Proportional Representation: Let's make 2015 the last unfair election

835 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Mon, 2016-01-18 01:52

White Cat

mark_alfred wrote:

Yeah, I've noticed some talking point themes (propaganda themes) that you referred to.

Anyway, if the NDP, Greens, and Bloc were firm on having replacement to FPTP be a form of PR and not RBV (or at least not solely RBV), and the Cons firm in wanting FPTP, what do you think the Libs would do?

That's how I feel it should be played by the NDP, Greens and Bloc. There should be no settling for solely RBV on their part. If the Libs wanna push it through on their own, then fine. But the others should insist on PR.

There's a significant danger that this approach could cement FPTP in place forever.

First, let's break down support by parties in the last election:

PR supporters: NPD + Bloc + Green = 19.7% + 4.7% + 3.5% = 27.9%

FPTP supporters: Con = 31.9%

Liberal supporters: split 3 ways between PR, Ranked Ballot Voting, and FPTP (let's assume evenly.)

That means:

PR support: 27.9% + 13.2% = 41.1%

FPTP support: 31.9% + 13.2% = 45.1%

RBV support: 13.2%.

Now since Trudeau's initiative is a half-way process (a full process would be entirely technocratic which would guarantee some form of PR, but it's not,) he's attempting to come up with some kind of apparent majority consensus (where compromise is not off the table.)

But what if the politicking by the media makes it appear full PR is too radical a choice? If PR supporters believe that any kind of compromise is unacceptable, they walk away from the table with nothing. That leaves:

RBV support: 13.2% / (45.1% +13.2%) = 22.6% (of 100% still left in the process)

FPTP support: 45.1% / (45.1% + 13.2%) = 77.4%

So there are 3 reasons why the status quo wins out:

1) Numerical superiority in both steps of a polarized process.

2) If Trudeau's committee can't find a majority consensus, the default option is the status quo. ("The ER issue is too divisive.")

3) Even if Trudeau wanted to get something done, he would be attacked from all quarters for acting in illusory partisan self-interest by legislating RBV as a last-ditch compromise.

Conclusion:

This is the very reason why FPTP supporters are pushing MMP or nothing, borrowing this strategy from the FVC-type PR supporters.

If anyone can find fault with this reasoning, please chime in. But my analyses have been pretty good in the past. I predicted a Trudeau majority when the NDP was leading in the polls (on this board.) I predicted a Harper majority in 2011 (I figured this out the night before. I knew the Red Tories would bolt to the Cons to stop an NDP minority: 10% Red Tory + 30% radical con = 40% Harper majority: "last minute Blue counter wave to the Orange wave.")

I was wrong thinking that Trudeau would find some way to weasel out of his promise of ER (he made when down in the polls,) like Liberals did in BC and ON with corrupt designed-to-fail referendums. But even if he's not putting on a big show in a rigged process and has honest intentions, he may be forced to back out.

Mon, 2016-01-18 01:56

#803

White Cat

This is why I think the "electoral reform is a spectrum" approach is the best shot of getting full PR — whether in one shot or in a developmental process.

So the ER spectrum + FPTP gives the options:

1) Full PR: MMP or STV

2) Semi-proportional: scaled down STV or MMP

3) Ranked Ballot Voting (simply requires MPs earn their seats with a majority which stops vote splitting.)

4) The FPTP status quo

Under this system, based on Trudeau's promise to make 2015 the last caveman election, the favored choice is a semi-proportional system. Since he promised ER, he has to give both sides something (PR and RBV supporters.)

If a scaled down version of STV is put in place (best PR/RBV compromise), this can be upgraded along an STV or MMP path at a future time.

Presently Canadians are fearful of change and unfamiliar with how the world votes. But if they get direct experience with a semi-proportional system, they will be more open to full PR like 84% of our peer developed nations. That will only require a minor upgrade from a semi-proportional system.

BTW, if Trudeau's ER initiative fails, FPTP supporters who own the media will say the issue was examined and rejected like Mulroney's constitutional bungling. The Liberals will be out for good. That leaves everything up to an NDP false majority at some future point in time (which could be a very long time.)

Mon, 2016-01-18 04:49

#804

Sean in Ottawa

No White Cat -- very many people voted Liberal thinking that the NDP and Liberals stood for PR. Many did not vote at all on electoral reform. A good number did but did not understand that the Liberal electoral refirm was something different than PR.A good many do not understand the differences between the systems and thini the eLiberal system is just another proportional vote mechanism.

Your math here is completely made up and without any foundation.

This is just like pretending that the majority of Liberal voters actually understood that most of the middle class would get nothing or very little while the majority would go to high income earners. they simple heard middle class tax cut and assumed the Liberals were being truthful (for some strange reason).

Mon, 2016-01-18 18:13

#805

Rev Pesky

Michael Moriarity wrote:
...I agree with you that getting rid of Mulcair won't solve the problems of the NDP, but I think it is a necessary first step, allowing the more substantive problems to be effectively tackled.

I don't see it as a first step, I see it as a side step. It's simply a way of avoiding dealing with the real issues. Which is precisely how I see the electoral system issue.

Michael Moriarity wrote:
...Similarly, while I don't feel that changing the electoral system will solve all our problems, I do think it is also a necessary first step, to allow non-mainstream voices, such as real anti-capitalists, to be heard in parliament, and educate the public about the options they face. I respect your right to your opinion, but I disagree very strongly with it.

There was a reason I brought up recent events in Europe. In Greece, people elected a very left-wing party (Syriza) with their version of a PR system. Unfortunately Syriza didn't have quie enough seats to form a government, so they made a coalition agreement with a right-wing populist party (Independent Greeks), giving their leader the Defence post in the cabinet.

Now, despite the clear anti-austerity vote, the clear rejection of mainstream politics, what, in the end happened? The Syriza government collapsed like a house of cards. The austerity provisions were enacted in a harsher form than the proposal before the election, and in a subsequent election the radical left party once again made a coalition with the right-wing Independent Greeks.

Now you're telling me that PR voting is a first step. Sorry, but it's not. It's a first step to nowhere. It's quite simply a way for the left to show they've given up.

In a similar way, if the NDP truly fixed their problems, and told their leader what the new program was, if that leader didn't agree with it they would resign. There's no need to force Mulcair out. There is a need to re-shape the NDP program. The party leader can then accept that program, or quit.

Mon, 2016-01-18 18:19

#806

Rev Pesky

Arthur Cramer wrote:

All this arguing about FPTP and the assertion it works. Well lets look at the real record. Greater economic ineqaulity than since the Gilded age, check! Unprecedented Coproate power and influence over public pollicy, check! More enviromental damage than in any time in the history of modern recorded histroy, check! More undeclared war and comabat than since the Second World War, check. Shrinking social safety net, check! Greater child poverty than since the Great Depression, check! 30 years plus of surpassed wages, check! Less organized labour power than since the Gilded Age and the time of the Robber Barrons, check! Greaterd and greater difficulyt to workers to access unemployment insurance in which they paid into, check! More trade agreements empowering Corporations while stealing the strength of people through their francish to influence public policy, check! Greater and greaterd decay of good paying manufacturing jobs, check! Less and less access to Higher Education along with continued decay of pubic education, check! Yeah, sure, FPTP has been a stunning success!!!!!!! What are all you rotten, unprincipled lefties complaing about it. The "progressives", the real and only non extremits, have this, check! And lets not forget that Pondering, Debater, and Rev Pesky are right, people wanted this then and still want it now, check! What are all you ugrateful rotten lefty clowns complaining about, FPTP has been a STUNNING SUCCESS!!!!!

And all of what you've posted above is true in all developed countries, regardless of voting system. So tell me how a different voting system would change things.

Mon, 2016-01-18 18:20

#807

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
No White Cat -- very many people voted Liberal thinking that the NDP and Liberals stood for PR. Many did not vote at all on electoral reform. A good number did but did not understand that the Liberal electoral refirm was something different than PR.A good many do not understand the differences between the systems and thini the eLiberal system is just another proportional vote mechanism.

I doubt it. People interested in electoral reform get at least a rudimentary understanding of it. If they don't it's because it isn't a big deal to them either way.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
This is just like pretending that the majority of Liberal voters actually understood that most of the middle class would get nothing or very little while the majority would go to high income earners. they simple heard middle class tax cut and assumed the Liberals were being truthful (for some strange reason).

Who is pretending that? Not only did they not understand how it works most never will. You're the one arguing that people are going to find out and turn against the Liberals over it.

Mon, 2016-01-18 18:54

#808

White Cat

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

No White Cat -- very many people voted Liberal thinking that the NDP and Liberals stood for PR. Many did not vote at all on electoral reform. A good number did but did not understand that the Liberal electoral refirm was something different than PR.A good many do not understand the differences between the systems and thini the eLiberal system is just another proportional vote mechanism.

Your math here is completely made up and without any foundation.

This is just like pretending that the majority of Liberal voters actually understood that most of the middle class would get nothing or very little while the majority would go to high income earners. they simple heard middle class tax cut and assumed the Liberals were being truthful (for some strange reason).

Trudeau was very clear that his promise to make 2015 the last bullshit election did not imply adopting a PR system. He promised an all-party Parliamentary committee to look into various kinds of electoral reform including preferential ranked ballots and PR systems. That's what his platform stated. That's what the media reported.

Here's some (non-revisionist) Liberal party history on ER:

At the 2012 Liberal convention, 70% of members voted in favor of adopting ranked ballot voting reform. During the Liberal leadership race, both Trudeau and Marc Garneau ran on RBV reform. (Joyce Murray ran on PR and electoral cooperation.)

Around the same time Stephane Dion proposed a semi-proportional system: 3-member STV, or P3. He said, "In my opinion, the solution is not pure or full proportional representation."

During the 2014 Liberal convention, Trudeau revised his original promise on ER to look into PR systems. This was encapsulated into a broader democratic reform package. This priority resolution passed and became part of the 2015 campaign platform.

About 8 months before the election, the NDP put forward a private bill calling for the adoption of a PR system. Half of the 34 Liberal MPs voted in favor of it. (Half opposed, including Trudeau. He's on record from 2012 stating he does not support a PR system. One must also keep in mind after becoming leader, Trudeau likely ran into many pro-FPTP establishment party members expressing concern over his ER promise: why fix what isn't broken?)

After "winning" the election, many Liberals wanted Trudeau to ditch his electoral reform promise. But he decided to proceed as promised as detailed in his first Throne Speech.

So Liberal partisans are definitely divided 3 ways on ER, and at least one prominent PR-supporter (of both Fair Vote Canada and the Liberal party) favors a semi-proportional system.

(BTW, Trudeau's upper-middle-class tax cut was meant to buy Red Tory voters. Any kind of electoral reform will end the need for this nonsense, which also hampers NDP campaigns.)

Mon, 2016-01-18 18:57

#809

White Cat

Canadians, on the other hand, don't know much about ER. This is because our third-world fourth estate keeps them in the dark and feeds them horseshit.

Therefore it's up to people in the social media to take on fourth estate responsibilities. That means informing Canadians on the facts, persuading them with the truth and letting them make up their own minds.

It makes little sense attempting to fool Canadians into supporting PR by spreading bullshit about ranked ballot voting. PR wins on the facts. It's how the world votes.

If this becomes a game of what side can best manipulate Canadians, the PR side, which is extremely poor at political strategy, is going to lose and lose bad. (As they have in PR referendums.)

The goal should be to expose the lies the media is spreading as part of an agenda to suppress a democratic development in our country that has taken place in 134 of all 181 democratic nations. This alone will bolster the cause as Canadians become angry over the media betraying them.

You can't expose lies by spreading your own. And the fact is, most center-left voters who were forced to vote strategically to stop radical cons during the 2014 Ontario election and 2015 federal election will just look at you like you're crazy if you tell them ranked ballots are worse than FPTP. Given how bad the Ontario election turned out, they would been very glad to be able to vote for who they want to without fear extremists will win from vote splitting.

So, in short: in a democracy people vote for a person and party to represent them. MPs should have the support of a majority (otherwise they're getting stuck with a politician they don't want.) Parties should get the power, and only the power, the people elected to give them.

Ranked ballot voting falls short because it's a half-way reform. That's why 88% of all 134 countries that reformed their voting systems have adopted a proportional voting system of some form (including semi-proportional.)

Mon, 2016-01-18 19:16

#810

White Cat

BTW, what a crazy country we live in! The "progressive" newspaper is the fiercest enemy of real democracy among all the corrupt news media. (Looks like they now support the 'neo-Atkinson' principles.) The only honest journalist is a wacky market fundamentalist who writes for the National Post. If we manage to get any kind of electoral reform out of this initiative plagued by nutty politicking, it will be no less batty than the rest of it!

We certainly live up to our 'Crazy Canucks' reputation. Let's get rid of our insane-asylum voting system and put some of this Canadian 'loonacy' towards more productive ends!

Mon, 2016-01-18 19:16

#811

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
No White Cat -- very many people voted Liberal thinking that the NDP and Liberals stood for PR. Many did not vote at all on electoral reform. A good number did but did not understand that the Liberal electoral refirm was something different than PR.A good many do not understand the differences between the systems and thini the eLiberal system is just another proportional vote mechanism.

I doubt it. People interested in electoral reform get at least a rudimentary understanding of it. If they don't it's because it isn't a big deal to them either way.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
This is just like pretending that the majority of Liberal voters actually understood that most of the middle class would get nothing or very little while the majority would go to high income earners. they simple heard middle class tax cut and assumed the Liberals were being truthful (for some strange reason).

Who is pretending that? Not only did they not understand how it works most never will. You're the one arguing that people are going to find out and turn against the Liberals over it.

Both You and White Cat need to get your stories straight. White Cat did a mathematical calculation based on voters asigning them to support the Liberals form of electoral reform.

I have said that most people are aware of the need for electoral but are not aware of the details of the parties' positions.

Mon, 2016-01-18 19:18

#812

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Canadians, on the other hand, don't know much about ER. This is because our third-world fourth estate keeps them in the dark and feeds them horseshit.

How has it kept anyone in the dark?

I've read all sorts of information about PR online, and I didn't have configure a proxy, or use TOR, or visit the "dark web" -- I just started with Wikipedia. If they're somehow "keeping us in the dark" then they need to step up their game.

Mon, 2016-01-18 19:21

#813

Sean in Ottawa

White Cat wrote:

You can't expose lies by spreading your own.

I was going to respond in more detail but when I read this I just consider your post to be a sack of shit.

You are pretending that a vote for the Liberals was any kind of concsious support for a particular form of electoral reform. The headline was no more FPTP -- the details were unclear to most and remain so. The Liberals even used the term PR in their materials to suggest that they are open to it.

Your posting style is vile.

Mon, 2016-01-18 19:37

#814

White Cat

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

White Cat did a mathematical calculation based on voters asigning them to support the Liberals form of electoral reform.

No, it was based on what position partisans are taking, not the people. The only thing that can be said of Canadians is that they find the status quo intolerable. (They would be more informed on the issue if the news media did its job. But evidently Canadian journalism is founded on manipulating public opinion as opposed to educating it.)

Mon, 2016-01-18 19:45

#815

White Cat

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

White Cat wrote:

You can't expose lies by spreading your own.

I was going to respond in more detail but when I read this I just consider your post to be a sack of shit.

You are pretending that a vote for the Liberals was any kind of concsious support for a particular form of electoral reform. The headline was no more FPTP -- the details were unclear to most and remain so. The Liberals even used the term PR in their materials to suggest that they are open to it.

Your posting style is vile.

You call my post a "sack of shit" then claim MY posting style is vile? You are too funny!

Mon, 2016-01-18 20:02

#816

White Cat

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Canadians, on the other hand, don't know much about ER. This is because our third-world fourth estate keeps them in the dark and feeds them horseshit.

How has it kept anyone in the dark?

I've read all sorts of information about PR online, and I didn't have configure a proxy, or use TOR, or visit the "dark web" -- I just started with Wikipedia. If they're somehow "keeping us in the dark" then they need to step up their game.

The role of the fourth estate is to educate the public on important issues, not mislead them. In a democratic country, the people have the right to reliable information from the news media which they can use to form their opinions.

Not everyone has the time to do hours of research on every political issue that comes down the pike. Nor should they be forced to.

Mon, 2016-01-18 20:12

#817

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
No White Cat -- very many people voted Liberal thinking that the NDP and Liberals stood for PR. Many did not vote at all on electoral reform. A good number did but did not understand that the Liberal electoral refirm was something different than PR.A good many do not understand the differences between the systems and thini the eLiberal system is just another proportional vote mechanism.

I doubt it. People interested in electoral reform get at least a rudimentary understanding of it. If they don't it's because it isn't a big deal to them either way.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
This is just like pretending that the majority of Liberal voters actually understood that most of the middle class would get nothing or very little while the majority would go to high income earners. they simple heard middle class tax cut and assumed the Liberals were being truthful (for some strange reason).

Who is pretending that? Not only did they not understand how it works most never will. You're the one arguing that people are going to find out and turn against the Liberals over it.

Both You and White Cat need to get your stories straight. White Cat did a mathematical calculation based on voters asigning them to support the Liberals form of electoral reform.

I have said that most people are aware of the need for electoral but are not aware of the details of the parties' positions.

White Cat and I are separate people each with our own opinions.

I don't have any "story" to get straight. I think the details of both PR and the middle class tax cut are below the radar of most Canadians. The election is over and they have mostly tuned out until 2019. In 2019 swing voters will decide if the Liberals have done well enough and if so they will re-elect them.

It's up to progressives to find a way to inform the public but I don't think electoral reform is the place to start.

Mon, 2016-01-18 20:34

#818

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Not everyone has the time to do hours of research on every political issue that comes down the pike. Nor should they be forced to.

Maybe I'm just some kind of savant, but it took me about five minutes.

But perhaps the fourth estate owes the electorate a Reader's Digest Condensed "thirty second sound bite" version printed on a genuine slice of dead tree? And all they have to do it purchase it, rather than reading online for free?

Oh, and for what it's worth: nobody's "forced to". People have to spend enough hours as it is just Keeping Up With The Kardashians, and torrenting The Fast And The Furious 7, and wandering around Liberty City -- to have to spend five minutes reading about how we intend to govern ourselves would be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Could someone at least post it on their Facebook so I don't have to go Google it myself?

Mon, 2016-01-18 20:36

#819

Sean in Ottawa

White Cat wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

White Cat wrote:

You can't expose lies by spreading your own.

I was going to respond in more detail but when I read this I just consider your post to be a sack of shit.

You are pretending that a vote for the Liberals was any kind of concsious support for a particular form of electoral reform. The headline was no more FPTP -- the details were unclear to most and remain so. The Liberals even used the term PR in their materials to suggest that they are open to it.

Your posting style is vile.

You call my post a "sack of shit" then claim MY posting style is vile? You are too funny!

Yup suggesting my argument was lying was vile.

Mon, 2016-01-18 20:38

#820

Sean in Ottawa

White Cat wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Canadians, on the other hand, don't know much about ER. This is because our third-world fourth estate keeps them in the dark and feeds them horseshit.

How has it kept anyone in the dark?

I've read all sorts of information about PR online, and I didn't have configure a proxy, or use TOR, or visit the "dark web" -- I just started with Wikipedia. If they're somehow "keeping us in the dark" then they need to step up their game.

The role of the fourth estate is to educate the public on important issues, not mislead them. In a democratic country, the people have the right to reliable information from the news media which they can use to form their opinions.

Not everyone has the time to do hours of research on every political issue that comes down the pike. Nor should they be forced to.

Most of us could probably agree that the media has not done a great job on this.

As well it was a little sad that the media exposed very well the Liberal "middle class" tax plan AFTER the election. Prior to the election it had been covered but much more lightly and few were aware.

Mon, 2016-01-18 20:40

#821

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
No White Cat -- very many people voted Liberal thinking that the NDP and Liberals stood for PR. Many did not vote at all on electoral reform. A good number did but did not understand that the Liberal electoral refirm was something different than PR.A good many do not understand the differences between the systems and thini the eLiberal system is just another proportional vote mechanism.

I doubt it. People interested in electoral reform get at least a rudimentary understanding of it. If they don't it's because it isn't a big deal to them either way.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
This is just like pretending that the majority of Liberal voters actually understood that most of the middle class would get nothing or very little while the majority would go to high income earners. they simple heard middle class tax cut and assumed the Liberals were being truthful (for some strange reason).

Who is pretending that? Not only did they not understand how it works most never will. You're the one arguing that people are going to find out and turn against the Liberals over it.

Both You and White Cat need to get your stories straight. White Cat did a mathematical calculation based on voters asigning them to support the Liberals form of electoral reform.

I have said that most people are aware of the need for electoral but are not aware of the details of the parties' positions.

White Cat and I are separate people each with our own opinions.

I don't have any "story" to get straight. I think the details of both PR and the middle class tax cut are below the radar of most Canadians. The election is over and they have mostly tuned out until 2019. In 2019 swing voters will decide if the Liberals have done well enough and if so they will re-elect them.

It's up to progressives to find a way to inform the public but I don't think electoral reform is the place to start.

Except you jumped into an exchange on that point without apparently understanding what had been said by White Cat that I was responding to.

Seems White Cat is not dialling back what WC said earlier on this point.

Mon, 2016-01-18 21:02

#822

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

All this arguing about FPTP and the assertion it works. Well lets look at the real record. Greater economic ineqaulity than since the Gilded age, check! Unprecedented Coproate power and influence over public pollicy, check! More enviromental damage than in any time in the history of modern recorded histroy, check! More undeclared war and comabat than since the Second World War, check. Shrinking social safety net, check! Greater child poverty than since the Great Depression, check! 30 years plus of surpassed wages, check! Less organized labour power than since the Gilded Age and the time of the Robber Barrons, check! Greaterd and greater difficulyt to workers to access unemployment insurance in which they paid into, check! More trade agreements empowering Corporations while stealing the strength of people through their francish to influence public policy, check! Greater and greaterd decay of good paying manufacturing jobs, check! Less and less access to Higher Education along with continued decay of pubic education, check! Yeah, sure, FPTP has been a stunning success!!!!!!! What are all you rotten, unprincipled lefties complaing about it. The "progressives", the real and only non extremits, have this, check! And lets not forget that Pondering, Debater, and Rev Pesky are right, people wanted this then and still want it now, check! What are all you ugrateful rotten lefty clowns complaining about, FPTP has been a STUNNING SUCCESS!!!!!

And all of what you've posted above is true in all developed countries, regardless of voting system. So tell me how a different voting system would change things.

It might force Liberals to govern less like Tories. That' been the Candian historical experience. I want to see if that was history or 150 years of flukes. Any other questions?

Mon, 2016-01-18 21:13

#823

Sean in Ottawa

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

All this arguing about FPTP and the assertion it works. Well lets look at the real record. Greater economic ineqaulity than since the Gilded age, check! Unprecedented Coproate power and influence over public pollicy, check! More enviromental damage than in any time in the history of modern recorded histroy, check! More undeclared war and comabat than since the Second World War, check. Shrinking social safety net, check! Greater child poverty than since the Great Depression, check! 30 years plus of surpassed wages, check! Less organized labour power than since the Gilded Age and the time of the Robber Barrons, check! Greaterd and greater difficulyt to workers to access unemployment insurance in which they paid into, check! More trade agreements empowering Corporations while stealing the strength of people through their francish to influence public policy, check! Greater and greaterd decay of good paying manufacturing jobs, check! Less and less access to Higher Education along with continued decay of pubic education, check! Yeah, sure, FPTP has been a stunning success!!!!!!! What are all you rotten, unprincipled lefties complaing about it. The "progressives", the real and only non extremits, have this, check! And lets not forget that Pondering, Debater, and Rev Pesky are right, people wanted this then and still want it now, check! What are all you ugrateful rotten lefty clowns complaining about, FPTP has been a STUNNING SUCCESS!!!!!

And all of what you've posted above is true in all developed countries, regardless of voting system. So tell me how a different voting system would change things.

It might force Liberals to govern less like Tories. That' been the Candian historical experience. I want to see if that was history or 150 years of flukes. Any other questions?

The impression I get is that countries who are FPTP tend, on average, to elect more corporate and right of centre government than those that are PR.

Look at this map and see what you think

Tue, 2016-01-19 02:44

#824

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The impression I get is that countries who are FPTP tend, on average, to elect more corporate and right of centre government than those that are PR.

Look at this map and see what you think

Correlation is not causation.

Tue, 2016-01-19 03:55

#825

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The impression I get is that countries who are FPTP tend, on average, to elect more corporate and right of centre government than those that are PR.

Look at this map and see what you think

Correlation is not causation.

Actually the mechanism of causation has been explained over and over.

I am not saying that there is certainty in this but it is a worthwhile observation since it matches the hypothesis a number of people have advanced. Theory backed by both observation and a specific mechanism is worth consideration.

Tue, 2016-01-19 12:27

#826

White Cat

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

White Cat wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

White Cat wrote:

You can't expose lies by spreading your own.

I was going to respond in more detail but when I read this I just consider your post to be a sack of shit.

You are pretending that a vote for the Liberals was any kind of concsious support for a particular form of electoral reform. The headline was no more FPTP -- the details were unclear to most and remain so. The Liberals even used the term PR in their materials to suggest that they are open to it.

Your posting style is vile.

You call my post a "sack of shit" then claim MY posting style is vile? You are too funny!

Yup suggesting my argument was lying was vile.

Actually my original message was addressed to "people in the social media" to take on fourth estate responsibilities.

I'm not going to waste my time writing a 400 word essay trying to convince you about anything.

I'm here to discuss electoral reform and strategy that can stop this process from going off the rails. Period. Full stop.

Tue, 2016-01-19 12:30

#827

White Cat

Here's a quick message addressed to PR supporters in general (with the exception of "Sean in Ottawa" just to avoid more pointless drama.)

You are holding the winning hand. PR is the way the world votes. It only makes sense that parties get the power, and only the power, the people elected to give them.

The media is spreading lies about all versions of electoral reform. They say proportional voting is radical. This is like saying brushing your teeth is radical. (88% of developed democracies chose PR. 75% of people regularly brush their teeth.)

Since PR supporters have the facts on their side, and they need to debunk the media lies, they need to stick to the facts. If they get in the same game of politicking, they lose their advantage of having the truth on their side. Then the debate becomes about people spewing bullshit all over the place and Canadians are left with no reliable source of information.

What's worse is that all the infighting and backstabbing will just turn people off, when the goal is to get them fired up at this critical juncture in our country's history.

Electoral reform is a spectrum: from fully proportional systems like MMP and STV; to scaled back versions that provide semi-proportional; to the half-way reform of requiring that MPs earn their seats with a majority vote with ranked ballots.

Claiming any of these systems is the same as or worse than caveman voting is nonsense. It insults fellow electoral reformers when the job is to persuade them. It also happens to be the same strategy opponents of ER are using to destroy it.

Tue, 2016-01-19 12:50

#828

White Cat

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Not everyone has the time to do hours of research on every political issue that comes down the pike. Nor should they be forced to.

Maybe I'm just some kind of savant, but it took me about five minutes.

But perhaps the fourth estate owes the electorate a Reader's Digest Condensed "thirty second sound bite" version printed on a genuine slice of dead tree? And all they have to do it purchase it, rather than reading online for free?

Oh, and for what it's worth: nobody's "forced to". People have to spend enough hours as it is just Keeping Up With The Kardashians, and torrenting The Fast And The Furious 7, and wandering around Liberty City -- to have to spend five minutes reading about how we intend to govern ourselves would be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Could someone at least post it on their Facebook so I don't have to go Google it myself?

No one can understand the electoral reform issue in 5 minutes. It's very complicated because people vote for a person and a party to represent them, which are conflicting interests. That's why there are so many different versions of proportional voting.

But whatever people choose to do in their free time in a free country is their business. It's up to informed people with a cause to find ways to get the people's attention and educate and persuade them. The goal is also to get people talking about their cause.

People are intelligent, reasonable and want to do what's right for their children. So that's a lot to work with. The possibilities are infinite.

Tue, 2016-01-19 15:24

#829

Sean in Ottawa

White Cat wrote:

Here's a quick message addressed to PR supporters in general (with the exception of "Sean in Ottawa" just to avoid more pointless drama.)

You are holding the winning hand. PR is the way the world votes. It only makes sense that parties get the power, and only the power, the people elected to give them.

The media is spreading lies about all versions of electoral reform. They say proportional voting is radical. This is like saying brushing your teeth is radical. (88% of developed democracies chose PR. 75% of people regularly brush their teeth.)

Since PR supporters have the facts on their side, and they need to debunk the media lies, they need to stick to the facts. If they get in the same game of politicking, they lose their advantage of having the truth on their side. Then the debate becomes about people spewing bullshit all over the place and Canadians are left with no reliable source of information.

What's worse is that all the infighting and backstabbing will just turn people off, when the goal is to get them fired up at this critical juncture in our country's history.

Electoral reform is a spectrum: from fully proportional systems like MMP and STV; to scaled back versions that provide semi-proportional; to the half-way reform of requiring that MPs earn their seats with a majority vote with ranked ballots.

Claiming any of these systems is the same as or worse than caveman voting is nonsense. It insults fellow electoral reformers when the job is to persuade them. It also happens to be the same strategy opponents of ER are using to destroy it.

First you don't get to exclude someone from being able to answer.

Secondly of course I can agree to the general statements about PR.

I agree electoral change is a spectrum and that PR is also a spectrum. But ranked ballots are not on the spectrum of PR and are not PR.

And really, repeating your opinion that ranked ballots are as goods as actual PR is not the same as presenting arguments that could convince people of this. This post just repeats your contention that the arguments that do not agree with you are nonsense or an insult but you offer -- again -- no substantive statement to back that up. Indeed, the first part of the post suggests that PR really is better.

I am not sure what this post is trying to say becuase it contradicts itself by first lauding PR and then suggesting that it is wrong to disagree with one kind of reform while promoting PR.

The one clear thing is your suggestion that you can just will me out of the conversation -- I decide that.

Tue, 2016-01-19 16:00

#830

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

I watched the youtube videos I think you posted and found them informative. I like the regional reps component. Best I've seen so far. I liked the ballot examples.

I'm happy you found the videos helpful and informative. I think Dennis Pilon does a great job demistyfying the complexity of electoral systems.

For those interested, here are the two FairVoteCanada videos that explain MMP, one with ranked voting and the other without:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3guVBhKmDc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOyHLwYq6Nk

I agree that Pilon is doing great videos. He does a great job of laying out what the systems would look like for Canada. It's much better than the generic ones using apples and oranges and/or looking at other countries.

One of them triggered the Dion P3 model and that looks very interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyLeClCrfgQ

It looks like it would lead to higher quality MPs. I remember once years ago when I lived in Chateauguay I voted PQ rather than Liberal (provincially) because the local Liberal candidate was racist.

Since then I have become aware of many low quality candidates that were elected as seat fillers because people vote based on party leader.

Under Dion's system I think we would end up with higher caliber parliamentarians. The best (theoretically) of each party's representatives would win in their regions. Those representatives would have more clout because they would have some claim to personal popularity.

For example, if I lived in Ontario and had the option I would vote for Linda McQuaig over Trudeau in a heartbeat. So, it also allows supporters to push the direction of parties.

I'm 80% sure I would vote for that system if I understand it correctly.

Thu, 2016-01-21 09:59

#831

mmphosis

Why a Referendum on Electoral Reform Would Be Undemocratic (thetyee.ca)

Fair Voting BC president Antony Hodgson wrote:
Progress on civil rights should not be held hostage to a public vote.

Fri, 2016-01-22 02:11

#832

White Cat

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

I watched the youtube videos I think you posted and found them informative. I like the regional reps component. Best I've seen so far. I liked the ballot examples.

I'm happy you found the videos helpful and informative. I think Dennis Pilon does a great job demistyfying the complexity of electoral systems.

For those interested, here are the two FairVoteCanada videos that explain MMP, one with ranked voting and the other without:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3guVBhKmDc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOyHLwYq6Nk

I agree that Pilon is doing great videos. He does a great job of laying out what the systems would look like for Canada. It's much better than the generic ones using apples and oranges and/or looking at other countries.

One of them triggered the Dion P3 model and that looks very interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyLeClCrfgQ

It looks like it would lead to higher quality MPs. I remember once years ago when I lived in Chateauguay I voted PQ rather than Liberal (provincially) because the local Liberal candidate was racist.

Since then I have become aware of many low quality candidates that were elected as seat fillers because people vote based on party leader.

Under Dion's system I think we would end up with higher caliber parliamentarians. The best (theoretically) of each party's representatives would win in their regions. Those representatives would have more clout because they would have some claim to personal popularity.

For example, if I lived in Ontario and had the option I would vote for Linda McQuaig over Trudeau in a heartbeat. So, it also allows supporters to push the direction of parties.

I'm 80% sure I would vote for that system if I understand it correctly.

Yes, with STV multi-member riding one could have both Linda McQuaig and Christina Freeland as representatives, instead of one winning and the other losing.

So I definitely think that Stephane Dion's 3-member STV semi-proportional system is a great compromise that PR supporters should get behind as a fallback plan.

Considering the FPTP side has so much power and influence — behind closed doors and over the "news media" — MMP 5% seems a long shot at present. Especially considering the Liberals will want to appear moderate on the issue.

So what the semi-proportional system would do is make it much easier for the NDP to become the lead party in a government and expand the system at a later time: either down a STV or MMP path.

Right now Canadians are unsure about electoral reform because of all the misinformation being spread in the media. Once they get direct experience, they will be more open to a fully proportional system, which is how most of the world votes.

Fri, 2016-01-22 02:26

#833

White Cat

Let me state my position again. Ranked ballot voting is my last choice on the ER spectrum, not my first choice. But it would have significant benefits over FPTP that should be hard to deny.

1) FPTP produces a two-horse race. Center-left voters must choose the Liberals or NDP to beat the Cons. The Liberals are the safe choice, which is how Trudeau ended up prime minister. (Which is why the NDP is rarely even in contention.)

Under RBV, this Liberal advantage disappears. Now voters vote on policy not out of fear.

So if the NDP ever thought of forming the government, it would be much easier under RBV where they compete with the Liberals for the 60% center-left vote. They could win and upgrade Trudeau's half-way reform to PR (if it falls on RBV; if it falls on FPTP, then what?)

2) Ends the need for strategic voting. This produces a lot of hysteria which manifests itself in polarizing election results. The Liberals can campaign left and govern right, betray voters, involve themselves in corruption, etc. and never have to pay. They just have to play the Neo-Con Horror Card to be entitled to center-left votes.

3) RBV punishes polarizing politics which FPTP rewards. This would make the country Harper-proof. The-Donald-proof.

4) It will allow two conservative parties to form, which is the historical trend. This will push the Liberal party out of the Red Tory zone. That means center-left economic policy on 60% of the vote, not more market fundamentalist insanity whoever wins.

5) Ends votes splitting and false-majority landslide results. Center-left-majority ridings go to center-left parties; conservative-majority ridings to conservative parties. As one can see in the last Australian election, for example, the 4-party conservative coalition won 60% of the seats on 53% of the vote. Compare that to Mulroney who won 75% on 50% of the vote.

6) Since it divides the electorate along center-left and conservative lines, this means one side must get an actual majority of votes to form the government.

7) Two-party majority governments, whether center-left or conservative, will provide consensus-driven government with checks and balances. No more privatizing utilities and other Friedmanian bullshit. Think Trudeau could get away with all the right-wing economic nonsense if he had to work with the NDP? I can only see Red Tories bemoaning a Liberal-NDP or NDP-Liberal majority government, not voters.

8) Prevents constituents from getting stuck with a politician they don't want and didn't vote for.

9) Green voters can get indirect representation from their alternative votes, which the NDP and Liberals must compete for. That means having a hand in the legislative process as well as a voice in opposition. (Obviously Green party voters would have greater direct representation under MMP 5% or other proportional systems.)

Notice under FPTP, Chretien won half the NDP vote. Did he represent it well? Did he represent it at all? No. He even betrayed centrist liberals and turned the country sharply right after opposing Mulroney's odious record to get elected.

The downside? Only a proportional voting system is guaranteed to be proportional. (RBV is not a proportional voting system.) There can be distortions in a single-member majority system, even if its balanced with two major parties on each side of the spectrum.

Fri, 2016-01-22 03:31

#834

JKR

White Cat wrote:

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

I watched the youtube videos I think you posted and found them informative. I like the regional reps component. Best I've seen so far. I liked the ballot examples.

I'm happy you found the videos helpful and informative. I think Dennis Pilon does a great job demistyfying the complexity of electoral systems.

For those interested, here are the two FairVoteCanada videos that explain MMP, one with ranked voting and the other without:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3guVBhKmDc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOyHLwYq6Nk

I agree that Pilon is doing great videos. He does a great job of laying out what the systems would look like for Canada. It's much better than the generic ones using apples and oranges and/or looking at other countries.

One of them triggered the Dion P3 model and that looks very interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyLeClCrfgQ

It looks like it would lead to higher quality MPs. I remember once years ago when I lived in Chateauguay I voted PQ rather than Liberal (provincially) because the local Liberal candidate was racist.

Since then I have become aware of many low quality candidates that were elected as seat fillers because people vote based on party leader.

Under Dion's system I think we would end up with higher caliber parliamentarians. The best (theoretically) of each party's representatives would win in their regions. Those representatives would have more clout because they would have some claim to personal popularity.

For example, if I lived in Ontario and had the option I would vote for Linda McQuaig over Trudeau in a heartbeat. So, it also allows supporters to push the direction of parties.

I'm 80% sure I would vote for that system if I understand it correctly.

Yes, with STV multi-member riding one could have both Linda McQuaig and Christina Freeland as representatives, instead of one winning and the other losing.

So I definitely think that Stephane Dion's 3-member STV semi-proportional system is a great compromise that PR supporters should get behind as a fallback plan.

Considering the FPTP side has so much power and influence — behind closed doors and over the "news media" — MMP 5% seems a long shot at present. Especially considering the Liberals will want to appear moderate on the issue.

So what the semi-proportional system would do is make it much easier for the NDP to become the lead party in a government and expand the system at a later time: either down a STV or MMP path.

Right now Canadians are unsure about electoral reform because of all the misinformation being spread in the media. Once they get direct experience, they will be more open to a fully proportional system, which is how most of the world votes.

My guess is that a semi-proportional system of MMP will end up being supported by the all-party committee. Something like 1 in 6 MP's coming from regional open-lists. So our 338 member House of Commons would have something like 60 additional members added to produce added but limited proportionality.

Fri, 2016-01-22 11:04

#835

MegB

Continued here.

Pages

Topic locked