Proportional Representation part 3

Quote:

I think most people have very little idea about and don't care about voting systems like "single-member plurality," "single transferable vote," "mixed-member proportional," the "alternative vote," etc... Asking most people whether they prefer "single-member plurality" over "mixed-member proportional" is very unlikely to get a qualified response.

If they cannot reasonably be expected to understand it -- even as they know all the rules to Skyrim, and follow all the plotlines of ame of Thrones, and can follow a CFL game -- then what makes it OK for those of us who do understand it to simply impose our choice on them?

ed'd to add:  please don't say "Daddy knows best".

Quote:

I think because we have a system of responsible government,

We do?

I thought they were the problem that a new electoral model is intended to fix.

Can you elaborate on this responsible government?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

I think because we have a system of responsible government,

We do?

I thought they were the problem that a new electoral model is intended to fix.

Can you elaborate on this responsible government?

You're wasting your time trying to pin down PR supporters. They're very clear what they're against, but have no desire to defend what they're for. 

So they dodge and weave, if some aspect of one system is shown to be faulty, they just jump over to anther system, and proclaim they have fixed the problem.

Even JKR, who is fervent supporter of PR cannot state clearly what his ideal system is.

Then there's the old 'FPTP is totally undemocratic', but apparently democratic enough to choose a different voting system. Then there's the committee itself, with one of the twelve members being Elizabeth May. So a member of a party with 1/338th of the elected members gets to be 1/12 of the committee. Tell me that's democratic.

As I've pointed out, if we're going to open up the voting system, there are literally hundreds of changes that could be made, but PR supporters are completely fixated on the proportionality of the parties in the House of Commons. Anything beyond that is out of the question.

Yet at the same time, they cannot, and will not, commit to a single voting system.

Rev Pesky wrote:

Even JKR, who is fervent supporter of PR cannot state clearly what his ideal system is.

My preference would be STV but I would be happy with most any form of MMP or Dion's P3 system. I also think that AV would be an improvement over FPTP but I prefer the more proportional systems. I prefer all these systems over FPTP because they have been established for multi-party politics.

The reason my ideal system is STV is because it's proportionality goes beyond that of just political parties. The only difficulty with STV at the federal level is that some STV ridings would have to have fewer than 5 members but I think that would be an acceptable trade-off.

I prefer MMP over STV because it strives to proportionally represent voters' first choices rather than partially justifying its claim to proportionality upon some voters' 2nd or 3rd or beyond choices.  Seems to me that it's best to go for a system that strives to better recognize the first votes of people. 

FPTP is a miserable failure in this in that very often the proportion of votes a party gets and the number of seats it receives are wildly (laughably, even) so far off that it's just sad.  So sure, STV would be better than this (or even P3) but I still feel MMP accomplishes this better. 

The trade off is that you also want representatives who are local (IE, you want MPs who have sufficient support locally to represent a riding or a district).   So setting the threshold to 0.3 percent (IE, 1/338) for a member of a party to win a seat would not ensure significant local support to justify the MP's existence in a riding or district, I feel.  Conversersely, setting the threshold as high as 16.7% (within a 5 member riding, as P3 does) is far too high a threshold.  The idea is to balance the goal of having respected local representives with having election results that better reflect the votes cast.

And I'm not sure why some people are buying into the populist Reform-Partyish red herring of requiring direct democracy to make this electoral reform valid.  Referendums are generally only for serious constitutional matters rather than mundane issues like democratic reform.

An MMP system could be constructed to be similar to STV. If an MMP system used preferential voting instead of FPTP and the best runners-up approach to select list members, it would be similar to STV. I would be very happy with that kind of system. It would solve the problem of ridings being too large under STV. It would also be easy to make it proportional.

Quote:

A lot of people during the referendum here in BC even confused STV for STD. They thought we were voting on some kind of new public health policy.

Really? 

The question that was asked in BC was "Should British Columbia change to the BC-STV electoral system as recommended by the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform?"

The phrases "electoral system" and "Electoral Reform" weren't clues that this wasn't about the clap?

Anyway, you're totally missing the point of the pizza example.  When someone tells you four times that they don't want something then it's dishonest to force it on them the fifth time.

Had there never been the four referendums -- or if any of them had resulted in a yes vote -- then perhaps it would be reasonable to just go ahead, but given that wasn't the case, I think a referendum is entirely appropriate.  There's simply no specific reason to believe that PR is what a majority of Canadians want -- the failed referendums certainly don't suggest they do, and the 39.5% who voted for Trudeau's "sunny ways" really aren't compelling either.

Quote:

I think the referendums were established by governments that did not want electoral reform. These governments used referendums as a way to simultaneously respond to the growing support for electoral reform and as a way to defeat electoral reform for a generation or longer.

That's pretty nervy on their part... holding a referendum on something because they know it's popular.

Quote:

I think if governments continue to have referendums on the obscure topic of electoral reform people will continue to stick with what they know in the face of stronger disinformation campaigns.

Let's parse that.  You seem to be saying that people will stick with what they know (FPTP) in the face of stronger disinformation campaigns.

Is that what you meant to say?

Quote:

It would be very easy for the Conservatives to do this because most people have very little understanding of electoral systems.

This trope is getting very old.  If the electorate doesn't understand the basics of MMP or STV or whatever, it's because they don't really care.  They're not interested.  They're OK with what we've got.  And whether you or I agree with them, those are all perfectly valid opinions.  There's no need to tell me that they're misguided, or foolish, or uninformed -- they're still valid in the same way that voting for the candidate with the best hair is valid.

Quote:

I think if we can't go ahead with electoral reform without a referendum it would make sense for the Liberal government to just say that they will have to stick with our unfair FPTP system

Because a referendum might inform us all of what the electorate actually does or doesn't want?  You're literally and honestly saying that if we have to consult the people then we may as well not even bother consulting the people??

Quote:

The mandate of striving for peace order and good government should not be frustrated by apathy, as you seem to imply it should.

Earlier I suggested that if there is to be a referendum, that it NOT piggyback on an entirely different election, my idea being that the referendum is best served by those who have a genuine opinion (whichever it is) than by someone who's only now looking at an additional question on their ballot and saying "what the hell is this?  I'll just go with the evil I know."

So I'm not suggesting that apathy should win the day.

But if a majority of Canadians don't want to change systems, I think they have a right to that opinion, even as I disagree with it.

Quote:

I don't buy into the idea that referendums are necessary to legitimize government legislation on any issue, including on mundane issues such as democratic reform.

Changing the very way we elect representatives, after 149 years, isn't mundane the way a plebescite about a new stop sign at Main and Elm is.  What makes this small potatotes?

Any thoughts on recall referendums?  I've seen a lot of folk at babble sing their praises.  But how could the average 60 IQ voter really know whether they're voting to oust an ineffective politician, or just voting because of the grumbles?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

I think the referendums were established by governments that did not want electoral reform. These governments used referendums as a way to simultaneously respond to the growing support for electoral reform and as a way to defeat electoral reform for a generation or longer.

That's pretty nervy on their part... holding a referendum on something because they know it's popular.

Quote:

I think if governments continue to have referendums on the obscure topic of electoral reform people will continue to stick with what they know in the face of stronger disinformation campaigns.

Let's parse that.  You seem to be saying that people will stick with what they know (FPTP) in the face of stronger disinformation campaigns.

Is that what you meant to say?

Quote:

It would be very easy for the Conservatives to do this because most people have very little understanding of electoral systems.

This trope is getting very old.  If the electorate doesn't understand the basics of MMP or STV or whatever, it's because they don't really care.  They're not interested.  They're OK with what we've got.  And whether you or I agree with them, those are all perfectly valid opinions.  There's no need to tell me that they're misguided, or foolish, or uninformed -- they're still valid in the same way that voting for the candidate with the best hair is valid.

Quote:

I think if we can't go ahead with electoral reform without a referendum it would make sense for the Liberal government to just say that they will have to stick with our unfair FPTP system

Because a referendum might inform us all of what the electorate actually does or doesn't want?  You're literally and honestly saying that if we have to consult the people then we may as well not even bother consulting the people??

I think an electoral system should be fair to minorities and minority opinions. I think it should be fair to smaller political parties like the NDP and Greens and also to the minority of voters that vote for parties like the NDP and Greens. I think political systems and their electoral systems should protect the rights of minorities. Having a referendum where the majority can override the rights of the minority seems undemocratic to me. I think politicians from the parties like the NDP and Greens have the right to an electoral system that treats them fairly. I hope the NDP and Green members in the all-party committee are succesful in establishing an electoral system that is fairer than our current system. I think that would be to the benefit of all Canadians, whether they be in the minority or majority.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Having a referendum where the majority can override the rights of the minority seems undemocratic to me.

But an election, where the majority win over the minority is the goal we should be working toward?

I think minority rights must be preserved whatever the results of an election may be.

Quote:

Changing the way we elect representatives to give the people more power, and ensure that they are all represented in Parliament, doesn't seem to me to be undemocratic. After all, if at some future time the people want to give thenselves less power and return to government by the largest minority, they can.

But perhaps some are afraid that the voters won't want to do that.

Yes, exactly. 

Quote:

It is reasonable to expect that the party elected should have contained it in their program: they did. It is also reasonable to expect in this case that parties representing over 50% of voters in the last election be in favour. In this case not only were parties representing over 50% of the vote in favour, four out of five parties had it in their program and three of those campaigned on it. There is no lacking moral authority to proceed.

I'm generally reluctant to just assume that if someone votes for a party, they unanimously agree with everything that party campaigned on.  But if this is a reasonable measure of the public's desire for something then it could make governance more efficient.

We can, for example, skip over any kind of consultation or debate on TPP, for example.  Both the Conservatives and the Liberals campaigned on it, and between them they received over 70% of the popular vote.  So really, Canadians were consulted on October 19 and the overwhelming majority said "Yes please!".

Same with lots of stuff.  A two-state solution, continued NATO participation... pretty much anything that the Libs and Cons agreed on.

Like a referendum, they're both fine, but we don't really need them.

As I said, Canadians were consulted on October 19th. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

It is reasonable to expect that the party elected should have contained it in their program: they did. It is also reasonable to expect in this case that parties representing over 50% of voters in the last election be in favour. In this case not only were parties representing over 50% of the vote in favour, four out of five parties had it in their program and three of those campaigned on it. There is no lacking moral authority to proceed.

I'm generally reluctant to just assume that if someone votes for a party, they unanimously agree with everything that party campaigned on.  But if this is a reasonable measure of the public's desire for something then it could make governance more efficient.

We can, for example, skip over any kind of consultation or debate on TPP, for example.  Both the Conservatives and the Liberals campaigned on it, and between them they received over 70% of the popular vote.  So really, Canadians were consulted on October 19 and the overwhelming majority said "Yes please!".

Same with lots of stuff.  A two-state solution, continued NATO participation... pretty much anything that the Libs and Cons agreed on.

Do you think we should have referendums on all these other matters, Magoo?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

We can, for example, skip over any kind of consultation or debate on TPP, for example.  Both the Conservatives and the Liberals campaigned on it, and between them they received over 70% of the popular vote.  So really, Canadians were consulted on October 19 and the overwhelming majority said "Yes please!".

I know it is fashionable to make up facts these days in politics but it is surpirsing in a place like this (where people pay attention and are willing and able to check things) that anyone would try such bald-faced fabrication.

The Liberals purposefully DID NOT campaign in favour of the TPP. In fact they did campaign on more debate and making sure Canadian interests were listened to. Unlike electoral reform which the Liberals campaigned on (saying this would be the last election under FPTP), the Liberals in fact refused to take a position for or against the TPP. The stated they were in favour of trade generally but promised an open debate.

https://www.liberal.ca/statement-by-liberal-party-of-canada-leader-justi...

In January the Liberals were reported as inching towards a favourable position.

"But Trudeau was careful not to oppose the pact itself, promising only that, as prime minister, he would hold a full debate in Parliament before making a final decision."

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/01/27/justin-trudeau-government...

It would be more helpful to have these debates without people making up facts to suggest ridiculous positions.

The suggestion that: "We can, for example, skip over any kind of consultation or debate on TPP, for example." based on what the Liberals campaigned on is ridiculous since a debate is the only thing they actually did promise -- and campaign on.

Quote:

The Liberals purposefully DID NOT campaign in favour of the TPP. In fact they did campaign on more debate and making sure Canadian interests were listened to.

I stand corrected then.

Are they in favour of it now, because Canadian interests were listened to? 

Quote:

The Trans-Pacific Partnership stands to remove trade barriers, widely expand free trade for Canada, and increase opportunities for our middle class and those working hard to join it.

Sounds like they were totally on the fence, though.  How could their pen be hovering over the dotted line when they're so uncertain?

Centrist wrote:

Seems that it has now become established political convention in Canada to hold referendums on electoral reform (ON, BC, PEI).

If practice makes the convention, we would have to say that it is the convention to hold a referendum requiring a 60% supermajority, with adequately informing the public. Is that really something we want to repeat?

A very interesting point here. A difference might have been only whether it was campaigned on or not. When the government did not take a position (or a definitive position) a referendum may make more sense. As I remember the provincial government did not take a position. However, the argument of precedent has weight when it comes to legitimacy.

In the end there are general tests for referenda (such as if it is significant and nonreversible); there are legal requirements (if there is a law or constitutional requirement); and then there is general political legitimacy.

The first two do not meet the test when it comes to the kind of electoral reform we are looking at (in my view) but the latter is another story. I do not take a strong position as cases can be made on either side when it comes to legitimacy. I waver on this personally.

On the no-need side you could have agreement among political parties that have between them a significant majority mandate, the fact that these parties had it in their programs and platforms, and that it was raised during the campaign specifically.

On the need side you have the importance of public confidence in the process and this history of referenda including the results.

In holding a referendum you may bind a future government to holding one when otherwise they would not have had to when  possibly the policy ought to have been developed by experts  and representatives who have long-term political accountability.

I think there is a very strong case to be made when a previous referendum has failed on a similar question that you have to go back to the people to reverse it. This latter point may be the strongest argument in favour of a referendum on the present electoral reform proposal. I say this even though without this history I would think a referendum in this context would be completely unnecessary and divisive. I am not a fan of the process except when it is really required. However, I must respect the argument to hold such a vote when you seek to contradict (or come close to contradicting) a previously held public vote.

One could argue that you only need to hold a vote in the provinces that have previously held votes but we could not offer that level of consultation to some provinces without others. Those provinces could have, at the time, campaigned on and implemented a policy with respect to electoral reform in consultation with their oppositions but having picked this route, they may have created a compelling reason why Canadians will expect those who follow to use it despite it originally being unnecessary. The present government may already be bound to hold such a vote purely to obtain legitimacy. This is unfortunate.

As well, this track is a dangerous one as other referenda could be argued for based on this precedent. Whether it is best to try to put the genie back in the bottle or to live with the result is a difficult debate with respectable arguments on both sides.

Previously, we only considered referenda when it came to irreversible constitutional change.

Those governments that held the referenda in BC and Ontario, in my view, abdicated their responsibility by holding a referendum that was not required and they may have created a permanent change just by holding those votes. This change is a new test for referenda and a diminishing of the accountability of representative democracy. Ironically, if they had proceeded without one, at most, we would have had a reversible change. Those were gutless political decisions made by those governments to hand back a decision they would have been rightly expected to stand behind, for a secret ballot where nobody ever will have to defend the policy no matter what the impact is to the future.

Going forward we could end up increasingly governing by referenda, a development that would lead to less accountible, less coherent, less practical and more divisive governance. There are good reasons why we choose to support and elect a whole program rather than an à-la-carte mishmash of individual policies in a representative democracy. Parliament, when properly functionning, with individual votes on policies contained in a program should be enough, with the exception of irreversible constitutional change.

Ironically, now the entire Canadian constitution can be changed through an amending formula by the federal government and provinces without a vote, but electoral reform now may have a higher test unless we find a way to reverse the precedent.

Quote:

Previously, we only considered referenda when it came to irreversible constitutional change.

Seems that federally, we've held three referendums, only one of which was about constitutional change.  The others concerned prohibition and conscription.

Provincially there have been many, dealing with everything from sales tax to bridges to video lottery terminals.

The process in BC is an instructive one. Despite what Denis Pilon says, the government of the day did not try to subvert the process. In fact they did everything but just go ahead and institute the change without any kind of process at all. The one thing they did was put a 'greater than a majority' qualification on the outcome, and that is a qualification that is often used for making fundamental changes to a governing system.

The Citizen's Assembly was composed of self-selected persons who wanted electoral system change. They were given time and resources to come up with a plan. And that's where the whole thing went off the rails.

You can't find two different individuals who favour electoral reform, and favour the same system. So in the end, the Citizens Assembly endorsed the most ridiculous of the options, a hybrid sort of STV system they dubbed BC-STV. They couldn't explain the system to themselves, much less anybody else, but that's what they ended up going with.

The devil is in the details, as the old saying goes, and that's where the problems arise. To begin with, most people don't care what electoral system is used. A minority desire a PR voting system, and they become the driving force. The majority, who don't really care one way or the other, end up being driven by a small group of dedicated PR fans.

But then the PR supporters get together and try to find a system that satifies all of them, and they can't. That reality is reflected in this thread where it's easy to find those who want an end to FPTP, but very difficult to get them to commit to any particular system. That's precisely what happened in BC. And that's most likely what will happen with this federal committee.

It is also what has happened around the world. We know this because you can't find two countries that have the same PR voting system. They all have some variation of PR becuase they need to fix probems that arise in the actual use of PR. Each country then decides how they're going to fix the shortcomings, leading to a hodge-podge of systems that are all PR, but some variation thereof.

Forget the referendum on the voting system. Before you could have one, you'd have to identify which system it is that you're voting on. That might take twenty years, and in the end you'll have a proposed voting system as designed by a committee (BC-STV, or as we used to call it, WTF voting).

Or perhaps you could list on the ballot all of the possible PR systems, and ask people to choose one. How many different systems are there? a hundred? five hundred? Could be a large ballot. And of course the result would be a 'FPTP' result which would be unacceptable to the PR supporters. So I guess then we'd have to have a run-off, or rather several dozen run-offs, to decide which system meets with the approval of most of the population.

And I can guarantee you, that after all that, people would still be complaining that politicians don't listen and throw taxpayers money around with gay abandon.

Or to put it another way, if indeed, as the PR supporters would have it, the electorate is too stupid to be able to pick a voting system, why are they allowed to vote for a government?

crickets...

There are many ways to get to a more proportioanl system. This is not the fault of those who want one nor is it a problem with a more proportional system.

That said those who want a more proportional system will accept other models than their favorite before FPTP.

This debate here keeps coming down to something like this:

Let's assume the majority hate yellow and want one some shade of blue.

There is no authority to organize people into a choice so they all have different opinions. But they do want blue and most have individual preferences.

Then you get some people like in this threadspeaking like this: if they don't automatically agree on a shade or even if they don't have a strong preference of which shade of blue that means that they really don't want blue after all and they may as well stick with yellow.

So also what has been covered here many times --- the options are:

1) vote on the concept of PR rather than a particular varient and then narrow the many possibilities after

or

2) have an organized method to find a consensus on an acceptable option first

The fact that this is not there automatically, without any leadership authority, is not a problem with the idea it is merely an indication that there are many ways to do it and many preferences.

What we are getting is the suggestions that if this thing does ot start out specific and defind it is a bad idea and nobody wants it.

That is just false.