Mixed Member Proportional representation

[jbg]

Germany

New Zealand

South Korea

Scotland

All small, homogenous countries.

[kengs333]

All small, homogenous countries.

Germany is about the size of Ontario and not homogenous. I don't see the point to this, though.

[Michael Hardner]

Germany

New Zealand

South Korea

Scotland

That's it ? I was under the impression that there were more. Are there ?

[jbg]

Germany is about the size of Ontario and not homogenous. I don't see the point to this, though.

Germany was homogenous at the time that it adopted MMP and a lot smaller. The point is that a homogenous country doesn't suffer the divisive impact of having many fringe parties.

Also, Germany has had, from time to time, so-called "wall to wall" coalitions of the left and right. These have the desireable effect of marginalizing fringe groups and one issue MP's, but the undesireable effect of stifling healthy debate. The tendency to seek out "wall to wall" coalitions is another undesirable effect of MMP.

[M.Dancer]

Germany is about the size of Ontario and not homogenous. I don't see the point to this, though.

No, it's pretty homogenous......

Ethnic groups:

German 91.5%, Turkish 2.4%, other 6.1% (made up largely of Greek, Italian, Polish, Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Spanish

Les that 9% non germans....

Edited September 25, 2007 by M.Dancer

[Michael Hardner]

Kengs,

The other question is why the homogeneity of a region should be a determinant in deciding whether they fit FPTP.

Again - does anybody have examples other than these four countries listed ?

[kengs333]

No, it's pretty homogenous......

Les that 9% non germans....

Sorry, but I'm assuming you've never been to Germany nor do you know much about German society. You may subscribe to the Hitlarian notion of a uniform German race, but the fact of the matter is that there is still a strong sense of regional identity, language and cultural difference. It may not seem significant on the surface, but it certainly is. Whatever the case, ethnic homogeneity has no relevance to electoral reform.

[kengs333]

Germany was homogenous at the time that it adopted MMP and a lot smaller. The point is that a homogenous country doesn't suffer the divisive impact of having many fringe parties.

Also, Germany has had, from time to time, so-called "wall to wall" coalitions of the left and right. These have the desireable effect of marginalizing fringe groups and one issue MP's, but the undesireable effect of stifling healthy debate. The tendency to seek out "wall to wall" coalitions is another undesirable effect of MMP.

You don't understand German society or politics if you claim that the system stifles "healthy debate". Germany runs much better politically than Canada, and political debate is something that is taken much more seriously because of the country's past problems.

[kengs333]

That's it ? I was under the impression that there were more. Are there ?

Almost every democracy has some form of PR electoral system--Canada and the United States being notable exceptions--of which MMP is a variation.

[Higgly]

So far, a rare applause from me for one of your posts. The applause stops, however.

Would your model be Chairman Mao? Pol Pot? Josef Stalin? Musharaaf?

Amazing. You jump from a democratic system with elected representatives but no party politics to what? Cambodia under Pol Pot? Russia under Stalin? Good grief.

This is a classic neocon methodology. Immediately awfulize something to the most unimaginably horrible outcome in order to further your argument.

Edited September 25, 2007 by Higgly

[M.Dancer]

Almost every democracy has some form of PR electoral system--Canada and the United States being notable exceptions--of which MMP is a variation.

I would have though Britain and India being the others.

Edited September 25, 2007 by M.Dancer

[M.Dancer]

Mind you, any system used by Venuzuela, Mexico, Lesotho, Bolivia and germany...

[kengs333]

Mind you, any system used by Venuzuela, Mexico, Lesotho, Bolivia and germany...

Wow, this is really making for an interesting debate. Your reasoned and well-informed arguments are just too overwhelming for me.

The fact that it works in Germany is good enough for me. You may have a problem with it because of your ethnicity or creed, but personally I couldn't care less. The fact that a country like Lesotho has adopted a more democratic electoral process really says something about what has become of politics in Canada.

[M.Dancer]

Wow, this is really making for an interesting debate. Your reasoned and well-informed arguments are just too overwhelming for me.

The fact that it works in Germany is good enough for me. You may have a problem with it because of your ethnicity or creed, but personally I couldn't care less. The fact that a country like Lesotho has adopted a more democratic electoral process really says something about what has become of politics in Canada.

Hey Don't forget Venuzuela and Mexico......countries know for being more democratic than........?!?

Edited September 25, 2007 by M.Dancer

[Higgly]

Wow, this is really making for an interesting debate. Your reasoned and well-informed arguments are just too overwhelming for me.

The fact that it works in Germany is good enough for me. You may have a problem with it because of your ethnicity or creed, but personally I couldn't care less. The fact that a country like Lesotho has adopted a more democratic electoral process really says something about what has become of politics in Canada.

I myself am not convinced that this is a good idea, but I see that M.Dancer, as usual, is resorting to "awfulizing". The usual neocon chicken-little claptrap.

[M.Dancer]

The usual neocon chicken-little claptrap.

Why is it every time you say claptrap I think of your medical history?

[Michael Hardner]

Almost every democracy has some form of PR electoral system--Canada and the United States being notable exceptions--of which MMP is a variation.

Almost ... has some form ... that doesn't convince me.

I'm starting to think that this whole exercise is just an excuse to get the Greens a set in the legislature. If that's it, then let's just DO that. It's not worth rolling the dice with Ontario, and saying 'What will we be like in 20 years with nothing but minority governments ?'

[kengs333]

The usual neocon chicken-little claptrap.

Tell me about it. MMP has been discussed on local TV and some former politicians were just spouting nonsense along the same line. One was a prominent federal Liberal. Neocons are affraid that their exclusive club is going to be opened more progressive politicians.

[kengs333]

Almost ... has some form ... that doesn't convince me.

I'm starting to think that this whole exercise is just an excuse to get the Greens a set in the legislature. If that's it, then let's just DO that. It's not worth rolling the dice with Ontario, and saying 'What will we be like in 20 years with nothing but minority governments ?'

Why would McGuinty want to do that seeing that he's a neocon, too. He's likely doing it because PR is gaining more support and he wants to nip the debate in the bud now. It fails now and the issue is dead, and he can always point to the referendum if the issue is ever raised again and say "the people didn't want it".

[Michael Hardner]

Why would McGuinty want to do that seeing that he's a neocon, too. He's likely doing it because PR is gaining more support and he wants to nip the debate in the bud now. It fails now and the issue is dead, and he can always point to the referendum if the issue is ever raised again and say "the people didn't want it".

I thought the citizens' assembly did this, not McGuinty ? I was talking about supporters like you.

Honestly, I think the Greens should have a seat too. Is this one of the main reasons you're behind this ? It was for my wife, and I convinced her that it's a bad way to make that happen... At least I think I did. She probably just wants me to shut up about it, not that I think about it.

[jbg]

Almost every democracy has some form of PR electoral system--Canada and the United States being notable exceptions--of which MMP is a variation.

What about the UK, which is, in reality, the mother of modern democracy? And aren't the UK, Canada and the United States the most successful democracies?

Out of curiousity, does AU also use single-member MP election?

[jennie]

Almost ... has some form ... that doesn't convince me.

I'm starting to think that this whole exercise is just an excuse to get the Greens a set in the legislature. If that's it, then let's just DO that. It's not worth rolling the dice with Ontario, and saying 'What will we be like in 20 years with nothing but minority governments ?'

What have majority governments accomplished that minority governments have not?

What evidence would you present ... and I do mean evidence, not conjecture ... to convince me there is a need for majority governments?

Edited September 26, 2007 by jennie

[Michael Hardner]

What have majority governments accomplished that minority governments have not?

What evidence would you present ... and I do mean evidence, not conjecture ... to convince me there is a need for majority governments?

J,

Aside from the vague and inaccurate assertion that PR is more 'fair', one of the few arguments I've seen advanced in its favour is that it prevents one-sided legislation to be pushed through the legislature.

Let's ask this: What are the major initiatives of Canadian government over the past 20 or 25 years ?

Repatriation of the constitution ? The Free Trade Agreement ? The Meech Lake Accord ?

Whether or not you agree with all of these initiatives, you probably agree with some of them. If you don't like the FTA, you probably like the Charter of Rights, and so on. The fact is that such agreements are the produce of a singular vision that only a strong leader can produce.

Minority governments can only produce compromises, and workarounds - they can't build anything.

[jennie]

J,

Aside from the vague and inaccurate assertion that PR is more 'fair', one of the few arguments I've seen advanced in its favour is that it prevents one-sided legislation to be pushed through the legislature.

Let's ask this: What are the major initiatives of Canadian government over the past 20 or 25 years ?

Repatriation of the constitution ? The Free Trade Agreement ? The Meech Lake Accord ?

Whether or not you agree with all of these initiatives, you probably agree with some of them. If you don't like the FTA, you probably like the Charter of Rights, and so on. The fact is that such agreements are the produce of a singular vision that only a strong leader can produce.

Minority governments can only produce compromises, and workarounds - they can't build anything.

They can if representatives concentrate on governance instead of politics.

[Michael Hardner]

if representatives concentrate on governance...

Jenny,

That's exactly the point. Minority governments introduce a whole new level of politics and deal making that take the focus away from governance. Minority governments have to make deals with opposition parties, often on a daily basis.