Support for PR has Increased Exponentially Because of Fake FPTP Majority Government with just 39% of the Vote
One huge silver lining from this election is that support for PR has likely increased exponentially within the BQ and federal Liberals. Both parties have now suffered unfarly because of FPTP and both are much more likely now to support electoral reform. Unlike the past, PR/Fair voting now works in favor of the the Liberals and BQ. If they don't support electoral reform now, they both deserve to be destroyed by FPTP. This election has forced the Liberals and BQ to discover the hard way, like the NDP has, how FPTP unfairly distorts democracy. So PR has been given a huge boost by this election and this will greatly benefit Canada in the long-run. It would seem that the Liberals, BQ, and many progressives had to learn the hard way how undemocratic and unfair FPTP is. This election has been a learning moment in favour of fair voting. After this election, the NDP, Liberals, BQ, and Greens should all strongly support PR/Fair voting.
My crystal ball tells me that the next parliament in 2015 will produce a minority parliament that will see the NDP, Liberals, BQ, and, Greens finally establish PR. And if they don't support PR/fair voting whole heartedly, they will have no reason to complain about the Conservatives winning unfair fake FPTP majorities.
The Conservative's fake FPTP majority should make it much clearer to one and all why FPTP must be replaced ASAP.
I also have a hunch that the Liberals will choose Carolyn Bennett to be their next leader. She supports electoral reform. Being a doctor she seems to know what kind of medicine Canada's political system needs.
I also think that after the BQ's experience in this election and with the growth of Quebec Solidaire, a PQ provincial government will likely implement PR/fair voting in Quebec.
And here in BC, I wouldn't be surprised if a provincial NDP government implements MMP. The NDP here has fair voting -MMP in their platform and an election is likely to take place here this year or next.
With parties now winning majority governments with less then 40% of the vote, and minority governments possibly forming with under 30% of the vote, it is getting more and more likely that Canada will implement PR.
Canadians cheated again by voting system says Fair Vote Canada
Canada’s national citizens’ movement for voting reform has released analysis of Tuesday’s federal election results showing that the outcome does not accurately reflect the way Canadians voted.
“The Conservative party increased their vote percentage by less than two points,” says Fair Vote Canada (FVC) President Bronwen Bruch, “but this allowed them to win 24 more seats than in 2008, when they were already over-represented. Stephen Harper calls this a ‘decisive endorsement’, but we call it a rip-off.”
At the time of writing, these were the actual seats won and leading for each party:
CON 167, NDP 102, LIB 34, BQ 4, GREEN 1
If the seats were won in proportion to the votes that were cast, the numbers would look like this:
CON 122, NDP 95, LIB 59, BQ 19, GREEN 13
According to these results, the Conservatives have won 54.22% of the seats with only 39.62% of the votes, one of the least legitimate majorities in Canadian history.
“This is a classic phony majority,” said Bruch, “and leaves us with a government that is completely unaccountable to Parliament. As long as they maintain rigid party discipline, nothing bad can happen to them for four years.”
[...]
And here in BC, I wouldn't be surprised if a provincial NDP government implements MMP. The NDP here has fair voting -MMP in their platform and an election is likely to take place here this year or next.
[...]
To be blunt, PR is a chimera for policy wonks. The only people who care are political science students and posters on babble. For progressives to expend any political capital on it is just a complete waste.
And there is no way the left wants PR in B.C. At the time of the 2005 referendum on PR in B.C., NDP activists like Bill Tielmen were actually counselling progressives to vote no. It would have guaranteed permanent right-wing rule (though of a populist kind). That's why I voted against it.
And there is no way the left wants PR in B.C. At the time of the 2005 referendum on PR in B.C., NDP activists like Bill Tielmen were actually counselling progressives to vote no. It would have guaranteed permanent right-wing rule (though of a populist kind). That's why I voted against it.
BC has had a near monopoly of radical right-wing governments because of FPTP. PR/Fair voting would end that.
Bill Tielman is happy having radical right-wing governments rule BC in exchange for the NDP winning the odd government once every twenty years or so.
Most progressives in BC are not happy with this state of affairs.
It's the right-rightists in a handful of English speaking countries who are afraid of modern democracy not the left.
And in B.C. it was the Liberal Party that fell off the STV bandwagon by referendum #2. More NDPers voted for PR in Ontario and BC than the other two parties. Double super-majority thresholds for ER referenda in Liberal BC and Liberal Ontario were anything but democratic.
There is no way you are going to sell PR to the nation after this string of minority governments. Even thinking about it now is a waste of energy.
Personally, I want to crush the Liberals, not give them a lifeline through PR.
To be blunt, PR is a chimera for policy wonks. The only people who care are political science students and posters on babble. For progressives to expend any political capital on it is just a complete waste.
Progressives who oppose the Conservative's near monopoly on power with a minority of votes via a phony FPTP advantage support electoral reform.
Progressives who oppose how our 2-party FPTP electoral system is pressring the NDP and Liberals to merge are making PR/Fair voting a higher priority.
Personally, I want to crush the Liberals, not give them a lifeline through PR.
What if the Liberals don't comply with your wishes and decide to stick around?
Corporate elites are happy to see vote splitting on the left maintain the Conservatives continuously in power.
There is no way you are going to sell PR to the nation after this string of minority governments. Even thinking about it now is a waste of energy.
Personally, I want to crush the Liberals, not give them a lifeline through PR.
And I can remember Liberal Party voters telling me for years that the NDP would never win third party status never mind forming official opposition. We don't have to listen to that rhetoric anymore.
Modern electoral systems exist in dozens of rich countries, and FPTP is a rotten door. It will be kicked-down more easily than if a single left wing party tries winning a false majority in Ottawa by the currently absurd electoral system. As you say above, there will be opportunity for another minority government in four year's time.
These Reform Party retreads are very beatable. We know that now. They are loosed for a short time, and they know it. They will have a real opposition party to contend with over the next four years. The right's seats in Parliament are actually fewer now than before with the demise of the fake Liberal Party. Progressives are realizing our best hope against a united right is a united front on the left. PR is the silver bullet that will end the right's monopoly on power in Ottawa. Canadians are not politically conservative, and this phony majority Bay Street coalition, this babbling brook of bullshit now in government will undermine themselves by next election.
Canada and the UK are the only modern fully developed multi-party democracies left that are still using 19th century FPTP. And in the UK, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have all moved on to PR/Fair Voting.
Canada is the only modern multi-party democracy left that's still exclusively using FPTP.
How embarrassing.
I want PR, but one of my majors' was Political Science and I'm a political junkie. My 'wonkish' desires and interests don't represent the average person's and I don't think putting PR to the forefront will push any party into government by gaining the support of the average person. In fact I think harping on it too much could backfire in so far as it'll look like politicians are making it easier to get themselves elected. Don't get me wrong, I think it's something any party that's serious about democracy ought to include as a part of their platform and if they're elected they should introduce it. But I don't think they will get elected because of PR. It's all about the economy, jobs, health care, competence/ethics, education and the environment in that order.
Me too to everything in your post VanK. I too am a political junkie and would love to see the change. The plank needs to say it will be studied and the option chosen as the best, including retaining FPTP, by our MP's will be enacted. Don't push it but make sure it is clear.
Many years ago I did a political studies paper on the effects of various voting systems compared to the effects of political culture in Australia. I came tot he conclusion that the number of active and competitive parties is not necessarily going to increase immediately or dramatically after electoral change because political cultures move slowly.
The right wing reformers have been trying to change our political culture for decades. Historically populism in Canada has only served the elite not the people, Socreds or Reformers being the most obvious. I think the NDP needs to really start promoting the role of the MP in our system. We need the voters to understand our parliament is not a Presidential system and in fact by devolving into that culture we are losing the voices of our MP's and those voices are meant to be the heart of our democracy.
It's already been studied, and FPTP is tantamount to electoral fraud. Opinion polls taken in 2001, 2004, and 2010 reveal that most Canadians support proportional voting. Canada's Law Society and some members of all three major parties already support electoral reform toward a PR system. So it's probably more a question of what type of PR system should Canada adopt. rather than sticking with the obsolete method invented before electricity.
I know that Fidel but I think it is the best electoral message. I think saying that they would implement any particular system would be disastrous. The MSM has shown it can obfuscate very well when it comes to the PR debate. The only debate with my proposal would maybe be about the proper roll of the MP in electoral change but not the entrails of the various systems that frankly have been studied to death,
Likely??
The thread title suggests it's a done deal. How did doubt get introduced in the very short time it took me to read the link and click on it?
Do you mean "hopefully"?
And potentially binding "opinion polls" taken twice in BC and once in Ontario reveals they don't. Support for PR in BC actually DROPPED significantly between the two referenda, even as the government allocated more time and resources for educating the public (educating a public who, by your reckoning, already supported PR and should have needed nothing more than the opportunity to mark an historic "X").
I have to wonder if maybe people treat the question they way they'd treat "Do you think you should exercise more?". If it's just a question then yes, of course, great idea. If it's suddenly BINDING then, um, well, I'm really just big-boned, and I walk alot and I'm really busy these days and...
I bet whoever invented electricity is pretty rich right now.
BC NDPers like Tieleman oppose PR because 1) They like being able to exert absolute power when the NDP wins government 2) They like to be able to win majorities with 39% of the vote.
Some BC NDPers also oppose PR because they note that the right-of-centre vote tends to be greater than 50% in every BC election. Of course, that is largely measured based on BC politics being polarised between the NDP vs. everyone else. Other parties come and go, but not the NDP, which hasn't changed since it was founded from the CCF.
Unlikely. The Liberals benefitted from FPTP for a long time, and there is an institutional hubris within the party that believes Canadians will come to their senses and vote Liberal again.
I don't see why we keep having this thread, in various guises, over and over again. There is practically uniformity of opinion in here... the NEED for some form of PR is a given -- (apologies to one of our latest members, or is that visitors, who disagrees here).
The challenge facing everyone is WHICH model to implement. And I think any model which requires either STV or MTV will not fly. Here is why: we, the majority of us, are a deeply innumerate people and a deeply suspicious people. The methodology and mathematical formula needed to apply single transferable votes and multiple transferable votes are not really particularly complicated... but they do require explanation - and the minute someone starts trying to explain anything having to do with mathematics, brains start shutting down... the perennial "why do I have to study this, this hasn't got anything to do with the real world" kicks in [any teachers on here care to back me up on this intepretation of how people react to being taught math?] and people reject it as "too complicated". They also don't trust anyone else to apply the methods and math... not if it goes very far beyond mere counting. They (we, everybody) are also not keen on multiple round voting (my goodness, it costs so much, we could use that money to buy one, maybe two extra F-35s [not sure if that is with or without engines though]). The easier the model is to explain, the less suspicious the electorate will be of it [and personally I prefer single round voting MMP, 5% threshold]. What we should be expecting from our political parties is a push for two plebicites.
First plebicite: do you support Proportional Representation (insert defintion about final seating totals being roughly proportional to votes cast) YES NO
Second plebicite (if the first one passes): do you approve of [insert model chosen] YES NO
The problem with the BC vote, the ON vote (and I would say the Australian vote - on ditching the royals and becoming a republic) was trying to get approval both to the principle and the particular plan at the same time. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Split the question - the first one in particular has zero need for a super majority.
I think consensus on the first question would be remarkably easy to achieve, nation(s) wide... the difficulty is in the details. But the few that would oppose PR (those with a vested interest in profiting from FPTP [and this is not the average Con or Lib voter, they are IMHO usually quite fair minded about the whole matter]) will manipulate the disagreements over potential method with the principle itself. DON'T PLAY THEIR GAME, SEPARATE THE QUESTIONS.
But our newest member (visitor) does have a point, the intricacies of the debate are really only of interest to policy wonks.
I don't often disagree with you BagKitty and not just from fear of being clawed. I believe that the plebiscite or referendum is a right wing tool to ensure we never get a new system. It gives them an unlimited advantage and will likely lead to the same obfuscation that saw the defeat in BC of a system that is far superior to FPTP. We live in a parliamentary democracy I elect my MP's to have a vision and then if in power to study the options for implementing the vision and then to act accordingly. They are the government they don't need to be second guessed in this one area only. The MP's can implement NAFTA and now deep integration without a referendum but the left buys the bullshit that to get PR we must have one or it would not be democratic.
Don't be afraid NS, claws are safely retracted. I actually have the ability to disagree without hissing and puffing up my tail. Having lived in Quebec, I have a slightly different take on whether or not plebicites/referenda are actually right wing tools. Being from Alberta, I have a predisposition towards populism and actually think the people and not just the elites (and I categorize parliamentarians and other legislators as belonging to the elite) should have the final say in certain fundamental changes. Borrowing from the court system, I think parliamentarians and legislators should recuse themselves on this particular matter - conflict of interest by definition. I think changing the system by which they are chosen shouldn't be exclusively on their terms, and like many places where new constitutions are a drafted a step removed from the current legislators, a separate body should be constituted - an Electoral Commission if you will.
I'm not sure that I've ever seen someone stand up and say "I think FPTP is best". The only people I've seen opposing PR are those who didn't get the flavour they like best.
And honestly, I think it will be the purists who drag PR back down again. Personally, I'm one of those folk who can't really explain the intricacies of STV in any great detail, nor MMP in any great detail, but I retain a confidence that either is better than what we have now. But if the public is being asked (in the second plebescite, for example) whether they now would like to send a BINDING message to their government to implement MMP, I think that would be a super time for the STV zealots to zip it. Conversely, if STV is on the table, could we please not vote for FPTP by pointing out that only MMP is truly democratic, and STV is evil? And should a genuine supporter of FPTP ever show up, they can shut their gobs too.
BagKitty In theory I agree. However in Canada I think the theory is being exploited by the forces that want control not democracy. The game is rigged and at the end of the day we will still have elected MP's with the same powers so I actually think it is far less of a fundamental change than the constraints imposed by NAFTA.
If we had a referendum without advertising pro and con that might be a good start. The information about the choices should be clear and easily available but the voters should be allowed to make up their own minds from the literature without being bombarded by hyperbole and the sky will fall scenarios. IMO It is the propaganda machine we live within that has made any of the democratic instruments like referenda not only meaningless but self defeating.
Just checking on thoughts with this bagkitty - but do these plebicites require a percent yes of the votes cast or percent yes of total population? We can barely get 50% of us to the polls on a good day (calgary anyway), would a change like this require majority of vote cast or majority of population? Heh, maybe plebicite #1 should be mandatory voting (which will succeed, like non-voters will show up in big numbers to shoot it down ^^)
Oh and be careful NS, though his claws are retracted, I'm pretty sure he'll still pee in your shoes when your not looking ;)
@Snert: Snert, meet Jeffrey Simpson over at the Globe, Jeffrey Simpson, meet Snert ... Snert, Jeffrey will explain the dangers of Canada turning into Italy or Israel... at great length... he will definitely go down with the FPTP ship if necessary, shaking his fist and shouting all the way.
@Searosia: Plebicite, referendum, counting snouts... I am not hung up on the words. I have very very ambivalent about super majorities though. And it has been years since I pissed in anyone's shoes... I have discovered tossing heavy objects (blunt or otherwise) is much more fun... I like the thonk sound they make when they connect.
@NorthernShoveler: my only reason (although I think it is a good one) for suggesting a two-step is so that the Jeffrey Simpsons on the one hand and the rabid adherents of say STV over MMP don't confuse the crap out of people. One of them intentionally, the other accidentally.
I am glad no-one has vehemently disagreed with my contention that most of us are innumerate... or my depiction of how most of us reacted (or reacted in the past) to anything related to math [although honestly I liked math, it appealed to my anal-retentive nature]
Most people do not like math. FACT.
Stupid papers printing all those sudoko puzzles. Most people seem to like to count their change after buying their newspaper.
There's no math in sudoku.
BC has had a near monopoly of radical right-wing governments because of FPTP. PR/Fair voting would end that.
Not necessarily. It's quite likely that PR wouldn't change a lot in BC for the better. The NDP has historically only been able to govern BC when the right-wing vote has been split between two parties, allowing the NDP to win an outsize share of seats. Proportional representation would probably put a Liberal-Conservative coalition in office much more often than not.
There's no math in sudoku.
math·e·mat·ics/maTH(ə)ˈmatiks/Noun
1. The abstract science of number, quantity, and space.
Seems to me the game consists of numbers and their relationships in spacial blocks. There is no arithmetic in sudoko if that is what you meant to say.
You don't need numbers for sudoku
If sudoku is math then my phone number is also math.
Your definition of mathematics seems fairly narrow.
Sudoku is all about permutations, but permutations with an extra twist of logic. To look into the theory behind Sudoku you need to first look into permutations.
PermutationsA permutation is just a particular ordering of symbols. In Sudoku it is insisted that there is only one occurrence of each symbol (or number) in each group (row,column or region).
So for two symbols there are only two possible orders {1;2} and {2;1} with three there are six {1;2;3}, {1;3;2}, {2;1;3}, {2;3;1}, {3;1;2} and {3;2;1} possible orders and for four there are 24 permutations of the four symbols. The number of permutations is the Factorial
of the number of symbols in the set, as each time an extra element is added to a set of size 'n' that element multiplies up the number of arrangements of the previous set size. So for the standard Sudoku set size of 9 we have 9 factorial (represented in maths as 9!) or 9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1 possible permutations which works out as 362,880 possible ways of ordering the nine symbols in a row, column or region.
Permutation Formula
A formula for the number of possible permutations of k objects from a set of n. This is usually written nPk .
Formula:
Example:
How many ways can 4 students from a group of 15 be lined up for a photograph?
Answer:
There are 15P4 possible permutations of 4 students from a group of 15.
Certainly one can apply a high-level mathematical analysis of sudoku. But for the average player to play it, all they need to know is:
- one of each symbol in each cell
- one of each symbol in each column
- one of each symbol in each row
No abstract thinking, no calculations, and any symbol can be used for this - if you don't like numbers, use fish.
But let's look at it another way: if this still seems like math to you, explain PR as simply and lucidly as the three rules above and it'll be a done deal.
This might not fly:
Hehe. That said, if you visit the Wiki STV page where I grabbed that image, they explain STV using fruit. The web can be full of surprises. :)
The average voter doesn't count the ballots now and has no idea about the procedure except to know that after a couple of hours they get the results. They trust the officials are counting actual ballots and of course that is why we have party scrutineers. This focus on the way the vote is counted in PR is the biggest red herring of all. Every party I am sure will be able to put numerate people in place to oversee the vote count. With computers the numbers might even come out within a few hours.
If it takes longer to count then that would also solve the early reporting of returns problem.
And there is no way the left wants PR in B.C. At the time of the 2005 referendum on PR in B.C., NDP activists like Bill Tielmen were actually counselling progressives to vote no. It would have guaranteed permanent right-wing rule (though of a populist kind). That's why I voted against it.
The BC NDP wins elections 15% of the time. Bill Tielman must be satisfied with those odds
Don't play with Snert, he brings firecrackers to a parade.
What does that even mean? That I'm Chinese?
People who like both math and democracy may not like the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem
The idea that voting will always reveal some kind of consistent social preference is, unfortunately, wrong. It seems to work in many (most?) cases but it isn't guaranteed to.
The idea that voting will always reveal some kind of consistent social preference is, unfortunately, wrong. It seems to work in many (most?) cases but it isn't guaranteed to.
No voting system can reveal what isn't real. There is no consistent social preference there are only individuals making decisions one by one based on a complex mix of personal experience, education and peer pressure to name but a few. When voters begin to rank parties those individual variables become to large. There is no way to account in ideology or political platforms for a Conservative ranking the NDP #2 but I am sure it would happen.
That is why all strategic voting schemes are useless and schemes like AV are so dangerous.
Wat, your comment about wanting to crush the Liberals is exactly the kind of schoolyard bully comment I typically hear from people who like FPTP. They’ll wait out their time in opposition in anticipation of the glorious day when they get their turn to stomp on everyone who doesn’t agree with them.
I had one recently when I spoke with people about Fair Vote at Libby Davies’ open house. He struggled to articulate his problem with PR until finally dropping this gem on me, “I don’t WANT people who voted for someone other than my candidate to have a voice in Parliament.” Needless to say, I wasn’t surprised when Libby asked me to just put my flyers and Declaration of Voters’ Rights petitions on the information table by the front door, because someone had complained to her that I was “talking to people too much.”
Any flavour of PR is better than the broken mess we have, which makes it all the more tragic that some people who recognize how flawed FPTP is can’t seem to put a sock in it when their pet model isn’t the one on the table.
People who like both math and democracy may not like the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem
The idea that voting will always reveal some kind of consistent social preference is, unfortunately, wrong. It seems to work in many (most?) cases but it isn't guaranteed to.
Indeed. There is no perfect voting method, we can just choose which imperfections we're willing to live with.
Hi all, forgive cross-posting - I have offered this link in the Activism section as well, but in response to my own lazily titled and therefore lonely thread - for those supporting PR, and who don't already know about this, a National Day of Action for Electoral Reform will be held in several cities on May 14th.
Here's the Facebook page: www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=224515260896931
Details for the FB-less:
Montreal - Berri Sq. 2 p.m.
Ottawa - Parliament Hill, 2 p.m.
Vancouver - Vancouver Art Gallery, 2 p.m.
Toronto - Queen's Park, 2 p.m.
(all times local)
www.nationaldayofaction.org
#dayofaction
dayofaction2011@gmail.com
Also - you may have already seen this, some of you certainly - Fairvote's petition is here.
Well it looks like the Fair Voting idea is going down in Flames in Britain, even as we write.
I've said it a hundert and billionty seven times, this is the entirely wrong approach.
The correct approach is to just say the current system isn't democratic, or satisfactorally democratic, and let the powers that be keep making offers until they offer up what we want.
In order to get them to do that, you have to make the current system unprofitable for them.
And there is no way the left wants PR in B.C. At the time of the 2005 referendum on PR in B.C., NDP activists like Bill Tielmen were actually counselling progressives to vote no. It would have guaranteed permanent right-wing rule (though of a populist kind). That's why I voted against it.
The BC NDP wins elections 15% of the time. Bill Tielman must be satisfied with those odds
If the left doesn't want PR, then why is it BC NDP policy?
Indeed. There is no perfect voting method, we can just choose which imperfections we're willing to live with.
Every system has its strengths and weaknesses. FPTP is a great system if you believe we should have only two "big tent" political parties where one of the parties always has a monopoly on power via majority governments. The benefit of FPTP, the two-party majoritarian system, is that it provides strong, stable governments as long as people are satisfied with having just two choices.
Once people want to have more then two choices, FPTP becomes unacceptable.
The argument for FPTP is that it is good for citizens to come together as much as possible within "big tents" while still maintaing a competitive political system where power can still alternate between two competing parties when one of the two big tent parties falters.
If a two-party political system becomes a multi-party system, FPTP becomes unacceptable. Before 1997, Canada only had two governments that represented less then 40% of the vote and both of them were minority governments. Before 1997 we NEVER had a majority government with less then 41% of the vote. Since 1997 we have had five governments with less then 40% of the vote! Two of those have been phony majority governments!
Canada - % of vote for 1st place party
2011 - 39 * Phony Majority with under 40%
2008 - 37 - Minority
2006 - 36 - Minority
2004 - 37 - Minority
2000 - 41
1997 - 38 * Phony Majority with under 40%
1993 - 41
1988 - 43
1984 - 50
1980 - 44
1979 - 40- Minority - Wrong winner - 2nd place PC government
1974 - 43
1972 - 38 - Minority
1968 - 45
1965 - 40 - Minority
1963 - 42 - Minority
1962 - 37 - Minority
1958 - 54
1957 - 41 - Minority -Wrong Winner - 2nd place PC government
1953 - 48
1949 - 49
1945 - 40 - Minority
1940 - 51
1935 - 45
1930 - 48
1926 - 43 - Minority
1925 - 46 - Minority
1921 - 41
1917 - 57
1913 - 49
1908 - 49
1904 - 51
1900 - 50
If Canada maintains it's movement toward a pluralistic political system, it will inevitably get rid of FPTP. The sooner the better.
First plebicite: do you support Proportional Representation (insert defintion about final seating totals being roughly proportional to votes cast) YES NO
Second plebicite (if the first one passes): do you approve of [insert model chosen] YES NO
I think consensus on the first question would be remarkably easy to achieve, nation(s) wide... the difficulty is in the details. But the few that would oppose PR (those with a vested interest in profiting from FPTP [and this is not the average Con or Lib voter, they are IMHO usually quite fair minded about the whole matter]) will manipulate the disagreements over potential method with the principle itself. DON'T PLAY THEIR GAME, SEPARATE THE QUESTIONS.
That's what they did in New Zealand, more or less. The first referendum actually had two parts. One: do you want a change? Two: what kind of model do you want to vote on in the next referendum: MMP, STV, AV, or parallel?
New Zealand had the advantage of having had a Royal Commission first. It had recommended MMP. The model needed minor fine-tuning only.
We have the same advantage, if we would only use it. The Law Commission of Canada hired the best available experts, held hearings, and wrote a good report. The only fine-tuning required is on the size of the regions, and the cut-off percent for what is enough personal votes to move a regional candidate up the list.
And there is no way the left wants PR in B.C. At the time of the 2005 referendum on PR in B.C., NDP activists like Bill Tielmen were actually counselling progressives to vote no. It would have guaranteed permanent right-wing rule (though of a populist kind). That's why I voted against it.
The BC NDP wins elections 15% of the time. Bill Tielman must be satisfied with those odds
If the left doesn't want PR, then why is it BC NDP policy?
It's just some on the left. It all depends on how you answer the question: Do you want some of the power all of the time, or (the possibility of) all of the power some of the time?
Percentage of Canadians of Voting Age Who didn't Vote for the Government was 76%
We'll have to work hard over the next four years to throw these bozos and pretenders to the throne out of Ottawa.
A spontaneous group of students in Montreal, and now in Ottawa and Toronto, is organizing a National Day of Action for Electoral Reform for next Saturday. Will it take off? I hope so.
But isn't this all about "people wanting change"?
You seem to be suggesting that people WOULD want change, if only the government had spent more time and money convincing them to.
This is the great paradox of the claims of many PR supporters:
1. The people want change! People are sick of the current system!!!
2. People don't know enough about change to choose it! Marking an X is too confusing and the government should have explained it all to them!
But isn't this all about "people wanting change"?
It's about 60% of voters voting for parties that have 0% of power in Canadian politics and 39% voting for a party that has 100% of power. The parties and politicians have an obligation to establish a system whereby 60% of the population has effective representation commensurate with their numbers.
Canada's democratic deficit is huge. It's bigger then our fiscal deficit. Electoral reform is just the first and most important step in reducing the democratic deficit.
Another important step is to reduce the Canadian Prime Minister's dictatorial powers. Reducing the place of confidence measures within our system is one way of the ways required to reduce the Prime Minister's dictatorial powers. As it is, Canada probably has one of the most, if not the most, dictatorial systems among modern democracies.
And if an important issue has to obtain a huge level of popularity before it can be dealt with, how is it that:
- our constitution was established without a referendum?
- electoral systems were established in the past and changed without referendums?
- free trade was established without a referendum?
etc....
Voting: Does Canada's electoral system need reform? - CBC
Do you think Canada needs to reform its electoral system?
- Yes, first-past-the-post needs to go 89.06% (5,896 votes)
- No, I like what we have 8.61% (570 votes)
Electoral reform in Canada: Your suggestions - CBC
What kind of changes you want to see or if you're satisfied with the electoral system as it is?
- I like our current electoral system the way it is 6.56% (62 votes)
Evidently they like it. While your newspaper poll is interesting, it doesn't carry the same weight as the "poll" the governments of Ontario and BC ran. I don't know where this 88% was on those three days, but I don't think they were at the polls, repeating their desire for change.
Interesting, too, that people can vote in a poll like those you linked, without the guv'mint having to edumacate them on what "FPTP" means and such. Wasn't that, by some people's reckoning, why the referenda in BC and Ontario tanked? I would have LOVED for the poll authors to include a fourth response "I don't know what any of this means".
Rigged right wing window dressing. Tea bag politics is all that referendum crap was in this province. You may believe that Campbell believes in democracy but I don't. You may believe the BC Liberals would never deliberately try to fix the outcome os a referendum but I do. I do believe that the people who run the right wing parties in my province are as corrupt and crooked as their predecessor Amor de Cosmos. We have recall in this province EXCEPT the threshold is so high it is an impossible task. The first referendum required a super majority again not democratic but tilted towards keeping the status quo that enriches the people making the rules. We also have open and accountable government legislation in this province. LOL
Just a difference in world view I guess. When I see anti-democratic forces pushing processes that are tilted and biased I don't think it is progress I think it is electoral fraud. Obviously just a difference in viewpoint.
I believe that if the electorate had actually WANTED CHANGE then there's little they could have done to prevent people from voting for it. I'm not endorsing the "integrity" of the Liberal government -- I'm sure they didn't care for change -- but had the BC electorate given a crap, they could have voted Yes and there's nothing Campbell could have done about it.
And honestly, the time in between the two referenda would have been more than ample time for any interested voter to take 2 minutes to google "BC-STV" if they didn't understand it the first time around. That's assuming they actually do want change. But the numbers went DOWN on that second referendum. Assuming B.C. didn't replace the majority of its electorate, that suggests that some fairly substantial number of voters actually switched from Yes to No. Can you explain why they might do this?? Sober second thought?
If we held a referendum, the question being "would you like to pay less taxes?" and 38% said yes, and 62% said no, would you say that people do or do not want to pay less taxes? Would you say that they must not have understood the question? That the government should have spent lots and lots of money to print pamphlets called "Less Taxes And You"?
Or would you say "Huh. I guess people don't really care to pay less taxes"?
@Wilf Day
Thanks for the link to the report, good reading.
The right wing reformers have been trying to change our political culture for decades. Historically populism in Canada has only served the elite not the people, Socreds or Reformers being the most obvious. I think the NDP needs to really start promoting the role of the MP in our system. We need the voters to understand our parliament is not a Presidential system and in fact by devolving into that culture we are losing the voices of our MP's and those voices are meant to be the heart of our democracy.
I certainly agree with your post and in particular that the NDP should promote the role of MPs in our system. Will that be enough? I doubt it very much. Listen around few coffee shops, pubs and browse some of the comment sections in political sections main stream media and what you will hear and read... over and over again...in one form or another:
1. MPs [politicians] are a waste of taxpayer dollars.
2. They are Party mouthpieces.
3. Who? [paraphrasing in extremely cynical fashion on number 3 here]
I could go on...but I am guessing everyone gets the drift.
Provided the NDP MPs do in fact provide good service to their constituents and effectively represent the views of their respective ridings in Ottawa, then promoting the role of the MPs will help. If they can afford and acquire good Parliamentary Staff they can start building the re-elect me playbooks starting May 3rd, 2011 by planning what they can and will do for constituents during the next four years. That is all they will be able to do because the will have zero real power in Parliament unfortunately. History is always re-written from the power perspective. i.e. Chretien/Martin refused to de-regulate banks but Harper took the credit (and that was a re-write of what a Party in power at the time did). That is really how it has historically worked. Any retired MP will tell you most sincerely that being an MP is at best a dirty and thankless job...and it is true.
Most MPs try to do their jobs right and try to promote themselves in their constituencies but at the end of the day it is the style of our election campaigns and the way media covers the campaigns that is the biggest problem. Americans have always (unsuccessfully) tried to cover Hockey games like the original CBC's Hockey Night in Canada and Canada has more successfully copied the American style election coverage. Pollsters focus on Leaders not candidates. Media focuses on Leaders not Candidates. The issues and the candidates get lost in the coverage of 'who looks most like a PM'. CTV's Power Play covered the debates like the leaders were in a hockey game...complete with hockey style vernacular.
[Good thing I put in time as a Hockey Mom.... I might have missed some really important moves otherwise!]
Worse...ALL the Party Spin Doctors and the Party Leaders themselves buy into it. Elizabeth May was the ONLY one who stayed on message. I am guessing it was because she had no Spin Doctors, Pollsters or headline seeking media types around to knock her off message.
1. We no longer elect Candidates (meaning serious riding representatives) to Ottawa. This will not change given the style/tone of election campaigns.
2. Vote splitting will continue even if we do try to elect the best candidate for the role of MP in our respective ridings. No party can field the clearly 'best' choice in all ridings nationwide.
3. Even if number 1 were to change and number 2 was possible. We still have to consider Party Platforms when voting. With 3 or more platforms to consider in each election...FPTP can be defined as 'can't get there from here'.
I credit that MPs were intended to be the 'Heart of our Democracy'...but if they are the heart of it...then that heart developed cardiomyopathy when we started fielding three or more parties in federal elections. Our only hope is surgery....FPTP heart needs replaced with the best Proportional Representation model we can find or create. We are only one of..what?...four countries left limping along with FPTP? With PR we can go back to honestly electing the best possible candidates we can to Ottawa...successfully.
The right wing reformers have been trying to change our political culture for decades. Historically populism in Canada has only served the elite not the people, Socreds or Reformers being the most obvious. I think the NDP needs to really start promoting the role of the MP in our system. We need the voters to understand our parliament is not a Presidential system and in fact by devolving into that culture we are losing the voices of our MP's and those voices are meant to be the heart of our democracy.
I certainly agree with your post and in particular that the NDP should promote the role of MPs in our system. Will that be enough? I doubt it very much. Listen around few coffee shops, pubs and browse some of the comment sections in political sections main stream media and what you will hear and read... over and over again...in one form or another:
1. MPs [politicians] are a waste of taxpayer dollars.
2. They are Party mouthpieces.
3. Who? [paraphrasing in extremely cynical fashion on number 3 here]
I could go on...but I am guessing everyone gets the drift.
Provided the NDP MPs do in fact provide good service to their constituents and effectively represent the views of their respective ridings in Ottawa, then promoting the role of the MPs will help. If they can afford and acquire good Parliamentary Staff they can start building the re-elect me playbooks starting May 3rd, 2011 by planning what they can and will do for constituents during the next four years. That is all they will be able to do because the will have zero real power in Parliament unfortunately. History is always re-written from the power perspective. i.e. Chretien/Martin refused to de-regulate banks but Harper took the credit (and that was a re-write of what a Party in power at the time did). That is really how it has historically worked. Any retired MP will tell you most sincerely that being an MP is at best a dirty and thankless job...and it is true.
Most MPs try to do their jobs right and try to promote themselves in their constituencies but at the end of the day it is the style of our election campaigns and the way media covers the campaigns that is the biggest problem. Americans have always (unsuccessfully) tried to cover Hockey games like the original CBC's Hockey Night in Canada and Canada has more successfully copied the American style election coverage. Pollsters focus on Leaders not candidates. Media focuses on Leaders not Candidates. The issues and the candidates get lost in the coverage of 'who looks most like a PM'. CTV's Power Play covered the debates like the leaders were in a hockey game...complete with hockey style vernacular.
[Good thing I put in time as a Hockey Mom.... I might have missed some really important moves otherwise!]
Worse...ALL the Party Spin Doctors and the Party Leaders themselves buy into it. Elizabeth May was the ONLY one who stayed on message. I am guessing it was because she had no Spin Doctors, Pollsters or headline seeking media types around to knock her off message.
1. We no longer elect Candidates (meaning serious riding representatives) to Ottawa. This will not change given the style/tone of election campaigns.
2. Vote splitting will continue even if we do try to elect the best candidate for the role of MP in our respective ridings. No party can field the clearly 'best' choice in all ridings nationwide.
3. Even if number 1 were to change and number 2 was possible. We still have to consider Party Platforms when voting. With 3 or more platforms to consider in each election...FPTP can be defined as 'can't get there from here'.
I credit that MPs were intended to be the 'Heart of our Democracy'...but if they are the heart of it...then that heart developed cardiomyopathy when we started fielding three or more parties in federal elections. Our only hope is surgery....FPTP heart needs replaced with the best Proportional Representation model we can find or create. We are only one of..what?...four countries left limping along with FPTP? With PR we can go back to honestly electing the best possible candidates we can to Ottawa...successfully.
The right wing reformers have been trying to change our political culture for decades. Historically populism in Canada has only served the elite not the people, Socreds or Reformers being the most obvious. I think the NDP needs to really start promoting the role of the MP in our system. We need the voters to understand our parliament is not a Presidential system and in fact by devolving into that culture we are losing the voices of our MP's and those voices are meant to be the heart of our democracy.
I certainly agree with your post and in particular that the NDP should promote the role of MPs in our system. Will that be enough? I doubt it very much. Listen around few coffee shops, pubs and browse some of the comment sections in political sections main stream media and what you will hear and read... over and over again...in one form or another:
1. MPs [politicians] are a waste of taxpayer dollars.
2. They are Party mouthpieces.
3. Who? [paraphrasing in extremely cynical fashion on number 3 here]
I could go on...but I am guessing everyone gets the drift.
Provided the NDP MPs do in fact provide good service to their constituents and effectively represent the views of their respective ridings in Ottawa, then promoting the role of the MPs will help. If they can afford and acquire good Parliamentary Staff they can start building the re-elect me playbooks starting May 3rd, 2011 by planning what they can and will do for constituents during the next four years. That is all they will be able to do because the will have zero real power in Parliament unfortunately. History is always re-written from the power perspective. i.e. Chretien/Martin refused to de-regulate banks but Harper took the credit (and that was a re-write of what a Party in power at the time did). That is really how it has historically worked. Any retired MP will tell you most sincerely that being an MP is at best a dirty and thankless job...and it is true.
Most MPs try to do their jobs right and try to promote themselves in their constituencies but at the end of the day it is the style of our election campaigns and the way media covers the campaigns that is the biggest problem. Americans have always (unsuccessfully) tried to cover Hockey games like the original CBC's Hockey Night in Canada and Canada has more successfully copied the American style election coverage. Pollsters focus on Leaders not candidates. Media focuses on Leaders not Candidates. The issues and the candidates get lost in the coverage of 'who looks most like a PM'. CTV's Power Play covered the debates like the leaders were in a hockey game...complete with hockey style vernacular.
[Good thing I put in time as a Hockey Mom.... I might have missed some really important moves otherwise!]
Worse...ALL the Party Spin Doctors and the Party Leaders themselves buy into it. Elizabeth May was the ONLY one who stayed on message. I am guessing it was because she had no Spin Doctors, Pollsters or headline seeking media types around to knock her off message.
1. We no longer elect Candidates (meaning serious riding representatives) to Ottawa. This will not change given the style/tone of election campaigns.
2. Vote splitting will continue even if we do try to elect the best candidate for the role of MP in our respective ridings. No party can field the clearly 'best' choice in all ridings nationwide.
3. Even if number 1 were to change and number 2 was possible. We still have to consider Party Platforms when voting. With 3 or more platforms to consider in each election...FPTP can be defined as 'can't get there from here'.
I credit that MPs were intended to be the 'Heart of our Democracy'...but if they are the heart of it...then that heart developed cardiomyopathy when we started fielding three or more parties in federal elections. Our only hope is surgery....FPTP heart needs replaced with the best Proportional Representation model we can find or create. We are only one of..what?...four countries left limping along with FPTP? With PR we can go back to honestly electing the best possible candidates we can to Ottawa...successfully.
Snert you seem to be missing the part of this where I am arguing for our parliamentary system to operate as the representative democracy it was meant to be. I would prefer our system of MP's to remain and not be replaced by a republican model with the types of "direct" democracy that have shown to cause problems such as no funding for schools in California.
I want our MP's to fix the electoral system. That is their job as my representative in a responsible government. I just don't like american populism because I don't see it as democracy in action. I look south and see only corruption in motion with propaganda lies from the MSM equating the plutocracies favourite system with democracy.
Snert you seem to be missing the part of this where I am arguing for our parliamentary system to operate as the representative democracy it was meant to be. I would prefer our system of MP's to remain and not be replaced by a republican model with the types of "direct" democracy that have shown to cause problems such as no funding for schools in California.
Okay, but if a majority of Californians want to cut school funding, what's specifically the difference between the electorate saying so in a referendum, or elected officials representing that same electorate and saying so on their behalf?
This sounds like exactly the opposite of representation. My MP should demand PR even as she knows that the majority of the electorate don't demand it?? I'm not sure I want our elected officials feeling that paternal. I'd so much rather they never be mandated to save me from myself.
I think we send people to Ottawa to provide solutions to the problems they have jurisdiction over. I don't think we send politicians to be robots for either their party or public opinion polls. Not that many don't end up being one or the other. I want them to make decisions on hard problems because generally it has been my experience in life that complex issues are very difficult to reduce to referendum questions. Because of that those kinds of initiative, especially when large third party war chests are involved, have a long history of producing perverse results because of unintended consequences.
I prefer to have people elected to study the issues in committees by listening to views from both experts and activists for solutions, from across the political spectrum
Evidently, Canadians don't really see this as much of a problem, hard or otherwise. Again, the only way your model can function is if my MP acts in defiance of my wishes, not in accord with them.
I guess, for me, it comes down to whether or not we, as an electorate, are free to want what we want, or whether we should only be allowed to have what we want if an "expert" blesses our choice. I would much rather have PR because the electorate buys in than because some commission says it's a good idea. I'd like it if people were to take the recommendations of experts into account, but I don't want to turn my self-determination over to an overseer.
I'd like it if people were to take the recommendations of experts into account, but I don't want to turn my self-determination over to an overseer.
Exactly when have Canadians ever had self determination? The system we live in allows for the MP's to fetter the absolute right of the Crown. Don't remember any period when citizens determined for themselves the electoral system of the economic system either.
I guess you just don't see the ties that bind us all and believe in that great american ideal of self determination. Unlike you I do not agree with the american propaganda that equates their system with democracy. The ideal of the individual over society is not an ideal to me but self centred greed masquerading as virtue.
Polls showed in 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2010 that a strong majority of Canadians believe that the portion of seats a party wins in the House of Commons should reflect the portion of the votes they receive.
Why did the second BC referendum fail? In BC, a poll after the referendum showed that 44.3% of those who voted for first-past-the-post in the referendum responded they are in "favour of replacing first-past-the-post with a voting system in which the percentage of seats a party gets in the legislature is more in line with their percentage of the popular vote." That makes 66% of BC voters in favour of some proportional system.
Why did the 2007 Ontario referendum not pass? A combination of several factors. In brief:
1. Most people did not know what they were voting on. Unlike BC's first referendum, the government refused to distribute any documents from the Citizens' Assembly. Polls showed those who understood it supported it.
2. It had province-wide lists for the "top-up" MPPs. The Ontario NDP already knew this would never fly in the North, where they would have lost some local MPPs in return for the hope of a few of the "list" MPPs. The NDP's own policy called for regional lists, with the North as one region, so that northern votes would elect northern MPPs. Although the NDP supported the MMP system in the referendum, the NDP's strongest region -- northern Ontario -- voted most strongly against MMP, for this reason. In fact, support for MMP declined in almost perfect proportion to the voter's distance from Toronto. For another example, MMP did far better in conservative York Region than it did in Ottawa where Liberal and NDP voters should have been receptive, the Ottawa Citizen actually gave the issue fair coverage, and Fair Vote Ontario ran the strongest campaign in the province. Ottawa voters in general, and francophones in particular, did not want to lose local MPPs in return for a hope of a few of the "list" MPPs.
3. "Appointed MPPs." The model had closed lists for the "top-up" MPPs. That flowed from point #2. It would be absurd to expect voters across Ontario to choose from a list of 40 or more candidates for the "top-up" positions. With regional lists the second ballot could, as recommended by the Law Commission of Canada, have allowed voters to cast a personal vote for their favourite of their party's regional candidates. But we had a tough time explaining how the list candidates would be nominated -- no party, not even the NDP, had had time to design a model for nominating province-wide lists. So it did sound as if the list would be drawn up in Toronto (see point 2 again), and the "party hacks" on the list would be guaranteed seats. Even some strong PR supporters couldn't swallow that, and voted against it.
Why did the second BC referendum fail? In BC, a poll after the referendum showed that 44.3% of those who voted for first-past-the-post in the referendum responded they are in "favour of replacing first-past-the-post with a voting system in which the percentage of seats a party gets in the legislature is more in line with their percentage of the popular vote." That makes 66% of BC voters in favour of some proportional system.
So it failed because a substantial number of voters put the X in the wrong box?? Couldn't make sense of the question?
That still offers NO insight whatsoever into why a person who, in an exit poll, claims to support PR would in fact do the EXACT OPPOSITE when it counted.
It reminds me of the frequently referenced idea that "most Canadians' values are best aligned with the NDP", which may well be true, but until that starts to translate to those Canadians actually voting for the NDP, is just interesting trivia.
If those people really, genuinely do support PR, but they voted for FPTP, they should spend the rest of their lives smacking themselves in the head. If I had an opportunity to vote for something I really wanted, but in a moment of fugue state, I voted AGAINST what I wanted, and helped score on my own net, that's what I'd do. Doomed to a system I don't actually want, because I voted against myself? Shoot me now.
As long as the conversation is about the effective outcomes of electoral reform, as it pertains to current party formation and popularity, electoral reform will never happen. Once the conversation shifts to recognizing what is the best representation of the people's will, then it has a chance.
When underrepresented, the NDP favoured electoral reform.
Now that they are overrepresented, will the same hold true, or will they have a reversal of policy, justified by decades of being on the receiving end from the Liberals.
Snert the part you don't understand is the influence of the MSM on voters. Obfuscation is a great tool and has been used very effectively. It is what all those kinds of citizens initiative debates in the States turn into. Like in BC where they used Malta as an example to prove that we would have less women in the Leg if we got STV.
I have a good rule that is repeated in every crime show. Follow the money.
Oh look the moneyed interest and their MSM outlets are reporting disinformation as news.
Who does the FPTP help? the corporate elite
Who owns the media? the corporate elite
Who has the ability to either manufacture consent or obfuscate in our society? the MSM owned by the corporate elite.
I think real humans sometimes buy all kinds of MSM ideas that are absurd because propaganda is a powerful tool of the moneyed interests.
But we had a tough time explaining how the list candidates would be nominated -- no party, not even the NDP, had had time to design a model for nominating province-wide lists. So it did sound as if the list would be drawn up in Toronto (see point 2 again), and the "party hacks" on the list would be guaranteed seats. Even some strong PR supporters couldn't swallow that, and voted against it.
Why is that? Why has no one (I'm looking in your direction, Mr. Day) associated with the fair voting movement designed a model showing how party lists could be created? If MMP is to be taken seriously as an alternative system, it would make sense to have an idea on how these lists would be drawn up.
I think the reason is that there is no way to have a properly balanced list (region, gender, abroiginal/VM) without involving some sort of a party nominating committee (The Official Slate). Once that occurs, it calls the legitimacy of list MPs into question. To whom are they accountable? How can you get rid of a list MP? It's the dirty little secret of proportional representation.
Shhh! Don't tell anyone or they'll think you're a conspiracy theorist. Next thing you know you'll be on a dreary island with cement buildings and windows with bars, and a lot of guys in white lab coats referring to you as patient number MKU-97654-21b or something.
Krago: I don't think it is the responsibility of Fair Vote to come up with guidelines on how the lists must be drawn up - or at least not far beyond saying they should be provincial or regional (and I am thinking of an aggregate of provinces here... like the Atlantic provinces, not regional within a province). I think it is the responsibility of the parties to determine how they will compile their lists. And, for example, if the list is going to be all Toronto, or all Montreal in ON and QC respectively, work on the assumption that the electorate will take note of this and probably punish them for it by not voting for that party's candidates in the first place. The lists themselves will probably have to be part of the party platform - with an explanation of why they placing those names on it.
But we had a tough time explaining how the list candidates would be nominated -- no party, not even the NDP, had had time to design a model for nominating province-wide lists. So it did sound as if the list would be drawn up in Toronto (see point 2 again), and the "party hacks" on the list would be guaranteed seats. Even some strong PR supporters couldn't swallow that, and voted against it.
Why is that? Why has no one (I'm looking in your direction, Mr. Day) associated with the fair voting movement designed a model showing how party lists could be created? If MMP is to be taken seriously as an alternative system, it would make sense to have an idea on how these lists would be drawn up.
I think the reason is that there is no way to have a properly balanced list (region, gender, abroiginal/VM) without involving some sort of a party nominating committee (The Official Slate). Once that occurs, it calls the legitimacy of list MPs into question. To whom are they accountable? How can you get rid of a list MP? It's the dirty little secret of proportional representation.
What about a system where you just vote for your candidate like normal, but the popular vote % top up seats are awarded to the party's losing candidates based on who lost by the smallest margin?
Assuming the regional MMP model (typically 14 MPs, nine local, five regional), first, the regional candidates will be nominated at a regional convention where five or more are nominated at once. Few parties would nominate a group of five but only one woman, or no cultural minority member. No doubt the NDP would require nomination of equal numbers of men and women, just as the German Greens do, and every party in France under their Parity Law. Would there be a "slate" at the convention? Maybe. But it's a secret ballot. The main purpose of a "slate" in regions outside Toronto would be geographic balance within the region.
But second, assuming the open-list model recommended by the Law Commission of Canada (the leading model on the table since no one else with similar credibility has designed a model), then the voters will decide which of the (balanced or otherwise) group get elected. I don't believe that the open list model will hurt women -- it didn't when Sweden switched to it from their previous closed-list model -- because 90% of Canadians want to see more women in Parliament, so if we have qualified women on the ballot, we'll elect them.
No one has a guaranteed seat.
In the Ontario referendum, when we had to defend a model with province-wide closed lists (a largely indefensible model), we did indeed tell people how such lists are created in the New Zealand Labour Party (then the government) which I expect is the model Ontario parties would have used. They hold six regional nominating conventions, again electing candidates by secret ballot. They then fold the six lists into one. They have rules as to how this is done, and it is done by a special medium-sized national party committee with carefully set out representation from all groups and regions.
Thanks Wilf. Do you have a link to these New Zealand list folding rules?
Thanks Wilf. Do you have a link to these New Zealand list folding rules?
Labour Party constitution, but its irrelevant since no one proposes closed-list MMP for Canada anymore.
I think the reason is that there is no way to have a properly balanced list (region, gender, abroiginal/VM) without involving some sort of a party nominating committee (The Official Slate). Once that occurs, it calls the legitimacy of list MPs into question. To whom are they accountable? How can you get rid of a list MP? It's the dirty little secret of proportional representation.
Here's another secret that Canadians don't know. Proportional representation works marvelously throughout the modern democratic world. On the other hand, only two modern multi-party democratic states still use FPTP, the UK and Canada. And within the UK, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have all established PR within the last decade. FPTP is an archaic system befitting two-party politics.
MMP is a system that works in Germany. There's no reason it wouldn't work here too. Bavaria has a great open-list system.
What about a system where you just vote for your candidate like normal, but the popular vote % top up seats are awarded to the party's losing candidates based on who lost by the smallest margin?
The German state of Baden-Wurttemberg uses this model of MMP. It's known as the "best near-winner" method.
It would be a great system for Canada as it would replicate Canada's system of voting where the voter simply puts one "x" next to the name of one candidate.
Since we seem to have some good statisticians involved in this discussion maybe someone can answer some questions?
If we accepted the Law Commission recommendation of a 33% top up to get PR and we just added an additional 103 seats, what does our current parliament look like.
If we use the "best loser" by percentage which Liberal, Bloc and Green Candidates get in. I expect the Cons would get no top up seats and the NDP would get very few because its vote actually yielded them a close to proportional share of seats.
Presumably we'd break this down by province - and for Quebec and Ontario at least, to subprovincial regions. Meaning there's be extra Tories in Quebec and maybe Atlantic Canada, as well as extra New Democrats in Saskatchewan and Atlantic Canada. The lion's share of Quebec top-up seats would go to the Bloc.
Presumably we'd break this down by province - and for Quebec and Ontario at least, to subprovincial regions. Meaning there's be extra Tories in Quebec and maybe Atlantic Canada, as well as extra New Democrats in Saskatchewan and Atlantic Canada. The lion's share of Quebec top-up seats would go to the Bloc.
That is one possibility but certainly not a presumption. It depends on what your objective is for the system. Do you want it to not only try for more PR or do you also want it provide regional balance in its outcomes? Many would point you too STV if the regional is your ideal as long as close to PR is acceptable.
With the best loser there is the idea that the candidate that stood for election and came the closest has the largest group of under represented voters. It is those "voters" who get their preference when the PR distribution is made not a "region".
The reason I asked above is I suspect that in fact the best loser option might accomplish both things. The reason I said by percentage was because if you go by total number of votes then all the PR seats would go to urban areas.
In a country as large as Canada, anything based on one national PR calculation is a complete non starter.
Would you like to share your reason for your stating that axiom. I am trying to probe the possibilities would you care to share the studies that show the inherent problems that would lead to such a self evident truth. Have you read anything that says doing PR in this manner would lead to specific anomalies. Please share I'd love to read them.
This type of absolute black or white about tiny aspects of any proposed system usually leads to people not supporting change. If there are four components to a new electoral system; and you convince 15% of the people they should reject the whole because of one of the 4; then you have 60% opposed even though most want some sort of change.
Think Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accord for what happens. Personally setting the Senate in stone was one of the deal breakers for me but many others rejected it for other reasons.
I'm looking forward to the Pan Canadian protest for Electoral Reform on Saturday.
Those in the MTL area...See you at Berri Square!
I didn't add any seats, nor did the Law Commission, but keeping the 308 seats here's the result: 127 Conservatives, 98 New Democrats, 56 Liberals, 16 Bloc Québécois, and 11 Greens.
I didn't strictly follow "best runner-up" but I started with that. Who might Canada's MPs be, under proportional results for the May 2 election?
NDP voters would have elected lots of top-up MPs: five MPs in Saskatchewan, four more MPs in Alberta, six more MPs in the GTA, three more MPs in Eastern Ontario, two more in New Brunswick, one more in West Central Ontario, and one more in Southwest Ontario.
Conservative voters would have elected three MPs from Montréal/Laval, one from the South Shore (Montérégie), and one from the North Shore and western Québec where Lawrence Cannon lost his seat. Also, they would have elected second MPs from both Newfoundland and PEI.
Indeed. First, it would require a constitutional amendment, which PR need not require. Second, no one I know would vote for it, which is why the Law Commission did not recommend it. When we have a well-researched recommendation which almost no electoral refomers have objected to, why not start there?
Tom Flanagan supports AV or Preferential or Instant Run-Off. With three candidates this means a second choice. Britain has just rejected this in a referendum which was more a vote on Nick Clegg. AV is not PR but could be a first step. Maybe Flanagan can convince Harper. The Reform Party often talked about reforming the system. It would be better done in Parliament without a referendum.
Britain rejected it because no one really wanted it, and no serious commission or study had recommended it. It was promoted by some Labour MPs before the last election as a diversion from the widespread demand for PR, when they thought it would give them a partisan advantage by getting Labour a rich harvest of transfers from the Lib Dems; but Nick Clegg called AV "worthless." Then the Lib Dems joined the Coalition, and that was the end of the idea that it would help Labour. Then Nick Clegg, having failed to get the Conservatives to agree to a referendum on PR, settled for "some reform, any reform, even a worthless reform, even a reform which may be an even worse winner-take-all system than FPTP." Thank heavens it lost so heavily as to be off the table anywhere; even Tom Flanagan hasn't mentioned it recently.
The "best runner-up" seems like the simplest, best form of MMP to me. what are the drawbacks?
I know a lot of people who agree with you. If a Citizens' Assembly chose it, I'd happily campaign for it, and I bet it would be popular.
The main debating point against it would be the fact that some ridings would have two MPs, some one, some three, and the odd one four. Lots of potential for ridicule.
The serious drawback is that every candidate would be nominated one at a time in a single-member district. When a regional party convention nominates five candidates, few parties would dare nominate only one woman, or zero minorities. With "best runner-up" that merit of PR is lost. Baden-Wurttemberg elects fewer women MPPs than anywhere else in Germany. Still pretty good, though.
I have been a long supporter of PR - at least since the early 80s. However, that said, I see zero appetite for PR (in whatever form) beyond a bunch of us political junkies. If you are a single mother trying to pay the bills, your list of political priorities hardly starts with electoral reform.
I believe candidates lists would be decided by each party's officials and submitted to the electoral commission for approval. That's the first step.
Then the approved lists would be published for voters to examine well before an election and hopefully sometime in future an election as scheduled under rules for fixed election dates. There would be time for voters to decide whether they approve of the overall list of candidates, and whether they approve of the male-female ratios and so on. But if you're thinking that the list is kept secret until election day or even until after the election, that's not true. Wilf can set us straight on this though.
I'm looking forward to the Pan Canadian protest for Electoral Reform on Saturday.
Those in the MTL area...See you at Berri Square!
Those in the Toronto area: I'll see you at Queen's Park.
I have been a long supporter of PR - at least since the early 80s. However, that said, I see zero appetite for PR (in whatever form) beyond a bunch of us political junkies. If you are a single mother trying to pay the bills, your list of political priorities hardly starts with electoral reform.
The election of the first "manufactured majority" (phony majority) government since 2000 has sparked thousands of new PR supporters, and a spontaneous set of rallies for this Saturday. FVC folks would have said you can't organize rallies that fast. These students, CAPP alumni, and other e-denizens just jump in and do it.
No, they would be nominated democratically, as I outlined above.
That the political junkie class has been motivated by this election result I have no doubt. But that hardly compares to average folk who are worrying about raising gas prices, shocking electrical bills and trying to deal with large debt loads. So the suggestion that there has been some "exponential" growth in support (knowing what the word actually means) strikes me as way over the top.
Would you like to share your reason for your stating that axiom. I am trying to probe the possibilities would you care to share the studies that show the inherent problems that would lead to such a self evident truth. Have you read anything that says doing PR in this manner would lead to specific anomalies. Please share I'd love to read them.
I don't know what part of the country you live in, but if it isn't Toronto, then I'm surprised you even have to ask that question.
Running MMP top up from one national list would likely (ie, almost certainly) be ineffective in addressing regional under-representation in party caucusses. Using the last election as the scenario, all but two provinces are represented in the NDP caucus. In one of those provinces (Saskatchewan) the NDP received 32.35% of the popular vote and received no seats. In the other (Prince Edward Island) the NDP received 15.35% of the popular vote and no seats. Using one national top up list, it is unlikely that either of those representational deficiancies would be addressed.
Instead, the votes of NDP supporters in under-represented Saskatchewan and unrepresented Prince Edward Island would be more likely to add additional MMP seats occupied by central Canadians.
Which is why no one outwith Toronto (and downtown Toronto at that) is likely ever to support it.
Doing it by province (and, in QC and ON by regions within the province) will ensure that major party caucusses will almost certainly have substantial representation from every region - which ameliorates regional tensions. (Would Reform have been such anti-French assholes if there had been 10 Reform MPs from Quebec?)
(Would Reform have been such anti-French assholes if there had been 10 Reform MPs from Quebec?)
As easily as Harper could be a misogynist with women in his caucus.
Granted that bigotry of all sorts runs pretty deep. Nonetheless, I'm convinced that regional disparities in caucusses exacerbate regional tensions in Canada. Reform would have been a different party with a cadre of Quebec MPs. (And I suspect the HarperCons would be a different party if they had no female MPs.)
I have been a long supporter of PR - at least since the early 80s. However, that said, I see zero appetite for PR (in whatever form) beyond a bunch of us political junkies. If you are a single mother trying to pay the bills, your list of political priorities hardly starts with electoral reform.
A lot of single moms must be wondering how the political party that's most opposed to early childhood education and affordable daycare now has 100% political power with just 39% of the vote.
Maybe some of these single moms will be at one of today's national rallies for electoral reform?
Maybe she's carrying the sign with the Conservative Logo and the wording "Worst Past The Post."
Did the turnout at the rallies reflect the exponential increase in support for PR?
My bet: hardly anyone showed up, but polls taken later this week will show that a clear majority of Canadians supported showing up.
Those who think the NDP will now lose interest in PR should consider: NDP voters in areas where they elected too few or no MPs would have elected 21 more MPs: five in Saskatchewan, four more in Alberta, two more in Manitoba, three more in Eastern Ontario, three more in the GTA, one more in each of West Central Ontario and Southwest Ontario, and two more in New Brunswick.
The Conservative majority wasn't as "fake" as the 40-60 split shows. Distirbution is very important and the governing party got seats even in Quebec and especiially in the West and Ontario. Outside Quebec the split was more like 47-53. And the Opposition parties were as interested in defeating each other as the government. Canadian voters got "the government they deserve".
And I still think that AV is a small step that would make a better democracy (a second choice if my candidate comes third - an instant run-off) Three failed referendums show that MMP, PR and STV are too complicated at first but could come later.
Yes, 47.7% v. 52.3%. What's your point? Quebecois don't count?
The open-regional-list MMP model recommended by the Law Commission of Canada has never been put to a referendum. Surveys in New Zealand and Scotland showed (as a survey in Ontario would have) that most voters "would prefer to have been able to vote for individual candidates on the regional vote rather than for a party list." The Law Commission knew that.
And support for province-wide lists in the Ontario referendum declined, of course, in direct proportion to the distance from the capital, precisely as it did in PEI. This was no surprise to Lord Jenkins' Commissioners in the United Kingdom who wrote in 1998 that additional regional MPs locally anchored to small areas are "more easily assimilable into the political culture and indeed the Parliamentary system than would be a flock of unattached birds clouding the sky and wheeling under central party directions." The Law Commission knew that too.
No one has recommended AV for Canada. No one recommended it for the UK either, but Clegg grasped at the idea of "some change, any change, even a worthless change." The UK voters massively didn't buy it. Ontario's Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform (a randomized citizens' jury) had 103 members; only three of them wanted AV. Forget it.
If every vote counted equally, voters would get what they voted for. Democracy, eh?