Electoral reform in Canada

[Pileon]

I was following along with some of the comments in the Stronach thread and noted the ones about calls for proprtional representation. I tried googling to see what it was all about and found some good descriptions of how the vote is handled, but couldn't find anything about how legislation actually comes into being.

Assuming that under a PR system you would get something like the recent polls:Lib 35%, CPC 30%, NDP 20%, BQ 10%, Other 5%...

How do you decide who becomes the government and how is that any different than what we have right now?

In the above scenario, wouldn't the Lib still need the NDP to pass legislation? Would you then have to go to regularly scheduled elections so that you wouldn't have a minority situation where nothing gets done? If the number 1 party in a session can't get anything done, does the number 2 party get a shot at it?

Or would you have to come up with another level of goverment - senate??? - to act as a check and balance?

And would you be in a perpetual minority government situation? (How often do we see a political party get more than 50% of the vote?)

[kn]

One thing that would happen would be a complete reduction in party discipline. Members would be more free to vote according to their constituents views since you no longer have a situation where a majority government rams through legislation. This also necessitates horse-trading in order to the leading party to pass legislation. I think this is better because with majorities, there are no checks and balances other than the opposition.

Another possibility if there is no overwhelming majority is for non-governing party members to become cabinet ministers. Confidence criteria would have to be clearly established because legislation would be defeated regularly without the government falling.

Essentially, PR is more representative of voters but less efficient. Governments will really have to work hard to reach consensus. I would prefer this over a plurality where backbenchers are sheep who vote with their eyes closed.

[Vulcan]

I believe it would lead to a more democratic gov. I voted for STV [Single Transferable Vote],similar to PR, in the B.C. election plebisite but it only got 57% and needed 60%. I like minority gov.s as it requires more co-operation. In our system of First Past the Post a majority results in a 4 yr. dictatorship. Ireland ,I believe is an example of the STV system.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

I've heard we're one of the few democracies that doesn't have proportional representaiton although I haven't seen all the numbers.

Certainly a lot of these questions could be answered by looking at many of the nations that currently employ it and how they do things. Unfortunately I haven't done any in-depth studying on those so I don't have the answers for you.

As kn says, I think we'd have to change the non-confidence criteria or we'd be faced with constant elections. But I would feel much safer with constant minority governments that are forced to work together and compromise. That appeals to me a lot more than a majority dictatorship by one party.

[Resolute 14]

The most important aspect of a PR based system is that it minimizes or eliminates the regional power bases that have polarized this nation.

Even at the height of it's power in the 90s, the Liberals never came close to actually attaining majority support in this nation. However, they carried two thirds of the seats in the HoC because they won a disproportionate number of seats in Ontario. The end result is that the Liberals begin to play to Ontario to maintain that power.

Under a PR based system, the Liberals would see a significant decrease in seats/power in Ontario, but it would see a significant increase in the number of seats in the west and Quebec (based on expected results of the next election in PQ).

Until a truely effective electoral change happens - EEE Senate - Ontario will always drive where this nation goes, but under a PR based system, it's power will be greately reduced, which is beneficial to those of us who don't happen to live in Toronto.

[octothorp]

The value in a proportional system of representation is that it reduces regionalism. Calgary is a great example--there is absolutely no benefit for the federal Liberals to put money into Calgary, because it's hard to imagine that investment ever resulting in seats. Winning a twenty thousand votes in Toronto is more valuable than winning double that in Calgary, because those twenty thousand votes may result in the Liberals winning two or three more seats. But under a PR system, a vote in Calgary is as valuable as a vote in Toronto, and not only does it become beneficial for a government to give money to areas where they have little support, it becomes suicidal for a government to abandon involvement in any one area. There is no place for a regional party in a PR system--it would probably be the death of the Bloc.

Best of all, voter turn-out should go up dramatically with a PR system. It doesn't matter if your local riding is overwhelmingly PC or Liberal, your vote will still count as much as if you were in the tightest riding in the country.

[Shawnski]

There are a number of different "proportional representation" style electoral systems.

This link does a pretty good job of describing many of them.

Electoral reform IS needed. But I believe you can bank on one thing for certain... it won't happen in Canada any time soon. In order to make these changes, it would have to open up the Constitutional debates. The Bloc in Quebec would have nothing to do with this as they have the most to lose. Provincially, the PQ would certainly be totally against it as well.

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@May 18 2005, 04:22 PM
I've heard we're one of the few democracies that doesn't have proportional representaiton although I haven't seen all the numbers.

Perhaps this link might shed some light on this for you.

It is from May 1997 (sorry, best I could find so far).

Individually, First Past the Post systems are the most popular, with 68 out of 211 nation-states and related territories giving them 32 percent of the total, followed by the 66 cases of List PR systems (31 percent)

If we look at electoral systems in "established democracies" (i.e., those states with a population of more than a quarter of a million which have held continuing free elections for over 20 years), then we find that proportional representation systems are more numerous with 21 (59 percent) out of the 36 states

[Winsor_Pilates]

Doesn't seem to be much opposition to PR here. Interesting to see people who usually eat each other up on the political forums agreeing over this.

Personally, I don't think I know enough to decide yet, but I'd like to here some opponents to PR to get a better understanding of both sides.

[kn]

Originally posted by Shawnski@May 18 2005, 05:49 PM
Electoral reform IS needed. But I believe you can bank on one thing for certain... it won't happen in Canada any time soon. In order to make these changes, it would have to open up the Constitutional debates.

Why is this a constitutional matter? Unless you're talking about changing or removing the Senate, I don't see why Parliamentary legislation alone couldn't change the electoral laws. The main reason change won't happen is because a government will never change the electoral system that just got it elected.

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by kn+May 18 2005, 11:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kn @ May 18 2005, 11:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Shawnski@May 18 2005, 05:49 PM
Electoral reform IS needed. But I believe you can bank on one thing for certain... it won't happen in Canada any time soon. In order to make these changes, it would have to open up the Constitutional debates.

Why is this a constitutional matter? Unless you're talking about changing or removing the Senate, I don't see why Parliamentary legislation alone couldn't change the electoral laws. The main reason change won't happen is because a government will never change the electoral system that just got it elected. [/b][/quote]
Your points are valid, and yes, I do consider Senate reform to included in the scope. Changing one house without changing the other won't address the overall problems in the process.

[Pileon]

Originally posted by Shawnski@May 18 2005, 04:49 PM
Electoral reform IS needed. But I believe you can bank on one thing for certain... it won't happen in Canada any time soon. In order to make these changes, it would have to open up the Constitutional debates. The Bloc in Quebec would have nothing to do with this as they have the most to lose. Provincially, the PQ would certainly be totally against it as well.

It would require a complete reworking of the provincial/national government mix. Right now we have a very mixed bag. The "have" provinces are less inclined to support the strong federal government model while the "have nots" are more likely to rely on the equalization payments and therefore support the feds. Actions like the recent deals with the maritime provinices on resource revenue are a step in the right direction.

We also have a bit of a schizophrenic relationship federally/provincially with programs like healthcare. Even though they are administered locally, they are funded federally. You would have to have a complete review of the taxing authority of the different levels of government to match their responsibilities in delivering the services.

It's a shame that the BC vote didn't go through. I think we have a unique opportunity to try these types of PR systems provincially to prove to the feds that they could work nationally. Perhaps Alberta should consider it. It wouldn't be that great a threat to the PC's as they would figure to be the majority anyway.

[Vulcan]

I also voted for the Green Party candidate in my riding since she is also the GreenParty leader and I felt she deserved a voice in the legislature. I wasn't going to vote Liberal and my choices were either the Green or NDP and I was told by voting Green I would be splitting the vote and allowing the Liberals to retain the seat. The NDP won the seat but STV would have allowed me more than one vote in a larger riding with each party offering a few candidates. This would allow me more latitude in picking candidates without having to follow party lines and perhaps a green or two would have been elected.
Judging from the reaction of the NDP and Liberal leaders, to their credit, the plebiscite for STV will be held again.