jbg Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 The net result is PR systems end up being less democratic that FPTP systems. One reason that the English-speaking countries are almost all solid democracies, i.e. US, Canada, UK, Jamaica, Barbados. Israel is an exception, and shows many of the weaknesses of rep-by-prop. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Canadian Blue Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 What about Germany, New Zealand, France, Sweden, Finland, Norway, The Netherlands, and Australia??? FPTP systems tend to favour 'big tent' parties which accomodate a wide variety of views and tend to be centrist (the two party system in the US is a good example). Proportional systems tend encourage people to vote for parties with more extreme views. In both systems require a lot of behind the scenes horse trading to produce coherent policy. However, in a big tent party this horse trading goes on among allies who don't necessarily undermine their own electability by compromising. In a coalition the smaller parties need to justify their own existence and are less willing to compromise or will demand that symbolic gesters that benefit only the narrow cross section of voters that they happen to represent. The net result is PR systems end up being less democratic that FPTP systems. Then why does Sweden have such a high voter turnout, it is a successful democracy, and has one of the highest on the HDI. In fact the top five countries listed in the Human Development Index actually have some form or another of PR and STV. I highly doubt PR will hurt or country, if anything parties being forced to compromise in order to run a government could only be a benefit to the country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index Quote "Keep your government hands off my medicare!" - GOP activist
White Doors Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 How are those countries doing by birth rates? Coincidence? I think not. Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
Saturn Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 The net result is PR systems end up being less democratic that FPTP systems. One reason that the English-speaking countries are almost all solid democracies, i.e. US, Canada, UK, Jamaica, Barbados. Israel is an exception, and shows many of the weaknesses of rep-by-prop. All solid democracies (nearly 100 of them) use some form of proportional representation. The only exceptions are Canada, the US, and the UK. That's because we are too stubborn and obsessed with tradition to change a dead horse. In FPTP, voters usually end up with two choices - the Demopublicans and the Republicrats. Sorry, I want more choice than that. And I actually want to know that my vote counts for something. That's what democracy is all about - one voter, one vote. Not "one voter, 0.2 votes another voter, 3 votes" depending on how they vote. Quote
Riverwind Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 Sorry, I want more choice than that. And I actually want to know that my vote counts for something. That's what democracy is all about - one voter, one vote. Not "one voter, 0.2 votes another voter, 3 votes" depending on how they vote.Your vote counts for something. You are simply upset that there are not enough Canadians who share your views living in your area. IOW - you want PR because you believe that it would give a minority parties that you support a disproportionate share of power. I think single issue extremist parties are a plague and have no place a responsible democratic government. PR encourages those kinds of parties. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
geoffrey Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 PR with a minimum threshold of 15%. There goes the Bloc and NDP. Let the fun begin. Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
blueblood Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 The net result is PR systems end up being less democratic that FPTP systems. One reason that the English-speaking countries are almost all solid democracies, i.e. US, Canada, UK, Jamaica, Barbados. Israel is an exception, and shows many of the weaknesses of rep-by-prop. All solid democracies (nearly 100 of them) use some form of proportional representation. The only exceptions are Canada, the US, and the UK. That's because we are too stubborn and obsessed with tradition to change a dead horse. In FPTP, voters usually end up with two choices - the Demopublicans and the Republicrats. Sorry, I want more choice than that. And I actually want to know that my vote counts for something. That's what democracy is all about - one voter, one vote. Not "one voter, 0.2 votes another voter, 3 votes" depending on how they vote. Why not disband the party system and have all the MP's run as independants then? I'd be all for that. Quote "Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary "Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
geoffrey Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 Why not disband the party system and have all the MP's run as independants then? I'd be all for that. Who'd form government? Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
blueblood Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 Why not disband the party system and have all the MP's run as independants then? I'd be all for that. Who'd form government? Well this is some very wishful thinking mind you, all the MP's would form government. You'd have all types from different stripes and ideologies. Sure it would be a mess come election time and strict rules would be necessary, but sifting through all the options at the people who would run for public office, one would truly get the best one for the job (or the best campaigner). Once all the MP's are elected they then vote for a Prime Minister and the Prime Minister then selects the cabinet. I personally think it's better as legislation can get through and there's no partisan bantering, you wouldn't get the party dictatorship that occurs sometimes. In the end it becomes more of a competition. One can only dream. Quote "Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary "Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
jbg Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 Well this is some very wishful thinking mind you, all the MP's would form government. You'd have all types from different stripes and ideologies. Sure it would be a mess come election time and strict rules would be necessary, but sifting through all the options at the people who would run for public office, one would truly get the best one for the job (or the best campaigner). Once all the MP's are elected they then vote for a Prime Minister and the Prime Minister then selects the cabinet. I personally think it's better as legislation can get through and there's no partisan bantering, you wouldn't get the party dictatorship that occurs sometimes. In the end it becomes more of a competition. One can only dream. The US system is almost like this. We do have government by gridlock and that's what you'd get. Already, parties in our country serve little more function than to cut down the size of the ballot. They're certainly not ideological. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
[email protected] Posted March 4, 2007 Author Report Posted March 4, 2007 In the general election of 2000 the party that formed the majority government was NOT supported by 3 out of 4 electors. How low can a government’s electoral support go before it becomes illegitimate? That would mean the Liberals only got 25% of the vote. They actually got almost 41%. In the election of 2000 there were 21,243,473 electors The majority party received 5,252,031 votes or about 24.7% Quote
[email protected] Posted March 4, 2007 Author Report Posted March 4, 2007 Sorry, I want more choice than that. And I actually want to know that my vote counts for something. That's what democracy is all about - one voter, one vote. Not "one voter, 0.2 votes another voter, 3 votes" depending on how they vote.Your vote counts for something. You are simply upset that there are not enough Canadians who share your views living in your area. IOW - you want PR because you believe that it would give a minority parties that you support a disproportionate share of power. I think single issue extremist parties are a plague and have no place a responsible democratic government. PR encourages those kinds of parties. We agree with Saturn. Lets face it, under FPTP unless your vote is Liberal or Tory it usually does not count. Why should a very large number of Canadians have to share a view before it should count? That is elitist. PR or STV gives a minority parties a share of power (actually a voice) in proportion to their support, how is that 'disproportionate'? And if there is a large coalition government, who says they have a share in power? How can you decide who or what has a 'place' in democratic government? That is up to the voters to decide. The very last thing Canada needs is a system that discourages political parties and citizen involvement. Quote
Charles Anthony Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 How can you decide who or what has a 'place' in democratic government? That is up to the voters to decide.Without a clear definition of "legitimate government" or "democracy" anything can be decided to have a place or to NOT have a place. Define your terms.Allow me. legitimate government: a system of rule whereby anyone may do as he pleases provided that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the body of any other person except for in self-defense. democracy: an attractive compromise on legitimate government that depends periodically on arithmetic. Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
Saturn Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 Your vote counts for something. You are simply upset that there are not enough Canadians who share your views living in your area. IOW - you want PR because you believe that it would give a minority parties that you support a disproportionate share of power. PR will give parties disproportionate share of power? Have another drink! You support FPTP because it gives your vote a disproportionate weight. What makes you think your vote should be worth 10 times more than mine? Other than the fact that you are a conservative loony who imagines that democracy means that only conservatives should be represented? I think single issue extremist parties are a plague and have no place a responsible democratic government. PR encourages those kinds of parties. Bullshit. PR encourages democratic choice. FPTP discourages democratic choice - it gives you only 2 options which hardly differ at all. The difference between FPTP and the Soviet Union's voting system is well, like the difference between choosing between the Demopublicans and the Republicrats and choosing between the Communist party and the Marxist-Leninist party. Not very democratic at all. Quote
Charles Anthony Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 PR encourages democratic choice. FPTP discourages democratic choice - it gives you only 2 options which hardly differ at all.You are defining "government legitimacy" by how much choice is offered in its perceived selection by its electorate. Is that correct? Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
madmax Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 In the election of 2000 there were 21,243,473 electorsThe majority party received 5,252,031 votes or about 24.7% Wilber is correct. The Liberals got 40.8% of the vote. 12997185 people voted and 5252031 voted Liberal. Quote
Riverwind Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 PR or STV gives a minority parties a share of power (actually a voice) in proportion to their support, how is that 'disproportionate'?Why should a minority party representing 10% of the people be given the power to impose policies opposed by the other 90%? How is that democratic?An ideal democracy in Canada would be a coalition between the Liberals and the Conservatives because those two parties do represent the views of the majority of Canadians. However, PR governments never work that way. The two mainstream parties never form coalitions and must always seek the support of minority parties that sometimes represent tiny fractions of the electorate. The result is, IMO, much more un-democratic than the current system. The majority party received 5,252,031 votes or about 24.7%People who don't vote don't count because the made the choice to not vote. The liberals received the support of 41% of the people who voted which is close to a majority.The very last thing Canada needs is a system that discourages political parties and citizen involvement.People who don't vote today fall into two categories: 1) Ideologues who for whatever reason think that not voting is some sort of protest; 2) Lazy apathetic people who talk their democratic rights for granted. The majority of non-voters fall into category 2) which means changing the system will change nothing - they will simply find new excuses. This is also true for many of the non-voters in category 1). Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Charles Anthony Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 PR or STV gives a minority parties a share of power (actually a voice) in proportion to their support, how is that 'disproportionate'?Why should a minority party representing 10% of the people be given the power to impose policies opposed by the other 90%? How is that democratic?The claim was that they have a voice, not a power to impose policies. However, PR governments never work that way. The two mainstream parties never form coalitions and must always seek the support of minority parties that sometimes represent tiny fractions of the electorate. The result is, IMO, much more un-democratic than the current system.Define democracy -- otherwise, everybody is just talking past eachother. People who don't vote today fall into two categories: 1) Ideologues who for whatever reason think that not voting is some sort of protest; 2) Lazy apathetic people who talk their democratic rights for granted. The majority of non-voters fall into category 2) which means changing the system will change nothing - they will simply find new excuses. This is also true for many of the non-voters in category 1). Lazy? Then he used the L-word--lazy. That made me mad. Mad enough to dash off a short list of better ways to spend your time than voting this November 5. Each activity requires a little effort, so doing any one of them proves you’re not lazy, even if you choose to stay away from the polls. Ten Things To Do On Nov. 5...Besides Vote Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
jbg Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 In the election of 2000 there were 21,243,473 electorsThe majority party received 5,252,031 votes or about 24.7% No shows don't count. They're entitled only to the government they get, since they don't participate. Ever wonder why us Jews are listened to politically? We vote. We have about 80-90% turnouts (just guessing, having trouble bringing up the PDF document I was going to use to back this up). Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
madmax Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 Ever wonder why us Jews are listened to politically? We vote. We have about 80-90% turnouts Well, there goes my conspiracy theory. Quote
Riverwind Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 The claim was that they have a voice, not a power to impose policies.Define 'voice' if they can't impose polcies?Define democracy -- otherwise, everybody is just talking past eachother.The technical definition one person one vote and 50%+1 rules. I prefer to describe it as a mechanism to reach social concensus amoung millions of people. Both definitions imply that some people representing certain minorities are not going to be able to get their way.But the slur I won’t stand for is that we’re lazy.I did not say that they were all lazy. I said there are a minority of non-voters who have carefully thought about not voting and make a conscious choice to not do so. I can repect that choice even if I disagree with it. However, I stand by my claim that the majority of non-voters are lazy. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Saturn Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 People who don't vote today fall into two categories: 1) Ideologues who for whatever reason think that not voting is some sort of protest; 2) Lazy apathetic people who talk their democratic rights for granted. The majority of non-voters fall into category 2) which means changing the system will change nothing - they will simply find new excuses. This is also true for many of the non-voters in category 1). Conveniently, you avoid mentioning the 3rd category: 3) People who don't vote because their candidate of choice does not stand a chance of being elected. Even worse, there is another category: -- People who vote for their second, third or fourth choice because they see that candidate as the lesser of the two evils that have a chance to get elected. Overall, FPTP is an outdated system that has very little to do with democracy. This is why only few "democratic" countries use FPTP. It horribly distorts the vote, ignores the majority of voters and results in two big players who are equally corrupt and unaccountable but are shielded by the system and can never be replaced. That's how our "democratic" system lead to a bunch of screaming, lying monkeys taking over Parliament. Quote
Wilber Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 In the general election of 2000 the party that formed the majority government was NOT supported by 3 out of 4 electors. How low can a government’s electoral support go before it becomes illegitimate? That would mean the Liberals only got 25% of the vote. They actually got almost 41%. In the election of 2000 there were 21,243,473 electors The majority party received 5,252,031 votes or about 24.7% Sorry but you can't include people who didn't bother to vote. The Liberals got 40.8% of the ballots cast. Link Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Riverwind Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 3) People who don't vote because their candidate of choice does not stand a chance of being elected.So what? That is just an excuse for being lazy. If you support that person then get out and exercise your democratic right.People who vote for their second, third or fourth choice because they see that candidate as the lesser of the two evils that have a chance to get elected.Nothing wrong with that. People have to make choices. If the number of people who share their opinion is small then they should be expected to make a second choice that is more in line with what the majority of people what.This is why only few "democratic" countries use FPTP. It horribly distorts the vote, ignores the majority of voters and results in two big players who are equally corrupt and unaccountable but are shielded by the system and can never be replaced.No corruption in PR systems? Don't make me laugh. All systems are subject to corruption. Many people lliving in PR countries find it impossible to vote venal party insiders out of office because the lists are drawn up by the parties - not the voters.The geography and population distribution in Canada requires democratic representives that are elected to represent a specific geographic area. This implies ridings. You could have PR in each riding and elect several members, however, the multi-member ridings are not going to have enough granularity to represent every possible view. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
geoffrey Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 e-voting would get the numbers up. Just log in from your computer, enter some info and vote. If I can check my tax return status online, then I'm sure they can have the security for a vote. Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.