2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Yeah, know what? I don't like people that think they're rich telling me how to vote, nevermind how tax dollars should be spent.

As it happened anyhow, I don't think you or other posters on here that claim to be left-wing succeeded at all in convincing others to vote... NDP?

Well then why are you so concerned that the cons don't have any major projects for the west?

Are you implying that I think I'm rich? That is laughable and just shows that you have never met me and know nothing about me at all.

Secondly, I don't claim to be left-wing or a supporter of the NDP. I think I said that at lest a dozen times through this thread.

There are some projects in the West that could use federal funding, without question. With the widely regarded future of the economy in the west based largely in Fort McMurray how about a federal commitment to twin Hwy 63? Surely that is a major project that would benefit the West a great deal and should be built?

[sevenarms]

Originally Posted by Crazy Bacon Legs

Most people I hear advocate for a PR system, when questioned, have serious trouble describing what this entails. “Well, you get the number of seats equal to the percentage of votes.” How could anyone be against such a system? Fascists! Now I’m not saying all of you are in this boat, but I have seen from pretty specious arguments about why PR is all fairy dust and rainbows and our current system is evil and toxic. Let’s take a look at some of the bad things about everyone’s favorite, most democratic system ever: Proportional Representation!

• A PR system gives complete control to the party as to who its MPs would be. The list from which MPs are chosen is generated by the party elite, meaning that you will get a list of people who simply reflect the party leader’s views. These views will become entrenched and parties will be less likely to have a diversity of views. Everyone always votes how the leader wants. You can essentially do away with the House of Commons.

• PR is patronage politics at its worst. Many people dislike the Senate as an old boys’ club where failed-politician party hacks get cushy jobs with little or no effort (basically, if you can’t get elected enough times, you get a Senate seat!). The only difference if we adopt a PR system is now every party gets to do this for its MPs. Say what you will about our current crop of MPs, but some of them still fit the “maverick” bill and occasionally make politics interesting by actually speaking their minds. This will no longer occur. The 150 or so people who the party leader likes the most will be at the top of the PR list, and # 151-308 may be a token person to keep some faction of the party happy (they can be anyone, because they will not be elected). Anyone who gets the least bit out of line will find themselves well down the list in the next election. As I said above (and I’m serious) I question the need for a House of Commons at all if the party gets to choose who the representatives are.

• PR creates splintering and factions. In our current system, parties trend to the centre. This is a very good thing. If you run a party with a platform skewing too far to the left or right, you will lose support. In a PR system, it is much easier to have a successful “Christian White guys party” or “Communist Anarchist kill Capitalism” party. The result is that in a system where coalitions are more frequent, you get a disproportionate voice from amongst the extremists. This is not good for democracy. One might argue that if people want the kook parties to have seats then they should, but try telling me that when some party with very strange ideas holds the balance of power in the next government, and gets abortion outlawed or interracial marriage banned in exchange for the budget being passed.

• PR is not a panacea. Every democracy worth its salt that uses a PR system inevitably has a “hurdle” necessary to clear in order to get seats. This is to prevent people like me from creating the “Crazy Bacon Legs Party” and having one member on the list: me (I would totally do this). One person doesn’t need that much support nationally to get a seat, unless you make it a bit harder to do this. A smart system would have a hurdle between 5-10% in order to avoid these situations. The result would be that many parties, such as the Bloc or Green parties may not elect MPs. Find me a PR system in which the Green Party would have an equal or higher number of MPs than they do now. Paradoxically, a properly set up PR system with hurdles can be less representative if you get too many parties.
• A system with true representation for the voters, or a system with a reasonable hurdle to prevent fractional parties and ensure a system with some sort of shot of working. You can have one, but not both. If you’re going to have hurdles that prevent the one-person and other fringe parties from having seats, why did we go and ditch that old system where we had one Member of Parliament per riding again? I voted for the Raving Loony Monster party, and they still didn’t get a seat! That’s unfair and undemocratic!

• Our system was not designed to have the seats reflect the exact percentage of votes, any more than our system was set up so that the provinces would have the exact same populations. It’s a representative democracy based on having members in ridings. You have a local representative to ask for help with government, to petition, etc. Who do you write to in a pure PR system? The party you like most? The leader of that party? Who do the members represent, exactly? Do you think they’re going to waste time presenting that petition about angry local bison in a Toronto-centric House of Commons?

• PR seriously hurts low population areas. In a PR system, how much campaigning do you think would occur in Nunavut, for example? People in areas like that would be completely ignored (it’s already bad enough). Conversely, all the campaigning would take place in the largest population centres. Why waste time driving around small town Saskatchewan when all the votes are in Toronto? A candidate trying to get elected in small town Saskatchewan in the current system is far more likely to actually (a) be from there, and (b) actually campaign there (Note: this does not apply if you are trying to get elected in Quebec)

• There is nothing to prevent entire areas from having no representation. As with Nunavut, places like PEI, NWT, Yukon, and any small place would likely never get members. It is far better in every respect to simply gather people from the largest urban areas as they will attract the most votes. Your only hope is to cross your fingers that the Prime Minister happens to have a toady from PEI these days. In our current system, even if you don’t like the party affiliation of your MP, you have somebody to deal with if the Dept. of Veteran’s affairs screws up your pension. Furthermore, issues and projects required for small population centres have an even smaller chance of being addressed.

Anyhow, I hope this post might make some of the “PR is the best!” people stop and think that maybe, just maybe, PR is not democracy’s answer to the world. Think for a moment why modern representative democracy took the form it did. There is a lot of historical context to having a local representative who forms a small part of a larger government.

If we were to have some form of PR instituted, I would much prefer to have a mixed system, somewhat similar to Germany. An example: have 100 of the 308 seats elected by PR, with a 5% and 5 seat hurdle. So if a party wants seats in the 100 PR group, they need at least 5% of the vote and 5 riding seats, chosen by FPP. Then, choose party leaders, cabinet, shadow cabinets, etc. from the 100 PR seats. Then they don’t have to waste time pretending they can be regular MPs and cabinet ministers, and we still have FPP representatives in our ridings. You still run into problems with patronage and party hacks, but it would be better.

Here’s an even better solution: legally stop parties from kicking MPs out of the party. Once they are nominated, they are your person. Unless they commit a crime, you have to live with them. Put power back in the hands of the representatives instead of the party structure and I think you would find people would be a lot happier with the way the system works. People might actually pay attention to who their local candidates are. Imagine that!

I don’t pretend our current system is perfect. It’s not. I just think that people thinking a PR system would automatically be better are naïve at best.

By the way, I know you didn't read this post. It's too long, and it's easier to just believe what you've heard vague references to. Politics is boring!

tl;dr: Your system sucks, mine is better.

Awesome read, thanks.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Shazam

You're out of your mind. Even Liberal party supporters said that they moved too far left. And even Lib party members!

Hell, I agree with that. But they are still the most centrist party in Canada (and would actually be in a great position under rep-by-pop, they'd be kingmakers).

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by SebC

Hell, I agree with that. But they are still the most centrist party in Canada (and would actually be in a great position under rep-by-pop, they'd be kingmakers).

Just because they have a position in between two other parties doesn't mean they are centrist. Everyone and their dog recognizes that the Liberal party has moved way too far left.

I think the CPC is clearly occupying the middle of the political spectrum. If you believe Canadians vote for the centre, they certainly supported the CP platform much more than any other party.

[troutman]

Pros and cons of proportional representation
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/48811,...al-reform-vote

Pros and cons of MMP
http://www.thestar.com/OntarioElection/article/252176


http://www.democracy-building.info/voting-systems.html

There are basically two systems in parliamentary elections,
- the Majority Election System
- the Proportional Representation System.
Both systems do have advantages and shortcomings and there is no generally accepted preference. Two important points to be considered are equal and just influence of every vote on the electoral result and stability of the political system.

[Devils'Advocate]

If you are on the right, you think the Conservatives are centerists.
If you are on the left, you think the Liberals are centerists.

I don't think "everyone and their dog" think the Liberal party is too far to the left.. in fact many people voted NDP because the Liberal party isn't far enough to the left. I know I sure as hell would never vote for the Liberal party since they are too far to the right. Actually, what bothers me is that they always CAMPAIGN on the left (promises of nationalized daycare), then LEGISLATE to the right (ie the cuts by Paul Martin).

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

If you are on the right, you think the Conservatives are centerists.
If you are on the left, you think the Liberals are centerists.

I don't think "everyone and their dog" think the Liberal party is too far to the left.. in fact many people voted NDP because the Liberal party isn't far enough to the left. I know I sure as hell would never vote for the Liberal party since they are too far to the right. Actually, what bothers me is that they always CAMPAIGN on the left (promises of nationalized daycare), then LEGISLATE to the right (ie the cuts by Paul Martin).

Aside from their positions on Afghanistan, what was the difference between the Liberal and NDP platforms in this election?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

If you are on the right, you think the Conservatives are centerists.
If you are on the left, you think the Liberals are centerists.

I don't think "everyone and their dog" think the Liberal party is too far to the left.. in fact many people voted NDP because the Liberal party isn't far enough to the left. I know I sure as hell would never vote for the Liberal party since they are too far to the right. Actually, what bothers me is that they always CAMPAIGN on the left (promises of nationalized daycare), then LEGISLATE to the right (ie the cuts by Paul Martin).

Quite true, though the Liberals, by admission of one of their staffers, at least, tried to run a very left campaign this time around in a bid to marginalize the NDP. It backfired. End result: expect the Liberals to back to a centrist position next time around.

As far as PR goes, a PR based house would be fine... coupled with a EEE Senate with equal seats for all provinces. But the risk with two equal houses is the potential for a kind of paralysis that occasionally bogs down the US system.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Quite true, though the Liberals, by admission of one of their staffers, at least, tried to run a very left campaign this time around in a bid to marginalize the NDP. It backfired. End result: expect the Liberals to back to a centrist position next time around.

I think that is exactly what happened. They tried to out NDP the NDP when they should've tried to out conservative the conservatives....if that makes sense.

[Resolute 14]

It does, and yes.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Just because they have a position in between two other parties doesn't mean they are centrist. Everyone and their dog recognizes that the Liberal party has moved way too far left.

I think the CPC is clearly occupying the middle of the political spectrum. If you believe Canadians vote for the centre, they certainly supported the CP platform much more than any other party.

Why would you believe Canadians vote for the centre? I believe Canadians vote for the party closest to them, and that it is reasonable to define the centre based on what party the median voter voted for. That is debateable, but it is certainly better than saying the centre is the party that won a plurality of the popular vote. And, whilst people have argued against my method of defining the centre, I have yet to see anyone offer an alternative that is better.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

As far as PR goes, a PR based house would be fine... coupled with a EEE Senate with equal seats for all provinces. But the risk with two equal houses is the potential for a kind of paralysis that occasionally bogs down the US system.

Why the heck should PEI count for as much as Alberta? Equal seats for all provinces is actually pretty ridiculous.

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think that is exactly what happened. They tried to out NDP the NDP when they should've tried to out conservative the conservatives....if that makes sense.

ya I don't understand it, that and having two former NDP premiers in the party

most of their members are in the center with a lean to the right economically, not center-left

it was a poor strategy

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by SebC

Why would you believe Canadians vote for the centre? I believe Canadians vote for the party closest to them, and that it is reasonable to define the centre based on what party the median voter voted for. That is debateable, but it is certainly better than saying the centre is the party that won a plurality of the popular vote. And, whilst people have argued against my method of defining the centre, I have yet to see anyone offer an alternative that is better.

Well, knowing full well that it is impossible to align any party on a true two dimensional ideological spectrum, I think saying there is anything such as a 'median voter' is difficult to prove.

Thus, assuming the majority of Canadian voters track towards a centrist position (as evidenced by most federal elections), you can easily assume that whichever party recieved the largest percentage of the popular vote is most likely to offer a centrist basket of policies, whether they be economic, social or both.

Thus, the Conservative Party would be the most centrist party in the last election, squeezing out the liberals to be nothing more than weak imitiation of the rather extreme leftleaning NDP.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by SebC

Why would you believe Canadians vote for the centre? I believe Canadians vote for the party closest to them, and that it is reasonable to define the centre based on what party the median voter voted for. That is debateable, but it is certainly better than saying the centre is the party that won a plurality of the popular vote. And, whilst people have argued against my method of defining the centre, I have yet to see anyone offer an alternative that is better.

I believe there is a lot of overlap between parties and the perceived bias of each party, and as such, just measuring political parties as if there is hard line between each one is entirely incorrect.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by SebC

Why the heck should PEI count for as much as Alberta? Equal seats for all provinces is actually pretty ridiculous.

PEI is amazingly overrepresented at present. My ideal solution would actually diminish PEI's power relative to Alberta.

In any PR based house, I think the divisions should be by province, not overall national vote. I also think that seats per province should be directly by population. So, at roughly 1 seat in the HOC per 100,000 population, PEI would go down to 1 MP, while Alberta would go up to 37. In an even house, say five Senators per province, Alberta would lose one, and PEI gain one.

Net total would be 42 representatives for Alberta, and six for PEI, a change from 34 for Alberta and eight for PEI at present. When you look at the two houses in conjunction, Alberta would hold seven times the power PEI does.

The problem with uneven representation in the Senate is that collects the power in the most populated region of the country, exactly as it does in the lower house. With an even Senate, a party could not simply dominate Ontario to form government. It would have to hold a national agenda. PEI will always be overrepresented, but I think this way is better overall.

[Resolute 14]

I'd also add that Chretien and Martin had a habit of leaving Alberta Senate seats vacant for years at a time, so in truth, PEI has typically already held equivalent power to Alberta in the Senate for large swaths of time. Harper, likewise, has left seats vacant for unnecessary periods of time himself.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

PEI is amazingly overrepresented at present. My ideal solution would actually diminish PEI's power relative to Alberta.

In any PR based house, I think the divisions should be by province, not overall national vote. I also think that seats per province should be directly by population. So, at roughly 1 seat in the HOC per 100,000 population, PEI would go down to 1 MP, while Alberta would go up to 37. In an even house, say five Senators per province, Alberta would lose one, and PEI gain one.

Net total would be 42 representatives for Alberta, and six for PEI, a change from 34 for Alberta and eight for PEI at present. When you look at the two houses in conjunction, Alberta would hold seven times the power PEI does.

There's a flaw in your math because MPs and Senators don't have equal influence.

Assuming a fixed rate of 1 MP/100k population as you propose, the HoC would have 337 MPs based on the current national population of 33.7 million. Each individual MP therefore has 1/337 voting power in the House, or roughly 0.3% of the total. If every province was equally granted 5 senators, then each individual senator has 2% of the total vote. Thus in terms of ability to influence legislation, a senator has as much power as 6.66 MPs (I'm assuming bills are passed by a simple 50% + 1 majority in both chambers).

So if PEI had 1 MP and 5 Senators, the province's total power in the House+Senate would be the equivalent of 34.3 MPs ((6.66 * 5) + 1). If Alberta had 5 Senators and 37 MPs, their total power is the equivalent of 70.3 MPs ((6.66 * 5) + 37), giving Alberta merely twice the overall influence in the House+Senate as tiny PEI.

[Resolute 14]

Fair point, though I think that analysis is also flawed. In the HoC, PEI's 1 MP would hold virtually no power, but Alberta's 37 would hold 10% of the house. So Alberta would have 10% of both houses, while PEI would have 10% of one, and virtually nothing of the other.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Crazy Bacon Legs

A lot of really well thought out and reasonable responses..

probably, no not probably, but is, the best post in this whole thread.

Well done.