Old Guy said:
GA,
I'm not even going to try and explain things to you. You obviously have no clear understanding of the electoral college nor why the Senate is set up the way it is. All I can suggest is that you read up on the issues.
Jim
Well, great argument, Jim. I'm convinced. :
You're mistaking my lack of concern for the smaller states/provinces as not understanding that the EC, senate, and provincial seat allocation system were structured the way they are to ensure "adequate" representation of smaller state/provincial constituencies at the federal level and ensure a more "equitable" distribution of public goods and federal attention. I understand why they are how they are, I just don't agree with it. Next time, maybe you could actually provide some counter arguments instead of offering nothing but vapid accusations of ignorance.
48Highlander said:
Old Guy's probably taken the more sensible approach here, but I'll try one more time to explain it to you.
With logic like that, it's a miracle your paper got a passing grade. Get it through your head that the system isn't INTENDED to elect a president. Just like in Canada, we're not supposed to be electing a Prime Minister. Under both systems, you vote for your local representatives. Therefore the "one man one vote" still applies. As has been explained to you already, the theory was that you chose someone from your area to represent you and your views at the federal level - and if every rep is doing his/her job, then everyone gets a fair voice in the government.
What are you talking about? The executive branch in the presidential system is elected separately from the legislative branch - IE the house and senate are elected through state ridings while the president is elected nationally and the judiciary is appointed. We have a parliamentary system wherein the legislative and executive are combined, with both being elected through provincial ridings - it's one of the big differences between a parliamentary and presidential system. I'd hate to see what your grade would have looked like.
The only thing worse than patronizing condescension is patronizing condescension based on flawed information.
Is that the way it still works? Not really. Most people don't care who represents them localy, all they care about is electing a party. Which is the majority of the problem with our political system(s): there's very little incentive for the politcians to properly represent their constituents. For example, a Liberal MP in Toronto can do pretty much whatever he/she wants, knowing full well that the party won't do anything to reign in his excesses, and that in the next election he'll get elected again because people in Toronto generaly vote Liberal. The same problem exists in systems with proportional representation - the people do not chose who represents them, they only chose the party. Whereas under the original system, it was a fairly simple matter to get rid of an incompetent or corrupt MP.
That's one of the problems with political parties, but the structure of the system and costs of campaigning make political parties the most viable option in either system.
Hey, maybe our predecessors actually knew what they were doing huh? Too bad the population steadily keeps getting more and mroe ignorant about politics.
Many of the machinations put in place way back when were appropriate for their time but situations change. With proportional representation, voter efficacy is increased and a more accurate representation of interests occurs. I don't see anything wrong with that. PR wouldn't mean having to change the disproportionate representation scheme either, though I think it should be changed. As for the electoral college, it's intended to ensure that smaller states receive attention from the executive, aren't shafted in the distribution of public goods, and feel adequately represented, but it achieves this by inflating the representation such states are given. Why should people's influence be artificially inflated beyond what it actually is simply because they're a smaller district? If the system's supposed to be based on equality, why are some given more influence than is due them? Because they compose a smaller group? So what?
Because your system would lead to a dictatorship of the majority. When the majority of individuals live in urban centers, it'd be too easy for them to impose their views, values, and ideas on the rest of the country. Under the current system in both the US and Canada, every state or province gets a (more or less) equal say on how the country is run. Under YOUR system, the more populous provinces could easily exploit the smaller ones.
Exploit? Dominate, maybe - that was the concern way back when the EC was formed (and senate) and when the disproportionate representation system was installed here as well. I don't see this as excusing the practice, though, since it's inherently unfair insofar as it grants greater representation to some than others and was put in place back when the countries were trying to form themselves. They were concessions. I think a standardized, equal system would be preferable in conjunction with a proportional representation scheme. PR actually creates greater minority representation - as an example, the Green Party received 5% of the popular vote but has no representatives in the legislature - with PR they'd have received a seat or two, depending on the spread in the provinces.
It's really not a bad idea and I think it would really help with voter turnout and voter efficacy as well as making representation more accurate.
To illustrate just how silly the idea is - imagine if the UN was run under a system of proportional representation. China, with 1/6th the world's population, would control 1/6th of the world's votes. How would that work for ya?
If the UN was a truly democratic institution, then so be it. As it is, it hardly meets the definition given that members of the security council are permanent and can (and do) veto just about everything under the sun.
