Electoral Reform

[GirlySports]

How would it work if I were a newbie and wanted to run in politics?
In this system I could run as a candidate for a party, strike lightning in a bottle and become an MP by winning my riding. In proportional representation my party would do well but would send 100+ members ranked ahead of me to Ottawa. That would discourage me from running and it's hard enough getting people to run now!

[GP_Matt]

Also, with PR could the voting ever turf Rob Anders without turfing the entire Conservative party?

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Yeah I guess I forgot about the Greens, good point. I haven't looked at how the vote broke down across the country but I would assume the main hotspots for NDP/Green battling for that slice of the vote would be probably be focused on the Island and not as much elsewhere.

I just can't get past the muddled, middle of the road, try to please everyone approach that ballot ranking creates, as others have mentioned that's how the Frankenstein Stelmach and Redford monsters were created.

Yeah, short-term, ranked ballots might favour the least offensive candidate. But I'm not convinced that this is how it plays out long-term on a national level. We're still doing about 338 mini-elections, likely with more parties than we have today. I think it could bring greater emphasis to actual MP candidates, as a lot of people will think "of course I'm going to vote for party X, just like I always have. But that guy from party Y seems really hard-working and honest, I'll give him my #2." No candidate can afford to ignore any parts of their constituency, because going into a neighbourhood that will never pick you as first choice, and earning a few #2s might be the difference in the election.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Yeah, short-term, ranked ballots might favour the least offensive candidate. But I'm not convinced that this is how it plays out long-term on a national level. We're still doing about 338 mini-elections, likely with more parties than we have today. I think it could bring greater emphasis to actual MP candidates, as a lot of people will think "of course I'm going to vote for party X, just like I always have. But that guy from party Y seems really hard-working and honest, I'll give him my #2." No candidate can afford to ignore any parts of their constituency, because going into a neighbourhood that will never pick you as first choice, and earning a few #2s might be the difference in the election.

Stelmech and Redford were clearly 2's.

Non-offensive, non front runner. Those are who wins a ranked ballots. Being the least worst is not what I want in leadership. I would much rather have a leader with a plan then one who tried not to rock the boat even if I fundamentally agree with the plan.

The question I ask is what problem are we trying to fix when proposing to change FPTP?

The answer should be better governance in Canada. Noble ideas about democracy being more representive to me don't hold water. In practical terms what is the flaw in the way Canada is governed and how does the proposed solution fix it.

Things like better perception, higher voter turn out, less apathy are arguments that shouldn't be considered.

The current system of elected dictator leads to decisive leadership and easy to remove leaders. I think these two features are key in any electoral system.

[d_phaneuf]

if we are changing electoral reform which I agree with, how about fixing how seats are split

Between the provinces there are huge gaps

PEI gets a seat per 36000 people, New Brunswick per 75000, Saskatchewan per 80k

BC for ever 111k, Alberta for every 123k

however they decide to change they need to fix the fact that population in the West has grown and is continuing to grow at a faster rate than the East

[peter12]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

if we are changing electoral reform which I agree with, how about fixing how seats are split

Between the provinces there are huge gaps

PEI gets a seat per 36000 people, New Brunswick per 75000, Saskatchewan per 80k

BC for ever 111k, Alberta for every 123k

however they decide to change they need to fix the fact that population in the West has grown and is continuing to grow at a faster rate than the East

But that wouldn't benefit Ontario or Quebec so...

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by peter12

But that wouldn't benefit Ontario or Quebec so...

But Trudeau said he cares about the west....

he spent time here, he knows what we need

[peter12]

"Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn't work,"

He said this 5 years ago.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by peter12

"Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn't work,"

He said this 5 years ago.

And he wasn't wrong

[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.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

however they decide to change they need to fix the fact that population in the West has grown and is continuing to grow at a faster rate than the East

They fix it by adding more ridings which is wasteful. The US with 10 times our population only has 435 congressemen, and we have 338 MPs, and growing with population growth.

[Maccalus]

I think that the part of our system that needs to be reformed the most is not how we vote in our representatives. We need to weaken the powers of the party whips. Right now backbenchers are just voting machines in parliament for 90% of bills and might as well not even show up. If we move to a system that elects more minority governments we need to loosen the party controls of MPs or we will end up in an election every 1-2 year cycle which is bad for business and governing of the country. How to balance party and candidate power, I am not sure, but I do believe that parties have too much control right now.

As for voting systems. I am lessening of a fan of proportional representation, even mixed member proportional representation, as it creates a large divide between these MPs and the local people. MPs provide a large selection of services to their constituents and these people would have no dedicated constituents and would thus be able to completely shirk that part of the job. While it would allow less electable, but highly qualified candidates that would be good for cabinet to get elected, it would also be ample ground for terrible patronage appointments, similar to the current senate.

Instant runoff ballots are interesting in concept, but I don't see them as significantly improving on the current system. conceptually they will result in a 2 party system in just as many cases as the current fptp system.

The other concept I like is to keep the House of commons the same as it is currently, re balancing the seat distribution every 10 or so years as we currently do now, and reform the senate. The Senators would be appointed by the premier, elected, drawn from a hat or any other method that each particular province would determine best for it and balanced regionally (similar to how it currently is). This would take it out of direct control of the party in power and it would represent regional and provincial interests in Ottawa with the house of commons reflecting population distribution.

I am against Mandatory voting, even with an nobody option. I want voters to be educated before they vote. The people who don't vote generally don't care about the election enough to want to vote would not be making an educated decision and would be more inclined to pick a random person on the ballot. These random ballots or joke ballots potentially scew the results and do not necessarily represent the countries best interest.

All of the above is just my current opinion of course, has changed several times over the last few years and is completely open to debate.

[Maccalus]

Originally Posted by darklord700

They fix it by adding more ridings which is wasteful. The US with 10 times our population only has 435 congressemen, and we have 338 MPs, and growing with population growth.

You can't quite do a direct translation as we traditionally source our executive branch from our MPs (and technically senate), while the states sources theirs from the general population. I would like our governing party to have a decent pool of talent to draw from to fill our ministerial portfolios. If we went by the US ratio Canada would have about 44 MPs which would mean that pretty much every MP would be a Cabinet Minister.

[GGG]

How about something radical.

A directly elected dictator who appoints his own cabinet and can pass what ever he wants.
A opposition leader who appoints his own shadow cabinet.

Bills are discussed in the house in the same reading process and question period still occurs.

The remaining MPs have no power and no votes but sit on committees providing recommendations on improvements to bills which could be accepted and could propose private members bills which the dictator could accept or reject. They also wouldn't be allowed to have parties either. They are for representation

Functionally this wouldn't change how our current system actually works in terms of bills becoming law. What I describe above is more or less what currently happens

However it would change the role of the MP to be purely representing constituents and would make every vote in the country matter when selecting the leader of the country rather than just swing areas of the countries having influence.

It accomplishes my goal of decisive leadership and easily deposed leaders while also enhancing peoples influence when voting and gets rid of the party system for MP's by making them just representatives.

[Azure]

Not sure what the end result will be but it is worth talking about.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

And he wasn't wrong

Do you agree with the entire statement he made on the matter?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by zamler

Do you agree with the entire statement he made on the matter?

You mean this part?

Lagace then asked Trudeau if he thought Canada was “better served when there are more Quebecers in charge than Albertans?” Trudeau replied: “I’m a Liberal, so of course I think so, yes. Certainly when we look at the great prime ministers of the 20th century, those that really stood the test of time, they were MPs from Quebec… This country – Canada – it belongs to us.”

[zamler]

Yea, that.

[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.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

You mean this part?

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.