Proportional Representation

[Tron_fdc]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+May 4 2005, 09:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ May 4 2005, 09:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Tron_fdc@May 4 2005, 09:25 PM
Isn't this what the "Triple E" senate was supposed to do?

I'm talking about proportional representation when voting for members of parliament, not for the senate.

I emailed Jack Layton on the issues (since his party is obviously the ones who are going to be most concerned about it since they get the shaft under the current system) and he sent me back a very interesting link from a speech by one of his MP's to Queen's university students.

http://www.edbroadbent.ca/en/abouted/publi...oral_reform.htm

I would encourage everyone remotely interested in this topic to give some or all of that a read. It talks specifically about western alienation, the NEP, how our current system reinforces the regionalism in politics that we are all sick of. [/b][/quote]
Ah, sorry. I was skimming and not reading.

To contribute I'll have to say proportional representation RIGHT NOW is bad. Far worse than what we have now, as the majority of the population is Manitoba East. In the future though, it's hard to say. With the amount of people moving to the West every year, who's to say that in 10-15 years the populace won't be equal??

[MarchHare]

Far worse than what we have now, as the majority of the population is Manitoba west.

I think you meant Manitoba-East.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally posted by MarchHare@May 4 2005, 09:41 PM

I think you meant Manitoba-East.

No I didnt. Stop corecting me I dont make typing missstakes.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Tron_fdc@May 4 2005, 09:37 PM
To contribute I'll have to say proportional representation RIGHT NOW is bad. Far worse than what we have now, as the majority of the population is Manitoba East. In the future though, it's hard to say. With the amount of people moving to the West every year, who's to say that in 10-15 years the populace won't be equal??

?

I'm not sure I follow you. Perhaps you are misunderstanding the premise of proportional representation.

The basic premise being that the # of seats a party holds would be closer or equal to the percentage of the population that voted for them. So under this system the Greens and NDP would gain seats and the BLOC, Libs and Conservatives would lose seats based on the results of the last election.

If you did it proportionally by province then the Conservatives would lose seats in Alberta and gain them everywhere else. The Liberals would lose seats in Ontario and gain them everywhere else. The BLOC would just lose and the NDP and Greens would just gain. This IMO would help diffuse a lot of the regionalism problems we have and a lot of the western alienation.

If that's what you are talking about then I'm interested in why you believe that would be a bad thing.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+May 4 2005, 09:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ May 4 2005, 09:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Tron_fdc@May 4 2005, 09:37 PM
To contribute I'll have to say proportional representation RIGHT NOW is bad. Far worse than what we have now, as the majority of the population is Manitoba East. In the future though, it's hard to say. With the amount of people moving to the West every year, who's to say that in 10-15 years the populace won't be equal??

?

I'm not sure I follow you. Perhaps you are misunderstanding the premise of proportional representation.

The basic premise being that the # of seats a party holds would be closer or equal to the percentage of the population that voted for them. So under this system the Greens and NDP would gain seats and the BLOC, Libs and Conservatives would lose seats based on the results of the last election.

If you did it proportionally by province then the Conservatives would lose seats in Alberta and gain them everywhere else. The Liberals would lose seats in Ontario and gain them everywhere else. The BLOC would just lose and the NDP and Greens would just gain. This IMO would help diffuse a lot of the regionalism problems we have and a lot of the western alienation.

If that's what you are talking about then I'm interested in why you believe that would be a bad thing. [/b][/quote]
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are referring to. I was assuming you meant the provinces would be allocated a certain number of seats depending on the population (greater the population, the greater number of seats).

Just so I have this straight: We'll take the Greens. With 5% of the vote last election (approximately) they would be awarded 5% of the seats in the House? I'm not sure that is such a good thing, as it puts greater emphasis on population than on regional need. The Maritimes for example would get screwed right over, as the population is lower than say Alberta. Unless of course the entire voting region strongly agreed with the party the higher population regions were voting for. It kills regionalism, which in some cases may be a bad thing.

I would still rather see an elected senate. That way regional issues would be more closely addressed, and it wouldn't require a major political overhaul.