M.Dancer Posted September 26, 2007 Report Posted September 26, 2007 (edited) Almost every democracy has some form of PR electoral system-- Not even close to being true. Countries that use FPTP Antigua and Barbuda Bahamas Bangladesh Barbados Belize Bhutan Botswana Canada Dominica Ethiopia The Gambia Ghana Grenada India (Proportional representation in upper house) Jamaica Kenya Malawi Malaysia Federated States of Micronesia Morocco Nepal Nigeria Pakistan Palau Papua New Guinea Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa Singapore Solomon Islands South Korea Swaziland Tanzania Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tuvalu Uganda United Kingdom (National parliamentary and local government elections in England and Wales only, not in elections for the EU Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies, and local elections in Scotland and Northern Ireland) United States (except for Louisiana) Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Countries that use PR Algeria Party list Angola Party list Austria Party list Argentina Party list Belgium Party list Bolivia Mixed Member Proportional Brazil Party list Bulgaria Party list Burkina Faso Party list Burundi Party list Cambodia Party list Cape Verde Party list Chile Party list Colombia Party list Costa Rica Party list Cyprus Party list Czech Republic Party list Denmark Party list Dominican Republic Party list Equatorial Guinea Party list Estonia Party list Finland Party list Germany Mixed member proportional Guinea-Bissau Party list Guyana Party list Hungary Mixed Member Proportional Iceland Party list Indonesia Party list Ireland Preference voting Israel Party list Italy Mixed Member Proportional Latvia Party list Lesotho Mixed Member Proportional Liberia Party list Liechtenstein Party list Luxembourg Party list Malta Preference voting Mexico Mixed Member Proportional Moldova Party list Namibia Party list Netherlands Party list Netherlands Antilles Party list New Caledonia Party list Nicaragua Party list Norway Party list Paraguay Party list Peru Party list Poland Party list Portugal Party list Romania Party list San Marino Party list Sao Tome and Principe Party list Slovakia Party list Slovenia Party list South Africa Party list Spain Party list Sri Lanka Party list Suriname Party list Sweden Party list Switzerland Party list Suriname Party list Turkey Party list Uruguay Party list Venezuela Mixed Member Proportional Wallis and Futuna Party list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system[/url] Edited September 26, 2007 by M.Dancer Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Rue Posted September 26, 2007 Report Posted September 26, 2007 PR is a system that will allow the most outrageous wingnuts to get a voice. Not that they don't have a voice now, but now you can choose not to listen to them. If Doug Henning was still alive I would support PR. The possibility of a member levitating in Parliament while doing card tricks would be worth the risk of him giving a speech about creating an impenatrable defense shield of mystic yogic flyers.... Lol. Outrageous wingnuts you say! Its time to agree with you again since you think I am picking on you. I agree with you er at least not the wingnut part (although that is possibly true). I think when we look at perportional (did I spell that right) repersentation its a recipe for permanent minority governments and coalitions of power that are unstable. Cases in point; Italy and Israel. Look I appreciate some people feel that the party system means your Member of Parliament may vote for the party line and not what you want - that is and will always be a heated debate - should the elected member represent the views of his/her constituents or their party. Hopefully they can do both. If they conflict for me, the time to express displeasure is the next election. I think there are limits to democracy. I think the notion we can be all things to all people is a noble one but has practical limitations. I also think the assumption that perportional representation allows for more accurate representation may not necessarily be true. It may at first glance look that way, but it could be the minority situations it necessarily creates, does nothing more then create political impasses that then go on to make it impossible to represent at all, since the government becomes paralyzed. I think we have to balance the ideal value of wanting to be as sensitive to as many different views as possible with the practical reality of understanding if you did that you could never get anything done as you would be spending all your time arguing. To me its a recipe for a different kind of dysfunction then the one we have now and one I think would be far more negative in the long run then in the good those who support it, think it can achieve. Sometimes the most ideal thing to do in theory, is not the most ideal thing to do in reality. So me I say, thanks but the present system aint broke so why does it need fixin? Do we really want to have permanent paralyzed elected assemblies? Quote
kengs333 Posted September 26, 2007 Report Posted September 26, 2007 What do Italy and Israel have to do with the system that's being proposed for Ontario? Nothing. Neocons always drag out those two country's system as an example yet always seem to fail to discuss the fundamental differences between those systems and the one that should be adopted by Ontario. Unless you can start making valid points about why MMP is not a good idea for Ontario, then I see no point in wasting time on this; all you people seem to do is fear-monger. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted September 26, 2007 Report Posted September 26, 2007 Kengs, Neocons always drag out those two country's system as an example Every once in awhile, a pro-MMP person will take a stab at conservatives being against MMP. I don't understand why this would happen, if the new system is supposed to be good for democracy and good for everyone. Could it be that conservatives are not so well served under this proposed system ? Hmmmm... Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Higgly Posted September 27, 2007 Report Posted September 27, 2007 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. I can see a situation where a one issue group mounts a conserted effort to put representatives in the House. In a minority government, they could swing the balance of power and we could end up with one-sided legislation. Quote "We have seen the enemy and he is us!". Pogo (Walt Kelly).
kengs333 Posted September 27, 2007 Report Posted September 27, 2007 I can see a situation where a one issue group mounts a conserted effort to put representatives in the House. In a minority government, they could swing the balance of power and we could end up with one-sided legislation. What rubbish. Do you really think that if a fringe group was trying to push some sort of "one-sided legislation" through, that the other parties wouldn't stop it? Of course your scenario is extremely vague, as are all such criticisms of MMP. Quote
Higgly Posted September 27, 2007 Report Posted September 27, 2007 What rubbish. Do you really think that if a fringe group was trying to push some sort of "one-sided legislation" through, that the other parties wouldn't stop it? Of course your scenario is extremely vague, as are all such criticisms of MMP. It's not vague at all. Paul Martin was able to stay in power on the strength of one vote after Belinda Stronach crossed the floor. How would the other parties stop it? You have one group that is very focussed and determined to get their people in. On the other hand, you have the other parties who are all fighting each other for the rep votes. Quote "We have seen the enemy and he is us!". Pogo (Walt Kelly).
kengs333 Posted September 27, 2007 Report Posted September 27, 2007 It's not vague at all. Paul Martin was able to stay in power on the strength of one vote after Belinda Stronach crossed the floor. How would the other parties stop it? You have one group that is very focussed and determined to get their people in. On the other hand, you have the other parties who are all fighting each other for the rep votes. Belinda Stronach crossing the floor is somewhat different to the doomsday scenario that you've concocted about a party making a concerted effort to hijack legislature. So parties under the current system aren't "very focussed and determined" to get people to vote for them? Parties would campaign no differently than they do now and the votes they receive would reflect what people think about their policies, leader, or party colour just like they do now. I wouldn't mind a less vague example about the potential doomsday scenario we could be facing under MMP. Quote
mikedavid00 Posted September 28, 2007 Report Posted September 28, 2007 I have a question regarding proportional representation. How does the ethnic vote affect this. Are large numbers of people in concentrated areas goign to control most of the vote? I'm actually more concerned if immigrants and minorities will be able to further expand their political franchise though this. That's all I really care about. Will this give them more power and futher control over our political system? Quote ---- Charles Anthony banned me for 30 days on April 28 for 'obnoxious libel' when I suggested Jack Layton took part in illegal activities in a message parlor. Claiming a politician took part in illegal activity is not rightful cause for banning and is what is discussed here almost daily in one capacity or another. This was really a brownshirt style censorship from a moderator on mapleleafweb http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1oGB-BKdZg---
Michael Hardner Posted September 28, 2007 Report Posted September 28, 2007 Are large numbers of people in concentrated areas goign to control most of the vote? MD: Not to worry, Toronto is under represented in the legislature. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
ScottSA Posted September 28, 2007 Report Posted September 28, 2007 The healthcare system suffers from inefficiency because of 'two many chiefs'... Can we imagine how much worse it would be in Ontario, if we had to get backroom approval for every move from all the parties supporting a minority government ? Hey Mikey, what did you mean that time when you said Indians and women should be denied healthcare because we can't afford to extend the healthcare system to them? Quote
kengs333 Posted September 28, 2007 Report Posted September 28, 2007 I have a question regarding proportional representation. How does the ethnic vote affect this. Are large numbers of people in concentrated areas goign to control most of the vote? I'm actually more concerned if immigrants and minorities will be able to further expand their political franchise though this. That's all I really care about. Will this give them more power and futher control over our political system? Parties tend to prefer fielding candidates that have a similar background when a riding has a strong ethnic identity. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted September 28, 2007 Report Posted September 28, 2007 Hey Mikey, what did you mean that time when you said Indians and women should be denied healthcare because we can't afford to extend the healthcare system to them? Scott, of course I've never said anything even close to that. I'm still looking for your quote on the other thread. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
jbg Posted September 28, 2007 Report Posted September 28, 2007 I have a question regarding proportional representation. How does the ethnic vote affect this. Are large numbers of people in concentrated areas goign to control most of the vote? I'm actually more concerned if immigrants and minorities will be able to further expand their political franchise though this. That's all I really care about. Will this give them more power and futher control over our political system? I would be concerned to, if that group had more than 3% of the population. Someone could run, say, as the "Chinese Party Candidate", get an MP, and then at least in theory that MP could be added to any coalition. I agree that such a party would never lead, but MMP is more the death of a thousand cuts; the "Chinese Party Candidate", plus the JBG Party I discussed above, etc. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
kengs333 Posted September 28, 2007 Report Posted September 28, 2007 I would be concerned to, if that group had more than 3% of the population. Someone could run, say, as the "Chinese Party Candidate", get an MP, and then at least in theory that MP could be added to any coalition. I agree that such a party would never lead, but MMP is more the death of a thousand cuts; the "Chinese Party Candidate", plus the JBG Party I discussed above, etc. I'm not sure exactly how this could be a problem since the who purpose of the legislature/parliament is to respresent the poeple. If there is a large group that feels they need representation, then isn't it better that they are able to voice their concerns through political avenues rather than demonstrating/rioting in the streets? If you look at the United Kingdom, in the 2005 election, there were a number of small parties elected, and to the best of my knowledge, the government is running smoothly. The whole purpose of MMP is to distribute the seats more fairly, which means that the parties that would benefit the most are those that pole second, third, and fourth. I still have yet to see any examples from other countries that use MMP that indicates that the system will cause government to bog down. Quote
mikedavid00 Posted September 28, 2007 Report Posted September 28, 2007 The whole purpose of MMP is to distribute the seats more fairly, which means that the parties that would benefit the most are those that pole second, third, and fourth. Ok.. I don't like what I'm hearing so far. JBG said something and my ears perked up. 52% of Ontario is born outside the country. Let's please not talk about other countries. Immigrant groups have taken over riding nominations and have easily exploited our political system so far and are continuing to grow. What they did was sign up hundreds of their friends and contacts, and then at the local riding nominations get themselves voted in. That was an exploit of our system that was designed in good faith and honor and has now been borken. Bob Rae mentioned Air India, and thus a group of Sikh's were instructed to vote for Dion and then Dion won. That was an exloit of our system that was designed in good faith. Now can someone please tell me exactly how, this system, which I agree is designed in good faith and honor be exploited. Lets use Sikh's as an example. Quote ---- Charles Anthony banned me for 30 days on April 28 for 'obnoxious libel' when I suggested Jack Layton took part in illegal activities in a message parlor. Claiming a politician took part in illegal activity is not rightful cause for banning and is what is discussed here almost daily in one capacity or another. This was really a brownshirt style censorship from a moderator on mapleleafweb http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1oGB-BKdZg---
myata Posted September 28, 2007 Report Posted September 28, 2007 (edited) I wouldn't get overworked about how MMP would result in a split and indecisive parliament, before taking some time to understand the system, and realizing that far from offering a fully balanced proportional representation, it only just attempts to fix to a relatively minor extent the potential imbalances between popular vote and composition of the parliament, for which FPP is so notorious. Take a simple example: if (with a considerable simplification), popular vote in every riding was split as: Party A: 40% Party B: 30% Party C: 20% And other "marginal" parties: 10% The FPP (currently used "first past the post" system) would result in this parliament: Party A: 100% Party B: 0% Party C: 0% And other "marginal" parties: 0% Note that B, C and the rest, which obtained, together, 60% of popular vote, have no representation at all. Pure proportional system will give the same representation as popular vote, ie. 40%, 30% 20% and so on, respectively. Indeed, short of rare instances where a party would capture more that 50% of popular vote, it's a continous minority situation. Now, MMP (proposed in the referendum) will give this breakdown: Party A: 70% (90 of 90 area seats + 0 of 39 party seats as they already exceeded their popular quota - out of 129 total) Party B: ~20% (0 of area seats + ~2/3 of 39 party seats) Party C: ~10% (~1/3 of 39 party seats) Other "marginal" parties: depending on the threshold rule. Note that the winner (Party A) is still way above their popular vote and the rest is significantly below, but at least they don't lose "all". Moral: MMP is nowhere close to pure proportional system. It only just balances off the disbalance of representation resulting from FPP, giving smaller parties nominal representation where they couldn't get past FFP at all. The "minority" and instability arguments simply aren't valid and mislead those who aren't aware of the details. I do agree however that opportunity to explain this to population has been very much missed. A possible and quite likely (to me, at least) explanation is that none of the first tier parties are really interested in this reform, as FFP gives them an easier way to majority. Edited September 28, 2007 by myata Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Rue Posted September 28, 2007 Report Posted September 28, 2007 (edited) Maybe the system is an incomprehensible Rube Goldberg. I tend to agree. I appreciate the theory behind it, but it just doesn't seem to do what it intends in practice other then to create a lot of confusion as how to apply it. Edited September 28, 2007 by Rue Quote
kengs333 Posted September 28, 2007 Report Posted September 28, 2007 Ok..I don't like what I'm hearing so far. JBG said something and my ears perked up. 52% of Ontario is born outside the country. Let's please not talk about other countries. Immigrant groups have taken over riding nominations and have easily exploited our political system so far and are continuing to grow. What they did was sign up hundreds of their friends and contacts, and then at the local riding nominations get themselves voted in. That was an exploit of our system that was designed in good faith and honor and has now been borken. Bob Rae mentioned Air India, and thus a group of Sikh's were instructed to vote for Dion and then Dion won. That was an exloit of our system that was designed in good faith. Now can someone please tell me exactly how, this system, which I agree is designed in good faith and honor be exploited. Lets use Sikh's as an example. If that's how the system is set up, then they're simply doing what is permitted to be done in order to get into political power. The system is designed to allow for such changes because the whole purpose is to elect people who represent their community, and if a community is 65% Chinese, then isn't it logical that the somebody of Chinese origin would perhaps be the best representative? Unless you want to change the system to only allow Canadian-born people of European extraction to hold political power, then I don't see what can be done about it. As someone of European heritage, I am a little disappointed that people from my ethnic background are not coming to Canada in the numbers needed to sustain my community. Given that these people tend to be hard-working, highly educated and more often than not fluent in English, they would seem to me to make ideal emigrants, but the government has its attention focused elsewhere. Quote
kengs333 Posted September 28, 2007 Report Posted September 28, 2007 (edited) I tend to agree. I appreciate the theory behind it, but it just doesn't seem to do what it intends in practice other then to create a lot of confusion as how to apply it. Honestly, it's far from complex, and the fact that something such as this can be considered to be "confusing" really says more about the confused than the proposed system. It's no wonder politicians are always pulling one over on Canadians--Canadians are just too apathetic to know what's good for them. Edited September 28, 2007 by kengs333 Quote
mikedavid00 Posted September 28, 2007 Report Posted September 28, 2007 If that's how the system is set up, then they're simply doing what is permitted to be done in order to get into political power. The system is designed to allow for such changes because the whole purpose is to elect people who represent their community, and if a community is 65% Chinese, then isn't it logical that the somebody of Chinese origin would perhaps be the best representative? Harindar Tachar is in a riding next to mine. There are very few Sikh's in mississauga as compared to Brampton. Why are sikh's all over the city politics and provincial ridings? That's becuase they exploited our system. That's why. The nomination was never, ever meant to be exploited the way it has been. You might have been sentenced to a hanging at one time if you ever dared filed false memberships and got your friends to bring you into power. Either that or you would have been killed for daring to exploit an honor based system. Quote ---- Charles Anthony banned me for 30 days on April 28 for 'obnoxious libel' when I suggested Jack Layton took part in illegal activities in a message parlor. Claiming a politician took part in illegal activity is not rightful cause for banning and is what is discussed here almost daily in one capacity or another. This was really a brownshirt style censorship from a moderator on mapleleafweb http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1oGB-BKdZg---
Argus Posted September 28, 2007 Report Posted September 28, 2007 Parties tend to prefer fielding candidates that have a similar background when a riding has a strong ethnic identity. Well known. However, a lot of people don't bother to consider why. The assumption - and it is usually correct - is that all the ethnics, say Pakistanis, will vote for their person simply because it's a Pakistani. Now if Pakistanis make up 20% of a riding, and the Liberal candidate gets 100% of their votes, then chances are the candidate only needs to get about 1/4 or less of the remainder of the votes in order to get elected. The math is very clear. And the way parties deal with this is that they will ALL field Pakistani candidates in that particular riding. They know the white population will spread their vote around to whatever party they like best. The Pakistanis will all vote for the Pakistani. And I could as easily have said Sikh, or Lebanese, or Indian, or Muslim, or Chinese, or French for that matter. I live in Ottawa, and it's well known that all ridings in and around the city which have a large Francophone population (that is, more than 20%) are invariably represented by a Francophone city councilor, MPP and MP. Francophones won't vote for an Anglo if there is a French candidate available. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
kengs333 Posted September 28, 2007 Report Posted September 28, 2007 Harindar Tachar is in a riding next to mine. There are very few Sikh's in mississauga as compared to Brampton. Why are sikh's all over the city politics and provincial ridings? That's becuase they exploited our system. That's why. The nomination was never, ever meant to be exploited the way it has been. You might have been sentenced to a hanging at one time if you ever dared filed false memberships and got your friends to bring you into power. Either that or you would have been killed for daring to exploit an honor based system. I took a look at the wiki article for Brampton and city and regional council looks to be non-Sikh, but I see what you mean provincially. Well, that's how it goes. Under the MMP system, you could vote for a party that doesn't subscribe to this kind of policy, but as it stands, if all the party's try to cater to the majority ethnic group in a riding, those who aren't of that ethnicity really don't have many options, aside from maybe a fringe or independent candidate. You're wrong, in my opinion, about the system not being meant to be exploited; it was designed to maintain the status quo; namely, to keep the wealthy and elites in power. That worked until things began to change socially and ethnically post-WWII. It's interesting that the people who are most vehement about the foreigner influence on politics are the ones who want to keep the system just like it is. Quote
kengs333 Posted September 28, 2007 Report Posted September 28, 2007 Well known. However, a lot of people don't bother to consider why. The assumption - and it is usually correct - is that all the ethnics, say Pakistanis, will vote for their person simply because it's a Pakistani. Now if Pakistanis make up 20% of a riding, and the Liberal candidate gets 100% of their votes, then chances are the candidate only needs to get about 1/4 or less of the remainder of the votes in order to get elected. The math is very clear. And the way parties deal with this is that they will ALL field Pakistani candidates in that particular riding. They know the white population will spread their vote around to whatever party they like best. The Pakistanis will all vote for the Pakistani.And I could as easily have said Sikh, or Lebanese, or Indian, or Muslim, or Chinese, or French for that matter. I live in Ottawa, and it's well known that all ridings in and around the city which have a large Francophone population (that is, more than 20%) are invariably represented by a Francophone city councilor, MPP and MP. Francophones won't vote for an Anglo if there is a French candidate available. Interesting how this sort of thing is considered acceptable if ethnic minorities do it. Quote
jbg Posted September 29, 2007 Report Posted September 29, 2007 Honestly, it's far from complex, and the fact that something such as this can be considered to be "confusing" really says more about the confused than the proposed system. It's no wonder politicians are always pulling one over on Canadians--Canadians are just too apathetic to know what's good for them.And having MP's elected off "party lists" is going to make that any better? Surely you jest. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.