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   » How long will the NDP ignore its greatest opportunity in a generation?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: How long will the NDP ignore its greatest opportunity in a generation?
Matt_Risser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11800

posted 02 April 2006 05:12 PM      Profile for Matt_Risser     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How long will the NDP continue to leave Proportional Representation on the backburner of Canadian politics. This has got to be the most self destructive move by any political party ever. They ruined their chances in the last Parliament and the minorities are only going to last so much longer. If the NDP wants to continue to affect policy after this is over then they need to put PR at the front of their demands and how can we pressure them to do so?
From: Lunenburg, NS | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 02 April 2006 05:16 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with PR, but this has to be done carefully. PR will all but guarantee minority governments to come, which brings a constantly looming threat of an election call. Canadians were quite annoyed at having to go to the polls less than 2 years after Martin was elected, and if minority Parliaments are going to bring elections almost every other year, people aren't going to prefer the stability of a majority over the fairness of a minority that comes with PR.
From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 02 April 2006 05:20 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Layton justified putting PR on the back burner in the last Parliament by making reference to the fact that the NDP did not (just barely) truly hold the balance of power. The NDP viewed the issues around the health care envelope as more important; at least it is a reasonable argument.

Personally, I think that some influential forces in the NDP may be more concerned and afraid of the competition...on the left. So much so, that maybe they're more afraid of the competition on the left than the competition on the right.

[ 02 April 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 02 April 2006 05:33 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know. I guess given that the Greens are perceived (however wrongly) as left of the NDP, that might be a valid concern on the party's part. As regards parties that truly are left of the NDP, I don't think there's much to fear; with all due respect to the CP, I doubt most voters could bring themselves to vote that way.
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 02 April 2006 05:43 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The NDP didn't put PR on the back burner. In response to NDP demands, the Liberals promised that a Parliamentary Committee would be set up, but then they dragged their feet.
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 02 April 2006 05:43 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Agent 204: I guess given that the Greens are perceived (however wrongly) as left of the NDP, that might be a valid concern on the party's part.
It seems strange to put a policy that will undoubtedly help the NDP on the back burner because it will also help others. What sort of vision is that?

I don't narrow the "left" possibilities to the Greens or the Commies. There are other possibilities. The recent partial "un-coupling" of the CAW with the NDP should make that clear.

A further question, here, would be this: can the NDP be relied upon to represent the whole "left" in regard to the "timing" of the battle for PR? Maybe the NDP is only "sorta" in favour of PR and needs to be....pushed (from the left, of course!)


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 02 April 2006 05:45 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't mean to justify it, merely to try to figure out their reasoning.
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
BCseawalker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8468

posted 02 April 2006 05:51 PM      Profile for BCseawalker        Edit/Delete Post
Ari:

quote:
I agree ... but ... PR will all but guarantee minority governments to come, which brings a constantly looming threat of an election call.

Might it not be possible to have a four-year fixed election cycle, even with minority governments? That is, legislate that all parties MUST work together?

NB:

quote:
Layton justified putting PR on the back burner in the last Parliament by making reference to the fact that the NDP did not ... truly hold the balance of power. The NDP viewed the issues around the health care envelope as more important; at least it is a reasonable argument...

Some influential forces in the NDP may be more concerned and afraid of the competition on the left. So much so, that maybe they're more afraid of the competition on the left than the competition on the right.


I agree with all you say, with the exception of the part I've italicized. I think all parties are misguided if they suppose that PR isn't the number one issue to be addressed. Without a fair democratic electoral system, any issues deemed 'priority' may well reflect, or be slanted to, certain groups - the people in power in virtue of money, connections and prestige. 'Health care' is one case in point. Health has been framed as an acute care issue, as entirely about medical intervention and treatment.


From: Unspecified | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 02 April 2006 05:56 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Agent 204: I don't mean to justify it ...

Yea, I understand. Others can do that. [Looks innocently up at the sky. "Hi Scott. How are ya/"]

In terms of picking between the health care envelope issues and PR, it was probably wise for the NDP to pick an issue that harmonized with a strong majority view of Canadians. They would have known that whatever issue they picked to help bring the Martin Liberal government down ... they would be noisily criticized for it. O for audacity in Canadian politics.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 02 April 2006 06:06 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post
PR is just another example of how we pretend to change something but actually we change nothing. All PR will do is put more faces in the public trough without accomplishing any significant political change. The party system will still be in place and the tryanny of the majority will still dominate.

The only way democracy will ever work for the people themselves is if they practice it themselves. Namely through a participatory system.

Thereofre, the NDP are are the right track not to champion PR. However, the NDP is still out to lunch if it can not see that the only true electorial reform is one that introduces a participatory system.

If you want true change in the political decision making process it has to be BIG, not mediocre.


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
BCseawalker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8468

posted 02 April 2006 06:13 PM      Profile for BCseawalker        Edit/Delete Post
Otter, by 'participatory system' do you mean something like the ancient Greeks had? If so, how would that work in such a large country? If not, please describe what you mean or provide some references.
From: Unspecified | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sean Cain
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3502

posted 02 April 2006 11:44 PM      Profile for Sean Cain   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Still waiting for the Saskatchewan and Manitoba NDP governments to implement PR... I won't hold my breath.

Remember when socialists in this country used to lead by example, or when we promised people to do something good, we'd actually do it.

Remind me never to ask Premier Calvert to feed my cat while I'm away.

[ 02 April 2006: Message edited by: Sean Cain ]


From: Oakville, Ont. | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Matt_Risser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11800

posted 03 April 2006 12:23 AM      Profile for Matt_Risser     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
i agree why arent they and how can we pressure them to do so?
From: Lunenburg, NS | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 03 April 2006 12:50 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
I think there need to be two changes...

First on a Riding level: There should be instant run-off. Nobody should be able to act as MP without at lest 50%+1 vote for them. In some Ridings the picture will suddenly look a lot different than the current MP who has 36% support.

Second on a Parliamentary Level: In order to have Proportional Representation, you have to ignore the Riding results as far as the current setup is concerned. This is where Senate Reform could come in - which the NDP wants to abolish. The Senate could become the half of Parliament that is elected according to popular vote, while the House of Commons would continue as it is now, consisting of MP's who have gained 50%+ of the vote of their Riding.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 03 April 2006 12:51 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
PR will all but guarantee minority governments to come, which brings a constantly looming threat of an election call.

This is 100% false. Countries like Israel and Italy and the netherlands and Germany and all the Scandinavian countries all have PR and never, ever have majority government and they all have electiosn every four or five years. The way they work it is that election dates are more or less fixed. If the governing coalition falls apart then the head of state will ask another constellation of parties to form a new government and they will do so again and again and agian. Early elections only happen as a very last resort if all the parties throw up their hands and demand a new election to break the deadlock (which they rarely do). Keep in mind thyat in a PR system a new election usually means only a very slight shift in the seat totals of each party.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Matt_Risser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11800

posted 03 April 2006 12:58 AM      Profile for Matt_Risser     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ok here is the problem with that, the Senate is designed to ensure a balance between regions so that Ontario and Quebec can't control the rest of the country, electing the Senate by popular vote would cripple that ability and make the Senate more useless then it is now.

Secondly with IRV although i thought it was a good idea too, somebody mentioned to me that it would lead to constant Liberal majorities because everyone whether NDP or Conservative would make the Liberals their second choice. In my opinion a MMP system which has 200 FPTP seats and 105 PR Seats with a 5% threshold would be optimal.

As for the Senate a one way to deal with that would be to reform the number of Senators per province and to have the provincial governments fill the spots like Germany, South Africa, India, and others do.

[ 03 April 2006: Message edited by: Matt_Risser ]


From: Lunenburg, NS | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
a lonely worker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9893

posted 03 April 2006 01:31 AM      Profile for a lonely worker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Matt Riser:

quote:
i agree why arent they and how can we pressure them to do so?

Excellent question. I re-joined the NDP after a 10 year absence when they started talking about PR for the first time. Although I'm still a member, I'm getting extremely worried about hearing the PR pledge during an election and then letting it fall from the radar once the "real" issues surface.

I agree with many here that PR has to be the number one priority for this Parliament. Defending against tory cuts is needed but unfortunately when defense is your only strategy, progress isn't made.

Our nation is being destroyed by the neo-lib / neo-con agenda and the left is not helped by strategic voting, third way and "unite the left" type bs. If PR existed all of these arguments would disappear.

As for the concerns about a new force appearing to the left of the NDP. So what. It would be healthy and would finally force the NDP to examine itself instead of simply being slowly bled by attacks from all sides.

New challenges await especially with Harper's constitutional musings. If our voting system doesn't catch up, further deep integration awaits.


From: Anywhere that annoys neo-lib tools | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 03 April 2006 02:18 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
This is 100% false. Countries like Israel and Italy and the netherlands and Germany and all the Scandinavian countries all have PR and never, ever have majority government and they all have electiosn every four or five years. The way they work it is that election dates are more or less fixed. If the governing coalition falls apart then the head of state will ask another constellation of parties to form a new government and they will do so again and again and agian. Early elections only happen as a very last resort if all the parties throw up their hands and demand a new election to break the deadlock (which they rarely do). Keep in mind thyat in a PR system a new election usually means only a very slight shift in the seat totals of each party.

Germany doesn't have fixed election dates, and hasn't seen a single Party take a majority since the 60's. Usually Coalition governments work relatively well though, and there's seldom an unusually early election call. Italy however is a lot less stable.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 03 April 2006 02:23 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Matt_Risser:
ok here is the problem with that, the Senate is designed to ensure a balance between regions so that Ontario and Quebec can't control the rest of the country, electing the Senate by popular vote would cripple that ability and make the Senate more useless then it is now.

Well, the provinces would no longer be represented, but the national electoral will would be.

quote:
Secondly with IRV although i thought it was a good idea too, somebody mentioned to me that it would lead to constant Liberal majorities because everyone whether NDP or Conservative would make the Liberals their second choice.

Not necessarily. However, our current system is significantly worse. I am sure that under the system I proposed, my Riding would now have an NDP MP instead of a CPC one.

quote:
As for the Senate a one way to deal with that would be to reform the number of Senators per province and to have the provincial governments fill the spots like Germany, South Africa, India, and others do.

Germany doesn't do this at all. In Germany the Bundestag (House of Commons) consists of the elected MP's and the Bundesrat (Senate) consists of members of the parties in proportion to the vote the part received, with a 5% qualification-hurdle. Any legislation must pass both houses.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Arctic Pig
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11568

posted 03 April 2006 04:02 AM      Profile for Arctic Pig   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am more than a bit worried about PR. There are countries which have it, and have perpetually confusing, highly partisan governments, which seems to me to be less than useful...

I am, in principle, in favour of some model of goernment selection that favours the general vote, so that massive majority governments do not result from what are actually pretty tepid votes from the populace.

I've studied this a bit (not a lot, by no means am I an expert) and PR consistently falls as short of representing the views/votes of the people as does our current system. It creates lots of political factions that have to work together, as elected politicians, to make a workable government. This often does not result in a government that in any way represents the larger view. In fact, any large voting system, according to one argument (which I agree with, grudgingly), necessarily fails to represent what is perceived to be the larger view. Bring in PR tomorrow, and we'll still have a parliament that doesn't quite do what we want.

Whence: politics is messy. Every system is dubious. Let's quote Churchill here, when he said "Democracy is the worst possible system of government, except for the alternatives." And to riff on this, a la my own weird brain: "No system of democratic voting can give democracy, because every vote is a number, and every number can be tweaked in some way."

I long, as many on this board do, for a political system that genuinely reflects people's concerns, but it simply CANNOT happen automatically. Voting procedures are very interesting, but voting is the very least that anyone can do. Writing letters, being involved more than once, anonymously, every four years or so, gives you much more influence than a simple vote.

Did it ever occur to some people in the NDP that part of the reason that they haven't formed a federal government has to do with the fact that most of the platform has already been enacted? Under the system that exists, the socially progressive people in this country have managed to get much of their platform enacted. And good for them too! Somehow, as messy, as unstreamlined, etc., as the 'system' is, it somehow works when people apply themselves to it. Yes, it is currently under threat, but look at it! Medicare, bill of rights, arts councils, etc. etc. These things are not going to be preserved because of a particular voting regimen. They will be preserved because we want them to. We do this by voting, at the minimum.

Harpo would commit political suicide by honestly eliminating these things. So he doesn't... A difficult game to win...

Going to bed now... Hope my exhaustion didn't show too much...

APig


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Matt_Risser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11800

posted 03 April 2006 10:08 AM      Profile for Matt_Risser     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Red Albertan:

Germany doesn't do this at all. In Germany the Bundestag (House of Commons) consists of the elected MP's and the Bundesrat (Senate) consists of members of the parties in proportion to the vote the part received, with a 5% qualification-hurdle. Any legislation must pass both houses.


I think you definitely need to review this statement. In the German system of Government the Bundestag (Federal Diet is the english translation by the way) uses a mixed-member proportional system whereby every citizen gets two votes, one for their Representative in the Bundestag and a proportional vote for the party of their choosing.

A party recieves the same percentage of seats in the Bundestag as it does in the proportional votes and the Members elected from party lists are used to even out the balance. For example Bundis 90/Die Gruenen never elect Members from constituencies but usually get about 8% of the proportional vote so they get 8% of the Bundestag seats all from their party lists. The SPD gets between 30-35% of the vote but they elect about half of the constituency Members so they get a smaller number of members from their party lists.

The Bundesrat (Federal Council) is actually nothing like our Senate and is comprised of Representatives of each state. The representatives however are made up of the Governments of each state and vote in blocs. They are not elected proportionally and arent even elected nationally. It's the equivalent of having all the Premiers and members of their Cabinets form the Senate.

This is how the German system functions, I lived in Germany for a year and have physically visited both Chambers but feel free to confirm what I have written.


From: Lunenburg, NS | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 03 April 2006 10:08 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by a lonely worker:
I agree with many here that PR has to be the number one priority for this Parliament.

I heard Jack Layton live on CBC yesterday speaking to the NDP Federal Council. PR was his number two issue. Number one was, I think, child care. I had no problem with his priorities at all.

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Matt_Risser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11800

posted 03 April 2006 10:20 AM      Profile for Matt_Risser     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well nobody wants proportional representation to be the #1 issue for the sake of being the #1 issue. It has to be number one so that the NDP can permanently effect the future debates on social issues that are going to come up.

Naturally it looks better to say childcare and thus defeat the Government on this basis, but if the NDP doesn't get PR at least on the table in this Parliament then it won't be affecting anything for the next twenty years once majorities are the norm again.


From: Lunenburg, NS | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
up
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9143

posted 03 April 2006 02:08 PM      Profile for up     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Matt your posts make me soo queasy. It sounds like you want to engineer a system that will engineer the results you want, i.e., more NDP seats.
It's this kind of system gerry-mandering that turned off BC and PEI, and in my view rightly so.

From: other | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Matt_Risser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11800

posted 03 April 2006 02:55 PM      Profile for Matt_Risser     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
no i want to engineer a system that requires all parties to recieve the same percentage of the seats as the percentage of votes they get.

Its not so much that the NDP will benefit from a PR system as it is being disadvantaged by FPTP. Is it fair that the NDP had to get about 89338 votes per seat, and the Greens got 665,940 votes and no seats at all and the Conservatives only need 43134, the Liberals 43468, and le Bloc a mere 30432.

Is this democracy?

PS 57% in favour of a referendum on electoral reform is not exactly what i would call turned off

[ 03 April 2006: Message edited by: Matt_Risser ]


From: Lunenburg, NS | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 03 April 2006 04:47 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
otter, by 'participatory system' do you mean something like the ancient Greeks had? If so, how would that work in such a large country? If not, please describe what you mean or provide some references.

Participatory democracy can be created in a number of ways. My personal perference is one where we get rid of the corrupt and self-serving party system and place the political decision making squarely in the hands of the citzenry.

Many modern day advocates are using the term 'direct democracy' instead of participatory.

direct democracy -wikipedia

a canadian version

Just as few of the major failings of representative democracy that i witness are:
the backroom dealmakers who control political parties but who are unapproachable and unanswerable to the voting public;
party leaders that act like they are monarches or dictators;
elected representatives who ignore the needs and wishes of their constituents in favour of some self-serving party policy;
the inability for the citzenry to challenge and/or defeat unpopular legislative initiatives such as we saw and still see with 'free trade';
the inability for citizen directed initiatives to reach the legislative chambers.

I could add more but that should sum it up rather well.

Bottom line, democracy by its very definition means that the people - the population - are in control of the political decision making process. Representative governments have seldom been representative of anything but the status quo and the power elite.


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 03 April 2006 05:01 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am passionately in favour of PR, but i think it would be a gigantic mistake for any party to make it the centrepiece of its platform and strategy. Electoral reform is a fascinating topic for maybe 1% or 2% of the population who are political wonks and junkies about how to tinker with the electoral system. The other 98% of the population would roll their eyes at the very mention of it. There are serious isues facing the country in terms of child care, health care, foreign policy, social issues etc...If the NDP started to do nothing but talk about an arcane issue like PR, it woudl quickly sink inot single digits in the polls and probably lose official party status in the next election.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
up
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9143

posted 04 April 2006 12:19 PM      Profile for up     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I disagree Stockholm, I think democractiv reform is a very big issue for a lot of people. My guess is it would be very few people's number one concren, but would be on everyone's top five.

It's just that I don't think PR addresses the public's concerns with democracy.


From: other | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 04 April 2006 12:25 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have seen many many polls in my day and I have yet to see even one percent of the population mention electoral reform when asked about the most important issues facing the country.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
TheStudent
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11410

posted 04 April 2006 12:31 PM      Profile for TheStudent        Edit/Delete Post
I think PR, or democratic reform more generally, can be made interesting to the average citizen if it is framed correctly. I am not entirely sure of the framing they used, but in Peterborough last summer, FairVote Canada collected something in the range of 4000 signatures for their petition.
From: Re-instate Audra Now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 04 April 2006 12:46 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is an interesting issue, but it is not a VOTE DETERMINING issue. i think most people regard as too esoteric.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 04 April 2006 12:49 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I have seen many many polls in my day and I have yet to see even one percent of the population mention electoral reform when asked about the most important issues facing the country.

I'm sure that's true. However,
this poll taken between September 15 and October 4, 2004, asked:
Please tell me if in order to achieve a well-functioning political system you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose each of the following changes:
- Increasing women in elected office: 90% support
- Allowing smaller parties to win representation in legislatures: 74% support
- Distributing legislative seats proportionally: 71% support
- Forming coalition governments when no party has a majority: 71% support
- Ensuring strong majority governments: 68% support
- Increasing minorities in elected office: 66% support
- Holding national referendums on moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage: 56% support

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 04 April 2006 12:57 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Participatory democracy can be created in a number of ways. My personal perference is one where we get rid of the corrupt and self-serving party system and place the political decision making squarely in the hands of the citzenry.

Okay: can you describe how such a system would work?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 04 April 2006 01:39 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post
As posted above, do a search for "direct democracy". Wikipedia has a good definition.
From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
snowmandn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6785

posted 04 April 2006 03:07 PM      Profile for snowmandn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"I am more than a bit worried about PR. There are countries which have it, and have perpetually confusing, highly partisan governments, which seems to me to be less than useful..."

There are also good examples of stable, good governments. In a PR system, any opposition party could, in theory, have their turn to be in a coalition government. In a system like this, "opposition for the sake of making the news" only goes so far--you have to start coming up with constructive ideas every now and then.

"It creates lots of political factions that have to work together, as elected politicians, to make a workable government."

PR takes away the "luxury" of opposition for the sake of doing so. When you have to come up with your own solution on environment, job creation, military, etc...the "umbrella parties" start to lose people. Not unlike our system, where we see the old PC losing people due to internal divisions, the BCNDP losing some support to the Greens.

"This often does not result in a government that in any way represents the larger view. In fact, any large voting system, according to one argument (which I agree with, grudgingly), necessarily fails to represent what is perceived to be the larger view. Bring in PR tomorrow, and we'll still have a parliament that doesn't quite do what we want."

I'm not lost in the euphoria of PR--problems do come up; and if a PR system is poorly implemented, the problems outweigh the benefits. But a well-implemented PR--and there are several examples of it that--can clean up a lot of the problems we see today.

My two cents


From: Between the deep blues | Registered: Sep 2004  |  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