The Official Canadian Electoral Reform Thread

[davesmom]

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

Although the Liberals won the majority of seats, NDP and Conservatives together received more votes, over 55% to the Liberals 39.8. Add in the Bloc and Green Party, there were quite a large number of voters who voted AGAINST the Liberals.
So where is the imbalance?
It is the overbearing number of seats in Ontario and Quebec and I don't see that changing.

 

[Curious Cdn]

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

Our spread out but highly urbanized geography does not lend itself to a smooth and easy Rep by Pop. You will either need a lot more constituencies or you will have huge thinly inhabited, province-sized swaths of Canada represent by one or a couple of MPs. First past the post offers the opportunity for representatives from places like the Yukon or Nunavut to become important players. There would be far fewer of them if everyone's vote is of equal weight. The two afore mentioned places would be allowed only one MP each and even then, it would have to be a vastly expanded parliament with ridings each representing the 20,000 to 30,000 range each. You might pull it off in a densly populated place like England but here, most of us are packed in large cities, a few of us live in extremely low density areas that make up most of the country.

 

[davesmom]

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

Which system is it that requires the party with the least votes to lend their support to one of the parties with a higher number and so on until there are only two parties left? It was explained to me but I cannot remember what it was called.
If that were the system, the Green Party would have to have given their one seat to one of the other four parties, the Bloc would have given their support to one of the other three, NDP to either the Conservatives or the Liberals.

 

[Machjo]

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

We might even need two referendums for this. First a broad referendum question:

If we change, should we change to non-partisan democracy or proportional representation.

This would then give the government a mandate to explore reform in the direction chosen by the people.

Should the people choose non-partisan democracy, the next referendum could be between the present status quo and the government's final proposal for non-partisan democracy.

Should the people choose pro-rep, the next referendum would be between the status quo and the government's chosen pro-rep system

 

[Curious Cdn]

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

You are not just changing the electoral system, you are throwing away Westminster Parliament, which is inherently partisan. We will have to invent something new from scratch as there are no other good templates out there for us. The American system? You gotta be kidding! Notice that the only places on Earth that tried out that template ended up with random Latin American Juntas. The French system? Out if the frying pan and into the fire! The Westminster style Parliament is not just the residue of British imperialisim, t works after a fashion and it is exportable.

 

[Machjo]

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

Which system is it that requires the party with the least votes to lend their support to one of the parties with a higher number and so on until there are only two parties left? It was explained to me but I cannot remember what it was called.
If that were the system, the Green Party would have to have given their one seat to one of the other four parties, the Bloc would have given their support to one of the other three, NDP to either the Conservatives or the Liberals.

I'm not sure, but it is definitely a form of proportional representation. If that is your first choice, then you'd be choosing proportional representation as your first choice.

You are not just changing the electoral system, you are throwing away Westminster Parliament, which is inherently partisan. We will have to invent something new from scratch as there are no other good templates out there for us. The American system? You gotta be kidding! Notice that the only places on Earth that tried out that template ended up with random Latin American Juntas. The French system? Out if the frying pan and into the fire! The Westminster style Parliament is not just the residue of British imperialisim, t works after a fashion and it is exportable.

To adopt non-partisan democracy, one is not working from scratch. A few US states, Nunavut, many local governments, many indigenous nations, many NGOs (both secular and religious), and even the British system as it once was are or were all non-partisan in the sense that political parties have no official recognition at all.

 

[Curious Cdn]

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

I agree at party discipline has severely damaged our Parliament but the mechanism by which we extract ourselves from it requires nothing short of revolution in a country that has been ruled from he PMO since Trudeau Senior's time.

 

[MHz]

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

Since joining together as a country (1867) was to be voted on by referendum it would appear that we are going back to the way things were. If we want to support NATO or the UK in a war then the people get a vote on it after being informed of the details in a bit more truth and depth than FOX normally gives to important items.
Get a Canada Revenue account and there is the portal for voting and the polls can be open 24/7 for a week and you can do it from home.

 

[Curious Cdn]

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

Rep by Pop is an old issue in this country the goes right back the beginning of it. We are rediscovering our great-great grandparent's big political fight.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-never-ending-rep-by-pop-conflict/article627323/

 

[cribone]

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

Rep by Pop is an old issue in this country the goes right back the beginning of it. We are rediscovering our great-great grandparent's big political fight.

By getting rid of "first past the post" and going to a POLITICAL parties get seats based on their popular vote we risk going to a system where there is rarely a majority. Secondly a voter will never know who represents them, all members will owe their seats to the party and not to the people in their riding. (what riding?)Ranking ballots where you mark you first three or four choices.

 

[Machjo]

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality-at-large_voting

In fact, I'd prefer plurality-at-large voting over fptp.

In a partisan system like the one we presently have, plurality-at-large voting would be even worse than fptp. But in a non-partisan system, it would be even better since it would tend to result in greater-like-mindedness among candidates, which in turn would help to provide even more moderate and so even more stable government.

Perhaps the ideal would be a non-partisan plurality-at-large system, the exact opposite of what Trudeau is proposing.

Ironically though, proportional representation is still preferable to the present partisan FPTP system.

I agree at party discipline has severely damaged our Parliament but the mechanism by which we extract ourselves from it requires nothing short of revolution in a country that has been ruled from he PMO since Trudeau Senior's time.

Agreed. To the the best option is to adopt a non-partisan plurality-at-large system. But should we refuse to scrap the party system, then the next best option, ironically enough, is to administer it properly by further entrench in it into some system of proportional representation.

Right now we have a disorganized mess. FPTP functions reasonably well in a non-partisan environment (though plurality-at-large voting works even better in such an environment), but is disastrous in our present partisan environment (plurality-at-large would be even worse). In short we have a disconnected system whereby we vote for candidates fptp who then act as if we'd voted for their respective parties. This leads to a disconnect between partisan and non-partisan realities, the worst combination.

 

[Curious Cdn]

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

Don't we need regional representatives? If we are to be represented by our populations only, small population places like Alberta will become politically insignificant. Is that necessarily democratic in the larger scheme of things? Maybe it is on some levels but it runs contrary to the spirit of Federation and it is a patently bad idea.

 

[Machjo]

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

By getting rid of "first past the post" and going to a POLITICAL parties get seats based on their popular vote we risk going to a system where there is rarely a majority. Secondly a voter will never know who represents them, all members will owe their seats to the party and not to the people in their riding. (what riding?)Ranking ballots where you mark you first three or four choices.

Of course different forms of pro-rep exist just as different forms of non-pro-rep systems exist.

If we are to maintain our partisan system though, then a party-list system would be preferable to what we have now. I'd prefer going in a non-partisan direction, but our present hybrid partially non-partisan and partially partisan system is the worst case scenario.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

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

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.

Do you actually believe this will work? Non-partisan will work as well and in practice as the current "non-Liberal" senators.

 

[Machjo]

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

Do you actually believe this will work? Non-partisan will work as well and in practice as the current "non-Liberal" senators.

Look at jurisdictions that have implemented non-partisan democracy, especially when combined with a plurality-at-large voting system.

I don't believe Nunavut has plurality-at-large voting, but FPTP is sumilar, which is what I believe Nunavut uses. Of course if we remove parties, we won't want pro-rep voting since if anything, we would want to encourage more like-mindedness among representatives to discourage gridlock. Plurality-at-large voting does tend to promote landslide majorities, even more do than FPTP, which is why it would be terrible in a partisan system, but advantageous in a non-partisan consensus-based system.

 

[davesmom]

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

The Liberal Minister on Question Period last night said that they would not have a referendum. It would be decided in Parliament.

 

[gerryh]

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

The Liberal Minister on Question Period last night said that they would not have a referendum. It would be decided in Parliament.

Which is fully within the parliamentary mandate. A referendum is not required.

 

[Curious Cdn]

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

The Liberal Minister on Question Period last night said that they would not have a referendum. It would be decided in Parliament.

Oh rots of ruck with that! The party whips will be forcing each and every one of them how to vote! Can't fix the problem 'cause they are the problem.

 

[taxslave]

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

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.

Pretty hard to get a consensus without watered down legislation when you have to include left wing radicals in the process.

Don't we need regional representatives? If we are to be represented by our populations only, small population places like Alberta will become politically insignificant. Is that necessarily democratic in the larger scheme of things? Maybe it is on some levels but it runs contrary to the spirit of Federation and it is a patently bad idea.

Individually the western provinces already are politically insignificant. PEI has more senators than BC does.

ANd then there is Quebec's guaranteed percentage of seats.

 

[Machjo]

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

Pretty hard to get a consensus without watered down legislation when you have to include left wing radicals in the process.



Individually the western provinces already are politically insignificant. PEI has more senators than BC does.

Of you introduced plurality-at-large voting, fringe candidates wouldn't stand a chance as it tends to promote more mainstream candidates.