Which is better?
First past the post FPTP?
Proportional Rep PR?
Single Transferable Vote STV?
or is there a better system?
First past the post FPTP?
Proportional Rep PR?
Single Transferable Vote STV?
or is there a better system?
How to reform the electoral system
- Thread starter atlanticaparty
- Start date
i read a short story once, about a system where a massive computer was able to predict the votes of every person in the country, simply by selecting one representative voter and extrapolating from his/her views on various subjects.
Keep the same electoral system for the Commons, but loosen the "party line" thing.
In the Senate, elect the representatives but give every province equal representation, no matter the population base. That way, the more populous areas get their say in the Commons, but the smaller ones get their EQUAL say in the Senate.
Imagine the debates!!
My 2% or a dollar.
In the Senate, elect the representatives but give every province equal representation, no matter the population base. That way, the more populous areas get their say in the Commons, but the smaller ones get their EQUAL say in the Senate.
Imagine the debates!!
My 2% or a dollar.
elect the representatives but give every province equal representation, no matter the population base. That way, the more populous areas get their say in the Commons, but the smaller ones get their EQUAL say in the Senate.
-------------------------------------------thorswolf-----------------------------------------------
The complaints of each province, like the states south of you solved a basic problem
that Canadians get too many complicated solutions to.
Heaven forbid if you copy the States' solution.
Each state has 2 senators equal to each other state no matter how big or how small.
The House is then based on population.
It's a simple answer that gets both equal attention for all. AND gives weight
to population size.
Anything else seems to be a lot of intricate tinkering leaving no one happy,
-------------------------------------------thorswolf-----------------------------------------------
The complaints of each province, like the states south of you solved a basic problem
that Canadians get too many complicated solutions to.
Heaven forbid if you copy the States' solution.
Each state has 2 senators equal to each other state no matter how big or how small.
The House is then based on population.
It's a simple answer that gets both equal attention for all. AND gives weight
to population size.
Anything else seems to be a lot of intricate tinkering leaving no one happy,
We call it Confederation, but we have a strong centralized federal government. Socially we are more a provincial peoples rather than a national society. Technically we are a constitutional monarchy and not a democratic republic, but we are called citizens rather than subjects. We need a form of government that is suitable for all of our conflicts. In absence of a suitable form of government, we need a national government that is capable of expressing an attractive national vision. But, we need more than an attractive national vision, we need ‘buy-in’ to that vision.
Ultimately, representative governments govern communities rather than geographies. Other forms of government dictate, empire, theoize etc. the people subjected to them. The people who live in such geographies are not governed so much as they are subjects of government. We all need to decide the extent to which we feel we are members of a national community rather than regional, provincial or even smaller communities or special interests.
If feelings of regional or special interest identification predominate over national identification, then we do not have a strong national community, and a strong federal government rules us rather than governs us. We are subjects truly as well as technically. Subjects may be treated well with a high degree of equalitarianism by their governments, or they can be truly horribly, but subjects have little say or participation in their governance. The role of subjects is to accept, to immigrate or to rebel. The viability of the subjecting business in modern times might be well to consider.
Think about it. If our national vision is little more than ‘not American’ (which at the moment seems a fairly attractive thing to be), are our federal governments anything more than successful regional or interest warriors that managed to capture the national institutions of power? Can our successful political warriors be expected to do little more than reward their friends and punish their enemies? Do our traditions of winner take all and parliamentary dictatorships do anything other than perpetuate cycles of grudge politics and create career politicians? How does a national community arise or even survive perpetual grudge politics? What happens if people in a region lose the faith that their turn to play grudge politics winners will ever come around? Can a national economy survive grudge politics?
If there is no strong national community, what else can a strong national government be expected to do except identify with regions and economic interests? All governments ultimately require support from something--even if the support is force of arms. If there is no national community then governments will survive by governing (the meaning used here is becoming identified with) other communities such as regions or industries or social associations such as religions, or of course their militaries. People who live under governments that are supported by associations that they are not members of typically derive little benefit from government; and becomming a subject victim of government is unfortunately common.
If these above thoughts are relevant, what value can be expected from mere tinkering with something like electoral reform?
Ultimately, representative governments govern communities rather than geographies. Other forms of government dictate, empire, theoize etc. the people subjected to them. The people who live in such geographies are not governed so much as they are subjects of government. We all need to decide the extent to which we feel we are members of a national community rather than regional, provincial or even smaller communities or special interests.
If feelings of regional or special interest identification predominate over national identification, then we do not have a strong national community, and a strong federal government rules us rather than governs us. We are subjects truly as well as technically. Subjects may be treated well with a high degree of equalitarianism by their governments, or they can be truly horribly, but subjects have little say or participation in their governance. The role of subjects is to accept, to immigrate or to rebel. The viability of the subjecting business in modern times might be well to consider.
Think about it. If our national vision is little more than ‘not American’ (which at the moment seems a fairly attractive thing to be), are our federal governments anything more than successful regional or interest warriors that managed to capture the national institutions of power? Can our successful political warriors be expected to do little more than reward their friends and punish their enemies? Do our traditions of winner take all and parliamentary dictatorships do anything other than perpetuate cycles of grudge politics and create career politicians? How does a national community arise or even survive perpetual grudge politics? What happens if people in a region lose the faith that their turn to play grudge politics winners will ever come around? Can a national economy survive grudge politics?
If there is no strong national community, what else can a strong national government be expected to do except identify with regions and economic interests? All governments ultimately require support from something--even if the support is force of arms. If there is no national community then governments will survive by governing (the meaning used here is becoming identified with) other communities such as regions or industries or social associations such as religions, or of course their militaries. People who live under governments that are supported by associations that they are not members of typically derive little benefit from government; and becomming a subject victim of government is unfortunately common.
If these above thoughts are relevant, what value can be expected from mere tinkering with something like electoral reform?
Last edited:
"If these above thoughts are relevant, what value can be expected from mere tinkering with something like electoral reform? "
thats it in a nut shell they will just pay off different people is all -lol
lets try accountability
thats it in a nut shell they will just pay off different people is all -lol
lets try accountability
Very true. Changing JUST the electoral system is not enough. Eletoral reform was simply the topic of this thread. There are other electoral, political and regional issues that need to be addressed along with electoral reform. For TAP it is a package deal. See all of our policies www.atlanticaparty.ca
It has been said that Canada is a reactionary state and as a resutlt tough to keep together. Perhaps that is why the system of governance tends to be anti-democratic with an almost dictatorial centre holding things together. Is it possible for Canada to stay together and be more democratic?
I think accountability is at the core of representative republican forms of democracy.
If electors in a republic are taken as holding supreme sovereign authority and electors act to elect representatives that enact the popular will, then a central question might be ‘accountable to what?’ Another question might be what do the representatives represent? It seems to me that a case can be made that our elected representatives are highly accountable to what they represent, but what they represent is not the electors (us) who hold supreme authority, supposedly. Our representatives seem to play the ‘reward their friends and punish their enemies’ game very well. They represent the friends who put them in office, and that in their view is their job.
The trouble is that the traditional view of a representative democracy may not be an operative model. Various models that are described as pluralistic are sometimes thought to better describe the behaviour of western liberal democracies. Generally, pluralism is the idea that a large number of groups and associations in society hold power, and it is the competition among these groups that distributes power in a society and produces election results and government policies.
Pluralism is democratic in the sense that we all have opportunity to join groups and associations. However, individual entitlement under pluralism is related to the power held by associations to which an individual holds membership temporized only by constitutional and legal stipulations. Pluralism, however, compromises the traditional role of the electorate as holding supreme sovereign authority. The electorate, that’s us. If we don’t hold authority, we can’t expect our representatives to represent us. They will represent interest groups who have the power to put them in office. If this thinking is realistic then the act of voting may seem almost irrelevant. Of course, if it is true and we disagree, then it is our collective faults since groups, even our legal persons the corporations, do not have the vote. Groups do have the power of political donation though.
What I was trying to do yesterday and today is put some meat and bones on the sinew of electoral reform. Without meat and bones, sinew makes a pretty thin soup I think. The Ontario Citizens Committee on Electoral Reform recently completed its public consultations. Nearly 2000 submissions on electoral reform proposals can be read on their web site.
If electors in a republic are taken as holding supreme sovereign authority and electors act to elect representatives that enact the popular will, then a central question might be ‘accountable to what?’ Another question might be what do the representatives represent? It seems to me that a case can be made that our elected representatives are highly accountable to what they represent, but what they represent is not the electors (us) who hold supreme authority, supposedly. Our representatives seem to play the ‘reward their friends and punish their enemies’ game very well. They represent the friends who put them in office, and that in their view is their job.
The trouble is that the traditional view of a representative democracy may not be an operative model. Various models that are described as pluralistic are sometimes thought to better describe the behaviour of western liberal democracies. Generally, pluralism is the idea that a large number of groups and associations in society hold power, and it is the competition among these groups that distributes power in a society and produces election results and government policies.
Pluralism is democratic in the sense that we all have opportunity to join groups and associations. However, individual entitlement under pluralism is related to the power held by associations to which an individual holds membership temporized only by constitutional and legal stipulations. Pluralism, however, compromises the traditional role of the electorate as holding supreme sovereign authority. The electorate, that’s us. If we don’t hold authority, we can’t expect our representatives to represent us. They will represent interest groups who have the power to put them in office. If this thinking is realistic then the act of voting may seem almost irrelevant. Of course, if it is true and we disagree, then it is our collective faults since groups, even our legal persons the corporations, do not have the vote. Groups do have the power of political donation though.
What I was trying to do yesterday and today is put some meat and bones on the sinew of electoral reform. Without meat and bones, sinew makes a pretty thin soup I think. The Ontario Citizens Committee on Electoral Reform recently completed its public consultations. Nearly 2000 submissions on electoral reform proposals can be read on their web site.
accountabilty!
if a judge or magistrate gives bail to someone against police wishes and he/she reoffends while on bail...they should be charged with accessory after the fact......
If a parole board lets a person out on parole and they reoffend, they should be charged with accessory after the fact. no time off for good behaviour....good behaviour comes b4 the crime , not after
same with elected officials....tis tax payers money they are playing with.
cannot financial institutions be sued for fo screwing up investments?
if a judge or magistrate gives bail to someone against police wishes and he/she reoffends while on bail...they should be charged with accessory after the fact......
If a parole board lets a person out on parole and they reoffend, they should be charged with accessory after the fact. no time off for good behaviour....good behaviour comes b4 the crime , not after
same with elected officials....tis tax payers money they are playing with.
cannot financial institutions be sued for fo screwing up investments?
BC developed a committee of a variety of people and they hashed out an idea that is based on STVs. I like it much better than our we-have-a-say-when-politicians-say-we-can-have-a-say system.
I agree the way our nation governs needs to be reformed and the way we vote too.
The biggest thing we need done, NOW, that can be achieved soon, is Senate Reform.
We need to be able to vote our Senators in like we do our MPs.
The parties appoint people with the same ideology as them into the Senate and another new party comes in gets bills through the house and the senate controlled by the previous party votes it down.
And the cycle continues.. biggest thing in reform rate now for me is the Senate.
The biggest thing we need done, NOW, that can be achieved soon, is Senate Reform.
We need to be able to vote our Senators in like we do our MPs.
The parties appoint people with the same ideology as them into the Senate and another new party comes in gets bills through the house and the senate controlled by the previous party votes it down.
And the cycle continues.. biggest thing in reform rate now for me is the Senate.
at least in Australia we get to vote for the senate....well, that's what "they" tell us, anyway
LOL
an, yup, we use a government s'plied pencil to mark a government s'plied bit of paper...........
just tryin' t' think...what other leagal document are we allowed/encouraged, to use a pencil on....
LOL
an, yup, we use a government s'plied pencil to mark a government s'plied bit of paper...........
just tryin' t' think...what other leagal document are we allowed/encouraged, to use a pencil on....
WE need everything new -Canadian and only Canadian ,not comparing the system to the one in England , US ,France or whatever. We need OUR system and I'm sure we can make one . Reforming anything ,is patching up the old one .Comon Canadians ,we can have our country not accortding to enybody else. And that means eliminating the elements that stand in a way of Canada being Canada. The time is now ,before it's too late.
stop voting for them lol
it only encourages them.
>>>Suggest a system that no-one else has, then.<<<<
line them up against a wall, starting in order of office
and shoot them....pointing out to those standing around watching that this is what's instore fore the next representatives of the people, that ****s up....
shrug...ya gotta be cruel to be kind sometimes....
it only encourages them.
>>>Suggest a system that no-one else has, then.<<<<
line them up against a wall, starting in order of office
and shoot them....pointing out to those standing around watching that this is what's instore fore the next representatives of the people, that ****s up....
shrug...ya gotta be cruel to be kind sometimes....