quote:

---

Another federal election. Another train wreck for democracy.

We have seen it all before. The only question is whether we learned anything new this time. As Albert Einstein said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.”

Thanks to our dysfunctional first-past-the-post system, the disconnect between how we marked our ballots and what we got was stunning, as usual. . .

How do we end the insanity of our first-past-the-post system? Let me propose a three-step program.

Step one is to put voting reform where it belongs on the political priority list of the nation: right at the top, above all others, bar none. The same goes for the political priority list of every activist.

Yes, the economy is tanking. Climate change is accelerating. Urban infrastructure is crumbling. And on and on. But we won’t get the right answers from the wrong governments and grossly unrepresentative parliaments.

Step two requires what many would consider an unnatural act. Take your usual political framing and toss it out the door. This is not about left versus right, or urban Canadians versus rural Canadians, or Toronto versus the rest of Canada.

This fight is between ordinary citizens and elites.

At the founding conference of Fair Vote Canada, Judy Rebick said this is possibly the only issue where grassroots citizens on the left and right have a common cause: fighting for real democratic control over those who currently wield undeserved power in a largely unaccountable system. More importantly, if we don’t build a strong multi-partisan front for fair voting, we will simply never win.

Step three is forcing implementation of a citizen-driven reform process that places the electoral reform decision in the hands of voters rather than the governments created by the current system.

One option is to use and improve the citizens’ assembly and referendum models developed in British Columbia and Ontario. New Zealand used another approach. A Royal Commission first identified a number of alternative systems. In an initial referendum, New Zealanders voted on two questions: whether they wanted electoral reform and which of the alternatives they preferred. In a second referendum, they voted on their preferred alternative versus first-past-the-post.

These are the steps we need to take federally – the sooner the better.

Meanwhile, an opportunity for the first provincial breakthrough is quickly approaching. On May 12, 2009, British Columbians will vote in a referendum on the single transferrable vote (STV) proportional voting system, as recommended by the B.C. Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. . .

If British Columbians crash the 60 per cent threshold on May 12, or vote overwhelmingly in favour making it impossible for the next government to unilaterally negate a majority decision by the electorate, then the reform movement will have its critically important first victory, and others will follow.

Virtually all other Western industrialized nations – the U.K. and U.S being the other outriders – have adopted fair voting systems. Will the results of Election 2008 be the spark that ignites an unstoppable Canadian reform movement? Let’s hope so. It is far beyond the time to drive a wooden stake through the first-past-the-post system and cast out the power-mongers and unjust politics it spawns.

Larry Gordon is co-founder and executive director of Fair Vote Canada, a multi-partisan citizens’ campaign for electoral reform.

---

A very hard line has to be taken.

First past the post is obsolete.

I do not think the PR model is the answer either, leads to a more puzzled parliament and ultimately more elections. Italy has a long history of multiple parties, not PR, but they have had what; 50 elections since 1946. Also PR would eliminate the possibility of independents getting elected.

After that, we can work on electoral reform and abolishing the Senate and stuff like that.

Personally, I think that we should be voting for the candidate in our area but that our vote goes towards the total percentage that the party gets. After the election, the percentage of vote determines how many more seats each party gets and the party gets to choose who fills those seats - the only rule is that they have to fill those seats with candidates that ran in the election (those who did not win their seat).

With that rule, some ridings will have more than one representitive.

quote:

---

I do not think the PR model is the answer either, leads to a more puzzled parliament and ultimately more elections. Italy has a long history of multiple parties, not PR, but they have had what; 50 elections since 1946.

---

From the blogger who blogs at Idealistic Pragmatist (who is also currently the Secretary at Fair Vote Canada) on Italy and Israel (among other things):

quote:

---

Now, in conversations about proportional representation, detractors will inevitably bring up two countries where coalition governments have meant frequent changes of government and/or a great deal of conflict between coalition partners: Israel and Italy. But there is no reason to believe that Israel and Italy behave typically for countries with proportional electoral systems, and there are many reasons to believe that they are in fact completely atypical. In Italy, weakened party discipline can be attributed largely to the practice of secret balloting by MPs in the House, and in Israel, living under a constant threat of war seems likely to have influenced their governments in ways that most European parliamentary democracies have not had to deal with. And finally, both Italy and Israel have historically used versions of pure party list proportional representation (Italy recently switched to a system more similar to Germany's) that Canadian electoral reformers are not interested in introducing in Canada anyway. And both Mixed-Member Proportional and Single Transferable Vote systems do away with the worst of the potential problems of pure list PR by having threshholds for small parties' inclusion in parliament.

---

[ 29 October 2008: Message edited by: pogge ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by vaudree:
I think that the first course of business it to make it harder to have a Confidence vote -

---

So that will ensure a Harper majority. Great Idea.

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnpauljones:
Dion would be the Lib leader if a confidence vote comes before the leadership convention

---

And then we'll get a 22% voter turnout and 308 Cons in the House of Commons.

ETA: followed by a revolution!!!

[ 29 October 2008: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chester Drawers:
How will the parties determine which ridings get the second member. So the party will determine from its' list of losing candidate who will be the winner. What about the candidates that do not get picked? Might that not breed hard feelings. As an example 13 of 14 ridings in Sask. are con, 1 Lieberal and no dipper. But based on PR the Dippers would pick two candidate to represent in Sask. Of the 14 losing candidates how do you pick them. I see nothing but a mess. Preferential ballot would be the way to go, guarantees a majority to the winner. To prevent issues, ballots where only one choice is picked would be considered void. All candidates would have to be picked 1 through how many candidates are on the ballot.
JMO

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chester Drawers:
I some what agree.

Italy has a long history of multiple parties, not PR, but they have had what; 50 elections since 1946.

---

Quelle surprise - a PR critic TOTALLY DISTORTS the evidence.

Italy has had 18 elections since 1945, which is actually three LESS than Canada has had in the same time period.

How can PR give good government? You would have to have 50% plus one of the seats agree on policy. If we were to use PR today, the parties are so polarized you could not get consensus on any legislation. Liberals wanted the Green Shift, Dippers wanted a cap and trade, Bloc wanted a different version of cap and trade. The dippers wanted to drop the corp. tax cuts, the liberals and cons wanted to keep them. How do you bring about consensus. The Bloc is all about Quebec, could care less about the ROC. The dippers and Liberals favor gun control, the Bloc wants no guns and the cons want to drop the registry in favor of tougher sentences on gun crimes.

It will never work, not in Canada where regional issues usually trumpet national issues.

You have to apply the same principle to everything. Should PR be used in determining union shops. A simple majority give the union the shop. Should not the same rights then apply to allowing multiple unions to run in a unionization drive, different employees may want a different union, based on PR they should get to choose their representatives, what if a minority didn't want the union, PR gives them the right to opt out would it not. Some cannot be more equal than others. Everything must be treated the same.

People who want democracy have to organize a pro-democracy movement that just tells government, and educates the public that first past the post in not democratic in this day and age, if it ever was.

Let the politicians offer up the alternatives, and let them keep offering utill they come up with a system or systems that can be voted on in a refferendum. A referendum that does not include "first past the post", and one that is held seperately from any other election.

The combating of degenerative personality politics through the institution, in the various legislatures, of the closed-list, proportional-representative form that allows mere parties to arbitrarily appoint to and remove from legislatures the party-affiliated legislators.

Even if single-transferrable voting were used, the increase in party power is recommended.

Although this mechanism sounds harsh, it also sends a message to political parties' ranks-and-file to be more aggressive in promoting internal democracy.

Furthermore, wayward legislators who vote against the party line (EVEN heads of government) can be removed and replaced without reducing the party's seats.

Historically speaking, I was inspired by the SPD's vote for WWI credits in Germany. The opportunistic legislators didn't tow the party line laid out by the SPD Executive Committee in the five or so years leading to the war.

[ 29 October 2008: Message edited by: Jacob Richter ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chester Drawers:
Democracy is 50% plus one. PR does not give you 50% plus one. Only the preferential ballot gives you 50% plus one.

---

I agree that in a democracy most policies should be supported by a majority of citizens. That is a normatively valid view of democracy.

However, the problem is that both first-past-the-post (and the alternative vote), fail miserably at producing governments that are supported by the majority.

Meanwhile, in most countries with PR electoral systems, governments are comprised of multiple parties that are, together, supported by a majority of voters.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chester Drawers:

How can PR give good government? You would have to have 50% plus one of the seats agree on policy.

---

I thought your view of democracy was majority rule. Now it's a BAD thing for policies to be supported by the majority.

You're confusing me Chester.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chester Drawers:

It will never work, not in Canada where regional issues usually trumpet national issues.

---

And this is a function of our outdated voting system, which rewards regionally focused parties while punishing smaller parties that made pan-Canadian appeals.

This was well-established by Alan Cairns in the first volume of the Canadian Journal of Political Science fourty years ago and has be confirmed by elections since.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chester Drawers:
It is the basis of all true electorial systems. How are party leaders elected? How are union bosses elected? 50% plus one.

You have to apply the same principle to everything.

---

Actually, electing a single position - party leader, union boss, president - is ENTIRELY different than electing a parliament/legislature.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:

People who want democracy have to organize a pro-democracy movement that just tells government, and educates the public that first past the post in not democratic in this day and age, if it ever was.

---

Thankfully, Canadians do have just such a movement - Fair Vote Canada.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
I don't think it's necessary to get bogged down in actual details at this juncture...People who want democracy have to organize a pro-democracy movement that just tells government, and educates the public that first past the post in not democratic...Let the politicians offer up the alternatives, and let them keep offering utill they come up with a system or systems that can be voted on in a refferendum. A referendum that does not include "first past the post", and one that is held seperately from any other election.

---

Ditto, except for the idea that politicians come up with the alternatives. Citizens' groups like Fair Vote Canada make invaluable contributions to the discussion.

Educating the public is the first, long, gruelling task. But without this step, forget continuing with any other reforms. Who would do this? It should be led by citizens groups, and it would be nice if political parties supported a national commission-type thing on electoral reform. How long would the initial education stage last? I'd say at least one year if given fair media attention.

Then, a referendum, separate from any other vote, would be needed on whether we want electoral reform or not, yes or no, without asking precisely what system.

Assuming that goes through, then the devils in the details have to be worked out - more long, gruelling work, more public education of all the alternatives and competing considerations. The national commission's work will have only begun. I'd say this would consist of at least two years of brochure distributing, town-hall meetings across the country, and fair media attention. And then another referendum, separate from any other vote.

[ 29 October 2008: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chester Drawers:
Democracy is 50% plus one. PR does not give you 50% plus one. Only the preferential ballot gives you 50% plus one.

How can PR give good government? You would have to have 50% plus one of the seats agree on policy. If we were to use PR today, the parties are so polarized you could not get consensus on any legislation. Liberals wanted the Green Shift, Dippers wanted a cap and trade, Bloc wanted a different version of cap and trade. The dippers wanted to drop the corp. tax cuts, the liberals and cons wanted to keep them. How do you bring about consensus. The Bloc is all about Quebec, could care less about the ROC. The dippers and Liberals favor gun control, the Bloc wants no guns and the cons want to drop the registry in favor of tougher sentences on gun crimes.

It will never work, not in Canada where regional issues usually trumpet national issues.

I can see the first past the post for the HOC and PR for the senate within each province.

---

Appropriate funding and a Mixed Member PR system.

1. 400 constituency riding seats,100 PR seats.

2. Fixed election date-say 2nd Monday in October every three years- for first round of voting.

3. All riding candidates are required to provide a one thousand dollar deposit, $500 refundable on paperwork,plus nomination papers signed by 100 voters in the riding.

4. There is a generous tax credit system for political donations (75% of donations up to one thousand dollars per year limit?)

5. Any candidate in a riding getting more than 10% of the vote is entitled to a rebate of 60% of eligible campaign expenses.

6. To win a riding seat in this first round, you need over 50% of the vote, unlikely in most cases,especially given the PR aspects discussed below, and in most cases a run-off is held.

7. The riding run-offs, held on a fixed date, will be amongst the top two candidates and any candidate getting over 15% of the votes who wishes her name included.

8. The first round of voting for riding representatives will also determine proportional representation. For every two percent of the vote received, a party may appoint two representatives to the Parliament for one year terms. Excess goes to the party with the highest number of votes.

9. Any party getting more than 2% of the vote receives $2 a year per vote.

10. At the first session of Parliament a Prime Minister shall be elected by majority vote of the Members of Parliament. The Prime Minister shall have all the powers of a Prime Minister, including the appointment and dismissal of cabinet.

11 On a non-confidence motion succeeding, the Members of Parliament shall elect a new Prime Minister.

12. Abolish the Senate and replace the office of the Governor General with equivalent weak President office, filled by the same run-off method.
-------------------------------

[ 29 October 2008: Message edited by: peterjcassidy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chester Drawers:
I do not think the PR model is the answer either, leads to a more puzzled parliament and ultimately more elections.

---

Yes, let us ignore all of the examples of PR working well, like in Sweden, Norway, Finland, Australia (STV is a PR system), etc.

Sweden and Norway have 7 parties in parliament and I don't think they're having problems finding a functioning government.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
You are identifying a problem that isn't really a problem. In your Sask. scenario it is easy you pick the two candidates form the NDP who got the highest percentage of the popular vote in their riding and still didn't get elected. That way it is still the people who have decided not the party. Any system such a MMP or STV that does not include parties deciding after an election who serves as MP's would be acceptable to me.

---

Absolutely..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_list

Where was this banter when the Liberals were in power for 13 years?

FPTP is perfect. One gets the most votes, one wins perfect. Not everyone wins, that's life. Get used to it.

I understand that in today's world people are raising their kids to expect a reward for everything and constant positive reinforcement.

Your macho tone is so pathetic its funny. Oh and by the way using my country's name as your handle tells me you have no respect for any diversity of opinion. Only your view is the Canadian view is what your handle claims. As a Canadian I must say it is very Republican of you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr.Canada:
I find it funny that only now since the CPC has twice in a row formed a gov't that has the left been crying for reform.

Where was this banter when the Liberals were in power for 13 years?

FPTP is perfect. One gets the most votes, one wins perfect. Not everyone wins, that's life. Get used to it.

I understand that in today's world people are raising their kids to expect a reward for everything and constant positive reinforcement.

We are turning into a country of wimps if you ask me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
You seem to have stumbled onto the wrong board. The people here have always called for PR since this board started.

Your macho tone is so pathetic its funny. Oh and by the way using my country's name as your handle tells me you have no respect for any diversity of opinion. Only your view is the Canadian view is what your handle claims. As a Canadian I must say it is very Republican of you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by thorin_bane:
And it still limits smaller parties from ever being able to establish themselves with the minimum rules. More important is the party stance on the issues. Bloc, they would be very diminished even in MMP, so they won't support the system. The cons, wouldn't find a dance partner and no chance of a majority, they also wouldn't support it. Greens support it but have no seats so they can't even help pass the legislation. NDP, depends on who you ask. I am still pissed at Dave Cooke for saying it was a waste for Ontario...thanks DAVE Finally the libs...for them it is only brought up if it is a run off for second votes for 50% plus 1. Which would overwhelmingly give them an eternal lock on majorities, it isn't PR in any way shape or form, in fact it would be worse than FPTP. Under the present or thier proposed system is the only way the can ge and hold power. SO really no party is in favour of moving to PR because other than the NDP and greens(who can't vote for legislation) it doesn't benefit any of the other parties. Nonstarter and a waste of time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr.Canada:

If it isn't so than prove me wrong.

---

quote:

---

I find it funny that only now since the CPC has twice in a row formed a gov't that has the left been crying for reform.
Where was this banter when the Liberals were in power for 13 years?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr.Canada:

If it isn't so than prove me wrong. Don't try to merely personally attack me. That is for the weak. Attack what I'm saying if you can.

---

Troll be gone. I vanquish thee. What you are saying is completely wrong. Obviously you just want us to reply to your useless dangle(if you can) IF YOU CAN try reading any of the threads around here as to why YOU are wrong.

BTW asshat do you even know what banter means?

quote:

---

n.

Good-humored, playful conversation.

---

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: thorin_bane ]

It's only coming up now in the media because of Mr. Harper. No media outlet was a proponent of the PR system until the implosion of the Liberal Party.

quote:

---

I understand you're not used to having people disagree with you around here.

---

Lol, haven't been on babble long have you? The board is bascially one giant disagreement.

quote:

---

It's only coming up now in the media because of Mr. Harper. No media outlet was a proponent of the PR system until the implosion of the Liberal Party.

---

A media outlet being a proponent of PR? I assume you mean CBC. Perhaps it's more of an issue of the Conservative owned media not being bright enough to challenge FPTP for 13 years while the Liberals were in? Heh, correction.. Make that the Reeeeforrrrrrrrrrm owned media not being bright enough to challenge FPTP

er.. FYI, Liberals are a center-right party at best while in power. Try not to mixup Toronto-centrist policy with Leftist policy

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:

A media outlet being a proponent of PR? I assume you mean CBC. Perhaps it's more of an issue of the Conservative owned media not being bright enough to challenge PR for 13 years while the Liberals were in? Heh, correction.. Make that the Reeeeforrrrrrrrrrm owned media not being bright enough to challenge FPTP

er.. FYI, Liberals are a center-right party at best while in power. Try not to mixup Toronto-centrist policy with Leftist policy

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Noise ]

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Noise ]

---

I largely dislike the CBC, it's a left biased media as are almost all the media outlets.

All media is owned by Liberal supporting groups. I don't recall any media backing the Tories in 2006. They did in the last election because of the lame duck leader Mr. Dion was and still is.

The Liberals are no where near the centre. Look at their policies and tell me they are centrist, yeah right.

quote:

---

I largely dislike the CBC, it's a left biased media as are almost all the media outlets.

---

I think you're confusing toronto-centric with leftist again.

quote:

---

All media is owned by Liberal supporting groups.

---

Hmm, which channels are you watching? Anything from Canwest is tilted to the cons, especially anything out west. In Calgary we had the Canwest newsgirl cheer on the Conservatives (go team go) while displaying the election results.

quote:

---

The Liberals are no where near the centre. Look at their policies and tell me they are centrist, yeah right.

---

During campaigns they're lefties... But I said while ruling they are right of center. Tell me Chretiens and Martins reign wasn't center-right... Though I guess it depends where you draw the center line.

quote:

---

The CPC has moved into the centre and are spending like crazy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr.Canada:

I largely dislike the CBC, it's a left biased media as are almost all the media outlets.

All media is owned by Liberal supporting groups. I don't recall any media backing the Tories in 2006. They did in the last election because of the lame duck leader Mr. Dion was and still is.

The Liberals are no where near the centre. Look at their policies and tell me they are centrist, yeah right.

The CPC has moved into the centre and are spending like crazy.

---

Do you watch CTV(mike duffy live is increadibly rightwing) or Global, what newspaper do you read, ours has been saying vote reform back to 1993. SO your views are well placed in the media just not the toronto centric CBC(just watch HNIC to know it is TO centric) National Post, MacLeans, even Globe and mail are all supporting harper. To be honest why would G&P not route for Paul Martin to win the election back in 2004, he was the most rightwing finance minister in canadian history. He still holds the record for most tax cuts in the shortest period(100 billion in 5 year) while slashing more spending(see health care, education, downloading) than ANYONE. It wasn't until Paul Martin put a tax break on hold for childcare(they like to claim for themsleves even if it was and NDP forced idea) did the media get on martin. They the MSM don't care about criminal records(sponsorship scandal, is just a means to an end) otherwise gordon campbell wouldn't be in office right now.

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: thorin_bane ]

quote:

---

I know a lot of conservatives upset with harper who spoiled their ballads or didn't vote. This is bad for democracy. If turnout had been 50% or less I think the push for electoral reform would HAVE to come about.

---

Heh, I spoiled mine with a vote for John McCain... There wasn't enough room to write a pro-hockey mom for VP comment.

We were right around 50% through most of calgary... The Calgary North-East riding had a lil under 39'000 votes with 82187 registered voters. My riding was 47k out of 87k... The only ridings that drew out more of a vote was where independant conservatives were running.

You're right that this is bad for democracy, in the same way kicking a dead horse repeatedly is bad for the dead horse.

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:

Heh, I spoiled mine with a vote for John McCain... There wasn't enough room to write a pro-hockey mom for VP comment.

We were right around 50% through most of calgary... The Calgary North-East riding had a lil under 39'000 votes with 82187 registered voters. My riding was 47k out of 87k... The only ridings that drew out more of a vote was where independant conservatives were running.

You're right that this is bad for democracy, in the same way kicking a dead horse repeatedly is bad for the dead horse.

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Noise ]

---

quote:

---

You're right that this is bad for democracy, in the same way kicking a dead horse repeatedly is bad for the dead horse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by thorin_bane:
NDP, depends on who you ask.

---

The federal NDP has been consistent supporters of PR for federal elections.

In fact, they brought forward legislative initiatives on the issue in the past three parliaments.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr.Canada:
I find it funny that only now since the CPC has twice in a row formed a gov't that has the left been crying for reform.

Where was this banter when the Liberals were in power for 13 years?

---

Actually, Canadians from all points on the political spectrum have been calling for electoral reform for about a decade.

In 2000, Fair Vote Canada, the national movement for proportional representation, was founded as a multi-partisan, citizen-based campaign bringing together people from all parts of the country, all walks of life and all points on the political spectrum. Prominent right-of-centre PR supporters include Senator Hugh Segal, columnist Andrew Coyne, former Canadian Taxpayers Federation head Walter Robinson, former Reform strategist Rick Anderson and columnist Andrew Coyne.

In fact, the current Prime Minister even supported PR before he starting casting aside his principles.

quote:

---

FPTP is perfect. One gets the most votes, one wins perfect. Not everyone wins, that's life. Get used to it.

---

So you would rather elections are about winning and losing, rather than fairly representing voters?

Frankly, I think the latter is a much more DEMOCRATIC way of viewing elections. And as I indicated above, many conservatives support fair and democratic elections, perhaps after good faiths discussions here you may become one yourself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr.Canada:

All media is owned by Liberal supporting groups. I don't recall any media backing the Tories in 2006.

---

If your goal in this thread is to confirm the prejudices of most people on this board that right-wingers are ignorant, then you're doing a bang up job!

Newspaper endorsements in the 2006 federal election

quote:

---

The federal NDP has been consistent supporters of PR for federal elections.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by largeheartedboy:
Although with the attitude you're showing here, you might not last long...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by largeheartedboy:
[QB] The federal NDP has been consistent supporters of PR for federal elections.

---

The NDP could be much stronger advocates of PR.

In the future, the NDP should make establishing PR the primary plank in their election platform. The NDP should promise that if elected, PR will be established ASAP.

Provincial wings of the NDP shouls also support PR. And the NDP government in Manitoba should establish PR ASAP for Manitoba.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JKR:

The NDP could be much stronger advocates of PR.

---

The NDP was voted down by Liberals and Tories when the NDP proposed to restart the federal study on electoral reform in May 2007.

And the NDP has agreed to STV in a large Canadian province where their chances of winning phony majority power appear more likely next May.

And I believe Howard Hampton was the only one of three main provincial party leaders to endorse the Citizens Assembly recommendation for MMP.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
There has to be all party agreement and support for change to make it happen.

---

The Conservatives will never go along with PR. They love having total power with just a little over 1/3 popular support. They know that PPTP will keep them in power as long as left supporters are divided among a few parties.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JKR:

The NDP could be much stronger advocates of PR.

In the future, the NDP should make establishing PR the primary plank in their election platform. The NDP should promise that if elected, PR will be established ASAP.

Provincial wings of the NDP shouls also support PR. And the NDP government in Manitoba should establish PR ASAP for Manitoba.

If PR isn't established soon, an NDP-Lib-Green merger of some kind will become inevitable. FPTP will force it. Just look at the US where the Democrats are about to win take power in Washington. If the left in the US was divided like it is Canada, McCain and the Republicans would be about to attain power there. That's how FPTP works.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JKR:

The Conservatives will never go along with PR. They love having total power with just a little over 1/3 popular support. They know that PPTP will keep them in power as long as left supporters are divided among a few parties.

The NDP should run on PR.

---

So let them enjoy their 22 percent exaggerated minority in the mean time.

Seven-seater STV is an excellent model but would work best federally for the 48% of us who live in places the size of Winnipeg or larger. As in many PR countries, the larger cities are not only the ones with the highest support for newer parties, but also the ones with larger district size accomodating smaller parties. The other 52% of us would likely have STV districts smaller that seven-seaters, but they would still give pretty decent proportionality and lots of voter choice.

In BC, BC-STV will work better because they have 85 MLAs compared with only 36 MPs. The provincial STV map is far better than a federal map would be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by vaudree:
I think that we should be voting for the candidate in our area but that our vote goes towards the total percentage that the party gets. After the election, the percentage of vote determines how many more seats each party gets and the party gets to choose who fills those seats - the only rule is that they have to fill those seats with candidates that ran in the election (those who did not win their seat).

With that rule, some ridings will have more than one representitive.

That is my idea as to how proportional representation should work - nothing fancy or complicated for the voter, and no tendency towards strategic voting like the German system promotes.

---

Yes, some ridings have more than one MP. But with any MMP model, the additional MPs all live somewhere, so there are three kinds of MPs serving a riding: the one directly elected from that riding, the one or more who live there but were elected from the regional list, and the ones who serve that riding but live in a nearby riding.

So there are lots of models that are tried and proven.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
In your Sask. scenario it is easy you pick the two candidates form the NDP who got the highest percentage of the popular vote in their riding and still didn't get elected. That way it is still the people who have decided not the party. Any system such a MMP or STV that does not include parties deciding after an election who serves as MP's would be acceptable to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
No real system has the parties picking representatives after the election.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by peterjcassidy:
a Mixed Member PR system.

1. 400 constituency riding seats, 100 PR seats.

8. The first round of voting for riding representatives will also determine proportional representation. For every two percent of the vote received, a party may appoint two representatives to the Parliament for one year terms. Excess goes to the party with the highest number of votes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JKR:
The Conservatives will never go along with PR. They love having total power with just a little over 1/3 popular support.

---

Democratic conservatives have longer memories: they recall the Liberals having total power with 37% of the vote. PR prevents this, and since the Conservatives have trouble winning a majority even with FPTP, PR has an advantage.

Democratic reformers didn't want to have to unite the right. They always liked PR. Andrew Coyne and Rick Anderson still do: they want a wider political spectrum, just as some on the left do.

Progresssive Conservatives of the Joe Clark and Hugh Segal variety liked PR to keep their party from being wiped out by the tendency of FPTP to exagerate regional differences, giving the Bloc and Reform exaggerated seats in 1993 while the PCs with as many votes got 2 seats.

Urban Conservatives need PR: over half a million Conservative voters in Greater Montreal and the City of Toronto elected no one, when they deserved 12 MPs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:

There are several exceptions:

Democratic conservatives have longer memories: they recall the Liberals having total power with 37% of the vote. PR prevents this, and since the Conservatives have trouble winning a majority even with FPTP, PR has an advantage.

Democratic reformers didn't want to have to unite the right. They always liked PR. Andrew Coyne and Rick Anderson still do: they want a wider political spectrum, just as some on the left do.

Progresssive Conservatives of the Joe Clark and Hugh Segal variety liked PR to keep their party from being wiped out by the tendency of FPTP to exagerate regional differences, giving the Bloc and Reform exaggerated seats in 1993 while the PCs with as many votes got 2 seats.

Urban Conservatives need PR: over half a million Conservative voters in Greater Montreal and the City of Toronto elected no one, when they deserved 12 MPs.

Conservatives concerned with Canadian unity see that the Bloc gets 49 seats when it deserves 31. Even after uniting the right, FPTP still gives a perverse bonus to regional parties.

---

If you look at where there was support for MMP in the Ontario referendum, it is hard to conclude that there is this huge conservative constituency for PR. Parties support the electoral reform that helps their agenda. Why do you think so many people here support MMP/PR? The beauty of electoral reform debates is that there is no perfect system (Arrow hypothesis), and tradeoffs in each. So people can make principled stands for the systems they want.

Folks like to strut as if it is "obvious" that FPTP is legitimate. New Zealand offers a good case of an unpopular government staying in power by forming coalitions with minor powers. PR governments are illegitimate insofar as nobody votes for coalitions. This isn't necessary unique to PR, but it is endemic to it. Moreover, while PR tends to reduce the salience of regional cleavages (though much less so in MMP), it often amplifies other cleavages, like social class.

Democratic reformers al la Preston Manning want senate reform and fixed election dates. Why? An elected effective senate would be a boon for small government because national legislation would get shot down. It would also accelerate decentralization because senators are explicitly provincial representatives, and because the distribution of senators weights the periphery about equally to the core of the country.

Democratic reformers in the 90's wanted fixed election dates and national referenda because they typically lost elections, so any infringement on the power of the PM helped them.

So I think any electoral reform proposal has to go back to the drawing board and come up with moderate reforms that can find broad support - including the support of the current government.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
Parties support the electoral reform that helps their agenda. . . So I think any electoral reform proposal has to go back to the drawing board and come up with moderate reforms that can find broad support - including the support of the current government.

---

quote:

---

Step two requires what many would consider an unnatural act. Take your usual political framing and toss it out the door. This is not about left versus right, or urban Canadians versus rural Canadians, or Toronto versus the rest of Canada.

This fight is between ordinary citizens and elites.

At the founding conference of Fair Vote Canada, Judy Rebick said this is possibly the only issue where grassroots citizens on the left and right have a common cause: fighting for real democratic control over those who currently wield undeserved power in a largely unaccountable system. More importantly, if we don’t build a strong multi-partisan front for fair voting, we will simply never win.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
If you look at where there was support for MMP in the Ontario referendum, it is hard to conclude that there is this huge conservative constituency for PR.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
Democratic reformers al la Preston Manning want senate reform . . . An elected effective senate would . . . also accelerate decentralization because senators are explicitly provincial representatives, and because the distribution of senators weights the periphery about equally to the core of the country.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
-approval voting (checking off all candidates that you approve of) would end strategic voting and enable voters to express complex preferences, without eliminating ridings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chester Drawers:
I do not think the PR model is the answer either, leads to a more puzzled parliament and ultimately more elections. Italy has a long history of multiple parties, not PR, but they have had what; 50 elections since 1946. Also PR would eliminate the possibility of independents getting elected.

---

Wow, I don't know how many times I have to debunk this ridiculous "Italy & Israel" myth amongst people who are against electoral reform. Are you sure Italy hasn't had 500 elections since 1946? How about 5,000?!?

In fact, Italy has had fewer elections than Canada since 1946. Look it up:

Italy: 17
(1946, 48, 53, 58, 63, 68, 72, 76, 79, 83, 87, 92, 94, 96, 01, 06, 08)

Israel: 18
(1949, 51, 55, 59, 61, 65, 69, 73, 77, 81, 84, 88, 92, 96, 99, 01, 03, 06)

Canada: 20
(1949, 53, 57, 58, 62, 63, 65, 68, 72, 74, 79, 80, 84, 88, 93, 97, 00, 04, 06, 08)

The idea that independents wouldn't get elected under PR is also rubbish. Of course a lot depends on the system chosen, but I would say that independents don't have much of a chance at getting elected under our current system in Canada today (we currently have 2, less than 1% of seats are independent) while in a 5-seat multi-member district with STV, for example, and independent would have to win 1/5 (or 20%) of the vote to get elected. Less than what they'd need to win now.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Threads ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:

New Zealand offers a good case of an unpopular government staying in power by forming coalitions with minor powers.

---

Which New Zealand case are you referring to?

The first MMP election in 1996?

I will agree there were problems with the democratic legitimacy of the government that came out of that election, as during the campaign the New Zealand First party harshly criticizing the sitting National Prime Minister Jim Bolger, only to keep them in power after the election.

However, I think, in the end, democracy won out as New Zealand First lost significant support in the next election.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:

PR governments are illegitimate insofar as nobody votes for coalitions.

---

This might be right, if it were true.

Voters in New Zealand, and in other PR countries, generally know full well what coalition they are voting for when they vote for smaller parties.

There is the odd example, discussed above, where are a party will be able to hide its preferred coalition partners form voters and the media, but it is a rare case.

For example, the shape of prospective coalitions in the next NZ House are already taking shape even though the election is still on.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: largeheartedboy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
PR governments are illegitimate insofar as nobody votes for coalitions.

---

Even in PR countries some voters do vote for coalitions. More, however, vote for what they want, what they believe in. If their party can form a one-party majority government, great. If not, hopefully they will become part of a governing coalition if one can be assembled that meets a worthwhile number of the party's goals. If not, they will be part of an opposition that works to show the voters that the party's values are better for the country than those of the government.

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Blair:
The idea that independents wouldn't get elected under PR is also rubbish. . . in a 5-seat multi-member district with STV, for example, an independent would have to win 1/5 (or 20%) of the vote to get elected. Less than what they'd need to win now.

---

quote:

---

Ditto, except for the idea that politicians come up with the alternatives. Citizens' groups like Fair Vote Canada make invaluable contributions to the discussion.

---

The problem being that when you move to the educating the public phase, they point at groups like "Fair Vote Canada" and say "who the hell are these people to tell me...." I ran into that kind of thing trying to sell MMP to friends, coworkers and neighbours.

Okay. Either I'm crazy (always a distinct possibility) or the only one who sees it, but the real issue here isn't what may or may not be good for the NDP, Liberals, Greens or Conservatives. In Ontario, clearly the NDP, Conservatives and Liberals have benefitted from FPTP, and been disadvantaged by it.

The issue is really one of survival. FPTP and our current parliamentary system was devised to quell new ideas. And when the world moved at the pace of a horse, and then steam, it wasn't an unworkable system.

But it is becomming more unworkable at an accelerating rate. This is a time when we need new ideas from new parties.

Democratic reform represented by proportional representation isn't a revolution. It's to prevent a revolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
the real issue here isn't what may or may not be good for the NDP, Liberals, Greens or Conservatives. In Ontario, clearly the NDP, Conservatives and Liberals have benefitted from FPTP, and been disadvantaged by it.

The issue is really one of survival. FPTP and our current parliamentary system was devised to quell new ideas. And when the world moved at the pace of a horse, and then steam, it wasn't an unworkable system.

But it is becomming more unworkable at an accelerating rate. This is a time when we need new ideas from new parties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
And the NDP has agreed to STV in a large Canadian province where their chances of winning phony majority power appear more likely next May.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Threads:
Strictly speaking, although an independent would generally need proportionally fewer votes to be elected in an STV riding than in a FPTP riding (20% versus, say, 40%), they would generally need to get numerically more votes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stunned Wind:
What province would this be in? If you're talking about BC I'd like to see where they have officially supported STV. While most NDP supporters also support STV I haven't seen much evidence of the party leaders supporting it

---

Presentation by Carole James
to the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform June 17, 2004

quote:

---

My purpose this evening is to express the position of the New Democratic Party
on the question of electoral reform. That position can be summarized as follows:

1) First, we believe that the current single-member plurality voting system is severely flawed and must be replaced by a new, fair, and workable system for electing MLA’s;

2) Secondly, the NDP favours the adoption of a more proportional electoral system: one that provides greater proportionality in the allocation of seats in the Legislature while ensuring significant local
representation.

3) And thirdly, the NDP reaffirms its position that electoral reform should emerge from an open and democratic process of public consultation
culminating in a provincial referendum. . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
[QB][/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by coeus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_list

This should be a requirement in any PR system

---

The Ontario Citizens Assembly were so worried about increasing the number of MPPs, the numbers of local ridings, the size of local ridings, and the ratio of additional members -- all very important design issues -- that they were working on only 25% or 30% additional members, with province-wide lists to counterbalance the risk of non-proportional results. And by the time they finally settled on 30%, they had run out of time to go back and look at the possibility of regional open lists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:

[snip]

So I think any electoral reform proposal has to go back to the drawing board and come up with moderate reforms that can find broad support -

[snip]

-approval voting (checking off all candidates that you approve of) would end strategic voting and enable voters to express complex preferences. without eliminating ridings.

[snip]

---

Any system which allows different choices to operate simultaneously, like approval voting or the Borda count, invites insincere voting because one can make one's vote more powerful by voting for only one choice. So approval voting tends to degenerate into FPTP.

Approval voting also allows one to swamp an undesired candidate by voting for a less undesired candidate, or several of them.

Approval voting works for institutions like learned societies whose elections are not felt to be very important. It is not suitable for public elections. I recall that Borda at one point declared that his system was designed for honest people. I would say, not for the real world.

I prefer the approach of the writers of the Federalist Papers, who explicitly recognized the role of baser passions in politics, of faction and vanity and ambition, and aimed at harnessing them to the public good.

Electoral reform has a history of roughly 250 years (more if you count churchmen) and over 100 years of practical experience with superior alternatives to FPTP in public elections. Let's use that experience. Practical electoral reform is more like engineering or medicine than like a theoretical science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:

Moreover, while PR tends to reduce the salience of regional cleavages (though much less so in MMP), it often amplifies other cleavages, like social class.

---

To what are you referring? Do you think that PR has promoted social conflict in Scandinavia, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Austria and the Irish Republic, compared to Britain, France and the United States?

Is the United States, the supreme example of FPTP, a country of remarkable social peace, or is it a country in which the electoral systm has been manipulated by the business class to achieve political dominance?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stunned Wind:
Of course, this includes the second, third, . . . preferences that those candidates receive and not just the first preferences.

---

Case in point: only five TDs elected in Ireland in 2007 had less than a half-quota on the first count. Four of the five had at least 0.43 of a quota on the first count, and the fifth had 0.14 of a quota. The one with 0.14 of a quota was Cyprian Brady, a Fianna Fail candidate in the same district as Bertie Ahern, who got 1.84 of a quota. Brady received about a third of Ahern's surplus in transfers on the second count.

And in 2002, there were only 6 with less than a half-quota on the first count. Four of the six had at least 0.46 of a quota. A fifth had 0.38 of a quota: Dermot Fitzpatrick, a Fianna Fail candidate in Bernie Ahern's (1.60 of a quota) district who received about half of Ahern's surplus on the second count.

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: Threads ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Threads:
I've gotten the sense that (at least in Ireland), it's very, very difficult for a candidate to win with much less than half a quota on the first count.

---

But the all-time great winner was Jane Morrice in 1998 in Northern Ireland, who had 4.8% on the first count, one-third of a quota.

The surprise Northern Ireland Women's Coalition member won miraculously in the least diverse area in Ulster. The posh suburban and seaside North Down stretches from Belfast to Bangor. The only area where Sinn Fein did not run, it is only 8% Catholic, although Catholics provided her crucial victory margin. North Down had sent five men to the Forum (two UUPs, one Alliance, a Paisley man, and hardline Westminster MP Bob McCartney), but this time it saw four serious women candidates pull 21.3% of first-count votes.

A former BBC journalist, she had been head of the European Commission Office in Belfast. Perhaps she had made a better impression than she realized when she got 3% of the vote running for Parliament in 1997 against McCartney.

Morrice and Alliance's Eileen Bell, a District Councillor, both got in. Morrice not only stole the fifth seat from Paisley, but the UUP picked up the sixth seat. McCartney even tried another woman District Councillor, Elizabeth Roche, as his running-mate, almost getting a second seat. Yet in the end McCartney's home sent five pro-agreement members to the Assembly with him, reversing the trend in most other parts of Ulster.

Bob McCartney was almost the biggest winner of this election. At the Forum, the "well-tailored suburban extremist" had won only his North Down seat. This time his men got four more seats, picking up one new one and taking two from Paisley and one from the UUP. (However, his four followers soon left him to form their own Northern Ireland Unionist Party.)

Jane Morrice's chances looked very slim on the first count. She had only 1808 votes (4.8%), running 7th, behind even the SDLP's Marietta Farrell. Worse, a Paisley man was bound to overtake her once one of their two men dropped. On the second count she picked up only 28 votes from Bob McCartney's surplus, and saw Elizabeth only 38 behind her. On the third count Jane got 82 votes from five minor candidates. On the fourth count she fell to 9th place, picking up only 19 votes as the second Paisley man dropped. His transfers put the remaining Paisley man well ahead of her, and even put Elizabeth 61 votes ahead of her.

Jane's tide began to turn on the 5th count. Brian Wilson was a very popular independent member of the District Council from Bangor, polling even more votes for Council than Eileen Bell. A moderate, 45% of his voters made Alliance their second choice. Only 26 of them went to Elizabeth. Jane got a crucial 118 transfers from him, edging 30 ahead of Elizabeth. On the 6th count, after the PUP man dropped, 47% of his transfers went to the UUP. However, 182 (14% of his transfers) went to Jane, finally putting her 38 votes ahead of Marietta, in 7th place again. On the 7th count another very popular independent local councillor, Alan Chambers, who was in 10th place, had finally been eliminated. His supporters were more unionist, and 162 of them transferred to Elizabeth, but Jane got 228 of them. On the 8th count she got 18 from UUP surplus votes.

On the 9th count, the second Alliance candidate had dropped, and most of his 1972 votes transferred to his running-mate Eileen, electing her, but Jane got 242. On the 10th count she got 308 votes from Eileen's surplus, but still trailed Paisley's man by 185 votes. Jane, however, got only 58 transfers when Elizabeth dropped, with 2265 votes to transfer into the 11th count. If Paisley's man had got the rest, Jane would have been toast. However, Paisley's man got only 1253, while 472 went UUP and 474 had no further choices.

Finally, on the 12th count Marietta had dropped. Most of her 2458 voters would have named Eileen their second choice, and 470 of them refused to transfer farther. However, 1812 of them ranked Jane ahead of the unionists, putting her 413 ahead of Paisley's man, although still 475 short of a quota.

To her original 1808 votes, she had added 3090 transfers, about 74% of them transfers from women: 1812 SDLP, 550 Alliance, 346 from the two independents, 182 from the PUP, and 205 others. Just the way feminists hope STV will work. She even stood fifth, 105 ahead of the third UUP man.

Sadly, she could not repeat the miracle in 2003. In 2006 she was appointed as one of the NI representatives on the key EU advisory body, the European Economic and Social Committee.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:
E May bringing it (PR) up in the debate early had several Conservatives I know vote green this election.

---

quote:

---

Judy Rebick said this is possibly the only issue where grassroots citizens on the left and right have a common cause: fighting for real democratic control over those who currently wield undeserved power in a largely unaccountable system. More importantly, if we don’t build a strong multi-partisan front for fair voting, we will simply never win.

---

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]