babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Why are Liberals So Anti-Democratic?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Why are Liberals So Anti-Democratic?
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 24 October 2005 02:07 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
P.E.I. plebiscite may alter our democracy
quote:
Confederation's cradle calls a vote

Referendum on how to elect MLAs


KELLY TOUGHILL
ATLANTIC CANADA BUREAU

HALIFAX—Prince Edward Island is flirting with a radical election reform that may pioneer fundamental changes to democracy across Canada.

Voters in a province considered the birthplace of Confederation will decide next month whether to endorse a new kind of voting system designed to end lopsided majority governments.

The coming plebiscite on proportional representation has stirred deep emotion and debate in the tiny, perfect province where not just politics but jobs often ride on election results.

Some have accused Premier Pat Binns of trying to scuttle the reform, while others have lauded him for putting P.E.I. in the path of history. Binns, however, says he isn't trying to do either.

"To me, this has never been about trying to make history," he said in a phone interview. "It's about making a system as fair as possible."

The current system, in which the candidate with the greatest number of votes in each district wins his or her seat, has created huge majorities that do not reflect the popular vote.

In the island's last general election, only 54 per cent of the populace voted for the Progressive Conservative party, yet the party took 85 per cent of the Legislative Assembly's 27 seats. In the 2000 election, the Liberal party won 35 per cent of the popular vote, but took only one seat in the assembly.

Binns benefited from both those windfalls, but now believes it is a problem that could erode faith in the system.

"The outcome was very lopsided in the last three elections in terms of the number of members elected," he said.

"That gave rise to the feeling that there must be something better here that we can do."


[ 25 October 2005: Message edited by: leftcoastguy ]


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 24 October 2005 02:17 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What does this have to do with Liberals? (in other words, I don't see the connection between your thread title and the content of your post).
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 24 October 2005 02:20 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Read the full article!
From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 24 October 2005 02:25 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Still not seeing the connecction here.
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 24 October 2005 02:30 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is a publication which might be of interest to some of you.

RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT: Clarifying Essentials, Dispelling Myths, and Exploring Change


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 24 October 2005 02:32 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The only mention of the Liberals is the observation that, since they are considered likely to win the next PEI election, they would be disadvantaged by the adoption of the new electoral system.

Of course, the article also points out, much earlier, that the Liberals were disadvantaged under the current system in PEI, so the point of the thread still isn't supported by the article.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
MonkeyIslanderPolical23
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5758

posted 24 October 2005 05:36 PM      Profile for MonkeyIslanderPolical23        Edit/Delete Post
The link does not work, and it does not have that much to do with the Liberals.
From: Ontario | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 24 October 2005 06:59 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are the PEI Liberals officially OPPOSED to the new electoral system proposal?
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 24 October 2005 07:07 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You Liberal dudes need to lose your tunnel vision and start reading between the lines.
From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
MonkeyIslanderPolical23
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5758

posted 24 October 2005 08:09 PM      Profile for MonkeyIslanderPolical23        Edit/Delete Post
The link stil does not work.
From: Ontario | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 24 October 2005 11:07 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
If I read between the lines, it appears that you are claiming that the Liberal Party of PEI - with 35% of the vote and only one seat - is vehemetly opposed to a new electoral system that would give them more seats?

Even if the Liberal Party does expect to win next time, no party is going to accept a system that sees them completely and utterly shut-out every four or eight years, even if it means a period of uncontested rule when they're in - unless people are expecting the Conservatives to never come to power again, which isn't likely.

Interesting to note that in most cases of electoral reform - especially the creation of a proportional representation system - it was brought about by parties who were on their way out, due to major shifts in demographics and social views; typically in the late 19th century, early 20th century.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 25 October 2005 12:25 AM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If we can split up Canada with 50% + 1 vote we sure can change our voting system with the same numbers.

It is anti-democratic to raise the bar so high it makes it impossible to obtain.


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 25 October 2005 12:40 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fine, it should be 50%+1. But why are you blaming the Liberal party, who are in opposition, for a supermajority requirement, when that was actually attached by the Progressive Conservative government who are in power?
(and I'm not a "Liberal guy", but I do find it hard to see the point you're making here. Just say whatever the hell it is you're trying to say, willya?)

I'm not saying the Liberals AREN'T anti-democratic(of course they are, and in all provinces)but the article in question isn't really that much of a smoking gun.

[ 25 October 2005: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca