[Canadaka]

I am on the fence about Proportional Representation i could be swayed either way. Here is some info.

Quote:

If we had proportional representation the break down would have looked something like this:

There were 13,832,972 votes cast.
Divided by 308 seats available
Equals 44912 votes per seat

Bloc 1,379,565 votes = 31 seats
Conservative 5,205,334 votes = 116 seats
Green Party 940,747 votes = 21 seats
Independent 89,524 votes = 2 seats
Liberal 3,629,990 votes = 81 seats
NDP 2,517,075 votes =56 seats

=307 seats
The last seat would depend on the system of proportional representation Canada voted for. It would in all likely hood also go to the Conservatives.

Right now the break down is like this:

Bloc: 50 seats
Conservative: 143 seats
Independent: 2 seats
Liberal: 76 seats
NDP: 37 seats

Seems fair to me. And one of the criticisms is not being locally represented, but i dont think its very strong arguement. How often does your Local MP actualy bring up local issues in Ottawa and how often do they vote any different than the party as a whole, not very.


BC is having a 2nd vote on wether to adopt an STV system, which could pave the way for the rest of Canada.
http://www.fairvote.ca/en/bc-electoral- ... ay-12-2009

Quote:

On May 12, 2009, British Columbians will vote again on whether to adopt the BC-STV system proposed by their Citizens’ Assembly. In the 2005 referendum, nearly 58% voted Yes. This time, we’re very well positioned to exceed the 60% threshold.

More info: http://www.stv.ca/join

They have a nice flash animation that really explains how the system works
http://www.stv.ca/watch

[llama66]

that actually sounds quite interesting. lets see what happens.

[dino_bobba_renno]

The only problem I can think of with a PR system is it tends to lend itself to electing minority governments.

[Bruce_the_vii]

You know the democratic system is a very blunt instrument. You are faced with the mix of the leader, the platform and the local representative as a choice, for each party. In the last few decades Canadians just rotated the Ins with the Outs anyway. PR would produce minorities which would make king makers of marginal parties. It's not an easy fix.

[2Cdo]

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

The only problem I can think of with a PR system is it tends to lend itself to electing minority governments.

With 4 parties running nationwide and 1 separtist party I think it will be quite some time before we see a majority government anytime soon.

[Bruce_the_vii]

As an Ontarioian I was not aware of the BC stv vote. I clicked on the link and the site does not explain what stv is. So what is it?

[Wullu]

Have all the PR system ya want. Just as soon as we get it narrowed down to two partys. Everytime anyone thinks of PR and the coalition govt it demands just remind yourself to google Italian politics from the 60's on.

You think elections every two or three years are bad? Try two or three a year during some periods there.

[EyeBrock]

lily wrote:

The STV system is better than proportional representation, because it's more representative of each ridings wishes.

We almost passed it when we voted on it last time. I was surprised at the support it got, considering most people didn't really understand it. Kamloops was the only area to give it less than 50% support, and even then, they voted high 40s.

I agree Lily. With PR you really lose local accountability.
I like the fact that in my neck of the woods, the candidates have to fight for each riding. I've met my MP several times and he sorted out an issue with property stuff when he was my City councillor. If he wasn’t involved my vote would have gone elsewhere.

[Wayne Smith]

STV is proportional representation.

http://stv.ca

[Wayne Smith]

Also check out:

http://FairVote.Ca

[martin14]

bad idea, gives too much influence to fringe parties,
makes extremists into kingmakers,
encourages way too much populism and hero worhip,
removes local accountability,
will really increase corruption and vote buying.


lily's all star list seems ok, but in reality it doesnt work.

last.. basic requirements on PR is 5% vote, means
any idiot with a big soapbox can get 5%.

we will start to see so many regional and one issue parties.
the Bloc is already too much.

I live in a PR system, it works badly, more set up for beginning
democracies, not stable and adult democracies like we have.

[saturn_656]

lily wrote:

The benefit is that one riding may have 3 reps, which could be all one party, or it could be a mix. THe example in the one link above gave my riding 2 Libs, 2 NDP and 1 independant for that provincial election, which is more representative of the riding than the Libs who represent it (them) now.

You couldn't fit that many MP's in the House of Commons. Full stop.

We'd have to build a new Parliament... and pay a few hundred more MP's salaries.

[2Cdo]

Rev? Yoo hoo Rev. You out there Rev? Where'd you go?

This topic should be right up his alley but his team got spanked and we probably won't see him until the next election.

[saturn_656]

My misguided friend is probably face down in an alley somewhere cuddling with a bottle of JD.

[MacDonaill]

EyeBrock wrote:

lily wrote:

The STV system is better than proportional representation, because it's more representative of each ridings wishes.

We almost passed it when we voted on it last time. I was surprised at the support it got, considering most people didn't really understand it. Kamloops was the only area to give it less than 50% support, and even then, they voted high 40s.

I agree Lily. With PR you really lose local accountability.
I like the fact that in my neck of the woods, the candidates have to fight for each riding. I've met my MP several times and he sorted out an issue with property stuff when he was my City councillor. If he wasn’t involved my vote would have gone elsewhere.

I've met my MP several times too, doesn't mean I don't think he's a reprehensible separatist bastard. And what's more, he was elected by a minority of the electors when you think about it, so he's not really representing the riding at all.

FPTP only works in a two-party system, and two-party systems suck balls, to put it bluntly. How can two parties represent the entire spectrum of political ideas? It's impossible. You talk about voter apathy.