| Proportional Representation in Canada & the Electoral Process
Posted: 1/25/2006 2:46:42 PM | i can only hope (and it's slim a slim one) that proportional representation will be brought forward as key for the next election which will be sooner than we'd all like.
as a voter that has participated in every political and federal election for which i've been eligible, i am feeling more disinclined to do my civic duty and vote.
the negative campaigning and mudslinging, the effort to vote and yet not make an impact in a riding that is hard line conservative makes me wonder why i bother aside from providing my son with the example.
i don't believe my vote means anything or that it counts towards anything like i once did. if anything, this election has made me even more disillusioned by the electoral and political process in canada.
your thoughts? | |
|
| Proportional Representation in Canada & the Electoral Process
Posted: 1/25/2006 3:10:35 PM | I dislike the idea of proportional representation. The parlimentary fragmentation we see now would be nothing in comparison to what would be seen under proportional representation.
And just because your preferred candidate never had a chance does not mean that the system is broken. | |
|
| |
| Proportional Representation in Canada & the Electoral Process
Posted: 1/25/2006 4:02:23 PM | robert - it's not so much that my preferred candidate never had a chance that i am p*ssed off with the current electoral system. if there are so many seats available to each province and ontario and quebec can elect the gov't of canada (and it will always be so given the current division of seats) no matter where the population centres of canada lie, why bother voting?
why is it that young voters are participating less and less in their electoral system? this election 65% of registered voters made it to the polls. that was up from the last election of 60%. either number is dismal given the fact that not all canadians register to vote.
so if we say 75% of eligible voters actually registered and of those only 65% voted, there is a significant amount of canadians who didn't bother voting. why? do they feel that casting a vote means nothing? voter apathy? to have such a large number of eligible voters not voting indicates to me there is a problem with our electoral system. it may not be completely irreparable but i think it is broken.
as for parliamentary fragmentation, perhaps that will eliminate the dictatorships of one party. perhaps it will fuel independents and balance political agendas so that no one party can carry on a rule of "privilege" and "entitlement". perhaps negotiation, compromise and consensus would actually make canada a true liberal democracy. maybe, candidates would represent their ridings better rather than towing the party line. | |
|
| Proportional Representation in Canada & the Electoral Process
Posted: 1/25/2006 4:27:31 PM |
i can only hope (and it's slim a slim one) that proportional representation will be brought forward as key for the next election which will be sooner than we'd all like.
It's f#cking ridiculous.
Any electoral system which makes it possible to have a majority with not much more than 25% of the votes is criminal.
Think about it. Suppose there are two parties (for the sake of simplicity) and 100 ridings. Party A wins 51 ridings with just one vote over 50% in all of them. In the other ridings, they lose 100%. The result is that they have 51/100 ridings, a majority, which they got with less than 26% of the popular vote!
Come on, that's not democracy.
That's a farce and a scam. | |
|
| Proportional Representation in Canada & the Electoral Process
Posted: 1/25/2006 9:09:05 PM | Proportional representation, as I understand the term, is one of the worst ideas of all time.
If you seriously like the idea of voting for a party, rather than a candidate, that's your perogative, and I admit that probably a large number of voters who actually vote do do this, but there is one problem I see.
Imagine this scenario: Your political party of choice selects, in your riding, a candidate whom you are distinctly uncomfortable with having as a representitive, for whatever reason. Say she's incompetent, and running on name recognition alone, for example. Or he's a religious nut, as another example. Or make up your own reason. As the system currently stands, voters in your riding can simply vote for some candidate from another party, and keep the unwanted candidate out of parliment. Under proportional representation, the party gets some number of seats to distribute, based on the number of votes recieved, and the party's central office chooses who is placed in parliment, and it could very well be that the party apparatus wants the person you don't.
Now, if you're not talking about european-style proportional representation, but rather about redistribution of ridings based on population densities, that's another story. And as to Ontario and Quebec deciding who wins control... funny that that should be mentioned right after Alberta supplied the new PM. | |
|
| Proportional Representation in Canada & the Electoral Process
Posted: 1/25/2006 9:47:53 PM | Yes, the West had more influence this election than usual. Typically, though, in order to form government, you have to win either Ontario or Quebec, and have a strong showing in the either. This is because of the representation by population system that we have. Ontario and Quebec have nearly 2/3 the population of the entire country, so they have more seats. Because of this, there have been elections that have been decided and overwith before the polls even closed in the west.
Anyway, if proportional representation is so bad, I ask you this: why has every modern democracy except Canada, the U.S., and Britain gone to a proportional representation system, generally 50-100 years ago? It is certainly the better system, by far, and it is high time that we brought it in. A system like Germany's, which is mixed, would be all right, too. As for the minority governments, they aren't that evil, really. Minorities force everyone to work together, and to accomplish more through compromise, and this is much more democratic than the majority government system. And minority governments don't have to fall every year-and-a-half. If parliament would learn to stop squabbling over petty issues, and really just waiting for their turn to be in absolute power, and would learn to work together as a set of elected officials who are out to make goof policies for the country, then minorities would work fine.
Be sure to visit this site: www.fairvotecanada.org | |
|
| Proportional Representation in Canada & the Electoral Process
Posted: 1/25/2006 10:32:44 PM | bk0069,
You completely side-stepped the whole reason we would want proportional representation. If we don't like the party but we like the candidate one vote essentially counts as two in a way. It helps to get the local candidate elected and helps to get the party elected. You say, well vote for another candidate ? Now really...would you have voted Conservative or Liberal in this election just because you didn't like the local candidate from the opposing party ? I seriously doubt that. Or you could vote for the NDP but to many people they are just this side of radical and so aren't appealing. Now if you viewed their party as radical but liked the local guy would you really want to help them take over the country by voting for the local guy anyway ? Look at the Greens...they certainly won't be forming a government any time soon but they polled alot more than you'd guess based on the number of seats they'd won. | |
|
| Proportional Representation in Canada & the Electoral Process
Posted: 1/25/2006 10:42:28 PM | Considering that the mere concept of an elected senate nearly causes a constitutional crisis every time that it is mentioned I really doubt that we will see major shifts in the electoral system.
One of the problems I have with the Proportional Representation system is that it essentially places the entire country in the hands of urban voters in half a dozen cities. Regional alienation would be magnified to the extent that it would cause critical national breakdown and massive rural/urban disconnect. | |
|
| Proportional Representation in Canada & the Electoral Process
Posted: 1/25/2006 10:54:49 PM | ^That's a pretty good point.
Having said that though, we can look to the south for a better idea of how we could work it. Oh, I know the die-hard anti-US crowd would never like to admit it but aside from their rather exclusive party system, the rest is pretty fair in my opinion. | |
|
| Proportional Representation in Canada & the Electoral Process
Posted: 1/25/2006 11:12:31 PM | What, the Electoral College? It is the stupidest system ever. And if you are refering to the election of a president separately from representatives, then all I can say is that we are not a Republic (unlike the U.S.), and I would like to keep it that way. There is nothing wrong with the parliamentary system that we have, just the way that the parliamentarians are elected.
As as for the rural vs. city question, for one, it would be in all parties' best interests to put candidates from rural settings near the top of the list, so that they would get elected, and represent the rural areas. This would make the entire party more appealing. But really, regional alienation is a huge problem with our current first-past-the-post system. There is a rural vs. urban problem, as it is, and then each region of the country is mis-represented. What was it, 40% of Albertans did not want the Conservatives in, yet no seats in Alberta went to anyone but the Conservatives. The Bloc have 51 seats, for approximately 10% of the popular vote, while the NDP have 29 seats for 18% of the vote. 435,000 Maritime votes for the Liberals elected 22 seats in the Maritimes, while 625,000 votes for the Greens across the country elected none. The first-past-the-post system creates the regional problems and alienations. Parties with strong regional ties do well in our system, while parties whose support is more spread out, such as the NDP and Greens, cannot get as many seats (or any, for the Greens). So I would argue that the rural vs. urban issue would not be a problem, since proportional representation would actually seek to not have the regional problems we have now.
Again, I ask this: how can it be such a bad system if almost every single modern democracy uses it, in most cases switching to it over 50 years ago? Are we just being stubborn? Or stupid? Or, as I think is probably quite likely, first-past-the-post gets the people elected, and once in power, they don't want to change the system. So I think that widespread activism and lobbyism is perhaps the best way to influence change in thbis matter. | |
|
| Proportional Representation in Canada & the Electoral Process
Posted: 1/26/2006 1:25:12 AM | I agree that alienation is a real problem under the current system, but I fail to see that a PR system would change this, I think it would magnify it. And please do not be deluded, Quebec nationalist/seperatists and Western seperatists are not going to buy into any plan that concentrates power in southern Ontario. I am not joking or using hyperbole when I say that that would destroy the country. Canada is very much a regional federation, not just a federation of 30 million people and it would be a huge error to lose track of this fact.
I also am a bit irked that this is being brought up in the context of a CPC victory. Suddenly when a party that represents conservative values and Western intrests gets into power as a minority govt the system is broken? That insults me as a citizen, a voter, and a conservative westerner. Suddenly because the "wrong" side ( My side) won the system is broken.
You want to talk about feeling like yopur vote does not count....I voted Reform when I lived in PEI in the early 90's. Now thats a lost cause, but the fact that my candiate never had a snowballs chance in hell of winning does not mean that the system needs to be changed. | |
|
| |
| Proportional Representation in Canada & the Electoral Process
Posted: 1/26/2006 9:30:33 AM | I think the only reform that is going to happen short term is number of seats has to get balanced so have a fair representation by population again. Right now the west does not get it's fair say in confederation. Our average number of citizens per MP is higher in the west than it is in the east, which is crazy because the east already has so much more power because of the population concentrations there.
Aside from that, you will have to wait for reform to happen in the provinces first. BC made a stab at reform, but it wasn't really publicized properly and the referendum was tied to an election ballot. We are going to try again soon though. Quebec is also very far along the way of reform.
Once the provinces have run some successful experiments, we can then talk about chance on a national level.
Pure proportional representation will not work, because you don't get regional representation. You can solve this by a 50/50 system, where half the seats are by district and half come off of party lists. This is what New Zealand does and it sounds like Palastine just did this too.
Personally I would rather just adopt the US system, but with a transferable ballot. I don't think the voting system is the problem so much as we have our executive and legislative branches tied together. You can't realistically expect your MP to represent your views to the PM when the PM controls their fate. What happens is then they end up representing the PM's views to you instead, because an MP that can keep their constituancy quiet and pacified will get promotions.
In the states, the President just appoints anyone in the country to the secretary positions (ministries) but those appointments must be approved by the congress (rep by pop) and the senate (rep by region). It's a way better system that was based on some really deep writings by some heavy duty French and German philosphers. Our system is medievil. | |
|
yna6
|
Joined: 5/2/2004
Msg: 15 | |
| Proportional Representation in Canada & the Electoral Process
Posted: 1/26/2006 9:38:10 AM | How many of those countries that have proportional representation also have a recall law...the power of the people to kick a person out of office before their time is up? Canada doesn't have that. Would our politicians really want to put their collective butts on the line with a policy like this?
I like the idea of proportional representation. So what if the person the party I voted for puts in someone who I don;t feel comfortable with personally? That person is still going to pull the party line which I did vote for. IF they decide to bring their personal feelings into it...then I would feel a need for a way to get rid of that person from their office. Example..say I voted Liberal, and one of the things they had on their platform was abortion...they said YES, it is the womans right to choose. Now their representative gets inot a "free vote" in the house and votes "No"....I'd want that jerk out of office so fast it would make their head spin. BUT...If they have to pull the party line...the free vote dies. Regional representation does better to represent the ACTUAL voters voice in that area. Unfortunaely...they can affect things that really have nothing to do with them, thereby creating schisms in society. Spring bear hunt is one of those issues...southern Ontario said no....fine...but it affected Northern ones way more so.
Perhaps a system of "popular vote" would be more in order...allowing anyone to run for office using the "100,000" limit....if a person can get 100,000 people to vote for him/her...they go to office to represent those people. If they get 200,000...that representative gets 2 votes. If they only get 199,999...only 1 vote. This makes EVERY vote count. It would basically force the voter to make the decisions as to how this country would be run.
Australia has mandatory voting....50 buck fine for not voting. We could go along with that. Those who "refuse" to vote, pay a 50 dollar fine. They don't go gonzo about collecting it...if it hasn't been paid by tax time, it shows up then.(or could...).
We could have Parliament as a real peoples voice. Send the representatives in and they tell their constituants what the issues are..and the people tell the rep in what direction to vote. He would basically be a number cruncher....so much percentage of his riding says "yes"...so many say "no" so many "abstain"....whichever of the 3. These numbers are added up and the law either passed or not depending on it. If the majority abstained, it would be postphoned because either not enough people feel informed or feel it is too "hot" politically...or perhaps thinks politics has no place in saying what Canadians should do...as in the case of gay marriages. (Let the Churches decide what THEY are going to do...allow civil unions for purposes of taxation and pension rights) An "abstained" vote would need further consideration.
It could be done with the technology available..and the politicians would have to be in close contact with their constituants to find out "which way the wind is blowing". | |
|
| Proportional Representation in Canada & the Electoral Process
Posted: 1/26/2006 10:13:46 AM |
One of the problems I have with the Proportional Representation system is that it essentially places the entire country in the hands of urban voters in half a dozen cities.
Yeah, those a$$holes who actually pay the bills. | |
|
| Proportional Representation in Canada & the Electoral Process
Posted: 1/26/2006 10:43:02 AM | | ^^ And by the way, isn't that where actually like 99% of Canada lives? :) Damn that 99% of the population for pretty much deciding for the 1% reminder. It's also where those government offices are. So no matter who is the deciding factor in the election, the country will be in the hands of a bunch of bureaucrats who sit in officies which are in ... urban locations! Whoa! | |
|
| Proportional Representation in Canada & the Electoral Process
Posted: 1/26/2006 11:00:23 AM | ^^ That is the old way of doing proportional representation.
Most new systems like this put in place give half the seats to proportional representation and half to districts. If you don't have districts then nobody is responsible for making sure all geographics areas of the country are looked after. | |
|
yna6
|
Joined: 5/2/2004
Msg: 19 | |
| Proportional Representation in Canada & the Electoral Process
Posted: 1/26/2006 8:37:01 PM | Perhaps it is the Federal powers that need a bit more distribution. Example...gun registry. If city dwellers had to register their arms, leaving the country people with theirs.....Certain programs that don't have the negative connotations from the Feds could go through as usual. Extra education funds...and make sure that the public KNOWS where this money is coming from. Not like here where money was turned down unless it was given to the province to distribute as it saw fit. Should have been told either allow it or forfeit it.
Still like the "town hall" idea best. With the technology available...I figure I'll be seeing this within my life-time...somewhere in the world. | |
|
| Proportional Representation in Canada & the Electoral Process
Posted: 1/27/2006 8:19:40 AM | also am a bit irked that this is being brought up in the context of a CPC victory. Suddenly when a party that represents conservative values and Western intrests gets into power as a minority govt the system is broken? That insults me as a citizen, a voter, and a conservative westerner. Suddenly because the "wrong" side ( My side) won the system is broken.
i don't think this issue is solely based on the fact that the conservatives are heading up the next minority gov't. they discussed it as part of their platform so it makes sense that people would be discussing it now. but the west has long asked for the electoral process to be reviewed.
for me, it doesn't have so much to do with the fact that the conservatives are in. it's more about critical issues that don't resonate with me. maybe it's because i'm a westerner, but here goes:
- how is it that there is a national party that once held the official opposition seat but only has candidates running in one province? (the bloc quebecois). to be considered a "national" party, i think you should have to have candidates running in a third of all ridings in all provinces. that would be true regional representation - at least living up to the ideal of it for goodness sakes.
- why is there no recognition of population shifts in provinces/regions? i realize the seats of the house are reviewed every 10 years based on a census but thanks to the "grandfather clause", a province can never have less seats than what they had in 1976 or 1985. that means that the west and the maritimes would have to have an unreasonable surge of population growth to make up for the seats that quebec and ontario have enjoyed for decades and can never lose.
- why do we vote party lines and not for candidates that represent constituents anymore? i can't think of more than a handful of candidates who actually care about their ridings and DO THINGS in their community. i think voter apathy may stem from this as well...if they are all going to tow the party line, who gives a damn who the candidate is, you are just voting for a party anyway.
there are several systems that can be used instead of our plurality voting (first past the post system) and they have worked well to provide democratic gov't. why can't we talk about it? why have we decided plurality is the best? b/c our forefathers decided it and now we can't change it?
and don't get me started on the senate - that is a whole reform process on it's own. why we even have a senate appointed by the pm is beyond me. talk about privilege and entitlement....true democracy must lie with the house. it's just how we elect that house that should be discussed b/c people don't vote anymore. they are unhappy with the current party system and have been for a long while.
and as for understanding other systems - the vast majority of canadians are not stupid. (at least that's what i believe) and can process the idea of a new system and a better electoral process if given the chance. at least, that's what i think.... | |
|
| Proportional Representation in Canada & the Electoral Process
Posted: 1/27/2006 9:45:36 AM |
why do we vote party lines and not for candidates that represent constituents anymore? i can't think of more than a handful of candidates who actually care about their ridings and DO THINGS in their community. i think voter apathy may stem from this as well...if they are all going to tow the party line, who gives a damn who the candidate is, you are just voting for a party anyway.
And I Second That................
Politicans should be representing their voters whether it fits the party line or not. | |
|
| |
| Proportional Representation in Canada & the Electoral Process
Posted: 1/27/2006 12:12:28 PM | why has every modern democracy except Canada, the U.S., and Britain gone to a proportional representation system,
Geography.
What, the Electoral College? It is the stupidest system ever
Very very much agreed.
because an MP that can keep their constituancy quiet and pacified will get promotions.
Best way to do this: make sure their wishes are granted and their concerns are addressed.
That person is still going to pull the party line which I did vote for
Our MPS do not always "toe the party line".
Perhaps a system of "popular vote" would be more in order...allowing anyone to run for office using the "100,000" limit....if a person can get 100,000 people to vote for him/her...they go to office to represent those people. If they get 200,000...that representative gets 2 votes. If they only get 199,999...only 1 vote. This makes EVERY vote count. It would basically force the voter to make the decisions as to how this country would be run.
Australia has mandatory voting....50 buck fine for not voting. We could go along with that. Those who "refuse" to vote, pay a 50 dollar fine. They don't go gonzo about collecting it...if it hasn't been paid by tax time, it shows up then.(or could...).
We could have Parliament as a real peoples voice. Send the representatives in and they tell their constituants what the issues are..and the people tell the rep in what direction to vote. He would basically be a number cruncher....so much percentage of his riding says "yes"...so many say "no" so many "abstain"....whichever of the 3. These numbers are added up and the law either passed or not depending on it. If the majority abstained, it would be postphoned because either not enough people feel informed or feel it is too "hot" politically...or perhaps thinks politics has no place in saying what Canadians should do...as in the case of gay marriages. (Let the Churches decide what THEY are going to do...allow civil unions for purposes of taxation and pension rights) An "abstained" vote would need further consideration.
It could be done with the technology available..and the politicians would have to be in close contact with their constituants to find out "which way the wind is blowing".
I like this; accept the part about postponing decisions. THIS would happen so very very often that so many Bills and issues would get frozen forever chief.
- how is it that there is a national party that once held the official opposition seat but only has candidates running in one province? (the bloc quebecois). to be considered a "national" party,
Charter. "Special Status"
- why do we vote party lines and not for candidates that represent constituents anymore?
IN KW; we don't. The Liberals STILL took 2 of the 3 biggest ridings here; based on their personal contributions and cares for their community. Karen Redman/Andrew Telegdi...BOTH have quite the tenure representing their constituents...because they do what they are asked by their people to do.
- why is there no recognition of population shifts in provinces/regions?
There are, unless I am madly mistaken. Heck; even Dundas and surrounding area got reform and boundary changes based on surging populations. (as did Oakville and Mississauga area)
| |
|
| Proportional Representation in Canada & the Electoral Process
Posted: 1/27/2006 3:39:54 PM | - how is it that there is a national party that once held the official opposition seat but only has candidates running in one province? (the bloc quebecois). to be considered a "national" party,
Charter. "Special Status"
but quebec didn't vote for the charter of rights and freedoms did they? they are the one province who chooses to accept and not accept what parts of the charter they want and don't want given they didn't vote it in.
why do we vote party lines and not for candidates that represent constituents anymore?
IN KW; we don't. The Liberals STILL took 2 of the 3 biggest ridings here; based on their personal contributions and cares for their community. Karen Redman/Andrew Telegdi...BOTH have quite the tenure representing their constituents...because they do what they are asked by their people to do.
we have 308 seats. name more than a handful of candidates that got elected based on what they did for their ridings. i'll accept at least a third of the mp's elected. it should be a majority of mp's but i'll accept a third of the seats housing mp's who were elected based on their constituency record and not their party.
- why is there no recognition of population shifts in provinces/regions?
There are, unless I am madly mistaken. Heck; even Dundas and surrounding area got reform and boundary changes based on surging populations. (as did Oakville and Mississauga area)
i did mention there is a review every 10 years based on the census. however, quebec and ontario will never lose seats that they had as of 1975 b/c those seats have been grandfathered in. so other provinces would have to have a huge surge in population in order to gain more seats to compete with central canada.
boundary changes do not add up to more seats either, btw. | |
|
| Proportional Representation in Canada & the Electoral Process
Posted: 1/27/2006 4:21:42 PM | | A pet idea of mine for years has been to make the Senate based on PR. Easier for parties to recruit star candidates in tight ridings if it's understood that they'll get a seat in the Senate if they lose. It hardly ever happens that one party gets 50% of the vote, so the Senate would be more balanced. Parties would ensure that they appointed people from parts of the country they were shut out in and the governing party would use these people in cabinet. The Liberals governed for years with very few western MP's to choose from under Trudeau in particular. In this Parliament, the Tories could have some real stars from Quebec and Atlantic Canada in cabinet instead of having to choose from those who got elected. | |
|
Home
login 
