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   » PR? Promotional Rearrangement?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: PR? Promotional Rearrangement?
VenomWearinDenim
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9092

posted 21 November 2005 08:41 PM      Profile for VenomWearinDenim        Edit/Delete Post
I am sick of talk about the "voting system"! To be sure, it is an attractive reform in many respects -respects that need not be listed here- but it is an infinitely small, if not meaningless, "solution." So please, rabble residents, cease talking of PR as if it is some magic bullet, or FistPastEinPost as some kind of foul villain.

I don't know why Ed the Red wastes his breath on PR. 't would be better spent on other problems.

Ed for PM!


From: Otto Von Wa | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 21 November 2005 09:37 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hmmmm. Starting threads about it sure is an interesting way to demonstrate that you're sick of hearing about it.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
VenomWearinDenim
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9092

posted 21 November 2005 09:55 PM      Profile for VenomWearinDenim        Edit/Delete Post
Damn! you're absolutely right. Unmasked I am... deep down I really do care. Now -being fully serious I assure you- that made me laugh. Here I am playing the stereotypical Seinfeld: "What's the deal with..." a dead bit to be sure...

What deep-seated neurosis impels me?
God give me an answer!!


From: Otto Von Wa | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 21 November 2005 10:19 PM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PR is a magic bullet. I have spoken to old Canadians who have never had their vote count in their entire lives. A politically meaningless life. It is no wonder that people are disenchanted with the whole deal here. Almost a year ago, there were people arrested here in bc. People connected with the Paul Martin leadership campaign. Still awaiting trial. First past the post is a sick system. It matters more what party you belong to as a candidate than what type of person you are.
And the media hype is sooo important to it. Whoever the voters perceive as the 2 leading candidates will get nearly all the votes as members of the electorate struggle to cast a meaningful vote. But if the polster companys give incorrect info about who the 2 leaders are, What?
It is quite likely that in trying to cast a meaningful vote, people are often misled by newsdogs and polsters in the pay of politicians.
The people of BC voted in favour of a type of PR (STV) that dampens the effect of media interference. People can safely vote for whoever they think is the best candidate, even if that person is not a member of any party!
It makes politics real again. First past the post is so much huff and puff and bluff. And the cult of the leader is so much part of it. When you vote , you are voting for a puppet for the party leader. Thats not how it is supposed to be. Backbenchers are supposed to have minds of their own. Not in Canada.

From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 21 November 2005 11:36 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Brian White:
It matters more what party you belong to as a candidate than what type of person you are.

Only if you let it.

The main voting motivator is split almost equally among voting-for-the-leader-to-be-PM, voting-for-the-candidate, voting-for-the-party, and voting-on-an-issue.

Splitting the ballot between the local MP and the Prime Minister would be just as much a solution for solving the "voting-for-the-party" problem, to the extent that it is a problem, as PR.

There are problems with PR, good reasons why not everyone will like it (and why not every losing-candidate vote is a "wasted" vote). Let's see if you can figure out what they are.

quote:
And the media hype is sooo important to it. Whoever the voters perceive as the 2 leading candidates will get nearly all the votes as members of the electorate struggle to cast a meaningful vote.

What's your source for that statement?

And what about when the voters perceive <1 "leading candidate" or >2?

quote:
But if the polster companys give incorrect info about who the 2 leaders are, What?

Why would pollsters do that? When have they? Which pollsters?


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 22 November 2005 02:11 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'd like to see a system where every vote for any point of view increases the weight of that point of view in parliament equally.

At present, that is not the case. Last election, my riding had 4 times the number of people in any PEI riding. The NDP candidate would have a seat if she had run in any PEI riding - as it was she came a distant 3rd.

Every province has a large number of voters whose votes are futile. This creates the illusion that entire regions think the same way - see Alberta, with it's 25% Liberal Vote, and slightly smaller NDP vote. Yet Conservatives somehow pretend that Alberta is uniformly a Conservative bastion. A similar situation exists in Quebec - the Cons and NDP will never take a seat there until a new system is created.

SImilarly - our current government is supported by just over 1/3 of the voters, yet they win. Chretien never even approached 50% of the popular vote, yet he ruled for a decade.

We are struggling under an archaic system, based on privelege. It's time to change it - any part opposed to improving the electoral system has forgotten it's expressed purpose, which is to participate in democracy.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
binky
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5984

posted 22 November 2005 02:49 PM      Profile for binky        Edit/Delete Post
PR will only truly reflect a proportion of the vote when it adjusts for the percent of eligable voters that cast a ballot.
i.e.:

100% voter turnout would be reflected by 100% of the seats being occupied.
If the voter turnout is only 60% then you only get 60% of the seats in government occupied.

Lets say in one region you have 4 members to be elected. The representation is to reflect the percentage of votes cast for the candidates. However if the turnout falls below 75% then that region is only allowed to elect 3 members to Parliament.
Then every vote really counts.


From: London, On | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 22 November 2005 03:01 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The last federal election was the first in my lifetime where my vote actually counted. With PR, we would see more minority governments, and more votes would count. So, ya, call me selfish, but I want to see PR so that my vote (and millions of others) actually contribute to the make-up and machinations of parliament a few more times before I croak.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Threads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3415

posted 22 November 2005 03:29 PM      Profile for Threads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The main voting motivator is split almost equally among voting-for-the-leader-to-be-PM, voting-for-the-candidate, voting-for-the-party, and voting-on-an-issue.

Search this page for "Factors in voting choice".
Here's a summary of the poll results for vote motivation:
quote:

- 25.5% voted because of a party's position on an issue;
- 24.5% voted because of a party's qualities or general approach;
- 14.4% voted because of a party leader's position on an issue;
- 10.2% voted because of a candidate's qualities or general approach;
- 9.8% voted because of a candidate's position on an issue;
- 9.6% voted because of a party leader's qualities or general approach;

From: where I stand | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
tallyho
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10917

posted 22 November 2005 03:44 PM      Profile for tallyho        Edit/Delete Post
When you get that type of list it says to me that voters weren't asked how they vote but rather given a list of 'finite options' and asked to tick off one of them. That always completely distorts results.

Which pie do you prefer?

a) blueberry
b) pumpkin
c) strawberry

100% total voting for the 3 selections doesn't reveal that 75% actually like apple pie the best.

Back in Nova Scotia I'd hazard a guess that 50% of the voters where I lived would have answered "I don't know, we always vote .....' Here in Alberta it's not a lot different: Why do you vote Conservative? : 'I don't know' or 'everyone does'....or a negative such as 'I'd never vote for....'

[ 22 November 2005: Message edited by: tallyho ]


From: The NDP sells out Alberta workers | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 22 November 2005 04:25 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by binky:
PR will only truly reflect a proportion of the vote when it adjusts for the percent of eligible voters that cast a ballot.

Every system gives a party more seats if its voters have a higher turnout.

Some MMP systems go father, and reward a region for having a higher turnout. I wouldn't want to do that. Germany does: they don't have a fixed number of seats for each state. A state with a higher turnout will poach a seat or two from a state with a lower turnout. Not possible in Canada. I wouldn't want to do that even on a regional basis: if the west end of Vancouver has a higher turnout than the east end, or the east end of Toronto has a higher turnout than the west end, I wouldn't want them to get extra weight.

But one Germany model rewards turnout in a neat way: the state of Baden-Wurttemberg has a unique list-free MMP model, where the "list" MPs are the party's candidates in the region who, although defeated, had the highest number of votes. Number, not percent. A candidate who attracts a high turnout goes to the top of the "list." A nice voter choice model, but it elects fewer women than almost any other German state. Trade-offs, as always. Or maybe southern Germans are just less feminist (it's a conservative region)?


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 22 November 2005 05:01 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by binky:
PR will only truly reflect a proportion of the vote when it adjusts for the percent of eligable voters that cast a ballot.
i.e.:

100% voter turnout would be reflected by 100% of the seats being occupied.
If the voter turnout is only 60% then you only get 60% of the seats in government occupied.

Lets say in one region you have 4 members to be elected. The representation is to reflect the percentage of votes cast for the candidates. However if the turnout falls below 75% then that region is only allowed to elect 3 members to Parliament.
Then every vote really counts.


I couldn't disagree more. If people choose to disenfranchise themselves - to abdicate their responsibility onto those of us who do vote, that's their choice. We should no more pretend that their views matter (having disenfranchised themselves) than we should force them to vote.

In a PR system where every vote had meaning, opting not to vote could only be justified by apathy or anarchism. In the case of the first, that's their choice and problem. In the case of the second, again, it's their choice and belief.

In neither case is there any reason to give their positions on the issues of the day any more weight than they do themselves.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 23 November 2005 04:56 AM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hi, Wilf, I lived in Baden Wutenberg for a little while. Here is a quote. American lady"Back in the USA, I am a card carrying republican, Here, I vote for the SDP!)
I think it is less femanist than north germany but also, I met people who were sent there from the north to be away from their hard drug connections and it is concidered the major centre of culture and science in germany. (At least by some)
I thought arborman made some excellent points and I hope fair vote canada notices what he said.

From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 23 November 2005 05:04 AM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I frankly do not give much credibility to polls.
With Thread's motivator chart, is that the same for each party? I mean, do people hold their noses and vote con dispite Stephen? And what is the issue?
It seems to me that there are many issues.
I know in STV people vote for a person to represent their interests. Being part of the ruling party helps, but sometimes they vote independent rather than being steamrollered by the leader. Leader cults are unhealthy. Better to vote for a local to keep the leader in check.
Threads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3415

posted 22 November 2005 03:29 PM
quote:
The main voting motivator is split almost equally among voting-for-the-leader-to-be-PM, voting-for-the-candidate, voting-for-the-party, and voting-on-an-issue.


From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 23 November 2005 05:21 AM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Peebles, every vote for a losing candidate IS a wasted vote.If your vote does not contribute to putting someone into parliament to represent you, you are wasting your time.
Why would polsters give incorrect info?
Come on, give me a break! Polsters quote tollerences for their info. Within 4% 19 times out of 20 and so on. But suppose a political party pays for the poll? Suppose they pay for 20 polls?
So, they will have really accurate info but they only need to publish ONE of the polls.
Which one do you think it will be?
You can bet that they will publish the one most favourable to them even if they know that it is outside the limits shown in the other 19 polls!
Also, have you heard of polls being used as a marketing tool?
Some polsters actually market themselves with language that is anything but objective.
Polsters should be legally required to say who is paying the piper but this is not the case in Canada. (It IS the case in some other countrys) because people KNOW that polls INFLUENCE results.
Simply put, if people in your riding think that you and candidate x are the leading candidates, voters will graviate to you or candidate x because they want to cast a meaningful vote.
You and candidate x are percieved as the most likely winners and guess what, you or candidate x will win.
Just like poker! And the polster can be the main bluffer to help the voters decide which 2 are the leaders.

pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 21 November 2005 11:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Brian White:
It matters more what party you belong to as a candidate than what type of person you are.

Only if you let it.

The main voting motivator is split almost equally among voting-for-the-leader-to-be-PM, voting-for-the-candidate, voting-for-the-party, and voting-on-an-issue.

Splitting the ballot between the local MP and the Prime Minister would be just as much a solution for solving the "voting-for-the-party" problem, to the extent that it is a problem, as PR.

There are problems with PR, good reasons why not everyone will like it (and why not every losing-candidate vote is a "wasted" vote). Let's see if you can figure out what they are.

quote:
And the media hype is sooo important to it. Whoever the voters perceive as the 2 leading candidates will get nearly all the votes as members of the electorate struggle to cast a meaningful vote.

What's your source for that statement?

And what about when the voters perceive <1 "leading candidate" or >2?

quote:
But if the polster companys give incorrect info about who the 2 leaders are, What?

Why would pollsters do that? When have they? Which pollsters?


From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 23 November 2005 05:24 AM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
First polster page I went to!

"At Mustel Group, we understand that every client has unique and sometimes complex needs. So our research process has been designed to highlight research goals and expectations with clarity and precision right from the outset. Which means you get exactly what you need to move your organization forward".
And I did not change a single word!


From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Threads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3415

posted 23 November 2005 12:16 PM      Profile for Threads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Brian, the poll was, as far as I can tell, just asking however many people were asked how they decided how to vote. No other breakdown.
From: where I stand | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 23 November 2005 01:32 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:
Every province has a large number of voters whose votes are futile. This creates the illusion that entire regions think the same way - see Alberta, with it's 25% Liberal Vote, and slightly smaller NDP vote. Yet Conservatives somehow pretend that Alberta is uniformly a Conservative bastion. A similar situation exists in Quebec - the Cons and NDP will never take a seat there until a new system is created.

A similar situation exists within provinces.

Today the nine MPs from the BC Interior and North are all Conservatives except one NDP member, but the voters in that region voted only 46% Conservative, not 89%. Under proportional representation, 50% of the votes gives a party's voters 50% of the MPs, not 100%.

In Toronto, 95% of their 22 MPs are Liberals, but Toronto voted 56% Liberal, not 95%.

The nine MPs from the Calgary area are all Conservatives. But those voters voted 62% Conservative, not 100%. The 38% of Calgarians who voted Liberal, NDP or Green elected no MPs, when they deserved three or four.

Today, the seven MPs from Quebec City are all Bloc Québécois, but Quebec City voted 48% Bloc, not 100%.

In Montreal it's the opposite. Their Liberal voters should have 8 local MPs, not 14. The Conservative voters deserve 2 regional MPs instead of being shut out. The NDP and Green voters should each have a regional MP instead of being shut out. Montreal's Bloc voters deserve 6 MPs, not 4.

This isn't a partisan issue. It's a matter of letting every vote count equally.

[ 23 November 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 24 November 2005 12:24 AM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are polls a reliable source of info?
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=001040
depends on the polster perhaps

From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
knuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8176

posted 25 November 2005 02:39 AM      Profile for knuckles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Robbins isn't a pollster. He's a crazy guy with a website.
From: US | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 25 November 2005 07:59 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by knuckles:
Robbins isn't a pollster. He's a crazy guy with a website.

Don't mock. Some of us don't even have a website.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Paul Gross
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3576

posted 25 November 2005 08:34 AM      Profile for Paul Gross   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by knuckles:
He's a crazy guy with a website.

Judging by all the "polls" on his site, he also has robo-dialling software and/or an overactive imagination.

Reminds me of something I once saw on TV..

Hello, this is Homer Simpson, a.k.a. Happy Dude. The court has ordered
me to call every person in town to apologize for my telemarketing scam.
I'm sorry. If you can find it in your heart to forgive me, send one
dollar to Sorry Dude, 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield. You have the
power.


From: central Centretown in central Canada | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 26 November 2005 03:40 AM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do they have a polsters guild?
Do they have standards for polster behaviour?
Do they have any exams for entry to the world of polstering?
Who are "they"?
Can I be a polster? (answer yes, no, maybe, in this thread)
Was any bc lib ad scam money"bc best place to work in the world" spent on polstering?
Was any federal liberal sponsership money spent on polstering?
Would babble like a new thread on polling standards or lack of?

knuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8176

posted 25 November 2005 02:39 AM
Robbins isn't a pollster. He's a crazy guy with a website.


From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 28 November 2005 11:27 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Brian White:
Do they have a polsters guild?
Do they have standards for polster behaviour?
Do they have any exams for entry to the world of polstering?
Who are "they"?
Can I be a polster? (answer yes, no, maybe, in this thread)
Was any bc lib ad scam money"bc best place to work in the world" spent on polstering?
Was any federal liberal sponsership money spent on polstering?
Would babble like a new thread on polling standards or lack of?

knuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8176

posted 25 November 2005 02:39 AM
Robbins isn't a pollster. He's a crazy guy with a website.


Click the quotation marks above the post you wish to quote! That's all there is to it!


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 29 November 2005 02:21 PM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Arbourman, thats a great piece of writing, Can I use it? (with acknowelegement of course)
I worked for a guy from australia and he totally agreed with compulsory voting because so many people are sooo lazy about voting. I know some people here who wouldnt vote in the civic elections because they had "incomplete"info and I was disgusted. All they needed was a polite financial kick in the backsides. (They DO have party allegances and their allys lost a seat). And you can always "spoil" your vote if the choice or system is poor. Spoiled votes are counted in some countrys. Here? If not why not?
Brian

quote:
Originally posted by binky:
If the voter turnout is only 60% then you only get 60% of the seats in government occupied.

quote:
Originally posted by arborman:

I couldn't disagree more. If people choose to disenfranchise themselves - to abdicate their responsibility onto those of us who do vote, that's their choice. We should no more pretend that their views matter (having disenfranchised themselves) than we should force them to vote.

In a PR system where every vote had meaning, opting not to vote could only be justified by apathy or anarchism. In the case of the first, that's their choice and problem. In the case of the second, again, it's their choice and belief.

In neither case is there any reason to give their positions on the issues of the day any more weight than they do themselves.



From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 01 December 2005 11:45 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
In Toronto, 95% of their 22 MPs are Liberals, but Toronto voted 56% Liberal, not 95%.

The nine MPs from the Calgary area are all Conservatives. But those voters voted 62% Conservative, not 100%. The 38% of Calgarians who voted Liberal, NDP or Green elected no MPs, when they deserved three or four.

Today, the seven MPs from Quebec City are all Bloc Québécois, but Quebec City voted 48% Bloc, not 100%.

In Montreal it's the opposite. Their Liberal voters should have 8 local MPs, not 14. The Conservative voters deserve 2 regional MPs instead of being shut out. The NDP and Green voters should each have a regional MP instead of being shut out. Montreal's Bloc voters deserve 6 MPs, not 4.


How is any of this a problem?

Why "should" the NDP or Greens have an MP in those regions you say they "should"?

What's the moral imperative here that would justify that mood of verb?


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 01 December 2005 11:54 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's no problem if you don't care about democracy.

But why should the Liberals get to pretend they represent 95% of Torontonians when they don't?

If half of Torontoians believe X, then why shouldn't half of our MPs be trying to obtain X for us?

The present system is one which creates artificial majorities by stifling the expression of minorities which may be significant, but are not "first past the post".

In Canada, it is particularly blind to have such a system. It means that the Bloc Quebecois, a separatist party which represents 45% of the voters of Quebec, gets about 80% of Quebec seats.

The other parties, which represent a majority of Quebeckers, get nothing. How is this a problem, you ask????????? Nothing could be more obviously a problem than a voting system like this one.

The only argument for the present system is that it is the traditional one. That is no longer good enough.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 02 December 2005 12:06 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pebbles:
Why "should" the NDP or Greens have an MP in those regions you say they "should"?

First, because every vote should count, and count equally. The Charter says every citizen has the right to vote, and every individual has the right to the equal benefit of the law. As Madam Justice McLachlin wrote:
quote:
What are the conditions of effective representation? The first is relative parity of voting power. A system which dilutes one citizen’s vote unduly as compared with another citizen’s vote runs the risk of providing inadequate representation to the citizen whose vote is diluted. The legislative power of the citizen whose vote is diluted will be reduced, as may be access to and assistance from his or her representative. The result will be uneven and unfair representation.

Second, because exaggerating regional differences is bad for Canada. Calgary has Liberals. Montreal has Conservatives. We don't have a fractured country as much as we have a broken voting system.

Third, because Calgary's eight Conservative MPs are seven men and one woman. Parliament should reflect the diversity of our society. To enable this, voting systems must be designed to remove barriers to the nomination and election of those who are underrepresented.

Fourth, because we should have accountable governments that reflect the will of the majority, not of the 37% of the voters whose representatives fluke into a majority government.

Fifth, because voters should have real choices. No voter should be disenfranchised for living in a safe riding. No voter should feel compelled to vote strategically for the lesser of evils because the preferred candidate or party has no chance of winning the riding.

Glad you asked.

[ 02 December 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 02 December 2005 12:58 AM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 01 December 2005 11:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Today, the seven MPs from Quebec City are all Bloc Québécois, but Quebec City voted 48% Bloc, not 100%.
.

"How is any of this a problem?" You are one of those complaining about Quebec being close to separation. Well, if they had representation that reflected the votes more closely, there would be less chance of a referendum question on separation. Why? because the guys who want separation would not have absolute power and be able to push through whatever laws they liked.
Or no power at all and be kicked around like a disobedient dog and just waiting to right the wrongs. Power would be somewhere in the middle where sanity is probably located.


From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 03 December 2005 09:17 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
First, because every vote should count, and count equally. The Charter says every citizen has the right to vote, and every individual has the right to the equal benefit of the law. As Madam Justice McLachlin wrote:

In a case involving the allocation of single-member first-past-the-post districts. What's your point?

quote:
The legislative power of the citizen whose vote is diluted will be reduced, as may be access to and assistance from his or her representative.

A good argument against PR: It increases the distance between the citizen and his or her representative.

quote:
Third, because Calgary's eight Conservative MPs are seven men and one woman. Parliament should reflect the diversity of our society.

That's opinion, not self-evident fact.

Where's the moral obligation?

quote:
Fourth, because we should have accountable governments that reflect the will of the majority, not of the 37% of the voters whose representatives fluke into a majority government.

Parliament gets a majority. If you add up all the votes received by the MPs, they have the outright majority of votes in almost every election, as opposed to the losers, who then whine and bitch and demand PR.

quote:
Fifth, because voters should have real choices. No voter should be disenfranchised for living in a safe riding.

Whose fault is it that the riding is "safe"?

Hey, I have no problem with PR in and of itself. Just don't make it the way in which Parliament as a whole is elected, and certainly not the lower house.

I'd gladly join a PR+Senate reform bandwagon, but the two movements seem to hate each other. Why not an upper house elected on some proportional system?

Why does it have to be at the expense of 308 locally-connected MPs?

[/QB][/QUOTE]


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 03 December 2005 09:25 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
It's no problem if you don't care about democracy.

I do care about democracy. That's why I think PR in the House of Commons is such a dumb idea.

If I'm one of 25,000 or 35,000 people who votes in my own current riding, I have a much better chance of voting someone in or out than if I am one of 200,000 or 300,000 in a multi-member district, and my local MP has much more of an interest in listening to me than the person on the top of a party list in the latter scenario.

quote:
But why should the Liberals get to pretend they represent 95% of Torontonians when they don't?

No one claims they do. However, EVERY electoral system focuses the vote in some manner that is going to lead the chronic losers whining and whinging for electoral reform.

quote:
If half of Torontoians believe X, then why shouldn't half of our MPs be trying to obtain X for us?

Why should we consider what "Torontonians", in the aggregate, are trying to say? How do you know what they are saying with their ballot? I vote for an MP, not a party.

quote:
The present system is one which creates artificial majorities by stifling the expression of minorities which may be significant, but are not "first past the post".

How are those minorities "stifled"?

quote:
In Canada, it is particularly blind to have such a system. It means that the Bloc Quebecois, a separatist party which represents 45% of the voters of Quebec, gets about 80% of Quebec seats.

I don't see that as problematic. Sorry. No, actually, not sorry.

quote:
The only argument for the present system is that it is the traditional one. That is no longer good enough.

Other arguments for the present system: Canada and most of its provinces are geographically large; MM districts increase the literal and metaphorical distance between MPs and their constituents; the current system encourages brokerage parties rather than idealogically splintered ones.

I agree that there should be more than one value built into the elections that compose Parliament.

That's what bicameralism should be for.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 04 December 2005 04:26 PM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is a safe bet that you, peebles are in a safe seat riding and you agree with your mp. It is also a safe bet that your mp does not get 50% of the votes, leaving over half of your fellows unrepresented in parliament. (But you dont care about them). In good mmp or stv systems, most of those people will have a representative that they can turn to, and not too far away either. I used to vote in a 5 seat stv riding. Almost 80% of us were represented directly by someone ALWAYS. ALL large party people had a representative they could turn to.
You say that first past the post is better! How many hundred miles does an ndp person in calgary have to travel to meet a mp to represent their interests? Or is it how many thousand miles?
So, your arguements about local representation totally ignore minority expression across most of Canada and are undemocratic in the extreme.

pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 03 December 2005 09:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
It's no problem if you don't care about democracy.

I do care about democracy. That's why I think PR in the House of Commons is such a dumb idea.

If I'm one of 25,000 or 35,000 people who votes in my own current riding, I have a much better chance of voting someone in or out than if I am one of 200,000 or 300,000 in a multi-member district, and my local MP has much more of an interest in listening to me than the person on the top of a party list in the latter scenario.

quote:
But why should the Liberals get to pretend they represent 95% of Torontonians when they don't?

No one claims they do. However, EVERY electoral system focuses the vote in some manner that is going to lead the chronic losers whining and whinging for electoral reform.

quote:


From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 04 December 2005 05:30 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pebbles:
I have no problem with PR in and of itself. Just don't make it the way in which Parliament as a whole is elected.

Perhaps you haven't been following the details. Most reformers advocate keeping 60% of the MPs from single ridings. In fact the Law Commission of Canada's demonstration model kept more than 60%.
quote:
Originally posted by pebbles:
If I'm one of 25,000 or 35,000 people who votes in my own current riding, I have a much better chance of voting someone in or out than if I am one of 200,000 or 300,000 in a multi-member district.

What's wrong with having the best of both worlds? You could be one of the 50,000 people who vote someone in in your larger local riding, and also have perhaps three regional MPs in other parties chosen by the 200,000 voters in your region, so you have competing MPs rather than one MP having a state monopoly. Why do you hate competition?
quote:
Originally posted by pebbles:
the Bloc Quebecois which represents 49% of the voters of Quebec gets 72% of Quebec seats. I don't see that as problematic.

Have you been paying attention? No alliance in the past House could get a clear working majority because of the severe over-representation of a negative bloc. In post-war Italy the Communist Party played a similar role, making stable governments very difficult, and people blamed the Italian PR system. Don't you see First-Past-The-Post to blame here?
quote:
Originally posted by pebbles:
EVERY electoral system focuses the vote in some manner that is going to lead the chronic losers whining and whinging for electoral reform.

If you mean that, with PR in the last election, we would have had 1.17 percent of the votes "wasted": the 158,139 votes for candidates other than the five parties? That's true. Even Israel has finally adopted a 2% threshold. No micro-parties making the House chaotic. A blessing.

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 05 December 2005 01:49 AM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One thing that's clear to me with the two referendums on P.R. that have taken place so far is that the proposed systems have to be simple and folks have to be able to understand them.

In both situations, the politicians set artificial "super majorities" that were required before a referendum could pass.

No doubt this will happen at the federal level.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 05 December 2005 02:30 AM      Profile for ReeferMadness     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Implementing PR at the federal level would be tricky because the bloc would be sure to do everything they could to make it look like another 'humiliation of Quebec'. After all, they'd lose seats big time.
From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 05 December 2005 03:38 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ReeferMadness:
Implementing PR at the federal level would be tricky because the bloc would be sure to do everything they could to make it look like another 'humiliation of Quebec'. After all, they'd lose seats big time.

The mystery at the federal level is how the federal Liberals can stall with a straight face while their provincial cousins are implementing proportional representation.

You might think the Bloc would oppose it, but the Bloc has always said they favour it. First, they have long memories -- the PQ was badly shafted by FPTP in its first few elections, and even after they won the 1998 election with fewer votes than the Liberals, the PQ maintained its support for PR, as did the Bloc. At the Estates-General on the Reform of Democratic Institutions 90% of delegates supported PR. It's a social consensus in Quebec which the Bloc could not openly oppose.

quote:
Originally posted by radiorahim:
with the two referendums on P.R. that have taken place so far . . the politicians set artificial "super majorities" that were required before a referendum could pass. No doubt this will happen at the federal level.

But it may not happen in Ontario, where the the Select Committee on Electoral Reform has recommended:
quote:
4. The referendum should be binding upon a vote of 50% + 1, and the support of 50% + 1 in at least two-thirds (i.e., 71) of the ridings, or any other formula that ensures the result has support from Northern, rural, and urban areas of the Province.

[ 05 December 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  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