Ontario Referendum Proportional Representation

[TimG]

Democracy is an ongoing process, not an event that only happens once every four years. A bad leader can do a lot of damage in four years, and that's why checks and balances are ongoing.

That is why there are always limits to a leader's power. But up until that limit a country needs a system that allows change to happen. The US is in a situation where change is extremely difficult to achieve. Some argue that the Americans like it this way but that is a different discussion.

[-1=e^ipi]

A dictator depends on violence or the threat of violence to keep himself or his hand picked successor in power so it would not be peaceful.

Threat of violence... you mean like law enforcement? Aren't there democracies all around the world that require violence to keep order?

Is is not an all or nothing proposition. A good system would place constraints on the party in power (e.g. constitution).

This is also basically the system we have in Canada and it has worked reasonable well for 100+ years.

This doesn't really justify why having FPTP system is better than electing a single president every 4 years. Certainly, such a system would be more effective at passing laws, minority governments are impossible (which is your main 'reason' for preferring FPTP over proportional representation), the system would be cheaper, and you would still be able to throw the government out every 4 years. You could still have a constitution that limits power, guarantees fair courts and reasonable rights & freedoms, etc.

Also, by what criteria are you determining if something has worked 'reasonably well'? Governments having 100% of the power with only 38% of the vote is 'reasonably well' to you? How does the FPTP system working 'reasonably well' prevent a proportional system from also working 'reasonably well'?

In Canada the MPs provide local representation - an essential part of a democracy in a country with diverse geography like Canada. What I would like to see is that MPs be given more power to restrain their party leaders. I don't see any need to increase the number of parties.

Why is local representation important, but not representation for the diverse political views of Canadians? Aren't local regions already represented by local governments? Why duplicate this in parliament?

As for increasing number of parties... are you really satisfied with the current parties? Many people dislike all of their current options.

[jacee]

That is why there are always limits to a leader's power. But up until that limit a country needs a system that allows change to happen. The US is in a situation where change is extremely difficult to achieve. Some argue that the Americans like it this way but that is a different discussion.

It's the only discussion.

Change per se is not the goal.

Change reflecting input of only 1 political ideology and imposed on the rest isn't the goal.

Change that is a result of consensus seeking in the interests of all Canadians across all political ideologies is the purpose.

PR is needed to break down the party silos and improve responsiveness of parliament

.

[TimG]

Threat of violence... you mean like law enforcement? Aren't there democracies all around the world that require violence to keep order?

Dictatorships suppress dissent. Democracies embrace it and provide a peaceful path for dissenters to take over the government even if the the current government disapproves. No other system of government offers this possibility.

Also, by what criteria are you determining if something has worked 'reasonably well'?

Canadian governments function. They get the stuff that needs doing done. They have provided a regulatory framework that allows a flourishing private sector while providing social services. Corruption, does exist, but it is relatively minor in most parts of the country. I would say that the onus is you to provide evidence that Canadian governance is not working?

Governments having 100% of the power with only 38% of the vote is 'reasonably well' to you? How does the FPTP system working 'reasonably well' prevent a proportional system from also working 'reasonably well'?

If you hire a senior manager to run your company you need to give that senior manager the freedom to run the company (within certain limits). If you want to interfere with every decision then you will end up with a mess. Proportional representation and the perpetual minority governments makes it impossible for the government to govern because every law requires complex (and often self serving) horse trading in order to pass. We see this in the US where they don't have proportional rep but they do have representatives that are free agents.

Why is local representation important, but not representation for the diverse political views of Canadians? Aren't local regions already represented by local governments? Why duplicate this in parliament?

Geography matters. People care more about what is happening down the street than what is happening on the other side of the continent and an a MP for Victoria can represents everyone in Victoria even if they did not vote for them simply because they live in the same region. This makes geography more important than variation in political opinion. Edited June 20, 2014 by TimG

[Bob Macadoo]

Proportional representation and the perpetual minority governments makes it impossible for the government to govern because every law requires complex (and often self serving) horse trading in order to pass.

The skewed view of PR you have is distorted by looking through a FPTP lens. Minority gov'ts can't govern now as they are always looking for a majority.....decisions are only made to attain that goal. If you remove that incentive (perpetual minority) then all that is left is "horse trading" rather than the ransom demands that happen now. With PR you find common ground where you can achieve it rather through rigid coalitions.

......and I'm not even truly sold on PR. I think we should modify FPTP to achieve the same end goal.

[TimG]

If you remove that incentive (perpetual minority) then all that is left is "horse trading" rather than the ransom demands that happen now. With PR you find common ground where you can achieve it rather through rigid coalitions.

I disagree. With PR the parties are always out for the best interest of the party. This means they demand compromises which are often bad for the country but good for the tiny slice of the population which the minority party represents. Now if minority governments frequently ended up with coalitions between 1st and 2nd place parties then I would agree that it could be good for the country. The trouble is it almost never works that way. Coalitions are always created by a major party handing out goodies to the various special interests represented by the minority parties. This leads to a tyranny of the minority which is far worse than what we have now. Edited June 20, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

If you hire a senior manager to run your company you need to give that senior manager the freedom to run the company (within certain limits). If you want to interfere with every decision then you will end up with a mess.

We are not hiring a senior manager to run the country.

We are electing 308 democratic representatives whose job it is to make laws for the whole country, in collaboration with each other.

A collaborative democracy is the opposite of a top down autocratic company.

You need to review your civics.

.

[TimG]

We are electing 308 democratic representatives whose job it is to make laws for the whole country, in collaboration with each other.

Which is geography needs to be represented in government. Now collaboration is great but the reality is many time decisions have to be made and there is no room for some half-baked compromise that does not offend anyone.

[jacee]

Which is geography needs to be represented in government.

Geography?

You think democracy is about representing geography?

Well there goes your credibility.

[Big Guy]

Which is geography needs to be represented in government. Now collaboration is great but the reality is many time decisions have to be made and there is no room for some half-baked compromise that does not offend anyone.

If you mean that all regions should be represented then I agree. That is why in the USA democracy, each state is entitled to two senators notwithstanding their population. The same concept was put in place in the number of reps per region in our Senate.

[Michael Hardner]

Opening yet another thread on PR in 'Federal Politics'

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24184-proportional-representation-discussion/

[jacee]

Opening yet another thread on PR in 'Federal Politics'

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24184-proportional-representation-discussion/

Not going there.

Face it Michael, regardless of your personal views and no matter how you try to isolate and dismiss PR, it is now very much an integral part of any discussion of electoral politics in Canada.

.

[Michael Hardner]

Not going there.

Face it Michael, regardless of your personal views and no matter how you try to isolate and dismiss PR, it is now very much an integral part of any discussion of electoral politics in Canada.

.

Not going where ? To that thread ?

[jacee]

Not going where ? To that thread ?

That's right. The discussion was occurring in the federal election thread where it belonged.

This thread can die like PR did in Ontario, after it was sabotaged by the Libs.

.

Edited January 4, 2015 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

That's right. The discussion was occurring in the federal election thread where it belonged.

.

smallc, I think, pointed out that it was a federal issue... so now there's a thread in Federal politics on PR, with several posts in it.

[Smallc]

Not going there.

Face it Michael, regardless of your personal views and no matter how you try to isolate and dismiss PR, it is now very much an integral part of any discussion of electoral politics in Canada.

.

It may be part of the discussion, but it isn't really a productive one. People change things when they aren't happy. That's why FPTP and probably, for now, the Harper Conservatives are here to stay.

[jacee]

It may be part of the discussion, but it isn't really a productive one. People change things when they aren't happy. That's why FPTP and probably, for now, the Harper Conservatives are here to stay.

You putting money on that?

[Smallc]

I'll respond to this in the election poll thread.