Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

[OOTBthinker]

I like that analogy, but I'll take it a step farther.

Lets say the parents want to go to Smittys for a reasonably priced meal that may have some nutritional value. The teenager wants to go to the Keg for a steak and the youngest wants McDonalds. The vote happens and the parents win (they have more ridings), now the children spend the whole meal complaining that they never got what they wanted and weren't given a fair say.

All parties got the chance to cast their vote but the two children refused to vote together so they end up losing overall. Then they procede to blame the system for their failure to get their act together and work as a team to get what they wanted.

Don`t get me wrong, I don`t think our current system is perfect by any means, but at the same time I`m hesitant to agree with you that a system that more regularly gives us minority governments is the way to go.

The problem wasn't with the two children not voting together but with the parents not explaining enough to their children why they had made their decision, why it was the right one at the time, and how at another occasion, under different circumstances, the decision might be to go to another restaurant. This takes leadership capable of accommodating diversity.

Let's not kid ourselves, Canada has a diverse population, and our government has to be able to accommodate Canadians, a government "of the people, for the people." A minority government, which would be more prevalent with PR, simply reflects the reality and forces us to lead the people while striving to find common ground. A majority government under our present electoral system simply allows a minority to rule over the others without having to make any accommodation, until they get replaced and their decisions get turned around. There's no unity in this, there's no common goal or vision. It shows a lack of leadership - the only way a political leader can lead is by "lording it" over others. How different is that from the situation in Syria? This is not how governments should be in the 21st century.

 

[OOTBthinker]

One of the problems is that a Canadian political majority is so elusive as to be, effectively, extinct. The last time we had such a thing at the national level was in 1984 when Brian Mulroney earned 50.03% of the popular vote; before that it was John Diefenbaker in 1958 with 53.66% of the vote; in each case the majority wasn't so much for the Conservatives as it was a reaction to too many years of Liberal rule.

There is not, most emphatically not a majority against Stephen Harper and the Conservatives; it is dishonest to suggest that the Liberals and the NDP and Greens and the Bloc are in any meaningful way "united."

Readers who are interested can scan back several pages (I'm too lazy to do it) to find a post of mine where I analyzed recent election results and suggested that our curent first past the post system is not as unfair as most people appear to believe - yes, it does reward the most successful party and it does 'punish' the least successful ones, but, all in all, it is not grossly unfair.

The problem with our system is that it doesn't reflect the reality - it doesn't reflect our diversity of opinion. I would never suggest that the Liberals, the NDP, the Greens and the Bloc are united in any meaningful way, but the reality is they might be of common accord on certain issues (as an example, the gun registry, or environmental issues). Polls have shown that a majority of Canadians want to keep the gun registry in some form or another, but our electoral system isn't allowing that common 'bond' to be voiced. Instead we have a majority Conservative government, representing a minority opinion, pushing their down the throats of a majority of Canadians. That is completely unfair!

And don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Conservative and will readily acknowledge that the Liberals have done this in the past also. An electoral system with PR would force our leaders to find common ground, and in a country as diverse as ours, that is what is needed.

 

[OOTBthinker]

That in it self is not a bad thing.  Stability over a medium term is a good thing for running government and the economy.  It also gives the voting populace at large an ability to assess policy properly rather than knee jerk changes that come with constant changes.  When one party reaches too far on the pendulum they are punished for it ( Ei: Tories in 1993, Liberals 2011)

You can have stability even within minority governments, but you have to work at it a little harder. It takes good leadership, accommodation and tolerance, all things that we could use a little more of from our political leaders. Minority governments also prevent "pendulums" from happening in the first place and that's a good thing. When pendulums happen, Canadians get punished too through bad policy. Governments should be in tune with its citizens and never going against the wishes of a majority of them; an electoral system with PR would make this happen.

 

[GAP]

You can have stability even within minority governments, but you have to work at it a little harder. It takes good leadership, accommodation and tolerance, all things that we could use a little more of from our political leaders. Minority governments also prevent "pendulums" from happening in the first place and that's a good thing. When pendulums happen, Canadians get punished too through bad policy. Governments should be in tune with its citizens and never going against the wishes of a majority of them; an electoral system with PR would make this happen.

Minority governments prevent long "pendulum" swings, but cause short jerky changes depending on the advantage to the contestants....

 

[Edward Campbell]

The problem with our system is that it doesn't reflect the reality - it doesn't reflect our diversity of opinion. I would never suggest that the Liberals, the NDP, the Greens and the Bloc are united in any meaningful way, but the reality is they might be of common accord on certain issues (as an example, the gun registry, or environmental issues). Polls have shown that a majority of Canadians want to keep the gun registry in some form or another, but our electoral system isn't allowing that common 'bond' to be voiced. Instead we have a majority Conservative government, representing a minority opinion, pushing their down the throats of a majority of Canadians. That is completely unfair!

And don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Conservative and will readily acknowledge that the Liberals have done this in the past also. An electoral system with PR would force our leaders to find common ground, and in a country as diverse as ours, that is what is needed.

But on some other issues the Conservatives and Liberals or Conservative and some NDP members might be united - witness the gun registry vote a few days ago. Party discipline and partisan politics, not the electoral system, is the problem.

I do not oppose coalitions and, provided it was announced ahead of the election, I would likely vote for, say, a Conservative-Liberal alliance if it was intended to prevent a NDP government which, unless the party does a 180o policy shift, I would regard as being disastrous for Canada. But I oppose "after the fact" alliances such as were bandied about by all parties during the Martin and Harper minority administrations. If a national unity government is necessary then say so during the election campaign ... otherwise it, like the incessant calls for PR, is crying over partisan spilled milk.

By the way, I am not, unalterably, opposed to weighted voting but I'm not persuaded that it is that much better than our current "simple plurality" system.

The problem, I repeat, is that there is no "common ground" in Canada - about half of the 25% or so of Canadians who are independent voters can be persuaded to shift towards one of their fellow Canadians' traditional partisan favourites (currently about 30% Conservatives, 20% Liberals, 15% NDP, 5% Greens, 5% Bloc) - enough to give a plurality and a majority government. The closest we have to "common ground" in this country is greed and envy - maybe our defining national attributes; no one wants to see their little share of "free" something or other cut back or even off; we are like the sly old Russian peasant who was envious of his neighbour who had two cows, each morning, at dawn, the peasant used to go to a shrine and pray, "please God, make us all the same, kill one of Ivan's cows."

 

[OOTBthinker]

Minority governments prevent long "pendulum" swings, but cause short jerky changes depending on the advantage to the contestants....

Canada's experience with minority governments is very limited and for the most part has not been very successful, but I thought the last Conservative minority government did quite well and I'm sure with with more minority government experience we could make it work quite well. As for the ''short jerky changes depending on the advantage to the contestants'' I go back to the fact that it's a question of leadership - good leaders seek accommodation in the interest of the country, not for ideological or electoral gain. Again, with more experience in minority government situations, I think our political leaders could start getting a hang of it.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Canada's experience with minority governments is very limited and for the most part has not been very successful, but I thought the last Conservative minority government did quite well and I'm sure with with more minority government experience we could make it work quite well. As for the ''short jerky changes depending on the advantage to the contestants'' I go back to the fact that it's a question of leadership - good leaders seek accommodation in the interest of the country, not for ideological or electoral gain. Again, with more experience in minority government situations, I think our political leaders could start getting a hang of it.

I think your 'definition' of political leadership is hopelessly naive. Good leaders don't "seek accommodation," they seek power in order to lead the country in the right direction. Now you and I might quibble with the direction chosen but that, not seeking accommodation, is what leaders do.

We have had plenty of experience in minority governments over the past two generations - nine of the last 20 governments (in 55 years) have been minorities. They are harmless in "good times" - think Mike Pearson in the 60s, but Canadians want firm leadership - majority government - when they (finally) understand that leadership, in some direction, is necessary.

 

[OOTBthinker]

But on some other issues the Conservatives and Liberals or Conservative and some NDP members might be united - witness the gun registry vote a few days ago. Party discipline and partisan politics, not the electoral system, is the problem.

I do not oppose coalitions and, provided it was announced ahead of the election, I would likely vote for, say, a Conservative-Liberal alliance if it was intended to prevent a NDP government which, unless the party does a 180o policy shift, I would regard as being disastrous for Canada. But I oppose "after the fact" alliances such as were bandied about by all parties during the Martin and Harper minority administrations. If a national unity government is necessary then say so during the election campaign ... otherwise it, like the incessant calls for PR, is crying over partisan spilled milk.

By the way, I am not, unalterably, opposed to weighted voting but I'm not persuaded that it is that much better than our current "simple plurality" system.

The problem, I repeat, is that there is no "common ground" in Canada - about half of the 25% or so of Canadians who are independent voters can be persuaded to shift towards one of their fellow Canadians' traditional partisan favourites (currently about 30% Conservatives, 20% Liberals, 15% NDP, 5% Greens, 5% Bloc) - enough to give a plurality and a majority government. The closest we have to "common ground" in this country is greed and envy - maybe our defining national attributes; no one wants to see their little share of "free" something or other cut back or even off; we are like the sly old Russian peasant who was envious of his neighbour who had two cows, each morning, at dawn, the peasant used to go to a shrine and pray, "please God, make us all the same, kill one of Ivan's cows."

I agree with you about party discipline and partisan politics; taken too far it's bad in any electoral system.

As for coalition governments, you can't announce them before an election; political parties go into an election to win the right to lead the nation, not to share it with another party. If a minority government situation occurs, then they can think about coalition governments, but even that doesn't mean that the coalition government will agree on everything. As you stated, sometimes Conservatives will align themselves with Liberals, at other times with the NDP; that is how it is supposed to work - that's finding the common ground and that's good. It means that these representatives are finding common ground for their respective supporters and thereby a majority of Canadians, even if that mix of Canadians being represented changes from issue to issue.

The problem is not that there is no common ground in Canada; our diversity is just a reality. The problem is that our political leaders don't strive hard enough to find common ground within this diversity, and a majority government within our present electoral system offers no incentive to do so. An electoral system incorporating PR would simply reflect Canada's diversity and force our political leaders - our representatives - to find common ground on issues.

I would argue that another problem with our present political leaders or the political parties that they represent is that there is a lack of long term vision for Canada, something that would grab the interest of a majority of Canadians, and that this is one reason why we are so divided. Again, another sign of a lack of good leadership.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I agree with you about party discipline and partisan politics; taken too far it's bad in any electoral system.

As for coalition governments, you can't announce them before an election;

Arrant nonsense - see the 1935 UK general election and, more broadly, British politics from 1915 to 1945.

 

[OOTBthinker]

I think your 'definition' of political leadership is hopelessly naive. Good leaders don't "seek accommodation," they seek power in order to lead the country in the right direction. Now you and I might quibble with the direction chosen but that, not seeking accommodation, is what leaders do.

We have had plenty of experience in minority governments over the past two generations - nine of the last 20 governments (in 55 years) have been minorities. They are harmless in "good times" - think Mike Pearson in the 60s, but Canadians want firm leadership - majority government - when they (finally) understand that leadership, in some direction, is necessary.

I don't think my definition of political leadership is naive, but it is perhaps idealistic. To be honest, I haven't seen 'my kind of good leadership' that often. What you describe as good leaders I have seen plenty of - there are many political dictators all around the world. What kind of leader would you think most Canadians would want? Also, your kind of leader might be good for you if that's who you actually want to lead you, but what if the leader is the guy from the other side? Would you be okay with an NDP majority government in Canada?

I'll take an accommodating leader over a dictator anytime.

 

[OOTBthinker]

Arrant nonsense - see the 1935 UK general election and, more broadly, British politics from 1915 to 1945.

I acknowledge that it has been done in the past, and that a political party might announce a willingness to form a coalition government with another party before an election, but I'd think that they would have to be pretty close in ideology for that to happen. It's hard for me to see it happening in Canada. I remember the Liberals and the NDP talking about forming a coalition with the support of the Bloc, but there the purpose was to counter the Conservatives and NOT have to go into an election. They definitely tried to stay away from all talk of forming a coalition in the subsequent election.

 

[Edward Campbell]

But, OTBthinker, the essence of a Westminster style democracy is that the executive, the cabinet (the committee of the Queen's Privy Council, to be exact) has near dictatorial powers so long as it can command the confidence of the House of Commons and of the sovereign (largely a matter of not breaking any rules - like staying in office too long (but there are exceptions - see the UK in the 1940s)). Do you propose that we change our system to something akin to that of, say, France?

The "system" has evolved, sometimes slowly, sometimes (1600s and 1830s to 1850s) rather briskly into the workable jumble we have now. It is far from perfect but it is, I suggest, as good as anything else and better than most - including the great constitutional republic to the South. We, Canadians, do have important, democratic issues with which to grapple: inequality of representation and an appointed legislative chambre to name just two, but PR is not, in my opinion very high in the list and I will wager that any proposal that is made by any government over the next decade will fail in a referendum. Why? Because it is not a matter of any import to anything but a small minority of (usually poorly informed) Canadians.

 

[RangerRay]

Polls have shown that a majority of Canadians want to keep the gun registry in some form or another,

Have a link to that?  All the polls I have seen have consistently shown that a majority want it scrapped.

 

[RangerRay]

Arrant nonsense - see the 1935 UK general election and, more broadly, British politics from 1915 to 1945.

As well, the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia have a semi-permanent coalition.

 

[OOTBthinker]

The problem with any electoral reform is that the people in power - those elected under the present system - must change what got them elected for a system that might not get them re-elected. Such political leaders must do so out of conviction, at the risk of political loss. Again, a question of good leadership.

As for incorporating PR into our present electoral system, your quote of John Stuart Mill is reason enough for such a change.

If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)

One of my favorite books by the way.

Under our present system, not all opinions are heard equally and some are silenced altogether. And all too often with our majority governments, the opinion of a minority silences the others. Incorporating PR into our present system would simply help in allowing all opinions to be heard. It still wouldn't be perfect, but it would be an evolution into something better... if done right. I will grant you that some forms of PR systems would be for the worst.

 

[RangerRay]

I agree with Mr. Campbell in that a better way to fix our system would be to redistribute the seats in the House of Commons into a much more representative fashion than they currently are distributed (sorry PEI, you only get one seat, not 4) and to create a Senate that is elected with equal representation amongst the provinces (ON = PEI).  A Senate with equal representation amongst the provinces would be a much better check on the power of a House of Commons, i.e. the PM.

The contention that a mixed PR system would not result in loss of representation is false.  To make a "mixed" system, some MP's would be elected to represent a riding and others would be elected based on the popular vote of a party.  This would mean that ridings would have to be enlarged, meaning a loss of local representation.  In BC, we had a proposed STV/PR system that I at first supported.  However, when I saw that my rural riding would become a super-riding with 5 MLA's dominated by one city three hours away, I could not support it, and neither could a large majority of BC'ers.  Under such a system, it is conceivable that all 5 MLA's could be from that one city, and not have any idea what goes on where I lived.

Every time electoral reform has gone to referendum in Canada, it has failed (BC, ON).  It failed recently in the UK as well.  Because Canada is so diverse, local representation is very important.

 

[OOTBthinker]

Have a link to that?  All the polls I have seen have consistently shown that a majority want it scrapped.

Two-thirds of Canadians back long-gun registry: poll
http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/10/05/two-thirds-of-canadians-back-long-gun-registry-poll/

Support Shifts In Favour Of Gun Registry: Poll
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/national/article/92363--support-shifts-in-favour-of-gun-registry-poll

I know I saw one as recently as the fall of 2011; I'll try to get it to you. I will admit that while googling the topic, I did find polls stating the opposite. I guess what polls one is exposed to depends on where one lives in the country.

Another example of ''the Harper government flexing its majority muscle to push through the Commons a controversial bill'' was stripping the Wheat Board of control over grain sales.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-majority-topples-wheat-board-monopoly/article2252644/
Farmers had voted in a plebiscite in favour of keeping the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly over wheat and barley sales.
http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/newsroom/releases/2011/news_release.jsp?news=091211.jsp

And I don't want to sound like I want to bash the Conservatives; I take exception with any majority government that acts this way.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The problem with any electoral reform is that the people in power - those elected under the present system - must change what got them elected for a system that might not get them re-elected. Such political leaders must do so out of conviction, at the risk of political loss. Again, a question of good leadership.

As for incorporating PR into our present electoral system, your quote of John Stuart Mill is reason enough for such a change.
One of my favorite books by the way.

Under our present system, not all opinions are heard equally and some are silenced altogether. And all too often with our majority governments, the opinion of a minority silences the others. Incorporating PR into our present system would simply help in allowing all opinions to be heard. It still wouldn't be perfect, but it would be an evolution into something better... if done right. I will grant you that some forms of PR systems would be for the worst.

You are still guilty of wishful thinking. All opinions are freely expressed in Canada today, but rarely in parliament - they are expressed, heard, considered and then, mostly, rejected by the government of the day. PR, no matter how effected, would have absolutely no impact on that fact of life.

Sometimes the system does distort the voting outcomes, most notably during the Jean Chrétien majorities (1993 and onwards) when his seat tally was far out ofd proportion to his vote count. But that occurred while the conservatives were reorganizing and had to endure the Parson Manning (and Stockwell Day) interregnum until Peter MacCay and Stephen harper could effect a reunion of the conservative factions. I suspect the the misnamed "liberal" factions are going through the same thing right now.

We have discussed, elsewhere, that some people, including Stephen Harper, want a more clearly defined, à la the UK, two party system: one major right of centre/centre right party and one major centre left/left of centre party, probably "bookended" by a hard right and a hard left party, too. I'm not sure such a thing provides the desired stability. I'm guessing that the only way to find stability is to have a large centre party with two smaller parties on each of the (economic and social) right and left wings - the voters from the right of centre and left of centre will gravitate to the centre as, mostly, economics dictate: in "hard times" the fiscal conservatives will prevail, in good time the "free spenders" will be in power - look for 8-12 year cycles. (the hard right and hard left voters will be permanently shut out of power, as they should be. their voices are heard and, properly, ignored.

Once again nothing in any PR system offers anything useful for the process. PR proponents betray only their own misapprehensions of the workings of the social, economic and political processes.

 

[OOTBthinker]

I agree with Mr. Campbell in that a better way to fix our system would be to redistribute the seats in the House of Commons into a much more representative fashion than they currently are distributed (sorry PEI, you only get one seat, not 4) and to create a Senate that is elected with equal representation amongst the provinces (ON = PEI).  A Senate with equal representation amongst the provinces would be a much better check on the power of a House of Commons, i.e. the PM.

The contention that a mixed PR system would not result in loss of representation is false.  To make a "mixed" system, some MP's would be elected to represent a riding and others would be elected based on the popular vote of a party.  This would mean that ridings would have to be enlarged, meaning a loss of local representation.  In BC, we had a proposed STV/PR system that I at first supported.  However, when I saw that my rural riding would become a super-riding with 5 MLA's dominated by one city three hours away, I could not support it, and neither could a large majority of BC'ers.  Under such a system, it is conceivable that all 5 MLA's could be from that one city, and not have any idea what goes on where I lived.

Every time electoral reform has gone to referendum in Canada, it has failed (BC, ON).  It failed recently in the UK as well.  Because Canada is so diverse, local representation is very important.

I agree with the need to redistribute the seats in the House of Commons, and I agree that it shouldn't be done by simply adding new seats - we already have too many MPs - but from taking away seats from less populous provinces (ie. PEI and others, including Quebec). As for ''super ridings,'' I don't know the details of what was proposed in BC but I am pretty sure it's not exactly what I would be proposing (Under my proposal, ridings would perhaps double in size, if that, so there wouldn't be super ridings with 5 MPs).

But let's remember that the purpose of incorporating PR into a mixed system is to enhance ideological representation; I don't care if the person representing me lives three hours away as long as I know the he is representing me ideologically. Under our present system, if the representative has ideological opinions different and perhaps even opposed to mind, he is not representing me even if he were my next door neighbour. And what of representatives elected with less than 50% of the vote in the riding; is that person truly representing the riding? No! To me, ideological representation is far more important than local representation, and that's why we need PR. Just ask yourself, what do most people vote for? Do they vote for the person, or do they vote for the political party that the person represents? If you're honest you'll agree that most people vote for the party and really don't care too much who the person is. People want ideological representation and that's why we need PR.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I agree with the need to redistribute the seats in the House of Commons, and I agree that it shouldn't be done by simply adding new seats - we already have too many MPs - but from taking away seats from less populous provinces (ie. PEI and others, including Quebec). As for ''super ridings,'' I don't know the details of what was proposed in BC but I am pretty sure it's not exactly what I would be proposing (Under my proposal, ridings would perhaps double in size, if that, so there wouldn't be super ridings with 5 MPs).

This is Constitutional nonsense. You have to totally remake the country, into something you would not recognize, to accomplish such a thing. You are not thinking "out side the box," you are smoking dope.

But let's remember that the purpose of incorporating PR into a mixed system is to enhance ideological representation; I don't care if the person representing me lives three hours away as long as I know the he is representing me ideologically. Under our present system, if the representative has ideological opinions different and perhaps even opposed to mind, he is not representing me even if he were my next door neighbour. And what of representatives elected with less than 50% of the vote in the riding; is that person truly representing the riding? No! To me, ideological representation is far more important than local representation, and that's why we need PR. Just ask yourself, what do most people vote for? Do they vote for the person, or do they vote for the political party that the person represents? If you're honest you'll agree that most people vote for the party and really don't care too much who the person is. People want ideological representation and that's why we need PR.

Then you want something entirely different from our (Canadian) Westminster style parliamentary government and something different from a US style representative government, too. You are looking at something akin to an Israeli model which uses both PR and nothing but national representatives and is unsuitable for a federal state. You are back to Constitutional nonsense but now, at least, I understand what you want.