Mixed Member Proportional representation

[daniel]

Oh, please. These two countries are the examples that the fear-mongers always use as examples to support their views, but neither of these two countries have MMP.

Two bad examples. Eighteen good examples. Looks like a pretty good record to me that we surely can tweek and improve upon. And how many countries remaining are there keeping this centuries-old FPTP system?

Edited October 6, 2007 by daniel

[kengs333]

Two bad examples. Eighteen good examples. Looks like a pretty good record to me that we surely can tweek and improve upon. And how many countries remaining are there keeping this centuries-old FPTP system?

Not many.

[Canadian Blue]

We need to fix our political system as discussed in the past. It definately needs to go American.

In the old days, Tory would have been elected, had no discussion, and just start to fund religious schools a la Trudeau style.

I think that point is moot as all that would have been required of Trudea was winning Ontario and Quebec, in fact if that's the case then he probably would have gotten larger majorities, the same goes with Chretien.

Ontario is NOT a homogeneous society. It's a balkan state.

You will have nothing but extremists in the parliment.

It does work, but ONLY for homogenous societies like Quebec or Alberta.

We have plenty of minorities in Alberta, even while I was driving through southern Alberta. I do agree that extremist parties will get in, especially with regards to the ones which are vehemently against immigrants, which is why I flip flopped abit on MMP.

The electoral college system implemented in Canada would stop parties like the Bloc Quebecois from occupying those numbers of seats in Canada. They would take up 0.8% of the house seats. Not 25%.

I think that's largely incorrect, the Bloc would get all of the seats in Quebec.

The American system is fool proof. It's very regionalized. It's extremely hard to exploit. Big Pharma, Big Tobacco can lobby all they want, but the vote always comes back to the people.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. It seems to me that lobbying groups have more power in the United States then they do here. The voice doesn't always come back to the people, and usually 50% of the people don't bother voting because they don't like their choices. As Bill Maher said "you couldn't get an 85% turnout if the vote was between tits and bigger tits and if they were handing out free samples". Now the French system of electing politician's, in my view thats the best way to do it. First have one round of voting, if no candidate gets 50% go to a second round of voting.

And the reason why I don't go to the US is because they have an immigration system. I am not needed in the US so Im not allowed in.

Just try to get into the American military, from what I hear they are really short on people. Not to mention the fact that you can do back to back tours.

As well you have to keep in mind that the American system, while not the worst in the world is fundamentally flawed, especially with regards to the HoR. From what I understand atleast Gerrymandering is a big issue, and correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the re-election rate is in the 90% range.

Why don't we go over to the Australian model.

Edited October 6, 2007 by Canadian Blue

[M.Dancer]

And how many countries remaining are there keeping this centuries-old FPTP system?

Quite a few and notably the world oldest, largest and most succesful democracies.

USA

Great Britain

Canada

India

Pakistan

.....and 40 other nations.

[kengs333]

Quite a few and notably the world oldest, largest and most succesful democracies.

USA

Great Britain

Canada

India

Pakistan

.....and 40 other nations.

Yeah, Pakistan the great model of democracy...

[M.Dancer]

Yeah, Pakistan the great model of democracy...

Yep, just like Israel and Italy are superb models for PR

[daniel]

Yep, just like Israel and Italy are superb models for PR

So we reject the eighteen successful PR systems because two of them have problems?

Don't you wish the Olympic bids and Free Trade Agreement had to meet this level of standard?

[M.Dancer]

So we reject the eighteen successful PR systems because two of them have problems?

Don't you wish the Olympic bids and Free Trade Agreement had to meet this level of standard?

Ask keng why he rejects 43 because of Pakistan (who just had an election)?

I think the point is FPTP is time tested and works very well while PR can work horribly even when it works well. I see no reason to change what works just for the sake of changing things.

[mikedavid00]

Ask keng why he rejects 43 because of Pakistan (who just had an election)?

I think the point is FPTP is time tested and works very well while PR can work horribly even when it works well. I see no reason to change what works just for the sake of changing things.

I wouldn't say FPTP works 'well'.

Note the seats in Quebec. There is an imbalance but that's 'our fault' of how we divy up the ridings I guess.

Either way, parties should not be based off religions or ethniities.

This INCLUDES French and Quebec.

[M.Dancer]

Note the seats in Quebec. There is an imbalance but that's 'our fault' of how we divy up the ridings I guess.

What exactly about the seats in quebec?

[mikedavid00]

What exactly about the seats in quebec?

The seat imbalance. There are far too many seats in Northern Quebec.

[Canadian Blue]

I wouldn't say FPTP works 'well'.

Note the seats in Quebec. There is an imbalance but that's 'our fault' of how we divy up the ridings I guess.

Either way, parties should not be based off religions or ethniities.

This INCLUDES French and Quebec.

Well Quebec is a province, and they obviously chose to be represented by the Bloc, which under the system you would like would result in 100% of the seats in Quebec going to the Bloc. As for parties being based off religions or ethnicities, we already have that, ever hear of the Christian Heritage Party. I'm still amazed that we aren't being flooded with these immigrant only parties as some on here believe will happen.

[M.Dancer]

The seat imbalance. There are far too many seats in Northern Quebec.

Like....ummm...ONE?

[kengs333]

Yep, just like Israel and Italy are superb models for PR

Again the system used by Italy and Israel have nothing to do with MMP.

Pakistan and India aren't exactly glowing models of democracy, nor is the United States with its screwed up elector system. And Great Britain has a slew of single-issue parties in Parliament with one or two seats.

[kengs333]

I think the point is FPTP is time tested and works very well while PR can work horribly even when it works well. I see no reason to change what works just for the sake of changing things.

MMP has been proven to work just fine, which is why it was chosen. The system is more representative, and that's the point of the legislature, to represent the people. If the electorate is divided between many parties, then that needs to be reflected in the legislature; if the electorate overwhelming supports one or two parties, then that needs to be reflected in the legislature. But as it stands, it looks like about 40% of the electorate is going to elect a majority government. Hardly what I call democratic.

[M.Dancer]

Again the system used by Italy and Israel have nothing to do with MMP.

Pakistan and India aren't exactly glowing models of democracy, nor is the United States with its screwed up elector system.

India isn't a glowing model of democracy? Who knew.........must have nbeen all the coups and dictatorships in the worlds largest multi cultural multi linguistic democracy

And Great Britain has a slew of single-issue parties in Parliament with one or two seats.

And each one gets elected because they can canvass more votes in their riding than thenother parties. They are democratically elected to represent their ridings.....not handpicked by party leaders to rep their parties interests.

In otherwords, GB is a model example of the simplicity and effectiveness of FPTP

[kengs333]

And each one gets elected because they can canvass more votes in their riding than thenother parties. They are democratically elected to represent their ridings.....not handpicked by party leaders to rep their parties interests.

In otherwords, GB is a model example of the simplicity and effectiveness of FPTP

So in other words, for an issue to have legitimacy in the FPTP system, it has to have widespread support in a concentrated geographic area--the arbitrary 'electoral district'--rather than moderate support nation wide. So if, for example, 50,000 people in a riding can elect an MP, why should it be that 50,000 people nation wide can't? Either way, it's the political choice of 50,000 people, but with the FPTP system, if by some fluke they all don't happen to be residing in the same electoral district, the votes of 50,000 people have no legitimacy. That's not democracy.

Spare me the "handpicked" business, that not how it will be. Any party that tries that won't get votes. (Besides, most people vote for the party as opposed to local candidate anyway...)

Any way you look at it, in GB there are a slew of single-issue parties in Parlaiment. Is there chaos, an ineffective government? If that's not the case, then why would it be with MMP? It's the process of choosing MPPs that's being determined, not how legislature conducts itself.

[M.Dancer]

Spare me the "handpicked" business, that not how it will be. Any party that tries that won't get votes. (Besides, most people vote for the party as opposed to local candidate anyway...)

When you can show that the elctorate choose the list candidates then I will spare you, but we both know the list candidtaes will be chosen by the party board and will not at any level be responsible to the electorate

Any way you look at it, in GB there are a slew of single-issue parties in Parlaiment. Is there chaos, an ineffective government? If that's not the case, then why would it be with MMP? It's the process of choosing MPPs that's being determined, not how legislature conducts itself.

Surely you are trying to foist the idea that a couple of handfuls of independants in a 650+ house might have the same disrupting effect as 30 or so in a 130 seat house?

[mikedavid00]

Well Quebec is a province, and they obviously chose to be represented by the Bloc, which under the system you would like would result in 100% of the seats in Quebec going to the Bloc. As for parties being based off religions or ethnicities, we already have that, ever hear of the Christian Heritage Party. I'm still amazed that we aren't being flooded with these immigrant only parties as some on here believe will happen.

Immigrants aren't that dumb. They are going to work with our parties rather then against them until they have so much power, they can start to form policy. This is goign to take even more immigrants then what we have now. Possibly another 10 years.

The timing is not right but the party is in the midst. There's already a Chinese party in Vancouver.

If MMP passes, you will see the formation of Sikh and Islamic parties sooner rather than later.

And I do feel that we need to remake our constitution and futher seperate religion and culture from politics. Political parties should not be ethnic or religious.

[mikedavid00]

Like....ummm...ONE?

The net result of this is that B.C. and Alberta now have a combined population of nearly 7.7 million people, give or take a few thousand. Which means about 35,000 more people live in Alberta and B.C. than live in Quebec.

But despite the growing population of the western-most portions of Canada, that demographic clout - and Alberta's obvious economic clout, being the engine that is largely driving the Canadian economy right now - is not being translated into equivalent political power.

Together, Alberta and B.C. have 64 seats in the House of Commons. Quebec, with a population that's now smaller than the two most western provinces, has 75 seats.

Alberta and B.C. have, between the two provinces, a grand total of 12 seats in the Senate. Quebec has 22 senators.

cite

The Green Party federally had almost as many votes than the Bloc Quebecois last election. But the Green party does't dominate our house of commons.

[daniel]

List Members will be no more hand-picked than are the current FPTP candidates.

http://voteformmp.ca/how_mmp_works#stronger_representation

How are the at-large (or list) candidates nominated?

Parties will be required to make public their lists of at-large candidates well before an election and provide details on how they were nominated to the list. Exactly how they nominate their at-large candidates will be up to each party to decide. But with the transparency requirements, party members and voters in general will take a dim view of any party that avoids a healthy democratic nomination process and would likely take their votes elsewhere.

In all countries that use MMP, parties use democratic processes to nominate their at-large candidates.

[iMPORTANT NOTE: Conservative Party leader John Tory, NDP leader Howard Hampton, and Green Party leader Frank de Jong have already stated their parties would used democratic processes to nominate their at-large candidates should the MMP system be adopted in the referendum.]

How are the at-large (or list) MPPs elected?

During elections, at-large candidates will be campaigning across the province (not just in one riding) to help win as many votes as possible for their party. Unlike first-past-the-post, MMP encourages parties to seek votes in all parts of the province because every party vote counts. The more votes the party gets, the more seats it wins, and the more likely that at-large candidates will win seats.

As noted above, if a party deserves extra at-large seats in order to have a fair portion of seats in the legislature, then some of their at-large candidates are elected, starting from the top of the list.

So if you don't have a problem with the FPTP selection process, why would you with MMP?

Edited October 9, 2007 by daniel

[mikedavid00]

So if, for example, 50,000 people in a riding can elect an MP, why should it be that 50,000 people nation wide can't?

Because it is not the voice of the country.

The GTA has about 80% the number of people in both BC and Alberta *combined*.

It is not proper, for a small, but highly populated concentration of people in Ontario to decide what goes for the rest of the country. If this was the case, Alberta's oil sands would be toast due to global warming concerns.

This is why there is an electoral college in the US.. Left wing wacko's in the largest city centers could not determine the gov't for the rest of the people. California and NewYork state cannot get together and control 50% of the senate like here in Canada.

Regardless of how a province votes, they should only have 1/13th represention or 2 representatives federally. We've discussed this before and found that the most democratic, fairest thing to do is sure enough move to a US style of system. -> Bring power back to provinces, and have representatives from each province represent us federally. It's only logical.

There are 1,000,000 mulsims in Canada. The Bloc got 1,553,201 last election.

Do you want Muslims unifying to vote down Islamic lines and get into our Parliment?

Is that what you want?

Then we say NO TO MMP

[Higgly]

Am I the only one who is scratching their head about how this referendum came out of left field and ended up on the ballot?

I must have missed something, but this sure seemed to come out of nowhere.

[Canadian Blue]

This is why there is an electoral college in the US.. Left wing wacko's in the largest city centers could not determine the gov't for the rest of the people. California and NewYork state cannot get together and control 50% of the senate like here in Canada.

The senate is appointed in Canada not elected. I believe your referencing the House of Commons which is somewhat akin to the House of Representatives in the way their members are elected.

[scribblet]

I got this from another site, but how many of us had even heard about it until the last 3 weeks? There were no community meetings in my kneck of the woods that I'm aware of of.

107 people with no axe to grind were chosen by lot from thousands who agreed that their name be included in the lottery to study the system we have presently and systems which are used around the world.

They met every weekend for 8 months to concentrate on this task. First they studied all the reasonable systems which were in use around the world. These were in depth studies and took up the first part of the endeavour. Then, they brainstormed to come to their final conclusion - I think it was 97 percent in favour - that mmp would be the best system.

During this time they went out to the community in local meetings to talk to the interested populace. So, community input was there for anyone who wanted to attend these meetings.

Edited October 9, 2007 by scriblett