Electoral Reform

[zamler]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, I don't have a problem with either of those quotes. The most popular Liberal PMs were from Quebec, so if you're dyed in the wool Liberal, you're probably going to believe that.

You are not reading the quote correctly, to say the least.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by zamler

You are not reading the quote correctly, to say the least.

How so? He's pretty clearly saying that Qubecers do a better job running the country than Albertans because they're Liberals. Would any of the Conservative supporters here not say basically the same thing if the question was reversed to ask whether they thought Albertans do a better job running the country than Qubecers?

[zamler]

I rest my case.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by darklord700

In the sports world, it has always been first past the post. If the one team beats the other in 4 games each of which is by one run, they win the series. It doesn't matter if the losing team out scores the winning in total or not.

I'm not sure how the team that lost each game by one run, would have more runs scored than the team that is advancing. If a team wins all four games, by any score, they have scored at least 4 more runs than the losing team.

You'd have to have the team advancing lose at least one game, and lose that game by at least 5 runs in order for you example to make sense, assuming it is a best of seven games series.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

You'd have to have the team advancing lose at least one game, and lose that game by at least 5 runs in order for you example to make sense, assuming it is a best of seven games series.

What I meant was you can outscore the other team by 100 runs in one game but if you lose 4 games by one run, you still lose the series 4-1.

[#-3]

I don't like ranked ballots, as some have said look at the APC party.

From what I have see of proportional representation it eventually creates small fractured parties that have too little power to get stuff done. And then there is the Huge problem of how pick the MPs once a party is told they have 11 seats to fill, It would remove the electorates power to vote a bad candidate out of government, we would have to trust the parties to do that.

I actually think slightly following the American Model of separate ballots for the legislative and executive positions is a more logical way of doing it. But that would require complete constitutional reform and a completely new division of power.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by troutman

I liked an idea in the election thread.

FPTP in the House of Commons, and an elected Senate by PR.

I really like this idea, but due to the vast regional differences in Canada, I think it should be PR by Province in the Senate. Senate seats could either be equal across the Provinces, which I don't really like, or just like Parliament, determined by population. Then, the seats for each Province are handed out based on the proportion of votes each party got within that Province.

I don't know how this would affect the numbers of Senators, I can't find an easy breakdown of the proportional vote by province, I'd have to go riding-by-riding and I just can't be bothered to do that at this point.

I have a three-day weekend coming up, maybe I'll do it then.

Probably not though, beer costs $0.50 a pint here in Cambodia and you can hang out poolside at any hotel in the city so long as you're drinking.

[GGG]

What's the benefit to changing the current system. Having the house and senate belong to different parties likely leads to stalled government ala the U.S.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by troutman

I liked an idea in the election thread.

FPTP in the House of Commons, and an elected Senate by PR.

Didn't notice this post before.

I actually really like this, we should let Justin know.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by zamler

I rest my case.

You rest your case by not refuting any of my points with anything substantive? Okay, councillor.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You rest your case by not refuting any of my points with anything substantive? Okay, councillor.

You have demonstrated twice that you are unable to comprehend what JT is saying.

He's pretty clearly saying that Qubecers do a better job running the country than Albertans because they're Liberals.

That's not what he is saying at all. His words are self explanatory. If you actually think that Canada belongs to a political party and leader that hail only from a certain province there is no point in discussing anything more with you.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well the Bloc needs to be removed from the equation. Not sure why anyone in Quebec is still voting for them. We all know they will never separate.

They're not solely based on separation. They received almost as many votes NATIONALLY that the Greens received, and they only run in 1 province. So its still pretty strong support there on the whole.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Ducay

They're not solely based on separation. They received almost as many votes NATIONALLY that the Greens received, and they only run in 1 province. So its still pretty strong support there on the whole.

The Bloc got about 213000 more votes nationally than the green party

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That would require opening the constitution. Good luck with that. It's been a known issue for years, but it isn't going to change. It's not like a PM can just wave a wand and redistribute riding's. Minimum levels are guaranteed for provinces. Blame our shortsighted forefathers for the shortsightedness and difficulty to change.

I believe that our constitution guarantees that a province cannot have fewer seats in the House of Commons than it has seats in the Senate.

So unless the constitution is amended, the only way to adjust for added growth is to increase the seats in the House of Commons.

[rubecube]

nm

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by zamler

You have demonstrated twice that you are unable to comprehend what JT is saying.
That's not what he is saying at all. His words are self explanatory. If you actually think that Canada belongs to a political party and leader that hail only from a certain province there is no point in discussing anything more with you.

Okay, I see where the disconnect is here. We're focusing on two different parts of the quote. I'm not sure what to make of the second part that you're alluding to. At first glance, it looks like a completely ridiculous thing to say. I might go take a look for a full transcript though because with the ellipses and the general awkwardness of it, I'm wondering if there's more to it.

[Daradon]

After reading some great comments by MQS and peter12 in the other thread, I don't think we need electoral reform anymore. Not that I was a huge proponent of it before, but I did think it was a good idea. So I guess I'll be watching if the Liberals do still want to change it. Even when I was in favor of it though, I always did think it should take more than just a sitting government to change it. It's one of those things that's much bigger than just creating or changing a bill or law. A two thirds vote, or maybe a referendum in there somewhere. Who knows.

[Resolute 14]

Electoral reform is an old wet dream for many "progressives", the primary purpose of which is to undermine the ability of the right to form government. Though they often claim it is an effort to make all votes count, what they really mean is that they want their votes to count more.

And that is a problem with any voting system. Under FPTP, votes for the two largest parties tend to count more - which is why the NDP and Greens want PR. Under PR, votes for the two largest party counts less and results in disproportionate power being given to fringe parties - such as the Greens. STV introduces issues like donkey voting - but more importantly - PR/STV usually creates a scenario where we basically lose local representation. And in a country as vast as Canada, that is dangerous.

FPTP is problematic, but there is no magic bullet fix. What this discussion is really about is choosing which problematic option we wish to go with.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Electoral reform is an old wet dream for many "progressives", the primary purpose of which is to undermine the ability of the right to form government. Though they often claim it is an effort to make all votes count, what they really mean is that they want their votes to count more.

And that is a problem with any voting system. Under FPTP, votes for the two largest parties tend to count more - which is why the NDP and Greens want PR. Under PR, votes for the two largest party counts less and results in disproportionate power being given to fringe parties - such as the Greens. STV introduces issues like donkey voting - but more importantly - PR/STV usually creates a scenario where we basically lose local representation. And in a country as vast as Canada, that is dangerous.

FPTP is problematic, but there is no magic bullet fix. What this discussion is really about is choosing which problematic option we wish to go with.

That's a pretty slanted take. I don't want electoral reform mostly because I believe local representation is more important. It's completely disingenuous to suggest PR diminishes votes for the largest two parties. It franchises voters who don't vote for the largest parties. In fact, it would be far more accurate to say FPTP diminishes votes for other parties.

[Resolute 14]

You're not exactly disagreeing with me there.

And I wouldn't characterize my view of PR as disingenuous at all. In a PR situation, the odds of a majority government approach nil. In a perpetual minority situation, the party trying to hold power ends up having to kowtow to fringe parties with little support overall. It takes effective control of government away from the parties with the greatest support of the population.