Electoral Reform

[Jacks]

Might be time to bring this thread back to life.

Three Quarters (73%) of Canadians Say Electoral Reform Shouldn’t Proceed Without National Referendum
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/p...e.aspx?id=7244

Most Canadians believe that electoral reform should not proceed without a national referendum, and that the Liberal government’s campaign promises and majority mandate does not give them license to change the electoral system despite opposition, according to a new Ipsos poll conducted on behalf of Global News. During the election campaign of 2015, Justin Trudeau promised that it would be the last federal election held under the first-past-the-post system. Now in government, the Liberals have said a referendum is not necessary given they ran on the promise of electoral reform and were elected with a majority government.
The results of the poll show that three quarters (73%) of Canadians ‘agree’ (37% strongly/36% somewhat) that ‘the Liberals should not make major changes to Canada’s election system without holding a national referendum to get the public’s approval for the changes’, while one quarter (27%) of Canadians ‘disagree’ (8% strongly/19% somewhat). A majority of Canadians in every demographic group studied agree that a referendum should be held before changes are made, with agreement being highest in Alberta (80%) and lowest in Quebec (62%).

[CaptainCrunch]

I would expect that the NDP would love this and the Conservatives as the only center right party would hate this because it rigs the game against them.

Trudeau will try to ram this through because he's power hungry and see's this as a way to guarantee that he's Prime Minister or a Liberal is Prime Minister forever, he'll stack the committees and bully parliament, so its going to happen.

Personally, I do believe strongly that issues like this that strike at the heart of the constitution should go to referendums.

[Resolute 14]

Problem is, the method of voting for representatives apparently doesn't strike at the heart of the constitution at all. That seems to have been a rather big omission, all things considered, but it is the excuse Trudeau has to ignore the will of the people.

[SebC]

The great irony in this debate is that the ability of the Liberals to change the system without majority support exemplifies the very reason why the system needs to change.

[Jacks]

I guess you can call it irony, I'd call it ridiculous personally. If the Libs feel that a government getting a majority with less than 40% is illegitimate then it is entirely hypocritical for them to use that majority to stack the deck in their favour for future elections. If they don't want to go to a referendum then they should at least get all (major) party support.

So far they have made a farce of the process by stacking the comittee in their favour and hiring pro ranked ballot people to the process. Saying that a referendum doesn't reflect the views of Canadians but town halls and twitter comments do is pathetic. Even a good size chunk of the Liberal voters in the last election (probably a majority of them) think they don't have the moral authority to force through changes so important to the democratic process without a referendum.

It's obvious why they don't want to put it to the people, because they know they're preferred system will be soundly rejected. Frankly I'm a little disappointed that so many people on here are silent on the issue.

[Parallex]

ignore the will of the people.

... 70% of the people voted for parties that support electoral reform. It is the will of the people.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Parallex

... 70% of the people voted for parties that support electoral reform. It is the will of the people.

I do not believe you are so stupid as to think that voting for a party means you support literally every proposal a party has.

But the fact that you say this right after a poll is released showing three Canadians in four oppose any change absent a referendum suggests I need to re-evaluate my belief.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would expect that the NDP would love this and the Conservatives as the only center right party would hate this because it rigs the game against them.

Trudeau will try to ram this through because he's power hungry and see's this as a way to guarantee that he's Prime Minister or a Liberal is Prime Minister forever, he'll stack the committees and bully parliament, so its going to happen.

Personally, I do believe strongly that issues like this that strike at the heart of the constitution should go to referendums.

This is the angle find most confusing about this debate. So he's rigging the system to retain power, and his method of doing that is by making every vote count. I recognize the irony of not having a referendum on this topic, but surely you have to acknowledge the paradox in that line reasoning?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I do not believe you are so stupid as to think that voting for a party means you support literally every proposal a party has.

But the fact that you say this right after a poll is released showing three Canadians in four oppose any change absent a referendum suggests I need to re-evaluate my belief.

You're all class.

Seriously, They (all the opposition parties) were all up front about wanting to change the electoral system. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that the people who voted for them either want electoral change or are largely indifferent (a view that a recent poll by Abacus basically confirms with pro-electoral change outpacing con-electoral change by nearly 2 to 1 with a large percentage of indifference).

If folk want a referendum then fine... let's do Nathan Cullan's suggestion and change the electoral system and then after the new system get's a chance to work in practice then have a referendum on whether to change it back. That would give us enough time to do something else that ought to happen first... amendments to S.C. 1992, c. 30 (Referendum Act). This is something I've wanted for a long time and the last thing I want is to see this die on the vine.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

This is the angle find most confusing about this debate. So he's rigging the system to retain power, and his method of doing that is by making every vote count.

Single-member ranked ballot is not a proportional system, so I'd argue that it doesn't make every vote count. Having said that, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that that's what they'll go with and am withholding my judgment for now.

As long as they end up with a quality system I'm okay with it, even without a referendum. That's what political capital is for - doing good things that may be unpopular.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Parallex

You're all class.

I'm also right.

It is truly idiotic to believe that voting for a party means one supports every platform plank. Anyone who suggests such is being deliberately disingenuous.

Trudeau has a mandate to have this discussion and propose a new system. He does not have a mandate to unilaterally implement what he wants. If you actually believe the support for change is there, then put your money where your mouth is and hold the referendum.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by SebC

Single-member ranked ballot is not a proportional system, so I'd argue that it doesn't make every vote count. Having said that, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that that's what they'll go with and am withholding my judgment for now.

As long as they end up with a quality system I'm okay with it, even without a referendum. That's what political capital is for - doing good things that may be unpopular.

This is pretty much my opinion as well.

I prefer ranked ballot to the current system... it may not make every vote count to the extent that full proportional representation may but it at least gives us a government that more people feel they can live with.

Really my ideal system is a marriage of the NDP's position and Trudeau's preference. MMPR: Half the seats allocated proportionally, half the seats tied to a geographic constituency with the constituency seats determined by ranked ballot.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I'm also right.

No, you just have an opinion.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

If you actually believe the support for change is there, then put your money where your mouth is and hold the referendum.

Leaving aside that a referendum isn't required by law I'd rather do Cullen's idea and have the referendum after the next election (with the new voting system) so that no choice has a pronounced incumbency advantage and people have experience with both (and so that there can first be amendments to modernize the Referendum Act).

[Resolute 14]

Cullen's idea is classic fait accompli. He proposes a system where he gets what he wants then counts on apathy to entrench it.

Also, "making every vote count" is such a ridiculous argument. If your vote for a losing candidate means your vote doesn't count today, that is true of any system you could imagine. These proposals are not about making votes count. They are about which parties we want to give preferential treatment to.

FPTP favours large parties. Proportional representation favours small parties. Ranked ballots favours the Liberals.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

FPTP favours large parties. Proportional representation favours small parties. Ranked ballots favours the Liberals.

Well i would say ranked ballots favour the centrist partys would be more truthful, just so happens that in Canada that's the liberals right now.

Provincially in Alberta right now that'd be the PCs.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Well i would say ranked ballots favour the centrist partys would be more truthful, just so happens that in Canada that's the liberals right now.

They're all centrist really.

In theory if people voted purely on a ideological basis centrist parties should get squeezed out as the left-right parties converge in the middle to appeal to the broadest coalition of voters. But people don't vote purely on a ideological basis (nor do political parties consistently act in a rational manner) so that's neither here nor there.

[karl262]

It would be interesting to see how all past elections would have turned out under the proposed reforms vs how they actually did.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[Resolute 14]

Trudeau backs down on efforts to stack the committee in the Liberals' favour.

Of course, it's still stacked in favour of the presumption something needs to change, but at least Trudeau gets to claim he cares about a 'better system'.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wher...612377?cmp=rss

Still, even the makeup of this committee demonstrates how ridiculous rep by pop - which the NDP claimed they wanted - can become, at least in a small scale:

Elizabeth May, with only 3.4% of the popular vote has no business on this committee at all, and she certainly does not deserve equivalent power to the Bloc, which had nearly six times the popular support. Meanwhile, the NDP gave themselves twice the power of the Bloc, despite the same level of support. You can bet the NDP proposed this makeup because (a) it still gives the Liberals and NDP an absolute majority when they combine power, and (b) swapped a Bloc seat for May to further enhance same.

[Jacks]

Have to give them credit for at least giving up their stranglehold on the committee, I'm guessing public reaction played a big part but still good. Now all they need to do is come up with a workable system and put it to a referendum.

I'm betting that if the ranked ballot idea dies then Trudeau will kill the whole thing and claim that the other parties made it impossible to come to a consensus. He'll probably totally reverse course and say he wanted all party support but those nasty Cons want to keep the unfair status quo. I highly doubt that the Libs will agree to proportional rep which would make it nearly impossible to get a majority, the NDP will not agree to a ranked ballot that will make it nearly impossible to ever form a government, the Cons won't agree to either since our current system works just fine.

[Fuzz]

Where are you getting your levels of support from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Result...election,_2015

Bloc doesn't have 6x the Greens... and the NDP has way more than the Bloc...They are going by votes, not seats.

[Resolute 14]

Ahh, crap. You're right, Fuzz. I was looking at this table and mis-read the right-most column. Didn't see that as "% where running". Really should have clued in that there was no way the Bloc gets 20% support nationally, lol.