High Ho it's off to the polls we go.

[pegger]

I disagree with your version of his proposal.

My version? Here is the proposal (as reported by CBC).

The change in representation would be:

BC - 13.0% of pop - 13.0% of HoC
AB - 10.4% of pop - 10.0% of HoC
SK - 3.1% of pop - 4.2% of HoC
MB - 3.6% of pop - 4.2% of HoC
ON - 38.5% of pop - 35.2% of HoC (still underrepresented - really little change % wise from current setup)
QC - 23.9% of pop - 22.7% of HoC
NB - 2.3% of pop - 3.0% of HoC
NS - 2.9% of pop - 3.3% of HoC
PEI - .4% of pop - 1.2% of HoC
NF - 1.6% of pop - 2.1% of HoC
Territories - .3% of pop - .9% of HoC

So basically his plan is to over-represent the West now - at the expense of Ontario. Yeah, that's democratic and fair.

I have no problem with bringing Alberta and BC into line with the % - then do the same for Ontario. The problem is to do that - we would need to add another 114 MPs to the HoC - which, IMHO, just ain't worth it. (Yes - I've worked out the math.)

 

[pegger]

My opinion of right or appropriate is that which works well. I don't feel that dividing up votes by land mass is particularly effective. I understand that that method was optimal years (and centuries ago) because of the importance of land. However, that is the system we have chosen to use and there are far too many people like yourself that fear change so we need to make do with what we have. Since the present system creates tensions because of it's perceived unfairness the "right" or "appropriate" thing to do is to fix it....unless tension is the goal..then let's just carry on as usual.

The only "right" way is Rep. by Pop. (at least for the so called "executive/legislative" branch of government which would be our HoC). However, that would still result in the East - where 70% of all Canadians live, still having the majority of influence. The impact of the provincial boundaries would still exist - unless we do away with Provinces, which is impractical given the size of this country.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: 41st General Election

My opinion of right or appropriate is that which works well. I don't feel that dividing up votes by land mass is particularly effective. I understand that that method was optimal years (and centuries ago) because of the importance of land. However, that is the system we have chosen to use and there are far too many people like yourself that fear change so we need to make do with what we have. Since the present system creates tensions because of it's perceived unfairness the "right" or "appropriate" thing to do is to fix it....unless tension is the goal..then let's just carry on as usual.

Our system does work—the central and eastern provinces, together, hold a vast majority of the population, and therefore, they have a vast majority of the electoral decision. The western provinces have as much representation in the House of Commons as is appropriate to the populations of those provinces. If those provinces’ representation were increased, then it would devalue the democratic voices of other Canadians and create a “higher class” of western Canada electors. That would be completely inappropriate.

The “perceived” unfairness is irrelevant—education would deal with that nicely.

Here’s democracy. If Saskatchewan has ten people, it gets one member; if Ontario has one hundred people, it gets ten members, because each person gets one vote and equal representation. What you seem to be suggesting is that a western Canada vote should be worth more than an eastern Canada vote. And why is that? Why shouldn’t eastern Canadians be represented on par and equal with western Canadians? Are we better people than they are?

 

[AnnaG]

The only "right" way is Rep. by Pop. (at least for the so called "executive/legislative" branch of government which would be our HoC). However, that would still result in the East - where 70% of all Canadians live, still having the majority of influence. The impact of the provincial boundaries would still exist - unless we do away with Provinces, which is impractical given the size of this country.

It's the "right" way if you are on the side of the most populated. You easterners like it that way. You are content that you have that power over western Canada and can just jerk it around at your whim. What goes around comes around, though. What you spread, so shall ye reap, and all that. You people can't even stand to have anyone but someone from ON or QC in the PMO.
That, IMO, is regressive and petty. But then I think politics in general is regressive and petty.
BTW, democracy is overblown. And in Canada it's a joke. It's mob rule here and the mob is ON & QC. The way things are right now isn't fair, and all you are saying is that it would be just as unfair to change it but it'd be a different unfairness. That's progressive, huh? What a laugh.

 

[AnnaG]

My comment that Canada isn't a nation but just a collection of polemic regions stands.

 

[AnnaG]

Our system does work

Yeah. It works for ON & QC.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Canadian Electoral System

Yeah. It works for ON & QC.

Why do you think that you should have more of a voice than someone from Ontario or Québec?

What makes you better? Why are you a higher class of elector than everyone else?

The system works exactly as it should (and let’s not forget that I am a British Columbian here).

I also very much want to refute the comment that “democracy is overblown”, and “a joke” for Canada. Each citizen of Canada, of voting age, has the right to vote for a candidate to represent each constituency in the House of Commons—that is democracy. The House of Commons has the bulk of the legislative decision-making power, and whichever Government of the day is appointed must be responsible to and account to us, through our representative democracy. We also have the tremendous advantage of the Honourable the Senate of Canada’s selective membership, being able to review the endeavours of the House of Commons to make essential corrections and enhancements to legislation—not to mention the fact that the Senate almost invariably respects the democratic weight of the House of Commons by virtue of being appointed.

You hope for a Canada, AnnaG, where central and eastern Canadians’ democratic voices are reduced to appease conservative Western voices—you seem to hope for the creation of an unequal electoral system that punishes Ontarians and Québeckers. I whole-heartedly condemn the suggestion that the people of Ontario and Québec should each have their democratic rights quashed and compromised—and let is be known, that is exactly what you’ve suggested.

 

[pegger]

What makes me an Easterner? I grew up in Winnipeg - and lived there for 28 years out of my 37. I then lived 1 year in Alberta, a few months in Saskatchewan and the rest in Ontario. I have no problem with a non-Ontario-an or non-Quebecer in the PMO. I DO have an issue with out current PM because I think he is, quite frankly, the worst PM this country has ever seen.

In other posts I've argued that the West needs higher representation but in the Senate, NOT in the HoC. HoC should be Rep. by Pop. Senate Rep by Prov.

My vote should not count for any less than yours.

As to "fairness" what are you, 13? Seriously, the biggest thing I've learnt from living out East is that the West acts like a teen-ager sometimes. "It's not fair!!! Wa!!" You sounds like my 6 year old, when I tell him it's bed time. Well guess what, it's not my fault 90% of the population CHOOSES not to live in Alberta. It's not my fault that the corner stone of democracy is 1 person = 1 vote. It's also not my fault that no leaders have come out of the West.

Tell me - instead of slagging the East, what would be fair? What is your alternative?

Besides - I'm all for making things "more fair." But discriminating against another group to right pass wrongs will not solve the situation.

 

[FiveParadox]

Perhaps we could appease some of the concerns of a lack of regional representation by changing the distribution of Senate seats? Each province is represented by ten honourable senators, and one senator each to represent the three territories.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Perhaps we could appease some of the concerns of a lack of regional representation by changing the distribution of Senate seats? Each province is represented by ten honourable senators, and one senator each to represent the three territories.

Uhm...wouldn't that shuffle leave the territories wanting?

I'm in the West. I understand how the system works, & why it's set up
the way it is, but both understanding and accepting that is very-very
different from liking the system.

It would be nice if the population of Canada was more evenly distributed,
but it's not and never will be. It would be nice if a vote in the West of Canada
was still relevant much of the time when it takes place, but the planet spins
in one direction so the Sun rises & sets first for population rich Eastern
Canada. We get that, but we don't have to like it.

Having your Government dictated before the polls even open in the West
much of the time is a reality, and that's just the way it is, but it doesn't
mean someone in the West has to like it...they just have to accept it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Perhaps we could appease some of the concerns of a lack of regional representation by changing the distribution of Senate seats? Each province is represented by ten honourable senators, and one senator each to represent the three territories.

That might be OK if Senate stays as it is today, where it does not exercise any of its power. But if Senate is to be elected, with real powers, no way can it be equal.

Equal, elected and effective Senate is an Americanism; it won’t fly in Ontario and Quebec. Now, perhaps one could work out a formula in between. E.g. each province starts with say five senators, and gets one more for so much of the population, up to a maximum of say 20. So divide Ontario’s population by 15, and each province gets one Senator for ON/15 of its population.

That would give smaller provinces a bigger voice, without giving ON and PEI equal number of senators. But equal Senate? Forget it.

 

[Ron in Regina]

What makes me an Easterner? I grew up in Winnipeg - and lived there for 28 years out of my 37.

OK...:lol:...assume Winnipeg is the center of Canada. Which side of Winnipeg did
you come from?8O East or West Winnipeg? :lol::lol::lol:

 

[FiveParadox]

That might be OK if Senate stays as it is today, where it does not exercise any of its power. But if Senate is to be elected, with real powers, no way can it be equal.

Equal, elected and effective Senate is an Americanism; it won’t fly in Ontario and Quebec. Now, perhaps one could work out a formula in between. E.g. each province starts with say five senators, and gets one more for so much of the population, up to a maximum of say 20. So divide Ontario’s population by 15, and each province gets one Senator for ON/15 of its population.

That would give smaller provinces a bigger voice, without giving ON and PEI equal number of senators. But equal Senate? Forget it.

I couldn’t agree more!

I don’t think that the Westminster system of government is compatible with a republican-style congress—it simply wouldn’t work because the constitutional conventions that govern the use of our system were never developed to accomodate the rigid rules and aversion to daily adjustments that are so essential for the Westminster system to be successful. An elected Senate would be incompatible with responsible government because it would be able to trump the Government of the day, and giving too much incentive to use its power would cause the Senate to no longer be a chamber of review, study and second thought, but rather a second House of Commons.

My suggestion was made given the hard stance of some of the other members engaged in this discussion (i.e., ban voting in the rest of Canada, Alberta should decide government single-handedly). My ideal vision for the Senate would be appointed by the Governor General without the advice of the prime minister (perhaps with the advice of some sort of non-partisan commission on Senate appointments), with each region of Canada represented equally (i.e., Western Canada, Ontario, Québec and Eastern Canada), with seats distributed appropriately to make for an adequate but not overwhelming number of senators.

 

[pegger]

OK...:lol:...assume Winnipeg is the center of Canada. Which side of Winnipeg did
you come from?8O East or West Winnipeg? :lol::lol::lol:

LOL - EAST Kildonan.... damn it....:lol:

At least it wasn't Transcona!

 

[Polygong]

One person, one vote.

It's called democracy.

 

[Cannuck]

My version? Here is the proposal (as reported by CBC).

I'm not debating the numbers.

 

[Cannuck]

The only "right" way is Rep. by Pop. (at least for the so called "executive/legislative" branch of government which would be our HoC). However, that would still result in the East - where 70% of all Canadians live, still having the majority of influence. The impact of the provincial boundaries would still exist - unless we do away with Provinces, which is impractical given the size of this country.

I understand your need to separate seats geographically. The point is that I think that it is silly. It's old thinking and should go the way of the butter churn.

 

[lone wolf]

Must really suck for the demi-fuhrer to be beholding to NDP and the bloc for his stay of execution

 

[Goober]

Must really suck for the demi-fuhrer to be beholding to NDP and the bloc for his stay of execution

Just heard that Jack the Mustache Layton had his nose accidently broken by Harper – Seems the PM was walking quickly and stopped suddenly causing Jacks nose to intersect with the PM’s ass. What a shiXty accident eh.

 

[Cannuck]

Our system does work...

Rubbish!

If it worked, the Kweebeck separatists would disappear and western alienation would subside. Just because it works for you, doesn't mean it works.

The “perceived” unfairness is irrelevant—education would deal with that nicely.

Alas, I think you are too entrenched in your thinking already to be educated on the matter.