Politics in 2015

[Journeyman]

In Canada we expect our politicians to play Rugby.

Well, we don't expect  it, but it's always nice when they do he did... even showing up at the Garrison Ball afterwards with a scraped face.  ;D

 

[Remius]

I have never liked the concept of proportional representation. I used to like the idea of ranked ballots (first/second/third choice), but no longer do.

Our current system is not perfect. No system is.

There is one reason why I now prefer to keep it is because it ensures a change of government every few years.

And governments, even ones for which I vote, need changing every few years.

That is the only way to keep them at least pseudo-honest.

I agree.  I don't like proportional rep either.  I do like the concept of a preferential ballot system though.

I'm more of a red Tory, and I think a system like that would force the right to move back to its PC roots and be less regional in nature. 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Section 3 of the Constitution Act, 1982, states that "Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons ..."

And the 1867 Constitution Act, where it institutes the Upper House styled the Senate and a House of Commons, indicates, funny enough, that it shall have the power to decide its own rules and privileges, but that they cannot exceed those of the UK Parliament.

Anyway, the thing is, here, that we are a British Parliamentary system and our constitution, as the Supreme Court has reminded us, includes unwritten parliamentary traditions. Now, funny enough, we have never had any other system for selecting our members of the House of Commons than FPTP, and that system is the one in effect in ALL British Parliamentary systems.

So there is certainly a valid argument to be made that how my vote will count towards electing my member of the House of Commons was crystallized as a fundamental constitutional right in 1982, based on the British system that had always been in place and was in place at the time. If so, (and unlike the PC bill that aimed at preventing electoral fraud and imposing a need to identify yourself to the electoral personnel, but did not affect the actual right to vote for my member or how that vote would be counted/used towards electing the said member - it remained FPTP as before) going to a different system could be considered an amendment to the constitution. The Supreme Court may impose a more complex way of effecting such change than merely a simple majority vote in Parliament and Royal Assent. 

 

[PuckChaser]

Anything that allows people to vote for a party, and not a specific candidate, keeps the partisan politics at an acceptable level. It's bad enough we have parachute candidates into party stronghold ridings, some of the systems proposed allow the party to stuff patronage appointments into MP positions because they got X amount of votes.

 

[Kilo_302]

One of the things I like about the FPTP system is that politicians, particularly Liberal and NDP types, don't like it.  Apparently it doesn't produce a predictable outcome.

I like that.

Something should always be left to chance.  Even if it meant a chunk of Parliament was decided on a throw of the dice.

The rules are the rules and they should not change the character of the game.  In Canada we expect our politicians to play Rugby.  I don't want them deciding they would rather play Badminton instead.

This is about enhancing democracy.  The reason "Liberal and NDP" types don't like it is they tend to be more democratic than conservatives. Our system, like all democracies is designed to keep power with elites while maintaining an illusion of choice. That illusion is rapidly dissolving as we're seeing in the US.

Now, the Liberal idea of preferential ballots is BS. just like FPTP. It would help them the most. It's still a step in the right direction however.

The NDP is for proportional representation, probably because it would help THEM the most. But, in reality, proportional representation is the MOST democratic option. It empowers the average citizen more than any other system that's on the table. If you are against it, you are against further democratization.

 

[Journeyman]

The reason "Liberal and NDP" types don't like it is they tend to be more democratic than conservatives.

:  <----  that's as close as I can get to a coherent response.

 

[PuckChaser]

:  <----  that's as close as I can get to a coherent response.

It's best to keep him on ignore, although you have to scroll quickly on Tapatalk (ignore doesn't work there) so you don't lose brain cells.

Also notice democratic reform only came about because the Liberals lost 3 elections in a row. Tories didn't complain about FPTP during the Chretien/Martin years.

 

[Kilo_302]

:  <----  that's as close as I can get to a coherent response.

What a great contribution. I hate to break it you, but "conservatism" and "conservative thought" are inherently undemocratic. Always have been. When successful, this philosophy holds society back. Change cannot happen. Not all change is good (I would argue that much of the recent emphasis on consumerism as a primary way of identifying yourself has been disastrous for civil society, including some traditionally conservative institutions like the church which have often been a net good), but there's a very good reason why conservatives are against proportional representation. It's a threat to the elite consensus that only certain people are fit to make decisions that guide a nation. This is a very conservative idea. The Liberals sure as shit believe it too. Which is why we won't see much in the way of Senate reform.

BUT the Liberals, in being left of the Conservatives are more democratic than the latter. This is what left and right is all about. It was progressives and progressive thinking that saw women, blacks get the vote. It was progressives who thought, "hey maybe people shouldn't be forced to work 7 days a week for little pay" or "maybe we should have some safety standards?" The Liberal Party is inherently conservative as well ( I know, the name is so damn confusing!) in that they also represent an elite consensus. But they understand that for our system to work, the average Joe needs to get something out of it. Trudeau made a telling speech to Canadian business community before the election. He said something like "If we don't give the average Canadian more, our system is at risk. And you won't like what the lefties will do." This is what the Liberal Party is all about.

In the end, proportional representation is continuing the long process of democratization. It's a journey, not a destination. People who are against it must come to terms with the fact that by definition they are against more democracy. This is fine, but accept it, and explain why.

 

[McG]

By the logic you have written, you basically argue because they have a majority they can do whatever they want even if it is against the will of the people ...

That is how the Canadian democratic system works.  Both the Liberal and Conservative parties have had their turns running the country under the power monopoly that the current system offers to majority governments.

Personally I like FPTP as it gives regional representation.

But, that is a not a characteristic unique to FPTP.  It is a characteristic common to all single representative systems.

The reason "Liberal and NDP" types don't like it is they tend to be more democratic than conservatives.

At best, that is unsubstantiated opinion that you have inflammatorily presented as fact.  More likely, you seek to poison the well.  Either way, you are not helping your position.

... in reality, proportional representation is the MOST democratic option. It empowers the average citizen more than any other system that's on the table.

Garbage.  Proportional representation empowers parties to select the Members of Parliament; those members are beholden to the parties and not to the population.

If you are against it, you are against further democratization.

I see you take some of your queues from the right.  You are channeling George Bush the junior.  The real world is not such extremes of absolutes.

 

[Kilo_302]

It's best to keep him on ignore, although you have to scroll quickly on Tapatalk (ignore doesn't work there) so you don't lose brain cells.

Also notice democratic reform only came about because the Liberals lost 3 elections in a row. Tories didn't complain about FPTP during the Chretien/Martin years.

Yes, we can't allow discussion to ruin our discussion. Reactionary much?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

This is about enhancing democracy.  The reason "Liberal and NDP" types don't like it is they tend to be more democratic than conservatives. Our system, like all democracies is designed to keep power with elites while maintaining an illusion of choice. That illusion is rapidly dissolving as we're seeing in the US.

Now, the Liberal idea of preferential ballots is BS. just like FPTP. It would help them the most. It's still a step in the right direction however.

The NDP is for proportional representation, probably because it would help THEM the most. But, in reality, proportional representation is the MOST democratic option. It empowers the average citizen more than any other system that's on the table. If you are against it, you are against further democratization.

Kilo,

Do you EVER consider the possibility that you do not have a clue?

Seriously. Think.

The Liberals are proposing the most significant change in how Canadians will elect governments since Confederation. But it probably won't be put to a referendum, if the Liberals get their way.

You screamed bloody murder on Bill C51. And this gets a "meh" from you? The most polite thing I can say is that you are blindly partisan.

 

[Kilo_302]

That is how the Canadian democratic system works.  Both the Liberal and Conservative parties have had their turns running the country under the power monopoly that the current system offers to majority governments.
But, that is a not a characteristic unique to FPTP.  It is a characteristic common to all single representative systems.
At best, that is unsubstantiated opinion that you have inflammatorily presented as fact.  More likely, you seek to poison the well.  Either way, you are not helping your position.
Garbage.  Proportional representation empowers parties to select the Members of Parliament; those members are beholden to the parties and not to the population.
I see you take some of your queues from the right.  You are channeling George Bush the junior.  The real world is not such extremes of absolutes.

Disagree. We can have a rational disagreement on how MUCH democracy is too much, but there is NO question that proportional representation is more democratic than our current system, and of the three ideas being tabled (our current system, preferential ballots and proportional representation) it IS the most democratic. I don't seek to poison the well, I seek to broaden the discussion and put all the cards on the table. Again, rational people can disagree about how much democracy we need, but you cannot deny that conservative thinking in every society in every iteration has always fought further democratization. Now there could be a point where that makes sense, and perhaps we are approaching it. But conservatives in the US in the 50s and 60s were largely FOR segregation for example. They were also against women voting decades prior to that. This doesn't make conservatives racist or sexist, because we're all beyond that. But you should understand the roots of your philosophy.

 

[Remius]

A good article on this exact debate here by Andrew Coyne.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/andrew-coyne-let-the-endless-debates-over-electoral-reform-begin

 

[Brad Sallows]

>I hate to break it you, but "conservatism" and "conservative thought" are inherently undemocratic.

Less democratic, but not undemocratic.  And understand: this facet of conservativism is desirable.  The "most democratic" position would be all electors voting on every issue - everything decided by majority vote.  And that would take us to some very dark places.  The conservative position and thought on this issue is essentially status quo (as it should be for a "conservative").  There is no way to game FPTP on a ballot by playing "anybody but" games.  We have a representative system.  We have a healthy exchange of power between political parties.  And we don't have so many checks and balances that our elected government is paralyzed.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>but you cannot deny that conservative thinking in every society in every iteration has always fought further democratization.

That is a patently false statement.  Modern conservativism is the closest inheritor of traditional classical liberalism, which is the font of universal suffrage.  You have misidentified a particular flavour of conservativism - reactionary conservativism - to represent all conservative thinking.  The difference between conservative and progressive is not "no change" and "change".

 

[ModlrMike]

It should be remembered that we don't actually have one election each cycle, we have 338 separate elections. The results determine the Government. Those arguing against the current system should bear in mind that we only vote for the person who represents us at the local level. We cast no other vote. Direct democracy is just that - direct, and IMHO quite secure under the current approach. Prop rep and preferential ballot both remove the direct component from the voter's hands.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I stopped reading as soon as you mentioned Hitler...

Why, it is similar circumstances, except instead of just abolishing right to vote, this change makes it so your vote is next to worthless. If you are unwilling to even look at what I wrote then it shows that you have accepted essentially a dictatorship. My argument is that if a change like this is to be made then the people should have a referendum to decide. If they decide this is the best system, so be it. Forcing it on the people is not how a democracy is meant to work.

 

[Journeyman]

So, anyone disagreeing with you means that they are clearly "against further democratization."  Notwithstanding the best example you can come up with to contradict those who prefer smaller government whose hands are not constantly in our wallets, is to cite segregation and women voting about a century and a half to a century ago.

And saying this as a means to encourage  discussion?  I'm afraid you haven't even a basic clue as to the tenets of a real discussion.

Thank you PuckChaser, I'll take your advice.  <ignore>

 

[Remius]

Why, it is similar circumstances, except instead of just abolishing right to vote, this change makes it so your vote is next to worthless. If you are unwilling to even look at what I wrote then it shows that you have accepted essentially a dictatorship. My argument is that if a change like this is to be made then the people should have a referendum to decide. If they decide this is the best system, so be it. Forcing it on the people is not how a democracy is meant to work.

You are really comparing this to what Hitler did? Still? Really?  Just stop.  You are no better than those on the left claiming Stephen Harper was a dictator for what he did.  I stopped listening to them to.

Read what Andrew Coyne wrote.  It's actually a good synopsis of the debate and hitler isn't mentioned once.

 

[Kirkhill]

Here's a simpler thought.

Ditch the "General Election".

Revert to 338 staggered local elections with the representative for the district going to engage the "work in progress" that is parliament.

And hold the Prime Minister accountable to the House with frequent votes of confidence.

In other words let the place work as it was designed to work before the Party Machines took over.