Politics in 2015

[Kilo_302]

Completely agree. There's nothing wrong with what we have. The Progressive Left wants it changed because they went 10 years without being in government, and that's intolerable to them.

I think DPR might be a good way to do the Senate, as that would provide the populace with an elected sober second-thought. Only thing I would see is that for the Senate to send a bill back to the Commons, 66% against would be required. Would solve some of the partisan bickering that will inevitably show up once we start electing Senators.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like your problem with PR is that it might indeed give the "progressive left" more of a voice. If you're defining the "progressive left" as anyone who votes Liberal, NDP or Green, well, that's the majority of Canadians. It's clear that PR represents a more democratic alternative than FPTP, if that means more "progressive" governments because more Canadians are "progressive" then that's just the country we live in.

As I mentioned above, PR would also benefit the right side of politics. Those who don't think they have a voice either. If you're against PR because you believe "nothing will get done" or because you think we are democratic enough, those are fair positions. But it means you are inherently against giving more people more of a say in our political system. Now I hope that this again doesn't offend someone, but I'm having a hard time squaring how one can be pro-democratic and simultaneously against broadening the political discussion in Canada, in both directions.

 

[Journeyman]

What problem are you all trying to solve?

Maybe it's time for a separate thread;  call it "Repetitive, Refusal-to-Listen Views from Both Ends of the Spectrum."

In it, folks like Kilo_302,  Altair,  cld617 could play :argument: with the likes of  Thucydides and  George Wallace until the end of time. 
Maybe have a separate corner for Tier 2 :deadhorse:  like Eaglelord17 and Remius.



Hell, we could even have a referendum to decide if this would be a good idea.....or absolutely no referendum, ever, depending.  ;D

 

[McG]

Hell, we could even have a referendum to decide if this would be a good idea.....or absolutely no referendum, ever, depending.  ;D

We have a poll open.  That is like a referendum, right?
http://army.ca/forums/threads/25692.0.html

 

[GAP]

Constituency based Commons & Elected Senate seems to lead......must be a retrobate poll......

 

[YZT580]

Seems to me that an elected senate with elections offset from those of the Commons would counteract most of the perceived problems with our current system.  I personally do not want to vote for a party with absolutely no say in who represents me.  I like voting for someone local. 

Perhaps a ban on parachuting party favourites into 'safe' ridings would resolve another host of difficulties.  Having lived in several countries in Europe I am dead against proportional voting.  Belgium went a year with no government because of such a system.  Those who say it ends up catering to the fringes are absolutely correct.  Also, consider this:  what effect would it have if a concentrated effort by a radical group i.e. an I.S.I.S. isotope garnered 10%  of your HoC seats through proportional voting?  It could easily happen because they don't need to capture a single riding seat to qualify.  Our system isn't even close to perfect but it is better than the options

 

[Good2Golf]

Completely agree. There's nothing wrong with what we have. The Progressive Left wants it changed because they went 10 years without being in government, and that's intolerable to them.

I think DPR might be a good way to do the Senate, as that would provide the populace with an elected sober second-thought. Only thing I would see is that for the Senate to send a bill back to the Commons, 66% against would be required. Would solve some of the partisan bickering that will inevitably show up once we start electing Senators.

Concur.  I think the concept of FPTP for direct election of one's representative in HoC is not broken per se, but DPR or MMP for the Senate with the 66% to veto House Bills would give Canadians a greater sense of overall control to their representation.

Regards
G2G

 

[Altair]

Seems to me that an elected senate with elections offset from those of the Commons would counteract most of the perceived problems with our current system.  I personally do not want to vote for a party with absolutely no say in who represents me.  I like voting for someone local. 

Perhaps a ban on parachuting party favourites into 'safe' ridings would resolve another host of difficulties.  Having lived in several countries in Europe I am dead against proportional voting.  Belgium went a year with no government because of such a system.  Those who say it ends up catering to the fringes are absolutely correct.  Also, consider this:  what effect would it have if a concentrated effort by a radical group i.e. an I.S.I.S. isotope garnered 10%  of your HoC seats through proportional voting?  It could easily happen because they don't need to capture a single riding seat to qualify.  Our system isn't even close to perfect but it is better than the options

Isil  political operations?

Got to say, it would be funny to see.

 

[PuckChaser]

Isil  political operations?

Got to say, it would be funny to see.

After some of the recent reports of radicalization of individuals in Toronto and Montreal, I honestly think they would garner some votes.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Let's get back to basics: PR means that if 56% of votes go to a certain party, then roughly 56% of seats will go to that party ( as math allows). This is more democratic than FPTP no?

It is "more democratic" (using "no voting at all" and "voting on everything" as the anchors of the spectrum).

But so what?

"More democratic" is a meaningless selling point.  Do you mean others should assume that it is an improvement?  You must explain that, not assume it.  You have to explain why it is even relevant in a representative system (hint: the total popular vote share is irrelevant when each riding has its own distinct set of candidates and electors).

The first thing to do when discussing electoral reform is to clear away the notion that popular vote share should bear on anything, unless you plan to dissolve riding-based representative government and replace it with something else.

 

[ModlrMike]

...unless you plan to dissolve riding-based representative government and replace it with something else.

I continue to maintain that is precisely what PR and RB both seek to do. Both systems ultimately take the decision out of voters hands. The only exception would be in an RB scenario where one candidate gets an outright majority of 1st choice votes.

 

[Kilo_302]

>Let's get back to basics: PR means that if 56% of votes go to a certain party, then roughly 56% of seats will go to that party ( as math allows). This is more democratic than FPTP no?

It is "more democratic" (using "no voting at all" and "voting on everything" as the anchors of the spectrum).

But so what?

"More democratic" is a meaningless selling point.  Do you mean others should assume that it is an improvement?  You must explain that, not assume it.  You have to explain why it is even relevant in a representative system (hint: the total popular vote share is irrelevant when each riding has its own distinct set of candidates and electors).

The first thing to do when discussing electoral reform is to clear away the notion that popular vote share should bear on anything, unless you plan to dissolve riding-based representative government and replace it with something else.

I've explained this in several posts above. PR will broaden the political debate and more Canadians will have a party that reflects their values able to have seats in Parliament. If I have to explain why this is a good thing, then we're back to an actual discussion of how much democracy is too much.

Can you explain why more democracy would be a bad thing? It seems to me the onus for an explanation lies on that side of the argument, as in effect it involves a reduced franchise in comparison to FPTP.

Many here have said "our system is good enough" or something along those lines. That explanation is NOT good enough, if we're talking about a reason to not democratize further in a way that many nations we are allies with, we identify with, have done. "FPTP works so we should leave it alone" isn't a real explanation of why we shouldn't broaden the debate to better reflect the Canadian voter in the same way that the vast majority of the advanced democracies have.

To be clear, I think we should have a referendum. I agree that the Liberals are being extremely undemocratic, and will likely choose a preferential ballot system that they know will benefit them exclusively. I think when presented with the options, given the success that PR campaigns had during the last election, most Canadians would vote for an iteration of a PR system.

 

[Good2Golf]

I've explained this in several posts above. PR will broaden the political debate and more Canadians will have a party that reflects their values able to have seats in Parliament. If I have to explain why this is a good thing, then we're back to an actual discussion of how much democracy is too much.

Garbage, list-based (especially) PR takes the individual voter's power and over-rides it with each party's own internalized preferential prioritization of who should represent the party.  It is not focused on representation of the individual citizen.  At the very least, MMP is a relatively tested method to balance the individual citizen's right to representation with some objective structure.

All one need do to see the cracks in pure PR's way of doing business by having proponents describe how a specific party's representatives would be sequenced according to how much share of the popular vote they received.  I'm willing to bet that "fair, open and transparent" wouldn't be a true descriptor for many parties...

G2G

 

[PuckChaser]

Recommend we lock this up and carry on in the new thread, 2015 is so last year!

 

[The Bread Guy]

Good call - happy new year, all, and locked.

Milnet.ca Staff