The Official Canadian Electoral Reform Thread

[CDNBear]

Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change our

Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change our voting system

The Liberal government does not have the right to change Canada’s voting system without first holding a referendum. The notion that we can fundamentally alter our democracy without subjecting the change to a full public consultation is simply wrong, as voting is not a privilege granted by a political party to the people — it is the people who vest power, for a limited time, in a political party. It is up to the voters to decide how they shall choose which party to give that power to.

Who we choose is inextricably linked to how we make that collective choice. Those who own the ultimate power of choice should not have the boundaries of how they choose set, or the rules governing their choice imposed, from without. Changing the method by which we elect politicians must be consented to by those who elect them — the voters themselves. Voters own the power of choice and the power over the rules by which they make their choice.

More truth from Rex

ESPECIALLY since he wasn't elected to lead, but to replace.

 

[captain morgan]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

Au contraire mon frere... Trudeau has been ordained, by divine right, that he and his many selfies can do whatever he pleases.

He is thinking about the kids after all

 

[Curious Cdn]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

I think that it will prove to be so hard to replace our voting system and to find a method that actually works better that the whole experiment will be abandoned quickly. First Past the Post is widespread around the world and for good reason, too. It would have been abandoned long ago if it were really so dysfunctional.

 

[Jinentonix]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

Look, the simple fact is, no one is going to alter the system that brought them to power in the first place. Well, unless they plan on forming a dictatorship, then there's no room for any amount of that pesky democracy stuff.

 

[CDNBear]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

Justin Trudeau, favours China's dictatorship. Long time family friend Fidel Castro.

 

[Corduroy]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

We had a referendum to replace our voting system twice in BC. The first time it just barely failed and the second it was 60/40 against. Majority governments tend to benefit from FPTP imbalances. A great way to get out of their promise would be to hold a referendum just like we did here. When it doesn't pass they can blame the voters.

 

[CDNBear]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

I'll shoulder the blame.

 

[Curious Cdn]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

You have to consider how idiotic on Trudeau's behalf it is to want to change a system that put him in power with the support of less than a third of the voters, which is also what his predecessor had.

 

[tay]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

Rex needs to understand the election was a referendum and the Libs have a majority, just like Harper had.....


The stakes couldn’t be higher for democracy. So what’s the problem we’re trying to fix?

On October 19, over 9,000,000 voters (51.8 per cent) were unable to make their vote count and elect a representative to bring their voices to Ottawa.

The country elected a majority Liberal government, but as usual did so with less than a majority of the vote (39.5 per cent). Most Liberals in Alberta and Saskatchewan, New Democrats and Conservatives in Toronto and Atlantic Canada— and Greens nearly everywhere— elected no representation to Parliament.

That's a big problem. When your vote means nothing, it disempowers citizens and breeds disdain for democracy— and widespread apathy.

And problems with majoritarian systems like first-past-the-post (FPTP) don’t end on election day. When parties can easily win 100 per cent of the power with as little as 39 per cent of the popular vote, they can lose their majority just as quickly.

To say the least, this undermines stable solutions. FPTP voting creates an endless cycle of policy lurch, where the new government reverses the policies of the previous government at a huge cost to citizens.

We are so used to this dysfunctional system—it’s the water Canadians have been swimming in since Confederation— that we don’t know or believe there’s a better way. There is.

So, why haven’t we done this already? Critics, most often backroom operatives, point to red herrings in order to scare the electorate away from a system that will require parties to share power and work together. Sitting governments rarely push hard for proportional representation if the current system benefits their party.

We’ve all heard the objections. “Israel! Italy! Accountable MPs! It’s all too complicated!” You rarely hear the critics pointing to Sweden, New Zealand and Germany— countries with much more in common with Canada— as examples. (Israel, by the way, uses a form of PR called a “country-wide closed-list system.” It is a type of proportional system that would require a change in our constitution, and nobody has ever seriously recommended it.)

And what many of these criticisms miss is that Proportional Representation is not one specific system, but a principle that informs several systems we can choose from. The principle is, fundamentally, that if a party earns 39 per cent of the vote, it should receive about 39 per cent of the seats and all citizens deserve representation. As noted, most OECD countries use PR, and each have tailored a proportional system to meet their unique needs.

Then there’s the cry of so many pundits, partisan and otherwise: “This is just the losers whining again! Canadians soundly rejected PR in a previous referendum!”

Yes, what about those referendums?

more......

Trudeau must turf first-past-the-post system once and for all | National Observer

 

[CDNBear]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

If people are so sure that it works well, that it will make the country better, that the people support it.

Put it to a referendum.

Let the people have their say.

 

[tay]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

If people are so sure that it works well, that it will make the country better, that the people support it.

Put it to a referendum.

Let the people have their say.

How many voters do you think actually know anything about this? I'm thinking 5 - 10%.

And if you understand how it works, the Libs would not have the majority they have now which is why I don't think they will rush to have this advanced.....

 

[DaSleeper]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

How many voters do you think actually know anything about this? I'm thinking 5 - 10%.

And if you understand how it works, the Libs would not have the majority they have now which is why I don't think they will rush to have this advanced.....

You only hear about this when the Lieberals think they are loosing, not when they are winning...
The most vocal guy on that issue, Mentalfluff, is quiet about it these days....Non?

 

[Machjo]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

Rex needs to understand the election was a referendum and the Libs have a majority, just like Harper had.....


The stakes couldn’t be higher for democracy. So what’s the problem we’re trying to fix?

On October 19, over 9,000,000 voters (51.8 per cent) were unable to make their vote count and elect a representative to bring their voices to Ottawa.

The country elected a majority Liberal government, but as usual did so with less than a majority of the vote (39.5 per cent). Most Liberals in Alberta and Saskatchewan, New Democrats and Conservatives in Toronto and Atlantic Canada— and Greens nearly everywhere— elected no representation to Parliament.

That's a big problem. When your vote means nothing, it disempowers citizens and breeds disdain for democracy— and widespread apathy.

And problems with majoritarian systems like first-past-the-post (FPTP) don’t end on election day. When parties can easily win 100 per cent of the power with as little as 39 per cent of the popular vote, they can lose their majority just as quickly.

To say the least, this undermines stable solutions. FPTP voting creates an endless cycle of policy lurch, where the new government reverses the policies of the previous government at a huge cost to citizens.

We are so used to this dysfunctional system—it’s the water Canadians have been swimming in since Confederation— that we don’t know or believe there’s a better way. There is.

So, why haven’t we done this already? Critics, most often backroom operatives, point to red herrings in order to scare the electorate away from a system that will require parties to share power and work together. Sitting governments rarely push hard for proportional representation if the current system benefits their party.

We’ve all heard the objections. “Israel! Italy! Accountable MPs! It’s all too complicated!” You rarely hear the critics pointing to Sweden, New Zealand and Germany— countries with much more in common with Canada— as examples. (Israel, by the way, uses a form of PR called a “country-wide closed-list system.” It is a type of proportional system that would require a change in our constitution, and nobody has ever seriously recommended it.)

And what many of these criticisms miss is that Proportional Representation is not one specific system, but a principle that informs several systems we can choose from. The principle is, fundamentally, that if a party earns 39 per cent of the vote, it should receive about 39 per cent of the seats and all citizens deserve representation. As noted, most OECD countries use PR, and each have tailored a proportional system to meet their unique needs.

Then there’s the cry of so many pundits, partisan and otherwise: “This is just the losers whining again! Canadians soundly rejected PR in a previous referendum!”

Yes, what about those referendums?

more......

Trudeau must turf first-past-the-post system once and for all | National Observer

The problem is not with FPTP but with the partisanship behind it. Nunavut has FPTP but it is a non-partisan, consensus-based system which thus ensures that everyone's voice will count since there the elected officials choose their primer and cabinet, you have a caucus of the house, and all vote together in a consensus-based approach rather than entrench themselves in separate warring camps as is the case with any partisan modrl, FPTP, pro-rep or otherwise.

 

[JLM]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change our voting system

The Liberal government does not have the right to change Canada’s voting system without first holding a referendum. The notion that we can fundamentally alter our democracy without subjecting the change to a full public consultation is simply wrong, as voting is not a privilege granted by a political party to the people — it is the people who vest power, for a limited time, in a political party. It is up to the voters to decide how they shall choose which party to give that power to.

Who we choose is inextricably linked to how we make that collective choice. Those who own the ultimate power of choice should not have the boundaries of how they choose set, or the rules governing their choice imposed, from without. Changing the method by which we elect politicians must be consented to by those who elect them — the voters themselves. Voters own the power of choice and the power over the rules by which they make their choice.

More truth from Rex

ESPECIALLY since he wasn't elected to lead, but to replace.

Rex is totally correct (as always) . The Liberals have no more right to change voting regulations any more than the Montreal Canadiens have any right to change the hockey regulations.

 

[Machjo]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

How many voters do you think actually know anything about this? I'm thinking 5 - 10%.

And if you understand how it works, the Libs would not have the majority they have now which is why I don't think they will rush to have this advanced.....

Then we should educate the voters. Do we want a partisan system where we vote for parties to represent party interests, or a non-partisan one that represents all Canadians?

I'll agree that if we maintain a partisan system, pro-rep is preferable to the current system to ensure each party gets seats according to how many Canadians voted for that party.

I contend though that better still is to simply remove parties from the picture altogether.

FPTP works better than pro-rep, but only in non-partisan systems. In our present partisan system, pro-rep would be better. But again, removing parties from the picture would be better than pro-rep.

How many Canadians have even heard of Nunavut's system? Why should only foreign systems be considered?

 

[Machjo]

How would you vote among the following choices in an electoral reform referendum?

How would you vote among the following choices in an electoral reform referendum, in order of preference?

1. Non-partisan democracy, proportional tepresentation, and the status quo.

2. Non-partisan democracy, the status quo, and proportional representation.

3. Proportional representation, non-partisan democracy, and the status quo.

4. Proportional representation, the status quo, and non-partisan democracy.

5. The status quo, non-partisan democracy, and proportional representation.

6. The status quo, proportional representation, and non-partisan democracy.

7. Other answer.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

How many voters do you think actually know anything about this? I'm thinking 5 - 10%.

And if you understand how it works, the Libs would not have the majority they have now which is why I don't think they will rush to have this advanced.....

I do agree that 39.8% of the Canadian voters did appear o be quite uneducated this past October.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Re: How would you vote among the following choices in an electoral reform referendum?

I think the status quo is fine unless somebody shows a system which works better. Endless minorities does not seem productive.

 

[DaSleeper]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

Fluffers:roll:

 

[Machjo]

Re: How would you vote among the following choices in an electoral reform referendum?

I think the status quo is fine unless somebody shows a system which works better. Endless minorities does not seem productive.

Looking at Numavut's non-partisan system, you can't have a minority Government since there are no parties. To make it work, the premier must find common ground, which also encourages moderation.

If anything, the present system is the worst in that hyperpartisan allows radically different majorities to form every few years resulting in dramatic policy shifts. Just look at the back and forth between liberals and Conservatives since confederation.


A more consensus-based approach would tend to avoid such sudden shiftf from election to election.