What would parliament look like tomorrow if we had proportional repres

[arif]

Here are the seat projections from nodice.ca based on the latest polls.

Conservatives - 126

Liberals - 93

Bloc - 59

New Democrats - 29

Stephen Harper as prime minister in a minority parliament with the liberals as official opposition.

Nodice.ca also has the latest polls from which we could project what parliament might look like if we had proportional representation.

Conservatives - 38%

Liberals - 26%

New Democrats - 19%

Bloc - 11%

Greeen - 5%

Prop rep would mean a close approximation of seats assigned according to vote percentage. Voters vote for a list of candidates, and either rank them, or the list is based on the party's priorities.

So, by my calculations, this is the approximate distribution.

Conservatives - 117 seats.

Liberals - 80 seats

NDP - 59 seats

Bloc - 34 seats

Green - 15 seats

This is 305 seats, but there are 308, so three seats would be distributed somewhere in there.

I like that it would reduce the Bloc's regional influence, and represent the electorate who supports smaller parties, 5% of voters is quite a large number of people who won't even get a seat for their party. But I like voting for a candidate in my riding, rather than a list.

What do you think?

Arif

[scribblet]

I've changed my mind about proportional rep

Well, I think it should stay the way it is with an elected and equal senate (or proportional rep. senate) which would counter the HOC.

[geoffrey]

Proportional Rep = unaccountable MP's, patrongage up the ying yang, and fringe influences.

Nope, against that sorry.

[mar]

Therein lies the reason why we won't get it, regardless of what any party not in power says they would do in power.

PR has the effect of reducing the power of the party getting the largest number of seats and distributing power to other parties. What government in power is going to push through legislation to achieve that?

The European case was different as several countries had an overriding fear of a minority controlling the government because of the experience with Mussolini and other fascist takeovers so PR had huge popular support.

[Hicksey]

If we're going to go in this direction, I think we need to attach term limits.

Also, in the last 30 years have we ever had one party get 50% or more of the popular vote?

Because if that never happens we'll never have another majority government.

[geoffrey]

In a parlimentary system like Canada's, which such regionalism and varying interests, PR can't work. It would have to be a whole new system implemented.

[Hicksey]

Only 3 of all the majorities in Canadian history for which there is a record of the popular vote results would have constituted a majority under his new system.

1. 1940, Mackenzie King, Libs, 51.32%

2. 1958, John Diefenbaker, Cons, 53.58%

3. 1984, Brian Mulroney, Cons, 50.03%

Are we willing to as much as do away with the majority government in Canada?

[mar]

Only 3 of all the majorities in Canadian history for which there is a record of the popular vote results would have constituted a majority under his new system.

1. 1940, Mackenzie King, Libs, 51.32%

2. 1958, John Diefenbaker, Cons, 53.58%

3. 1984, Brian Mulroney, Cons, 50.03%

Are we willing to as much as do away with the majority government in Canada?

It might be worth looking at but I doubt it will happen. I know there are a lot of variations of it - I guess a proportional component - used in other countries but I can't honestly say I know much about them. I know Itayl is a very nearly straight PR system which is why they never have a majority and exist on multi-party coalitions. I have heard Italians say it is not as chaotic as people outside Italy like to claim as the reality is it is typically the same few parties forming the coalition.

[arif]

Our new parliament is a minority, means that more pragmatic legislation will pass based on a lot of consultation with the other parties.

If they adopt a culture of cooperation, they will actually end up representing all voters, and getting more moderate policies.

The Liberals were so successful because they represented the centre, which is why they still did relatively well despite their problems.

Liberal majority governments for so long gave them too much power. And the large PC majorities of Mulroney could be argued to have had the same problem. Minority governments might no be so bad after all, we might be looking at them for some time to come.

But it's true that it doesn't favour the party in power, so it's hard to see that party adopting it, unless it ran on that platform, which of course the two parties with enough base to govern do not.

Accountability of MP's? Is there some way to adjust PR to reflect more accountability of MP's?

Arif

[TheDrew]

Our new parliament is a minority, means that more pragmatic legislation will pass based on a lot of consultation with the other parties.

If they adopt a culture of cooperation, they will actually end up representing all voters, and getting more moderate policies.

For what it's worth (almost nothing) I agree with this statement.

As regards the benefit of the party in power, why is that even a concern? Electoral reform should be about responding to the needs of the electorate, not the party system.

Also, in response to the claim that PR will not work in our strong party system, I would suggest that you're putting the cart before the horse. Our SMP system STRENGTHENS the party system and EXAGGERATES regional differences. A PR system would likely reduce this, and it would create a basis for regional dialogue.

As a young voter who now has 3 federal elections and 2 provincial elections under my belt, without ever once having contributed to the selection of a representative, I think it's time that the Canadian people start seriously considering how to change the system for our own benefit.

But, again, all this is pretty meaningless, since somehow PR isn't even on the national radar come election time.

[Hicksey]

Our new parliament is a minority, means that more pragmatic legislation will pass based on a lot of consultation with the other parties.

If they adopt a culture of cooperation, they will actually end up representing all voters, and getting more moderate policies.

For what it's worth (almost nothing) I agree with this statement.

As regards the benefit of the party in power, why is that even a concern? Electoral reform should be about responding to the needs of the electorate, not the party system.

Also, in response to the claim that PR will not work in our strong party system, I would suggest that you're putting the cart before the horse. Our SMP system STRENGTHENS the party system and EXAGGERATES regional differences. A PR system would likely reduce this, and it would create a basis for regional dialogue.

As a young voter who now has 3 federal elections and 2 provincial elections under my belt, without ever once having contributed to the selection of a representative, I think it's time that the Canadian people start seriously considering how to change the system for our own benefit.

But, again, all this is pretty meaningless, since somehow PR isn't even on the national radar come election time.

What about term limits? Where do they fit in here?

[Leafless]

geoffrey

You wrote- " In a parliamentry system like Canada's, which such regionalism and varying interest, PR can't work. It would have to be a whole new system implemented."

And why geoffrey does this regionalism exist in the first place????

Could it be that federal governments have created this regional monster initially in their QUEST to BUY votes.

Provinces are distinct and that is why we have provincial; governments to apply a little responsibility a look after their OWN requirements.

PR is a wonderful concept in a country like ours that would remove the federal regional onus off of the federal government and redirect that responsiability to the province.

I have not seen the complete official results (riding to riding) but glancing at the numbers on television many ridings were very close equating to many LOST unrepresented Canadian votes all lost so to speak, counting for NOTHING.

THis aspect makes me feell especially good (grin) going to all the trouble of voting only to learn later my vote COUNTS FOR NOTHING.

PR is coming to town.

[sage]

The one question I have is who decides which people actually become the representatives? The party leaders?

[Black Dog]

The one question I have is who decides which people actually become the representatives? The party leaders?

Under a mixed-member PR system, voters would get two ballots: the first for a local candidate (chosen through the usual process) and one for the party (with those candidates chosen from a list put forward by the parties). This system is used by a number of countries, notably Germany, new Zealand and Scotland.

[Wilber]

In a parlimentary system like Canada's, which such regionalism and varying interests, PR can't work. It would have to be a whole new system implemented.

It might work but our politicians would have to change the way they operate. With our winner take all system and history of majority governments, accommodation and deal making in order to govern have not been major part of our system. As a consequence we are not very good at it. They would have to learn some new skills.

I think setting aside a certain number of seats for proportional representation would be a good idea, even if it is just a few. That way a party like the Greens which gets a fair amount of support would at least have some voice in Parliament.

[Hicksey]

In a parlimentary system like Canada's, which such regionalism and varying interests, PR can't work. It would have to be a whole new system implemented.

It might work but our politicians would have to change the way they operate. With our winner take all system and history of majority governments, accommodation and deal making in order to govern have not been major part of our system. As a consequence we are not very good at it. They would have to learn some new skills.

I think setting aside a certain number of seats for proportional representation would be a good idea, even if it is just a few. That way a party like the Greens which gets a fair amount of support would at least have some voice in Parliament.

I could deal with that except that to have it kick in the party should have to win at least one seat. I can deal with giving them a presence, but at some level they have to earn it.

[Black Dog]

I could deal with that except that to have it kick in the party should have to win at least one seat. I can deal with giving them a presence, but at some level they have to earn it.

I think what you're looking for his a minimum threshold: that is, a party must get certain percentage of the vote in order to be entitled to representation in Parliment.

[Wilber]

In a parlimentary system like Canada's, which such regionalism and varying interests, PR can't work. It would have to be a whole new system implemented.

It might work but our politicians would have to change the way they operate. With our winner take all system and history of majority governments, accommodation and deal making in order to govern have not been major part of our system. As a consequence we are not very good at it. They would have to learn some new skills.

I think setting aside a certain number of seats for proportional representation would be a good idea, even if it is just a few. That way a party like the Greens which gets a fair amount of support would at least have some voice in Parliament.

I could deal with that except that to have it kick in the party should have to win at least one seat. I can deal with giving them a presence, but at some level they have to earn it.

The whole idea of proportional representation is that it is based on the percentage of the popular vote, not outright winning a seat. The Greens have received up to 10% of the vote in some elections and but have never won a seat. That is 10% of the voting population that has had no representation in a legislature.

[Hicksey]

In a parlimentary system like Canada's, which such regionalism and varying interests, PR can't work. It would have to be a whole new system implemented.

It might work but our politicians would have to change the way they operate. With our winner take all system and history of majority governments, accommodation and deal making in order to govern have not been major part of our system. As a consequence we are not very good at it. They would have to learn some new skills.

I think setting aside a certain number of seats for proportional representation would be a good idea, even if it is just a few. That way a party like the Greens which gets a fair amount of support would at least have some voice in Parliament.

I could deal with that except that to have it kick in the party should have to win at least one seat. I can deal with giving them a presence, but at some level they have to earn it.

The whole idea of proportional representation is that it is based on the percentage of the popular vote, not outright winning a seat. The Greens have received up to 10% of the vote in some elections and but have never won a seat. That is 10% of the voting population that has had no representation in a legislature.

Is the level of the entitlement mentality in Canada so high that Candians think that our political parties shouldn't have to win a riding to get a seat in parliament? I think that if there's so few people that support them then their message is so far from the mainstream that they don't deserve a place in the house. I don't think that winning one riding is too much to ask.

[Black Dog]

Is the level of the entitlement mentality in Canada so high that Candians think that our political parties shouldn't have to win a riding to get a seat in parliament? I think that if there's so few people that support them then their message is so far from the mainstream that they don't deserve a place in the house. I don't think that winning one riding is too much to ask.

Under FPTP, winning one riding is a lot to ask. The problem is the FPTP system screws parties that enjoy healthy levels of support because not all votes are equal. In the last election, for example (2004), the Bloc gained an average of one seat in Parliament for every 31,000 votes while the NDP won only one seat for

every 111,000 votes. In this election, more than 650,000 Green Party voters failed to elect a single MP, while 475,000 Liberal voters in Atlantic Canada alone elected 20 MPs. Or how about the NDP, which garnered a million more votes than the Bloc and came away with 22 fewer seats?

So if a candidate wins a riding with, say, 30 per cent of the vote (not an uncommon occurance) while the other three split the remainder, the 70 per cent who didn't vote for the winmning candidate should not be entitled to any representation whatsoever because they backed the wrong horse? Parliment cannot legitimately claim to represent all Canadians as long as this klind of nonsense is par for the course. It has nothing to do with "entitlement" and everything to do with fairness.

[geoffrey]

Is the level of the entitlement mentality in Canada so high that Candians think that our political parties shouldn't have to win a riding to get a seat in parliament? I think that if there's so few people that support them then their message is so far from the mainstream that they don't deserve a place in the house. I don't think that winning one riding is too much to ask.

Under FPTP, winning one riding is a lot to ask. The problem is the FPTP system screws parties that enjoy healthy levels of support because not all votes are equal. In the last election, for example (2004), the Bloc gained an average of one seat in Parliament for every 31,000 votes while the NDP won only one seat for

every 111,000 votes. In this election, more than 650,000 Green Party voters failed to elect a single MP, while 475,000 Liberal voters in Atlantic Canada alone elected 20 MPs. Or how about the NDP, which garnered a million more votes than the Bloc and came away with 22 fewer seats?

So if a candidate wins a riding with, say, 30 per cent of the vote (not an uncommon occurance) while the other three split the remainder, the 70 per cent who didn't vote for the winmning candidate should not be entitled to any representation whatsoever because they backed the wrong horse? Parliment cannot legitimately claim to represent all Canadians as long as this klind of nonsense is par for the course. It has nothing to do with "entitlement" and everything to do with fairness.

PR isn't a solution to these problems though. No one likes the idea of voting for a list of names and having some party leader just pick those that he wants to sit in the house. PR allows too many fringe elements and allows disorganized, poorly managed parties into power (such as the Greens).

When the Green's get their act together, grow a leader that is in the least bit competent and have a coherent platform that all candidates speak from instead of two distinct groups (the fake greens and the euro greens) then they will win seats and its a non-issue.

FPTP works extremely well, you are electing a candidate to represent you after all. If people are so ignornant that they vote for the national party (and most Canadians do, but this is just the larger issue of too many idiots voting), a good system really shouldn't take the blame.

Maybe we need to fix the people before we fix the system.

[Black Dog]

PR isn't a solution to these problems though. No one likes the idea of voting for a list of names and having some party leader just pick those that he wants to sit in the house.

To the first: Germany (again) has a system whereby local candidates and party list candidates must be nominated either by vote of all party members or by vote of convention delegates who in turn have been chosen by vote of all party members. No appointed candidates. No "crony list" appointed by the executive.

PR allows too many fringe elements and allows disorganized, poorly managed parties into power (such as the Greens)

A simple minumum threshold (say, 5 per cent) would address that.

When the Green's get their act together, grow a leader that is in the least bit competent and have a coherent platform that all candidates speak from instead of two distinct groups (the fake greens and the euro greens) then they will win seats and its a non-issue.

This isn't about getting the Green Party seats. It's about ensuring fairness in our voting system. If the Green party example doesn't turn your crank, how about the plight of the the 400,000-plus Conservative voters in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver who failed to elect a single MP?

FPTP works extremely well, you are electing a candidate to represent you after all. If people are so ignornant that they vote for the national party (and most Canadians do, but this is just the larger issue of too many idiots voting), a good system really shouldn't take the blame.

How can a system where by a candidate elected by a minoirty of voters is suppossed to represent 100 per cent of all people in the riding be considered a "good system"? (let me guess: you're an Albertan?)

[Hicksey]

Is the level of the entitlement mentality in Canada so high that Candians think that our political parties shouldn't have to win a riding to get a seat in parliament? I think that if there's so few people that support them then their message is so far from the mainstream that they don't deserve a place in the house. I don't think that winning one riding is too much to ask.

Under FPTP, winning one riding is a lot to ask. The problem is the FPTP system screws parties that enjoy healthy levels of support because not all votes are equal. In the last election, for example (2004), the Bloc gained an average of one seat in Parliament for every 31,000 votes while the NDP won only one seat for

every 111,000 votes. In this election, more than 650,000 Green Party voters failed to elect a single MP, while 475,000 Liberal voters in Atlantic Canada alone elected 20 MPs. Or how about the NDP, which garnered a million more votes than the Bloc and came away with 22 fewer seats?

So if a candidate wins a riding with, say, 30 per cent of the vote (not an uncommon occurance) while the other three split the remainder, the 70 per cent who didn't vote for the winmning candidate should not be entitled to any representation whatsoever because they backed the wrong horse? Parliment cannot legitimately claim to represent all Canadians as long as this klind of nonsense is par for the course. It has nothing to do with "entitlement" and everything to do with fairness.

What that means is that voters outside the urban centers will never be represented fairly because their numbers are less. This system is set up as it is so that people that don't live in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver get a vote that's worth something too.

Parallel this to one of the points you have made over and over about the majority and how it shouldn't be able to impose its will on a minority. What you're saying by endorsing PR is that you're for large cities where about 2/3 of the population resides, being able to impose their will on smaller communities. You may not have said this vebatim, but look at the numbers. Under PR smaller communities will always be outnumbered in the house 2 to 1. Under that system how can smaller communities expect to be fairly represented in the house.

Our current system is purposely skewed to prevent this.

[Black Dog]

What that means is that voters outside the urban centers will never be represented fairly because their numbers are less. This system is set up as it is so that people that don't live in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver get a vote that's worth something too.

But that's perfectly fair. What, should places with less population get more say? Under PR, a rural voter's vote is worth the same as that of an urbanite and their influence in government will be directly in proportion to their prescense in the country. Their vote is still worth something because their chances of sending someone to Parliment that represents their views are much greater.

Parallel this to one of the points you have made over and over about the majority and how it shouldn't be able to impose its will on a minority. What you're saying by endorsing PR is that you're for large cities where about 2/3 of the population resides, being able to impose their will on smaller communities. You may not have said this vebatim, but look at the numbers. Under PR smaller communities will always be outnumbered in the house 2 to 1. Under that system how can smaller communities expect to be fairly represented in the house.

Don't bother bringing arguments form the SSM thread here: it's apples and oranges. You can have both a electoral system that is fair to all voters and a political system that protects minorities.

Small communities and rural areas will still send people to Parliment to represent their interests, in numbers that reflect their population. What could be more fair?

[Hicksey]

What that means is that voters outside the urban centers will never be represented fairly because their numbers are less. This system is set up as it is so that people that don't live in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver get a vote that's worth something too.

But that's perfectly fair. What, should places with less population get more say? Under PR, a rural voter's vote is worth the same as that of an urbanite and their influence in government will be directly in proportion to their prescense in the country. Their vote is still worth something because their chances of sending someone to Parliment that represents their views are much greater.

Parallel this to one of the points you have made over and over about the majority and how it shouldn't be able to impose its will on a minority. What you're saying by endorsing PR is that you're for large cities where about 2/3 of the population resides, being able to impose their will on smaller communities. You may not have said this vebatim, but look at the numbers. Under PR smaller communities will always be outnumbered in the house 2 to 1. Under that system how can smaller communities expect to be fairly represented in the house.

How is it fair in one instance for the majority to impose its will over the minority in one arena but not in another? The concept is all I am bringing over.

Don't bother bringing arguments form the SSM thread here: it's apples and oranges. You can have both a electoral system that is fair to all voters and a political system that protects minorities.

Small communities and rural areas will still send people to Parliment to represent their interests, in numbers that reflect their population. What could be more fair?

But they bring their interests in numbers that cannot defend their interests. Smaller communities will be relegated to the real estate now held by the Green Party today.

I don't get how that's fair. I'll give that the system we have is imperfact and likely weighted too much toward smaller communities, but going to PR will go too far the other way. I would be in favor of a system less biased toward smaller communities that still gave them a realistic chance of defending their interests. But I think smaller communities will suffer greatly from PR. I shouldn't have to live in a big city to get my interests taken to heart.