Proportional representation

[compaq905]

I not sure if a poll on this has been conducted yet but if so I apologize. I personally support proportional representation because it is obviously more democratic then our current system. It is clear that proportional representation would definitely hurt the liberals which is another pro. Would it better the conservatives chances at forming a majority I'am personally unsure.

[fellowtraveller]

I assume you are talking about proprep in the House of Commons, which I am not convinced is a great idea. Perhaps in an elected Senate.

And you are a sly dog with your musings on who it would benefit. It would benefit the NDP of course, which is why they are such big proponents at the national level, but not necessarily elsewhere. They are big proponents except in Sakatchewan and Manitoba, which not coincidentally have NDP govts which would suffer greatly by the introduction of proprep. Pretty convenient. so much for idealism. They like change where it benefits them, then wonder why people are cynical.....

[uOttawaMan]

I assume you are talking about proprep in the House of Commons, which I am not convinced is a great idea. Perhaps in an elected Senate.

And you are a sly dog with your musings on who it would benefit. It would benefit the NDP of course, which is why they are such big proponents at the national level, but not necessarily elsewhere. They are big proponents except in Sakatchewan and Manitoba, which not coincidentally have NDP govts which would suffer greatly by the introduction of proprep. Pretty convenient. so much for idealism. They like change where it benefits them, then wonder why people are cynical.....

And why do you not think it's a good idea for the House?? Probably because it would weaken a party you support. So what if a political "party" loses power, they have to much anyway. Make democracy work the way it's supposed to.

[compaq905]

Yes I'am talking about the house of commons

[captaincanuck]

I am undecided at this point -

On one hand, the total seats won by the conservatives and the liberals reflect rather fairly their respective percentage of total votes, nationally. However, when you consider that the Bloc only had 10.5% of the vote, but won 51 seats, yet the NDP had 17.5% of the vote, and only won 29 seats, it makes a better arguement for PR. Again, if you look at the distribution of votes/seats in Alberta alone, the Liberals had 36% of the vote, yet didnt win any seats.

So on the national level, at least the conservatives and the liberals came away with a number of seats which is (key word here) close to reflecting the percentage of the vote they received. Based on those two results alone, I wouldnt be for completely changing our electoral system. But for the smaller parties, and for some specific regions, the current system does seem to ignore a large percentage of the population.

[uOttawaMan]

Well hell, let's just banish the other federal parties to oblivion, and just have the Cons and the Libs then.

We can be a totally bi-partisan society like our friends to the South, im sure that would make things more democratic and fair.

O wait..

NO IT WON'T

[compaq905]

I think it would benefit Canada to limit the number of political parties that can run in the federal election because if we continue to have minority Parliament we will continue to have nothing accomplished and no fundamental decisions made. Although it is obviously not legal to do this I would say to many Canadians by throwing away your vote on a party such as the Green party you may be throwing away Canada's future by not allowing the federal government to get to work and make decisions.

[Leader Circle]

I am undecided at this point -

On one hand, the total seats won by the conservatives and the liberals reflect rather fairly their respective percentage of total votes, nationally. However, when you consider that the Bloc only had 10.5% of the vote, but won 51 seats, yet the NDP had 17.5% of the vote, and only won 29 seats, it makes a better arguement for PR. Again, if you look at the distribution of votes/seats in Alberta alone, the Liberals had 36% of the vote, yet didnt win any seats.

So on the national level, at least the conservatives and the liberals came away with a number of seats which is (key word here) close to reflecting the percentage of the vote they received. Based on those two results alone, I wouldnt be for completely changing our electoral system. But for the smaller parties, and for some specific regions, the current system does seem to ignore a large percentage of the population.

CC, check your Alberta results again.

The Libs only got 15.3% of the vote in Alberta(which is high for them!)and they got no seats.

You must be a Liberal to get a number so far from the truth!!!

Alberta results

[fellowtraveller]

And why do you not think it's a good idea for the House?? Probably because it would weaken a party you support. So what if a political "party" loses power, they have to much anyway. Make democracy work the way it's supposed to.

The way it is supposed to? Or your version of that?

The chief concern over proprep is the definite possibility of chronic legislative paralysis. Of course, sometimes that is OK, but not always. The best govt has adequate checks and balances... something that is almost entirely absent from our system. Proprep does not remedy that, not on its own. i might be interested in proprep if we had two elected legislative bodies, but only for one of them. In a country so decentralized as Canada, we also need a means of representation from the regions. Perhpas a form of proprep would be appropriate for that chamber.

[Black Dog]

I think it would benefit Canada to limit the number of political parties that can run in the federal election because if we continue to have minority Parliament we will continue to have nothing accomplished and no fundamental decisions made. Although it is obviously not legal to do this I would say to many Canadians by throwing away your vote on a party such as the Green party you may be throwing away Canada's future by not allowing the federal government to get to work and make decisions.

I think we should appoint a dictator for life. That way we won't have to bother with elections and compromise and can just focus on getting things done.

CC, check your Alberta results again.

The Libs only got 15.3% of the vote in Alberta(which is high for them!)and they got no seats.

You must be a Liberal to get a number so far from the truth!!!

In 2004, the Liberal got 22 per cent of the vote.

In 2000, 20 per cent.

In 1997, 24.

In 1993, 25 per cent.

With the exception of their 13 per cent showing in 1988, the Liberals have held strong at 20 to 25 per cent support in Alberta since Diefenbaker. So 15.3 per cent is not "high for them". It's low.

[captaincanuck]

I think it would benefit Canada to limit the number of political parties that can run in the federal election because if we continue to have minority Parliament we will continue to have nothing accomplished and no fundamental decisions made. Although it is obviously not legal to do this I would say to many Canadians by throwing away your vote on a party such as the Green party you may be throwing away Canada's future by not allowing the federal government to get to work and make decisions.

I think we should appoint a dictator for life. That way we won't have to bother with elections and compromise and can just focus on getting things done.

CC, check your Alberta results again.

The Libs only got 15.3% of the vote in Alberta(which is high for them!)and they got no seats.

You must be a Liberal to get a number so far from the truth!!!

In 2004, the Liberal got 22 per cent of the vote.

In 2000, 20 per cent.

In 1997, 24.

In 1993, 25 per cent.

With the exception of their 13 per cent showing in 1988, the Liberals have held strong at 20 to 25 per cent support in Alberta since Diefenbaker. So 15.3 per cent is not "high for them". It's low.

I also apologize for my facts being out of whack. The only ones i have pulled today from memory without double checking first. Aside from that, if we say the liberals generally receive between 20% and 25% of the vote, yet in 2004 they took 2 seats (kilgour and mclennan - for 7% of the seats) and this time they had 15% of the vote for 0 seats, then the statement is still valid. However, i agree that PR would handicap parliament to a large extent.

[uOttawaMan]

PR would only handicap parliament if parties refused to work together. Hell, if all you want if a majority government, then we might as well do what the earlier guy said, appoint a dictator for life, because during those 4 years, they can do whatever they want to whatever program they want, and set foreign policy anyway they want to. Sure, they might not get re-elected, but they still have total control.

[tml12]

PR would only handicap parliament if parties refused to work together. Hell, if all you want if a majority government, then we might as well do what the earlier guy said, appoint a dictator for life, because during those 4 years, they can do whatever they want to whatever program they want, and set foreign policy anyway they want to. Sure, they might not get re-elected, but they still have total control.

"Appoint a dictator for life."

Isn't that what we already do for four years?

[geoffrey]

It's funny when I point out that majority should make decisions in direct democracy on issues like SSM and abortion, and I get bashed by the left saying that democracy isn't directly representative like that.

Then they go out and support PR, where its completely the biggest number of people rule.

Hypppoooocritical!

[tml12]

It's funny when I point out that majority should make decisions in direct democracy on issues like SSM and abortion, and I get bashed by the left saying that democracy isn't directly representative like that.

Then they go out and support PR, where its completely the biggest number of people rule.

Hypppoooocritical!

I don't support PR but I don't support first past the post either...I support a revival of the election process.

[Black Dog]

The way it is supposed to? Or your version of that?

The chief concern over proprep is the definite possibility of chronic legislative paralysis. Of course, sometimes that is OK, but not always. The best govt has adequate checks and balances... something that is almost entirely absent from our system. Proprep does not remedy that, not on its own. i might be interested in proprep if we had two elected legislative bodies, but only for one of them. In a country so decentralized as Canada, we also need a means of representation from the regions. Perhpas a form of proprep would be appropriate for that chamber.

I don't buy the argument that minority government = legislative paralysis. After all, there's more than 70 western nations using some form of PR, yet things still get done. Plus, minority governments come with built in checks and balances in the form of the other parties and ultimately, the electorate.

[A Hermit]

It's funny when I point out that majority should make decisions in direct democracy on issues like SSM and abortion, and I get bashed by the left saying that democracy isn't directly representative like that.

You're missing the point I think. Real democracies ensure protection of minority rights, that's why you don't leave things like the rights of women or gays to simple majority rule. (Although on the two issues you cite it's pretty clear the majority of Canadians are opposed to overturning the current laws).

But when it comes to electing our government we should all have an equal voice. Right now we don't.

That doesn't just hurt Liberals in Alberta, by the way. The Conservatives have no MP's from Canada's three largest cities, in spite of winning 400,000 votes there. The current system creates all kinds of imbalances.

from Fair Vote Canada

# Western Liberals: In the prairie provinces, Conservatives got three times as many votes as Liberals did, but won nearly ten times as many seats. In Alberta, the Conservative Party won 100% of the seats with 65% of the votes. The 500,000 Albertans who voted otherwise elected no one.

# Urban Conservatives: The 400,000-plus Conservative voters in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver should have been able to elect about nine MPs, but instead elected no one. The three cities together will not have a single MP in the governing caucus, let alone the cabinet.

# New Democrats: The NDP attracted a million more votes than the Bloc, but the voting system gave the Bloc 51 seats, the NDP 29. Nearly 18% of Canadians voted NDP, but the party won less than 10% of the seats and does not hold the balance of power, unlike the Liberals and the Bloc.

# Green Party: More than 650,000 Green Party voters across the country elected no one, while 475,000 Liberal voters in Atlantic Canada elected 20 MPs.

# Federalists and nationalists: As usual, the voting system turned entire regions of Canada into partisan fiefdoms, rather than allowing the diversity of views in all regions to be fairly represented in Parliament and within each national party.....

Our voting system was fine for a homogenous nineteenth century state with two political parties. Things have changed a little in the past 140 years, time we caught up...A Green party supporter anywhere in the country should have the same voice as an Atlantic Liberal, shouldn't they?

[geoffrey]

You're missing the point I think. Real democracies ensure protection of minority rights, that's why you don't leave things like the rights of women or gays to simple majority rule. (Although on the two issues you cite it's pretty clear the majority of Canadians are opposed to overturning the current laws).

But when it comes to electing our government we should all have an equal voice. Right now we don't.

That doesn't just hurt Liberals in Alberta, by the way. The Conservatives have no MP's from Canada's three largest cities, in spite of winning 400,000 votes there. The current system creates all kinds of imbalances.

So we decide issues on one system and our government on another? Which one is most democractic? That is the one we should use for all, not just whichever system promotes special interest groups.

Elections we should all have equal voice, but after election day, minorities should have more voice. Excellent logic...

I don't care who it benifets or hurts. The system is ridiculous and we've seen this result in, for example, the German election. They didn't even know who was leader for weeks, and we have parties like:

"Christian Social Union in Barvaria" and Social Democrats and Free Democrats... so much division, so much riduclous wastefulness.

Two-party state would be acceptable in Canada and if the CPC wins a majority next election you'll see the destruction of the Bloc and a Liberal and NDP merger (if another leftist leader is elected, hopefully we get some sense back into the Liberals though before that happens).

[Big Blue Machine]

No one would get a majority with PR, contant minority governments. And constant minority governments would bankcrupt the country because each year would be an electioneering budget for the government party.

[A Hermit]

So we decide issues on one system and our government on another?

No, we protect minority rights from being undermined by the "tyranny of the majority". Aska Holocaust survivor or a veteran of the desegregation fight in the American South why that's important if you don't know already....everyone should have the same rights, regardless of their perceived membership in some minority group.

And when it comes to elcting a government all citizens should have an equal vote; every vote should count the same.

As for ridiculous results, what do you call it when a party dedicated to the breakup of the country gets three times as many seats as a national party that got more votes? That makes sense to you?!

[A Hermit]

No one would get a majority with PR, contant minority governments. And constant minority governments would bankcrupt the country because each year would be an electioneering budget for the government party.

That seems to be happening anyway, doesn't it?

Besides, in spite of all those scary stories about Italy (when was their last election, by the way?) most countries with PR systems (and that's most democratic countries) don't have that kind of problem.

[Hicksey]

No one would get a majority with PR, contant minority governments. And constant minority governments would bankcrupt the country because each year would be an electioneering budget for the government party.

That seems to be happening anyway, doesn't it?

Besides, in spite of all those scary stories about Italy (when was their last election, by the way?) most countries with PR systems (and that's most democratic countries) don't have that kind of problem.

Under PR there would have to be a minimum time period before an election can be forced, like 2 years.

[Black Dog]

It's funny when I point out that majority should make decisions in direct democracy on issues like SSM and abortion, and I get bashed by the left saying that democracy isn't directly representative like that.

Then they go out and support PR, where its completely the biggest number of people rule.

If that's hypocrisy, then I should also point out that you are guilty of it by claiming the majority should decide social issues, but then whining that PR is unfair because it takes away the disproportinate influence held by a minority of the population.

Hypppoooocritical!

Fortunately for your integrity, the two are not incompatable. PR means every vote is equal, which dovetails nicely with the democratic principle of equality under the law that supports minority rights. Boo. Yah.

So we decide issues on one system and our government on another? Which one is most democractic? That is the one we should use for all, not just whichever system promotes special interest groups.

No. One system. One electoral set up. One bedrock set of principles, starting with the idea (expressed quite nicely 230 years ago) that all people are created equal, and are possessed of certain unalienable rights, rights that no majority of their fellow citizens can rend asunder.

Elections we should all have equal voice, but after election day, minorities should have more voice. Excellent logic...

That's not the argument. Again: apples and oranges.

I don't care who it benifets or hurts. The system is ridiculous and we've seen this result in, for example, the German election. They didn't even know who was leader for weeks, and we have parties like:

Unlke, say, the U.S., with its clean, simple elections.

Democracy is suppossed to be representative first. Not convenient.

Two-party state would be acceptable in Canada and if the CPC wins a majority next election you'll see the destruction of the Bloc and a Liberal and NDP merger (if another leftist leader is elected, hopefully we get some sense back into the Liberals though before that happens).

Hey: why bother with two parties: a single absolute ruler would be the least fuss of all!

I don't know any NDs who would support a merger with the Lberals. They are two different parties with two diferent principles. Democracy is about ensuring the divergent views of all citizens are represented, not forcing those people to choose between two boxes.

No one would get a majority with PR, contant minority governments. And constant minority governments would bankcrupt the country because each year would be an electioneering budget for the government party.

Given the use of PR in virtually every western nation, this statement is clearly bollocks.

[geoffrey]

Given the use of PR in virtually every western nation, this statement is clearly bollocks.

Interesting Black Dog, I think I might agree you with.

PR won't result in electioneering budgets because no party will ever be at the wheel. Plus, they'll all be too busy playing to special interest groups...

The economy right now in terms of foreign investment is being held back by our reluctancy to elect a majority government. Whether its Liberals or Conservatives (they both govern from the right, pro-business anyways) we need a majority government to make us more attractive to investment.

PR would make a majority impossible, but this ridiculous reluctancy from the East is just as, if not more, damaging then PR ever would be from an investment perspective... unless we PR'ed the NDP...

[tml12]

Given the use of PR in virtually every western nation, this statement is clearly bollocks.

Interesting Black Dog, I think I might agree you with.

PR won't result in electioneering budgets because no party will ever be at the wheel. Plus, they'll all be too busy playing to special interest groups...

The economy right now in terms of foreign investment is being held back by our reluctancy to elect a majority government. Whether its Liberals or Conservatives (they both govern from the right, pro-business anyways) we need a majority government to make us more attractive to investment.

PR would make a majority impossible, but this ridiculous reluctancy from the East is just as, if not more, damaging then PR ever would be from an investment perspective... unless we PR'ed the NDP...

Hey there with your Eastern comment...

I agree with PR to an extent even though I have argued against it to an extent on this board earlier. What I don't support is government instability...a minority government is OK once in awhile but if we had to live with this forever?

Most Canadians don't want that.