What would parliament look like tomorrow if we had proportional repres

[Black Dog]

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 don't see how a system that ignores the votes of some rural voters can be said to be fair either, but whatever.

The way I see it, PR would most likely lead to more minority governments, which gives individual MPS more sway. That's the short answer. The long answer would be, PR is not unfair to rual voters: being a rural voter in an urbanized country is screwing them, not the the system which treats all voters equally.

Obviously, it's not a desirable result for rural communities to only have 20 per cent of the representation in parliment, but I don't see how artificially inflating their influence at the expense of other voters is a better solution.

[Hicksey]

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 don't see how a system that ignores the votes of some rural voters can be said to be fair either, but whatever.

The way I see it, PR would most likely lead to more minority governments, which gives individual MPS more sway. That's the short answer. The long answer would be, PR is not unfair to rual voters: being a rural voter in an urbanized country is screwing them, not the the system which treats all voters equally.

Obviously, it's not a desirable result for rural communities to only have 20 per cent of the representation in parliment, but I don't see how artificially inflating their influence at the expense of other voters is a better solution.

I could deal with smaller communites getting about 35% which still puts them at a minority that with some support can still pass legislation to defend their interests.

[geoffrey]

All of this discussion doesn't address regional parties. In a country like Canada, thats what we'd diverge to. Every province having a party just battling for selfish interests. There will be very little in terms of national parties.

[Black Dog]

I could deal with smaller communites getting about 35% which still puts them at a minority that with some support can still pass legislation to defend their interests.

I don't think it would be any party's interest to screw rural voters because they don't have enough influence. That's just bad politics. But why do rural voters deserve more representation than anyone else? Why are their needs more important than those of urban voters? Also, I think the results of this election show your fears are groundless, even when viewed through the lense of PR. If we had PR, the Tories would still dominate the rural regions and would still lead a minority government. But rural and urban voters would both have representation that reflected the level of support for the parties (so urban Conservatives and rural Liberals/NDs wold actually have a say).

All of this discussion doesn't address regional parties. In a country like Canada, thats what we'd diverge to. Every province having a party just battling for selfish interests. There will be very little in terms of national parties.

You're wrong. PR doesn't create regional blocs. It eliminates them. Again, look at the election results and look at the numbers if we had PR. More urban and Atlantic Conservative MPs. More rural Liberal/ND MPs. And far less representation for a regional party like the BQ. Support for most political parties is spread out across the country, but because of FPTP, we are left with the apperance of regional blocs. PR would correct that problem, not make it worse.

[Hicksey]

I could deal with smaller communites getting about 35% which still puts them at a minority that with some support can still pass legislation to defend their interests.

I don't think it would be any party's interest to screw rural voters because they don't have enough influence. That's just bad politics. But why do rural voters deserve more representation than anyone else? Why are their needs more important than those of urban voters? Also, I think the results of this election show your fears are groundless, even when viewed through the lense of PR. If we had PR, the Tories would still dominate the rural regions and would still lead a minority government. But rural and urban voters would both have representation that reflected the level of support for the parties (so urban Conservatives and rural Liberals/NDs wold actually have a say).

That isn't the phonomenon I am speaking of. Considering that politicans are panderers by nature, my fear is that because the largest concentration of voters is in metropolitan centers it will be their interests will be pandered to. Under PR, a party wouldn't need the votes of the 20% of the rural population to win if they take the urban centers strongly. In such a system it wouldn't be too surprising to see the interests of smaller communities simply forgotten. IMO such a system would foster many more Walkerton-like situations because issues plaguing smaller communities just wouldn't rate on the federal stage.

[Black Dog]

Considering that politicans are panderers by nature, my fear is that because the largest concentration of voters is in metropolitan centers it will be their interests will be pandered to. Under PR, a party wouldn't need the votes of the 20% of the rural population to win if they take the urban centers strongly. In such a system it wouldn't be too surprising to see the interests of smaller communities simply forgotten. IMO such a system would foster many more Walkerton-like situations because issues plaguing smaller communities just wouldn't rate on the federal stage.

Isn't that precisely the problem FPTP has created vis a vis "western alienation"? Anyway, I don't think this would happen for the same reason I don't think PR would lead to increased regionalization: for a party to gain the balance of power, they must appeal to as many voters as possible and not focus on one region (see the Bloc for an example of how that works now). That would include, one presumes, rural regions. A party that just focused on, say, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver at the expense of all others would have, at most a 1/3 share of the national vote (and even then, that's assuming a sweep, which is virtually impossible under a PR system).

[Hicksey]

Considering that politicans are panderers by nature, my fear is that because the largest concentration of voters is in metropolitan centers it will be their interests will be pandered to. Under PR, a party wouldn't need the votes of the 20% of the rural population to win if they take the urban centers strongly. In such a system it wouldn't be too surprising to see the interests of smaller communities simply forgotten. IMO such a system would foster many more Walkerton-like situations because issues plaguing smaller communities just wouldn't rate on the federal stage.

Isn't that precisely the problem FPTP has created vis a vis "western alienation"? Anyway, I don't think this would happen for the same reason I don't think PR would lead to increased regionalization: for a party to gain the balance of power, they must appeal to as many voters as possible and not focus on one region (see the Bloc for an example of how that works now). That would include, one presumes, rural regions. A party that just focused on, say, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver at the expense of all others would have, at most a 1/3 share of the national vote (and even then, that's assuming a sweep, which is virtually impossible under a PR system).

What's so unfair about this?

Province by province by population and percentage of seats in the house.

ON - House 33% - Pop 38%

QC - 24% - 24%

BC - 13% - 11%

AB - 8.5% - 10%

MB - 4% - 3%

SK - 4.5% - 3%

NB - 3% - 3%

NF - 2% - 2%

NS - 3.5% - 3%

Y/N - 1% - 0.1%

NU - 0.3% - 0.1%

[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.

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.

A good example of where FPTP can go wrong is the 2001 BC election. The NDP got 22.56% of the vote and 2 seats. Green got 12.39% and no seats. That means 35% of the population elected a total of two members to the legislature out of a total of 79.

[Concerned]

All of this discussion doesn't address regional parties. In a country like Canada, thats what we'd diverge to. Every province having a party just battling for selfish interests. There will be very little in terms of national parties.

Yes, but our politics seem to be going this way anyways. The bloc in Quebec and the Conservatives in Alberta. The Liberals in major cities.

I read that the three worst run economies in Canadian history occured under majority governments.

[geoffrey]

All of this discussion doesn't address regional parties. In a country like Canada, thats what we'd diverge to. Every province having a party just battling for selfish interests. There will be very little in terms of national parties.

Yes, but our politics seem to be going this way anyways. The bloc in Quebec and the Conservatives in Alberta. The Liberals in major cities.

I read that the three worst run economies in Canadian history occured under majority governments.

The Conservatives aren't just in Alberta. They are the only party that won in every Province that counts remember...

The Liberals can't win in the major city of Calgary, the economic powerhouse of Canada right now.

Anyways, enough of correcting your misinformation... so because our politics are going this way anyways we should kick it further down the path.

It's like those that argue for SSM by saying marriage is already dead, lets shoot it once more...