FPTP is extreme danger in uncertain and volatile times

[myata]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Does that sound like something we are ready for ?

You mean a functional democracy without engaged citizens? A paradox, oxymoron or just Canada?

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, myata said:

And in this system they are picked by hand, not even by a democratic parliamentary party but a Central Committee of a default management corporation, often unelected and so entirely undemocratic. Like that Trudeau shadow guy who was running his matters behind the curtains. Tell us what's better and more democratic!

That post is confusing.  Not sure what you are trying to say.

The PR system means political parties choose some of MPs.   I know in the FPTP system the parties choose who will run in each riding.  Nothing wrong with that.  Then the voters decide who will be the MP for that riding.  That's how the present system works.

But the PR system destroys that and gives the parties the power to choose who the winner is for a certain number of MPs.  That deprives the voters of their democratic right to choose all of the MPs.

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, myata said:

You mean a functional democracy without engaged citizens? A paradox, oxymoron or just Canada?

I'm asking if our citizenry could step up under PR.  Or perhaps what else we would need to do to enact PR to shape the public sphere properly.

[myata]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

at the expense of the major political parties.

That's propaganda, see its effects in the plain light. The votes given by citizens, their own and freely are "at the expense" because the default duo should have owned them. Great stuff. So how does it work in your universe: is it the government for the citizens, or the citizens for the government? If I am a citizen and I won't give my vote to either, should be just thrown away by some hand trick?

[myata]

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I know in the FPTP system the parties choose who will run in each riding.  Nothing wrong with that. 

You are reading it in a picture book same one where happy beaver dances with a mounted mountie. I've no interest in discussing on that level of intelligence.

[myata]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm asking if our citizenry could step up under PR.

And how would we find that out? By infinite talking maybe, as always?

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, myata said:

And how would we find that out? By infinite talking maybe, as always?

If infinite talking bothers you, PR is not the system you are looking for.

[blackbird]

37 minutes ago, myata said:

WTF? Central committees NOT choosing candidates? In what alternative Canada, what universe code? You are funny.

You are being disingenuous.  You do realize I meant in a PR system the political parties choose who the winners or MPs are for a certain number of seats.  Do you acknowledge that?

Edited December 15, 2023 by blackbird

[Queenmandy85]

40 minutes ago, myata said:

And in this system they are picked by hand, not even by a democratic parliamentary party but a Central Committee of a default management corporation, often unelected and so entirely undemocratic. Like that Trudeau shadow guy who was running his matters behind the curtains. Tell us what's better and more democratic!

Everything you say makes democracy look bad. You have said in the past you are uneducated and unwilling to participate in the election process. Have you ever attended a nomination meeting or worked for a candidate? No. Yet, you feel free (as you have every right to) to lecture those who do their civic duty, on how we should change it. I know you mean well, but your posts would carry more weight if you demonstrated some knowledge of Canadian politics. 

We do not have one single election in a general election. We have 338 separate elections. Each riding has its own writ. You elect one candidate in your riding to take a seat in the House of Commons. After the election, a Ministry is appointed and it must present its self to the House of Commons to determine if it has the confidence of that body.

It is not a system that lends its self to proportional representation. You are not electing a political party. You are electing a single Member of the House of Commons.

We are not a democracy. The purpose of the House of Commons is to reflect the needs and desires of the voters to the Executive.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Queenmandy85

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

How do you make a PR system work in Canada. You have 3 or 4 people running for election in your riding. When the votes are counted, A gets 35%, B gets 32%, C gets 17% and D gets 16%. There is just one seat, so how do you proportion that out between the four candidates?

You proportion things at a higher level than a riding. 

This is disingenuous and it seems typical of critics that seek to give the impression things haven't been thought through. In the meantime the 'hurdle' you put up is. There are plenty of ways to skin this cat. 

• Mixed Member Proportional systems that strive to keep the geographical integrity of single seat ridings by creating top-up seats at the regional level.
• Weighted Voting systems that weight, or scale, the parliamentary votes of MPs, thereby balancing each party’s parliamentary seats with their electoral votes.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/content/Committee/421/ERRE/Brief/BR8474581/br-external/ReidMarilyn-e.pdf

 

These days I pretty much just focus and vote on local regional district elections/issues - everything else is a waste of time and effort and IMO would best be left to collapse. Participating is only a vote for a status quo that I detest.

Edited December 15, 2023 by eyeball

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We are not a democracy.

You really like to go out of your way to make participation sound even more pointless.

 

[PIK]

2 hours ago, myata said:

We've been through it. Yes it works in dozens of democracies, including those with diverse local populations. Yes it works. Ignorance is not an explanation neither a virtue. Nonsense, continuation of it, sheer and unadorned cannot be explained rationally. You have only one choice here: either to do away with it; or reject your sanity. Because it just isn't sane, in this time and century.

How many Govs has Italy had since 1945?

[eyeball]

33 minutes ago, PIK said:

How many Govs has Italy had since 1945?

Australia uses proportional representation and we're often reminded they're leaving us in the dust on multiple levels. 

[Queenmandy85]

34 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Australia uses proportional representation and we're often reminded they're leaving us in the dust on multiple levels. 

Such as...?

[blackbird]

Australia has a PR system.  Here are some of the negatives about it from an Australian source:

"Disadvantages of the Proportional Voting System

It is complicated, costly and time-consuming to administer and count.

By allowing minor parties and candidates to win seats, it promotes instability in Parliament. The balance of power can be held by a number of members elected by a small minority of the electorate.

Until the advent of the Group Voting Ticket system, it encouraged a high level of informal voting.

"

It PR system can be very complex.  I doubt most people would even understand how it works.  That is a problem.  The FPTP system is simple and everyone understands how it works.  I think there could be far more distrust of a system that people don't understand, particularly when the parties have a hand in selecting winners or MPs, who do not represent any particular riding.  

[eyeball]

10 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Such as...?

Economic, defence, national security...

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Australia has a PR system.  Here are some of the negatives about it from an Australian source:

"Disadvantages of the Proportional Voting System

It is complicated, costly and time-consuming to administer and count.

Democracy on the cheap is worse if the better outcomes in Australia that I mentioned to Queenmandy are anything to go by.

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Economic, defence, national security...

How are those portfolios the product of PR. If that were the case, why would they not be doing better on the global warming front? 

The long and the short of it is Canadian governments pretty much reflect the mood of the country. (Canadian defence policy matches the views of the voters. National security policy also reflects the views of the electorate.) When it ceases to do so, the government changes as we are about to see in just a few months.

[blackbird]

When the balance of power is held by a small number of MPs, they have far more power than they deserve.

We see that in Canada with the NDP able to force the government to do what it wants even if it is against the will of the majority of voters.  We see the NDP forcing the Liberals into big spending programs when we are already billions of dollars in debt.  More expensive programs will just add to the debt and mean more taxpayer money must be allocated to pay the interest on the debt.  But the NDP could care less about debt and interest.  It is beyond their ability to understand.

Edited December 15, 2023 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Democracy on the cheap is worse if the better outcomes in Australia that I mentioned to Queenmandy are anything to go by.

Not a fan of PR however Australia, who have also put in mandatory voting, is indeed something to look closely at.

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

How are those portfolios the product of PR.  If that were the case, why would they not be doing better on the global warming front? 

I have no idea if these portfolios are products of PR. I'm simply suggesting PR doesn't appear to have left Australia in a worse position than us on these files.  We're better off on the global warming front?  How so; they're more vulnerable to it because of PR and we're not because of FPTP?

Quote

The long and the short of it is Canadian governments pretty much reflect the mood of the country. (Canadian defence policy matches the views of the voters. National security policy also reflects the views of the electorate.) When it ceases to do so, the government changes as we are about to see in just a few months.

Moody certainly describes things at the moment alright.

[myata]

12 hours ago, PIK said:

How many Govs has Italy had since 1945?

Is it the right question? Why not "what it has accomplished, since ..."? And not "how much did it cost us"? Italy is a G7 country, after being devastated in WWII. Canada was not. Italy has high speed trains. One G7 country, does not.

Did you forgot what (democratic) governments are supposed to be for, and who they (supposed to) work for? Is it the citizens for the government, its pretty color picture book rather than the other way around?

Edited December 16, 2023 by myata

[myata]

13 hours ago, blackbird said:

You do realize I meant in a PR system the political parties choose who the winners or MPs are for a certain number of seats.

This is a no: there are PR systems where citizens can decide who their individual representative will be (if their party wins). Ignorance is not the answer.

And yes: Central committees, often run behind the curtain by unelected shadow figures, routinely parachute candidates over the local constituents choice, in FPTP.

Ignorance is not the answer.

[myata]

In plain words, the elites invented and constructed themselves a system of public governance that artificially, by hands, exaggerates the level of popular support from mediocre at best, to great and stellar. They will parade and boast fake "landslides" and artificial "majorities" then shove them down the citizens throats without any effective checks and controls. Bestow upon themselves unearned and unreasonable privileges, entitlements and prerogatives, not to forget.

This of course, is little less than an open ridicule of the citizens intelligence and all claims that they own their country and the political system that remain empty hollow words, whereas in the reality the duopoly guarantees and assures its survival forever. Shortly, it becomes the main and sole purpose of its existence, naturally and logically.

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, myata said:

In plain words, the elites invented and constructed themselves a system of public governance that artificially, by hands, exaggerates the level of popular support from mediocre at best, to great and stellar. They will parade and boast fake "landslides" and artificial "majorities" then shove them down the citizens throats without any effective checks and controls. Bestow upon themselves unearned and unreasonable privileges, entitlements and prerogatives, not to forget.

This of course, is little less than an open ridicule of the citizens intelligence and all claims that they own their country and the political system that remain empty hollow words, whereas in the reality the duopoly guarantees and assures its survival forever. Shortly, it becomes the main and sole purpose of its existence, naturally and logically.

To ascribe all of this to the method of counting votes in parliament is a bit of a stretch. After all, are those countries that have PR really less governed by elites? What about the US that has a two-party system? They would have majority for an acting policy and it's the most elite of the g20.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Michael Hardner