Help ensure a fair referendum in Ontario

[Figleaf]

I'm not looking for an arbitrary voice for anyone not represented. I'm looking for the appropriate number of voices for the amount of votes received. If a party receives 5% of the vote they should receive about 5% of the seats. If we use our current total of 308 then that would equate to about 15 seats.

I don't see why people who can't win in a district should be given special dispensation because their party manages pull a small spackle of votes across the country.

Why should concentrated local support be favoured over national support? For example six hundred thousand Green voters produce zero representation as is...but if they all lived in the Maritimes they'd win 20 seats. Does that make sense?

It makes sense to me, if the alternative is having members who represent parties rather than people.

Why do like minded voters have to be neighbours to receive a voice?

Because they're fringe voters. They can't muster enough support to elect a person against other persons, I see no reason to indulge them.

[Figleaf]

The problem there is that the members are not responsive to their constituents. PR won't solve that, and for the reasons I've already listed multi member districts won't solve that either. In this case I agree there's a real problem, but its one PR won't solve. What we need is Recall.

Currently MPs are tied to a district but very few actually put their constituents before their party so I don't see the point in your objection to list MPs.

The objection to lists is that they are party hacks who represent no-one but their party heirarchy. They would be worse in that regard than members who are (however infrequently and imperfectly) responsible to the people of a district.

Under MMPR every district would have 1 MP, plus all voters would receive representation by having the appropriate party numbers in Ottawa. Best of both worlds.

No, that would be adding list-hack problems to an already imperfect system.

I realize that mixed member PR isn't for everyone, however I believe I have also handled your exceptions to multi member districts.

To your satistfaction, maybe, but not to mine.

Recall doesn't solve anything. In fact it is a hindrance. Recall simply prevents politicians from doing anything that may be considered unpleasant...and sometimes tough decisions have to be made.

Recall would force members to give full and continuous account to the constituents rather than grudging pretense every few years. It would mean that members have no free ride to say 'the party made me do it'. They would have to choose between party discipline and constituent interests with every decision.

[MightyAC]

Why should concentrated local support be favoured over national support? For example six hundred thousand Green voters produce zero representation as is...but if they all lived in the Maritimes they'd win 20 seats. Does that make sense?

It makes sense to me, if the alternative is having members who represent parties rather than people

Why do like minded voters have to be neighbours to receive a voice?

Because they're fringe voters. They can't muster enough support to elect a person against other persons, I see no reason to indulge them.

Odd that you always come back to list MPs, despite admitting that under our current system MPs rarely choose to represent their constituents ahead of their party anyway. Besides, the alternative doesn't have to be a system that uses list MPs.

You still didn't address the fact that our current system favours concentrated local support. The Bloc receives a major boost simply because it is a concentrated regional party.

You also mentioned that our current system hurts "fringe" parties. Are the Liberals and Conservatives "fringe" in your mind?

- 400,000 Conservative voters in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver received absolutely no representation.

- All Liberal, NDP and Green voters in Alberta received zero representation.

- Bloc voters represent 10.5% of Canadians and received 51 seats. NDP voters represent 17.5% of Canadians and received 29 seats.

These aren't fringe examples. Our current system just flat out does not give us the government we vote for.

[Figleaf]

Odd that you always come back to list MPs,

Odd that I "always come back" to the topic of the thread?

... despite admitting that under our current system MPs rarely choose to represent their constituents

I've explained clearly that list candidates would make that worse, since they represent no-one, even in theory.

You still didn't address the fact that our current system favours concentrated local support.

!! You quoted my reply just above -- I said: Because they're fringe voters. If they can't muster enough support to elect a person against other persons, I see no reason to indulge them.

Pump any ridiculous belief into a search engine and you'll find a lunatic fringe supporting it. Personally I don't think indulging fringe interests with legislature seats is useful.

The Bloc receives a major boost simply because it is a concentrated regional party.

Yes, and?

[MightyAC]

Odd that I "always come back" to the topic of the thread?

The topic of the thread is a fair referendum process...nothing to do with a specific type of PR.

... despite admitting that under our current system MPs rarely choose to represent their constituents

I've explained clearly that list candidates would make that worse, since they represent no-one, even in theory.

I've explained clearly that since MPs currently choose their party over their constituents, the fact that list MPs would at least provide the correct amount of representation is preferable to our current situation. I've also shown that a more proportional and much fairer system can be achieved without list MPs.

You still didn't address the fact that our current system favours concentrated local support.

!! You quoted my reply just above -- I said: Because they're fringe voters. If they can't muster enough support to elect a person against other persons, I see no reason to indulge them.

Pump any ridiculous belief into a search engine and you'll find a lunatic fringe supporting it. Personally I don't think indulging fringe interests with legislature seats is useful.

I provided three examples from our last federal election that illustrate of how our current first past the post system doesn't just screw fringe voters. You seem to have ignored those.

- 400,000 Conservative voters in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver received absolutely no representation.

- All Liberal, NDP and Green voters in Alberta received zero representation.

- Bloc voters represent 10.5% of Canadians and received 51 seats. NDP voters represent 17.5% of Canadians and received 29 seats.

Another problem with our current system that I haven't yet mentioned is strategic voting. Do to the fact that our winner take all system wastes all votes cast for other parties people often feel they have to vote to oppose the perceived strongest party in their riding rather than voting for the party they support.

Here is a common example. Last election many voters were angry with the Liberal party, yet they live in a riding with a strong Liberal incumbent. Knowing full well that a vote for the Green party or the NDP is simply a wasted ballot in their riding, under a winner take all type system they vote Conservative hoping to defeat the Liberal.

[Figleaf]

The topic of the thread is a fair referendum process...nothing to do with a specific type of PR.

Is a specific type of PR not on the referendum? If so, what ype? If not, is it not true that list candidates could be a feature of a system chosen?

It seems like you're trying to silence my concerns.

... despite admitting that under our current system MPs rarely choose to represent their constituents

I've explained clearly that list candidates would make that worse, since they represent no-one, even in theory.

I've explained clearly that since MPs currently choose their party over their constituents, the fact that list MPs would at least provide the correct amount of representation is preferable to our current situation.

Which totally fails to meet my point.

Also, they would provide a different distribution of representation, not the correct distribution.

I've also shown that a ... much fairer system can be achieved without list MPs.

I certainly agree with that!

You still didn't address the fact that our current system favours concentrated local support.

!! You quoted my reply just above -- I said: Because they're fringe voters. If they can't muster enough support to elect a person against other persons, I see no reason to indulge them.

Pump any ridiculous belief into a search engine and you'll find a lunatic fringe supporting it. Personally I don't think indulging fringe interests with legislature seats is useful.

I provided three examples from our last federal election that illustrate of how our current first past the post system doesn't just screw fringe voters. You seem to have ignored those.

The examples said nothing that related to my comments, so I didn't see a need to react to them.

Another problem with our current system that I haven't yet mentioned is strategic voting. Do to the fact that our winner take all system wastes all votes cast for other parties people often feel they have to vote to oppose the perceived strongest party in their riding rather than voting for the party they support.

That's not a "problem", it's a strength... makes people take their vote seriously.

[Remiel]

It's not a strength, it's a built in system of lies. Strategic voting is a freakin' guessing game, and that is exactly what you want an election to *NOT* be.

As for this list MP crap, what would be stopping riding from selected candidates the same way they do now, just have more for each area? If ridings A, B and C merge to create riding Alpha, and each party sends three candidates, they are probably going to be the same three candidates that would of run seperately in ridings A, B and C. I don't get where you get this stuff about using an entirely unrelated way to nominate candidates just because we change the way ridings work.

[MightyAC]

The topic of the thread is a fair referendum process...nothing to do with a specific type of PR.

Is a specific type of PR not on the referendum? If so, what ype? If not, is it not true that list candidates could be a feature of a system chosen?

It seems like you're trying to silence my concerns.

No electoral system has been chosen yet. In fact, the citizens committee hasn't even decided if they feel a change is necessary yet. If they do decide that a change is warranted they will propose a new system and that will appear on the ballot.

I'm not at all trying to silence your concerns. I have already said that I can understand why people would object to list candidates. I don’t agree with the objections but the concern is a valid one. That's why when you use list candidates as an argument I mention that there are proportional systems that do not use party lists.

I've also shown that a ... much fairer system can be achieved without list MPs.

I certainly agree with that!

You deliberately removed the middle of a quoted sentence...that is pretty sad.

The examples said nothing that related to my comments, so I didn't see a need to react to them.

Those examples show that our current system doesn't just screw fringe parties, which was your point.

Another problem with our current system that I haven't yet mentioned is strategic voting. Do to the fact that our winner take all system wastes all votes cast for other parties people often feel they have to vote to oppose the perceived strongest party in their riding rather than voting for the party they support.

That's not a "problem", it's a strength... makes people take their vote seriously.

You seriously see forcing Canadians to vote in favour of a party they do not support because their vote would otherwise be wasted as a strength?! Good one.

Using that logic voting scandals like the one in Florida 6 years ago are strengths as well. Votes aren’t counted unless they are republican….I guess that too makes people take their vote seriously.

[Figleaf]

I've also shown that a ... much fairer system can be achieved without list MPs.

I certainly agree with that!

You deliberately removed the middle of a quoted sentence...that is pretty sad.

Yes, I deliberately removed it and included an elipse [...] so that people would know it's an incomplete quote. That is the standard editorial method for referencing the relevant part of a quote. Don't be sad.

The examples said nothing that related to my comments, so I didn't see a need to react to them.

Those examples show that our current system doesn't just screw fringe parties, which was your point.

No, that wasn't my point. My point was a don't want a system that caters to fringe parties.

Another problem with our current system that I haven't yet mentioned is strategic voting. Do to the fact that our winner take all system wastes all votes cast for other parties people often feel they have to vote to oppose the perceived strongest party in their riding rather than voting for the party they support.

That's not a "problem", it's a strength... makes people take their vote seriously.

You seriously see forcing Canadians to vote in favour of a party they do not support because their vote would otherwise be wasted as a strength?! Good one. ...

Yes, I seriously do. I'm glad you think so too.

Using that logic voting scandals like the one in Florida 6 years ago are strengths as well.

Using your "logic", maybe.

[MightyAC]

My point was a don't want a system that caters to fringe parties.

I agree completely. I would go one step further and say we also don't want a system that gives parties more seats than they actually deserve either. It's probably best to treat every vote and voter equally no matter which party it is for. The system should count every vote cast and give each party the same percentage of seats as the percentage of votes they achieved.

[Figleaf]

My point was a don't want a system that caters to fringe parties.

I agree completely. I would go one step further and say we also don't want a system that gives parties more seats than they actually deserve either.

I agree completely. Parties who appeal only to scattered minority viewpoints shouldn't be jumped up into legislative significance.

It's probably best to treat every vote and voter equally no matter which party it is for.

The system should count every vote cast and give each party the same percentage of seats as the percentage of votes they achieved.

No, each seat should be held by a member chosen by the majority of people in each district.

[MightyAC]

I agree completely. Parties who appeal only to scattered minority viewpoints shouldn't be jumped up into legislative significance.

Right. So if a party receives only 5 or 6 percent of the vote they should only receive 5 or 6 percent of the seats...that way they do not receive anymore "legislative significance' than they deserve. Even if a party is well supported and receives 40 percent of the vote they should receive 40% of the seats. It would be undemocratic to reward or punish a party with any more or less seats than voters feel they should have.

[geoffrey]

I agree completely. Parties who appeal only to scattered minority viewpoints shouldn't be jumped up into legislative significance.

Right. So if a party receives only 5 or 6 percent of the vote they should only receive 5 or 6 percent of the seats...that way they do not receive anymore "legislative significance' than they deserve. Even if a party is well supported and receives 40 percent of the vote they should receive 40% of the seats. It would be undemocratic to reward or punish a party with any more or less seats than voters feel they should have.

Bring on the Christian Heritage people and the Rhino party.

[MightyAC]

I agree completely. Parties who appeal only to scattered minority viewpoints shouldn't be jumped up into legislative significance.

Right. So if a party receives only 5 or 6 percent of the vote they should only receive 5 or 6 percent of the seats...that way they do not receive anymore "legislative significance' than they deserve. Even if a party is well supported and receives 40 percent of the vote they should receive 40% of the seats. It would be undemocratic to reward or punish a party with any more or less seats than voters feel they should have.

Bring on the Christian Heritage people and the Rhino party.

There's always the Mary Jane Party or the Communist Party of Canada..

The 0.2% of the popular vote achieved by the Christian Heritage people wouldn't earn them a seat anyway. I am in favour of threshold of 4 or 5 percent of the popular vote before any representation should be created...unless of course they happen to win a riding.

[geoffrey]

Or just have them win a riding, showing that they have enough organization and real support to be governing someone. If all the village idiots voted together, it'd be enough to elect them a representative.

PR brings out the worst aspects of democracy, and just shows that it really is rule by idiots.

[MightyAC]

Or just have them win a riding, showing that they have enough organization and real support to be governing someone. If all the village idiots voted together, it'd be enough to elect them a representative.

PR brings out the worst aspects of democracy, and just shows that it really is rule by idiots.

I'd say it brings out the best aspects of democracy. I'd also say that winner take all systems like ours really aren't democratic at all.

Some people seem to have this delusion that the various PR systems would give fringe parties pollitical infulence. The truth is parties simply receive the same proportion of seats as votes they received. So parties receive the exact amount of influence hey deserve. If enough people support a party to achieve 4 or 5 percent of the vote that party is no longer on the fringe of society.