Ideas for a new political party

[jjaycee98]

Maybe it's just a matter of fine tuning one of the many dozens of parties that are already out there.

And there are Dozens! besides the the few that get to debate on National TV there are dozens more on Ballots accross the Country. The last thing we need is one and then another ad infinitum!

This is totally a dumb idea!

 

[coldstream]

Proportional representation has been tried in New Zealand with very lacklustre results. In Israel the proportional representation system means that there is never a majority, and little parties with virtually no public support have completely disproportional influence in policy decisions as an incentive to bring a major party into a plurality.

If i was changing our election system i would get rid of the first past post system and institute a system of choices, where the voter would indicate a preference by ranking of his top three choices. The low vote getter of first choices would be eliminated, and the second choice of those voters who had chosen him first would be retallied.. and so on until someone receives a majority. It would probably require a computerized voting system, but it would be fairer than electing someone with say 70% of the people voting against him but split between several candidates.

 

[El Barto]

And yet none of this has to do with a party in it's self. You are all talking about representaion purportions and Government .
You all over ran the horse here

 

[AnnaG]

So , no thoughts on the concept?

hehe I gave you my thoughts on parties.

Party without agenda? Impossible.
With Canada's antiquated and imbalanced electoral system as it is right now, the best bet would be to ban parties altogether and have everyone be independent.

 

[Bar Sinister]

The Netherlands? roflmao Cute. Are the regions in the Netherlands as widely varied as Canada's? No. The Netherlands is about 41, 500 square kilometers, Canada is almost 10,000,000. People in the north of the Netherlands are pretty similar to those in the south. Tell me the similarities between a PEI spud farmer and a Nunavut hunter, please. Or a prairies grain farmer and a Salish fisher. :tard: So it's ok that the people of ON and QC have more say over Nunavut than the Innu. Oh, yeah, that sounds fair. :tard:

Regional diversity should not really be a problem Australia and New Zealand both use forms of proportional representation and they are incredibly diverse regionally. Certainly the voting system Canada now has can no longer be justified rationally. Proportional representation has far too many advantages to simply ignore it.

This article lists a few advantages of Prop-Rep.
Benefits of Proportional Representation

Please also note that many of the nations listed as using prop-rep are quite diverse geographically and ethnically.

There are many more advantages to rep-pop, including the fact that a system where votes actually count for something encourages greater voter participation (This is a serious problem in many parts of Canada where many voters have come to regard their vote as worthless) and the fact that even regions of the nation that vote overwhelmingly for one party are usually represented in the government (Lack of representation in government is often a serious problem in Canada with some areas having no representation at all)

 

[Omicron]

I agree that proportional representation is key.

Maybe an (oh so Canadian) Compromise to that question would be to have it be that each party gets to appoint a number of representatives to the Senate in proportion to their share of the popular vote.

That gets around the problem of the PM stacking the Senate, thus neutering the role the Senate is supposed to play, plus it's an accommodation to those who think the Senate should be elected, because with each election, each party's representation in the Senate will shift according to what that party's share of the popular vote was for that election.

 

[petros]

The best political party in the world doesn't exist and can't exist.

 

[Machjo]

Why complicate things? Vote candidate based on character and competence, not on party affiliation. Bingo, no party needed except a picnic party.

 

[AnnaG]

Regional diversity should not really be a problem Australia and New Zealand both use forms of proportional representation and they are incredibly diverse regionally. Certainly the voting system Canada now has can no longer be justified rationally. Proportional representation has far too many advantages to simply ignore it.

This article lists a few advantages of Prop-Rep.
Benefits of Proportional Representation

Please also note that many of the nations listed as using prop-rep are quite diverse geographically and ethnically.

There are many more advantages to rep-pop, including the fact that a system where votes actually count for something encourages greater voter participation (This is a serious problem in many parts of Canada where many voters have come to regard their vote as worthless) and the fact that even regions of the nation that vote overwhelmingly for one party are usually represented in the government (Lack of representation in government is often a serious problem in Canada with some areas having no representation at all)

Oh, that looks balanced. So there are no disadvantages of proportional rep.? You didn't include any, so there must be none, right?

Oooops! What's this?

• Weak links between elected legislators and their constituents. When List PR is used, and particularly when seats are allocated in one single national district, as in Namibia or Israel, the system is criticized for destroying the link between voters and their representatives. Where lists are closed, voters have no opportunity to determine the identity of the persons who will represent them and no identifiable representative for their town, district or village, nor can they easily reject an individual representative if they feel that he or she has performed poorly in office or is not the kind of person they would want representing them – e.g., warlords in countries such as Bosnia or Afghanistan. Moreover, in some developing countries where the society is mainly rural, voters’ identification with their region of residence is sometimes considerably stronger than their identification with any political party or grouping. This criticism, however, may relate more to the distinction between systems in which voters vote for parties and systems in which they vote for candidates.
• Excessive entrenchment of power within party headquarters and in the hands of senior party leaderships—especially in closed-list systems. A candidate’s position on the party list, and therefore his or her likelihood of success, is dependent on currying favour with party bosses, while their relationship with the electorate is of secondary importance. In an unusual twist to the List PR system, in Guyana parties publish their list of candidates not ranked but simply ordered alphabetically. This allows party leaders even more scope to reward loyalty and punish independence because seats are only allocated to individuals once the result of the vote is known.
• The need for some kind of recognized party or political groupings to exist. This makes List PR particularly difficult to implement in those societies which do not have parties or have very embryonic and loose party structures, for example, many of the island countries of the Pacific. While technically possible to allow independent candidates to run under various forms of PR, it is difficult and introduces a number of additional complications, particularly as relates to wasted votes.

  - Advantages and disadvantages of List PR — ACE Electoral Knowledge Network

If there are very diverse regional differences in those countries then they must have modified things to make allowances for that.

Why complicate things? Vote candidate based on character and competence, not on party affiliation. Bingo, no party needed except a picnic party.

Exactly. Get rid of parties period. Every MP would act according to her/his constituents wishes and her/his own, not some boneheaded party. And that would compensate for for regional disparities.

 

[ansutherland]

I'm not saying anyone should be excluded. What I am saying is that proportional representation is screwed in Canada. It isn't balanced in any way, shape, or form. Either federal decisions about the maritimes should involve ONLY the maritimes and people in Toronto have no say in it (unless the decisions affect them in some way). Federal decisions about BC forests should be up to the people of BC and not up to some accountant in Quebec City.
Or else the feds should leave provincial matters to the provinces and butt out.
Case in point, how the federal department of Fisheries and Oceans deals with the fisheries on the west coast should not necessarily affect the fisheries on the east coast and vice versa. They are two quite different ecologies, economies, etc.

If you don't think that any matters concerning any one province should be influenced by the Feds, then why don't we all just secede? It's like you think that if one owner in a condo complex doesn't like what the strata has decided then they should be exempt from that decision. There are certain areas that generate more wealth and make bigger decisions with bigger implications, that makes them, in the the grand scheme of things, more important.

 

[AnnaG]

If you don't think that any matters concerning any one province should be influenced by the Feds, then why don't we all just secede?

Is that what I think? Funny. It's news to me. I said I don't think region A should have as much say about region B as region B has. There's a large difference between what I wrote and what you think you read.

It's like you think that if one owner in a condo complex doesn't like what the strata has decided then they should be exempt from that decision. There are certain areas that generate more wealth and make bigger decisions with bigger implications, that makes them, in the the grand scheme of things, more important.

I am perfectly fine with any regions having a say where each of them is affected. Apparently you read something into what I said, that I didn't say.
Another thing I said is that the feds should keep their fat beaks out of provincial affairs. BC coast has little to do with the rest of Canada, yet the feds mismanage it a lot, for instance. The feds also tried to screw with AB energy once and I think if they ever try it again, AB will simply boot them out of AB. N/L the same. Each province basically looks after its own health care, so why are the feds even involved there? The feds contribute bluddy little to health care.

 

[JLM]

. BC coast has little to do with the rest of Canada, yet the feds mismanage it a lot, for instance. .

Ooooooooooooooh Anna, hang on, slow down . B.C. coast has A LOT to do with the rest of Canada. It's a main gateway for illegals, dope, contraband, not to mention probably 30% of our legitmate trade comes through Vancouver and Prince Rupert. You're due for your afternoon nap. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[taxslave]

Yes, I do think that ON and QC should have more say than Nunavut, and I think that most would agree that to make Nunavut equal with a territory as vast and economically powerful as ON or QC would be foolish. Nunavut contributes almost nothing to Canada and they should have equal say in how the country is run? I smell a commie ;-)



When you have ministers that for political reasons will deny sound scientific consensus, then there is a major problem with how they will govern as they will be unable, by virtue of their ignorance or partisanship, to appoint the right people to get the job done.

I smell an Ontario-an that does not wish to loose control of the country. For far too many years the Powers in Ontario and Quebec have stolen from the rest of us and protected their industries to the detriment of the rest of the country.
Why do you think everyone here voted reform? It is not because we have any love for bible thumpers, it is a protest against the two Ontario parties.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Oh, that looks balanced. So there are no disadvantages of proportional rep.? You didn't include any, so there must be none, right?

Oooops! What's this?

• Weak links between elected legislators and their constituents. When List PR is used, and particularly when seats are allocated in one single national district, as in Namibia or Israel, the system is criticized for destroying the link between voters and their representatives. Where lists are closed, voters have no opportunity to determine the identity of the persons who will represent them and no identifiable representative for their town, district or village, nor can they easily reject an individual representative if they feel that he or she has performed poorly in office or is not the kind of person they would want representing them – e.g., warlords in countries such as Bosnia or Afghanistan. Moreover, in some developing countries where the society is mainly rural, voters’ identification with their region of residence is sometimes considerably stronger than their identification with any political party or grouping. This criticism, however, may relate more to the distinction between systems in which voters vote for parties and systems in which they vote for candidates.
• Excessive entrenchment of power within party headquarters and in the hands of senior party leaderships—especially in closed-list systems. A candidate’s position on the party list, and therefore his or her likelihood of success, is dependent on currying favour with party bosses, while their relationship with the electorate is of secondary importance. In an unusual twist to the List PR system, in Guyana parties publish their list of candidates not ranked but simply ordered alphabetically. This allows party leaders even more scope to reward loyalty and punish independence because seats are only allocated to individuals once the result of the vote is known.
• The need for some kind of recognized party or political groupings to exist. This makes List PR particularly difficult to implement in those societies which do not have parties or have very embryonic and loose party structures, for example, many of the island countries of the Pacific. While technically possible to allow independent candidates to run under various forms of PR, it is difficult and introduces a number of additional complications, particularly as relates to wasted votes.

  - Advantages and disadvantages of List PR — ACE Electoral Knowledge Network

No system is perfect. But proportional representation has far fewer defects than the blatantly undemocratic plurality system Canada now has. Nations like Germany have a combined system to take care of your concern about weak links between the electorate and their elected representatives, that way there is both direct representation and a more equitable distribution of seats based on percentage.

As for excessive entrenchment of power in party HQs, don't we have that now in Canada? I fail to see that prop rep would in any way change the stranglehold the party executives of the major Canadian parties now have on their parties.

As for new parties - one only has to look at the stratified political scene in the US to realize just how difficult it is to start a new party in a plurality system. The fact that it has happened in Canada in recent years is more due to Canada's regional diversity that its voting system.

I not that you have listed any advantages of the plurality system and suspect that is primarily because there aren't any worth mentioning other than its simplicity and the ability to actually vote for a name (a minor advantage so for as I can see given the fact that most party members act like robots and do as they are told by the party leaders).

 

[taxslave]

Proportional Representation has been voted down twice in B.C. Partly because the citizens committee that put the plan together made it so complicated that nobody could figure out who their MLA might be or even what party is representing them. Now there are other forms of Proportional Rep. that have pluses minuses but all left voters with the fear that wing nuts from both ends would wind up with a snout in the public troth.

 

[ansutherland]

I smell an Ontario-an that does not wish to loose control of the country. For far too many years the Powers in Ontario and Quebec have stolen from the rest of us and protected their industries to the detriment of the rest of the country.
Why do you think everyone here voted reform? It is not because we have any love for bible thumpers, it is a protest against the two Ontario parties.

It has nothing to do with favouring Ontario over the rest of the country, rather, recognizing that Ontario and Quebec are the two largest economies in the country, ergo, they should have the most say. I don't see what is so hard to recognize about this, and I would bet that those who are arguing the antithesis of my point would be arguing my point if the lived in Ontario or Quebec. Anna for example likes to make this about the spud farmer from NS having more say than the seal hunter from NWT or whatever. That is an inherently flawed argument because you one province has a much larger population than the other, and both are mere subsets of a much larger group, that being Canada. At no point does anyone supporting PR suggest that the major players should have more say in the affairs of smaller provinces than those smaller provinces. This however does not mean that they are equal on federal matters, and they should not be. Add to this the fact that places such as Nunavut could not possibly sustain themselves to the same extent that a province such as BC could. This places more of a need to rely on the feds for the funding of most anything in Nunavut, and so in cases such as Nunavut, until they develop beyond needing federal money for everything, Ottawa should have more of a say about what does on there.

I would also like to point out that the notion of PR more poorly representing than say first past the post, this is just plain fallacy. PR makes your vote worth something for a change. In our current system, your vote only counts if your party wins. If your party loses, you have done nothing. The only thing that a failed vote does to my knowledge is in federal elections there is something like $2.00 per vote that is given to the party the vote was cast for. This of course helps to further fund the party.