Politics in 2015

[a_majoor]

So where are all those people who screamed that 39% was not a mandate since 2011? Why are they not plastering "Stop Trudeau" stickers and posters everywhere?

If it were not for double standards, Progressives would have no standards at all.....

 

[Eaglelord17]

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.

Yes I am still comparing this to Hitler as this type of change is exactly what dictators do (a good portion of the dictatorships of the 20th century were all elected). I am not saying the Liberals are dictators, just that if they made this type of change without a referendum, it is a very authoritarian move on their part, and goes against the principals of a democracy.

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

I have read this, and I understand the principles of the debate. One party who gained 39.5% of the vote wants to change the voting system so it will benefit them, without consulting the people it governs. If they were so 'progressive' and accepting to change, why not allow the people to have a direct say in what they want.

You seem to have the role of government confused. The government is not there to tell the people what to do against there wishes, they are there to enact the peoples wishes. A referendum is asking the people directly what they want, and considering this will actively effect them for every future election it should be their decision.

 

[Altair]

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.

I guess I'm not so bad in comparison.

 

[PuckChaser]

I guess I'm not so bad in comparison.

No, you can put a coherent thought together. Whether I agree or not isn't a reason to ignore someone.

 

[quadrapiper]

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.

Rather like that idea.

Running with it, any "Westminster V2" measures to keep parties from amassing their current influence, beyond staggering elections?

 

[Altair]

So where are all those people who screamed that 39% was not a mandate since 2011? Why are they not plastering "Stop Trudeau" stickers and posters everywhere?

If it were not for double standards, Progressives would have no standards at all.....

You find me someone who said that and I'll find you a moron.

Not all progressives are that stupid.

No, you can put a coherent thought together. Whether I agree or not isn't a reason to ignore someone.

I'll take it.

As for this current hot topic, I'm not a fan of the no referendum idea, but the man did campaign on bi partisan committee deciding this so I cannot say I'm surprised.

What I am curious to see is what model comes out of that. I think it's fair to say that FPTP is dead but whether ranked ballot or PR is decided on will be the clincher for me. If RB is the decision it's clear trudeau is going for the jugular of the CPC. If PR is the decision it's clear that the liberals didn't influence the decision making at all, making them weaker.

I do have a feeling though, that should RB be the decision, the liberals won't be the first or second choice of many Canadians after the CPC spends the next few years raising hell about the change.

But I guess we will see.

 

[Remius]

I have read this, and I understand the principles of the debate. One party who gained 39.5% of the vote wants to change the voting system so it will benefit them, without consulting the people it governs. If they were so 'progressive' and accepting to change, why not allow the people to have a direct say in what they want.

You seem to have the role of government confused. The government is not there to tell the people what to do against there wishes, they are there to enact the peoples wishes. A referendum is asking the people directly what they want, and considering this will actively effect them for every future election it should be their decision.

Show me where it says that, anywhere.  There is nothing in our system that states that government is there to enact the people's wishes. I'll let you figure out who the PM and cabinet are responsible to and who they answer to.  It isn't us. And if it was, given that both the NDP and the LPC campaigned on changing the system then by your logic they do have a mandate from the people to do this. 

We are not a country that traditionally governs through referendums.  If in 18 months,Mage LPC comes up with somethings so outlandish, then I suspect they will hear about it and constitutional challenges will be brought forward.  We saw this with some conservative legislation.  And maybe the state will actually be of use.  But if an all party consensus can be reached (I personally doubt that it will be) then the system will work the way it should.

If the electoral system changes then, as Mr Coyne has mentioned, then parties need to adapt.  Clearly you are worried that your party whichever it is, will not be able to win under any other system except first past the post.  I would rather see a reinvented Conservative under a preferential system myself.  I suspect the CPC will be again any changes and the NDP will be pro proportional. 

 

[Kilo_302]

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.

Well the simple reason that I'm not too concerned with what they are proposing is that both preferential ballots and proportional representation ARE steps in the right direction. They both put more power in the hands of voters when compared to our current system. However, I agree that a referendum should take place. The reason they won't put it to a vote is that proportional representation would then have to be an option, and this doesn't help the Liberals. They want a ranked ballot system. This isn't surprising, as the Liberals are just as corrupt as the Conservatives. They just do it with more class, and get more people on board by being pleasant about it.

Again, I put forward the apparently controversial idea that democracy is a process. Having full democracy obviously makes no sense, but I fail to see how it's offensive to suggest that the Conservatives are traditionally "less democratic" than other parties. This is what politics is. A conversation about how much democracy we want/need. I'll repeat that rational people can have a rational discussion about this, but the fact that remains that conservative thought is at best cautionary, and at its worst reactionary when it comes to these questions.

Journeyman: There were segregationist conservative politicians serving in the US (Strom Thurmond) until 2003. Segregation only ended in the 1960s. It was conservative thinking that allowed it to linger so long. This doesn't mean all conservatives are racist (far from it), but it DOES mean that you'll see more resistance to further democratization on the right than you will see on the left. These are simple facts. Now the left taken to its extreme becomes very undemocratic indeed. But we've never been at risk in Canada of going that far.

Over democratizing is risky too, I'm not saying it isn't. We need conservative thinking to reign in the more radical ideas on the left, but this is only if you agree that we should be satisfied with the democracy we have. The fact that such a large proportion of Canadians want to change FPTP suggests we are not.

I have been accused of being partisan (again). I'll reiterate that I am no Liberal supporter, and I am not an NDP supporter either. There isn't a party in mainstream politics in Canada that I think is prepared to address what I view as the real issues. I just happen to think the Conservatives are the worst of the lot, which, outside of this forum is hardly a controversial idea. In fact a vast majority of Canadians agree if we look at how many voted NDP/Liberal in the last election.

Apparently my last comments on this thread have got me on some sort of "watch-list." I can only imagine someone got their panties in a twist over my comments on how conservative thinking is inherently undemocratic (Brad Swallows corrected me and said I should have used the term "less-democratic", I agree this is more accurate). And I also agree that this is desirable to some extent.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

What I am curious to see is what model comes out of that. I think it's fair to say that FPTP is dead but whether ranked ballot or PR is decided on will be the clincher for me. If RB is the decision it's clear trudeau is going for the jugular of the CPC. If PR is the decision it's clear that the liberals didn't influence the decision making at all, making them weaker.

I don't know why you make that statement Altair.

I know that government, especially this one apparently, have the constant delusion that they were elected to do exactly everything that is in their program, but in reality, that is not the case. They can be elected merely because they have a charismatic leader, or because people want to vote against something proposed by the other parties, or because the people have had enough of a given government, etc. etc.

On thing remains, however, and it is that the people then have other ways of telling the elected government that some things they don't want touched, regardless of the elected party's program.

And here, I think this may be one of those things: While there is a certain unhappiness in the Canadian population with the way the Senate is appointed or its usefulness, there is absolutely no big ongoing uneasiness in the same population with the way we elect our Members of Parliament. Outside some political commentators that did not like the Harper majority on 39%, and outside Liberal political circles, who dislike being in opposition at all and see it as an affront, and outside the third parties political circles, who find it hard to get attention in our parliamentary democracy which is aimed at working best as a two party system, the Canadian population has no interest whatever in changing how we vote. They understand the system and they have no problem with it, which explains that changing it has been rejected in all provinces that attempted referendum on the issue.

So, when the current government starts to really address the issue and seeks the view of the people (there are other ways than referenda), they may very well find out (and my personal suspicion is they will find out) that the population doesn't give a shit about changing anything in the current system and wants good enough left alone.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Well the simple reason that I'm not too concerned with what they are proposing is that both preferential ballots and proportional representation ARE steps in the right direction. They both put more power in the hands of voters when compared to our current system. However, I agree that a referendum should take place. The reason they won't put it to a vote is that proportional representation would then have to be an option, and this doesn't help the Liberals. They want a ranked ballot system. This isn't surprising, as the Liberals are just as corrupt as the Conservatives. They just do it with more class, and get more people on board by being pleasant about it.

Again, I put forward the apparently controversial idea that democracy is a process. Having full democracy obviously makes no sense, but I fail to see how it's offensive to suggest that the Conservatives are traditionally "less democratic" than other parties. This is what politics is. A conversation about how much democracy we want/need. I'll repeat that rational people can have a rational discussion about this, but the fact that remains that conservative thought is at best cautionary, and at its worst reactionary when it comes to these questions.

Journeyman: There were segregationist conservative politicians serving in the US (Strom Thurmond) until 2003. Segregation only ended in the 1960s. It was conservative thinking that allowed it to linger so long. This doesn't mean all conservatives are racist (far from it), but it DOES mean that you'll see more resistance to further democratization on the right than you will see on the left. These are simple facts. Now the left taken to its extreme becomes very undemocratic indeed. But we've never been at risk in Canada of going that far.

Over democratizing is risky too, I'm not saying it isn't. We need conservative thinking to reign in the more radical ideas on the left, but this is only if you agree that we should be satisfied with the democracy we have. The fact that such a large proportion of Canadians want to change FPTP suggests we are not.

I have been accused of being partisan (again). I'll reiterate that I am no Liberal supporter, and I am not an NDP supporter either. There isn't a party in mainstream politics in Canada that I think is prepared to address what I view as the real issues. I just happen to think the Conservatives are the worst of the lot, which, outside of this forum is hardly a controversial idea. In fact a vast majority of Canadians agree if we look at how many voted NDP/Liberal in the last election.

Apparently my last comments on this thread have got me on some sort of "watch-list." I can only imagine someone got their panties in a twist over my comments on how conservative thinking is inherently undemocratic (Brad Swallows corrected me and said I should have used the term "less-democratic", I agree this is more accurate). And I also agree that this is desirable to some extent.

Why do you continually use US examples of Conservativism in a Canadian context? A discussion of US segregationalists is about as useful as a comparison of the NDP to the Communist Party in the Soviet Union- it in no way informs the debate.

The current iteration of Conservatives in Canada have strong roots in the Reform movement from the 1990s. Believe me when I say that that was grassroots democracy in action. I have only to compare the records of the the previous conservative (Harper) and liberal governments (Chrétien) to see that the recent Conservatives were not anti-democratic and were significantly less corrupt. And like OGBD, I still fail to see any great ground swell of excitement in the Canadian populous for a change in voting methods. A significant bloc of voters in the last election wanted change; they got change; the system works.

As for your "watched" status- I doubt that that was given to you by any Mod here. What is more likely is the a significant number of the membership here did not like your posting style (which can be incredibly sanctimonious and intolerant of other points of view) and voted against you on mil points. Kind of democracy in action,  would you not say?

 

[PuckChaser]

Even some Americans think the Liberals are wrong in proceeding without a referendum on the issue:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-30/canada-s-new-government-makes-its-first-big-mistake

Canada's two-month-old Liberal government is facing its first controversy, one that highlights an enduring dilemma in public policy: When is it worth going ahead with a good idea that the public doesn't like?

Among the many campaign promises of Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was a commitment to change the way Canadians elect their federal government. As in the U.S., the candidate with the most votes in a district (Canadians call them ridings) gets a seat in the legislature (what Canadians call first-past-the-post). But in Canada, the winner usually gets fewer than half the votes, because of an increasingly fractured multiparty system.

The Liberals are considering several options that would better allocate parliamentary seats based on voters' preferences. But Canadians are a conservative bunch, reluctant to change even the traditions they don't especially like. Since 2005, two of the country's three largest provinces have held referendums on electoral reform, and both failed. So the Liberal government, which had left the door open to a similar vote nationwide, said over the weekend that none would take place, all but conceding that its proposals wouldn't survive a plebiscite. 

As it points out in the article, the Liberals would not hold a majority if a PR system is used, so we can automatically count that out of their electoral reform recommendation right off the bat.

 

[a_majoor]

I am always amazed when I hear people advocate for PR and PR derived systems, especially when it is very clear that they take power away from the individual voters and local riding associations. and hide it away in murky back rooms where deals need to be made to put the "right" people on the voting list for the electorate to choose from, and to hammer out back room deals to create semi functioning coalitions after the election.

People I've spoken to from Israel and Italy, who live under true PR systems, uniformly loath it because marginal parties become the kingmakers, and very extreme legislation can be written and passed to appease these tiny splinter parities so the coalition can get that last critical vote to stay in power.

Altair, Kilo and others refuse to see this since they are in the thrall of the Progressive narrative that only technocratic specialists from the political class can make decisions for the rest of us, and tell us how to use our own resources. If they believe they will benefit from this state of affairs, I invite them to look at Ontario, or track the changes in Alberta since the NDP was elected, or check out the results from other centralized states run by fiat like Cuba, Zimbabwe or the former USSR, or perhaps the Arab nations. Or even the US "Blue States" as they struggle with bankruptcy and massive unfunded liabilities. Or explain how European nations with long traditions of technocratic leadership have per capita incomes lower than virtually any US State (even the Blue ones).

How they do expect to prosper in this new order is not clear to me.

 

[ModlrMike]

How they do expect to prosper in this new order is not clear to me.

They expect to prosper because they expect to be in charge. Once in charge, they can manipulate the rules to their own benefit.

As Orwell said in Animal Farm "All animals are equal, some are more equal than others."

 

[Good2Golf]

DPR might not be bad, but I would be very concerned with "pure" PR systems that were based of a list that each party prepared, prior to the election.  One could only imagine the back-stabbing that would go on trying to climb one's way up the party list, and what kind of sycophantic structure such a system (list-based pure-PR) would result in.  :-\

Regards
G2G

 

[McG]

DPR might not be bad ...

I don't know that acronym.

 

[Kilo_302]

I am always amazed when I hear people advocate for PR and PR derived systems, especially when it is very clear that they take power away from the individual voters and local riding associations. and hide it away in murky back rooms where deals need to be made to put the "right" people on the voting list for the electorate to choose from, and to hammer out back room deals to create semi functioning coalitions after the election.

People I've spoken to from Israel and Italy, who live under true PR systems, uniformly loath it because marginal parties become the kingmakers, and very extreme legislation can be written and passed to appease these tiny splinter parities so the coalition can get that last critical vote to stay in power.

Altair, Kilo and others refuse to see this since they are in the thrall of the Progressive narrative that only technocratic specialists from the political class can make decisions for the rest of us, and tell us how to use our own resources. If they believe they will benefit from this state of affairs, I invite them to look at Ontario, or track the changes in Alberta since the NDP was elected, or check out the results from other centralized states run by fiat like Cuba, Zimbabwe or the former USSR, or perhaps the Arab nations. Or even the US "Blue States" as they struggle with bankruptcy and massive unfunded liabilities. Or explain how European nations with long traditions of technocratic leadership have per capita incomes lower than virtually any US State (even the Blue ones).

How they do expect to prosper in this new order is not clear to me.

Whoa whoa whoa. Please explain how PR definitively means that "only technocratic specialists from the political class can make decisions for the rest of us, and tell us how to use our own resources."

The actual net effect of PR in Canada is to reduce the power of the big two parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, and making it easier for smaller parties to send successful candidates to parliament.

Here's a look at what our last election results would have been with PR:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/what-the-federal-election-would-have-looked-like-with-proportional-representation

You can see that FPTP system helped the Liberal Party win a "landslide" in the fall. Is this what you want? PR is about shifting power downwards, not upwards. You're a smart guy, but you're not making honest arguments. As I have mentioned, we can debate how much democracy is too much, or whether or not PR would result in chaos in the government with no clear result. But NO ONE actually thinks it's part of ensuring technocrats get to tell us all what to do. This is pure ideological rhetoric.

Let's get back to basics: PR means that if 56% of votes go to a certain party, then roughly 56% of seats will go to that party ( as math allows). This is more democratic than FPTP no?

Now for a list of countries that are currently using PR. Funny how you focus on Cuba and Zimbabwe, neither of which are actual democracies. I mean, how are they even relevant in this discussion? And how does anyone with even a passing knowledge of our electoral system (as I believe you have) think your comment has any bearing on what we're talking about? You may have spoken to people, but it looks to me like the vast majority of advanced democracies (key word: democracy) are using some form of PR.

Albania Party list, 4% national threshold or 2.5% in a district
Algeria Party list
Angola Party list
Argentina Party list
Aruba Party list
Australia For Senate only, Single transferable vote
Austria Party list, 4% threshold
Belgium Party list, 5% threshold
Bénin Party list
Bhutan Party list
Bolivia Mixed-member proportional representation, 3% threshold
Bosnia and Herzegovina Party list
Brazil Party list
Bulgaria Party list, 4% threshold
Burkina Faso Party list
Burundi Party list, 2% threshold
Cambodia Party list
Cape Verde Party list
Chile Binomial system
Colombia Party list
Costa Rica Party list
Croatia Party list, 5% threshold
Cyprus Party list
Czech Republic Party list, 5% threshold
Denmark Party list, 2% threshold
Dominican Republic Party list
El Salvador Party list
Equatorial Guinea Party list
Estonia Party list, 5% threshold
European Union Varies between Member States
Finland Party list
Germany Mixed-member proportional representation, 5% (or 3 district winners) threshold
Greece Reinforced proportionality, 3% threshold
Guatemala Party list
Guinea-Bissau Party list
Guyana Party list
Honduras Party list
Hungary Mixed-member proportional representation, 5% threshold or higher
Iceland Party list
Indonesia Party list, 3.5% threshold
Iraq Party list
Ireland Single transferable vote (For Dáil only)
Israel Party list, 3.25% threshold
Italy Party list, 10% threshold for coalitions, and 4% for individual parties
Kazakhstan Party list
Kosovo Party list
Kyrgyzstan Party list, 5% threshold
Latvia Party list, 5% threshold
Lesotho Mixed-member proportional representation
Liechtenstein Party list, 8% threshold
Luxembourg Party list
Macedonia Party list
Malta Single transferable vote
Mexico Mixed-member proportional representation
Moldova Party list, 6% threshold
Mongolia Party list
Montenegro Party list
Morocco Party list
Namibia Party list
Nepal Parallel voting
Netherlands Party list
New Zealand Mixed-member proportional representation
Nicaragua Party list
Northern Ireland Single transferable vote
Norway Party list, 4% national threshold
Paraguay Party list
Peru Party list
Philippines Parallel voting
Poland Party list, 5% threshold or more
Portugal Party list
Romania Mixed-member proportional representation
Russia Mixed-member proportional representation
Rwanda Party list
San Marino Semi-proportional representation, 3.5% threshold
São Tomé and Príncipe Party list
Serbia Party list, 5% threshold or less
Sint Maarten Party list
Slovakia Party list, 5% threshold
Slovenia Party list, 4% threshold
South Africa Party list
Spain Party list, 3% threshold in small constituencies
Sri Lanka Party list
Suriname Party list
Sweden Party list, 4% national threshold or 12% in a district
Switzerland Party list
Tunisia Party list
Turkey Party list, 10% threshold
Uruguay Party list
Venezuela Mixed-member proportional representation

 

[PuckChaser]

I had to look it up. Unfortunately the only info I could find is a website extolling its virtues, so take this as a one-sided description:

http://www.dprvoting.org/PDFs/Description.pdf

It looks interesting, but I really think it'll create perpetual minority governments where nothing will ever get done. Its also similar to PR, in which marginal parties with far left/right ideas will get to push amendments in order to sell their vote. Look at this last election, we'd have the Liberals and Tories deadlocked with roughly 80% of the popular vote (and therefore 80% of the votes in the house), so to pass legislation, the Liberals start offering concessions to the Greens (loony left) or to the NDP (marginally better with Muclair holding them at centrist).

 

[SeaKingTacco]

What problem are you all trying to solve? What great crisis does democracy in Canada, have?

FPTP works. It ensures parties have to come to the centre to form government. If is easy to understand and hard to game. It provides a near instant result.

In every case I have seen (so far) as as "solution", it either appears to me as change for change sake or the cure would be worse than the disease.

What really needs fixing in Canada is the Senate, as a regional counterbalance to the HoC. The mandated overweighting of the East vs the West is a continual source of tension and a real fault line in Confederation, that, if you have never lived west of Manitoba, is not fully understood.

 

[PuckChaser]

What problem are you all trying to solve? What great crisis does democracy in Canada, have?

FPTP works. It ensures parties have to come to the centre to form government. If is easy to understand and hard to game. It provides a near instant result.

In every case I have seen (so far) as as "solution", it either appears to me as change for change sake or the cure would be worse than the disease.

What really needs fixing in Canada is the Senate, as a regional counterbalance to the HoC. The mandated overweighting of the East vs the West is a continual source of tension and a real fault line in Confederation, that, if you have never lived west of Manitoba, is not fully understood.

Completely agree. There's nothing wrong with what we have. The Progressive Left wants it changed because they went 10 years without being in government, and that's intolerable to them.

I think DPR might be a good way to do the Senate, as that would provide the populace with an elected sober second-thought. Only thing I would see is that for the Senate to send a bill back to the Commons, 66% against would be required. Would solve some of the partisan bickering that will inevitably show up once we start electing Senators.

 

[Kilo_302]

What problem are you all trying to solve? What great crisis does democracy in Canada, have?

FPTP works. It ensures parties have to come to the centre to form government. If is easy to understand and hard to game. It provides a near instant result.

In every case I have seen (so far) as as "solution", it either appears to me as change for change sake or the cure would be worse than the disease.

What really needs fixing in Canada is the Senate, as a regional counterbalance to the HoC. The mandated overweighting of the East vs the West is a continual source of tension and a real fault line in Confederation, that, if you have never lived west of Manitoba, is not fully understood.

I think the problem is that you have a Liberal Party with less than 40% of the vote running the country with a significant majority. And before that it was the Conservatives. A lot of Canadians don't feel as though they actually have a voice. You might not agree with them, but in many ridings people felt they had to vote Liberal or Conservative, just to keep the other guys out. Being able to vote for the party that you feel reflects your values most accurately would be an improvement I should think. And more democratic.

As a member of the "looney left" it means I have to accept the possibility of a far right party having seats in Parliament, as some European nations do. But it also means that voting NDP or Green becomes more viable, so things would balance out. Who knows, maybe the NDP would stay more centrist and a truly socialist party would arise from its left wing? And maybe the right wing of the Conservative Party would break off and resemble something more like the Reform movement. Maybe the Wild Rose Party would go federal. Or maybe one of those crazy Christian parties would win a seat. Having all of these ideas debated publicly in Parliament could only be a good thing for Canada. Otherwise it's a revolving door between two parties, with all of the inherent corruption that brings.

Look at the US (yes I know we are in Canada, but realistically they have just a tiny bit of influence on us). Both parties are essentially in the pockets of Wall Street. We're approaching that if you look at how impotent the NDP usually is.  If you had 3-4 or even 5 parties all able to have more seats in Canadian Parliament you would hear things we never hear today. I'd love to see a PM being called out for catering to Bay Street for example. Trudeau sure could use that, but it's not going to happen because the Cons need Bay Street too. I would imagine no one here is a fan of the Greens, but Elizabeth May was quite effective at pointing out hypocrisy in all 4 parties that were actually able to attend the debates. Trudeau got nearly as much as Harper. This is a net good.