Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

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

Still, you're trying to convince people - and the people on this board tend to be convinced by rational arguments rather than the persuasive "sell job". You can say "our system could be fairer - millions of people could conceivably vote for a party that gets no seats" and a thinking person would say ... hmmm ... there's something to that. But it you say "THE SYSTEM IS UNFAIR !!!! THEIR ARE NO CHOICES TO BE MADE !!!!" (caps are mine) then you come across as a zealot.

Just some friendly advice.

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.

The powers that be do change, if pressure is brought to bear. If you're not going to vote, it sounds like you will be making use of other institutions (free speech, protest, for example) so good for you.

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.

Well, again, you have to keep in mind that you're dealing with the mainstream here. They will only absorb what makes sense.

Look at it this way - 30 years ago gay marriage was unthinkable. Now it's supported. How did that change ? The NDP wasn't elected.

It also helps to not think of those oppose you as very different from you, as they're probably not.

Outdated means one very specific thing, not being able to respond to the realities and challenges of modern life.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.

You have made me think with your response.

But, I don't agree that the system is outdated. I think that the party system has survived for hundreds of years and serves democracy well. I don't think that 'modern life' itself makes FPTP outdated. I think that the system as it is needs to change in other ways to adapt to the complexities we have today.

A lot the problems that PR people see, to my mind, is actually an effect of mass society - mass marketing, mass media and so on. As such, adding PR only arranges the deck chairs and doesn't address the problem that the masses aren't getting good information. PR folks tend to resent those who accept pablum (paraphrasing you here) and understandably so.

But making PR, doesn't address the main problem: people are accepting pablum. Instead, it tries to give more power to those who are a step ahead of the masses, if you will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

pointless when the rules are stacked against you...democracy is all about fair and equal treatment, it is anything but fair and equal...
Reform was a fringe party 20 years ago and look at them now. You need to be patient.

reform is still a fringe party only through a coalition and FPTP do they get a hold of power...
And - once again - there's that lame argument "outdated"... old doesn't mean bad, unless you're young and ageist I suppose...
Monarchy-old outdated, theocracy-old outdated, Millitary dictatorship-old outdated, Oligarchies-old outdated, FPTP-old outdated...old doesn't mean good either unless your afraid of change or to lose power...it's all subjective POV...
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

No, they can't get votes because the system is designed in such a way that only all encompassing vague conformities can be elected in power to the exclusion of everybody else. In other words, voters cannot be trusted with making fully intependent unrestricted choices, i.e it is a political system for people who haven't attained the age of political maturity, let's see it for what it is.

BTW the references that were made in this and other threads regarding other FPTP countries should be officially corrected. Now there are not four, but 3 or rather, 2 1/2 of such countries, as New Zealand has adopted a form of PR in 1996 and Australia has a PR (STV) upper house. Which leaves us here unique among the developed democracies of the world as having not a single notion of proportional represenation federally (the mother of FPTP - Britain, is going to have a referendum on a form of mixed system; and unlike us here, coalitions are also legal and legitimate back there).

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.

can they stop it if the rest of the country agrees? and even if they can stop it allowing PEI 4 seats is a small consession...

Link to post
Share on other sites

so how will that change anything?

lets say my city has 8 seats what's to prevent the majority from selecting all 8 from one party the 35% who have no representation now will still have no representation as their selections finish 9-16...

maybe I'm not understanding this correctly...

It's explained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

It's not the most accurate PR system, and achieves results between FPTP and PR, but its strong point is that it makes no use of party lists and you still vote explicitly for candidates, thus not taking away the democratic rights of independents. STV is still more complicated that FPTP. Again, overall I prefer NP FPTP but if I must choose between PR systems, then I'd o for NP STV as at least it still doesn't give political parties draconian powers like the list system does which essentially removes a person's freeomd of association by forcing him to join a party if he wants to run.

You're confusing STV with a list system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-list_proportional_representation

There are multiple systems in place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

pointless when the rules are stacked against you...democracy is all about fair and equal treatment, it is anything but fair and equal...

"Fair and equal" is a relative term. There's no way to ensure 10% of the people have 10% of an effect on society. I have submitted some options which, I think, are reasonable ways for national parties in double digits to be heard.

My main problem is with the shrill voice of the left- and right-.

Whatever our problems are, fostering a community should always be at the top of the list for without that, we have no means to solve our collective problems.

Those who regularly garner 90% of the votes and power need to recognize that they have to give something away, but those who vote with the 10% shouldn't delude themselves with the idea that they can effect large amounts of change at that level.

reform is still a fringe party only through a coalition and FPTP do they get a hold of power...

They have laid out the path for you: follow it.

Monarchy-old outdated, theocracy-old outdated, Millitary dictatorship-old outdated, Oligarchies-old outdated, FPTP-old outdated...old doesn't mean good either unless your afraid of change or to lose power...it's all subjective POV...

Old and outdated aren't the same thing, as a poster pointed out above.

But my take is that your complaints are with the mainstream of Canadians not listening to your POV. My solution is find ways to speak to them so that they listen to you. If your ideas are good, then they will be convinced.

50 years ago feminism, LGBT rights, environmental protection were all fringe beliefs. We didn't have a left-wing revolution, and yet these are all mainstream views now.

The system works, but you have to have the patience to work with it, and not blow it up (literally or figuratively) and start over.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In other words, voters cannot be trusted with making fully intependent unrestricted choices, i.e it is a political system for people who haven't attained the age of political maturity, let's see it for what it is.
Running a country is complex and requires compromise. The only immature people are the people who think they should be entitled to be represented by a fringe party that refuses to compromise and seeks to impose their narrow viewpoint on the majority.
Which leaves us here unique among the developed democracies of the world as having not a single notion of proportional represenation federally
And changes were voted down twice in BC and once in Ontario. You can fume as much as you want but it does look like the majority of people who actually vote are fine with the system.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Monarchy-old outdated, theocracy-old outdated, Millitary dictatorship-old outdated, Oligarchies-old outdated, FPTP-old outdated...old doesn't mean good either unless your afraid of change or to lose power...it's all subjective POV...

FPTP is outdated only if you think along party lines. Remove the party names from the ballots, and FPTP would be fine.

But again, if ever we were pushed towards some kind of PR system, then I'd insist that it be based on candidates and not parties.

I'd suggested STV in the OP as a second-best alternative to FPTP. After having done a little research, I think I'd now place it at third best, and Single non-transferable vote as second-best:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Non-Transferable_Vote

Link to post
Share on other sites

which verifies my point most democracies have rejected FPTP as antiquated and flawed procedure...

Again, if you remove the party name from the ballot, FPTP is not a bad system. It's only when you have party names on the ballot that it causes problems since you're voting candidate while getting the false impression of voting party. Call it false advertising. Remove party names from the ballots, and FPTP is essentially fixed. But again, if one insists on some form of PR system, then let's go Single non-transferable vote, again without party names on ballots.

But if we insist on having party names on ballots, then let's be honest about it at least, remove candidate names from the ballots and just have party names on there, and go to a list system. Though honestly that would be my last choice, but it would still be preferable to false advertising.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually as I think more on this, I'd rank Single non-transferable vote as probably the best and FPTP as second-best, again as long as party names are removed.

I think that works against itself...if you remove party names then they are essentially running as independents(even though they're not), the biggest richest parties could flood the ballot with candidates and we could be worse off...eliminating party names on ballots only makes sense to me in FPTP...
Link to post
Share on other sites

But if we insist on having party names on ballots, then let's be honest about it at least, remove candidate names from the ballots and just have party names on there, and go to a list system. Though honestly that would be my last choice, but it would still be preferable to false advertising.

if we're being honest most people don't vote for the candidate they vote for the party, the only time people vote for the candidate is during municipal elections...

and voters never choose the candidates the parties do so there is nothing wrong with a list system, the parties know who are the good candidates and who are not let them pick the most qualified winners and kick the unqualified to the curb...

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is a near painful experience.

Put me with Hardner, Riverwind, and a few other of similar posts and I am a supporter of PR and Electoral Reform.

1) Machjo... you seem to want parliment to be elected like Municipal governments. No thanks!!! Its weak, its stupid and it sucks! However, that doesn't mean that independants should be treated like the outcasts of parliment when elected. However, even a political party can have the same limitations if .. they don't meet the minimum seat count. And quite frankly if independants can get elected, I leave a violin to all the whining from other parties who cannot get a single MP elected when you only need roughly 30% of the vote and one vote more then another candidates to get elected ... so cry me a river.

2) Electoral Reform for STV and MMP were both rejected by a MAJORITY vote.. Not a minority vote. So.. the MAJORITY of Voters supported the FPTP system and is skewing of the results.

Thus, we know its not perfect and distorts. We also know that the public supports it.

Do I support a better system? Yes.

Do I respect the MAJORITY of Canadian Voters in Ontario and BC who rejected a better option?

Absolutely.

Is STV or MMP perfect? No it brings in its own distortions.

Do I think independants have a more difficult time getting elected? Yes. But many independants that run for office have difficulty working with others and that is why they are not involved in political parties.

Teamwork and organization will provide a stronger voice and meet goals easier then an independant voicing a single opinion with little support behind him.

Its just the way it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that works against itself...if you remove party names then they are essentially running as independents(even though they're not), the biggest richest parties could flood the ballot with candidates and we could be worse off...eliminating party names on ballots only makes sense to me in FPTP...

Wait a minute. Have you read up on Single Non-transferable vote? To add too many candidates to the ballot would be self-defeating for any party. Why would any party be so suicidal?

Also, a person who can't take the time to learn his candidate's party affiliation has not earned the right to vote in my opinion. You don't just check off the prettiest party logo. If you can't even be bothered to take a little time out of your day to even bother finding out the party affiliation of your candidates, then clearly you don't care enough about democracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if we're being honest most people don't vote for the candidate they vote for the party, the only time people vote for the candidate is during municipal elections...

and voters never choose the candidates the parties do so there is nothing wrong with a list system, the parties know who are the good candidates and who are not let them pick the most qualified winners and kick the unqualified to the curb...

I vote candidate and will be damned if I ever have to vote for a party. That would be the end of democracy and the freedom of independents to run for office. Essentially, you're asking for parties to hijack the democratic system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is a near painful experience.

Put me with Hardner, Riverwind, and a few other of similar posts and I am a supporter of PR and Electoral Reform.

1) Machjo... you seem to want parliment to be elected like Municipal governments. No thanks!!! Its weak, its stupid and it sucks! However, that doesn't mean that independants should be treated like the outcasts of parliment when elected. However, even a political party can have the same limitations if .. they don't meet the minimum seat count. And quite frankly if independants can get elected, I leave a violin to all the whining from other parties who cannot get a single MP elected when you only need roughly 30% of the vote and one vote more then another candidates to get elected ... so cry me a river.

2) Electoral Reform for STV and MMP were both rejected by a MAJORITY vote.. Not a minority vote. So.. the MAJORITY of Voters supported the FPTP system and is skewing of the results.

Thus, we know its not perfect and distorts. We also know that the public supports it.

Do I support a better system? Yes.

Do I respect the MAJORITY of Canadian Voters in Ontario and BC who rejected a better option?

Absolutely.

Is STV or MMP perfect? No it brings in its own distortions.

Do I think independants have a more difficult time getting elected? Yes. But many independants that run for office have difficulty working with others and that is why they are not involved in political parties.

Teamwork and organization will provide a stronger voice and meet goals easier then an independant voicing a single opinion with little support behind him.

Its just the way it is.

rejection of the proposed changes do not mean they want to keep the present system only that the voters either did not understand the new options or they did not like the options given and prefer something else thereby splitting the vote and staying with the system now in place....

I would think the need for independents would decrease with more party options as they're more likely to find a home of like minded individuals...there are others who likely agree with the independents but they're afraid to leave and enjoy the security and protection within the bigger party...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote candidate and will be damned if I ever have to vote for a party. That would be the end of democracy and the freedom of independents to run for office. Essentially, you're asking for parties to hijack the democratic system.

you may vote for the candidate but IMO you're in a very small minority that do...

the parties choose the candidates so consider the democratic system hijacked...

Link to post
Share on other sites

rejection of the proposed changes do not mean they want to keep the present system only that the voters either did not understand the new options or they did not like the options given and prefer something else thereby splitting the vote and staying with the system now in place....

I would think the need for independents would decrease with more party options as they're more likely to find a home of like minded individuals...there are others who likely agree with the independents but they're afraid to leave and enjoy the security and protection within the bigger party...

This I think is where Single non-transferable voting could come in. Because you're selecting more than one candidate on your ballot, you could for example select your favourite candidate and not worry about strategic voting since you'd have more than one selection on your ballot anyway. But party names have to go so as to encourage people to do a little more research on their candidates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

rejection of the proposed changes do not mean they want to keep the present system only that the voters either did not understand the new options or they did not like the options given and prefer something else thereby splitting the vote and staying with the system now in place....

It means they were rejected by a majority

Link to post
Share on other sites

you may vote for the candidate but IMO you're in a very small minority that do...

the parties choose the candidates so consider the democratic system hijacked...

Then SNTV would allow for both, as it could provide for Pr for those who do vote party while still allowing us to vote for canddiates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Running a country is complex and requires compromise. The only immature people are the people who think they should be entitled to be represented by a fringe party that refuses to compromise and seeks to impose their narrow viewpoint on the majority.

And changes were voted down twice in BC and once in Ontario. You can fume as much as you want but it does look like the majority of people who actually vote are fine with the system.

it was defeated in BC because the bar was set at 60% for approval the vote for was 57.7% approved that is a clear majority

77 of 79 electoral districts approved the change...the 60% bar was put in place by a government that stood to lose by it's implementation as all governing parties reach their status through FPTP they will not easily give it up...the liberal government did all it could to throw a wrench into the proposed changes and the 60% threshold was the wrench of choice...

Link to post
Share on other sites

you may vote for the candidate but IMO you're in a very small minority that do...

the parties choose the candidates so consider the democratic system hijacked...

Independents can and do run on occasion, and no party chooses them.

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...