Liberals good idea

[Kavvy]

Well Dion isn't the leader of the Liberals anymore, and while I haven't supported him in the past, I cannot deny I like this idea.

Basically, my party, the conservatives, want to expand the house of commons to add 30 seats, he wants to keep the number of seats constant, saving ~16 mill each year plus ~12 mill each election year.

He is willing to decrease the number of seats in Quebec (but keep above there actual population prop) and increase seats in other provinces (Alberta for one).

This would require the changing of the actual constitution for a number of reasons, but I like it.

I don't understand why the conservatives are so keen on adding seats, is it just so they don't piss off Qubecers?

This idea seems to be one that could attract a lot of Harper's base (don't give into Quebec & save money)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2241168/

[Slava]

I also like this idea. If we want true rep by pop then that means adding to provinces that are increasing and reducing in other areas of the country.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Kavy

Well Dion isn't the leader of the Liberals anymore, and while I haven't supported him in the past, I cannot deny I like this idea.

Basically, my party, the conservatives, want to expand the house of commons to add 30 seats, he wants to keep the number of seats constant, saving ~16 mill each year plus ~12 mill each election year.

He is willing to decrease the number of seats in Quebec (but keep above there actual population prop) and increase seats in other provinces (Alberta for one).

This would require the changing of the actual constitution for a number of reasons, but I like it.

I don't understand why the conservatives are so keen on adding seats, is it just so they don't piss off Qubecers?

This idea seems to be one that could attract a lot of Harper's base (don't give into Quebec & save money)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2241168/

It is a good idea, but the NDP'ers would have a field day with this. The reason they want to add the seats is because it is a faster, less divisive way of increasing their power base without pissing off others - pissing off others means things can get slowed down, or stopped altogether. That's what he's (they are) trying to avoid.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Kavy

This would require the changing of the actual constitution for a number of reasons, but I like it.

I think you missed this important part.

Will never happen.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I think you missed this important part.

Will never happen.

ya, I suppose it should never even be brought forward then.

[getbak]

Personally, I'd like to see the number of seats set at 300 with the distribution revised at set intervals to reflect changes in the distribution of population.



The problem, as you pointed out, is that reducing any province's number of seats would require a change to the Constitution, and we all know how well that goes in this country.

Without a Constitutional change, you can't reduce any province's number of seats in the House; so, the only way to bring the distribution of seats into a more equitable alignment is to add seats for the under-represented provinces.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Knalus

It is a good idea, but the NDP'ers would have a field day with this. The reason they want to add the seats is because it is a faster, less divisive way of increasing their power base without pissing off others - pissing off others means things can get slowed down, or stopped altogether. That's what he's (they are) trying to avoid.

Ha, how right you are...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2228008/

[MarchHare]

Who thought it was a good idea to guarantee provinces a certain number of seats rather than a percentage of the total? Hypothetically, would you rather your province have 60 seats in a 300 seat parliament (20%) or 75 seats in a 400 seat parliament (18.75%)?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

ya, I suppose it should never even be brought forward then.

Not saying it shouldn't be brought up.

But it's an excercise in futility.

[blankall]

Just doing some math.

Population Quebec/Canada:

8 million/34.65 = 23.09%

Seats in House of Commons, Quebec/Canada:

75/308 = 24.35%

Doesn't really seem like as big of an imbalance as people are making it out to be (2-3 seats). The bigger imbalance probably exists around provinces with very small populations, such as PEI.

[GP_Matt]

I love the idea and even brought it up with my Conservative MP. He said it won't happen and I think this quote from Mr. Dion that I pulled from the article explains it.

“I’ve never met a Quebecker who says ‘Oh, we need to increase the number MPs at the federal level.’ That’s not their priority,” Mr. Dion said. “If there is the same proportion, then they will accept it.”

Under their plan there won't be the same proportion. Quebec will have a smaller proportion of the seats and it will be done by taking three seats away from Quebec. I thought there was an issue with the Senate as well that would come up if they try to reduce seats in the Commons for a province.

The article also doesn't mention PEI. By population they should have one or two seats yet they have 4. If Alberta had the same ratio of MP's to population then we would get 99 seats instead of the current 28.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Not saying it shouldn't be brought up.

But it's an excercise in futility.

It could well be, but I'd prefer a government that at least made the attempt rather than continually placating one province.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Slava

I also like this idea. If we want true rep by pop then that means adding to provinces that are increasing and reducing in other areas of the country.

Absolutely . . . . . . but it naturally freaks out the minority population group losing influence.

Cowperson

[mykalberta]

Why would you re-open the constitution when you can just add seats - a little bit of extra money spent will save them worlds of headache.

A first term majority PM isnt going to touch the constitution with a 10 foot stick. You work around those documents, you dont work with it.

There currently is no upside to counter the immense amount of downside.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by blankall

Just doing some math.

Population Quebec/Canada:

8 million/34.65 = 23.09%

Seats in House of Commons, Quebec/Canada:

75/308 = 24.35%

Doesn't really seem like as big of an imbalance as people are making it out to be (2-3 seats). The bigger imbalance probably exists around provinces with very small populations, such as PEI.

This is actually correct. In the current 308-seat parliament, Quebec is the closest of all provinces to having the perfect number of MPs if seats were truly divided on a "representation by population" basis. Ontario, Alberta, and BC have too few seats, and every other province is over-represented.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Slava

I also like this idea. If we want true rep by pop then that means adding to provinces that are increasing and reducing in other areas of the country.

If we wanted something close to rep by pop, then we should scrap the whole consitutional monarchy/parliamentary democracy that we currently have, and adopt a more republican government. We should also cut up our provinces into smaller areas that relfect the demographics, cultures and political necessities of the people that live there.

[CaptainCrunch]

If you want to see a strong resurgance by the Bloc, try reducing Quebec's seats. Besides it currently being unconstitutional, it would give Quebec strong election time ammunition for a federalist seperatist party.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

If we wanted something close to rep by pop, then we should scrap the whole consitutional monarchy/parliamentary democracy that we currently have, and adopt a more republican government. We should also cut up our provinces into smaller areas that relfect the demographics, cultures and political necessities of the people that live there.

Can we use a giant space laser.

As far as spliting seats to reflect demographic, cultural and political necessities, wouldn't that be incredible divisive?

You would literally never get a governmental change as most of those seats would vote along traditional party lines.

[Kavvy]

I love how I thought this was nearly a black and white idea, with a couple issues (i.e. Quebec loosing a couple seats causing a small up roar), and how wrong I may have been (lot more to consider then I originally thought).

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If you want to see a strong resurgance by the Bloc, try reducing Quebec's seats. Besides it currently being unconstitutional, it would give Quebec strong election time ammunition for a federalist seperatist party.

Could you just increase everyone elses seats and thereby reduce the influence of PQ? Is it written in the constitution that they will always have a certain percentage of the seats, or just that we couldn't reduce them?

Frankly reducing the impact is more important anyway, and having a larger parliament isn't the worst thing that we could see happen.