I wonder if...

[Argus]

Not something I've spent a lot of time seriously considering, as it would generally lead to neverending minority governments. However, given the strong possibility of a Conservative minority, I wonder if anyone in positions of authority in that party has ever publicly stated their positions on PR? Anyone know? The current system has not treated them well, as they consisted get fewer seats than their percentage of the vote would give them. And given their almost certain continuing inability to make any kind of major inroads in Quebec, it is unlikely that is going to change. The Libs and they will share the vote in TROC, and with the additional couple of dozen or several dozen seats the libs get in Quebec, they will almost always be the government. Would it make sense for the Tories to embrace PR? They would certainly get support from the NDP, and that might be enough to get it through the house. Would it take a constitutional amendment ratified by the provinces for this?

Not saying I especially advocate it, but I am wondering if it wouldn't be in their interests and if they might not seize the moment, as it were, to put it through.

[tml12]

Not something I've spent a lot of time seriously considering, as it would generally lead to neverending minority governments. However, given the strong possibility of a Conservative minority, I wonder if anyone in positions of authority in that party has ever publicly stated their positions on PR? Anyone know? The current system has not treated them well, as they consisted get fewer seats than their percentage of the vote would give them. And given their almost certain continuing inability to make any kind of major inroads in Quebec, it is unlikely that is going to change. The Libs and they will share the vote in TROC, and with the additional couple of dozen or several dozen seats the libs get in Quebec, they will almost always be the government. Would it make sense for the Tories to embrace PR? They would certainly get support from the NDP, and that might be enough to get it through the house. Would it take a constitutional amendment ratified by the provinces for this?

Not saying I especially advocate it, but I am wondering if it wouldn't be in their interests and if they might not seize the moment, as it were, to put it through.

Major parties (Liberals and Conservatives) probably do not support the PR system as these parties generally benefit from the "first past the post" system.

The Bloc would most certainly oppose it because the Bloc is based solely in Quebec. With PR, they would get at least 40-50 less seats than they'll get in this election with their national percentage.

The NDP, of the big four, have been most supportive of PR. It would benefit them, and the Greens, who I think also back PR, the most.

The likelihood is that we'll either have a Liberal or Conservative minority one week from Monday. Maybe the NDP, if they hold the balance of power will make an attempt to introduce PR legislation in the House.

Your question: would it make sense for the Tories to embrace it with NDP support? My instant response would be "no." However, I would first have to see the results of the election first. If Alberta and the Prairies continue to be a Conservative bastion with little support in Ontario, I would argue no. However, if the Tories can make a significant degree of progress in Ontario and the Atlantic Provinces, then maybe it wouldn't hurt for them.

I am not a huge supporter of PR, but that being said I do not oppose it. The problem for me is twofold:

1) There are several versions of PR out there including one proposed here in Quebec.

2) I think the democratic deficit, which PR is usually classified under by its proponents, includes several issues like set election dates that would not benefit the incumbent and an elected Senate.

...would be first on my list of reforms.

That being said, I think you'll be hearing about the issue for awhile.

[Black Dog]

Would it make sense for the Tories to embrace PR?

Not so much. PR wouldn't give them much more than they stand to win now. In fact, PR would hurt the Cons by eroding their regional base (in Alberta, for example, the Conservatives were able to capture 98 per cent of the seats with just 60 per cent of the vote). The chief beneficiaries of PR would be parties like the NDP and the Greens that don't have centralized support.

Now, if the CPC is serious about addressing the "democratic deficit", they should take a look at PR. But I doubt they'd be willing to turn the political arena into anything other than a two-horse race.

[Riverwind]

Not saying I especially advocate it, but I am wondering if it wouldn't be in their interests and if they might not seize the moment, as it were, to put it through.

The Conservatives would likely be hurt the most by PR because it is already a coalition of two right wing groups and moving to a PR system would likely cause the conservatives to split in two again.

[Argus]

Would it make sense for the Tories to embrace PR?

Not so much. PR wouldn't give them much more than they stand to win now. In fact, PR would hurt the Cons by eroding their regional base (in Alberta, for example, the Conservatives were able to capture 98 per cent of the seats with just 60 per cent of the vote). The chief beneficiaries of PR would be parties like the NDP and the Greens that don't have centralized support.

The thing is, I don't think it would hurt the tories. In most elections they get less seats than they would have under PR. And under PR they would get seats in every province, unlike the present system, which can make it hard for them to win many or even any seats in provinces where they do actually have support, but where the Liberals are dominant. So while I don't think it would be a big winner for them I think it could help them a little More importantly, it would really hurt the Liberals. It would make it almost impossible for the Liberals to win a majority government, thus robbing them of their arrogant freedom as Canada's natural governing party. Would the Tories have more power and influence in a series of minority governments, though, and a better chance of putting together a coallition, or would the NDP be the deal makers, able to ensure a continued leftist slanted minority coallition with the Liberals? I wonder how the scenarios would play out, and what new parties would emerge under such a system.

[scribblet]

I think it would hurt the CPC, does anyone have a breakdown of what parliament would look like now, if we had prop. rep. ? What about a combination of PR and the current system, but I'm not sure how that would work.

Also, if we retained the present system (with fixed election dates) wouldn't having an elected and EQUAL senate balance it out? I'm not sure, but isn't that how the U.S. congress and Senate works.

[geoffrey]

I think it would hurt the CPC, does anyone have a breakdown of what parliament would look like now, if we had prop. rep. ? What about a combination of PR and the current system, but I'm not sure how that would work.

Also, if we retained the present system (with fixed election dates) wouldn't having an elected and EQUAL senate balance it out? I'm not sure, but isn't that how the U.S. congress and Senate works.

Thats a far more reasonable approach scriblett. PR is a dangerous concept, look at what its done to the economies of Europe. Investment and economy growth comes from stability, and PR will cause the complete opposite when we have 6 or 7 parties fighting it out.

As well, regional parties would emerge and it would become the West vs. Quebec vs. Ontario vs. Maritimes.

PR would destroy our country.

[August1991]

It seems to me that ideas of PR were mooted in the late 1970s because of the Conservative's lack of representation from Quebec and the Liberal's lack in western Canada. Any PR proposal would have to be implemented on a provincial basis since the Constitution guarantees minimum Commons and Senate seats by province.

As long as the constitution was respected, I think it would merely take an act of parliament. Bear in mind that the electoral act is changed every ten years or so and this means deciding the political question of riding boundaries.

One idea would be to have some candidates elected in ridings and then others elected by electoral party lists (by province) based on popular vote.

The BQ would object but I don't think this would be unpopular in Quebec.

[dltm]

Would it make sense for the Tories to embrace PR?

Not so much. PR wouldn't give them much more than they stand to win now. In fact, PR would hurt the Cons by eroding their regional base (in Alberta, for example, the Conservatives were able to capture 98 per cent of the seats with just 60 per cent of the vote). The chief beneficiaries of PR would be parties like the NDP and the Greens that don't have centralized support.

The thing is, I don't think it would hurt the tories. In most elections they get less seats than they would have under PR. And under PR they would get seats in every province, unlike the present system, which can make it hard for them to win many or even any seats in provinces where they do actually have support, but where the Liberals are dominant. So while I don't think it would be a big winner for them I think it could help them a little More importantly, it would really hurt the Liberals. It would make it almost impossible for the Liberals to win a majority government, thus robbing them of their arrogant freedom as Canada's natural governing party. Would the Tories have more power and influence in a series of minority governments, though, and a better chance of putting together a coallition, or would the NDP be the deal makers, able to ensure a continued leftist slanted minority coallition with the Liberals? I wonder how the scenarios would play out, and what new parties would emerge under such a system.

If you were a patriot, you'd be asking whether a PR-based electoral system would be good for Canada.

If you had a global outlook, you'd be asking what PR-based models exist in the world, and what aspects of those models Canada might a made-in-Canada electoral system benefit from.

If you had an historical outlook, you'd be asking questions like whether Canada's current electoral system was adopted during a time when Canada had two major political parties or four.

If you had an economics-based outlook, you'd be asking whether an electoral system has, in fact, much impact at all on the Canadian economy, compared to, say, the price of oil and other raw materials.

If you had a trends-based outlook, you might wonder how many countries have recently adopted our electoral system versus a PR-based system. Perhaps Iraq might come to mind.

If you disliked corrupt Liberals, you'd be asking how Chretien was able to obtain three straight majorities while never receiving more than about 40% of the popular vote.

If you disliked tax & spend NDPers, you'd be asking how Bob Rae was able to enjoy a 5-year majority government in Ontario with only 37% support, and how BC's Glen Clark was handed a majority in 1996 after receiving _fewer_ votes than the Liberals and only 39% support.

If you disliked the Bloc Quebecois, you'd be asking how on earth such a new, radical party bent on the destruction of the country was able to form Her Majesty's Not-So-Loyal Opposition in 1993. And how it was that they were going to prevent the next Prime Minister from having much -- if any -- representation in Cabinet.

If you ever found yourself blaming Mike Harris for all of the woes of Ontario, you might ask yourself how he was able to ram through his Common Sense Revolution without once obtaining a majority of the votes.

And if you were more intellectually honest, you might have asked yourself whether you had actually seriously studied the issue of electoral reform, or whether you just wanted to have a point of view for the sake of having one. Maybe, just maybe, you were just too busy viewing every issue under the Sun as a conflict of visions -- where oddly, your particular vision always happened to be the Right One.

[Argus]

If you were a patriot, you'd be asking whether a PR-based electoral system would be good for Canada.

If you had a global outlook, you'd be asking what PR-based models exist in the world, and what aspects of those models Canada might a made-in-Canada electoral system benefit from.

If you had an historical outlook, you'd be asking questions like whether Canada's current electoral system was adopted during a time when Canada had two major political parties or four.

If you had an economics-based outlook, you'd be asking whether an electoral system has, in fact, much impact at all on the Canadian economy, compared to, say, the price of oil and other raw materials.

If you had a trends-based outlook, you might wonder how many countries have recently adopted our electoral system versus a PR-based system. Perhaps Iraq might come to mind.

If you disliked corrupt Liberals, you'd be asking how Chretien was able to obtain three straight majorities while never receiving more than about 40% of the popular vote.

If you disliked tax & spend NDPers, you'd be asking how Bob Rae was able to enjoy a 5-year majority government in Ontario with only 37% support, and how BC's Glen Clark was handed a majority in 1996 after receiving _fewer_ votes than the Liberals and only 39% support.

If you disliked the Bloc Quebecois, you'd be asking how on earth such a new, radical party bent on the destruction of the country was able to form Her Majesty's Not-So-Loyal Opposition in 1993. And how it was that they were going to prevent the next Prime Minister from having much -- if any -- representation in Cabinet.

If you ever found yourself blaming Mike Harris for all of the woes of Ontario, you might ask yourself how he was able to ram through his Common Sense Revolution without once obtaining a majority of the votes.

And if you were more intellectually honest, you might have asked yourself whether you had actually seriously studied the issue of electoral reform, or whether you just wanted to have a point of view for the sake of having one. Maybe, just maybe, you were just too busy viewing every issue under the Sun as a conflict of visions -- where oddly, your particular vision always happened to be the Right One.

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing by just introducing yourself as an unthinking blowhard.

If you read my initial post, if you are capable of reading, you'd see I openly admitted I hadn't put a lot of thought into PR and wasn't especially advocating (or opposing it). I just threw the idea out there for discussion. As for my "outlook" it's as a realist. PR will never be seriously considered by the party in power unless it's to their benefit. It will clearly never be to the benefit of the Liberals, but it could concievably be to the benefit of the Tories. Thus the greater part of your mostly content-free post is nothing but flatulence.

[Black Dog]

I think it would hurt the CPC, does anyone have a breakdown of what parliament would look like now, if we had prop. rep. ? What about a combination of PR and the current system, but I'm not sure how that would work.

Let's just pull some numbers out of the air:

We'll give the Cons 34 per cent of the popular vote, the Liberals 30 per cent, the NDP 17 per cent, the Bloc 14 per cent, and the Greens 5 per cent.

Under PR, then, Parliament would consist of 105 Cons, 92 Liberals, 52 New Democrats, 43 Bloc and 15 Greens (in a 307-seat House).

Also, if we retained the present system (with fixed election dates) wouldn't having an elected and EQUAL senate balance it out? I'm not sure, but isn't that how the U.S. congress and Senate works.

No because the fundamental problem is the winner take all system ensures the majority of people are wasting their votes. Elected Senates and fixed electon dates are nothing but band aid solutions.

PR is a dangerous concept, look at what its done to the economies of Europe. Investment and economy growth comes from stability, and PR will cause the complete opposite when we have 6 or 7 parties fighting it out.

What of those European countries with PR who's economies are doing just fine (think Ireland, Norway etc.)? It seems to be the potential damage to economic growth is a pretty poor reason to retain a system as outdated and undemocratic as FPTP.

As well, regional parties would emerge and it would become the West vs. Quebec vs. Ontario vs. Maritimes.

Uh no. In case you haven't noticed, FPTP has produced more than its fair share of regional parties. Look at the last election: you had basically three regions: The Conservative West, Bloc Quebec and Liberal Ontario. Unde rthe current system, a party with voter support concentrated in one region of the country will gain far more seats than another party with the same number of supporters spread across the country.

PR would guard against regional blocs by ensuring parties would have to have broad-based support. For example, under PR, the 50 per cent of Quebecers who vote for federalist parties would recieve representation that they wouldn't under a Bloc-takes all system.

[Harare]

Black Dog said

"Elected Senates and fixed electon dates are nothing but band aid solutions."

I'd respectfully disagree since the ONLY reason that PEI gas 4 seats instead of the 2 that it shoud be is because they have 4 Senate seats, Same for NB, NS and NF all of which have far too many seats per person. Another example: BC and Alberta have the same population as Quebec but have only 60 seats to Quebec's 75.

Election results would be very different and much more democratic if the West had 95 seats and Quebec had 70 seats, the Maritimes had 22 and Ontario had 125 seats - based on one seat per 100,000 population.

Fixed election dates would also make for more fairness in the process.

[Black Dog]

Black Dog said

"Elected Senates and fixed electon dates are nothing but band aid solutions."

I'd respectfully disagree since the ONLY reason that PEI gas 4 seats instead of the 2 that it shoud be is because they have 4 Senate seats, Same for NB, NS and NF all of which have far too many seats per person. Another example: BC and Alberta have the same population as Quebec but have only 60 seats to Quebec's 75.

Election results would be very different and much more democratic if the West had 95 seats and Quebec had 70 seats, the Maritimes had 22 and Ontario had 125 seats - based on one seat per 100,000 population.

Fixed election dates would also make for more fairness in the process.

But none of those solutions would address the main issue, which is the majority of Canadian voters are unrepresented in Parliment simply because their votes don't count. And people wonder why most peple don't vote.

[Harare]

Black Dog said

"Elected Senates and fixed electon dates are nothing but band aid solutions."

I'd respectfully disagree since the ONLY reason that PEI gas 4 seats instead of the 2 that it shoud be is because they have 4 Senate seats, Same for NB, NS and NF all of which have far too many seats per person. Another example: BC and Alberta have the same population as Quebec but have only 60 seats to Quebec's 75.

Election results would be very different and much more democratic if the West had 95 seats and Quebec had 70 seats, the Maritimes had 22 and Ontario had 125 seats - based on one seat per 100,000 population.

Fixed election dates would also make for more fairness in the process.

But none of those solutions would address the main issue, which is the majority of Canadian voters are unrepresented in Parliment simply because their votes don't count. And people wonder why most peple don't vote.

True but it would be a good foundation on which to build.

[Spike22]

As long as Canada allows BS like a provincial sepratist party be allowed into federal Canadian politics you could be in for a never ending series of minority govenments and instability both economically and from those from outside wondering what the heck is going on there and how fragile your nation really is.

[mar]

As long as Canada allows BS like a provincial sepratist party be allowed into federal Canadian politics you could be in for a never ending series of minority govenments and instability both economically and from those from outside wondering what the heck is going on there and how fragile your nation really is.

Which would mean PR would make little difference (to us, not the parteis) but I agree with tml12 that its unlikely to happen. You could grow old waiting for political parties to do anything that would decrease their power.

I don't mind the theoretical idea of an elected senate but I don't think it works with our population numbers. Assuming you gave it some legislative power like the U.S. Senate (and why make it elected if you're not going to) so that legislation had to be passed by both houses and you had, say, 2 per province and territory then you have suddenly created the 26 most powerful people in canada. Double it and the problem is the same. Go to any more and then its like all we've done is re-assigned the number of seats per province but created another huge bureaucracy to do it (why not just go to PR?) and save the expense and complication of having a Senate.

One thing tho, If I was jack layton my entire platform would be: "Give us a majority just once. We'll abolish the Senate on day 1 and I promise not to screw anything else up for the rest of the four years." I mean, thank God that collection of minor celebrities and politcal hacks has no actual power but what are we paying them for?

[BHS]

Black Dog said

"Elected Senates and fixed electon dates are nothing but band aid solutions."

I'd respectfully disagree since the ONLY reason that PEI gas 4 seats instead of the 2 that it shoud be is because they have 4 Senate seats, Same for NB, NS and NF all of which have far too many seats per person. Another example: BC and Alberta have the same population as Quebec but have only 60 seats to Quebec's 75.

Election results would be very different and much more democratic if the West had 95 seats and Quebec had 70 seats, the Maritimes had 22 and Ontario had 125 seats - based on one seat per 100,000 population.

Fixed election dates would also make for more fairness in the process.

But none of those solutions would address the main issue, which is the majority of Canadian voters are unrepresented in Parliment simply because their votes don't count. And people wonder why most peple don't vote.

I have no idea where you've gotten the idea that some votes don't count under fptp. Apparently you've no concept of how Parliament itself addresses the passage of law. It's a pro/con situation every time. Voting against a piece of legislation that gets passed doesn't make your dissent any less valid or valuable, nor does it detract from the validity of the legislation itself.

I fail to see how the participation of the voting public in the politcial process is any different. If more people vote for one party than another, and that party forms the government, is that government then less than fully valid because it didn't receive unanimous support?

Again, political decisions always ultimately boil down to yes/no black/white true/false pro/con 0/1 questions. Does adding to the diversity of opinion in Parliament improve the political process?

In my opinion, no. A two party fptp system is the most efficient, streamline method of enacting public policy. The argument against is often that two parties often become indistinguishable and choice between them therefore moot. To which I reply, a vigilent and educated voting public is capable of putting effective pressure on the party out of power to seek contrarian positions, in order to curry public favour when the party in power inevitably makes its mistakes and reap the electoral rewards.

The suggestion that PR will make the political process fairer is superficially attractive, and appeals to the need for immediate gratification, but will ultimately lead to problems.

As has already been stated in this thread, there's the issue of endless minority/coalition governments with all of the backroom horse trading that they entail. Your post earlier illustrated a potential government elected by PR, but it wasn't very realistic in my view, in that you only included the five largest federal parties. There are plenty of other smaller parties around, many of which would be encouraged by PR and many of which could probably drum up the 0.3% of the national vote needed to gain a seat, assuming Parliament kept it's current number of MPs and there was no low limit cut-off. In that scenario it's not unreasonable that the Marijauna Party might take multiple seats. I'm all for legalizing pot, but I'm not sure I want any one-issue party (but especially one dedicated to intoxication) holding crucial swing votes on a budget bill.

A second problem, from a republican standpoint anyway, is the creation of a political upper class that PR will almost certainly entail. Under PR voters no longer elect candidates directly, but vote for parties generally based solely on platforms. Seats in Parliament are divvied up by percentage, but who actually sits in those seats is determined by the parties themselves, according to their own rules which may or may not be wholly democratic and nearly impossible for the general public to police. Since the larger parties can almost certainly count on a given number of seats in a given election, it stands to reason that year after year, election after election, the same small coteries of poo-bahs from each of the major parties will find themselves running Parliament with only the nameless bit-players in the back rows coming and going, and no way at all for the bigger fish to be unseated. You might argue that we have such a case now, but that's not true. Despite conventional wisdom, there's no such thing as a truly safe seat under our current system - even a Prime Minister could find himself heaved from Parliament. That is essentially impossible under PR, and especially so under a PR government as PR was meant to be, where there are enough small troublemaking parties in Parliament that the broader voting public comes to associate hardline partisanship with the good of the nation.

[Riverwind]

where there are enough small troublemaking parties in Parliament that the broader voting public comes to associate hardline partisanship with the good of the nation.

Excellent post BHS. Just one thing to add:

Currently the Liberals, Conservatives and the NDP are 'coalitions' of different interest groups. In some cases these interest groups have radically opposed views on some issues. In order to have any hope at power these interest groups are forced to compromise behind the scenes and often these compromises require some long term thinking.

With PR these interest groups will form their own parties and will always be looking to promote their party before the next election. This means long term compromises are no longer possible and some pretty dumb policies get put in place just so one of the coalition parties can save face.

[sage]

BHS I agree with some of your thoughts, but I do have one problem that I struggle with.

Under PR you lose the direct represenation aspect obviously, which from a theoretical point I have a problem with. The difficulty though is what direct representation do we really have? Currently, people will vote for Svend Robinson, not because of the man, but rather because they are voting for the NDP.

With a parliament that functions around party discipline, the strength (unfortunately) is in the #'s of MP's the party has, not the strength of the individuals that are actually there.

One of the difficulties in this debate is the role the parties themselves play. I wonder how many people actually know how their individual candidates are chosen at the constituency level?

I do agree with posts to this thread though that PR will not result in greater voter turnout. If people are too lethargic to get off their ass to vote now, why would this change under a different model?

Another interesting aspect that hasn't been touched on is how we have made an incremental step towards this model through the introduction of electoral finance reform which bases a parties funding on the amount of the popular vote received.

[Black Dog]

I have no idea where you've gotten the idea that some votes don't count under fptp. Apparently you've no concept of how Parliament itself addresses the passage of law. It's a pro/con situation every time. Voting against a piece of legislation that gets passed doesn't make your dissent any less valid or valuable, nor does it detract from the validity of the legislation itself.

I fail to see how the participation of the voting public in the politcial process is any different. If more people vote for one party than another, and that party forms the government, is that government then less than fully valid because it didn't receive unanimous support?

No one is talking about unanimous support, but the simple fact that it's pretty screwed up that a "majority" government can take power with the support of a minority of the population (especially since, in this country, a majority government has near-absolute power).

In my opinion, no. A two party fptp system is the most efficient, streamline method of enacting public policy. The argument against is often that two parties often become indistinguishable and choice between them therefore moot.

Well, shit, if it's streamlined, efficient government we want, let's dispense with this pluralistic democracy nonsense altogether.

To which I reply, a vigilent and educated voting public is capable of putting effective pressure on the party out of power to seek contrarian positions, in order to curry public favour when the party in power inevitably makes its mistakes and reap the electoral rewards.

And where can one aquire such a public? Seriously: voter turnout is a major issue. How representative is a government that is elected by 40 per cent of the 60 per cent of the population who turn out to vote? It's not at all. AN I would argue that declining voter turnout is tied to the distortions manifest under FPTP (see my Alberta example above).

As has already been stated in this thread, there's the issue of endless minority/coalition governments with all of the backroom horse trading that they entail. Your post earlier illustrated a potential government elected by PR, but it wasn't very realistic in my view, in that you only included the five largest federal parties. There are plenty of other smaller parties around, many of which would be encouraged by PR and many of which could probably drum up the 0.3% of the national vote needed to gain a seat, assuming Parliament kept it's current number of MPs and there was no low limit cut-off. In that scenario it's not unreasonable that the Marijauna Party might take multiple seats. I'm all for legalizing pot, but I'm not sure I want any one-issue party (but especially one dedicated to intoxication) holding crucial swing votes on a budget bill.

It's weird that opponenents of PR seems so much more uncomfortable with "back room horse trading"-compromise, in other words-than they do with the supreme power wielded by a "majority" government. But I digress. The "problem" (such as it is) with the proliferation of fringe parties can simply be addressed by a requrement for a minimum level of support (Germany, for example requires parties receive 5 per cent of all second votes or carry three electoral districts to enter the Bundestag). But even without it, the problem of fringe parties is grossly overstated: no party representing a fringe or perpetual minority view would ever have the support to make a significant impact.

A second problem, from a republican standpoint anyway, is the creation of a political upper class that PR will almost certainly entail. Under PR voters no longer elect candidates directly, but vote for parties generally based solely on platforms.

But there's many ways to pt PR into practice. Again, Germany uses a mixed system where by every voter casts a ballot for a local candidate and a vote for a party. About half of the seats are filled with the local candidates. The remaining seats are topped up from party lists to ensure proportionality. In fact, most countries with PR (75 versus the handful still using FPTP) have some form of hybrid system.

The other flaw in your argument is that if parties continually nominate the same candidates for the party list, people can simply choose not to endorse that party.

[BHS]

Sparhawk and sage: interesting posts and valid points.

[BHS]

Black Dog: I was going to reply in point-by-point mode, but I don't have enough to say to make it worthwhile. Good post though. I have to say, you've made a better case for PR than anyone I've ever encountered who was for it.

One thing: contra your views on low voter turnout, my own opinion is that people stay away from the polls because they aren't worried about the outcome of the election. In other words, they don't care if the encumbents return to power, and aren't concerned if one of the other likely parties forms the government either. You might see this as a sense of powerlessness; I see it as a confirmation that things are going generally well with how the country is being governed or likely to be governed. Staying away from the polls is as valid an option in a free and well governed society as is scrupulous care in voting habits.

I would like to add that while I have a strong dislike of both the Liberals and the Conservatives who came before them, I still do consider our government to be generally well run, and I owe that largely to the quality of our political process and Westminster heritage rather than to the quality of our politicians.

(You might, at this point, point back to posts I've written previously calling for sweeping changes to the way our government is elected and run, which is fair. But the 1982 Constitution Act got the ball rolling as far as change goes, and there is really much point in going back to a more formally Westminster style of Parliament even if it were possible. I merely wish to see further changes made to counter the abuses of power that can be seen manifested in our current system.)

[Black Dog]

Bump!

According to Fair Vote Canada, under PR, the election results would have looked something like this:

Conservatives - 36.3% of the popular vote: 113 seats (not 124)

Liberals - 30.1% of the popular vote: 93 seats (not 103)

NDP - 17.5% of the popular vote: 59 seats (not 29)

Bloc - 10.5% of the popular vote: 31 seats (not 51)

Greens - 4.5% of the popular vote: 12 seats (not 0)

Of course, that all depends on the type of system used.

In the end, the big winners are the Big Two. The Liberals got a disporportinate level of support in Ontario and Quebec at the expense of the Conservatives, who offset those losses with grossly distorted results in the west (particularly Alberta. Again.) So, to re-visit Argus' initial post, PR is a non-starter for the CPC because they don't stand to make significant enough gains to offset the inevitable losses in their regional strongholds. Barring a major breakthrough that would give them a solid majority (which would involve convincing an additional 20 per cent of Canadians to vote for them), the CPCare probably content with maintaining the status quo (as well as a strong western base and chipping away at the Liberals where they can).

[tml12]

Bump!

According to Fair Vote Canada, under PR, the election results would have looked something like this:

Conservatives - 36.3% of the popular vote: 113 seats (not 124)

Liberals - 30.1% of the popular vote: 93 seats (not 103)

NDP - 17.5% of the popular vote: 59 seats (not 29)

Bloc - 10.5% of the popular vote: 31 seats (not 51)

Greens - 4.5% of the popular vote: 12 seats (not 0)

Of course, that all depends on the type of system used.

In the end, the big winners are the Big Two. The Liberals got a disporportinate level of support in Ontario and Quebec at the expense of the Conservatives, who offset those losses with grossly distorted results in the west (particularly Alberta. Again.) So, to re-visit Argus' initial post, PR is a non-starter for the CPC because they don't stand to make significant enough gains to offset the inevitable losses in their regional strongholds. Barring a major breakthrough that would give them a solid majority (which would involve convincing an additional 20 per cent of Canadians to vote for them), the CPCare probably content with maintaining the status quo (as well as a strong western base and chipping away at the Liberals where they can).

You mean the Big Losers are the Big Two.

The Greens and NDP would benefit incredibly by PR.

[Black Dog]

You mean the Big Losers are the Big Two.

The Greens and NDP would benefit incredibly by PR.

I meant the Big Two are the big winners under the status quo.