How a minority Conservative Party can combat proportional representation?

[Machjo]

Should the conservative Party win a minority of seats in the House, and the NDP win the second biggest number with the Bloc and Liberals being decimated, an NDP-led coalition is almost certain.

Should that happen, there is a strong possibility that they would push for proportional representation, with a weakened Liberal coalition partner having little choice but to oppose it.

I personally would not know how to vote under a pro-rep system as I vote for candidates, not parties. I also recognize though that within this new political reality, unless the Conservatives could win some soft supporters of pro-rep among Dippers and Liberals to break with party ranks or the coalition to vote in opposition, the Conservatives will need to propose something attractive.

heck, even I, a proponent of first past the post, will acknowledge that prorep is still preferalbe to the misleading system we have now with party names on a first past the post ballot.

One possible way for the Conservatives to win soft supporters of first past the post such as myself would be to propose:

1. removing party names from ballots,
2. cutting party funding from the government,
3. making all candidates run as independents,
4. have teh House elect the PM, and
5. introduce a caucus of the House to replace party caucuses.

Any other ideas on how a conservative minority could entice soft dippers and libs to break ranks on the prorep issue?

Because the way I see it, unless the Conservatives can present something better, we may very well end up voting party and not candidate come next election.

 

[Colpy]

Should the conservative Party win a minority of seats in the House, and the NDP win the second biggest number with the Bloc and Liberals being decimated, an NDP-led coalition is almost certain.

Should that happen, there is a strong possibility that they would push for proportional representation, with a weakened Liberal coalition partner having little choice but to oppose it.

I personally would not know how to vote under a pro-rep system as I vote for candidates, not parties. I also recognize though that within this new political reality, unless the Conservatives could win some soft supporters of pro-rep among Dippers and Liberals to break with party ranks or the coalition to vote in opposition, the Conservatives will need to propose something attractive.

heck, even I, a proponent of first past the post, will acknowledge that prorep is still preferalbe to the misleading system we have now with party names on a first past the post ballot.

One possible way for the Conservatives to win soft supporters of first past the post such as myself would be to propose:

1. removing party names from ballots,
2. cutting party funding from the government,
3. making all candidates run as independents,
4. have teh House elect the PM, and
5. introduce a caucus of the House to replace party caucuses.

Any other ideas on how a conservative minority could entice soft dippers and libs to break ranks on the prorep issue?

Because the way I see it, unless the Conservatives can present something better, we may very well end up voting party and not candidate come next election.

I would be supportive of a riding-based system such as the preferential ballot.

I agree that the government should not be supporting political parties. Only Harper will do away with the per-vote subsidy. Vote Conservative.

You can not force candidates to run as independents.....it is a violation of freedom of association. People are allowed to organize into whatever type of association they wish......

We require a government, not just a Parliament......and therein lies the flaw in your plan.

BTW, hopefully, should the NDP take a solid second place in a vote that gives Harper another minority, the Conservatives and the Liberals will come together to prevent an NDP government beholden to the BQ.

In that case, the emergence of the NDP as the official opposition might even be a good thing.

Anything to keep the BQ away from increased national influence.

Perhaps, as a enticement to bringing the Liberals into a coalition, Harper could promise to resign in the near future.......

 

[YukonJack]

In our system it is totally useless to vote for a candidate. Why? Because no matter how good that candidate is, no matter how well that candidate would fight for/represent/honour the constituents, he/she would face political hinterland, expulsion from the Party and thus, anonimity, because in our present system backbenchers are nothing but slaves, sock-puppets and dummies for the Leader. And to add insult to injury, they must face the possibility that he/she would be asked to step down in a safe riding, in order to allow a boob of a "Leader" who got a fully justified defeat, to step and occupy his/her undeserved 'leadership'.

If that is not insane and a total spit in the face of not just the duly elected member but also the constituents, tell me what is.

 

[cranky]

there is a hybrid form of proportional representation where each riding elects their member of parliment, then additional seats are added to the house of commons to proportionally reflect the popular vote. I have no problem with this and would support such a reform.

 

[damngrumpy]

I personally hope we never see such a system. Were we to have a preferred ballot
system I would plump voting only for the one candidate. Should we have the full
proportional rep system I would still only vote for a candidate on the side of the
argument I wanted. I have a different view of things when I go to the polls, I view
an election is a civil war without guns and I support the candidate that best serves
the mood I am in when the election is to be decided.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Should the conservative Party win a minority of seats in the House, and the NDP win the second biggest number with the Bloc and Liberals being decimated, an NDP-led coalition is almost certain.

Should that happen, there is a strong possibility that they would push for proportional representation, with a weakened Liberal coalition partner having little choice but to oppose it.

I personally would not know how to vote under a pro-rep system as I vote for candidates, not parties. I also recognize though that within this new political reality, unless the Conservatives could win some soft supporters of pro-rep among Dippers and Liberals to break with party ranks or the coalition to vote in opposition, the Conservatives will need to propose something attractive.

heck, even I, a proponent of first past the post, will acknowledge that prorep is still preferalbe to the misleading system we have now with party names on a first past the post ballot.

One possible way for the Conservatives to win soft supporters of first past the post such as myself would be to propose:

1. removing party names from ballots,
2. cutting party funding from the government,
3. making all candidates run as independents,
4. have teh House elect the PM, and
5. introduce a caucus of the House to replace party caucuses.

Any other ideas on how a conservative minority could entice soft dippers and libs to break ranks on the prorep issue?

Because the way I see it, unless the Conservatives can present something better, we may very well end up voting party and not candidate come next election.

Some interesting ideas, but a couple of them won't fly and one we already have.
3. making all candidates run as independents - it will be impossible to prevent like-minded representatives from banding together and voting as a bloc. That is how political parties got started in the first place.
4. have teh House elect the PM - essentially that is how Parliament already works. Elected members of the House of Commons select one of their number to be Prime Minister. The fact they do it using a party system really doesn't change the process.
5. introduce a caucus of the House to replace party caucuses - this won't work for the same reason that requiring members to run as independents won't work.

As for using proportional representation that would be an easy adjustment for most Canadians as most voters do not vote for their local representative. I've been voting since 1963 and I have always voted for the party, not the representative. Studies have shown that voters tend to vote either for the party or the party leader, which amounts to the same thing.

I personally hope we never see such a system. Were we to have a preferred ballot
system I would plump voting only for the one candidate. Should we have the full
proportional rep system I would still only vote for a candidate on the side of the
argument I wanted. I have a different view of things when I go to the polls, I view
an election is a civil war without guns and I support the candidate that best serves
the mood I am in when the election is to be decided.

You are going to have to explain how you would vote for a candidate under prop rep when no candidate's name would be shown on the ballot.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Some interesting ideas, but a couple of them won't fly and one we already have.
3. making all candidates run as independents - it will be impossible to prevent like-minded representatives from banding together and voting as a bloc. That is how political parties got started in the first place.
4. have teh House elect the PM - essentially that is how Parliament already works. Elected members of the House of Commons select one of their number to be Prime Minister. The fact they do it using a party system really doesn't change the process.
5. introduce a caucus of the House to replace party caucuses - this won't work for the same reason that requiring members to run as independents won't work.

I have to disagree on a couple of points here.

3. - You cannot prevent like -minded candidates from voting as a bloc but you can prevent them from joining forces prior to being elected. Each individual independant candidate would then have to run entirely on the basis of the will of their constituents and not on a nationalized campaign. This would at least make them more responsible and accountable to the people who vote for them. If they all vote the same once in parliament that is fine.
4. - If this was how it really worked right now we theoratically could have had Jack Layton as the PM after the last election. The reality is that the only person nominated is the leader of the party with the most seats. I believe we should open this up to any MP that can get enough support (say 20%) to be nominated and then have a free vote. I would love nothing more than to see a majority govt unable to get the party leader elected as PM because he or she is a power hungry control freak like Harper. It also would give back-benchers more power in the house which is a good thing.

Here are a couple of my ideas to make the current FPTP system better.

1- No Party system, Each candidate is responsible only to the constituency who votes for them instead of a few leaders of a particular party.
2- No Whipped votes - see #1
3- PM is nominated and elected by the house using an instant run-off system
4- All ministers are nominated by PM and confirmed appointments by vote of the house
5- Place a legal obligation upon elected MP's to represent the will of the majority of their constituency. This would allow for them to be removed from their seat if they voted against the will of the people they are supossed to represent.

I believe these ideas make for a more representitive and accountable govt which is what most of us want.

 

[Cliffy]

The problem is that the corporate masters would not allow this to happen, and if by some fluke it did, they financially shut the country down until they got back their control.

 

[Machjo]

I would be supportive of a riding-based system such as the preferential ballot.

I agree that the government should not be supporting political parties. Only Harper will do away with the per-vote subsidy. Vote Conservative.

You can not force candidates to run as independents.....it is a violation of freedom of association. People are allowed to organize into whatever type of association they wish......

We require a government, not just a Parliament......and therein lies the flaw in your plan.

BTW, hopefully, should the NDP take a solid second place in a vote that gives Harper another minority, the Conservatives and the Liberals will come together to prevent an NDP government beholden to the BQ.

In that case, the emergence of the NDP as the official opposition might even be a good thing.

Anything to keep the BQ away from increased national influence.

Perhaps, as a enticement to bringing the Liberals into a coalition, Harper could promise to resign in the near future.......

1. There is a difference between legally prohibiting the existence of a political party and simply not officially recognizing it. What I am proposing is that the law simply not officially recognize the existence of political parties. So while this would not limit party influence altogether, it would at least weaken it.

2. Whether the Liberals join the conservatives or NDP will depend on the MPs in question. Are we talking about blue Liberals or red Liberals? Are we talking about social-corporatist New Democrats or Labour-socialist New Democrats? Are we talking about neo-conservative conservatives or progressive Conservatives? It will really depend not just on party representation, but also specifically which candidates won.