The Official Canadian Electoral Reform Thread

[taxslave]

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.

Nunavut has the population of a small town with most of the residents having a more or less common interest.

 

[Curious Cdn]

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

... and more or less common ancestry.

 

[Machjo]

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

Nunavut has the population of a small town with most of the residents having a more or less common interest.

Decentralization can solve that problem, with more Powe given to provinces, terrotories, and local governments.

 

[Bar Sinister]

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

I am afraid I can't answer your poll as non-partisan democracy is pretty much impossible and has been for about 200 years. Like-minded politicians are always going to band together regardless of the electoral system. That said, proportional representation or something like it works well in most mature democracies and I am tired of Canadian political parties claiming that they have a "mandate to rule" despite getting only 40% or so of the vote.

 

[tay]

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

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?

It's not a case of educating them but holding their interest long enough to show then the pro's and con's of different systems.

I'm thinking of the Charlottetown Accord. Mention that and most people's eyes glaze over.

The Harper CONS had a majority and could have introduced something favourable to them, but chose to waste their time trying to scare people into voting for them with the muzzy under your bed stuff only they only got a few convinced of that.

According to The Globe & Mail (link is external), the Trudeau Libs have decided we, the people - you and me (but especially me) - won't have a say in what our ballot will be like when next we trek to the polls.

Parliament will make that call which is another way of saying Justin and the same false majority Harper had. They're going to figure out our next system of voting. I'm just guessing but I expect it won't be the one, proportional voting, that's considered most favourable to the New Dems. I'd put my money on the preferential ballot option, the one most favourable to the permanent installation of a Liberal dynasty.

Of course the CONs could have done the same but they were just too angry to see the future......

Dominic LeBlanc, the Liberal House Leader, told CTV’s Question Periodon Sunday that “our plan is not to have a national referendum. Our plan is to use Parliament to consult Canadians. That has always been our plan and I don’t have any reason to think that’s been changed.”

Mr. LeBlanc, who has previously said that one party with a majority should not be able to rewrite the rules for everybody else, said the government sees “Parliament taking it responsibility and having a committee travel across the country and then having a debate in Parliament.”

 

[CDNBear]

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

A referendum is not required.

Morally and ethically, it is. Anyone that thinks otherwise a moron.

 

[Bar Sinister]

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

Why not? It did not stop the Harper government from passing a number of measures affecting voting during its time in office and no referenda were held the last few times major changes have been made to voting in Canada, and I am talking about giving women the right to vote; extending voting rights to First Nations Canadians; and lowering the voting age to 18 from 21. I wonder how a referendum on those changes would have turned out. And, of course, Rex Murphy is probably wrong - constitutionally the current government of Canada does have the right to change the voting system.

 

[CDNBear]

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

Why not? It did not stop the Harper government from passing a number of measures affecting voting...

What an absurd argument.

Not surprised you made it.

 

[FiveParadox]

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

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.

Actually, the Liberals campaigned on a promise to replace the first-past-the-post system in consultation with the electorate. And since the Government has committed to introducing this legislation within the first eighteen months of their mandate, after consulting Canadians throughout the country, it sounds to me as though the Liberals are on-track to add this to the growing list of Liberal promises already kept.

And while the Liberals do not have the right to change the electoral system themselves, the Parliament of Canada does, as long as they do not touch the proportionate distribution of seats to the provinces by population (which would require a constitutional amendment). Since the Liberals do not have a majority in the Senate, there is going to need to be consensus between the parties, or the support of nearly all independent senators.

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

Typical Conservative rhetoric and misinformation (i.e., bull****).

British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, between them, have 104 seats or 30.8% of seats in the House of Commons; since we do representation by population in the lower house, and since these provinces make up about 31% of the population, it looks to me that they have just as much representation as they are supposed to have.

Also, no, British Columbia has more senators than Prince Edward Island.

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

This is something that people love to throw out there as a piece of anti-Québec and pro-West rhetoric. The distribution of seats for all provinces in the House is calculated in exactly the same way; the population is divided by 111,166 and, if the number of seats would be less than the province's senatorial count or the seats that it held in 1985, then the number of seats is topped-up as needed.

When the Conservatives added an additional three seats for Québec with the Fair Representation Act, 2011, it was to ensure that Québec (which has traditionally been the anchor around which the rest of the country's distribution calculations are done) did not become underrepresented relative to its share of the population.

The Harper CONS had a majority and could have introduced something favourable to them, but chose to waste their time trying to scare people into voting for them with the muzzy under your bed stuff only they only got a few convinced of that.

Well, actually, the Conservatives did in fact change the system to be more favourable to them. They passed the Fair Elections Act, which sought to make voting less accessible and more difficult for traditionally disadvantaged demographics. They made those changes despite substantial and vocal opposition by voters throughout the country.

 

[Machjo]

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

I am afraid I can't answer your poll as non-partisan democracy is pretty much impossible and has been for about 200 years. Like-minded politicians are always going to band together regardless of the electoral system. That said, proportional representation or something like it works well in most mature democracies and I am tired of Canadian political parties claiming that they have a "mandate to rule" despite getting only 40% or so of the vote.

If we insist on a partisan system, then I agree that pro-rep is needed. FPTP is simply not designed to function in a partisan system for the simple reason your presented.

If we must turn to pro-rep, maybe Single Transferable Ballot?

We could also consider an at least somewhat less partisan system than the one we presently have by removing party names from ballots.

Another alternative would be, between the House and the Senate, for one to be elected based on non-partisan plurality-at-large voting, the other based on a party-list system.

So one would be non-partisan and the urtest thing from pro-rep, tending therefore to landslide majorities of like-minded people, the other a purely pro-rep system tending towards multi-parry coalitions.

If we did that though, we might then want to require that no law could pass without the support of both Houses.

A possible variant might even be that a person would be free to choose two non-partisan plurality-at-large ballots, two party-list ballots, or one of each as he prefers. Since each House must obtain a majority vote to pass a law, whichever choice one makes would still protect his representation in Parliament.

 

[FiveParadox]

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

If we insist on a partisan system, then I agree that pro-rep is needed. FPTP is simply not designed to function in a partisan system for the simple reason your presented.

Of course it was designed to function in a partisan system; it's been used for that exact purpose for centuries.

We could also consider an at least somewhat less partisan system than the one we presently have by removing party names from ballots.

I appreciate your sentiment, here, but the reality is that we have a lot of growing up to do as an electorate and as a citizenry before that is going to happen. Far too many electors vote only on the basis of party, and while we all wish that forcing electors to do more research before voting would be preferable, the reality is that it would make voting less accessible, and voter turnout would plummet.

Another alternative would be, between the House and the Senate, for one to be elected based on non-partisan plurality-at-large voting, the other based on a party-list system.

This would be an unworkable solution.

For a chamber to be composed entirely of a party list system means that those legislators would be so incredibly beholden to the party leadership that the chamber would become a complete joke of political soundbites, and extreme patronage, with very little actual accountability to the electorate. At least when it comes to electoral change in the Commons, that can be done by Parliament alone; to make senators elected requires a constitutional amendment.

If we did that though, we might then want to require that no law could pass without the support of both Houses.

That is already the law; every piece of legislation must be endorsed by both the Senate and the Commons.

 

[JamesBondo]

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

non partisan? how can you be sure that someone else isn't calling the shots instead of a party platform that was available during the election campaign?

 

[Machjo]

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

non partisan? how can you be sure that someone else isn't calling the shots instead of a party platform that was available during the election campaign?

You'd still have to get to know your candidate. In that sense, each candidate would have his own platform. This would tend to limit laws to those most agree on. Plurality-at-large voting though would tend to lead to like-minded people being elected for the most part.

 

[justfred99]

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

What about making sure that there are 25 parties running in the election, making sure that each constituancy has a full slate of candidates. That way, with a full 25party spilt, the leading party has to only get 6% of the vote to win and can run the country with as they see fit. Maybe we have TOO MANY parties running now, splitting the left and the right votes up.

 

[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.

There was a huge study done and report made on this subject about 10 or so years ago. The conclusion drawn at that time was the best system is 'first past the post', exactly the system we are using now. Who gives a f**k what someone's second choice is? Most people aren't sure what their first choice is right up until election day!

Actually, the Liberals campaigned on a promise to replace the first-past-the-post system in consultation with the electorate. And since the Government has committed to introducing this legislation within the first eighteen months of their mandate, after consulting Canadians throughout the country, it sounds to me as though the Liberals are on-track to add this to the growing list of Liberal promises already kept.

There's just one tiny little problem..........................it's not their place to change it! (Besides it could be construed as a conflict of interest)

 

[Curious Cdn]

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

(Besides it could be construed as a conflict of interest)

Mais non! Say it ain't so, Joe! Liberals in a conflict of interest?

 

[FiveParadox]

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

There's just one tiny little problem..........................it's not their place to change it!

Of course it's their place to change it; the Parliament of Canada is expressly granted the authority to change parts of the constitution relating to executive government, the Senate, and the House of Commons, pursuant to s. 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It is expressly and constitutionally their place to change it. And given that the Liberals campaigned on a promise of consulting Canadians and then replacing the first-past-the-post system, and they were elected to a majority, it is their moral and ethical place to do it, too.

 

[taxslave]

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

Actually, the Liberals campaigned on a promise to replace the first-past-the-post system in consultation with the electorate. And since the Government has committed to introducing this legislation within the first eighteen months of their mandate, after consulting Canadians throughout the country, it sounds to me as though the Liberals are on-track to add this to the growing list of Liberal promises already kept.

And while the Liberals do not have the right to change the electoral system themselves, the Parliament of Canada does, as long as they do not touch the proportionate distribution of seats to the provinces by population (which would require a constitutional amendment). Since the Liberals do not have a majority in the Senate, there is going to need to be consensus between the parties, or the support of nearly all independent senators.


Typical Conservative rhetoric and misinformation (i.e., bull****).

British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, between them, have 104 seats or 30.8% of seats in the House of Commons; since we do representation by population in the lower house, and since these provinces make up about 31% of the population, it looks to me that they have just as much representation as they are supposed to have.

Also, no, British Columbia has more senators than Prince Edward Island.


This is something that people love to throw out there as a piece of anti-Québec and pro-West rhetoric. The distribution of seats for all provinces in the House is calculated in exactly the same way; the population is divided by 111,166 and, if the number of seats would be less than the province's senatorial count or the seats that it held in 1985, then the number of seats is topped-up as needed.

When the Conservatives added an additional three seats for Québec with the Fair Representation Act, 2011, it was to ensure that Québec (which has traditionally been the anchor around which the rest of the country's distribution calculations are done) did not become underrepresented relative to its share of the population.


Well, actually, the Conservatives did in fact change the system to be more favourable to them. They passed the Fair Elections Act, which sought to make voting less accessible and more difficult for traditionally disadvantaged demographics. They made those changes despite substantial and vocal opposition by voters throughout the country.

My bad. I left out a couple of words. needed to add per capita.
BC has a population of 4704000
5 senators: representing 940800 people each
42 MPs representing 112000 people each

PEI has a population of 146000
3 senators representing 48761 people each
4 MPs representing 36570 each.
This could only look like equal representation to a liberal hack.

Of course it's their place to change it; the Parliament of Canada is expressly granted the authority to change parts of the constitution relating to executive government, the Senate, and the House of Commons, pursuant to s. 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It is expressly and constitutionally their place to change it. And given that the Liberals campaigned on a promise of consulting Canadians and then replacing the first-past-the-post system, and they were elected to a majority, it is their moral and ethical place to do it, too.

Is the consultation to take place before or after they make the desired changes?

 

[FiveParadox]

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

My bad. I left out a couple of words. needed to add per capita.
BC has a population of 4704000
5 senators: representing 940800 people each
42 MPs representing 112000 people each

Given that the exact number of people per electoral district is meant to be 111,166, it looks like the balance in British Columbia has been pretty appropriately struck. As for senators, that is a separate issue entirely; the Senate is based on regional representation, and not representation-by-population like the elected lower house.

Whereas Parliament has the authority to make changes on its own to the electoral system, a change to the fundamental characteristics of the Senate would require the use of the 7/50 constitutional amending formula. I think that we stand a better chance of getting a more effective and less partisan Senate by following the roadmap that the Prime Minister has set out (i.e., a merit-based appointments process, and giving Senate caucuses more independence).

PEI has a population of 146000
3 senators representing 48761 people each
4 MPs representing 36570 each.
This could only look like equal representation to a liberal hack.

The representation formula results in reasonably close numbers for base calculations; however, there are some exceptions where "special clauses" in the representation formula come into play. These are the "Senate clause," which ensures that no province can have less seats in the Commons than they have in the Senate; and the "grandfather clause," which ensures that no province can have less seats than the province had in 1985. This results in the following adjustments:

• Québec receives an additional 3 seats (calculated seats: 72, 1985 seats: 75)
• Québec also receives an extra 3 seats due to the Fair Representation Act, 2011
  [*]Manitoba receives an additional 2 seats (calculated seats: 12, 1985 seats: 14)
  [*]Saskatchewan receives an additional 4 seats (calculated seats: 10, 1985 seats: 14)
  [*]Nova Scotia receives an additional 2 seats (calculated seats: 9, 1985 seats: 11)
  [*]New Brunswick receives an additional 3 seats (calculated seats: 7, 1985 seats: 10)
  [*]Newfoundland and Labrador receives an additional 2 seats (calculated seats: 5, 1985 seats: 7)
  [*]Prince Edward Island receives an additional 2 seats (calculated seats: 2, 1985 seats: 4)

Is the consultation to take place before or after they make the desired changes?

The Government has already indicated that they are going to ask a committee to conduct consultations before legislation is introduced in the House, so that the electoral reform proposal can be informed by and developed in consideration of the consultations that take place.

 

[JLM]

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

Of course it's their place to change it; the Parliament of Canada is expressly granted the authority to change parts of the constitution relating to executive government

Well then, if it is, it's a sure sign we have a corrupt Gov't, just as sure as if Michel Therrien changed the rules of N.H.L. hockey!