Election reform - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

jolinar of malkshor · 05-30-2006, 05:45 PM

It only took since 1867 to get fixed election dates. Its a step in the right direction. Lets just tackle that Senate now.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...ion-dates.html

Azure · 05-30-2006, 05:56 PM

Harper is moving fast.

Very good idea.

CaramonLS · 05-30-2006, 05:59 PM

About damned time, a good step in the right direction.

Resolute 14 · 05-30-2006, 06:03 PM

The Senate requires a massive makeover, but restricting Senators to eight year terms is a good one. That alone greatly diminishes the value of the current patronage appointments that the Senate is most famous for.

jolinar of malkshor · 05-30-2006, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

The Senate requires a massive makeover, but restricting Senators to eight year terms is a good one. That alone greatly diminishes the value of the current patronage appointments that the Senate is most famous for.

Just a question. You have a very good point, so, do you think he will stop there and leave well enough alone?

CaramonLS · 05-30-2006, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Just a question. You have a very good point, so, do you think he will stop there and leave well enough alone?

I believe Harper is a supporter of the EEE senate, which includes electing senators.

So no, I don't believe he is done yet.

Resolute 14 · 05-30-2006, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Just a question. You have a very good point, so, do you think he will stop there and leave well enough alone?

I think he will, simply because he lacks the power to do much more. The real changes the Senate needs (EEE) require a constitutional ammendment. I dont think enough provinces are on board with the need for an overhaul yet.

rubecube · 05-30-2006, 07:30 PM

Now if only we could get some form proportional representation...

jolinar of malkshor · 05-30-2006, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubecube

Now if only we could get some form proportional representation...

Do you thinkit should be all proportional or half and half.

FireFly · 05-30-2006, 09:59 PM

I once created my own form of electoral system.... I made it up while writing an exam too... Got an A on the exam so it couldn't have been a horrible idea. It's a form of MMP where the 'top-up' seats go to those with the highest % of votes while still losing their seat. For example, if the Green party gets 5% of the vote for a total of 15 seats, we would start with the fictitious 'Joe Schmo' from Burnaby who won 12% of the votes in his riding, and give him a seat. Then we'd move to 'Harry Larry' from Kenora with 11.75% of the votes in his riding, and give him a seat... and so on and so forth until there is proportional representation. If that makes any sense.

calculoso · 05-30-2006, 10:01 PM

I think the first step in getting a EEE is to word it something like this:

"If provinces have passed Senate Election laws, the senators for that province will be elected. If provinces have not passed Senate Election laws, the current system will remain in effect." (with better / more specific wording on the current system part)

calculoso · 05-30-2006, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireFly

I once created my own form of electoral system.... I made it up while writing an exam too... Got an A on the exam so it couldn't have been a horrible idea. It's a form of MMP where the 'top-up' seats go to those with the highest % of votes while still losing their seat. For example, if the Green party gets 5% of the vote for a total of 15 seats, we would start with the fictitious 'Joe Schmo' from Burnaby who won 12% of the votes in his riding, and give him a seat. Then we'd move to 'Harry Larry' from Kenora with 11.75% of the votes in his riding, and give him a seat... and so on and so forth until there is proportional representation. If that makes any sense.

That's kind of a cool idea, but would need tweaking. Those in a tough race (against tougher opponents) wouldn't get seats but those basically acclaimed due to weak opponents are guaranteed seats.

How about something where all the "winners" of ridings get seats along with the top percentage of losers (based on the proportional representation you describe above)? It'd be a combination of what we have now and a more true representational system.

jolinar of malkshor · 05-30-2006, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calculoso

I think the first step in getting a EEE is to word it something like this:

"If provinces have passed Senate Election laws, the senators for that province will be elected. If provinces have not passed Senate Election laws, the current system will remain in effect." (with better / more specific wording on the current system part)

Thats a good idea but you would have to trust the feds to abide by it.

calculoso · 05-30-2006, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Thats a good idea but you would have to trust the feds to abide by it.

If they put that in the constitution, they won't have much of a choice.

Word it like I did, and I'd hope that most provinces would be on board. It'd give them control over their senate seats... something I'd think would appeal to most of them.

evman150 · 05-30-2006, 10:56 PM

The Senate is a zoo, I'm glad they're doing something about that. But changing things electorally....I'm not a fan of.

Non-fixed election dates have worked for 140 years, why change now? Because it suits the Tories? It's not an issue I'm going to get emotional over, but it stinks of "USA". Im surprised Harper didn't set the date to be first Tuesday in November or whatever it is. Next thing you know he'll be switching to the electoral college.

calculoso · 05-30-2006, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evman150

Non-fixed election dates have worked for 140 years, why change now? Because it suits the Tories?

It allows the current incumbent party to take advantage of the opposition parties, and it part of the reason why there are long periods of time between party shifts. The constant power leads to corruption, as has been seen with Mulroney and Chretien / Martin (and possibly some before them as well).

If there's a greater risk of losing the election, by allowing the opposition to better prepare for an election, I would hope that it would allow the party in power to be more accountable...

FireFly · 05-30-2006, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calculoso

That's kind of a cool idea, but would need tweaking. Those in a tough race (against tougher opponents) wouldn't get seats but those basically acclaimed due to weak opponents are guaranteed seats.

How about something where all the "winners" of ridings get seats along with the top percentage of losers (based on the proportional representation you describe above)? It'd be a combination of what we have now and a more true representational system.

That's what I'm talking about... You have the 'winners' of the seats get their seat, and then you 'top-up' or even it out using the top losers for each party.

Let's say that the Conservatives get 45% of the vote, but 65% of the seats... well, now you need to 'top up' the other parties so their respective share of the vote matches their share of the seats. However, you do it using the best of the losers to encourage people to vote for the candidate as well... So all those in Rob Anders riding get together and elect Rob Anders, but the Green candidate gets 20% of the vote, he's also likely to be a 'top up' seat getter. That's what I meant by MMP... mixed-member proportional. You have the regularly elected members and then the others. Similar to how the Germans do it, however, I think using the best of the losers is better than having a list system, it makes the ballot easier to read and it's easier to count instead of having to list off your top 100 picks. Who really wants to do that?

FireFly · 05-30-2006, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evman150

The Senate is a zoo, I'm glad they're doing something about that. But changing things electorally....I'm not a fan of.

Non-fixed election dates have worked for 140 years, why change now? Because it suits the Tories? It's not an issue I'm going to get emotional over, but it stinks of "USA". Im surprised Harper didn't set the date to be first Tuesday in November or whatever it is. Next thing you know he'll be switching to the electoral college.

Holy overreaction batman, a lot of countries have fixed election dates. Why change now? Because the Liberals would never do it because it's not something that helps the governing party. Same with changing the system to a PR type system... it doesn't help the governing party. The governing party gets and stays in power because of the system... this way they'll stay in power in spite of it. The Liberals have been calling elections when it's good for them for a very long time. Instead of waiting until your polls are at an all-time high, it's nice to know that you HAVE to call an election whether you want to or not.

FlamesAddiction · 05-30-2006, 11:39 PM

I'm not sure what the big deal is whether there is an exact date, or if the ruling party just has to have an election within a reasonable time frame. Either way, politicians will plan their agenda around the most opportunistic times. If anything, a set date can force issues that should otherwise be given more time.

On the senate; I can see the validity of an elected senate and a non-elected senate. The senate we have now may not be elected, but they also have very nominal power. It's really just a forum. And the fact it is appointed ensures that people from some minority groups that have little chance of ever being elected, but deserve to be involved in the politics of the country, can be involved.

What would be the point of an elected senate if it just has the same representation of parliament anyway? Unless the Senate is based on the popular vote, as opposed to parliament which is not... that might work.

Bobblehead · 05-31-2006, 08:48 AM

I'm against an elected senate. I see no purpose - we already have an elected assembly.

I like the idea of the senate as a group that provides a mechanism to prevent any ruling party from railroading questionable legislation through the house, sort of a "concience" or "sober second thought".

I would like a way to discourage party affiliation in the senate. Term limits are a good idea (8 or 10 years). Mandatory attendance. And I could support a mechanism to appoint a portion of the members who are nominated by the respective region/province, whatever that nomination process may be (i.e. Alberta senator election if that is was AB wants).

But I would like to see the upper house able to evaluate legislation on its merits without using it as an issue to play politics.