The Leaders Debate

[ags281]

I am from now on confining my electoral reform discussion to this thread only to avoid repetition elsewhere (and I doubt much more will be said on the leaders debate as it was a while ago, so I can hijack this with peace of mind).

I would discount completely a strict proportional representative system.   Not only does it remove my access to government through a regionally elected representative, who attends Parliament in my interests, but it further subjugates Canadian government to the politics of parties and their leaders (I would like to see the Commons move the other way) as well as removing the right of an independent to run for Parliament, as he must join a party to gain a reasonable chunk of the national vote.

I agree, I like regional representatives. Strict PR in Canada is a terrible idea.

The mixed proportional system doesn't fare much better.   A system utilized by Germany, it attempts to migitate the extremes of the first-past-the-post ballot by "topping up" the legislative body with seats assigned to a national list.   Aside from the fact that it would create a "two-tiered" system of MPs, this also has the inherent difficulties of proportional systems by causing governments to be too unstable (fractionalized by too many insignificant, bickering parties) or too stable (one coalition bloc that cannot be assailed by any opposition group).

Re: the overly stable coalition bloc, that's exactly what we have now. The only difference is that rather than having different party names they're all called liberals or conservatives or NDP and the bickering is behind closed doors. Just look at leadership races within the parties and it becomes clear that there are many people who disagree on many issues. A coalition would be no different, except some of the bickering might actually make it into public where voters know who's saying what rather than behind closed doors as it is now.

For the argument of too many different viewpoints, the same holds: at least it's out in the open instead of behind closed doors within a single party.

It is not proportional representation that Canada needs, but more checks and balances on what is the most centralized executive system of all the worlds industrialized democracies.   Voting procedures can be amended through preferential ballots or secondary votes to ensure a majority is reached.  

If by secondary votes you mean a multiple ballot like France, then please be joking. Our voter turnout sucks badly enough as it is, so just imagine how few would turn up two or three times.

For the single transferable vote (STV, aka alternative vote) such as in Australia - I assume that's what you mean by "preferential ballots" - I'd take that over the current simple preference vote any day. It would definately be a large improvement. I just think that a mixed proportional system would be an even bigger one. Last I heard, New Zeland was pretty happy with the switch to mixed from a system pretty much identical to ours (perhaps Wes can correct me if he's reading this and has heard otherwise, as he's probably most likely to have heard any grumblings from the kiwis due to his location).

As well, the Upper House of Parliament, the Senate, must be brought into the democratic dialogue.   America got rid of its appointed senators years ago, so why do we still insist on maintaining ours.   Any house that is to represent the regions of Canada equally is automatically impaired when the regions are given preferential treatment.   California and Rhode Island both elect 2 senators, so why does British Columbia get 6 while Quebec gets 24?  

Yes, we need to take a serious look at the senate and do something about it. I don't think an equal number of seats per province would work though. Can you imagine Quebec or Ontario being happy with the same number of senate seats as PEI? I can't. Perhaps having an equal number of seats per region (west, prairie, central/Ontario, east/Quebec, atlantic, then maybe a few less for the territories due to their very low population) rather than province. Each region could either be a multi-member district, or single member districts within them could be created. Just another one of the many options.

Party centralism should be curbed as much as possible by allowing free votes and debate on the floor of Parliament, to do this, we should remove the non-confidence vote so the debate can be as open and unclouded as possible.   Set election dates would also help to avoid the politics surrounding the call for elections.

Allowing free votes is a good thing. However, if they are done within a first past the post house, then they are still not very representative of the population. While there may be variation within parties on some issues like abortion, generally voting will still follow the spirit of party lines. Free votes won't really be effective until the composition of the house more closely represents the actual distribution of votes in the country.

If by removing the non-confidence vote you mean making it such that no vote shall be one of non-confidence unless specifically stated, I agree. If you mean remove it entirely, then I have to disagree, as I think it's important to retain the option just in case (one of those checks and balances you want more of).

For fixed election dates, if all the other changes we're talking about were to happen I don't think it would be nearly as large of an issue. However, it would still help a bit, so let's go for it.

Looks like we actually agree more than I originally thought.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Note that in the US the senators were formerly appointed by state legislatures, not a body or office of the federal government.  That's a big difference.  Would it make more sense for senators to be directly answerable to the voters (since the MPs already are), or to the provincial government (of whatever party) in pursuit of the provincial interests?

 

[ags281]

Would it make more sense for senators to be directly answerable to the voters (since the MPs already are), or to the provincial government (of whatever party) in pursuit of the provincial interests?

I would go with letting voters elect the senate, as allowing the provincial governments to name federal senators would only cause problems as far as I can tell. The balance of provincial and federal powers was created as a system of checks and balances to prevent Canada from tearing itself apart, and over time court rulings have already increased provincial powers drastically. Giving the provinces essentially the power to overturn federal legislation as well would likely result in complete chaos. The provinces would be in command of the federal government, and there would be no effective unifying power. That could be quite dangerous to the stability of the country.