We do not live in a Democracy.

[Niflmir]

Well, only if the proper definition of democracy is distinguishable from oligarchy:

1a) government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

as opposed to the non ideological:

1.government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.


The numbers come from elections Canada 2006 general election official results.

Official Population of Canada: 30 007 094
Number (percentage) of people eligible to vote: 23 054 615 (76.8%)
Number (percentage) of population who cast a non spoiled ballot: 14 817 159 (49.4%)
Immediate conclusion: Less than half of the population of Canada participated in the last Federal election.

Number (percentage) of Canadians who voted for the Conservative Party of Canada: 5 374 071 (17.9%)
Number (percentage) who voted for the Liberal party: 4 479 415 (14.9%)
Number (percentage) who voted for the Bloc Quebecois: 1 553 201 (5.2%)
Number (percentage) who voted for the New Democrat Party: 2 589 597 (8.6%)
Number (percentage) who voted for the Green Party: 664 068 (2.2%)

Seats (percentage of total) [percentage of votes] awarded to:
Conservative Party of Canada: 124 (40.3%) [36.3%]
Liberal party: 103 (33.4%) [30.2%]
Bloc Quebecois: 51 (16.6%) [10.5%]
New Democrat Party: 29 (9.4%) [17.5%]
Green Party: 0 (0%) [4.5%]
Independent: 1 (0.3%) [0.5%]

Now some words, and the most contrasting examples: The Conservative Party of Canada was elected with only the support of 18% of Canadians. They received twice the number of votes compared to the New Democrat party but received quadruple the number of seats. Meanwhile the Green party had the support of one person for every eight people who supported the Conservative party, yet the Conservative party of Canada has infinitely more seats (in ratio). The New Democrat Party nearly had twice the support compared to the Bloc Quebecois, yet only had slightly more than half the seats. Clearly, some votes carry more weight than others. From the difference of percentage of seats and percentage of votes it is possible to calculate the percentage of votes whose voice was not heard, that number is 13.3%. More simply: one in eight Canadians vote will be systematically deemed irrelevent. With the discard of a vote, another one gains excess weight; the numbers are equal, the vote of one in eight Canadians will systematically be deemed to carry extra weight. All in all, one in four votes will be treated in an unfair manner by the current election system. If we exclude the unfair votes from the percentage of voters, we get a new number, the number of Canadians that the current makeup of parliament represents: 12 849 917 or 42.8%. That is the number that the government as a whole represents, each party can only lay a claim to a fraction of that.

There exists a minority of people in this country whose views control the cabinet, and with it some of the major decisions of the Government. 18% of the population claims membership in this minority. Regardles of who the government is, one group alone can never lay claim to representing the views of Canadians when the entirety of parliament represents slightly less than half of the total. One in four Canadians is excluded from voting from the get go, one in three of those deemed eligible will realize that the central limit theorem or the makeup of the electoral system means that their vote is unnecessary, or will just decide they don't care, and will subsequently not show up. That is half the population gone, right there. Then there are ballots spoiled and votes given excess or minimal weight that further weakens the rule of the majority.

Can we truly call our system of Government representational? Is this what we actually mean by democracy? If so, and since there are clear ideological differences, what would we call a system where every vote receives equal weight and every citizen has the ability to vote and possibly is made to vote?

 

[sanctus]

Can we truly call our system of Government representational? Is this what we actually mean by democracy? If so, and since there are clear ideological differences, what would we call a system where every vote receives equal weight and every citizen has the ability to vote and possibly is made to vote?

It is not necessarily the fault of the system that many of our citizens do not choose to participate in the decision making process of the nation during a federal election.

 

[Niflmir]

It is not necessarily the fault of the system that many of our citizens do not choose to participate in the decision making process of the nation during a federal election.

True, true, I didn't want to imply the necessity, but I did want to emphasize that at least some of the eligible voters (not citizens, I wanted to distinguish the two) will see the system as making their voice irrelevent. The fact that basically one in twenty voters showed up to vote for the Green party despite the knowledge that the system would destroy their voice is certainly commendable. At the very least, the one third of eligible voters who do not participate should be viewed as a lack of faith or interest in the system, which nevertheless calls into question the system's validity if it wants to claim to represent the majority of the system. We represent two thirds of the three quarters of citizens who are eligible to vote is a weak statement of democracy.

 

[sanctus]

nevertheless calls into question the system's validity if it wants to claim to represent the majority of the system. We represent two thirds of the three quarters of citizens who are eligible to vote is a weak statement of democracy.

Voting for the Green party is not something I would personally commend, but to each his own flavour

 

[Niflmir]

That is exactly the point of all this, based on what I have seen, I really struggle to recommend consideration of the Green party, the system coupled to the attitudes of the majority of the eligible voters simply does not allow a vote for the Green party to matter. The only statement that can be made is that 5% of voters feel so strongly about the environment that they are willing to vote in a way which the system throws away. But in the same line, every vote for the NDP is a vote that the current system treats as half a vote, and every vote for the Bloc Quebecois is like two votes. There are 39 ministers in the house of commons that currently represent the Bloc Quebecois, Conservative Party and the Liberal party when the people voted for a different voice.

 

[Pangloss]

Voting for the Green party is not something I would personally commend, but to each his own flavour

Sanctus: this thread isn't about who you'd vote for.

As for the Green votes being wasted: don't federal campaign funds flow from how many votes a party got in the last election? How does that work?

Proportional representation would most certainly be a step in the right direction - as long as we didn't end up like Italy.

Pangloss

 

[Niflmir]

Sanctus: this thread isn't about who you'd vote for.

As for the Green votes being wasted: don't federal campaign funds flow from how many votes a party got in the last election? How does that work?

Proportional representation would most certainly be a step in the right direction - as long as we didn't end up like Italy.

Pangloss

Hey now! I was in Italy recently. ;-) I was think Italy has a host of other problems that we don't have - like the mafia, and illegal immigration of criminals from nearby poor nations, at least so my wife assures me.

Admittedly, I forgot about the funding aspect, but that is not really a political voice. I really just wanted to motivate the idea that all votes are not created equal. Some carry more weight on Parliament hill than others. And that it is stunning how few Canadians (as opposed to eligible voters) actually vote for a given party.

 

[hermanntrude]

does the system become more fairly representative if a greater proportion of those eligable to vote actually bother to do so?

 

[able]

vote

New Zealand went to the proportional vote system, and it has been a mess since. Splinter parties have far too much power with coalitions, and most of them ( like the green party ) have only one discernible plank in rheir platform. Watched the green party leader on CPAC, and she wants Dion to be PM, except that she wants to be the PM except that etc, etc. If that isn't playing power politics in a roundabout way, I don't know what is? If splinter parties really had something to offer the majority, then the majority would vote for them. When I was young, and in a hurry, I felt just like you do, didn't do any good, but the system we have is about the best there is, unfortunately, every system has glitches.

 

[Zzarchov]

Actually, we try very hard NOT to be a true democracy. We are far closer to a republic.
True Democracy is rarely a good thing, its mob rule. Nazi Germany was a better example of Democracy than we have ever been, and it is why currently the government can't hold referendums in Germany, as they were a powerful tool in Hitler's arsenal.
Just because alot of people vote on something neither means it is right, nor that they fully understand what they are voting for. Bills are often misnamed (the clean air act), or named in a misleading way, and new little tidbits unrelated to the original bill are tacked on. It is a full time job to keep track of whats in each bill, and people paid to do that full time have a hard time doing it.

 

[tamarin]

Canadians are already unhappy with their legislatures. Party loyalty trumps constituency interest. Reps are kept on a leash and their first master is their leader. If we are to have a change it must be meaningful. I don't trust proportional representation. It will lead to endless impasses and roadblocks. Deals and more deals. Why can't government be simplified and downsized so that only the essentials are covered? At the moment in Canada it is bloated and corrupt. Too much for ministries to do and then they want to control even more.

 

[Toro]

Canada is well run.

Canada works.

Why f*** it up?

Usually, its someone from a fringe party that is complaining about PR

Not voting is a democratic right.

This idea that "only" 50-60% of Canadians voting does not represent the true will of the people is hogwash if you understand statistical sampling, unless you can demonstrate severe systematic biases.

 

[Pangloss]

Canadians are already unhappy with their legislatures. Party loyalty trumps constituency interest. Reps are kept on a leash and their first master is their leader. If we are to have a change it must be meaningful. I don't trust proportional representation. It will lead to endless impasses and roadblocks. Deals and more deals. Why can't government be simplified and downsized so that only the essentials are covered? At the moment in Canada it is bloated and corrupt. Too much for ministries to do and then they want to control even more.

I agree wholeheartedly with your first seven sentences, Tamarin. Maybe proportional rep is a mess, but is it any worse than what we've got? What if we tried to learn from NZ (if it is a mess there) and Italy and maybe we were the first to get it really right?

I agree about the party system - it worked decades ago, when the range of opinions were relatively well defined, and the parties actually could represent a large chunk of the populace. Now, with narrowcasting, special interest groups and people demanding better local representation, parties are looking a bit like dinosaurs.

Pangloss

 

[Niflmir]

This idea that "only" 50-60% of Canadians voting does not represent the true will of the people is hogwash if you understand statistical sampling, unless you can demonstrate severe systematic biases.

Actually, it is an understanding of statistical sampling that makes the lack of vote more disturbing. The people that vote are not a simple random sample. They generally share views which make them more unlikely to vote or come from a very specific demographic. The proof of the systematic bias is the fact that they consistently do not show up. It is for this reason that most parties do not try very hard to force these electors to come, they represent an unknown, they are united in a common view and are large enough to swing results without there being any indication of how well they conform to the electors that do show up.

The two populations are entirely different, true the null hypothesis is that they are equal, but a causal analysis of the reasons for distinguishment (a disbelief of the system) makes it likely that projections onto this population are unfounded.

But unless you reject the stipulation that the rule of law in a democracy is controlled by the majority of people, or you reject that in a democracy all voices carry equal weight, you are forced to conclude that we do not live in one. You certainly are free to reject that definition, I never claimed it was authoritative, but is this what people think of as democracy?

 

[Walter]

Hey now! I was in Italy recently. ;-) I was think Italy has a host of other problems that we don't have - like the mafia, and illegal immigration of criminals from nearby poor nations, at least so my wife assures me.

We already have the mafia and we get a lot of migrants from poor countries but they like to call themselves refugees.

 

[Pangloss]

We already have the mafia and we get a lot of migrants from poor countries but they like to call themselves refugees.

Yeah, Walter - all those women who have been held down on the ground and had their vaginas ripped to shreds with a piece of broken glass and then had the torn labia sewn together in the name of Islam or chastity or whatever - yeah, they're immigrants. Same with child soldiers. And political dissidents. And Muslims who have renounced their faith in Islamic countries.

Real insightful political analysis, Walter.

Sure there's economic migration - but that's a whole other discussion.

Pangloss

(was that the right shade of "sarcastic purple?")

 

[Toro]

Actually, it is an understanding of statistical sampling that makes the lack of vote more disturbing. The people that vote are not a simple random sample. They generally share views which make them more unlikely to vote or come from a very specific demographic. The proof of the systematic bias is the fact that they consistently do not show up. It is for this reason that most parties do not try very hard to force these electors to come, they represent an unknown, they are united in a common view and are large enough to swing results without there being any indication of how well they conform to the electors that do show up.

Well, that would certainly be a surprise to me.

I was active in politics, and worked on several campaigns in three different cities, and we knew who was voting and was not, and there was no systematic bias, other than perhaps younger people didn't tend to vote, but that cut across all demographics.

Polling is not done through a random sample. Polling firms spend a lot of time and research obtaining an unbiased cross section of voters, from geography to race to sex to income to age, etc. They're designed with a confidence interval of 95% with a dispersion 3%, and they're able to do that with just over 1,000 people in Canada. I can't remember the exact numbers, but the confidence interval rises to something like 98% with 3,000 people, 99% with 10,000 people, etc. So its pretty safe to say those 15 million voters out of the 25 million or so eligible voters represent a pretty accurate representation of the democratic will of the Canadian people.

Unless you can back up your claims with hard data of systematic bias, because that would be interesting.

 

[SVMc]

http://www.fairvote.ca

FYI - For the past year Ontario has had a Citizen's Assembly on voting reform and the recommendations of the Assembly's deliberations will be on the 2007 ballot.

British Columbia had a similar process on voting reform, which was very closely passed. In fact, in our standard voting standards it passed by a huge majority, the only reason that is is not currently in place in BC is that a super majority was imposed.

Just in case people don't visit the link: 77 of 79 ridings voted in favour of changing the system, and 57.69% of the popular vote voted in favour of changing the system. So, why is the system not changed? Because to pass the question needed to pass in 48 (60%) of 79 ridings (done) and pass by 60% of the popular vote (2.31% short). This still seems bizzare to me as to separate a province only 51% was required.

Okay now lets look at why our system needs to be changed and why every vote does not count.

Let's forget for a second the issue of eligable voters not voting. I'm going to start with a hypothetical example:

Example 1: 10 votes in the riding 10 people vote.
3 Conservative
4 Liberal
3 NDP

6 people voted for someone other than the Liberals, while the minority of the people in the riding who did support the Liberals get to elect someone. The six votes not cast for the liberals have no value because they do not contribute to anyone being elected, the means that these votes do not contribute to representation.

Example 2: 10 votes in the riding, 10 people vote
1 Conservative
8 Liberal
1 NDP

In this example the Liberals have a clear majority, but there are still 4 wasted votes. The 2 people who voted for the Conservative and the NDP have not had any value assigned to their vote since their votes did not contribute to getting anyone elected, and they then did not contribute to representation. Also interesting is that 2 of the Liberal voters also did not contribute to the Liberal being elected, only 6 votes were needed for this person to be elected so the remaining two votes are extraneous and have no value because they do not contribute to anyone being elected.

The system that is being proposed is the Mixed Member Proportional System. This system is a mix of the current first-past-the-post constitual system and a proportional list system.

The main criticism of so called "pure PR" systems is that they do not allow for local representation since in the pure PR system the election of candidates is based on pure mathematics of the proportional vote. THIS IS NOT THE SYSTEM BEING PROPOSED.

In the Mixed Member Proportional System (MMP) votes are cast both for local representation and for proportional representation. It is important to note that there are several forms of MMP systems, and that there are differences. Two main differences for MMP systems are how the proportional seats are elected.

Example A: 2 votes, local & proportional lists
During voting people are asked to cast 2 votes, one vote for the person you want to represent your riding (your MP) and one for the person or party that you would like to see represent your voice across Canada. Effectively this means that if you live in a riding and really really support the Conservative candidate because they have done a lot of work for your riding and you'd really like to support that person, but in general you may feel that you would on a party basis prefer to vote for the Green party then you can cast your riding vote for the conservative MP and your "list" vote for the Green party.

Example B: 1 vote, combined lists & top ups.
In this system you cast one vote as candidates are elected in their constituency, and their vote surpasses what is needed to elect them in that constituency then the remaining extra votes go towards electing members for the proportional seats. Likewise in ridings where there are votes cast not for the wining constitual seat the votes cast for other candidates go towards that parties proportional seats. It is important to note that an individual candidate (i.e. no party affiliation) can run in this system and gain both the constitual vote and the popular vote.

LISTS:

One of the biggest benefits IMO of the MMP system is the lists. The lists become powerful political tools. In both systems the proportional votes go towards electing people on the lists. The difference between the two systems, is that one system has list only candidates (i.e. they do not challenge the riding candidates directly) and in the second system the list is combined. My personal preference is for the combined list. But, I would strongly support either of these systems over the current system.

In either case the reason the list is important is because it can be used politically. In the first elections it will be almost impossible for any part to keep it's list a secret, the publication of one parties list will force all parties to publish their lists. A frequent criticism is that lists may not be published, but since candidates need to be nominated and run, this doesn't happen.

Since voters can see the list they can see if the party put all of their "friends" at the top of the proportional list, or for example put all visible minorities or most women at the bottom of the lists, these become political issues.

The reason I prefer the mixed list system is that it gives a constituency the ability to elect a popular local candidate that may not otherwise be elected on the overall popular vote, but keeps the whole list out in the open so that constitual candidates that may not quite make the threshold in their own riding can theretially be brought in on the proportional vote, if they are high enough on the list.

Lets look at our two original hypothetical ridings again.

Example 1 under MMP: 10 votes in riding,
3 Conservative
4 Liberal
3 NDP

Now under MMP the Liberal gains the riding seat and is the representative for that local riding, but the 6 other votes will go towards the overall proportional count and will contribute to electing conservative and NDP proportional seat candidates. Now these votes have value.

Example 2 under MMP: 10 votes in riding,
1 Conservative
8 Liberal
1 NDP

Now under MMP the Liberal still gets elected, and as in the above the Conservative and NDP votes contribute to electing proportional seats for those parties, so those votes now have value. In addition the extra 2 Liberal votes will count towards the overall proportional vote for the Liberals helping them elect proportional seats.

Proportional Voting is the best way to counter the idea that "my vote doesn't count" because quite frankly unless I vote for the winner, and that winner doesn't win by too much, my vote right now doesn't count.

Next Proportional Representation and Myth Busting

 

[SVMc]

In the sense of fair play, but also not completely identifying myself I should mention that I am certainly biased towards fair voting and have been involved with Fair Vote Canada, at the chapter level, and on chapter executives and have sat on committees and co-chaired a chapter.

http://www.fairvotecanada.org

MYTH: “Fair voting” sounds like a great idea, but it doesn’t work in the real world.

FACT: More than a century’s experience in other Western nations proves that fair voting systems provide the foundation for good government.

Opponents of fair voting are fond of citing anecdotes. Look at Country X in the 1930s. Look at the recent election in country Y.

With more than 80 countries using fair voting systems, an anecdote can be found to supposedly “prove” anything. Fortunately, the long history of so many countries using fair voting systems has created a good body of evidence that concludes – as we have always been taught – that good democracy does lead to good government.MYTH: Proportional representation will cause endless minority governments and constant elections.

FACT: First, it is necessary to make a very important distinction. Currently, Canadians are governed by a minority government created by an electoral system with incentives that make these governments short-lived. FPTP elections almost always give one party far more seats than deserved and majority control with far less than majority support. This works against longterm stability in minority governments. Why would a party continue to negotiate and compromise with other parties, when it believes it could win 40 per cent of the votes, unfairly gain a majority of seats and wield 100 per cent of the power without compromise? Little wonder that Canadian minority governments have a relatively short lifespan.

The governments in the vast majority of fair voting countries are not minority governments, but rather majority coalition governments.

This distinction reflects real differences in how those governments are constituted. For example, minority governments in our current system are usually composed of one party which has received merely a plurality of the votes (despite likely winning more seats than their popular vote would afford them).

On the other hand, coalition governments are composed of more than one political party and represent the majority of the voting population. Generally, the parties have come to some type of agreement on government policies and each party has seats in cabinet.

Usually, the likely coalition partners are well known before the election. After the election, the largest party and one or more like-minded parties in the legislature forge a coalition agreement – not a fragile, short-lived arrangement – but a legislative agenda they intend to implement together.

All parties in the coalition agree to these compromises during the formation of the government, so the government doesn't get formed until the disagreements are worked out. The end result is that all members of the coalition have a stake in ensuring government stability. The smaller coalition partner doesn't feel moved to threaten to bring down the government because they are part of the government. This gives coalition partners strong
incentives to implement common policies.

MYTH: Coalition governments are unstable.

FACT: Many forms of proportional representation are found in the world today, but let’s look at two models for reform often proposed in Canada: Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) like they have in Germany, and the Irish Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, chosen by the BC Citizens’ Assembly. When you compare the frequency of elections in these two countries to similar numbers for Canada, the results are striking:

Ireland: 16 elections since 1948, 1 election every 3.63 years
Germany: 16 elections since 1949, 1 election every 3.56 years
Canada: 18 elections since 1945, 1 election every 3.39 years

In these two countries, majority coalition governments are the norm. Ireland hasn't had a single-party government since the 1980s. Germany has only had one single-party government in its entire post-war history.

Finally, coalition governments can also maintain stability by inviting in a new coalition partner, if another partner breaks away over policy disagreements. This would be comparable to a cabinet shuffle in our current system.MYTH: Proportional representation couldn’t work in Canada.

FACT: Some critics of fair voting talk about coalition governments as if they are an unusual and unworkable form of government. In reality, the great majority of major democracies are governed by coalitions.

In fact, many countries with very diverse populations have a history of very stable coalition government:

· Switzerland has long-standing stable coalition governments, even with four national languages and four distinctly different cultural groups.
· Germany has had successful coalition governments, both before and after the East/West merger.
· Belgium and the Netherlands manage to form government coalitions, with both countries having large numbers of immigrants.

There is no reasonable argument to suggest that Canada is so radically different from the rest of the world that we would actually suffer, rather than benefit, from the effects of a fair voting system.

In fact, it is our current electoral system that promotes regional divisions and conflict, by exaggerating the support for some parties while diminishing if not eliminating the support for others in entire regions of the country. Liberals are not fairly represented in the West. Conservatives are unfairly represented in major urban centres. One regionally concentrated party, the Bloc Quebecois, is able to win a far higher portion of seats than deserved, with dramatic consequences for the entire country.

The only realistic, long-term solution to the current instability and regional divisions is for our political parties to learn to work together in true majority coalition government. Ironically, one of best arguments for proportional representation for the House of Commons right now may not be the run-of-the-mill ones such as more fairness, increased voter participation, or an increase in the number of women parliamentarians, but more stability.

MYTH: Proportional representation would lead to too many political parties.

FACT: Countries that use fair voting systems only have a marginally higher effective number of political parties represented in parliament.

Arend Lijphart’s Patterns of Democracy, which looked at 36 democracies over the past 50 years, is one of the most respected comparative studies of modern democracies. Lijphart examined the effective number of parties in parliaments – a way of comparing the number of parties playing a meaningful role in various electoral systems. While there tends to be a slightly higher number in proportional systems, the difference in the effective number of parties is not extreme. During that period, the effective number of parties in parliament was 2.37 for Canada, 2.40 for the U.S. and 2.11 for the UK, all countries using our electoral system. That compares to 2.93 for Germany
with its mixed proportional system, and only 4.65 for the Netherlands, which has the most proportional voting system in the world, and 4.55 for Israel.

Fair voting in Canada would allow a few more parties to gain seats that reflect their popular support. In a fair voting system, voters would have greater political choice and a more competitive political environment.

MYTH: Italy and Israel demonstrate why fair voting leads to chaos.

FACT: Italy and Israel are two extreme examples from among the 81 countries using fair voting systems. Their political cultures and history bear no resemblance to Canada. In fact, the Netherlands (not Israel) has the most pure form of proportional representation in the world, and enjoys very stable and effective government.

Some countries have taken steps with their proportional voting systems to screen very small fringe parties by establishing thresholds. For example, a party may be required to win at least 5 per cent of the popular vote before qualifying for a seat in parliament, which still allows representation for
emerging minority parties.

MYTH: Proportional representation is really about helping voters who support the Green Party and the NDP.

FACT: While supporters of those two parties are often penalized, so are supporters of all parties. In fact, in the last provincial election, Liberal and Progressive Conservative voters cast two-thirds of all wasted votes.

The reason? They happened to live in ridings where another party had more supporters. So their votes elected no one.

Between 1980 and 2003, 50.7% of Ontarians’ votes were wasted. This is the highest percentage of all Canadian provinces during this period. During that same period, 49.2% of Liberal votes were wasted, while 47.8% of Conservative votes were not counted in determining legislative seats.

Proportional representation will benefit all Ontario voters by ensuring that their votes are counted in determining the composition of the legislature.

This issue is not about the supporters of Party X versus supporters of Party Y, or left versus right, or urban voters versus rural voters. It’s about supporting the right of all Ontarians to cast equal and effective votes. It’s about the need for fair election outcomes.

That is why such a politically diverse range of prominent Canadians sit on the National Advisory Board of Fair Vote Canada. Prominent conservatives include former federal cabinet minister Lincoln Alexander, former Reform Party advisor Rick Anderson, former Mulroney advisor Senator Hugh Segal, and former MP Patrick Boyer. Another Advisory Board member is Lloyd Axworthy, who held numerous cabinet positions in Liberal governments. Prominent left-leaning supporters include writer and feminst Judy Rebick, activist Maude Barlow and environmentalist David Suzuki.