Democratic reform

many European countries are actually reverting back to FPTP after popular representation.

I've not heard or read anything of the sort, and none of my google mining can find anything referencing this trend. I'd be genuinely interested in reading any articles to support his claim if you have them.

Let's say the Liberals win with 45% of the vote, the Greens get 7%. The Liberals require Green support to pass legislation, they are effectively held hostage by the Greens. 7% of the electorate that voted Green is massively over represented in legislation.

My worry with pure proportional representation is that we will end up with the current parties for a while, then they will start to split. We will have
- 2 conservative parties from the current one
- NDP will split between old school union NDP'ers and new school Naomi Klein style social issue NDP'ers
- emergence of ethnic parties in certain regions of Canada. No reason why the 'Pan-Asian' party could not win in parts of Vancouver

Without a good national discussion and thing about the outcomes, we risk putting Canadian politics down the road of ruin.

Sorry, but to me, this is panacea.

Splitting current parties into smaller interest groups is what democracy is all about - giving those interest groups the means to actually win a seat in parliament, so much the better.

Your example with the Greens holding the Liberals to ransom is flawed. It ignores the fact that there are other parties with seats with which to form a coalition and push legislation through. If the Greens can't be pulled on side, the party in government (the most seats) has the choice of modifying a bill to meet the Greens halfway, or finding another party (Con, NDP, Bloc, other) to support them.

Prop rep almost always result in minority governments, and minority governments almost always force more cooperation between parties, thus representing more voters.

I've not heard or read anything of the sort, and none of my google mining can find anything referencing this trend. I'd be genuinely interested in reading any articles to support his claim if you have them.

Poland tried - but not enough people turned out to make it a legal referendum. Those that did vote were against PR. Just happened last year. http://www.electionguide.org/elections/id/2868/

I'll try to look, another country close by was going to be doing the same.

Kinda goes to show that people are more worried about jobs and healthcare than politicians padding the electoral system so that they can get re-elected.

Your example with the Greens holding the Liberals to ransom is flawed. It ignores the fact that there are other parties with seats with which to form a coalition and push legislation through. If the Greens can't be pulled on side, the party in government (the most seats) has the choice of modifying a bill to meet the Greens halfway, or finding another party (Con, NDP, Bloc, other) to support them.

Prop rep almost always result in minority governments, and minority governments almost always force more cooperation between parties, thus representing more voters.

Good in theory, just like true communism is in words. The reality - just like NBR calling those that don't think like them ignorant, political party members are bigger children in bigger sandboxes; they must pull party line or be booted. Hell, the general population now prejudices beforehand on if they are going to like a fellow human being based on how they vote, not on their merit or virtue. I can't see that sociological stigma spinning back anytime soon, hence the issues with PR in other countries and parties not willing to bend or work with their fellow politician/man - they aren't the right 'colour'

Sorry, but to me, this is panacea.

Splitting current parties into smaller interest groups is what democracy is all about - giving those interest groups the means to actually win a seat in parliament, so much the better.

Your example with the Greens holding the Liberals to ransom is flawed. It ignores the fact that there are other parties with seats with which to form a coalition and push legislation through. If the Greens can't be pulled on side, the party in government (the most seats) has the choice of modifying a bill to meet the Greens halfway, or finding another party (Con, NDP, Bloc, other) to support them.

Prop rep almost always result in minority governments, and minority governments almost always force more cooperation between parties, thus representing more voters.

All I want is for 'Strategic Voting' to be eliminated from Canada's political vocabulary.

I don't know why anyone is worried.

Both parties are for:
Selling arms to fascist countries
Sharing illegally gathered civilian data with other countries
Championing omnibus trade bills written under the guidance of large multinational corporations
Who loves LNG? We do!

We don't need to change anything.. just stop voting for captive political parties.

I don't know why anyone is worried.

Both parties are for:
Selling arms to fascist countries
Sharing illegally gathered civilian data with other countries
Championing omnibus trade bills written under the guidance of large multinational corporations
Who loves LNG? We do!

We don't need to change anything.. just stop voting for captive political parties.

This is a perfect argument for proportional representation. Right now upstart and single issue parties/candidates have zero chance of even getting a seat at the table. With PR, you have a much greater chance of getting single issue and/or upstart candidates a seat at the table instead of giving all of the seats to a dwindling number of major parties.

With the current system, a two-party American style 'democracy', where neither party has any interest in representing their voters interests, is almost inevitable.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that the Libs have already decided that STV is the way forward and that no alternates will be considered. A pretty rash assumption, indeed.

I heard it on the CBC! :lol:
No wait, I it was that guy in The Tyee.

Prop rep almost always result in minority governments, and minority governments almost always force more cooperation between parties, thus representing more voters.

I said that first.

:repost:

Peoples seemed to be best represented by minority govts. here in the past p/r would be a version of that, no?

Good in theory, just like true communism is in words. The reality - just like NBR calling those that don't think like them ignorant, political party members are bigger children in bigger sandboxes; they must pull party line or be booted.

It's important to understand that Marx's ideas were that society would move through different stages driven by a large-scale change in people's attitudes. Communism wasn't a system that he felt could be imposed by an elite, but one that would result from people's dissatisfaction with socialism.

Communism doesn't work, he would say, because we're not ready for it.

(I'm not really arguing with you, but I feel it's an important point of Marx' political philosophy)

This is a perfect argument for proportional representation.

First and foremost, if it's change, I'm for it. If it doesn't work, we can change it again. [HTML_REMOVED]fistbump[HTML_REMOVED]

I just think our capacity to only have two choices when it comes to our livelihood is like comparing a candle to the sun. Nothing we do will compare to letting these two political parties run roughshod over our lives.

Sorry, but to me, this is panacea.

Splitting current parties into smaller interest groups is what democracy is all about - giving those interest groups the means to actually win a seat in parliament, so much the better.

…

I agree!

An example of how deadlock can happen on the 'other side of the coin' is the US's two party system. They've been deadlocked often through procedural methods and fights between the 3 branches of gov't.

My concern with the current system, as I see it now, is that eventually all those interest groups will be forced to align themselves to either one or the other major party if they want a voice and we'll end up with something similar to the US. To me, black and white is catastrophic and divisive - and doesn't stop interests from holding things for ransom either. Just look at the chaos the tea party did with the Republicans base.

Some Canadians want FPTP. Others want PR. Does anyone want an appointed senate? Why don't we leave the lower house as-is and reform the senate into an elected body, chosen by some form of PR?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

You seem to be operating under the assumption that the Libs have already decided that STV is the way forward and that no alternates will be considered. A pretty rash assumption, indeed.

CHANTAL HÉBERT

Some Canadians want FPTP. Others want PR. Does anyone want an appointed senate? Why don't we leave the lower house as-is and reform the senate into an elected body, chosen by some form of PR?

Not many people are happy with the senate. This is why when Harper said he would reform the senate before he was elected most liberals, myself included, nodded in agreement. Lifetime appointed positions is a little too Royal Family like for my tastes. The idea that it is some kind of territorial representation is total BS too. They live in Ottawa and keep there finger on the pulse of their constituents vis a vis their summer cabin.

I say we elect a senate that represents areas of expertise instead of territories (eg - a group for the economy, another for the environment, etc) and that they not be affiliated with the parties. They can have a single term of say 10 years so they have time to make a difference and are not focused on re-election.