Ontario Referendum Proportional Representation

[-1=e^ipi]

It's mainly the Left wing parties who want PR, not because it would be more democratic, but because it would benefit them.

They're also mostly the people who want to make voting mandatory (ignorant, uncaring voters also benefit the Left).

Let's look at a 100 vote election using PR. First, acknolwedging that 30% of the voters don't pay any taxes we could be certain that 30 of those votes wouldn't even be up for grabs by any right wing party, by any party advocating fiscal conservatism or money management. So any conservative party would be going after the 70 remaining votes. But in order to win a majority, they'd need to get 51 of those 70, or almost 73% of the votes (excluding non-taxpayers). That would probably never happen. The Liberal party, on the other hand, would start out with 15-20 of those non-taxpayer votes. If they got 20, they would only need 44% of the remainder to form a majority. Even if they formed a minority (likely 95% of the time) they could almost certainly be able to pick up enough support to govern from the smaller parties. So PR would probably mean a Liberal Party government forever.

No, STV would mean permanent liberal government, not PR (see my earlier post).

The idea that PR would primarily benefit left wing parties in general in nonsense. Sure in the very short term in Canada, PR would be better for left wing parties such as the greens and the NDP. But the system itself doesn't inherently benefit the left. Before unite-the-right, the PCs and Alliance were greatly harmed by FPTP. Parties like the libertarian party and the freedom party still get zero seats. The left wing Bloc Quebecois greatly benefited from FPTP. Nationalist and Euro-skeptic parties in the recent European elections get under represented due to their non-proportional system. The 3rd largest party in the US, the libertarian party, never gets any representation in Congress or the Senate.

[jacee]

It's mainly the Left wing parties who want PR, not because it would be more democratic, but because it would benefit them.

They're also mostly the people who want to make voting mandatory (ignorant, uncaring voters also benefit the Left).

Only in your view. There are some pretty ignorant uncaring righties too.

Let's look at a 100 vote election using PR. First, acknolwedging that 30% of the voters don't pay any taxes we could be certain that 30 of those votes wouldn't even be up for grabs by any right wing party, by any party advocating fiscal conservatism or money management.

Their votes count as much as any.

So any conservative party would be going after the 70 remaining votes. But in order to win a majority, they'd need to get 51 of those 70, or almost 73% of the votes (excluding non-taxpayers). That would probably never happen.

Oh well!

The Liberal party, on the other hand, would start out with 15-20 of those non-taxpayer votes. If they got 20, they would only need 44% of the remainder to form a majority. Even if they formed a minority (likely 95% of the time) they could almost certainly be able to pick up enough support to govern from the smaller parties. So PR would probably mean a Liberal Party government forever.

So what you are saying is that Conservatives don't want PR because they don't appeal to enough Canadian voters to win a majority in that system, and they won't work with minor parties to make parliament work, but Liberals will.

You've just made an excellent case for PR.

24% of eligible Canadian voters

39% of voters

54% of the seats

=100% of the power

(Except when the Supreme Court asserts its power. )

That's the problem we need to solve.

Our representatives are expected to work with each other across party lines for the benefit of all Canadians, not just imposing an agenda on behalf of the 24% who voted for one right wing party.

.

[Argus]

So what you are saying is that Conservatives don't want PR because they don't appeal to enough Canadian voters to win a majority in that system,

I'm saying the nature of the present economic system, whereby almost one third of Canadians have absolutely no responsibility in supporting a government would lead to too much fiscal incompetence.

On the other hand, if they weren't allowed to vote - which they should not be - I could be convinced to reconsider.

[The_Squid]

I'm saying the nature of the present economic system, whereby almost one third of Canadians have absolutely no responsibility in supporting a government would lead to too much fiscal incompetence.

On the other hand, if they weren't allowed to vote - which they should not be - I could be convinced to reconsider.

A person on disability shouldn't be allowed to vote?

[Moonbox]

That's the problem we need to solve.

Our representatives are expected to work with each other across party lines for the benefit of all Canadians, not just imposing an agenda on behalf of the 24% who voted for one right wing party.

Our representatives need to work with each other to promote the interests of their ridings. The landscapes of Ontario and Canada, are so diverse in terms of geography, economy and culture, that FPTP is necessary to ensure outlying regions don't get shut out by the majority population in large urban centres. There's a reason that rural Ontario is largely a wasteland for the Liberals and, to a lesser extent, the NDP, and it's because those ridings get taxed to pay for services they don't receive even under the current system. Proportional representation would take what little power they maintain from their concentrated vote and essentially erase it in favor of the majority in GTA/Golden Horseshoe.

On top of the mish-mash of special interest group parties like the Greens, or the Communists, you'd now have something stupid like the Ontario equivalent of the Wild Rose promoting purely rural interests, fracturing the legislature into dysfunctional series of minority governments. What's worst about the whole thing is that one of these fringe parties may end up holding the balance in a key budget vote, and we may end up with truly stupid concessions counter to +90% of the population.

Stephen Harper isn't controlling Parliament Hill because the electoral system is unfair. He's controlling Parliament Hill because the people who zealously opposed to him are too stupid to vote for the most reasonable alternative.

[jacee]

I'm saying the nature of the present economic system, whereby almost one third of Canadians have absolutely no responsibility in supporting a government would lead to too much fiscal incompetence.

On the other hand, if they weren't allowed to vote - which they should not be - I could be convinced to reconsider.

Hmmm ... speaking of ignorant and uncaring ... that's disgusting!

Seniors and others deprived of their vote because they don't currently pay enough taxes?

Why don't we just go back to 'only landed British gentry' can vote!

.

I'd like to see your data on the '30% pay no taxes'.

Edited June 18, 2014 by jacee

[Bob Macadoo]

I'm saying the nature of the present economic system, whereby almost one third of Canadians have absolutely no responsibility in supporting a government would lead to too much fiscal incompetence.On the other hand, if they weren't allowed to vote - which they should not be - I could be convinced to reconsider.

Well I'll out crazy you.....only those who served should be allowed to vote. How about any resident who pays > $5000 in income tax; regardless of citizenship since money talks and bull$hit walks afterall?

[-1=e^ipi]

Our representatives need to work with each other to promote the interests of their ridings.

something stupid like the Ontario equivalent of the Wild Rose promoting purely rural interests

Having every single representative only try to promote the interests of their ridings leads to regionalism and leads to a system that cannot effectively deal with issues of externalities, public goods, common goods or lack of property rights (something which government needs to solve because the free market cannot as these issues lead to market failure). It also overly favors regionalism and regionalist parties like the Bloc Quebecois.

Also, aren't you contradicting yourself a bit by saying that representatives need to promote the interests of their ridings but then saying that having parties that promote regional interests is bad?

[-1=e^ipi]

What's worst about the whole thing is that one of these fringe parties may end up holding the balance in a key budget vote, and we may end up with truly stupid concessions counter to +90% of the population.

I want to see justification for this claim because it makes 0 sense to me. Why would the fringe parties hold the 'balance of power' as opposed to the centrist or main-stream parties? You think that the communists, greens and libertarians will work together very easily?

If you have proportional representation, there will be more parties, which means that each party will have less negotiation power since there are many other parties to negotiate with. This reduces the ability of a single party to 'hold the balance of power' and dictate policy. In much the same way as a free market with many consumers and producers, everyone becomes a price taker rather than a price setter.

[jacee]

Our representatives need to work with each other to promote the interests of their ridings. The landscapes of Ontario and Canada, are so diverse in terms of geography, economy and culture, that FPTP is necessary to ensure outlying regions don't get shut out by the majority population in large urban centres. There's a reason that rural Ontario is largely a wasteland for the Liberals and, to a lesser extent, the NDP, and it's because those ridings get taxed to pay for services they don't receive even under the current system. Proportional representation would take what little power they maintain from their concentrated vote and essentially erase it in favor of the majority in GTA/Golden Horseshoe.

I don't think you understand what PR is.

PR isn't about population.

PR ensures that the number of seats a party holds in the HoC is proportionate to the percentage of the popular vote they received.

.

Also, MP's represent their constituents ... true.

They also make laws for the whole country.

.

Edited June 18, 2014 by jacee

[Moonbox]

Having every single representative only try to promote the interests of their ridings leads to regionalism and leads to a system that cannot effectively deal with issues of externalities

Regionalism is a fact of life in Canada, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. We don't have a largely homogeneous population spread out (relatively) evenly across a (relatively) small landscape with largely similar geography. We're not Germany. There are way too many differences from region to region and in a FPTP system, this regionalism can serve to moderate party platforms. A party too far out of line risks alienating the rest of Ontario/Canada, and will find itself on the outside looking in, with no input. In PR, no moderation is required. The regionalism intensifies and you end up with extremely focused party platforms that are looking to promote very specific agendas that, in some cases, the rest of the electorate might by zealously opposed to.

Also, aren't you contradicting yourself a bit by saying that representatives need to promote the interests of their ridings but then saying that having parties that promote regional interests is bad?

I didn't say that. I said that a PR system allows parties to run partisan agendas that make no pretense of appealing to the majority of the province/country.

I want to see justification for this claim because it makes 0 sense to me. Why would the fringe parties hold the 'balance of power' as opposed to the centrist or main-stream parties? You think that the communists, greens and libertarians will work together very easily?

I'm saying they COULD. Let's say, for example, that an Ontario Tea Party is born, and somehow manage to garner enough support across the province to give them a couple of seats in the legislature. Let's assume as well that the Liberals in Ontario finally fall out of favor due to scandal or whatever, and you have and an unpopular PC minority government just two seats shy of a majority. In this case, the Tea Party holds the balance of power. The amount of power those two Tea Party holds is now immense. Without their support, the PC government topples, so perhaps much-needed banking regulations get nixed to ensure the Tea Party supports the PC's, or maybe anti-coal legislation gets axed. That's the sort of stuff that can happen in a broken-up legislature.

I don't think you understand what PR is.

PR isn't about population.

PR ensures that the number of seats a party holds in the HoC is proportionate to the percentage of the popular vote they received.

So...the amount of representation is proportionate to the population of the voters that voted for them. Yeah, thanks. I get it. Maybe you need to read what you just wrote there.

Also, MP's represent their constituents ... true.

They also make laws for the whole country.

No, they work together to form some sort of consensus that makes laws for the whole country. If one MP puts a bill forward, he needs the support of the majority of the rest of the regions in the country.

The mistake that most anti-FPTP'ers make is that politics is all about getting specifically what they want, and that if that doesn't happen then the system is broken. It's not. That's just called being a baby.

When you vote, you need to vote for the person who has the best chance to do the most good (or least bad) for you. I like, and hate, parts of every party's platform. I wish I could take the parts I like from each party, combine them together to form a super-Moonbox-friendly party, and have them win an election. That is, unfortunately, never going to happen, in FPTP or in PR, so instead I just choose the party that's going to suck the least.

[On Guard for Thee]

With the governing Liberals getting a healthy Majority with only 38% of the popular vote, this won't addressed by the Ontario voters again, anytime soon.

I think that was exactly the same percentage Harper got last time.

[-1=e^ipi]

Regionalism is a fact of life in Canada, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. We don't have a largely homogeneous population spread out (relatively) evenly across a (relatively) small landscape with largely similar geography. We're not Germany.

What prevents regionalists from being elected under PR? I don't have a problem with regionalists being elected, I just have a problem with them having 100% of the political power. To be elected you have to explain to the constituents in a specific riding why you are the best candidate to represent that riding. But what if you have a candidate that is not so good at representing a single riding, but good at representing the entire country? What if this candidate has support across the entire country (like the green party) but does not have it localized enough to get a seat? You think they should get ZERO representation in parliament?

Why not mixed member proportional at least? You would still have the riding system, but it would at least allow non-regionalists to get elected and represented.

There are way too many differences from region to region and in a FPTP system, this regionalism can serve to moderate party platforms.

And is moderation necessarily a good thing? Sometimes the best position is an extremist position. Before the American Civil War, support for the abolishment of slavery was an extremist position. With the current parties represented in Parliament or Congress, opposing the finance of Islamist terrorists in Syria is an extremist position. In the Ontario Legislature, supporting the abolishment of the Catholic School System is an extremist position. In Iraq, being non-Shia Muslim is an extremist position (and as a result Sunni Terrorism has become rampant because the Sunnis do not feel sufficiently represented).

If a segment of a population doesn't feel represented by the political system then they are more likely to resort to other means to get that representation. I'd rather that there be a Sharia party, an Eco-Radicalist party, etc. represented in parliament then have Islamic Militants blowing up buildings and Eco-terrorists blowing up pipelines in Canada.

A party too far out of line risks alienating the rest of Ontario/Canada, and will find itself on the outside looking in, with no input.

A party that is too far out of line won't get sufficient representation under proportional representation to have a monopoly on power; and without other parties to negotiate with, they cannot implement their policies. On the other hand, with retarded systems like FPTP or the electoral college you get situations like in the USA where it is possible for people like Mike Huckabee to be elected and turn the USA into a Christian Theocracy.

In PR, no moderation is required.

Of course moderation is required. Parties need to negotiate with other parties and form coalitions in order to pass laws.

[-1=e^ipi]

I didn't say that. I said that a PR system allows parties to run partisan agendas that make no pretense of appealing to the majority of the province/country.

And what is wrong with that? Just because the green party doesn't appeal to the majority of the province it should have 0 representation in parliament? Why shouldn't extremists be represented? You'd rather alienate them and make the extremists more likely to resort to terrorism to get their views heard?

I'm saying they COULD. Let's say, for example, that an Ontario Tea Party is born, and somehow manage to garner enough support across the province to give them a couple of seats in the legislature. Let's assume as well that the Liberals in Ontario finally fall out of favor due to scandal or whatever, and you have and an unpopular PC minority government just two seats shy of a majority. In this case, the Tea Party holds the balance of power. The amount of power those two Tea Party holds is now immense. Without their support, the PC government topples, so perhaps much-needed banking regulations get nixed to ensure the Tea Party supports the PC's, or maybe anti-coal legislation gets axed. That's the sort of stuff that can happen in a broken-up legislature.

Your premise is false. If the PC government is just two seats shy of majority under proportional representation, that means they obtained over 48% of the vote in the previous election. Certainly that is much higher than the 38% that majority governments under Harper, Chretien, Trudeau, etc. have. By no reasonable definition is 48% 'unpopular'.

Secondly, if you have proportional representation, then there will be more parties (cause the system allows for more parties based on how it changes voter incentives). And since there will be more parties, it is less likely that you will have a single party with 48% of the vote.

Thirdly, if this extremist party is so extreme, then the PC government can always work with the liberals instead of the Tea Party.

So your 'example' is complete nonsense.

The mistake that most anti-FPTP'ers make is that politics is all about getting specifically what they want, and that if that doesn't happen then the system is broken. It's not. That's just called being a baby.

Right... Let's review the main 'reasons' that pro-FPTP'ers or pro-STV'ers gave in support of their positions.

- Only moderate or centrist positions should be represented. We can't have extremists having a voice in parliament and having a say in the political process.

- We need the MPs to represent specific ridings so that all the regions of Canada are represented. We can't have any non-regionalists having any representation in parliament.

- Proportional Representation favours left-wingism and therefore it is bad. All those left-wingers are whiners. And of course the unite-the-right thing never happened and had nothing to do with FPTP...

I've debunked all this nonsense and it sounds to me that the supporters of FPTP or STV primarily want their political views to have a monopoly on representation in parliament. Where as people that support proportional representation want EVERYONE to have support in parliament (be they liberal, conservative, communist, green, libertarian, sharia-law advocates, marijuana party, etc.).

When you vote, you need to vote for the person who has the best chance to do the most good (or least bad) for you.

Who are you to decide what criteria people should use to determine who to vote for? Some people might vote altruistically rather than selfishly. Some people might prefer to spoil their ballot. Some people might want to flip a coin. Some people might vote for the party rather than the mp. Different people have different preferences and the system should try to represent them as much as possible.

I like, and hate, parts of every party's platform. I wish I could take the parts I like from each party, combine them together to form a super-Moonbox-friendly party, and have them win an election. That is, unfortunately, never going to happen, in FPTP or in PR, so instead I just choose the party that's going to suck the least.

Actually, you might under a proportional representation system because it allows for more parties, thus more options to choose from. Plus you won't have to worry about the strategic voting nonsense.

[Moonbox]

And what is wrong with that? Just because the green party doesn't appeal to the majority of the province it should have 0 representation in parliament?

It's not just the majority that doesn't buy what they're saying. It's something like +90% of voters. That's a pretty good reason for them not to have any representation in parliament.

Why shouldn't extremists be represented? You'd rather alienate them and make the extremists more likely to resort to terrorism to get their views heard?

Extremists now? Terrorism? That was the logical progression of this argument for you? Sure, I'll bite. Extremists shouldn't be represented in parliament because their agendas are so strongly opposed by so large a majority of Canadians. When 90+% of voters are fully opposed them and their desires, it's democracy at work making sure they don't come to fruition.

Your premise is false. If the PC government is just two seats shy of majority under proportional representation, that means they obtained over 48% of the vote in the previous election. Certainly that is much higher than the 38% that majority governments under Harper, Chretien, Trudeau, etc. have. By no reasonable definition is 48% 'unpopular'.

Go back and read what that quote was responding to. You asked how a fringe party can end up holding the balance of power in a PR system. I gave a simplified (but plausible) response to highlight the danger inherit in such a system. Whether they hold 48% or 38% is completely irrelevant to that. Change the numbers to 38% for the PC's and 13% for the Tea Party if it pleases you.

Thirdly, if this extremist party is so extreme, then the PC government can always work with the liberals instead of the Tea Party.

You assume that the opposition is ready to cooperate, which is more often than not unlikely.

So your 'example' is complete nonsense.

More like your critical thinking skills.

- Only moderate or centrist positions should be represented. We can't have extremists having a voice in parliament and having a say in the political process.

Yes. Extremists are generally dumb, hateful, or just plain ignorant. If they're too dumb, hateful or ignorant to understand that can't push their views on the overwhelming majority of voters who are completely opposed to them, that's their fault, not the system's.

- Proportional Representation favours left-wingism and therefore it is bad. All those left-wingers are whiners. And of course the unite-the-right thing never happened and had nothing to do with FPTP...

Again, your poor logic and critical thinking skills are really highlighted here. PR doesn't favour the left or the right. Your hangup on this is indicative of your bias on the issue. Can we assume that you're pretty young? Your unite-the-right comment seems to forget the fact that your so-called 'right' was 'united' for 100 years before it briefly fractured after Chretien took over.

I've debunked all this nonsense

The only thing you've done is proven that you're a weak debater and don't have a strong grasp on how to argue effectively.

and it sounds to me that the supporters of FPTP or STV primarily want their political views to have a monopoly on representation in parliament. Where as people that support proportional representation want EVERYONE to have support in parliament (be they liberal, conservative, communist, green, libertarian, sharia-law advocates, marijuana party, etc.).

There's a perfect example of how childish your thought process is. When you can boil it down to the simple statement that everyone who disagrees with you is trying to somehow suppress democracy, we get a pretty clear picture of the type of mind we're dealing with.

Who are you to decide what criteria people should use to determine who to vote for? Some people might vote altruistically rather than selfishly. Some people might prefer to spoil their ballot. Some people might want to flip a coin. Some people might vote for the party rather than the mp. Different people have different preferences and the system should try to represent them as much as possible.

You can vote however you want. For the record, there's no such thing as a truly 'altruistic' vote, but that's another debate altogether. Regardless, all of the voting determination examples you gave there are frankly just plain stupid. The system in no way should be designed to cater to the stupid. Being stupid and ignorant about your vote is a choice.

Actually, you might under a proportional representation system because it allows for more parties, thus more options to choose from. Plus you won't have to worry about the strategic voting nonsense.

No, I don't want PR. I made that clear. Strategic voting isn't nonsense either. It's common sense on the most basic level. The people that fail to realize this have nobody to blame but themselves. Wetting your bed over it after the fact doesn't change anything.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Moonbox

[Argus]

Well I'll out crazy you.....only those who served should be allowed to vote. How about any resident who pays > $5000 in income tax; regardless of citizenship since money talks and bull$hit walks afterall?

Fine!

[-1=e^ipi]

It's not just the majority that doesn't buy what they're saying. It's something like +90% of voters. That's a pretty good reason for them not to have any representation in parliament.

Not any? So 0? Wtf...

Sure, I'll bite. Extremists shouldn't be represented in parliament because their agendas are so strongly opposed by so large a majority of Canadians. When 90+% of voters are fully opposed them and their desires, it's democracy at work making sure they don't come to fruition.

You haven't really provided much justification beyond 'I don't think extremists should have any representation because the majority of the electorate will disagree with them'. But what is your justification for this 'justification'? You have not provided any. I on the other hand have given reasons why they should have representation.

Go back and read what that quote was responding to. You asked how a fringe party can end up holding the balance of power in a PR system. I gave a simplified (but plausible) response to highlight the danger inherit in such a system. Whether they hold 48% or 38% is completely irrelevant to that. Change the numbers to 38% for the PC's and 13% for the Tea Party if it pleases you.

Your 'example' didn't make sense and I gave 3 reasons why. Even in your 'new' example, you still haven't explained how this Tea Party holds the 'balance of power' where as all the other parties in the legislature do not. Can you give a definition of what you mean by 'balance of power'? Furthermore, if those two parties had a combined total of 51% of the electorate vote for them in the previous election then they had the support of the majority of the people so should have the legitimacy to make policies. 51% cannot be considered 'unpopular'.

You assume that the opposition is ready to cooperate, which is more often than not unlikely.

Proof of this BS claim?

You could simply look at how proportional systems have worked in other countries (Germany, New Zealand, etc.) to see that over time the different parties become willing to negotiate with other parties (and also the number of parties increases) after you move from a non-proportional system. You seem to be stuck in the false mentality that somehow if we change to proportional that the viable political parties in Canada will be the same and act the same.

Yes. Extremists are generally dumb, hateful, or just plain ignorant. If they're too dumb, hateful or ignorant to understand that can't push their views on the overwhelming majority of voters who are completely opposed to them, that's their fault, not the system's.

So this is like some bigoted version of the golden mean fallacy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

And we aren't talking about 'pushing their views on the overwhelming majority' cause in order to pass laws you would need to support of other parties such that the combined percentage of the vote of the parties that support the policy exceeds 50%. We are talking about having some non-zero representation to express different view points in parliament.

Again, your poor logic and critical thinking skills are really highlighted here. PR doesn't favour the left or the right.

... I was listing 'reasons' that opponents of proportional representation were giving in the thread. I do not agree with the idea that PR favors left or right. Learn Reading Comprehension.

There's a perfect example of how childish your thought process is. When you can boil it down to the simple statement that everyone who disagrees with you is trying to somehow suppress democracy, we get a pretty clear picture of the type of mind we're dealing with.

I made a conjecture (not a claim) based on posts people provided in this thread and in your last post you have provided more evidence for it. Because you specifically have said that you think that extremists views should have 0 representation in parliament and then gave your bigoted justification that you think all extremists are dumb, ignorant and hateful.

By many measures I am an extremist based upon various political positions that I take on various issues. What you are saying is that I and anyone who thinks like me should have zero representation in parliament (even if we make up a significant share of the electorate), while you and people that think like you should be over represented in parliament. Furthermore, you say that I am 'hateful, dumb and ignorant' without justification and you apply these same claims to other fringe groups such as greens, libertarian, communists, etc.

Why stop there? Maybe you should advocate implementing some thought police that will make it illegal to think differently from the majority of the population. Then we can protect society from dangerous ideas!

For the record, there's no such thing as a truly 'altruistic' vote,

Yes there is. Different people vote using different criteria.

Strategic voting isn't nonsense either. It's common sense on the most basic level. The people that fail to realize this have nobody to blame but themselves.

What are you trying to say here? That groups of people who do not vote strategically and then do not get support in parliament are not allowed to blame the system?

Edited June 19, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[Moonbox]

Not any? So 0? Wtf...

Yes. Zero.

You haven't really provided much justification beyond 'I don't think extremists should have any representation because the majority of the electorate will disagree with them'. But what is your justification for this 'justification'?

Read that sentence again. If you can't see why it's stupid, there's little hope that anyone is going to get through to you on this forum.

Your 'example' didn't make sense and I gave 3 reasons why. Even in your 'new' example, you still haven't explained how this Tea Party holds the 'balance of power' where as all the other parties in the legislature do not.

It could be any number of parties. The fact that I had to explain the whole balance of power thing to you in the first place is a good indication of how little you know about minority governments. If you need your hand held and to be taken step by step through every scenario, I'll just quit with you right now because you're not worth the time. Minority balances of power aren't something I made up. If you're saying that extremist parties should be given representation in the House, then those extremists could potentially find themselves in a situation where they hold the balance of power.

You seem to be stuck in the false mentality that somehow if we change to proportional that the viable political parties in Canada will be the same and act the same.

You seem to think that things would magically be better.

Yes there is. Different people vote using different criteria.

Voting for anything other than the best option available for your views is the only reasonable criteria. Your insistence otherwise is foolish.

What are you trying to say here? That groups of people who do not vote strategically and then do not get support in parliament are not allowed to blame the system?

Blame the system all you want if it makes you feel better. Just don't expect a lot of people to listen, care or have any sympathy for you guys when the vote doesn't go your way.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Moonbox

[-1=e^ipi]

Read that sentence again. If you can't see why it's stupid, there's little hope that anyone is going to get through to you on this forum.

Maybe my wording was unclear so I'll restate things: please justify your claim 'extremists should not have any representation because the majority of the electorate will disagree with them'.

It could be any number of parties. The fact that I had to explain the whole balance of power thing to you in the first place is a good indication of how little you know about minority governments. If you need your hand held and to be taken step by step through every scenario, I'll just quit with you right now because you're not worth the time. Minority balances of power aren't something I made up. If you're saying that extremist parties should be given representation in the House, then those extremists could potentially find themselves in a situation where they hold the balance of power.

Your claims of 'extremists having the balance of power' are nonsense even in your 'examples' because the extremist parties like the Tea Party are not the only party that can negotiate with the conservatives to get sufficient support to pass legislation. The conservatives can also negotiate with the NDP, the greens, the liberals, etc. And if the Tea Party is as extreme as you claim, then maybe the conservatives will prefer to negotiate with a less extreme party like the liberals.

You fail to define what you mean by 'balance of power' and the only thing I can gather is that 'balance of power' means 'possibility to form coalitions to create laws'. Well in that case every single party in the legislature, assuming no party has over 50% representation, holds the 'balance of power'.

You seem to think that things would magically be better.

It's not magic. It is what is logically expected when you change the incentives of voters due to electoral reform.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#Evaluating_voting_systems_using_criteria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromega_rule

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

Voting for anything other than the best option available for your views is the only reasonable criteria.

Now your claim has morphed to include 'for your views'. Well different people may use different criteria in their 'views'.

Blame the system all you want if it makes you feel better. Just don't expect a lot of people to listen, care or have any sympathy for you guys when the vote doesn't go your way.

There is a difference between the vote not going 'your way' and a significant segment of the population not getting any (let alone fair) representation for their votes.

[Moonbox]

Maybe my wording was unclear so I'll restate things: please justify your claim 'extremists should not have any representation because the majority of the electorate will disagree with them'.

Your wording was terrible, as was your question. What about my claim needs justification or clarification? Extremists, by definition, hold views or promote agendas so far out of the mainstream, or violate moral standards to such a degree, that the majority runs heavily against them. That's what extremism is. If you're asking what my justification is for not giving them representation, it's because the overwhelming majority is against them. That's all the justification that's required.

Your claims of 'extremists having the balance of power' are nonsense even in your 'examples' because the extremist parties like the Tea Party are not the only party that can negotiate with the conservatives to get sufficient support to pass legislation. The conservatives can also negotiate with the NDP, the greens, the liberals, etc. And if the Tea Party is as extreme as you claim, then maybe the conservatives will prefer to negotiate with a less extreme party like the liberals.

Again, your naive belief in the good will of the opposition and their desire to cooperate is adorable, but also completely ignorant to politicking and partisanship that actually goes on. Take the NDP in the Ontario election, for example. The Liberals negotiated in good faith with the NDP and prepared an NDP-friendly budget, and the NDP voted against it because the polls seemed favorable.

You fail to define what you mean by 'balance of power' and the only thing I can gather is that 'balance of power' means 'possibility to form coalitions to create laws'. Well in that case every single party in the legislature, assuming no party has over 50% representation, holds the 'balance of power'.

I don't need to define balance of power. It's pretty simple concept. Your confusion over it, along with a great many other things, is a hurdle you're going to need to vault all by yourself.

It's not magic. It is what is logically expected when you change the incentives of voters due to electoral reform.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#Evaluating_voting_systems_using_criteria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromega_rule

Here's another great example of how poor your grasp is of basic argumentation. Linking three separate wikipedia articles defining various political theories literally does nothing to support your argument. You make it hard to take you seriously when you do stuff like that.

Now your claim has morphed to include 'for your views'. Well different people may use different criteria in their 'views'.

My claim didn't morph. You're just getting yourself hung up on wording and having trouble processing simple statements in the contexts in which they're presented.

There is a difference between the vote not going 'your way' and a significant segment of the population not getting any (let alone fair) representation for their votes.[/url]

Nothing about the system is unfair. It's a system and it's not designed to treat any specific party or group unfairly. Voters' failure to understand the system or make rational decisions pertaining to it isn't unfair either. It's just ignorance and stupidity.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Moonbox

[-1=e^ipi]

Your wording was terrible, as was your question. What about my claim needs justification or clarification?

Well because I don't agree with your claim. I don't think that just because the majority disagrees with another group, that the other group should not have any representation. So you need to justify why your claim is true.

Take the NDP in the Ontario election, for example. The Liberals negotiated in good faith with the NDP and prepared an NDP-friendly budget, and the NDP voted against it because the polls seemed favorable.

This may be surprising to you, but Ontario doesn't have proportional representation. So your 'example' is meaningless.

I don't need to define balance of power. It's pretty simple concept.

Lol, I guess you are too good for defining things then... If you make claims, and you use unclear definitions, define what you mean when asked.

Nothing about the system is unfair.

Yes, yes it is unfair. The green party for example gets 0% representation despite 5%+ support.

My claim didn't morph. You're just getting yourself hung up on wording and having trouble processing simple statements in the contexts in which they're presented.

It did morph. If you want to be understood then be clear and clearly define wtf you mean.

Voters' failure to understand the system or make rational decisions pertaining to it isn't unfair either. It's just ignorance and stupidity.

How are voters failing to understand the system? Because they vote differently from you?

[TimG]

Yes, yes it is unfair. The green party for example gets 0% representation despite 5%+ support.

It is only "unfair" if you don't understand what the point of democracy is. The point of democracy is not to ensure that every opinion has to be represented in government. The point of democracy is to provide a peaceful means of choosing who gets to run the government.

Given that objective it is more important to have a system where a single group of people are given the authority to run things they way they think it should be done and if they screw up then they get tossed out after 4 years and another group will be given a go. Proportional representation destroys any accountability because no single group has the power to do anything meaningful which means they can't be held to account for failures to do what needs to be done.

Edited June 20, 2014 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

The point of democracy is not to ensure that every opinion has to be represented in government. The point of democracy is to provide a peaceful means of choosing who gets to run the government.

Clearly I don't understand 'what the point of democracy' is by your definition. Wtf kind of definition is this? A dictator that peacefully chooses himself to run the government satisfies this definition.

Given that objective it is more important to have a system where a single group of people are given the authority to run things they way they think it should be done and if they screw up then they get tossed out after 4 years and another group will be given a go.

If this is the case, why not get rid of parliament and the senate and just elect a president every 4 years. This president will have the authority to make all laws and appoint anyone he/she wants to government.

Proportional representation destroys any accountability because no single group has the power to do anything meaningful which means they can't be held to account for failures to do what needs to be done.

Couldn't you also say 'FPTP destroys any accountability because no single MP has the power to do anything meaningful which means they can't be held to account for failures to do what needs to be done'? Therefore we should get ride of MPs and ridings and just elect a single president? Certainly would be cheaper than having 338 MPs...

[jacee]

It is only "unfair" if you don't understand what the point of democracy is. The point of democracy is not to ensure that every opinion has to be represented in government. The point of democracy is to provide a peaceful means of choosing who gets to run the government.

Given that objective it is more important to have a system where a single group of people are given the authority to run things they way they think it should be done and if they screw up then they get tossed out after 4 years and another group will be given a go. Proportional representation destroys any accountability because no single group has the power to do anything meaningful which means they can't be held to account for failures to do what needs to be done.

Quite a bit off the mark, TimG.

Our democracy is about representing the views of all of the people all of the time. It is necessarily complex and diverse to avoid all power being vested in one person (dictator) or group (oligarchy).

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.

You need to review your Civics lessons. Maybe there should be a 'voter's test to ensure that people grasp the fundamentals of democracy.

.

[TimG]

Clearly I don't understand 'what the point of democracy' is by your definition. Wtf kind of definition is this? A dictator that peacefully chooses himself to run the government satisfies this definition.

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. In inherent in the definition of democracy is the ability to peacefully put a group of people that is not beholden to the current holders of power. I should have added that qualification.

If this is the case, why not get rid of parliament and the senate and just elect a president every 4 years. This president will have the authority to make all laws and appoint anyone he/she wants to government.

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.

The US also elects a president with the power to run the country within existing laws but new laws require a approval of congress. Unfortunately, congress consists of a bunch of free agents who's votes can be swayed by lobby groups. The net result is the US has a system where it is nearly impossible to get anything done that disrupts the status quo.

Couldn't you also say 'FPTP destroys any accountability because no single MP has the power to do anything meaningful which means they can't be held to account for failures to do what needs to be done'? Therefore we should get ride of MPs and ridings and just elect a single president? Certainly would be cheaper than having 338 MPs.

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. Edited June 20, 2014 by TimG