Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't like the idea of any system that would allow MPs that don't specifically represent the will of a specific region.

I do think there should be more balance given to geography as a means of distribution, it's too heavily weighted on population right now. Right now you have communities 500 miles apart with completely different concerns with the same MP, while another single community could get 20 or more. Sure that community would obviously have more people, but it's still ONE place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the idea of any system that would allow MPs that don't specifically represent the will of a specific region.

I do think there should be more balance given to geography as a means of distribution, it's too heavily weighted on population right now. Right now you have communities 500 miles apart with completely different concerns with the same MP, while another single community could get 20 or more. Sure that community would obviously have more people, but it's still ONE place.

Switching teams for a second here - there is something to be said for the fact that this is a national assembly, and that there is some point to a party that receives millions of votes nationally should have some voice in the HofC. How much ? Asking questions in Question Period would be something they should be able to do. The balance of power, though, is a tricky one. The more seats you give to PR the more power they have...

Link to post
Share on other sites

How much influence should a party that can't elect a single representative have ?

It depends on the rules of election. E.g in China a party that is not called "Communist Party of China" can never elect any representatives. And in this country a party that represents 10% i.e 1 million of voters cannot elect a representative too.

That's an interesting take on democracy: "Why should democracy depending on the choice of others ?"

And now a reading deficiency, how common. I never said "democracy" but I did say my vote. If it's a real democracy I would have the right to have my vote count regardless of how other have voted. Not just thrown away because it does not follow the majority.

In other words, it should be up to you to decide. Sounds good. ;)

Of course my political choice is for me and me alone to decide, why should I leave it to one of the two partocracies? Next thing you'll ask is who's going to decide what I read? Or what I can wear in public?

Hyperbole. We have freedom of choice. Look at the ballot next time and there are many choices. Yours may not win, but you can still choose them.

Look at the ballot and keep crossing those lines and it still wont' change one little thing. Surprise! Like crossing numbers in an outdated lottery ticket. Remeber, there are real choices and fake, decorative ones. What you want is what you get.

You have choice, but you want your party to have power when they haven't convinced people that they deserve it.

I can't get it where you're reading all this. Where e.g did I say "have power"? I only said that I want my vote count. If another party gets more votes it should have greater representation than mine. But the vote I cast must count or I'm not playing this game. And who defines who "deserves" what? The official party of Canada? xPC partocracy committee? If 10% of voters get zero representation, you can't pretend that it's a fair system anymore. And if a game cannot be played fairly, I'm not playing into somebody else's game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the idea of any system that would allow MPs that don't specifically represent the will of a specific region.

I do think there should be more balance given to geography as a means of distribution, it's too heavily weighted on population right now. Right now you have communities 500 miles apart with completely different concerns with the same MP, while another single community could get 20 or more. Sure that community would obviously have more people, but it's still ONE place.

what riding would have communities 500 miles apart? I live in calgary that would put a 2nd community somewhere near the Manitoba border...maybe that's possible in Nunavut but Nunavut only has one MP now...rural ridings are large to begin with so it's very possible two communities in the same riding will have different concerns and you'll also find differences rural and urban in that riding...it no different where I live in Calgary the different areas of the city have different concerns but a city of one million is too big for one MP even though the city is smaller than most rural ridings...

but I agree there has to be some attention paid to geography

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the ballot and keep crossing those lines and it still wont' change one little thing. Surprise! Like crossing numbers in an outdated lottery ticket. Remeber, there are real choices and fake, decorative ones. What you want is what you get.

Things change slowly, over time. If you vote for a party that polls low, you can expect to have far less influence but not none at all.

I can't get it where you're reading all this. Where e.g did I say "have power"? I only said that I want my vote count. If another party gets more votes it should have greater representation than mine. But the vote I cast must count or I'm not playing this game. And who defines who "deserves" what? The official party of Canada? xPC partocracy committee? If 10% of voters get zero representation, you can't pretend that it's a fair system anymore. And if a game cannot be played fairly, I'm not playing into somebody else's game.

You want your vote to count, but there`s no way to do that it seems without giving you power. Even 10 seats would give you the balance of power in a minority government.

Who defines who deserves what ? We do, but we shouldn`t call it fair - maybe fair enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think there should be more balance given to geography as a means of distribution,

I don't see why geography should have any bearing. If anything, the problems with rep by pop should be fixed to make it better representative of population numbers. If we want to talk geography, we can talk elected Senate (something that people seem to want). The house is the voice of the people...not the places that they live.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what riding would have communities 500 miles apart?

I used to live in the Churchhill district In Manitoba. It covers over 450,000 sq kilometers. Includes towns that are essentially bedrroom communities for Winnipeg, all the way up to Hudson Bay, and the border with the NWT. Their concerns couldn't be more different, one MP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and 10% of the population representing 3.3 million people having a voice/opinion and a bit of influence is a bad thing?...

The problem is you can`t really give them 10% of the power. You can give them a lot of power some of the time. This is something like what the NDP has had for the last 50 years or so. They definitely influence policy, frame the debate and so on.

But how to do it without tipping the machine over is the trick. If the Green Party, for example, had five or ten seats they would have been able to negotiate some significant concessions from the Conservative government, in order to support them.

Of course, then they`d have to support them. But, really, that`s the only way they can influence things - through horse trading like that.

I think 10% is some kind of magic number - since at that rate we`re talking more than a million or two voters. And yet, 10% is too high a number for `noise` parties to achieve to.

You could make parliament a variable number of seats, say, by saying any party that achieves 10% of the vote is guaranteed at least 5% of the seats - something like that. The greens would get 15 seats or so if they polled 10%. That would be a significant number. It also doesn`t take a lot of power away from The Bloc, and there would likely be some sympathy for the Greens in Quebec.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why geography should have any bearing. If anything, the problems with rep by pop should be fixed to make it better representative of population numbers. If we want to talk geography, we can talk elected Senate (something that people seem to want). The house is the voice of the people...not the places that they live.

logistically the size of our country makes it difficult to completely ignore geography...if we lived in a compact euro country in one time zone all watching the same central media it might not be an issue...but we have a number of separate regions, IMO a PR system should based on each province...and each province could break down into rural and urban as now but super ridings with multiple MPs...a city like Calgary having 8 MPs covering the entire city instead of 8 separate ridings...with 35% of the vote going for liberal or NDP or Green for the first time since moving to C'town I would have representation in the HoC and the freak show that is Rob Anders would have to look for a real job...
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is you can`t really give them 10% of the power. You can give them a lot of power some of the time. This is something like what the NDP has had for the last 50 years or so. They definitely influence policy, frame the debate and so on.

But how to do it without tipping the machine over is the trick. If the Green Party, for example, had five or ten seats they would have been able to negotiate some significant concessions from the Conservative government, in order to support them.

Of course, then they`d have to support them. But, really, that`s the only way they can influence things - through horse trading like that.

but Michael isn't that how democracy should work, with discussion , cooperation, consensus and compromise? In an ideal world our parliament should be able to function without parties but with 300 odd MPs that isn't practical, multiple parties is the next best thing...
Link to post
Share on other sites

but Michael isn't that how democracy should work, with discussion , cooperation, consensus and compromise? In an ideal world our parliament should be able to function without parties but with 300 odd MPs that isn't practical, multiple parties is the next best thing...

Yes, picking the point where the trade off works is difficult. That is why I believe we may already have it - our balance is 2nd to none.

Link to post
Share on other sites

logistically the size of our country makes it difficult to completely ignore geography...if we lived in a compact euro country in one time zone all watching the same central media it might not be an issue...but we have a number of separate regions, IMO a PR system should based on each province...and each province could break down into rural and urban as now but super ridings with multiple MPs...a city like Calgary having 8 MPs covering the entire city instead of 8 separate ridings...with 35% of the vote going for liberal or NDP or Green for the first time since moving to C'town I would have representation in the HoC and the freak show that is Rob Anders would have to look for a real job...

Actually, that's exactly the idea that I had. Provinces could be their own ridings, and cities over 1M people could be separate ridings within the provinces. That would make for 19 electoral districts (assuming that we allowed the 1 major CMA that crosses a provincial boundary, Ottawa - Gatineau, to be it's own district). When I said ignore geography, I was simply talking about ignoring geography in provinces, not the provinces themselves. he only problem would come with the territories and PEI. They, I suppose, would end up being de facto FPTP districts, since rightfully, their only entitled to 1 MP each (possibly 2 for PEI, but probably not).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to live in the Churchhill district In Manitoba. It covers over 450,000 sq kilometers. Includes towns that are essentially bedrroom communities for Winnipeg,

It does not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does not.

Either you have a different definition of bedroom community than I do, or you're not aware of how far south the Churchill riding extends along the east border of the province. They are within commuting distance from the city. I know people in Pine Falls, for instance, who do it daily for work, shopping, and their kids sports. I have to drive out there regularly for my son's lacrosse because their teams are in the city league.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They, I suppose, would end up being de facto FPTP districts, since rightfully, their only entitled to 1 MP each (possibly 2 for PEI, but probably not).
Of course there is 0% chance that PEI will give up its 4 seats. Also all provices have a urban vs. rural divide which means geography will matter within provinces too. The only possible system would be a MMC similar to what BC proposed but that was shot down because the people who actually care enough to vote can live with the existing system.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Things change slowly, over time. If you vote for a party that polls low, you can expect to have far less influence but not none at all.

Well somebody may be satisfied with soul talk instead of real result. Not me. I'll see the worth of my vote, full 100% of it till that time I stopped playing the game.

You want your vote to count, but there`s no way to do that it seems without giving you power. Even 10 seats would give you the balance of power in a minority government.

OK you think that regardless of actual people's choices, the access to power should be restricted to selected few. You know where this way of thinking will take you, eventually?

We do, but we shouldn`t call it fair - maybe fair enough.

Enough for you, but not for me. And probably others like me. And I think that the only way to bring more fairness to the system is to stop participating in it. When our governments are elected by 20s and 30s percent of voters, everybody, even the everlasting power duo would be bound to notice and do something. Believe it or not, it already happened somewhere else: New Zealand electoral reform. And it'll catch up even with us, eventually. In the meanwhile, I can find better ways to express my political choices than partaking in the two party game legitimizing this essentially unfair, inefficient and outdated in a modern society system.

Edited by myata
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there is 0% chance that PEI will give up its 4 seats. Also all provices have a urban vs. rural divide which means geography will matter within provinces too. The only possible system would be a MMC similar to what BC proposed but that was shot down because the people who actually care enough to vote can live with the existing system.

PEI would give up it's four seats if there was an elected Senate, which is about the only use I see for one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Either you have a different definition of bedroom community than I do, or you're not aware of how far south the Churchill riding extends along the east border of the province. They are within commuting distance from the city. I know people in Pine Falls, for instance, who do it daily for work, shopping, and their kids sports. I have to drive out there regularly for my son's lacrosse because their teams are in the city league.

You know what, I apologize. I completely forgot about the east side of the lake. That said, even though those places may not share anything with Churchill or Thompson, they're all over represented compared to say, parts of Vancouver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK you think that regardless of actual people's choices, the access to power should be restricted to selected few. You know where this way of thinking will take you, eventually?

As you present your case, be careful how you present it.

Power to the 'selected few' - are you referring to people seeing their vote eventually get their party into power. If that is the case, then you're looking at 70% or more of voters not a vew.

Enough for you, but not for me. And probably others like me. And I think that the only way to bring more fairness to the system is to stop participating in it. When our governments are elected by 20s and 30s percent of voters, everybody, even the everlasting power duo would be bound to notice and do something. Believe it or not, it already happened somewhere else: New Zealand electoral reform. And it'll catch up even with us, eventually. In the meanwhile, I can find better ways to express my political choices than partaking in the two party game legitimizing this essentially unfair, inefficient and outdated in a modern society system.

Dropping out is a lazy alternative. Campaign for your people.

Reform was a fringe party 20 years ago and look at them now. You need to be patient.

And - once again - there's that lame argument "outdated"... old doesn't mean bad, unless you're young and ageist I suppose...

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you present your case, be careful how you present it.

I'm not here to recruit adherents to a cause though. Only to provide grounds to think and make own decisions.

Dropping out is a lazy alternative. Campaign for your people.

No, a consciously chosen, most efficient path to achieving the goal. Thinking rationally, dominant duo has no single darn reason in the world to support this change as it would go against their very core interests (guaranteed access to power, sooner or later). The only way real change can be brought is from outside the system.

Reform was a fringe party 20 years ago and look at them now. You need to be patient.

And where is it, now? It disappeared from political spectrum as a separate entity being replaced by vague and all encompassing "Conservative". As was explained logically many times, that's the only direction political development can take in this system: consolidation on the grounds of vague and almost meaningless conformity resulting in two near identical giant partocracies with assured access to power to the exclusion of everybody else.

And - once again - there's that lame argument "outdated"... old doesn't mean bad, unless you're young and ageist I suppose...

Outdated means one very specific thing, not being able to respond to the realities and challenges of modern life. Not in the least because many people have outgrown baby-fed political system and are prepared to make full unrestricted choices, and take responsibility for them.

Edited by myata
Link to post
Share on other sites
PEI would give up it's four seats if there was an elected Senate, which is about the only use I see for one.
And you know this how? Canadians of all stripes protect their entitlements and that will not change. Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, a consciously chosen, most efficient path to achieving the goal.
Electoral reform was defeated in Ont and BC - largely because the people who show up at the polls are the people who are fine with the existing system.
And where is it, now? It disappeared from political spectrum as a separate entity being replaced by vague and all encompassing "Conservative".
Because ideology driven parties cant get enough votes. That is why we dont want any form of PR - it would give too much power to the minority nutbars at both ends of the spectrum.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...