Proportional Representation

[Flames Draft Watcher]

I almost never hear this issue discussed.

Does no one else have a problem with the idea that a constituency can elect someone with let's say 40% of the vote and that person is supposed to represent the constituency when the majority of the constituency didn't vote for him/her? Does no one have a problem with the fact that thousands upon thousands are voting for parties that have no representation? Does no one have the problem with the fact that the percentage of the population that votes for parties doesn't come anywhere close to equalling the percentage that get voted in? Is it fair that 15% of province could vote for a party and that party get zero seats to represent that province? Of course not.

I hear a lot of griping about the big two parties. The current first past the pole system just reinforces their power. If we want real alternatives, if we want them to be accountable there needs to be a real threat that we can vote a different direction and actually push them out if they do not please us. The current system does not do this.

I think proportional representation would go a long way to helping out voter apathy and I think it would help reduce the current regionalism of the parties.

Is it a problem of education? Is your average Canadian not aware of this? Or do they not understand this? I'm curious to know. IMO this is a HUGE issue, one of the most important issues in politics in Canada today. I think there should be a public outcry about this issue. Does anyone else feel the same?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

You would need complete cooperation between parties, and it would be all but impossible to get a majority government. we would be going to the polls every other year at the best of times, and the stories of the past couple weeks would be happening all the time in Canadian politics, as they are much more cut-throat than those of Sweden for instance which uses proportional representation.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

this topic was discuessed ALOT and incredibly indepth last election.

I'm not a fan, as it concentrates power by region even moreso. You think Ontario has alot of power now... wait until you get a minority govenment with 80% of the representitive from Ontario and Quebec.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

So nobody cares it their vote counts or not Fotze?

I would have to think Canadians are smarter and more informed than that. Hopefully the NDP can make this a higher profile issue. Obviously it's not in the best interests of the Conservative or Liberal parties.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

In principle I don't like proportional representation. It does nothing to build consensus at the grassroots level, and encourages people to live at the political fringes.

But, forcing people to work within the system and make it better only works if people actually particpate and get involved. They don't.

I don't think proportional representation would improve things at all - lazy people won't be any less lazy - but I'd be much more willing to explore it now than 10 years ago.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Maritime Q-Scout@May 4 2005, 05:59 PM
this topic was discuessed ALOT and incredibly indepth last election.

I'm not a fan, as it concentrates power by region even moreso. You think Ontario has alot of power now... wait until you get a minority govenment with 80% of the representitive from Ontario and Quebec.

Strange I think the opposite would occur. Ontario and Quebec won't be voting 100% Liberal. Some will vote Conservative, some will vote Green, some NDP, some BLOC and Liberal. Perhaps some would vote for new parties that would spring up because they'd actually have a chance to win a seat.

Right now you have Ontario dominated by Libs and the West dominated by Conservatives. This causes a lot of the regionalism. If you have the liberals and conservatives diluted in both areas and a lot more minority opinions, I would think this would diffuse some of the heavy regionalism currently in the Conservative and Liberal parties. People could vote their conscience in terms of political ideologies instead of being dominated by the regional majority and that being the focus.

[MarchHare]

Proportional representation means the end to ever having a majority government (and the stability it brings, for better or worse) again.

It probably hurts the Conservatives and BQ more than anything...the Liberals can move themselves a bit to the left and attempt a coalition government with the NDP. The CPC doesn't really have an ally at all, and nobody would ever align with the Bloc.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@May 4 2005, 05:58 PM
You would need complete cooperation between parties, and it would be all but impossible to get a majority government. we would be going to the polls every other year at the best of times, and the stories of the past couple weeks would be happening all the time in Canadian politics, as they are much more cut-throat than those of Sweden for instance which uses proportional representation.

Hard to say. Obviously majority gov'ts would be unlikely. But I see that as a good thing.

I think political parties can co-operate and work together. The current system does not reinforce that idea much because of the intense regionalism. But I think a lot of those problems go away with proportional representation.

Obviously it's just speculation. But it would be nice to see if it does work better because we all know the current system isn't doing a great job of representing everyone's interests.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by MarchHare@May 4 2005, 06:05 PM
It probably hurts the Conservatives and BQ more than anything...the Liberals can move themselves a bit to the left and attempt a coalition government with the NDP. The CPC doesn't really have an ally at all, and nobody would ever align with the Bloc.

It would hurt the BLOC most of all.

I think the CPC would be forced to reinvent itself to not make such a big deal about it's powerbase. A return to it's ideologies. It would obviously lose support in the west and gain a bit more support in Ontario, perhaps even the maritimes.

The Libs would lose support in Ontario and probably gain everywhere else. Thus helping to diffuse the regionalism of the current parties.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Bend it like Bourgeois@May 4 2005, 06:03 PM
In principle I don't like proportional representation. It does nothing to build consensus at the grassroots level, and encourages people to live at the political fringes.

But, forcing people to work within the system and make it better only works if people actually particpate and get involved. They don't.

I don't think proportional representation would improve things at all - lazy people won't be any less lazy - but I'd be much more willing to explore it now than 10 years ago.

I'm not sure it boils down to people being lazy. I know my generation is very apathetic about politics. But I think the biggest reason this is because we have no voice. We go into an election knowing that Alberta will be awash in Tory blue and that any attempt to vote a different direction does next to nothing. This causes voter apathy. This causes disillusionment with politics.

I think if people knew their votes would count then they would take more of an interest.

I'm curious how you think it would build consensus at the grassroots level, I would like a more in-depth explanation of that.

As for the political fringes, I think proportional representation would give us a greater number of legitimate parties to vote for and thus a greater representation of people's beliefs. Sure some will vote on the fringe. But I see that as healthy. Having differing opinions is a positive IMO.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+May 4 2005, 11:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ May 4 2005, 11:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bend it like Bourgeois@May 4 2005, 06:03 PM
In principle I don't like proportional representation. It does nothing to build consensus at the grassroots level, and encourages people to live at the political fringes.

But, forcing people to work within the system and make it better only works if people actually particpate and get involved. They don't.

I don't think proportional representation would improve things at all - lazy people won't be any less lazy - but I'd be much more willing to explore it now than 10 years ago.

I'm not sure it boils down to people being lazy. I know my generation is very apathetic about politics. But I think the biggest reason this is because we have no voice. We go into an election knowing that Alberta will be awash in Tory blue and that any attempt to vote a different direction does next to nothing. This causes voter apathy. This causes disillusionment with politics.

I think if people knew their votes would count then they would take more of an interest.

I'm curious how you think it would build consensus at the grassroots level, I would like a more in-depth explanation of that.

As for the political fringes, I think proportional representation would give us a greater number of legitimate parties to vote for and thus a greater representation of people's beliefs. Sure some will vote on the fringe. But I see that as healthy. Having differing opinions is a positive IMO. [/b][/quote]
Alberta's a good example. Before it was awash in Tory blue i think the tories had 2 seats. Nationally we've seen the tories do something similar, in this case fall equally hard going down to 2 seats.

So change can happen within the current system. If it doesn't now is that because people are jaded? I guess, but ultimately things only change when people make things change.

I call it lazy because lots of people want things to be different, but almost no one wants to actually make that happen. But I'll freely admit I'm cynical as hell these days so don't get bogged down in my wording.

My concern with the fringes is they are not just right and left fringes, but single issue fringes. Like the Bloc magnified. Imagine the Alberta BSE party. The newfoundland fishermans party. The private health care party. The public auto insurance party. Ridiculous examples but there would be some real ones.

Right now we have a few independant candidates holding the balance of power in Parliament, and all kinds of political manuevering is going on. Imagine of those candidates were from the Aboriginal Succession party, or the Anti-Abortion party. What then?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Bend it like Bourgeois@May 4 2005, 07:33 PM
My concern with the fringes is they are not just right and left fringes, but single issue fringes. Like the Bloc magnified. Imagine the Alberta BSE party. The newfoundland fishermans party. The private health care party. The public auto insurance party. Ridiculous examples but there would be some real ones.

Right now we have a few independant candidates holding the balance of power in Parliament, and all kinds of political manuevering is going on. Imagine of those candidates were from the Aboriginal Succession party, or the Anti-Abortion party. What then?

Do you think a BSE party would get enough province wide support to hold multiple seats? If there's one MP who can get elected on a BSE campaign and all that MP does is lobby for it, all the power to them IMO. It gives those people a voice. I tend to think people will vote for a greater package of values though. For example some pro-weed legatlization voters will vote the marijuana party (whose platform is basically non-existent outside of legalization), but I would think the majority would vote for a party that agrees with their stance on legalization plus actually addresses some other issues.

As for the independants now and the role and power they have, do you not think that's as a result of the domination of the current parties we have and the precarious coalitions that can be created? Do you not think that their role would be far different in a parliament that has 10 parties with no party being close to forming a majority government?

One independant can hold the power when it's a precarious perch between 2, 3 or 4 big parties. They become insignificant in power when coalitions can be more easily shifter under a system that promotes more parties.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/B...ng/howprwor.htm

There's some information on various proportional representation systems and some of their strengths.

Sounds like Germany, Bolivia, Venezuela, Wales, New Zealand, Hungary and Scotland use a method (according to this link anyway) called mixed member proportional voting where you vote for both a candidate and a party separately.

Some interesting reading for sure.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

One independant can hold the power when it's a precarious perch between 2, 3 or 4 big parties. They become insignificant in power when coalitions can be more easily shifter under a system that promotes more parties.

Fair point. You're probably right.

If there's one MP who can get elected on a BSE campaign and all that MP does is lobby for it, all the power to them IMO.

Thats where I struggle. I don't think single issue politics is constructive. And if a single issue candidate is obstinate, like Michael O'Malley in Calgary, things can be downright destructive.

I guess I think we can do better than what proportional representation offers. But I'm not convinced we actually are doing any better.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in BC. In the other thread you said you were looking for more info. You might find this handy.

Single Transferable Vote

[Thunderball]

I just finished a course on electoral systems of advanced industrial states, and I can say with confidence that I am not sure a PR system would work for Canada.

Firstly, PR creates minority governments something like 75% of the time... minority governments are unstable, as we have seen. Italy is actually heading back towards the FPTP system because PR is too unstable for them.

Secondly, Canadian politics aren't mature enough for that system. That isn't a shot at the age of the country, but at the mentality of politicians. Liberals and Conservatives seem too icy to one another to ever form a governing coalition, and everyone in our system seems too content on hampering the government to make it work long term, unless the governing party radically alters its policies. If you're a Blue Liberal, are you gonna be happy with a NDP-Lib coalition? Thats not what you voted for.

Thirdly, many academics have said that STV and PR are too complicated for the average Canadian. While I think this is a glib comment, it holds merit. Voting for several candidates or parties, and watching the results unfold in a complicated mathematical process, like the D'Hondt formula, might be too much for the average person to comprehend. If people don't understand what is going on, they tend to not want to participate, and voting has dropped quite a bit in the past 40 years, and making it worse is not recommended.

Fourthly, people hate the Bloc and the old Reform Party for being too regional? Guess what you're gonna get with PR? Lots of regional parties. PR really fosters these guys... right now in Italy the Northern League (Northern Separartion/Nationalistic Party) is part of Berlusconi's "Forza Italia", dictating policy. We'd logically have the same here, and thats not good for our national unity. With our struggles with regionalism (and I'll say I'm one of the regionalists) mean that we need national parties that speak to everyone, not regions, and thats a problem now, that will spiral out of control should we switch to PR.

I could probably think of a few more reasons, but I should get back to work.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

I'd say the US electoral college is as complicated as PR and yet an entire country seems to grasp the majority of it. I don't think Canadians are too stupid to understand it, it seems to be working in many other countries.

Does anyone who what percentage of democracies in the world employ proportional representation in one form or another?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Thunderball@May 4 2005, 08:27 PM
Firstly, PR creates minority governments something like 75% of the time... minority governments are unstable, as we have seen.

Well the minority governments formed under the current electoral system have proven to be unstable. This doesn't necessarily mean they would be unstable under the new system. One would have to look at why the current system can be unstable, what motivations there are for having a non-confidence vote, etc. Would be this be changed under a system that promotes more parties and less of a share for the biggest ones? Probably a debate for an entire thread

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Thunderball@May 4 2005, 08:27 PM
Fourthly, people hate the Bloc and the old Reform Party for being too regional? Guess what you're gonna get with PR? Lots of regional parties. PR really fosters these guys... right now in Italy the Northern League (Northern Separartion/Nationalistic Party) is part of Berlusconi's "Forza Italia", dictating policy. We'd logically have the same here, and thats not good for our national unity. With our struggles with regionalism (and I'll say I'm one of the regionalists) mean that we need national parties that speak to everyone, not regions, and thats a problem now, that will spiral out of control should we switch to PR.

This point seems to be a big one for a lot of problem. The issue for me is that I don't believe that would be the case (although I could very well be wrong.)

Let's look at things specifically now. Currently Ontario is heavy Liberal, Alberta is heavy Tory and Quebec is heavy BLOC. Under proportional representation all those parties would lose seats in their main provinces due to the smaller parties getting their fair share of the seats. Additionally the Liberals and Conservatives would probably gain ground across the country because they are a minority in other regions.

End result? BLOC just loses because nobody outside Quebec would vote for them. Conservatives and Liberals see their powerbase spread out more and become less centralized in one province or region. Conservatives would gain ground in Ontario and the Maritimes while losing ground in Alberta. Liberals would gain ground in the west and lose in Ontario. NDP would just gain ground all around.

Thus I believe proportional representation would actually help us with our regionalism problem. The power base of the parties would be less regional and more national and thus they couldn't cater as much to regional issues? Am I missing something? Is there a flaw in my logic?

[Tron_fdc]

Isn't this what the "Triple E" senate was supposed to do? Equal, elected, effective representation from all regions of Canada? And didn't the Liberals kill that when they took over from the Conservatives in the 90's? I'm going back quite a few years here, but I do remember something about it.

I also remember reading somewhere that if the USA was governed by proportional representation the West Coast would elect the governement, much the same way The East does in Canada. I'm far too lazy to look that up though....anyone ever hear this?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Tron_fdc@May 4 2005, 09:25 PM
Isn't this what the "Triple E" senate was supposed to do?

I'm talking about proportional representation when voting for members of parliament, not for the senate.

I emailed Jack Layton on the issues (since his party is obviously the ones who are going to be most concerned about it since they get the shaft under the current system) and he sent me back a very interesting link from a speech by one of his MP's to Queen's university students.

http://www.edbroadbent.ca/en/abouted/publi...oral_reform.htm

I would encourage everyone remotely interested in this topic to give some or all of that a read. It talks specifically about western alienation, the NEP, how our current system reinforces the regionalism in politics that we are all sick of.