Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

[George Wallace]

Oops - forgot to include the seats of Notley and Wall and the other Confederal Dukes pro tem.

Wall?  I thought Saskatchewan was the only province with a fiscally responsible and sensible Government.

Perhaps you were thinking of the Popcorn Lady....Ms Redenbacher.....Ummm......Wynne?

 

[ModlrMike]

There is no requirement for MPs to come from the riding that they represent.  All parties practice parachuting star candidates into safe ridings under our current system.

True, but it really should be the exception rather than the rule. I can understand a member giving up their riding to allow a newly elected leader an opportunity to contest a seat, but the day to day model should be that MPs come from the communities they represent.

 

[Kirkhill]

George - I like Wall.  And I am glad that he is Duke pro tem in Saskatchewan.  I might be moving there.

However, in Canada, all of our premiers are "national" leaders - in the sense that the Quebecois are a separate nation and Torontonians and Albertans live in separate universes (for that matter so do Oilers and Flames fans).

My thinking is that the Senate is under utilized as an institution.  I suggest leaving it as a cockpit for the vested interests - just as the House of Lords was.  The Commons can then revert to holding the purse strings and riding herd on the unruly mob that purports to govern us.

 

[McG]

True, but it really should be the exception rather than the rule. I can understand a member giving up their riding to allow a newly elected leader an opportunity to contest a seat, but the day to day model should be that MPs come from the communities they represent.

I agree with your observation of what should be, but you cannot argue one system introduces a flaw and wish away its actual existence in the current system with "it should not normally be done."  Mandating that candidates live in the riding in which they run could still be an element of electoral reform that keeps FPTP.  Alternately, if representing a riding in which one does not live is okay for FPTP, then it is okay for PR or other systems.

I think mixed PR is the way to go.  You'd still have FPTP, then so many seats would be allocated to PR.

Why not keep everything local?  Like maybe:

Why stop at just one MP per riding?
Andrew Coyne
National Post
08 Jul 2016

At bottom, the debate over electoral reform boils down to this: should each riding be represented by one member of Parliament, or several?

That’s the fundamental difference between electoral systems. Single-member systems like first past the post or preferential voting may differ in how you mark your ballot — with a single x, or a 1, 2, 3 — but they are alike in being “winner take all” systems, where all of the voters in a riding are represented by a lone MP.

What distinguishes proportional systems is the division of representation in an each electoral district among several members. Suppose a riding had five members. Instead of 40 per cent of the vote entitling a party to 100 per cent of the representation, as at present, it would be good enough for two of the five, with the rest distributed among the other parties in like manner. The system is proportional in the whole because it is proportional in the parts.

But whether single- or multi-member, what is true in either case is that members are elected in distinct electoral districts. There is zero likelihood, in a country the size of Canada, of anyone proposing a purely proportional system with all of its members elected at large, as in Israel or the Netherlands.

Rather, members might be elected from ridings with five to seven members, as in the single transferable vote (STV) proposed for British Columbia some years back, with a sprinkling of single members where multi-member ridings would be impractically large. Or they could be elected mostly from single-member ridings, topped up with MPs elected from larger regional districts of 20 or so members, as in the mixed-member proportional (MMP) system proposed in 2004 by the Law Commission of Canada.

So while we talk of systems as being proportional or not in terms of the parliaments that result, the question in practical terms is whether members are elected from single- or multi-member electoral districts. I stress this point because so much of the early debate, with the special committee on electoral reform now under way, seems to overlook this distinction. The result is mutual incomprehension, circular arguments, and talking past each other.

When proportional representation advocates complain that the allocation of seats among the parties in the legislature does not resemble their relative shares of the votes cast — with the especially unhappy effect of allowing a minority of the voters to rule over the majority — first past the post’s defenders reply: why should it? Members were elected in 338 separate riding elections, not in a single nationwide vote.

When reformers point out the imbalance this creates between voters — in a given election it typically takes many more votes to elect a member from one party than another — first-past-the-posters look positively mystified: everyone gets one ballot. And when the former observe that under first past the post the votes cast for anyone but the leading candidate in a riding are “wasted,” in the sense that they do not contribute to electing anyone, the latter lose all patience. How could any of the votes have been wasted, they ask, if all were counted? The candidate who was elected may not have been everyone’s choice, but he still represents everyone.

To reformers’ complaints about how the system works, in other words, the answer commonly offered is: that’s how the system works. It is as if that were not just the system we have now, but the only system there is. And of course if you assume that then yes, reformers’ objections become literally incomprehensible. They might as well object to the weather. If only one member can be elected per riding, then obviously it’s silly to talk about wasted votes, or to complain that voters who supported another candidate are not represented. That’s life. Suck it up. The resulting parliament was not proportional? That’s not how our system works.

Isn’t it? Is the essence of our system that members are elected in single-member ridings? Or is it simply that they are elected in … ridings? If more than one MP can represent a riding, then the imagined contradiction between proportionality and “our system” disappears. If proportionality could only be achieved at the expense of local representation, that would be one thing. But if all it means is a switch from single- to multi-member ridings, well, what’s so special about the number one? What exactly is wrong with giving representation, not just to supporters of the largest party, but the rest of a riding’s voters as well?

At any rate, it’s worth debating. Some might argue that single-member ridings give constituents a clearer sense of who to take their problems to, and who to hold to account. Others might reply that, with several members competing to represent them, constituents might get better service: if one didn’t answer your letter, another might.

Of course, there are larger implications to such a switch, knock-on effects — in the number of parties in Parliament, and their ideological and geographic bases;  in how governments are formed, how parties campaign, and how voters choose; in how politics is conducted between elections, and so on. These, too, are worth debating.

But we cannot have a debate about alternatives until we have fully absorbed the idea that in fact alternatives are possible. “We cannot change the system we have now because that would be a change from the system we have now” is not a particularly useful starting point.  

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-why-stop-at-just-one-mp-per-riding

Setting aside the 5 to 7 member ridings suggested above, what does it look like if urban ridings are 2 to 4 member ridings?

 

[VinceW]

Whatever the outcome is it will be so PM (I admire the Chinese dictatorship the most) Selfie gets closer to his wish that Quebec and the Liberal party run Canada which he believes they are entitled to effectively shutting out Western Canadians from power unless they're the leader or in the cabinet of an Eastern based party.
Western Independence will be back in full force if this happens and might just succed when it's realized that the East is forcing us to not have a chance for power again.
There will be consequences if Junior gets his way.
The present system or electing MP's is fine most Canadians agree with that.

 

[a_majoor]

Much better men have thought this through. Aristotle and many other Greek philosophers were contemptuous of Democracy in general, and the American Founding Fathers instituted a Republic specifically to limit Democracy (they also had property requirements to create a Timocracy and ensure all voters had a stake in the outcome). Democracy in its direct form rapidly devolves into mob rule or the rule of Demagogues who can whip the voters passions. Of course what the Liberals are offering is to remove the Demos from Democracy and institute Oligarchy instead, hardly what we should see as an improvement.

Of course even Republican rule isn't immune to difficulties (think of the Social Wars which ended the Res Publica Roma and ushered in the Imperium). The fun text of this article is behind a paywall, but Instapundit published a portion which bears thinking about:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/242937/

ROGER KIMBALL: Since Men Aren’t Angels: Federalist 10 offers a timely warning about the dangers of factionalism.

Given the talismanic power the word “democracy” has to modern ears, it is worth reminding ourselves that the U.S. Constitution was largely an effort to curb or trammel democracy. Democracies, Madison wrote in Federalist 10, the most widely read and cited of the essays, “have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” Why? A mot often attributed to Benjamin Franklin explains it in an image. “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”

So, in one sense, the problem of democracy is the problem of the tyranny of the majority. But Madison saw deeper into the metabolism of liberty and its constraints. The biggest threat to “popular” governments, he wrote in Federalist 10, are “factions,” interest groups whose operations are “adverse to the rights of other citizens” or the “permanent…interests of the community.” Factions are thus not accidental. They are—famous phrase—“sown in the nature of man.” Why? Because freedom and the unequal distribution of talent inevitably yield an unequal distribution of property, the “most common and durable source of faction.”

There are two ways to extinguish factions. The first is to extinguish the liberty they require to operate. The second is to impose a uniformity of interests on citizens. Some collectivists have actually experimented with these expedients, which is why the pages of socialist enterprise are so full of bloodshed and misery.

Eliminating the causes of faction, as Madison put it, offers a cure that is far worse than the disease. If protecting both liberty and minority rights is your goal, then the task of government is to control the effects of faction. How can this be done?

Talented statesmen are sometimes successful in balancing the contending interests of society. But—understatement alert—“Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.”

Madison’s solution was the creation of a large republic in which a scheme of representation and a large variety of interests “make it less probable” that they will be able to “invade the rights of other citizens” successfully.

Most political philosophers before the American founding had insisted that republics had to be small to succeed. But Hamilton and Madison saw that there was safety in size.

Madison, Hamilton and other supporters of the Constitution worried about the potential incursions of federal power just as much as did the anti-Federalists, who opposed adopting the Constitution because it seemed to bring back many of the infringements on liberty that they had all risen up against in 1776. But they concluded that the creation of a strong state was the best guarantor of liberty in a republic. Hence the irony, as the historian Bernard Bailyn notes, that “now the goal of the initiators of change was the creation, not the destruction, of national power.”

Madison’s central insight was that power had to be dispersed and decentralized if it was to serve liberty and control faction. In Federalist 51, a companion to Federalist 10, he elaborated this idea of balancing interest against interest to remedy “the defect of better motives.” “Clashing interests” would not be stymied but balanced against one another. If men were angels, Madison noted, government would be unnecessary. But in framing a government “which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

The American republic has survived for nearly 250 years because it has, more or less, remained faithful to Madison’s vision. But Madison was right. Threats to liberty are “sown in the nature of man.” We’ve also had nearly 250 years of human ingenuity chipping away at Madison’s safeguards.

As Constitution Day approaches, the sobering and nonpartisan question is whether government has become its own party, a self-engrossing faction so large, domineering and impertinent that we, the people, can no longer control it.

It’s less a question, than a fact.

 

[McG]

... what the Liberals are offering is to remove the Demos from Democracy and institute Oligarchy instead, hardly what we should see as an improvement.

We have on oligarch that typically narrows to a duopoly.  You would argue that a monopoly is improvement?

 

[Kirkhill]

We have on oligarch that typically narrows to a duopoly.  You would argue that a monopoly is improvement?

The counter to all of the above is Adam Ferguson.

 

[Brad Sallows]

There are two ways to have multi-member ridings.

1. Increase the number of MPs.  First, though, a case needs to be made that more MPs are needed.

2. Merge ridings.  This doesn't necessarily produce a result that is "more fair" in circumstances in which traditionally one-party ridings merge with ridings in which vote shares are more equally shared.

 

[McG]

This doesn't necessarily produce a result that is "more fair" in circumstances in which traditionally one-party ridings merge with ridings in which vote shares are more equally shared.

This statement is unclear to me.  What are you saying?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

There are two ways to have multi-member ridings.

1. Increase the number of MPs.  First, though, a case needs to be made that more MPs are needed.

2. Merge ridings.  This doesn't necessarily produce a result that is "more fair" in circumstances in which traditionally one-party ridings merge with ridings in which vote shares are more equally shared.

If increasing the number of MPs, to cost us more taxes and nanny government intrusion, is a solution, then that's enough reason to stick with FPTP.

 

[McG]

If increasing the number of MPs, to cost us more taxes and nanny government intrusion, is a solution, then that's enough reason to stick with FPTP.

No.  It would be reason to merge ridings to keep the number of MPs constant.  Consider that London-West, London-North-Center, and London-Fanshaw could all be lumped into one riding of "London" with three MPs.  In the last election, those three ridings elected one NDP (L-F) and two Liberals (L-NC and L-W), but as a single three member riding they would have elected one Conservative and two Liberals.

By another example, the eight ridings of Winnipeg produced seven Liberals and one NDP, but mashed into two multi-member ridings of four seats each they could return two Conservatives, one NDP and only five Liberals.


* Thanks Ostrozac for reminding me to show my numbers.  It is what keeps the mistakes away.

 

[Kirkhill]

Too much distance, too many bodies, too little direct connection = too little accountability.

Those members elected will feel the party every day of their working lives. They will only feel the electorate when it pleases them or they are forced.

Again, my opinion, "partyism" is the problem and should not be pandered to.  I would sooner have more representatives, with smaller salaries, controlling the purse strings - and with no party connections.

I guess my model sees the Commons as Jury, as impartial as it can be.  Leave the Senate as the House of Faction - the cockpit.  They can pick their own members by what ever means they like then.

GG as Judge.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... "partyism" is the problem and should not be pandered to.  I would sooner have more representatives, with smaller salaries, controlling the purse strings - and with no party connections ...

More like a huuuuuge municipal council, then?

 

[Old Sweat]

Too much distance, too many bodies, too little direct connection = too little accountability.

Those members elected will feel the party every day of their working lives. They will only feel the electorate when it pleases them or they are forced.

Again, my opinion, "partyism" is the problem and should not be pandered to.  I would sooner have more representatives, with smaller salaries, controlling the purse strings - and with no party connections.

I guess my model sees the Commons as Jury, as impartial as it can be.  Leave the Senate as the House of Faction - the cockpit.  They can pick their own members by what ever means they like then.

GG as Judge.

Whoa Mohammed. The GG must not have any executive role other than to show up sober, clean and alert to execute the will of the elected leaders. What you are suggesting is to regress to the post-confederation era when the GG (a creature of the Colonial Office) could actually issue direction to the PM. Mind you, maybe sometimes back then it was a good idea, for example when Sir Alexander Mackenzie, the second PM, suggested that instead of forming the NWMP to maintain order in the west which would have been quite expensive, the US Army be invited in to pacify the region.

 

[Kirkhill]

On the municipal council - yes.  Except those folks generally have an overly high opinion of themselves as well.  I want to make the task a duty, not a perq.

On the GG - OK.  I'll back off on that one.  I like the honorary head of state too.  In that case move the PM and the government from the Commons to the House of Factions.  And no money, no treaties, without a Commons vote.

 

[jmt18325]

Too much distance, too many bodies, too little direct connection = too little accountability

It depends. We could go for a hybrid system.  Places like Nunavut could stay as 1 riding with 1 member.  Places like the City of Winnipeg, or the province of PEI (having far too many members - but that's another kettle of fish) could be combined into single multi member ridings employing a simple formula STV system.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/why-elections-are-bad-for-democracy

I swear Maryam must have read this.....

Referendums and elections are both arcane instruments of public deliberation.

Electoral fundamentalism is an unshakeable belief in the idea that democracy is inconceivable without elections and elections are a necessary and fundamental precondition when speaking of democracy. Electoral fundamentalists refuse to regard elections as a means of taking part in democracy, seeing them instead as an end in themselves, as a doctrine with an intrinsic, inalienable value.

I do rather like the idea of Sortition though.

Edit:  I made an extraneous reference that on reconsideration should never have been uttered.  I apologize to any who saw it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

This:

"Consider that London-West, London-North-Center, and London-Fanshaw could all be lumped into one riding of "London" with three MPs.  In the last election, those three ridings elected one NDP (L-F) and two Liberals (L-NC and L-W), but as a single three member riding they would have elected one Conservative and two Liberals."

is what I mean by:

"This doesn't necessarily produce a result that is "more fair" in circumstances in which traditionally one-party ridings merge with ridings in which vote shares are more equally shared."

If a pocket of people in L-F want a NDP member for their locality, they should get one instead of another member decided in part for them by their neighbours.

I consider a system that allows representatives to be selected with non-majority pluralities, and majority governments to be formed with less than majority vote share, to be a great social stabilizer.

 

[McG]

Yet, it was a minority of people in L-F that decided they would have an NDP representative.  Is that really more fair when what the city (inclusive of L-F) really wants is a Conservative?