So, Hey...does that Green Party Wagon have ANY wheels on it anymore? If so, will they stay on or fall off?
Sat, 2010-05-01 22:40
#1
So, Hey...does that Green Party Wagon have ANY wheels on it anymore? If so, will they stay on or fall off?
Sat, 2010-05-01 23:25
#2
Depends, I guess, on whether folks see survival of the species (ours included) dependent on "market forces" (to respond to the question in the thread title). It is a question that cannot be dismissed without also treating this exercise as just another political exercise in semantics. Or, perhaps, the architects of this thread are happy with discussing the public's perception of environmental honesty as opposed to the real issues on the ground. Neither political party's "wagon" has wheels in that regard.
Sun, 2010-05-02 03:04
#3
I can agree with the sentiment, but to actually propose it seriously, in the absence of a proper national debate, and referendum isn`t on. I`m afraid that if we all want PR, then we will have to achieve it the long way by persuading our fellow citizens that it is desirable, and winning their votes in a referendum.
Our single-member plurality (SMP) system is a two party dominant system. SMP cannot function properly when there are four or five strong parties like we now have on the federal scene. So either the electoral system will change or parties will have to merge with each other to conform with the reality of SMP. The "right side" of the electoral system merged because they realized that they could not change the electoral system unilaterally. The "right"was unwilling to exclude themselves from power indefinitely so they decided to merge as that was the only way they could retake power under SMP. . Because the" right side" has united, the "left side" of politics is locked into a losing position under SMP. Now the "left side" of the electoral system is faced with the same dilemma the "right side" was faced with just 7 years ago.
The Liberals and NDP have two options:
1 - Establish electoral reform suited to a multi-party system.
2 - Merge with each other to conform with SMP.
They NDP and Liberals will choose option number 1, with or without a referendum.
The only question will be: which electoral system will be chosen? Will it be proportional or not?
Some NDP'ers and Liberals will back the Alternative Vote. Like SMP, it's a majoritarian system, but it is made for multi-party politics.. Others in the NDP, Liberals, and Greens will support a more proportional system like MMP.
Sun, 2010-05-02 03:15
#4
Those aren't the only alternatives. The most likely is the status quo: no merger and the Liberals remaining against any form of PR forever.
Its a reasonable goal to get the Liberals at least internally divided so that they don't do everything possible to stop it. But even that much will only happen as a consequence along the way of persuading the majority of citizens that we need PR.
Sun, 2010-05-02 03:53
#5
Those aren't the only alternatives. The most likely is the status quo: no merger and the Liberals remaining against any form of PR forever.
Its a reasonable goal to get the Liberals at least internally divided so that they don't do everything possible to stop it. But even that much will only happen as a consequence along the way of persuading the majority of citizens that we need PR.
If the next election produces a minority government with NDP and Liberal seat gains, I wouldn't be surprised if the Liberals propose to the NDP that they jointly support the Alternative Vote. What should Layton and the rest of the NDP brain trust do in such a case?
And maybe it will be the NDP who proposes AV to the Liberals. Or maybe they will jointly come to the same conclusion that AV is in both their interests?
I have a suspicion that electoral reform will become a major issue in the next election as it has in the UK during the last 3 weeks. Labour is supporting AV. The Liberal Democrats are supporting STV. And there has been speculation that the Liberal Democrats could get Labour or Conservatives to compromise and support AV top up.
Sun, 2010-05-02 09:52
#6
This is all very interesting but its going to be my last foray into this- what the Libs and NDP might want is pretty tangential to what goes on in the GPC even if they do have the most stake in some form of getting PR.
The institutional histories of the parties in the UK and their interaction is hugely different in spite of sharing the Westminster system. So I think possibilities developing there have little bearing here.
The Liberals are so deeply entrenched against PR that as much as I'm confident they will want some governing arrangement with the NDP if there is no Conservative majority in the next election- I think that NDP demands of substantial definite movement towards PR- anything more than "studying it"- would be a deal breaker for the Liberals. Even though they will probably have more to lose than the NDP from failing to come to a governing aggreement.
They will remain that much against any kind of PR for the forseeable future. Anything but assuming they will have to be gone around is a delusion that gets in the way of getting something done.
Sun, 2010-05-02 09:52
#7
I don't think our population is dense enough to get people to support STV. BC at one time had some experience with multi-member seats, as did PEI, but I think our rural, remote and northern populations would rebel against it. Or else it would entail adding more seats than would be politically palatable.
Also hating to throw a monkey-wrench into the conversation (ok, not really ;-)), but you don't want to come up with a voting system like AV that gets you too far away from paper ballots, because there are just way too many problems with other voting technologies so far, and the ballot is so sacrosanct that I would not want to even start going down that road. If it can't be counted on election night by DROs, poll clerks and a bunch of party scrutineers, and entered into one simple tally, that's a recipe for confusion, potential hackery, and endless legal quagmires. Keep it simple.
I think MMP is a much better fit for our federal, geographically-dispersed, bilingual-multicultural, paper ballot electoral system. It should allocate the extra seats by province (or sub-provincial region) to maintain the constitutional seat guarantees currently in place for certain provinces (not arguing for or against those, just against the expenditure of political capital needed to change them at the same time), and the extra members should be elected by an open list method.
Sun, 2010-05-02 10:03
#8
So Matt / BGB- seriously, what do you think would happen with the GPC if all of a sudden loans from individuals are banned? I think its probably going to make it through as legislation this time.
Even if there is an effective date a year in the future- that means no more recycling of debt and that for all intents and purposes it has to be paid off.
Right now, I don't think the bank would even give the GPC a campaign loan even with the campaign rebates as collateral. They don't like to risk even forcing collection, let alone not getting paid.
And even before the current post-2008 election financial crisis, no commercial institution would give a loan for what the GPC is using the private loans now: to cover accumulated longer term debt. [Actually, they probably wouldnt do that for any party. Its just that no one would try- its too dangerous a position for a party to carry debt long after an election even if they can get the loan.]
Sun, 2010-05-02 19:47
#9
The question is also whether the NDP will continue to support disproportionate representation for Quebec. The NDP recently came out in favor of allowing Quebec to have a guaranteed 25% of the seats even if its population does not justify it. That is unfair to other provinces, particularly British Columbia and Alberta.
Linda Duncan will need to justify that to Albertans in the next election.
Sun, 2010-05-02 20:43
#10
No the question is, what hobby horses Augustus wants to ride out into the ring. So we go from proportional representation in general [already not in specific relation to the Green Party... from there to trolling out really generalized [and very partisan motivated] notions of "fair representation". Give it a break.
You are free to flog that one in Alberta. But thats quite the crap for this board. Decided you need to stir things up more?
Sun, 2010-05-02 20:44
#11
remind
Why would she have to do that, augustus?
Does Harper ever justify things to Canadians?
Not for 1 fucking moment.
So you tell me, why would any of his shills make such a ridiculous comment?
Sun, 2010-05-02 22:22
#12
The institutional histories of the parties in the UK and their interaction is hugely different in spite of sharing the Westminster system.
Canada and the UK share one peculiarity. They are the only developed countries with multi-party political systems that still have Single-Member Plurality (SMP) at the federal level.
And the UK has MMP in Scotland and Wales. And STV in Northern Ireland.
So Canada is the ONLY developed country in the world that's still stuck exclusively with SMP, an electoral system made for two-party politics.