Proportional Representation part 3

626 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred

Yeah, the model on the Fair Vote video had over one half of the seats as top up (207 local MPs with 131 regional MP, with 27 regions).  So, a ratio of about 8:5, whereas the Law Commission suggested a 2:1 ratio in one of their many recommendations (I've only flipped through the report).  Doug, what are you referring to when you say "overhang"?

mark_alfred

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-first-past-the-po...

Quote:
Andrew Coyne: First-past-the-post proponents seem to think we all have amnesia

Say what you will about FPTP, they will claim, but it produces stable majority governments, ...

Stable majority governments? Have we forgotten the seven years of minority government in 2004-11, years in which no one in Ottawa dared take a vacation for fear the government might fall? Nor was this particularly unusual. Nine of the last 20 federal elections have resulted in minority Parliaments.

A preview of proportional representation (PR)? No. We associate minority governments with instability because under our system parties have every incentive to provoke  it. The high degree of leverage characteristic of FPTP —  a swing of two percentage points in the popular vote can mean a gain or loss of 60 seats or more — means all parties in a minority situation are on a constant state of alert, ready to force an election the minute the polls turn their way.

Under PR, by contrast, there is no such leverage, and no such incentive. The likelihood that no party will win a majority, far from a short-term anomaly, is treated as the norm. So whereas under our system parties attempt to bluff their way through single-handedly, in PR systems they typically enter into coalitions — sometimes before elections, sometimes after — of considerably greater durability.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture
mark_alfred

Thanks.

Doug Woodard

Guy Giorno on the case for proportional representation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5PtXrjdYTQ

 

mark_alfred

Panel discussion on Electoral Reform for Proportional Representation being held on 19 September at 19:00–21:00 at Concordia University - Sir George Williams Campus - Montreal, QC, by Concordia University Young Greens.  https://www.facebook.com/events/979951772151511/

mark_alfred

Our own Wilf Day continues his great work on advocating for PR.  Here's an article about Day debunking various claims from the Fraser Institute: 

Day disputes Fraser Institute report

Doug Woodard

Andrew Coyne on the defects of first-past-the-post:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-first-past-the-po...

 

mark_alfred

http://www.ndp.ca/event-rsvp/4jjhc

Make Every Vote Count Equally - Toronto Town Hall Meeting with Nathan Cullen

Sunday, September 18th, 2:00pm - 4:00pm
Hart House - Music Room // University of Toronto
7 Hart House Circle

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

If you attend, wear a shirt that says "The People's Libertarian Christian Animal Coalition Party", and make sure to ask how, or in what way, your vote will count EQUALLY.

mark_alfred
mark_alfred

Monsef's electoral reform town hall in Kitchener was packed with a lot of interested people. 

http://www.therecord.com/opinion-story/6860656-d-amato-it-s-heartwarming...

Quote:

On Wednesday, the crowd discussed the issues in small groups and then conveyed their ideas to everyone in the room. Local MPs from Kitchener, Cambridge and Waterloo listened.

"Everybody was saying, proportional, proportional, proportional," said Julie Friddell of Waterloo.

She's due to give birth in three weeks, but came out to the meeting because "I'm extremely engaged in politics. … I want to do what I can."

mark_alfred

List of Electoral Reform committee meetings, happening all over the country, with many open to the public.  One is going on right now in Toronto at the Chelsea Hotel on 33 Gerrard Street West, until 9:30 PM.  The next one is in Quebec.  See democracy in action.  Cheer on PR and our team's star players, Cullen and Boulerice.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Committees/en/ERRE/Meetings

Audio feed:  http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20160921...

sherpa-finn

I am not sure I would be up for a full day of discussion on comparative electoral models. But here in Halifax we are getting the two-hour "Community Conversation" version on Friday evening , with the Minister. Has anyone else attended one of these? Is it a listening/learning moment, or an opportunity for speaking?

I am  not sure what to anticipate, but it would not surprise me if multiple voices from the floor don't focus on the risk of any changes leading to reduced regional voice and numbers.  

I of course would be more inclined to highlight the obvious failings of the current FPTP system which in 2015 gave one party 100% of the seats in Atlantic Canada with about 60% of the vote.  As Christopher Majka has noted on these pages, if a simple PR system had been in place, "rather than 32 Liberal seats there would be six Conservative, one Green, 19 Liberal, and six NDP seats -- a clear illustration of the disproportionalities that result from the first-past-the-post system.'

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/christophermajka/2015/10/election-2015-w...

 

cco

sherpa-finn wrote:

Has anyone else attended one of these? Is it a listening/learning moment, or an opportunity for speaking?

I intended to attend, but despite being listed on the site as being in "Montreal", the address given was actually in Laval, 90 minutes via transit (and then a non-trivial walk) from where I live. That told me about all I needed to know about how serious Monsef was about hearing from locals.

sherpa-finn

Newsflash: There are about 100 or so electoral system geeks in and around Halifax.  

Or at least, that was how many people showed up at last night's consultation on electoral reform, hosted by Minister Monsef (of recent birther fame).

This was one of the two hour sessions, - not a full day program as apparently have been held elsewhere.

The program comprised three key elements: Minister Monsef did an introductory session, town hall facilitator style. ie walking through the crowd (seated in concentric ovals), explaining the process to date and ahead, and underlining the importance of the consultation process. Then someone presented a powerpoint outlining the different types of electoral systems. And then we were re-arranged into small groups of 6-7 to discuss a set of five key questions:

- the electoral systems - issues and preferences

- electronic and on-line voting

- mandatory voting

- issues of access and barriers

- prioritising key principles

The first issue was given the most time. All of the folks but one at my table agreed with Multi-member Proportional Representation as their preferred option. There was general skepticism about on-line voting due to security issues, and widespread opposition to mandatory voting. The discussion about access and barriers floundered - it was generally felt that the primary barriers to voting are attitudinal in nature, so lots of blah-blah about better education, civic responsibility, etc. Time  ran out on the 'key principles' discussion.

Anyhow, a fairly innocuous evening. There was a mix of people in attendance, - but generally older and well educated. A good representation of 'undercover' NDPers, though some Tories did show up as well, largely to push the need for a referendum to make any changes in the system. (which was "voted down" by a significant majority when a snap show of hands was called).

What gets made of this or the rest of the consultation process, one has to wonder. Particularly now as Ms Monsef is being widely denounced by Conservatives as an inappropriate lead on this file, given her uncertain (?) immigration status, etc. The Machivellian side of me wonders if this will provide Trudeau with just the excuse he needs to make sure no changes actually do happen. 

mark_alfred

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-october-11-2016-1.379...

Radio interview with Nathan Cullen, and then with Susan Delacourt (Toronto Star columnist).  Cullen advocates MMP along with a referendum after trying it out.  Delacourt speaks kinda in favour of electoral reform, but mostly talks about how no one really cares and it won't hurt the government if they break their promise and continue with FPTP.

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-october-11-2016-1.379...

Radio interview with Nathan Cullen, and then with Susan Delacourt (Toronto Star columnist).  Cullen advocates MMP along with a referendum after trying it out.  Delacourt speaks kinda in favour of electoral reform, but mostly talks about how no one really cares and it won't hurt the government if they break their promise and continue with FPTP.

I think a referendum is becoming essential for the credibility of the change. It is not required but you want support for it. The idea of trying it first and then having peoplevote in a referendum about that experience is a good idea. It would mean having two models people have participated in compared.

The referendum could offer three options:

1) the electoral reform just tried

2) FPTP

3) a new attempt

The choices could be ranked

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

If it's after the change has been made then it's less of a referendum, and more of a survey.

"I like this new system!  (Agree) (Disagree) (No comment)"

It's also a bit odd to think that we need to consult directly with the electorate AFTER we make a change, but not before.  If nothing else, doing it afterward creates a pretty big methodological fail -- namely, how do you differentiate between those voters who (for example) choose 2) or 3) because they understand electoral models and believe 1) to be undesirable, and those voters who choose 2) or 3) because their team just lost, and they blame the new system?

Evidently part of the problem with BC's two referenda (and the only convincing explanation I've ever heard for why support for PR went DOWN the second time) was that many voters weren't necessarily looking at a new electoral model because they believed it to be superior to the existing model, but because it offered the potential to skew results away from a party they disliked, and when that was no longer a decision-driver, they felt no further need to support that change.  Holding a referendum AFTER an election using a new system will only invite anyone whose team fared worse to prefer the system under which their team would have done better.

mark_alfred

Quote:
Holding a referendum AFTER an election using a new system will only invite anyone whose team fared worse to prefer the system under which their team would have done better.

Given that the majority of voters would find that their votes count more effectively under PR, then the majority of voters would find that their team did better under PR too.  Thus, with greater understanding, a referendum after the fact would lead to a more sensible result, I feel.

Geoff

If you don't want change, you want a referendum. Referenda are roadblocks to change, and generally protect the status quo. That is certainly what referenda of the past have proven.

mark_alfred

Agreed.  Women's suffrage wasn't subjected to a referendum (that I'm aware of).  So why should improving the system to make seats count in better proportion to votes cast be subjected to a referendum?  I think Cullen is trying to propose a compromise, however.  It's one I could live with.

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

Agreed.  Women's suffrage wasn't subjected to a referendum (that I'm aware of).  So why should improving the system to make seats count in better proportion to votes cast be subjected to a referendum?  I think Cullen is trying to propose a compromise, however.  It's one I could live with.

Standards based on law are more constant although they change. Standards based on political acceptance change more quickly. The referendum is in order to make sure that the system has widespread public acceptance. I think the problem with a referendum with a choice between a system that has been used before and one that has not is that the bias would favour the one that had been used previously. So given that it could be reversed or changed, it seems reasonable to give people the second option, let them try it, and then make a choice between two known and used options before making the change permanent. Cullen is right.

Without a referendum we are more likely to get a reversal in the next election an opposing government is elected -- not a referendum.

mark_alfred

Results of NDP's consultations on electoral reform:  http://www.ndp.ca/news/canadians-demand-fair-and-local-voting-system

Unionist

Not sure which thread to post Trudeau's broken promise that 2015 would be the last FPTP election.

[url=http://globalnews.ca/video/3013288/pm-trudeau-brushes-off-electoral-refo... Trudeau brushes off electoral reform question by Tom Mulcair[/url]

 

Pondering

Unionist wrote:
  Not sure which thread to post Trudeau's broken promise that 2015 would be the last FPTP election.

[url=http://globalnews.ca/video/3013288/pm-trudeau-brushes-off-electoral-refo... Trudeau brushes off electoral reform question by Tom Mulcair[/url] 

The headline is ridiculous. He answered the question fully. The committee hasn't even tabled a report yet and Mulcair is accusing him of having broken his "promise".

Mulcair also suggests this is significant to the majority of Canadians and if that were true this would be a great avenue of attack but the truth is, only about 3% of Canadians (If what I read is correct) are following the issue. Not exactly a groundswell of support for electoral reform.

This is political theatre that only bases pay attention to.

If a referendum is held the NDP will attack him if a referendum isn't held the Conservatives will attack him.

For anyone paying attention the Liberals did balance the committee fairly and they are doing extensive consultations both online and in meetings.

MMP doesn't have majority support in Canada or you would be screaming for a referendum. 14% of Canadians would still vote NDP yet only 3 % are engaged on this topic so it seems a majority of NDPers aren't even interested.

"Not keeping a promise" only matters if enough people want you to keep the promise.

Trudeau promised electoral reform not MMP. Be careful what you wish for or he might impose a system you won't like in order to keep his promise.

quizzical

SealedLaughing

Rev Pesky

From the 'Trudeau brushes off electoral reform' article:

Quote:
With the first-past-the-post system, the candidate with the most votes wins — but not necessarily the majority. A candidate can win with as little as 30 per cent of the votes, leaving the 70 per cent of voters who chose a different candidate unrepresented.

This is repeated ad nauseum by PR supporters, but it is just plain not true. Everyone is represented. They may not be represented  by the candidate they voted for, but any politician who ignores the level of vote in his/her riding is bound to lose. Every politician follows polls like a tiger follows a goat. Their political lives depend on it.

Further from same article:

Quote:
The Conservatives have pushed for a referendum before any major changes are made, and a Global News poll in May found 73 per cent of Canadians agreed they want a say in overhauling the electoral system.

Is that enough of a majority for a referendum?

Unionist

Pondering - remind me - did Justin promise that 2015 would be the last FPTP election?

That would be "yes" or "no".

Geoff

We should not hold a referendum until we run an election under whatever electoral system the committee decides on. Then, we can hold a referendum, giving people a choice between the new system or FPTP. 

JKR

Rev Pesky wrote:

Everyone is represented. They may not be represented  by the candidate they voted for, but any politician who ignores the level of vote in his/her riding is bound to lose. Every politician follows polls like a tiger follows a goat. Their political lives depend on it.

Because of the problem of vote splitting associated with FPTP, political parties like the Conservatives can form governments with support from just a minority of the voters while the majority of voters oppose them. This problem can be corrected under FPTP by sidelining or even eliminating 3rd parties like the NDP and Greens but this is an undemocratic solution for people who instead support electoral reform. Why is it wrong for the NDP and Greens to feel that their representation in Parliament should better reflect the votes cast for them? If 15% of the voters vote NDP, why is it ok for them to get far less representation in the House of Commons?

Pondering

Unionist wrote:
Pondering - remind me - did Justin promise that 2015 would be the last FPTP election? That would be "yes" or "no".

Yes. I thought it was weird at the time and doubted it would happen.

That is why I said keeping a promise only matters if voters want you to keep the promise. If voters don't want the promise kept then breaking it won't bother them at all.

Geoff wrote:

We should not hold a referendum until we run an election under whatever electoral system the committee decides on. Then, we can hold a referendum, giving people a choice between the new system or FPTP. 

I think that would be a great idea.  Is Cullen on the committee?

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Rev Pesky wrote:

Everyone is represented. They may not be represented  by the candidate they voted for, but any politician who ignores the level of vote in his/her riding is bound to lose. Every politician follows polls like a tiger follows a goat. Their political lives depend on it.

Because of the problem of vote splitting associated with FPTP, political parties like the Conservatives can form governments with support from just a minority of the voters while the majority of voters oppose them. This problem can be corrected under FPTP by sidelining or even eliminating 3rd parties like the NDP and Greens but this is an undemocratic solution for people who instead support electoral reform. Why is it wrong for the NDP and Greens to feel that their representation in Parliament should better reflect the votes cast for them? If 15% of the voters vote NDP, why is it ok for them to get far less representation in the House of Commons?

For most of Harper's reign the majority did not oppose him. Logic based on false premises will fail. Even though only 45% of Canadians would vote for Trudeau 54% approve of the job he is doing. If the majority of Canadians thought PR was the only way they would be represented they would demand PR. 

It's like pipeline promoters. They argue based on money and ways to mitigate climate change as if those are the issues swaying people. It's the leaks. If people believed the oil companies could prevent leaks those pipelines would be through in the blink of an eye.

You tell people they are unrepresented if the party they voted for loses but most people don't vote for a party they vote for a PM.  If something happened to Trudeau and another Liberal had to step forward as PM people would expect an election far sooner than 2019 because they didn't elect "the Liberals" they elected Trudeau. A lot of people vote for their local candidate too. I don't know anyone who votes for a party. Most people who vote for a party are probably Conservative or NDP.

Because I am such a strong supporter of the Council for Canadians I am hesitant to oppose PR.  I am partial to Dion's P3 but still not entirely comfortable. I see the problems with FPTP but I also see problems in PR. I want MPs to be more independent and more important. I want local communities to hold greater sway over MPs than their parties. The MPs in ridings across Canada that oppose pipelines should feel heavy pressure to oppose them. On the big stuff having an MP is useless. The party dictates their vote. Locally MPs exist to help with individual constituents problems and community issues as well as bringing government money into the riding. I'm not satisfied with that.

What most voters are looking for is good managment/administration and if you're good on foreign stuff all the better.

I'm more worried that Trudeau is looking to more closely link the federal Liberal party with provincial Liberal parties. I don't like the association between the Alberta NDP and the federal NDP either. I think our democracy is undermined more by the money in politics than anything else. That and trade deals. To me the NDP acts like PR is the only democratic reform we need and that it is going to solve some big problem people have with our current system.

SeekingAPolitic...

Very disappointed by this news.  All those individuals that said trudeau had no intention of pushing through with pr.  I will say you were right and I was naive.  I will not agrue for a position that the facts/data don't support so i not play word games to justify my previous position.  I thought that trudeua was the person to get this job done.  Clearly i was wrong.   

quizzical

Laughing

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Trudeau's broken promise that 2015 would be the last FPTP election.

Maybe Trudeau will just take a page from Venezuela's playbook and tell us we won't be having elections in 2019.  Technically, he'd be keeping his promise, right?  If it's the last election then it's also the last FPTP election.  And it's OK to not have elections if they're inconvenient, I guess.  Or if shadowy threats are shadowishly threatening you!  That's not a time for "constitutions" and other worthless paper!  It's a time for action.

Pondering

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

Very disappointed by this news.  All those individuals that said trudeau had no intention of pushing through with pr.  I will say you were right and I was naive.  I will not agrue for a position that the facts/data don't support so i not play word games to justify my previous position.  I thought that trudeua was the person to get this job done.  Clearly i was wrong.   

He hasn't said anything against PR. He is saying there is a process in place. Canadians are being consulted online and on the ground. A report will be prepared for the committee. That committee is proportionate+. The committee will then present their conclusions. This seems like a fair process to me even if it isn't what he promised. I would prefer he do this than just unilaterally choose a new system and impose it. He could keep his promise by going with ranked ballots.

quizzical

NDP submission to the Special Committee on Electoral Reform

http://xfer.ndp.ca/2016/Print/ElectoralReform-Report-EN.pdf

where's the Liberals report on their findings?

JKR

Pondering wrote:

For most of Harper's reign the majority did not oppose him. Logic based on false premises will fail.

I think opinion polls during most of Harper's reign showed that most Canadians would have preferred either a NDP or Liberal led government over Harper's government. I think this is one of the major reasons why electoral reform is being contemplated now.

SeekingAPolitic...

Pondering wrote:

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

Very disappointed by this news.  All those individuals that said trudeau had no intention of pushing through with pr.  I will say you were right and I was naive.  I will not agrue for a position that the facts/data don't support so i not play word games to justify my previous position.  I thought that trudeua was the person to get this job done.  Clearly i was wrong.   

He hasn't said anything against PR. He is saying there is a process in place. Canadians are being consulted online and on the ground. A report will be prepared for the committee. That committee is proportionate+. The committee will then present their conclusions. This seems like a fair process to me even if it isn't what he promised. I would prefer he do this than just unilaterally choose a new system and impose it. He could keep his promise by going with ranked ballots.

Effectivy this dead, unless somebody is willing to spend political capital this is going to go away.  The conservatives want it dead, ndp don't really have any juice to populaize the issue.  Honestly if i was wearing the political cap in the NDP would spend 0 on potitical capital pr issue.  I would husband everything what for the decision of CETA and TPP, IF CETA fails because Beglium then I would every spend dime of political capital to undermine trudea politicals position.  He investested so much capital to CETA i would say this the issue to challenge trudea on.  This fruitful ground, but you have want to see if it fails first.

JKR

I think the Trudeau government is going to support whatever the all-party committee recommends.

Rev Pesky

quizzical wrote:

NDP submission to the Special Committee on Electoral Reform

http://xfer.ndp.ca/2016/Print/ElectoralReform-Report-EN.pdf

where's the Liberals report on their findings?

From the NDP report:

Quote:
 In the last election, more than seventeen million Canadians voted, but nine million of those votes - more than half of all votes cast -– were not for winning candidates and so effectively elected no one and were wasted.

I guess my question for the NDP is this:

Are you saying that in those ridings that you won with less than 50% of the popular vote Iwhich would probably be moist of them), you ignored the wishes of the constituents that didn't vote for you?

That those who voted for someone other than the NDP 'wasted' their votes because they had no representation?

Because if that's really how you treat voters, next time I'll vote for someone else.

JKR

Rev Pesky wrote:

quizzical wrote:

NDP submission to the Special Committee on Electoral Reform

http://xfer.ndp.ca/2016/Print/ElectoralReform-Report-EN.pdf

where's the Liberals report on their findings?

From the NDP report:

Quote:
 In the last election, more than seventeen million Canadians voted, but nine million of those votes - more than half of all votes cast -– were not for winning candidates and so effectively elected no one and were wasted.

I guess my question for the NDP is this:

Are you saying that in those ridings that you won with less than 50% of the popular vote Iwhich would probably be moist of them), you ignored the wishes of the constituents that didn't vote for you?

That those who voted for someone other than the NDP 'wasted' their votes because they had no representation?

Because if that's really how you treat voters, next time I'll vote for someone else.

I think MP's primarily represent their party not their riding. I think that is just how our system works and it would be advantageous if our electoral system did not deny that reality. I would not feel democratically represented by a Conservative MP and most Liberal MP's. Would you feel democratically represented by Jason Kenney? We could have an electoral system where most people are represented by a person from their favorite party. Why shouldn't we avail ourselves of that benefit?

quizzical

and where is the Liberals work on this i say again????

no where i can find.

content to trash the NDP while doing sfa themselves.

NorthReport
Rev Pesky

JKR wrote:
...I think MP's primarily represent their party not their riding. I think that is just how our system works and it would be advantageous if our electoral system did not deny that reality. I would not feel democratically represented by a Conservative MP and most Liberal MP's. Would you feel democratically represented by Jason Kenney? We could have an electoral system where most people are represented by a person from their favorite party. Why shouldn't we avail ourselves of that benefit?

You're making a fundamental error in equating having another of your favourite party members in parliament with having representation. And as far as that goes, between the Liberal Party and the Conservatives they had 70% of the vote in the last election. For those people who equate the Liberals and the Conservatives that has to be bad news for the future of PR.

In fact that's precisely the way it plays out in Germany, where the Christian Democratic Party and the Christian Social Union wield power.

However, it's also true that any issue must be decided one way or the other. Trade deals, yes or no? Pipelines, yes or no? In those cases, some large percentage of people are going to be unsatisfied.

A completely proportional parliament doesn't necessarily solve any problems, but it certainly creates problems of it's own. We know that because PR jurisdictions are constantly rejigging their systems to try and solve issues that arise because of that wish for 'proportionalilty'.

mmphosis

Rev Pesky wrote:

You're making a fundamental error in equating having another of your favourite party members in parliament with having representation. And as far as that goes, between the Liberal Party and the Conservatives they had 70% of the vote in the last election. For those people who equate the Liberals and the Conservatives that has to be bad news for the future of PR.

In fact that's precisely the way it plays out in Germany, where the Christian Democratic Party and the Christian Social Union wield power.

However, it's also true that any issue must be decided one way or the other. Trade deals, yes or no? Pipelines, yes or no? In those cases, some large percentage of people are going to be unsatisfied.

A completely proportional parliament doesn't necessarily solve any problems, but it certainly creates problems of it's own. We know that because PR jurisdictions are constantly rejigging their systems to try and solve issues that arise because of that wish for 'proportionalilty'.

There was no vote on the so-called FTA.  There is no vote on pipelines.  There was no vote on the Conservatives so-called Fair Vote changes.  I see the FPTP system constantly rejigging elections rules and boundaries.

I am one of 'those people' who see very little difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals.  Under PR, those two parties, as smaller parties because they would only garner the size proportionate to who actually voted for them, might have to try to work together in coalition, and they will be seen for what they are:  the same.  Or maybe they might work with the other proportionately represented parties:  the NDP, the Bloc, the Greens and maybe a few Christian Democrats, You are right about PR in some countries, but as I see it, the vote better represents who people actually voted for -- and yes, we still probably won't like the results.

As for referenda, when do we get to vote on trade deals, pipelines, and the money-as-debt charter banking system?

Pondering

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trudeau-electoral-reform-1.381186...

And the available data does suggest something less than universal public agreement.

An Ekos poll in December found 41 per cent of respondents preferred some form of proportional representation as their first choice, while first-past-the-post and preferential voting were each the first choice of 25 per cent.

An Abacus Data poll conducted for the Broadbent Institute that same month found 42 per cent of respondents wanted complete or major change to the electoral system, but 58 per cent wanted little or no change.

Underneath that is a question of public interest.

Only 12 per cent told Abacus they were extremely concerned about electoral reform. In August, Ipsos Reid reported that just 19 per cent of respondents were aware the government had begun consultations on changing the electoral system.

58% want little or no change, and that was a Broadbent Institute finding. If Trudeau doesn't act he is doing what the majority of voters want.

The NDP report massages the data to make it appear as though PR is more popular than it actually is. You can't trick Canadians into believing they want PR. The NDP joined the committee and walked into these consultations with a desired result, PR.

I recall a year before the election the NDP stated that they were releasing 5 platform planks because voters should have plenty of time to explore party platforms so they could be better informed.

I remember the daycare pledge, the 15$ an hour federal minimum wage. I don't remember the rest but I know for sure PR wasn't one of them even though PR was argumably by far the most complicated platform plank.

Asking questions in a manner to get the answers you want does not create social licence.

Paraphrasing "We don't want a referendum because we don't think we can convince enough Canadians to support the idea" is basically saying you can't win democratically.

If the claim that the lack of proportionality means the majority of people are unrepresented it shouldn't be that difficult to convince them of it.

 

faustus

You can get people to vote for change when they see the absurdities of FPTP results.  In BC when the party that got the most votes did not win government, and then in the next election we had a legislature where there was no official opposition.  That is what caused the Citizens assembly to happen and eventually got the referendum with 57% support for STV.  Of course the deck was stacked against change because we needed 60% support..  

I know most the time people don't care about this stuff.  And those that advocate for it are small in number and wonkish.  But Trudeau had better be careful because they are very involved in politics and will never stop working on this cause.  I will never forgive him if he kills this process, and I kinda liked the guy before this. 

faustus

You can get people to vote for change when they see the absurdities of FPTP results.  In BC when the party that got the most votes did not win government, and then in the next election we had a legislature where there was no official opposition.  That is what caused the Citizens assembly to happen and eventually got the referendum with 57% support for STV.  Of course the deck was stacked against change because we needed 60% support..  

I know most the time people don't care about this stuff.  And those that advocate for it are small in number and wonkish.  But Trudeau had better be careful because they are very involved in politics and will never stop working on this cause.  I will never forgive him if he kills this process, and I kinda liked the guy before this. 

Pages

Topic locked