Democratc will soundly defeat Republicans in Next Congress

[jimmoyer]

RE: Democratc will soundly defeat Republicans in Next Congre

Very true, Finder.

The American forefathers were students of
the Roman Republic.

And one of many stories of Rome was George Washington
fashioning himself after the legend of Cincinatus, of a
self imposed term limit, the citizen farmer, the citizen
leader who goes to get the work of the republic done
and then to LEAVE and go back home.

The very idea of a leader who did that made
Cincinatus a legend and George Washington made
this novel, unique idea real.

And the American forefathers were just as
rightly afraid of tyranny by a King as they were
of tyranny by a mob, tyranny of the majority
and so every one of the bill of rights, every part
of the separation of powers and balance of powers
and even the electoral college reflects this
fear of tyranny by the majority.

Majorities are ephemeral, tyrannical in its passion.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Democratc will soundly defeat Republicans in Next Co

Very true, Finder.

The American forefathers were students of
the Roman Republic.

And the American forefathers were just as
rightly afraid of tyranny by a King as they were
of tyranny by a mob, tyranny of the majority
and so every one of the bill of rights, every part
of the separation of powers and balance of powers
and even the electoral college reflects this
fear of tyranny by the majority.

Majorities are ephemeral, tyrannical in its passion.

Thats why I admire how the government of the USA is set up. It is beautiful to a lover of les classiques as I am.

BUT

the electoral collage could change without this system being removed from the Roman module it was mostly based on. Also you could add a little PR mixed with FPTP here and there. Though I am a firm believer that the Senate in the USA should either stay FPTP or go back to the appointment by the States themselves.

But the Congress should have room for PR to be mixed into a little more. *shrugs*



EDIT
Have you read any works by LIVY? The Citizen, General, Dictator (different meaning then it is now) was an on going theme in Livy's history of Rome.

 

[FiveParadox]

Agreement in Principle

You're a bad influence on me, Finder!

I've always been in favour of the appointment process in the Senate. And now because of you, I want appointments to the Senate to be ratified, and I wanna throw some PR into the House of Commons. Oh, the humanity!

 

[Finder]

Re: FPTP • Electoral College

Sounds even screwier than FPTP.

didn't see your post.

Ummm the electoral collage is hand in hand with FPTP thought.

In a sence the Electoral collage is even more conservative then the way the PM of Canada is chosen. Compaired to the USA FPTP in Canada for the PM is very Liberal. lol.

Just change electoral votes to MP's. Every MP you elect in the Province is really a vote on the PM. The big difference here is that in 48 states it's winner take all in the whole state. if Florida votes %50 plus one vote for Bush and %50 -1 for Gore then every single one of the electoral votes go to Bush. In Canada we sorta get to elect the who the electoral vote goes to.



Also you have to remember the Canadian government and that of the British is a basterdized forumition of the classical government off Rome too.

Edit:
I'm glade you've become alittle more moderate in your beliefs. I think the best way for a Democracy/Republic/Constitutional monarchy to work is give everyone at least enfrachiment in the system so they take part in that system.

Maybe you will rub off me to check my spelling and grammer more. =-D Anyhow you've given me many more idea's about having more dependance on the FPTP system. I used to lean a little further towards PR then FPTP. Since then I have leaned closer to more FPTP with some PR mixed in.

 

[jimmoyer]

RE: Democratc will soundly defeat Republicans in Next Congre

Sounds to me like the Provinces out West want
a chamber that equally represents the interests
of each Province's uniqueness.

Making a Senate not equally represent each State
or Province sounds like the Department of Repetitive
Redundancy.

Why do that ?

You already have proportional representation
in one chamber.

 

[FiveParadox]

RE: Democratc will soundly defeat Republicans in Next Congre

The House of Commons, under some suggestions made under an electoral reform thread, would be comprised mostly of First-Past-the-Post seats, as it is now, but would also comprise of approximately one hundred (give or take) proportional representation seats, so as to ensure that persons who voted for the Green Party, for example, or some less-supported parties, would receive at least a token amount of representation in the House.

The Senate is responsible for representing the regions equally, but it is, as of now, somewhat unsupported by the people. Some sort of ratification process for appointments to the Senate, however, could remedy that; since, as of now, appointments are unilaterally on the Prime Minister's prerogative (barring any sort of bizarre invokation of executive authority of the Crown, at least).

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Democratc will soundly defeat Republicans in Next Co

Sounds to me like the Provinces out West want
a chamber that equally represents the interests
of each Province's uniqueness.

Making a Senate not equally represent each State
or Province sounds like the Department of Repetitive
Redundancy.

Why do that ?

You already have proportional representation
in one chamber.

We don't have any praportional represention. I would like the Lower house to FPTP/PR, the Senate to be FPTP or appointed by the Provinces, and the GG to be manadated by a governoring body of somesort. I don't care as long as the GG is elected by something other then the PM himself.

 

[Finder]

Re: Democratc will soundly defeat Republicans in Next Congre

jimmoyer, are you American, my next question would be, are you Republican?

 

[I think not]

Re: FPTP • Electoral College

Ummm the electoral collage is hand in hand with FPTP thought.

In a sence the Electoral collage is even more conservative then the way the PM of Canada is chosen. Compaired to the USA FPTP in Canada for the PM is very Liberal. lol.

Just change electoral votes to MP's. Every MP you elect in the Province is really a vote on the PM. The big difference here is that in 48 states it's winner take all in the whole state. if Florida votes %50 plus one vote for Bush and %50 -1 for Gore then every single one of the electoral votes go to Bush. In Canada we sorta get to elect the who the electoral vote goes to.

Finer if I may, just to clear up what I think you meant. The big difference within the two systems ( and it is very significant to mention) is that the Presidential elections only elect the head of state, so PR essentially becomes moot. This is the only time the electoral college is implemented.

The remaining two branches (House and Senate) do not use the electoral college.

The House of Representatives is proportional to each states population.

And the Senate is 2 elected officials from each state regardless of population.

Both the House and Senate were adapted to be a check and balance between each other.

I would also like to mention that the electoral college system has its faults like any other, but the two main factors that in my opinion make it work are:

1) It eliminates (or substantially descreases) what jimmoyer referred to as majority mob rule, that it protects states with a smaller population and rural communities from the bigger centers (like NY) and states with a greater population. Think along the lines of Ontario towards the rest of the provinces in Canada and you'll understand what I mean. Parties focusing in Ontario and Quebec because they carry greater weight.

2) Minorities have a much bigger voice to lobby for what they deem to be important. Example, the Cubans in Florida number about 500,000, very significant for electoral votes in Florida but become essentially a zero concern out of 300 million people.

 

[jimmoyer]

RE: Democratc will soundly defeat Republicans in Next Congre

jimmoyer, are you American, my next question would be, are you Republican?
------------------------------finder-----------------------


Yes to both.

However I began as a very liberal democrat
and almost ever summer of my youth was spent
in the Seely's Bay area of Ontario fishing,
and one summer under a French Canadien tyrant
named Lucien who should have been
born 200 years ago.

 

[FiveParadox]

RE: Democratc will soundly defeat Republicans in Next Congre

Our Senate follows that premise, I would think.

Prince Edward Island, and the smaller Provinces to the east, have a large number of Senators — the Senate is, more or less, regionally balanced. It's more based on landmass than it is based on the actual number of Provinces, though.

 

[Finder]

Re: FPTP • Electoral College

Ummm the electoral collage is hand in hand with FPTP thought.

In a sence the Electoral collage is even more conservative then the way the PM of Canada is chosen. Compaired to the USA FPTP in Canada for the PM is very Liberal. lol.

Just change electoral votes to MP's. Every MP you elect in the Province is really a vote on the PM. The big difference here is that in 48 states it's winner take all in the whole state. if Florida votes %50 plus one vote for Bush and %50 -1 for Gore then every single one of the electoral votes go to Bush. In Canada we sorta get to elect the who the electoral vote goes to.

Finer if I may, just to clear up what I think you meant. The big difference within the two systems ( and it is very significant to mention) is that the Presidential elections only elect the head of state, so PR essentially becomes moot. This is the only time the electoral college is implemented.

The remaining two branches (House and Senate) do not use the electoral college.

The House of Representatives is proportional to each states population.

And the Senate is 2 elected officials from each state regardless of population.

Both the House and Senate were adapted to be a check and balance between each other.

I would also like to mention that the electoral college system has its faults like any other, but the two main factors that in my opinion make it work are:

1) It eliminates (or substantially descreases) what jimmoyer referred to as majority mob rule, that it protects states with a smaller population and rural communities from the bigger centers (like NY) and states with a greater population. Think along the lines of Ontario towards the rest of the provinces in Canada and you'll understand what I mean. Parties focusing in Ontario and Quebec because they carry greater weight.

2) Minorities have a much bigger voice to lobby for what they deem to be important. Example, the Cubans in Florida number about 500,000, very significant for electoral votes in Florida but become essentially a zero concern out of 300 million people.

I agree with everything you said besides the presidental election. You could have the electoral collage be PR by state. If a canadidate gets 60% of the vote he gets one of two things.
a. 60% of the electoral votes in that state
b. or a more FPTP 2/3, 3/4 or 75% of the electoral votes. So there is room for PR in the electoral collage without reforming the system too much.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Democratc will soundly defeat Republicans in Next Co

Our Senate follows that premise, I would think.

Prince Edward Island, and the smaller Provinces to the east, have a large number of Senators — the Senate is, more or less, regionally balanced. It's more based on landmass than it is based on the actual number of Provinces, though.

Not really; our's is more based on population then equal representation by the provinces. I have to go relieve someone but remind me to show you the differences.
Anyhow look it up yourself if you want.

Senators from Maine to New York
Senators from Ontario to PEI

 

[jimmoyer]

RE: Democratc will soundly defeat Republicans in Next Congre

Winner take All vs Proportional both have their
pros and cons.

So does equal representation of the states
and provinces in one chamber and population
representation in the lower popular chamber.

What this thread will no doubt run into is that
there really are good arguments for either.

I find a lot of unusal benefits in First Past The Post
and Winner Take All and find a lot of unintended
consequences from Proportional Representation.

 

[I think not]

Re: Democratc will soundly defeat Republicans in Next Congre

I agree with you jim, there are no perfect systems. I'm personally against PR primarily as it relies on assumptions of collaboration for it to work.

 

[FiveParadox]

First-Past-the-Post System in Canada

Some points regarding First-Past-the-Post and Proportional Representation in Canada:

(a) With First-Past-thePost, there is one Member for one Constituency, meaning that the actions of one Member are accountable to only those who elected him or her in the first place; if we were to switch to some other system, then some Constituencies could have more than one Member, or some Members may not be accountable to anyone in particular.

(b) Proportional representation would almost certainly result in it becoming extremely hard to establish a majority Government in the House of Commons. While a minority Government can be appropriate when times are uncertain or the climate on Parliament Hill is volatile, this can cause unstable Parliaments.

(c) If the House of Commons were permitted to become too diverse, as could be the case with several consecutive minority Governments as a result of proportional representation, we could be presented with a situation where a Government has its Budget defeated, an election is held, and the subsequent Government is, again, defeated. We could find ourselves in a situation where the House of Commons cannot grant supply to the Government — which would present a constitional crisis, since the Governor General would then be compelled to issue Special Warrants to prevent the Government from going bankrupt.

:!: Edit Corrected a misphrased sentence.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Democratc will soundly defeat Republicans in Next Co

Winner take All vs Proportional both have their
pros and cons.

So does equal representation of the states
and provinces in one chamber and population
representation in the lower popular chamber.

What this thread will no doubt run into is that
there really are good arguments for either.

I find a lot of unusal benefits in First Past The Post
and Winner Take All and find a lot of unintended
consequences from Proportional Representation.

Of course! unlike those who think one of the two systems are perfect I do not fool myself with such a delussion. I've actually come to like some aspects of FPTP. BUT, jimmoyer, would you not agree that a mixed system would have many benifits. Something like how the Americans have. PR in the Congress, FPTP for the Congress and so on.

But I think Canada should be even more conservative then that. I think FPTP for the Senate or appointed by Provincial government. Then you could have a mixed system of PR/FPTP with 200 or more mps elected by normal FPTP in ridings, winner take all. but something like 100 MP's elected by PR so if youget 5% of the vote you get 5 seats, even if you didn't elect a FPTP mp because you vote was wide spread. Or you could do this by province. in those 100 PR seats you could have them elected in the provinces. for instance 107 (I forget) ontario seats. 75 would be FPTP and the rest would be Populer vote. so on and so forther. So PR seats are by regions still. =-D


edit "I think not" then I agree with you. As long as you regonize the weakness of both the systems then you can make educated conclusions. The problem is with PPL who are too stuburn and think FPTP or PR are perfect systems. But there is a middle ground. In most nations around the world, very few use pure PR or FPTP. Canada is one of the last nations to use a government completely made up of FPTP.

 

[jimmoyer]

RE: Democratc will soundly defeat Republicans in Next Congre

Well, believe it or not, I don't like it too foggy
and blended, or confusing to the average voter.

Keep it clean.

One house gives equal representation to each state or province.

One house represents the population densities.

And Winner Takes All.

ITN, succinctly hammered the nail of the problem
of Proportional Representation: "it relies on assumptions of collaboration for it to work. "


In fact proportional representation's paradox
is to encourage separate groups with separate identities
and then to re-use ITN's phrase, "it relies on assumptions of collaboration for it to work. "


Winner Take All has a much better psychological
effect to enhance unity.

The passionate ideologues will never agree with
that sentiment.