[SteveK]

I promise I won't make every topic a poll lol. This is just something I'm very curious about having people's opinions and views on.

What is your position on electoral reform in Canada?

I'd also ask to mention your party affiliation because I noticed that Cons might oppose non-FPTP systems so they can get a majority this time around. However, when I was watching the debate with some people, almost everyone seemed to be very for a Proportional representation system...where a majority would be extremely rare.

Personally, I'm in favor of a MMP system which combines both FPTP and PR (as they have in Germany).

So what's your opinion? Which electoral system would work best here?

I'm also aware that other discussions have been made in the past on this, but I thought this would warrant a new topic.

[Freakinoldguy]

Well, you got your answer, now hoist up another one.

[SteveK]

LOL wait, that would be unfair. It would basically hand the Conservatives the election. Everyone knows Jack has health problems so he can't over do it, Duceppe will refuse to drink since the beer will say "Canadian" on it, and Iggy looks like a pile of bone and flesh in a sweater vest - I doubt he could handle more than a couple beers. Harper would win the drinking contest by a landslide.

Though, he might have some competition in Elizabeth May. She looks like she can put down a few. Go Greens!

However, seeing them all drunk might make them honest for a change. Drinking contests will increase accountability in parliament.

[herbie]

It's not about leaders, it's about better representation.

[SteveK]

I agree, which is why I support a more proportionally representative electoral system over the FPTP system.

However, A PR system on its own can be unstable ..and it's limited in regard to regional representation. That's why I'm more keen on an MMP system which uses both first-past-the-post voting in that you vote for a candidate, but also uses the PR party-list system (part of the house will be reserved for this type of voting). So you get two votes...one for a Candidate, and one for a party. So that would have all the benefits of PR (lower voter apathy, more representative, etc.), but also maintain the benefits of FPTP regional representation (e.g. if you prefer a certain candidate who knows the community well, but you disagree with their political affiliation, you could still vote them in). It also gives more choice and self-assessment to the voter ....considering that the party constructs the list. Good character is important in politics.

They tried to have a referendum on something similar in Ontario, but it failed due to (in my opinion) voter ignorance.
MMP has the best of both worlds.

I'm curious to hear how others justify their choices, and maybe refute/find problems with the others?

[Mustang1]

SteveK wrote:

They tried to have a referendum on something similar in Ontario, but it failed due to (in my opinion) voter ignorance.

Or it was defeated because the electorate didn't want it. I rejected it. I understood the particulars and so did many others.

[Canadian_Mind]

Couldn't MMP the same be done with only 1 vote, whereby the elected candidates become the MPs, while the proportion of votes per party per province (or nationally) are then used to calculate how many seats each party is allowed to appoint to the senate?

Example, according to the website http://threehundredeight.blogspot.com/, if the election were held today, based on this system, in the legislature, the Tories would have 143 seats, Grits 77, Bloc 47, and the Dippers 36. And based on the percentage of the votes, the Tories would get 39 seats in the senate for which they could appoint members, the Grits 28, Dippers 20, Bloc 9, and the Greens 6

[Benn]

SteveK wrote:

That's why I'm more keen on an MMP system which uses both first-past-the-post voting in that you vote for a candidate, but also uses the PR party-list system (part of the house will be reserved for this type of voting). So you get two votes...one for a Candidate, and one for a party. So that would have all the benefits of PR (lower voter apathy, more representative, etc.), but also maintain the benefits of FPTP regional representation

I'm all for this system and it's used in other countries and works. Basically FPTP does not work well in a country so large geographically where issues can differ widely from coast to coast. PR would address this best but mixed with FPTP aspect.

Frankly I'm not sure the drink off would give us any worse representation than we often get however. Would be cheaper for sure, first rounds on me!

[SteveK]

LOL Full agreement ^

Canadian_Mind wrote:

Couldn't MMP the same be done with only 1 vote, whereby the elected candidates become the MPs, while the proportion of votes per party per province (or nationally) are then used to calculate how many seats each party is allowed to appoint to the senate?

That's a good idea considering how useless the senate currently is. But we would still have problems like Green candidates getting 6.8% of the national vote and having no elected MPs. I suppose giving them 6.8% of the senate would be better than it is today since they would get some representation in parliament.... However, I think when you use MMP with 2 votes, where a number of house seats a reserved for PR voting, there's a fairer balance since at least they would have a few representatives in the house.

Mustang1 wrote:

Or it was defeated because the electorate didn't want it. I rejected it. I understood the particulars and so did many others.

And what reasons did you have for finding the current system more desirable?

[martin14]

SteveK wrote:

Mustang1 wrote:

Or it was defeated because the electorate didn't want it. I rejected it. I understood the particulars and so did many others.

And what reasons did you have for finding the current system more desirable?

I'm also aware that other discussions have been made in the past on this, but I thought this would warrant a new topic.



Since you are aware, no doubt as proper research for this you would have readMustang's other posts regarding this topic.

Since you already know his opinions, there is no need for him to rehash the entire debate for your benefit.
If you havent done any research, now would be a good time to do it.
Mustang's post aren't hard to find.

[SteveK]

I suppose you're refering to this topic on the referendum, but even so I don't really see what points he made against it.
And moreover, I raised some valid points in favor of an MMP-type system that didn't seem to be addressed at all.

So that's why I was asking for him to provide support for his position. Unless his only support is what he posted there, which would seem odd considering what he posted here

[Mustang1]

SteveK wrote:

LOL Full agreement ^

Canadian_Mind wrote:

Couldn't MMP the same be done with only 1 vote, whereby the elected candidates become the MPs, while the proportion of votes per party per province (or nationally) are then used to calculate how many seats each party is allowed to appoint to the senate?

That's a good idea considering how useless the senate currently is. But we would still have problems like Green candidates getting 6.8% of the national vote and having no elected MPs. I suppose giving them 6.8% of the senate would be better than it is today since they would get some representation in parliament.... However, I think when you use MMP with 2 votes, where a number of house seats a reserved for PR voting, there's a fairer balance since at least they would have a few representatives in the house.

Mustang1 wrote:

Or it was defeated because the electorate didn't want it. I rejected it. I understood the particulars and so did many others.

And what reasons did you have for finding the current system more desirable?

Here - post1360502#p1360502

As martin already posted, i've been done this road before - there's no demonstrably justifiable reason to rip apart FPTP (and the electorate, in Ontario, agrees).

My reasons are simple - PR and its variants produce unstable governments (and produce coalitions and frequent elections, which many currently have issues with), provide unaccountable political representation (especially with party-produced lists) allow for fringe groups (with low popular % thresholds, parties don't face electoral vetting and you can get some pretty ugly groups - see ultra-nationalists in Europe) and, most damaging, allow disproportionate power considerations(parties, who aren't even legitimately vetted electorally, can be the "king-makers" or the difference in legislatures and this could be far beyond their actual electoral representation).

[Bruce_the_vii]

One problem with Proportional Representation is it tends to minority governments and coalitions which give power to marginal agendas - like the Greens in Germany. And of course Canada is highly fractionalized by region, politics and and language already. It's described as a "Moose" by cartoonists, an unlikely creature. However I read an article in The Economist that all through out Western Europe the electorate is becoming fractional. In Germany there is a decline in religion and the cold war is over so the main parties are shrinking. The arguement goes on for much of Western Europe. I thing Proportional Representation would make matters worse.

[SteveK]

MMP isn't strictly PR, though. It still has aspects of FPTP which I believe safeguards it from many of the issues Mustang brought up. I agree those are dangerous consequences of a proportional representation system ONLY, but using MMP you still have things like accountability since there would still be regional representation. For example, no more than 30% of the legislature would use PR in the case of the 2007 Ontario Referendum.

If so-called fringe parties are elected into seats, then that is the will of the people - they represent who voted them in. If they cause problems, then in the next election they will lose seats and supporters. I just think when you compare voter turnout rates in places like Germany to Ontario, you can see the voter apathy that exists in our system - which I believe is more important than the issues Bruce brought up. Our past election only had about 50% of Ontarians cast a ballot.

Is it worth it that our government only ends up representing half of the electorate in Provincial parliament? And possibly even less considering the flaws of FPTP. Perhaps 30% of the legislature being PR is too high, but I think some degree of PR is necessary in parliament if we want a truly representative government.

I understand your arguments and they're very valid points, but I'll have to respectfully disagree. You've proved your point that you made an educated choice in the referendum, but I think there is an alternate view to this.

[Benn]

Bruce_the_vii wrote:

One problem with Proportional Representation is it tends to minority governments and coalitions which give power to marginal agendas - like the Greens in Germany.

And things are working just fine there, one of the largest economies in the world today and a decade from now. Decisions made quicker there in parliament than here even, at least they were when I lived there for a number of years.