One shot at democracy in Ontario?

[Canapathy]

And PR adds the ill of encouraging formation of marginal parties, so that they canl,l with minimal support elbow their way to the table. Also, as was pointed out above, PR means that the politicians, not people at the local level, are choosing the riding candidates.

I don't think you understand how MMP works either.

Under MMP the same local riding associations still choose their local candidates....and the people still elect one local candidate to represent their riding.

Plus parties must either win a local riding or achieve 5% or more of the vote to "elbow their way to the table". That's not exactly marginal, in fact it's fair and equal.

[Mad_Michael]

But the question is, when it comes to proportional representation, how do you address the institutionalisation of backroom coalition deals where the smallest parties hold the power? As I noted above, rule by 40% may be a travesty, but rule by 5% is definitely worse.

I don't understand your opposition to coalitions. I also don't understand how you think a party can rule with 5%.

Let's say the governing party is elected with 35% of the vote. When trying to pass bills they obviously have to receive support from 1 or more opposition parties. Popular bills pass easily, less popular bills take compromise or do not pass....a lot like our what occurs in a minority government situation.

The largest party in an election gets 45% of the seats in an election. They need a coalition partner. One party has 5% of the seats. That one little party with 5% calls the shots as the terms of their support. If you don't give them what they want, your 45% party government will fall. This is how small parties with marginal support can dominate the political agenda with their narrow interests.

And it is to be noted that an increase in the number of small parties and frequency of coalition governments has occured in every jurisdiction to adopt any form of 'proportional rep'.

Thus, the rule of tiny marginal parties becomes the norm.

Like I said, 40% 'majority' governments may be less than ideal, but 5% parties ruling parliament through coalition blackmail is worse.

And what about the process by which coalition governments are essentially incapable of cutting anything?

All votes are public and politicians must still face the electorate every 4 years. The opposition will hang itself if it refuses to pass popular bills.

You obviously haven't studied the recent history of failed reform policies in European coalition governments.

If any proposed policy reforms require a 'cutback', coalition governments find it almost impossible to do it. Reform is only possible where no 'cutback' is promised. The structure of coalition governments usually makes it so that at least one of the coalition partners is dependent upon the constituency that is dependent upon opposing that particular cutback. There is always a coalition partner available to defend every pig at the trough.

The voters can get annoyed at this, but it doesn't matter much. The same parties get back into power and make the same deals with the same coalition partners and re-construct the same government even though the electorate rejected the last one.

I could also ask the reverse question. Under our current system what prevents a government from ramming through very unpopular motions because it was granted a false majority government after receiving only 40% of the vote?

Absolutely nothing. That's what they do every day. We call it government.

After four or five years if we don't like their rule, we throw the bums out. Under our present system, their ability to cobble a coalition and sneak back into power against the public's wishes is curtailed - quite unlike proportional rep systems.

And how do you reconcile the fact that proportional rep systems protect the jobs of politicians the electorate tries hard to vote out of office?

I want responsibility in Parliament. I cherish the ability to vote them out of office. Proportional rep systems prevent this and give job security to politicans.

Please explain how MMP would give politicians job security.

I hate McGuinty's government and most particularly, some two-faced lying cabinet minister in my own riding.

In the next election, all my neighbours get together and we all plan to vote against the Liberal cabinet minister who represents our riding. Sure enough, we send him to defeat - replaced by some nameless Tory or NDPer or whatever. So what happens now? That defeated Liberal cabinet minister will likely get put back into the Legislature appointed by the Liberal party 'list' from the proportional rep system.

Thus, the will of the people to throw that particular bum out can easily be thwarted by the party elites. That's why they like it so much and I hate it.

I think it ought to be a good rule that no one may sit in Parliament without successfully winning an election in which their name is on the ballot. Letting political parties appoint 'lists' of party toadies to sit in the Legislature - at the will of the party's choice - is a travesity of the principle of democracy.

[Canapathy]

The largest party in an election gets 45% of the seats in an election. They need a coalition partner. One party has 5% of the seats. That one little party with 5% calls the shots as the terms of their support. If you don't give them what they want, your 45% party government will fall. This is how small parties with marginal support can dominate the political agenda with their narrow interests.

In your example 1 party with 5% of the seats didn't defeat a motion. The combined parties holding 55% of the seats defeated it.

You obviously haven't studied the recent history of failed reform policies in European coalition governments.

If any proposed policy reforms require a 'cutback', coalition governments find it almost impossible to do it. Reform is only possible where no 'cutback' is promised. The structure of coalition governments usually makes it so that at least one of the coalition partners is dependent upon the constituency that is dependent upon opposing that particular cutback. There is always a coalition partner available to defend every pig at the trough.

Again, one party representing a special interest with low number of seats cannot defeat any motion on it's own. If the motion of any party is defeated it is done so by the majority.

In our minority federal parliament Harper was able to cut funding to some women's interests, literacy programs and environmental projects despite having less than 50% of the seats.

I hate McGuinty's government and most particularly, some two-faced lying cabinet minister in my own riding.

In the next election, all my neighbours get together and we all plan to vote against the Liberal cabinet minister who represents our riding. Sure enough, we send him to defeat - replaced by some nameless Tory or NDPer or whatever. So what happens now? That defeated Liberal cabinet minister will likely get put back into the Legislature appointed by the Liberal party 'list' from the proportional rep system.

Using your example and for the sake of this argument let's assume you support the Tories.

Under our current system:

Your riding is held by a Liberal cabinet minister who despite not representing your views, is your only voice at Queen's Park...thus you have no representation. In Oct your riding tosses the Liberal and elects a Tory. Now you have a voice at Queen's Park but the other 60% of your riding no longer has representation.

Under MMP:

You toss the Liberal cabinet minister as your local representative and replace him with a Tory. Based on the popular vote let's assume the Libs are actually owed some seats and that same cabinet minister is high enough up on the list to receive an 'at large' seat. Now you have your local Tory voice at Queen's Park plus any ‘at large’ Tories and that ridingless Liberal now represents the views of all the Liberal supporters in your riding and all others that no longer have a local voice. Plus there are likely some 'at large' NDPers representing the orange vote in your riding as well.

In the next election if your riding tosses the Tory and replaces him with that same old cabinet minister you despise you still have 'at large' Tories you can contact.

Do you see the difference? That Liberal you despise is still loved by some Liberal supporters. If defeated locally he no longer represents you but now works on behalf of people that agree with the Liberal platform.

In the end MMP provides you with more choice, fairer results and more representation, in the correct proportion.

[Canapathy]

So if they don't count the votes for the losing candidates, how do they know who won?

Nice one.

[Mad_Michael]

In your example 1 party with 5% of the seats didn't defeat a motion. The combined parties holding 55% of the seats defeated it.

That's semantic.

The motion wouldn't be defeated if the tiny coalition party didn't demand it.

Coalition governments mean rule by the smallest minorities. Poprortional rep systems make coalitions the rule, not an exception. Spin all you like.

In our minority federal parliament Harper was able to cut funding to some women's interests, literacy programs and environmental projects despite having less than 50% of the seats.

We don't have proportional rep or the 10 party coalitions that proportional rep leads to.

Thus, our government functions.

Using your example and for the sake of this argument let's assume you support the Tories.

Why don't you reply to the argument at hand rather than just ignoring it and changing the subject? The argument you give is just a repeat of crap already posted.

Proportional rep systems are designed to protect party elites from the indignity of being thrown out. That makes proportional rep systems anti-democratic by definition.

Do you see the difference?

None whatsoever.

All I see is a government trying to engineer the system to protect their own against my desire to see the bums thown out of office and some people arguing that less is more and up is down.

That Liberal you despise is still loved by some Liberal supporters. If defeated locally he no longer represents you but now works on behalf of people that agree with the Liberal platform.

Not if a majority of the constituents want this bum thrown out of office.

If he's popular with some other voters, he can run in that riding in the next election.

In the end MMP provides you with more choice, fairer results and more representation, in the correct proportion.

No it does not. Fairness is pure political spin and entirely in the eye of the beholder.

Fact is, it makes politicans less accountable to the electorate that ends the discussion in my book. If the politicians like it, that should be your first clue that it screws you.

[M.Dancer]

Quite right. Consider Israel. Israel is for the most part a nation of secular jews who would be quite happy dancing every friday night and having bacon cheese burgers on saturday ......

But becasue of PR the ultra religious parties get seats ...so any party that wants to form a government must include the ultra religious in their cabinets or at very least allow the ultra religious concessions that the majority of israelis would rather be ignored.....

[Canapathy]

That's semantic.

The motion wouldn't be defeated if the tiny coalition party didn't demand it.

Coalition governments mean rule by the smallest minorities. Poprortional rep systems make coalitions the rule, not an exception. Spin all you like.

No Spin...just math. In your example every opposition party had to oppose the motion which means the wishes of the majority of Canadians are upheld.

In our minority federal parliament Harper was able to cut funding to some women's interests, literacy programs and environmental projects despite having less than 50% of the seats.

We don't have proportional rep or the 10 party coalitions that proportional rep leads to.

Thus, our government functions.

Right, coalition governments can function...we finally agree on something.

Using your example and for the sake of this argument let's assume you support the Tories.

Why don't you reply to the argument at hand rather than just ignoring it and changing the subject? The argument you give is just a repeat of crap already posted.

I'm a little new and not familiar with you Mike I didn't realize that you are irrational. Read the example again and you'll realize that I didn't change the subject in anyway, I just neutralized your argument.

Proportional rep systems are designed to protect party elites from the indignity of being thrown out. That makes proportional rep systems anti-democratic by definition.

Your anger and ignorance dominate your reason. PR elects parties in proportion to how the votes are cast...that's it. MMP specifically combines a PR system with one that allows for regional representation as well. There are perfectly rational reasons for prefering a winner take all system like FPTP... If you would like I can give you a couple so you can oppose fairer systems with more sound reasoning.

1) Changing the electoral system requires constitutional change, which is time consuming and expensive.

2) This one only works if you support either the Liberals, Conservatives or the Bloc. First Past The Post makes it very difficult for supporters of a party to gain any reprentation unless they are very mainstream or concentrated in one area. Thus, if you don't care about fairness or equality FPTP is great for the 3 parties mentioned as it does give them much undeserved power.

Be careful when using argument 2 though because it also points out that our current system actually favours localized regional fringe parties versus small parties with national support. That's why the Bloc is able to do so well. Once they even formed the official opposition despite finishing fourth place in popular vote.

Hell now that the Reform party is re - forming, a split in the right vote combined with a stronger Green and Orange showing could very well lead to a Bloc win. That's why I think it's better to count every vote and treat them equally than to just throw out 60% of all votes cast.

[August1991]

Under FPTP you have one ballot, with one vote for a local canidate. That's it. If you did not cast a ballot for the winner your vote was meaningless and you have no representation in Ottawa or in this case Queen's Park.

If I did cast my ballot for the winner, my ballot was also meaningless.

Of course I understand MMP, Canapathy. But I don't think you understand my somewhat subtle point.

Please explain to me how my one, single, solitary, lonely ballot will change who gets to sit in the Legislature. IOW, what is the practical difference if I choose to stay at home or if I choose to put an X beside a name?

Whether this is MMP or FPTP, it's unlikely (ie. impossible) that my single ballot will ever be decisive. Hence, my voting changes nothing.

Canapathy, you had better understand my point if you have any hope of advocating more broadly this new, proposed voting scheme.

PR elects parties in proportion to how the votes are cast...that's it. MMP specifically combines a PR system with one that allows for regional representation as well.

That is somewhat inexact.

In PR, each block of, say, 40,000 votes entitles a party to have one seat in the legislature. IOW, if Party A gets 85,000 votes and Party B gets 95,000 votes, both parties would have two members in the legislature.

Now then, if I had voted for Party B instead of Party A, the totals now would be Party A 84,999 votes and Party B with 95,001 votes. Both parties would still get two legislative members however and my decision to change allegiance would have no effect on the outcome.

Edited July 11, 2007 by August1991

[Canapathy]

Are you saying that since one individual vote is almost always meaningless under any system why bother changing the system?

[jbg]

Your argument does not make any sense whatsoever. FPTP does not give you any greater chance for change than MMP, in fact it gives you less. Do you understand how MMP works?

*****

MMP provides more choice, fairer results and stronger representation than FPTP.

Except that the local EDA or riding conventions at which the candidate is selected would be gone, replaced by some slate of party honchos picked at the top. Thus, any element of direct democracy would be gone.

[Canapathy]

Not true. The mixed member proportional system recommended by the Citizens Council for Ontario still has one local candidate for each riding. That local candidate for each party will still be selected by the local riding associations.

[Mad_Michael]

Not true. The mixed member proportional system recommended by the Citizens Council for Ontario still has one local candidate for each riding. That local candidate for each party will still be selected by the local riding associations.

And if they are defeated they can be appointed by the list.

And that is a travesty of democracy.

An elite system designed by the elites, for the elites.

The present system is ugly. The proposed changes are much uglier.

Come October, I think it is far more important to defeat this nonsense than it is to throw McGuinty & his whole second-rate government out on their collective ass. That being said, I suppose it would be nice to do both!

Edited July 12, 2007 by Mad_Michael

[Canapathy]

It is often said that Canadians do not elect governments, they defeat them. Your comments echo that sentiment. It's a sad situation, mainly caused by the first past the post system, when people are often forced to vote against a candidate rather than for their own representation.

PR has nothing to do with protecting the party elites. In fact, a nice side effect of PR systems is that the make up of the government more closely emulates that of the population. Party lists tend to include more women and more minorites than our current old white male dominated system. In reality, PR loosens the grip the old boys club has on politics just a little bit.

Edited July 12, 2007 by Canapathy

[M.Dancer]

In fact, a nice side effect of PR systems is that the make up of the government more closely emulates that of the population.

Statistics show that up to 10% of the population have a metal illness.

[Mad_Michael]

It is often said that Canadians do not elect governments, they defeat them. Your comments echo that sentiment. It's a sad situation, mainly caused by the first past the post system, when people are often forced to vote against a candidate rather than for their own representation.

PR has nothing to do with protecting the party elites. In fact, a nice side effect of PR systems is that the make up of the government more closely emulates that of the population. Party lists tend to include more women and more minorites than our current old white male dominated system. In reality, PR loosens the grip the old boys club has on politics just a little bit.

Women and minorities are just as capable of sucking up to the trough as any other wannabe politician. I have no need to see the makeup of Parliament reflect exact demographics. Demographics is no substitute for good government.

And you are correct. Canadians do like to defeat governments. That's what pseudo-democracy is all about.

You can't trust their word about future intentions, so voting for liars is silly.

But I sure can judge their term of office and decide to throw the bums out is the best policy.

Edited July 12, 2007 by Mad_Michael

[Mad_Michael]

In fact, a nice side effect of PR systems is that the make up of the government more closely emulates that of the population.

Statistics show that up to 10% of the population have a metal illness.

I'm pretty sure our present system already accounts for representation of this demographic. At least 30 in Parliament I'm sure.

[M.Dancer]

In fact, a nice side effect of PR systems is that the make up of the government more closely emulates that of the population.

Statistics show that up to 10% of the population have a metal illness.

I'm pretty sure our present system already accounts for representation of this demographic. At least 30 in Parliament I'm sure.

opps Mental illness.......

That was the campaign slogan of a paleo green party member back in the mid 80s in the Annex of Toronto....

1 in 10 Canadians has a Mental Illness, there are 302 members in Ottawa, Elect Gupta.

I think he polled 10% of the vote....

[August1991]

Are you saying that since one individual vote is almost always meaningless under any system why bother changing the system?

I'm not saying that the status quo is good or that we should not change the way we select our representatives.

I am saying that advocates of PR or MMP are wrong to claim that if we adopted such a voting system, our elections will be more democratic or individual votes will count more accurately.

Moreover, PR or MMP will not solve the fundamental problem of how one individual vote changes anything. In some ways, it may exacerbate the problem. In a small FPTP riding, I may have the faint hope that my one ballot (or my family's ballots) will make the difference in a particularly tight race. Under PR, I'm not so sure that I'd have such a faint hope.

With that said, I can see why small parties would want PR (or MMP). It would mean that they'll get more seats in the Legislature.

Canapathy, perhaps unknowingly, you have stumbled into a much larger and complex problem. When we speak of democratic government, what do we mean exactly? I would argue that our voting system is a minor aspect of what constitutes a democracy.

Edited July 12, 2007 by August1991

[M.Dancer]

Want a great way to expand democracy in Ontario?

Instead of 103 seats for grabs, up the number to 10,300.

And I bet still the wingnut parties wouldn't get a member elected.........

On the other hand, question period should be fun....

The House recognizes the honourable member for the Ports Condominiums

[Mad_Michael]

On the other hand, question period should be fun....

The House recognizes the honourable member for the Ports Condominiums

Don't mess with the Honourable member for Jane-Finch!

And the Honourable member for Church-Wellesley might liven things up a bit. The Legislature is rather drab.

[Canapathy]

I am saying that advocates of PR or MMP are wrong to claim that if we adopted such a voting system, our elections will be more democratic or individual votes will count more accurately.

The total of all votes cast is represented more accurately.

Moreover, PR or MMP will not solve the fundamental problem of how one individual vote changes anything. In some ways, it may exacerbate the problem. In a small FPTP riding, I may have the faint hope that my one ballot (or my family's ballots) will make the difference in a particularly tight race. Under PR, I'm not so sure that I'd have such a faint hope.

Since the proposed system is MMP which combines a simple plurality vote for the local rep and a proportional list system, you would still have the chance of rallying the troops and affecting a tight local race.

With that said, I can see why small parties would want PR (or MMP). It would mean that they'll get more seats in the Legislature.

Although small parties only want it because they have no shot at gaining undeserved representation. If like the Cons or Libs they had a shot at undeserved power I suspect they'd soon forget about PR as well.

Canapathy, perhaps unknowingly, you have stumbled into a much larger and complex problem. When we speak of democratic government, what do we mean exactly? I would argue that our voting system is a minor aspect of what constitutes a democracy.

Perhaps, but I would much rather just debate the electoral system, the other is much to tedious. There is certainly a lot more to democracy than the electoral system...but I'd say it is a very important piece. If the mix of people making decisions on our behalf does not match the way people vote, what's the point? I like the phrase 'democracy is in the counting not the voting'. Until we treat each vote equally and actually elect the government the people vote for I'd say we're failing on the democracy front.

I like to use the 93 federal election as an example of how unfair our system is. The PC party received about 2 million votes and won only 2 seats. So it took 1 million votes to elect each PC MP, yet the Liberals received 1 seat for every 32,000 votes cast.

[jbg]

Statistics show that up to 10% of the population have a metal illness.

Excessive copper from pipes leaking into the water?

[August1991]

The total of all votes cast is represented more accurately.

So what? What do you mean by "more accurately"?

Your response is naive. You simply mean that if 5% of the popular vote was for Party X, then Party X has 5% of seats in the Legislature. That's democracy?

I like the phrase 'democracy is in the counting not the voting'. Until we treat each vote equally and actually elect the government the people vote for I'd say we're failing on the democracy front.

Counting? Each vote equally?

Canapathy, do you really believe that if members of Canada's parliament were decided by PR or MMP, that our government would be more democratic? If so, you are foolish, or naive. Whatever the election system proposed, one single ballot of one single voter will change nothing. A voter will soon realize this. A change in voting scheme will not lead to greater "democracy". It will just change the lottery system to choose our government.

It won't be more "democratic", and you are wrong to make that claim.

-----

I prefer Chretien's idea of giving a $1.75 donation (using all citizens' money). Poor or rich, each voter gets to use our collective money to make a contribution to a party. Under PR or FPTP, my single vote will make no difference in the number of Green MPs. But my single vote will make a difference in the Green Party budget. I can vote for a good cause.

I think we should increase the amount paid to each political party for each vote received from $1.75/year to $17.50/year and see what the political parties do to seek votes.

Would this not be more democratic than your proposed MMP change in which my single vote would change nothing? At least if I voted Green, I'd know that the Greens got $17.50 for my effort. In your MMP system, I'd say that I had wasted my time and energy. My single vote changed nothing in terms of the number of Green MPs.

When it comes to democracy, I prefer the idea of a vote as a party contribution, using other people's money. If you vote Green or NDP or Liberal, the party gets $17.50.

Why not?

Edited July 13, 2007 by August1991

[Canapathy]

What do you mean by "more accurately"?

Under a MMP system the proportion of the seats allocated to each party actually matches how the entire province or country voted...that's what I mean by more accurate. In my opinion giving 100% power to the plurality candidate in each riding and thus wasting all other votes cast, is inacurate.

Your response is naive. You simply mean that if 5% of the popular vote was for Party X, then Party X has 5% of seats in the Legislature. That's democracy?

Like I said in my last post, the electoral system itself does not make democratic government, but it is a critical first step. Can a representative democracy really represent, if we distort the vote results so badly? I say no. I am well aware of the many other problems that hinder representation as well, but with a FPTP system we are off the mark at step 1.

I like the phrase 'democracy is in the counting not the voting'. Until we treat each vote equally and actually elect the government the people vote for I'd say we're failing on the democracy front.

Counting? Each vote equally?

Who cares if we vote when we distort the results during the counting process and under a FPTP system not all votes are treated equally. I thought that was explained with the 93 federal election example. It took 1 million votes to elect each PC MP and 32 thousand votes to elect each Liberal...not exactly equal.

Whatever the election system proposed, one single ballot of one single voter will change nothing. A voter will soon realize this. A change in voting scheme will not lead to greater "democracy". It will just change the lottery system to choose our government.

It won't be more "democratic", and you are wrong to make that claim.

Again with the meaningless 1 vote changes nothing argument... One vote on it's own changes nothing in any system so your argument is a pointless. When voting we care about vote totals. FPTP ignores over 50% the ballots cast on average whereas the MMP system proposed for Ontario will ignore 3% or less. Treating each vote equally and ignoring dramatically fewer votes does make for a more democratic electoral system.

I prefer Chretien's idea of giving a $1.75 donation (using all citizens' money). Poor or rich, each voter gets to use our collective money to make a contribution to a party. Under PR or FPTP, my single vote will make no difference in the number of Green MPs. But my single vote will make a difference in the Green Party budget. I can vote for a good cause.

What a joke .... We vote to create representation not to make taxpayer funded party donations. Let's actually treat each vote fairly and equally and then let people make party donations on their own if they wish.

Would this not be more democratic than your proposed MMP change in which my single vote would change nothing? At least if I voted Green, I'd know that the Greens got $17.50 for my effort. In your MMP system, I'd say that I had wasted my time and energy.

Is this a joke? Using a federal example the MMP system would have given the Green party the 15 seats they deserved and representation to those Canadians that voted for them.

I find it odd that you support giving fair and equal amounts of money to each party based on the popular vote but oppose the same idea for representation.

Edited July 13, 2007 by Canapathy

[jbg]

I find it odd that you support giving fair and equal amounts of money to each party based on the popular vote but oppose the same idea for representation.

That is a misleading parellel. With PR you wind up with a multiplicity of parties, and in practice continual minority government conditions. When money is what's being distributed, there's no similar effect.