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   » PropRep in Sask and Manitoba

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: PropRep in Sask and Manitoba
fellowtraveller
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11962

posted 29 March 2007 11:36 PM      Profile for fellowtraveller     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are there plans for the provincial governments there to introduce proprep ASAP?
I thought this was a foundation of policy nationally for the NDP, why hasn't it been implemented in these jurisdictions already?

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

posted 30 March 2007 04:54 PM      Profile for Matt_Risser     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
plain and simple because these are jurisdictions where it would hurt the NDP and when it comes to the bottom line they are as reluctant to do anything that hurts their interests, whether its the right thing to do or not, than any other party.

it's funny for all the bitching the NDP does about electoral reform the only party to ever reform anything that hurt them the worst was the Liberals with campaign finance.


From: Lunenburg, NS | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
redflag
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12372

posted 30 March 2007 08:16 PM      Profile for redflag     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think what the New Democrats in those provinces really need is courage.

Courage to do the right thing and do a citizen's assembly just like we're having in Ontario.

At the same time, those are not my decisions. It's up to the people in those provinces to get the job done. If they don't want to do it, then there is no forcing them too.

[ 30 March 2007: Message edited by: Joshua Kubinec ]


From: here | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
fellowtraveller
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11962

posted 31 March 2007 11:38 AM      Profile for fellowtraveller     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It just seems hypocritical to promote proportional representation everywhere else, yet fail to implement the system in the two jurisdictions where it is achievable.
From: ,location, location | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 01 April 2007 08:10 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by fellowtraveller:
It just seems hypocritical to promote proportional representation everywhere else, yet fail to implement the system in the two jurisdictions where it is achievable.

Seems?

No, it is.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 01 April 2007 08:51 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But the NDP is proposing electoral reform to our two crooked old line parties. The first order for reform would be to stop all those Liberal and Conservative patronage appointments in the Senate. The old geezers should stop accepting taxpayer handouts for doing basically nothing. They should get real jobs, or sign themselves into private nursing homes, one or the other.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
largeheartedboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5360

posted 01 April 2007 09:27 PM      Profile for largeheartedboy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Matt_Risser:
it's funny for all the bitching the NDP does about electoral reform the only party to ever reform anything that hurt them the worst was the Liberals with campaign finance.

You're missing the key to that issue. It was CHRETIEN reforming party finance to hurt MARTIN!


From: Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
largeheartedboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5360

posted 01 April 2007 09:32 PM      Profile for largeheartedboy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pebbles, is bang on. The Manitoba and Saskatchewan NDPs can't bring themselves to give up their manufactured majorities.

I think it's weird that Calvert hasn't thought about PR by now. I hear nothing put pessimism about his chances of getting a manufactured majority from SK Dippers these days.

But in the defense of those two parties, as far as I know their provincial parties don't have policies on electoral reform (not to say that's cool).


From: Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 01 April 2007 09:39 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The NDP's not stupid, that's why. Provincial government is not where the power resides for real change in Canada. We've enjoyed far more phoney majorities in Ottawa than real ones.

Change! Democracy is the right's most hated institution. The winds of change are blowing stronger across this Northern Puerto Rico. For too long Canadians have been led by two old line parties, in power and sharing power since a time when Russian Tsars ruled that country by terror with an iron fist.

It's time for change in Canada after more than 100 years of the same two old autocratic parties running this country for the sake of big business and the banks. It's time for an Orange Revolution.

Viva la revolucion!

I follow the Moskva
Down to Gorky Park
Listening to the wind of change
An August summer night
Soldiers passing by
Listening to the wind of change

chorus:
Take me to the magic of the moment
On a glory night
Where the children of tomorrow dream away
In the wind of change

[ 01 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 April 2007 04:16 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So basically what you're saying, Fidel, is that the only place where PR is needed are jurisdictions where the NDP isn't in power.

Sorry, that sounds pretty hypocritical to me.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ravijo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11439

posted 02 April 2007 06:14 AM      Profile for ravijo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Firstly, the NDP brand can certainly be appropriated and used by centrists like Calvert, and while I like Doer a bit more, he is nevertheless guilty of the same. You can add Rae, and Dosanj to that and derive that the NDP in power is much different than the NDP's platform.

However, I would remind you that campaign funding is easier to come by, including in the NDP when you take on centrist policies. This means that the NDP which makes it in to power are more likely going to be of that centrist nature. This is not an excuse, but I'd say an explanation for the trend.

It is shameful that both Premiers have not called for a citizen's assembly, and if you are from Saskatchewan, or Manitoba-- call the nearest NDP MLA and demand it be done!

However, I don't think it's right to stroke the entire brand as "hypocritical" or "power hungry". In all fairness it is just as vulnerable to internal power grabs as any other party-- including even the Greens!


From: Guelph, ON | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Politics101
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8962

posted 02 April 2007 07:22 AM      Profile for Politics101   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
And of course here in BC - the NDP is firmly in support of electoral change having won the 1996 with 3% points less of the popular vote than the Liberals.

At the national level it makes more sense as the NDP in almost every election would have a larger number of seats if it was based on the popular vote - NDP vote in the last election was roughly 1/2 of the winning Cons vote but the seat total didn't reflect that.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 02 April 2007 08:09 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm hoping the NDP in Manitoba and Saskatchewan will be as far-sighted as the Ontario Liberals were when they decided to move ahead with electoral reform.

Ontario Liberals hear pundits saying Stephen Harper could get 40% of the vote next time, which would give him a majority government. But Dalton McGuinty remembers 1999, when Ontario Liberals got 40% of the vote but only 34% of the seats. Liberals know First-Past-The-Post gives unpredictable results.

Even worse was 1995, when Lyn McLeod's Liberals got 31% of the vote but only 23% of the seats. No Liberals were elected between Scarborough and the Ottawa Valley except in Kingston. No Liberals were elected between Downsview and Sudbury. From Parkdale west to Chatham you found only two Liberal MPPs: in Hamilton East and in St. Catharines.

The six Liberal MPPs on the Select Committee remembered the Blue Belts of 1995. They set the path that the Citizens' Assembly is on. It's following the principles they laid out.

One of those principles was Fair Representation, including proportionality -- ("that a party's seat share in the legislature reflects its vote share in the election") -- and demographic representation -- ("that the make-up of the legislature reflect the social characteristics of the population at large.")

A high priority for many Liberals is electing more women, without losing the first priority: local representation. A model with 30% of MPPs elected from a diverse province-wide list, and 70% from local ridings, meets their goals.

Another principle is voter choice. The Select Committee defined "voter choice" as including "The opportunity for vote-splitting (i.e., between party and candidate)." Under MMP voters have two votes: for their local MPP, and for their choice of party. For example, Green Party voters can vote for their party, but could also vote for their local Liberal candidate.

All of these points apply also to the NDP in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, don't they?


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 02 April 2007 11:57 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
So basically what you're saying, Fidel, is that the only place where PR is needed are jurisdictions where the NDP isn't in power.

Sorry, that sounds pretty hypocritical to me.


It would be hypocritical if either of the two old line parties were also fighting for electoral reform for advanced democracy, like anywhere in Canada, which they're not because conservatives are basically afraid of change. And they're especially afraid of the kind of change that would turn the tide at the federal level in Ottawa where real power resides.

And the two old line parties would be the first to admit there is a world of difference between federal and provincial politics. Sorry, but I don't see the connection between the two myself. If the reverse were true, that one single NDP provincial government was leading an isolated fight for advanced democracy, I'd have to wonder what they hoped to gain by it. Federal politics is where real power and the opportunity for real change resides.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 April 2007 12:15 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
It would be hypocritical if either of the two old line parties were also fighting for electoral reform for advanced democracy, like anywhere in Canada, which they're not because conservatives are basically afraid of change.

No, that's not a good argument. If the NDP supports PR, then they should support it everywhere, not just where it benefits them.

Same goes for NDP supporters who support PR federally and provincially in provinces where the NDP are not in power.

At the moment, the focus IS on getting PR in provincially. The question has been raised in three provinces now.

Does this mean you don't support PR in Ontario either?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ravijo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11439

posted 02 April 2007 01:22 PM      Profile for ravijo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

No, that's not a good argument. If the NDP supports PR, then they should support it everywhere, not just where it benefits them.

Same goes for NDP supporters who support PR federally and provincially in provinces where the NDP are not in power.

At the moment, the focus IS on getting PR in provincially. The question has been raised in three provinces now.

Does this mean you don't support PR in Ontario either?


On one hand I wish the NDP would support PR everywhere, but then again-- the NDP tries as best as possible to be a bottom-up organization. How is it possible for the Federal Party to push policy on the provinces?


From: Guelph, ON | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 02 April 2007 01:50 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How is it possible for the Federal Party to push policy on the provinces?

Because the activists are essentially the same people provincially, federally and territorially (with the exception of Quebec, where there is no provincial NDP, plus Nunavut and the NWT, where there is no party politics).


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
melovesproles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8868

posted 02 April 2007 02:16 PM      Profile for melovesproles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PR was the NDP's to own but they've been unable to argue for it based on its own sake and not based on how it would help the party. I'd include the BC NDP in here too since the referendum on STV was overwhelming enough to argue for its implementation based on a test basis. It got a higher perecentage of popular support than either Gordon Cambell or Carol James.
From: BC | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 02 April 2007 02:57 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
No, that's not a good argument. If the NDP supports PR, then they should support it everywhere, not just where it benefits them.

And the NDP in Canada's largest province is also promoting PR.
Why Ontario Needs PR - ONDP

quote:
Same goes for NDP supporters who support PR federally and provincially in provinces where the NDP are not in power.

Well, if Google is the mother of all search engines, here's what it "kicked-back" to me when I searched on "proportional representation" site:saskparty.com:

SaskaTories Pfff! ya rrright

SaskLiberals GoogleyHoo, ny'body home ? They must have slept in, or something...We'll try the federal Liberal Party of Canada site ...

Liberal Party of Canada ooops! 7 results concerning all-party committees, not-bad could be better

SaskNDP Results 1 - 10 of about 44 from www.saskndp.com for "Proportional Representation"

Federal NDP - 49 results

quote:
Does this mean you don't support PR in Ontario either?

Hampton says bring it on!(PR) - Liberals say, Yikes!

Advanced Democracy for Canadians Make Every Vote Count - Jack Layton, NDP

Viva l'Orange revolucion!

[ 02 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 April 2007 03:02 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your post makes no sense (or at least, it supports my post).

Your links show that the NDP supports PR in Ontario. But your argument is that the NDP should not support PR in Saskatchewan or Manitoba. Your reasoning seems to be that PR should only be supported in jurisdictions where the NDP cannot win a manufactured majority.

Just as I said in my first post in the thread.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 02 April 2007 03:13 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Your post makes no sense (or at least, it supports my post).

You said the provincial NDP's are not interested in PR. And I've merely pointed out that SaskNDP and ONDP are well versed in PR whereas the two old line parties sites are full of cob webs on the issue.

I'm just posting Google results for the respective party web sites. It doesn't look like any of the old line autocratic parties, provincial or federal, are very interested in trusting Canadians with advanced democracy. I think Henry Kissinger said something similar about Chilean voters if I'm not mistaken.

And for the record, this is what I'm saying about the need for fair voting across Canada, "Bring it on!."

[ 02 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
fellowtraveller
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11962

posted 03 April 2007 02:07 PM      Profile for fellowtraveller     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And the two old line parties would be the first to admit there is a world of difference between federal and provincial politics. Sorry, but I don't see the connection between the two myself. If the reverse were true, that one single NDP provincial government was leading an isolated fight for advanced democracy, I'd have to wonder what they hoped to gain by it. Federal politics is where real power and the opportunity for real change resides.



You don't see the connection between federal and provincial policies? On the contrary, the winds of change are almost always started outside Ottawa. Smart politicians sniff that wind early, and sell it nationally to their advantage. Near and dear example: Tommy Douglas, health care. Did not start in Ottawa.

I checked half a dozen NDP provincial sites last year, and the national site, and learned that the only two sites that did not officially advocate proprep were: Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
Note that Canda has the second most decentralized government in the world (after Switzerland) and the provinces DO have plenty of authority, autonomy and plenty of taxation power to make anything they like happen.
I'm still unconvinced that there is anything behind the lack of implementation of reform on the Prairies except the usual reason: self interest.


From: ,location, location | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 03 April 2007 04:01 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually Canada doesn't have the most decentralized political system after Switzerland, the United States for instance, gives a lot more power to individual States than Canada does to individual provinces. For instance, do individual provinces have a "national guard" that Premiers command?

As for PR in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and the NDP, obviously those parties don't see it in their best interests to want it. Is there anything wrong with that? Not really. Which is partially why the Liberals in BC, and the Liberals in Ontario wanted it, because they know that they've been burned by FPTP in the past. So it's not as if their intentions are based on pure and self-righteous democratic principles either, they're based on self-interest. That said, clearly their actions are more democratic than the Sask/Man NDP in this case. So until the Manitoba, and Saskatchewan NDP get burned by FPTP (and IIRC the Sask NDP did get burned by it in 1986 - so it might be logical for them to get on the PR bandwagon) they won't implement it.

Does this have anything to do with the federal NDP or the federal Liberals or Conservatives? Not really. Because even though the federal NDP has more official links with provincial Liberals and Conservatives, the federal parties don't have the ability to force their policies on their provincial counterparts and vice versa. So to say that the federal NDP is hypocritical because the provincial NDP in Saskatchewan and Manitoba isn't pro-PR, is a strech in logic to say the least. How do you propose that the federal NDP deal with those provincial sections for their stances? Purge them, and cut all ties with them, for not being adequately democratic? Until the federal NDP has the power to "punish" provincial sections of the NDP, there's nothing that can be done about this situation. Therefore there's nothing hypocritical about the federal NDP advocating for PR, whereas the Sask/Man NDP don't.

Besides, some people would say that systems with list PR aren't that democratic anyways, since they concentrate the power of nomination within a party. Whereas STV lets the constituents of a multi-member riding choose to rank various MLA's from a multiple parties, and in a sense opens up the nomination process to the entire community.


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 03 April 2007 05:09 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
Therefore there's nothing hypocritical about the federal NDP advocating for PR, whereas the Sask/Man NDP don't.

Except if the federal politician is from Saskatchewan or Manitoba.

Lorne Nystrom has been vocal for PR at both levels, and the Saskatchewan NDP has been discussing it officially for the last two years. Like the PQ, they favour it in principle, and will discuss it again -- next year. Again, like the PQ.

I'm uncertain how much Bill Blaikie has said about PR provincially. Judy Wasylycia-Leis has done a great job as Finance Critic and Caucus Chair, was Manitoba’s Minister for Culture, Heritage and Recreation from 1986 to 1988, and before that was Women’s Organizer for the federal NDP and Executive Assistant to then NDP Leader Ed Broadbent, but I don't know what she has done to promote PR in Manitoba. Same for Pat Martin.

quote:
Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
Besides, some people would say that systems with list PR aren't that democratic anyways, since they concentrate the power of nomination within a party.

There are several European countries with open pure-regional-list systems, notably the first PR country, Belgium, and the best, Sweden. Very democratic, but still most voters vote for the list. However, enough cast personal votes that a few candidates break into higher list positions, which keeps the system responsive. In fairness, both Belgium and Ireland are a lot more compact than Saskatchewan or Manitoba.

[ 03 April 2007: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
redflag
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12372

posted 03 April 2007 05:46 PM      Profile for redflag     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by fellowtraveller:
It just seems hypocritical to promote proportional representation everywhere else, yet fail to implement the system in the two jurisdictions where it is achievable.

Your preaching to the choir, but the fact of the matter is that the provincial parties have their own democratic institutions which are meant to discuss this stuff and they have (for whatever reasons) decided to take a pass on PR. I don't like it, you don't like it, not a whole lot of people here are very happy about it, but most of us don't have any say in the matter. These are issues which must be dealt with through the provincial NDP conventions and I think that the best we can do is to encourage them to consider our point of view. To do anything more than that is just not *supposed to be* within the value set of the NDP.

People from Ontario can't go around telling people from Saskatchewan and Manitoba what to do. We have a term for what this does, it's called "western alienation."


From: here | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Azih
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7086

posted 03 April 2007 07:11 PM      Profile for Azih     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How about people from B.C?
From: North York | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 03 April 2007 10:31 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Except if the federal politician is from Saskatchewan or Manitoba.

Lorne Nystrom has been vocal for PR at both levels, and the Saskatchewan NDP has been discussing it officially for the last two years. Like the PQ, they favour it in principle, and will discuss it again -- next year. Again, like the PQ.

I'm uncertain how much Bill Blaikie has said about PR provincially. Judy Wasylycia-Leis has done a great job as Finance Critic and Caucus Chair, was Manitoba’s Minister for Culture, Heritage and Recreation from 1986 to 1988, and before that was Women’s Organizer for the federal NDP and Executive Assistant to then NDP Leader Ed Broadbent, but I don't know what she has done to promote PR in Manitoba. Same for Pat Martin.


Saying it is hypocritical in those two places assumes that these politicians, have advocated for PR on the federal level but not on the provincial level. I can see why people think it's hypocritical. And it's a problem for the NDP in a perception sense. But as it relates to the real power to do something the problem remains that your not naming people who've been involved in both levels of government, except for Judy W-L. So it would be interesting to here what she has had to say on the matter. I can't quite agree with you here.
ETA: Clarity.

[ 04 April 2007: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 03 April 2007 10:56 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And a TorStar article above does mention Howard Hampton saying that a referendum on PR will be a condition of NDP support for a Liberal minority. This is Canada's largest province where the provincial NDP will be pushing and prodding the two old line parties for progressive change when balance of power circumstances permit, as per usual.

And this whole thread makes no sense to me. It's another lame, shotgun attack on "the NDP" in general by focusing on differences in one or two provincial parties against the federal caucus. As an example, I don't tend to lay blame on the provincial Liberals in Ontario for skyrocketing PSE tuition fees, or for there being a shortage of doctors across the friggin country. I blame the federal Liberals for their slashing and burning of federal transfers to provinces that should have been earmarked for PSE education in the 1990's to now and Liberal right-wing agenda in general. Dalton McGuinty can shoulder only so much of the blame for the state of affairs in Ontario, I mean come on!


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
FraserValleyMan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13970

posted 03 April 2007 11:04 PM      Profile for FraserValleyMan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Azih:
How about people from B.C?


In BC we are stuck with the STV gadget. The once-upon-a-time Manning Reformers (intiative, recall, etc.) have become the client group promoting STV as the solution to every problem going, particularly all the imaginary problems such as the supposed wild swings between left and right.

At a meeting of the Electoral Boundaries Commission I recommended that their procedure take into account the percentage of the population in an area that was either Aboriginal or recent immigrants, sinc this would, rather like challenging geography, tend to make an MLA's representation function more difficult, more demanding. I was informed that in fact, these criteria are already in the statute that governs redistribution in Alberta.

The STV types in the room weren't impressed. For them real reform has nothing to do with recognizing demographic realites, bur rather adopting the complex and supposedly innovative voting systems.


From: Port Coquitlam, BC | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 09 April 2007 02:40 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The problem with any form of electing members in a Westminster system where the party with the most seats gets to form a government, is that rather than representing their constituents, individual members of Parliament/legislature become more counters to decide who gets to be government.

How many members of Parliament or the Legislature can you think of that were elected on their own strength as opposed to who ~40% of their consituents wanted as government. Do you really think Nina Grewal or Rahim Jafer would be elected as an independent?

The more I think of it I think a modified version of the American system of a separate executive and legislative branch makes sense. True, there are a lot of problems with the American system, problems that they can't seem to fix; however having looked at their 200+ year experiment, surely we can design a system that takes the advantages of their system and eliminates the flaws.


From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 09 April 2007 06:07 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by redflag:
People from Ontario can't go around telling people from Saskatchewan and Manitoba what to do. We have a term for what this does, it's called "western alienation."

Quite so. However, there are people in Alberta calling for PR -- including Liberals and New Democrats -- who find it odd that Saskatchewan has been a pioneer in everything except electoral reform.
quote:
Originally posted by BleedingHeart:
The more I think of it I think a modified version of the American system of a separate executive and legislative branch makes sense.

Presidential systems are not unique to the USA and should not be called the American system. France, Brazil, Russia, Mexico? Except France is a bit of a hybrid, with a Prime Minister sometimes co-habiting uneasily with a President of a different hue. Brazil is a shambles, a strong President trying to work with a fractured Congress. As for Russia and Mexico . . . give me the parliamentary system, please. Responsible government doesn't just mean the cabinet is responsible to the House. It also means there is a government responsible for its programme, not one that can blame Congress for its own inaction.


[Edited by Michelle to change redflag's name]

[ 22 June 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 10 April 2007 06:03 AM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Despite the obvious problems in the American system their Congress and President seem to get things done.

The Parliament as it exists in Canada is good theatre but lousy government.

quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:

Presidential systems are not unique to the USA and should not be called the American system. France, Brazil, Russia, Mexico? Except France is a bit of a hybrid, with a Prime Minister sometimes co-habiting uneasily with a President of a different hue. Brazil is a shambles, a strong President trying to work with a fractured Congress. As for Russia and Mexico . . . give me the parliamentary system, please. Responsible government doesn't just mean the cabinet is responsible to the House. It also means there is a government responsible for its programme, not one that can blame Congress for its own inaction.


From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
fellowtraveller
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11962

posted 12 April 2007 08:20 AM      Profile for fellowtraveller     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As for PR in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and the NDP, obviously those parties don't see it in their best interests to want it. Is there anything wrong with that? Not really

Depends on how you see the role of government. If you see the government existing to serve the people, then there is a lot wrong with what you say. If you see the NDP existing to serve itself, then you are correct.
quote:
The Parliament as it exists in Canada is good theatre but lousy government.


Well said.

From: ,location, location | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 12 April 2007 09:07 AM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Over the years I have learned to accept the fact that if more people don't want the NDP than want the NDP, that is fine, the other party should form the government. If PR dooms the NDP to perpetual opposition so be it.

I am however sickened by the fact that you can get a landslide victory with 40% of the vote.

Since the Prime Minister has become a defacto president, why not just elect a president. Primary election followed by run-off between the top two candidates. Cabinet selected by the president. President and cabinet would be non-voting members of the house, so could speak in debates attend question period.

Unicameral house elected by PR and individual consituencies or why not two equal houses, one elected by PR, one by consituencies.


From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 27 June 2007 03:43 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:

Presidential systems are not unique to the USA and should not be called the American system. France, Brazil, Russia, Mexico? Except France is a bit of a hybrid, with a Prime Minister sometimes co-habiting uneasily with a President of a different hue. Brazil is a shambles, a strong President trying to work with a fractured Congress. As for Russia and Mexico . . . give me the parliamentary system, please. Responsible government doesn't just mean the cabinet is responsible to the House. It also means there is a government responsible for its programme, not one that can blame Congress for its own inaction.

Well, what IS unique about the U.S. presidential system is that the president is not chosen by popular vote. We still have the absurd political archaism known as the Electoral College, which permanently privileges voters in the most sparsely-populated and politically reactionairy areas of the country(this system actually derives from the Compromise of 1787
http://tinyurl.com/3yp9fl, a sordid deal that Southern slaveowners forced on the Constitutional Convention so that they could get representation based on including the number of slaves being worked to death in Southern states without actually letting the slaves vote).


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Will S
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13367

posted 27 June 2007 04:30 PM      Profile for Will S        Edit/Delete Post
The NDP seems to be getting close to power in Nova Scotia. Is PR on the agenda there? The province that needs it the most is PEI, in my opinion.
From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
largeheartedboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5360

posted 28 June 2007 08:39 PM      Profile for largeheartedboy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Will S:
The NDP seems to be getting close to power in Nova Scotia. Is PR on the agenda there? The province that needs it the most is PEI, in my opinion.

As far as I know, the NS NDP hasn't ever talked about PR, but I hope I'm proved wrong.

And you're right, PEI desperately needs PR. But I think all provinces need it. And we're going to win in very soon in Ontario.

I'd think that parts of NS NDP would be currently wary to talk about PR for fear of upsetting rural Nova Scotia.

Because one thing we learned in PEI is that rural Maritimers are a hard to sell on PR.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 28 June 2007 09:44 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It can't be said that the NS NDP has talked about PR. I wouldn't read much into that, we haven't [formally] talked about a lot of things.

Given other issues that demand attention more immediately, it's not likely to be on the radar screen.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it possible for the Federal Party to push policy on the provinces?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the activists are essentially the same people provincially, federally and territorially (with the exception of Quebec, where there is no provincial NDP, plus Nunavut and the NWT, where there is no party politics).


This is true here and there, especially Ontario where the prov/fed riding boudaries are the same [big surprise there.

But it is definitely NOT generally true. And they would have to be nearly identical personnel to have a cahance of effecting that sameness.

Even when the same ativists on the ground are doing the work- that doesn't translate into the same people delegated to governing the provincial sections.

And take a look at the riding organizations of any NDP MP. You will see many people also involved in provincial politics. But the riding association very much hews a path quite autonomous from what is or is not going on at the provincial party.

For a lot of reasons that I think are too esoteric/internal to go into here, a number of us have called for breaking the formal ties between the levels of the party that leaves the federal party as a confederalist organization dependent organizationally on the provincial sections. And because it leaves the federal party holding the bag image wise for provincial sections it has zero control and almost zero influence over.

[ 28 June 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 28 June 2007 10:04 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm having a problem with the edit post function. It seems that every time I cut and paste into a post something that has invisible BBB commands, I cannot go back and edit anything below that: it literally doesn't show in the edit function.

So I'll do another.

That calling for the formal separation of the provincial and federal NDPs by the way would not change the way the party 'looks'. [For that reason I'm inclined to think the federal NDP would still hold the bag for what provincial sections do/say.]

The proposal was rejected. But I'd have to say it was not thoroughly discussed either. Those of us pushing it were focused at the time on achieving one member one vote for leadership votes [Jack Layton was the first elected thus].

The most intense resistance it faced has been eclipsed by events since. The federal party was then dependent finacially on the sections and many worried what would happen. Chretien changed that with a stroke of a pen, and the federal party has thrived [from its new organizational autonomy more than because of federal financing of parties].

The other issue was the effect this would have on the role of labour unions as part of the NDP's governance. While the new Federal Financing Act did not directly effect this, it rendered the question moot. And the unions themselves- even ones that have remained close with the diminished formal ties- questioned the ties. Before that happened, the federal party separation question was treated as a litmus test of class loyalty. All that is moot now as far as formal organizational questions go.

The question has been dormant for a few years now. It would probably take another fairly organized internal grouping to bring it back.

[ 28 June 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stunned Wind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7311

posted 29 June 2007 07:59 AM      Profile for Stunned Wind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by largeheartedboy:
Because one thing we learned in PEI is that rural Maritimers are a hard to sell on PR.
There are several forms of PR and the PEI folks only had a chance to look at an MMP model, not any of the other forms of PR. Who's to say how they would have reacted to a different type of proportional representation.

From: Well! Now I'm in Victoria-Swan Lake! | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 01 July 2007 08:10 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by largeheartedboy:
I think it's weird that Calvert hasn't thought about PR by now. I hear nothing put pessimism about his chances of getting a manufactured majority from SK Dippers these days.

one thing we learned in PEI is that rural Maritimers are a hard to sell on PR.



Rural Saskatchewan and rural Alberta might be as hard to sell on province-wide lists as PEI was.

Are Alberta Liberals interested in BC-STV next door? Calgary has 23 MLAs (three 6s and a 5), Edmonton 19 (one 7 and two 6s), Lethbridge, Medicine Hat and area 7, Red Deer and area 5, Calgary suburbs and Banff 5, rural east 4, Edmonton eastern suburbs 5, west of Edmonton 6, Northeast 4, Northwest 5. Not very rurally-oriented?


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
AntonyHodgson
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9795

posted 03 July 2007 10:49 AM      Profile for AntonyHodgson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If the Saskatchewan and Manitoba NDP have any broader vision for their party and movement, they should implement electoral reform while they have the opportunity to do so. At the very least, they should announce plans to begin a review of the provincial electoral systems this fall before the Ontario referendum. This will give a much needed boost to the current electoral reform referendum campaigns in Ontario and BC and will perhaps prod the recalcitrant politicians in NB and Quebec into reactivating the processes there. In addition, it will give a huge boost to federal reform efforts. I would hope that these provincial parties can see the broader stakes and respond accordingly.

I was noticing that a Sigma Analytics poll from April found that the Saskatchewan party had 55% support. Historically, this will be enough to win 85+% of the seats, so it's actually a perfect time for the NDP to implement or at least initiate electoral reform (though perhaps a little close to the upcoming election to be seen as anything other than self-interest).

Manitoba obviously now has plenty of time to implement a review and reform process, although the incentive to the party to do so is less since they have a strong majority government (63% of the seats) on 48% popular support. Nonetheless, it would be a principled thing to do and would probably help the party in the long term since the Tories have rarely broken 40% in popular support, so the NDP would likely be able to remain in power as the majority partner in a coalition almost indefinitely rather than being subject to being ousted in future due to FPTP's tendency to give power to the largest (or 2nd largest) plurality.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 03 July 2007 11:49 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not in Manitoba either, but I think AH makes a good case for the benefits to the ManitobaNDP in the long term.

There is also a lot to be said even for the medium term- the next election. Even for a well run and popular government, yet another term will be no small feat.

Democratic reform- with PR as the centrepiece- would give the MNDP a good popular and populist agenda that depends on political will and initiative, rather than tacking to events.

In fact, it would give the MNDP an agenda that work in spite of events not going well and 'tacking' being very difficult for such an 'old government'.

It could be Doer's legacy- and a good start for a succesor. And the MNDP has a great deal of credibility on the issue- having first brought in thorough elections financing reform.

And of course, the credibility of bringing in PR when you are at the height of your power and expectation to continue dominating under FPTP.

The debate within the MNDP before elections financing reform was also a template for a PR debate- where big chunks of the party opposed to it have a chance to discuss and see the benefits. [They may have already had most or all of this internal discussion for all I know.]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  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