized number of seats compared to popular vote. As did the Reform. 

[myata]

Just now, Nexii said:

The BQ gets an outsized number of seats compared to popular vote. As did the Reform. 

Of course. And that would be fixed too.

[Nexii]

Although one can debate that the left parties should just unite in Canada. Whether parties merge before an election or after by coalition, is it so different?

[myata]

Well, it would make sense to establish a party based on some clear stable principles that resonate with a part of the population. That way you wouldn't need to introduce yourself every election time. But of course, it's entirely normal for parliamentary parties to form government and opposition coalitions, even of different ideological stripes.

[Nexii]

True, though on the flip side you don't know what parties yours might align with or not.

I think on the whole PR still beats FPTP. FPTP encourages regionalism which isn't good for unity. And it gives the fringe representation instead of pushing them outside of democracy. As distasteful as a fascist party might be with 5-10% of the vote, that's how the votes go.

The more parties the more 'democratic' the system is, as they have too much power as is. 

An alternative might be to require parties to re-vote on their leader every year, and have it be binding. 

[myata]

10 minutes ago, Nexii said:

The more parties the more 'democratic' the system is, as they have too much power as is. 

I can't but agree. A complex modern society cannot be managed effectively without understanding and reflecting its structure and interests.

[Moonlight Graham]

Hey great, let everyone vote for a party representing their own narrow interests without much of a care for the country as a whole.  The Bloc x 10.  Good way to unite the country.

[myata]

12 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Good way to unite the country.

In your view, a bunch of disconnected politicians in quasi-parties who do not have to listen nor compete fairly based on the quality of the vision and ideas would represent it better?

People of different backgrounds and convictions work together in any profession. Policies and solutions are discussed thoroughly and from different angles. It definitely results in a better quality of decisions. What's wrong with making our political system work like that too? It's not a wish but a requirement in a modern society not for outstanding policy really, but just for anything above the level of mediocrity.

[WestCanMan]

People get to choose their own groups, you don't get to choose their groups for them.

[myata]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

People get to choose their own groups

Sure. In Canada you get to choose between political "groups" Liberals; Conservatives; and the garbage bin. You sure can choose any of those. By only a minor modification of the meaning of "choice".

[WestCanMan]

21 minutes ago, myata said:

Sure. In Canada you get to choose between political "groups" Liberals; Conservatives; and the garbage bin. You sure can choose any of those. By only a minor modification of the meaning of "choice".

You get to choose between "I utterly accept any and all CBC dogma" or "I know when I'm being lied to". 

[Moonlight Graham]

6 hours ago, myata said:

In your view, a bunch of disconnected politicians in quasi-parties who do not have to listen nor compete fairly based on the quality of the vision and ideas would represent it better?

People of different backgrounds and convictions work together in any profession. Policies and solutions are discussed thoroughly and from different angles. It definitely results in a better quality of decisions. What's wrong with making our political system work like that too? It's not a wish but a requirement in a modern society not for outstanding policy really, but just for anything above the level of mediocrity.

It will go tribal, and the most populous tribes will dominate.  We all have different interests and views, but we should belong to one tribe:  Canada.

"The new Marxists" or whatever we want to call them have abandoned class tribes and gone full steam into identity tribes, which is much worse.  This idea will encourage regional tribes as well.  Anything that would encourage more of this is a bad idea IMO.

I think we should vote on individual issues or groups of issues (ie: climate, taxes etc) rather than tribes.

Political parties are pretty lame IMO because they are catch-all groups will little room for nuance.

Edited September 21, 2023 by Moonlight Graham

[myata]

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

"I utterly accept any and all CBC dogma"

Are you reading something else, somewhere? This topic has nothing to do with CBC.

[myata]

41 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Political parties are pretty lame IMO because they are catch-all groups will little room for nuance.

An interesting view, but OK how should we organize this "tribal council" so that it actually reflects the interests of the society rather than its own? And what if people do have different ideas and views who and how would decide which ones to follow?

[WestCanMan]

48 minutes ago, myata said:

Are you reading something else, somewhere? This topic has nothing to do with CBC.

Are you kidding?

This topic has everything to do with the CBC. The Liberals pay them hundreds of millions of dollars. Trudeau was elected PM for the first time in Oct 2015 and his first budget, in early 2016, had $675M in new funding for the CBC.

Then Trudeau went on to give $600M to "select media outlets" right before the 2019 election and another $95M or something like that to "secret" media outlets before the 2021 election. Winning doesn't come cheaply, right? Unless of course, you get to buy those wins the old-fashioned way: with taxpayer money. 

All on the up and up, mind you, because everything that Trudeau does is blessed and pure according to our unbia$ed media. 

In Canada your vote either says: "I utterly accept any and all CBC dogma" or "I know when I'm being lied to". End of story. 

[myata]

The partisan, binary FPTP system claims to protect the society against political extremes. But it comes at a serious, one can say, huge cost. Let's see:

- Engendering and developing extreme partisanship:    check. Important is not to find and develop best solutions and policies for the society, but to beat the opponent. To the point where little or nothing else matters.

- Creating an insulated political system, closed in itself with no incentives to learn, renew and adapt: done. The reality is the proof. All of the FPTP systems in the first world are cemented for like, ever.

- Stimulating a political culture of laziness and entitlement, with no place for competition, or in some cases, even answering legitimate questions.

- Moreover, while preventing marginal representation of marginal groups that would have been moderated in a real representative system by the rest of the political landscape, it can create a much more serious problem, because by the virtue of practically guaranteed place in the default duo (reality check), if one party decides to go off the rails it is brought right into the political mainstream, to stay there. Normalized and stamped for the society, this is your new normal (and the new frame of reference). This is like to fix a mice infestation they would bring in a gunpowder barrel that can blow up the whole house. A race to the bottom, death spiral scenario.

There are no rational benefits that outweigh these risks. None. Only mental laziness, complacency and entitlement. Binary system is a danger for the democracy. The question is not if, when.

 

Edited September 23, 2023 by myata