Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Electoral Reform Abandoned


Recommended Posts

150 yrs of stable governments , so why change it? And what really shows how pathetic the liberals are they had a meeting with the opposition the night before they made the announcement. They knew they were going to dump it but still had a meeting to make it look like they weren't. So sad. Trudeau needs to resign.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You mean a Liberal politician lied to the Canadian people? I don't believe it. That can't happen.  I live in Ontario and the Ontario Liberals would never do that. 

Well, at least they're all Earthlings. No it isn't. 

Well, New Zealanders did have three other prop rep options to pick from.  How do they feel about holding further referendums until they get the one they like or that works best?

You can both support and oppose the existing system on the same grounds.

Namely, the opposers of the system claim that it bolsters the dominance of white middle-aged middle-class men at the expense of minorities.

That exactly works both ways as a reason to oppose the system and to support it depending on your outlook.

However, as long as there are only two main parties which get a combined share of the votes of 95% the FPTP is the clever system but as soon as there is a third party or even a fourth party or even more each of which gaining at least 5% of the votes, the system becomes very capricious.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nathan Cullen called Trudeau a liar but Cullen's hypocracy is just as bad.  A significant minority (The Liberals) prefer a preferential ballot and the NDP and the  Greens say this is bad because this would give the Grits an advantage. The NDP wants proportional representation...Why? Because that would give them an advantage an screw the voters at the same time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The NDP wants proportional representation...Why? Because that would give them an advantage an screw the voters at the same time.

No, proportional representation will support the voters. FPTP and preferential ballots are ways to screw the voters, they end up giving all the power to a minority of support.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

No, proportional representation will support the voters. FPTP and preferential ballots are ways to screw the voters, they end up giving all the power to a minority of support.

That is your opinion. It is not fact. Many people disagree with your opinion and think the worth of an electoral system is measured with other criteria such as local representation or the whether elections can trigger political housecleaning.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TimG said:

That is your opinion. It is not fact.

It is very clear the FPTP & Ranked ballots favour major parties, it is almost impossible for a smaller party to get representation in the house with them where a major party can get 100% of the power using them. How can you possibly dispute that fact?

Yes, local representation and housecleaning are different topics but they have absolutely nothing to screwing the voters as Queenmandy85 suggested. I know that local representation means exactly nothing for the Conservative party because when I had a Conservative MP and asked about something that wasn`t in their handed down from high party platform they completely ignored it. The Ontario Progressive Conservatives were slightly (only very slightly) more responsive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TimG said:

That is your opinion. It is not fact. Many people disagree with your opinion and think the worth of an electoral system is measured with other criteria such as local representation or the whether elections can trigger political housecleaning.

Agreed and of course as PIK mentioned, stability.  I personally don't think Canadians have the kind of temperament  say Italians, Taiwanese or Israelis do. I just don't see Canadians wanting a continually fractured minority government lurching from coalition to coalition.

Man you spend one hour at the Knesset or Italian House of Assembly its crazy man. Crazy.

I mean that man beast Trudeau remember how he  manhandled the Tory  on the floor and elbowed the NDP member causing her pin and suffering? Good Lord is that what we want? 

God bless the Queen.

Edited by Rue
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ?Impact said:

It is very clear the FPTP & Ranked ballots favour major parties, it is almost impossible for a smaller party to get representation in the house with them where a major party can get 100% of the power using them. How can you possibly dispute that fact?

FPTP favors individuals at its core. Parties are not essential to the system and we could do what the NWT does and choose the PM after the election with a free vote among all MPs. Any sort of PR makes parties an essential part of the system and gives fringe parties too much of a say in governance which why the voter gets screwed under PR. Some forms of PR use party lists which takes all control away from the voter since people high on the list can never be voted out unless the party support collapses entirely.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TimG said:

gives fringe parties too much of a say in governance which why the voter gets screwed under PR

Let's see, both the Reform party and Progressive Conservative party had more support than the Bloc Québécois in 1993, yet it was the Bloc that became the official opposition. FPTP is completely screwed up in both selecting government as well as opposition. PR doesn't screw anyone, FPTP does including supporting fringe parties.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Let's see, both the Reform party and Progressive Conservative party had more support than the Bloc Québécois in 1993, yet it was the Bloc that became the official opposition. FPTP is completely screwed up in both selecting government as well as opposition. PR doesn't screw anyone, FPTP does including supporting fringe parties.

You are assuming that parties should be the center of the political system and the outcome should be judged by the effect on party standings. That is a false assumption. In 1993 we had 270 or so races to elect MPs. In each one of those races their could be only one winner and the winner had a plurality of votes. No one is getting "screwed".

Edited by TimG
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TimG said:

You are assuming that parties should be the center of the political system and the outcome should be judged by the effect on party standings. That is a false assumption. In 1993 we had 270 or so races to elect MPs. In each one of those races their could be only one winner and the winner had a plurality of votes. No one is getting "screwed".

You are forgetting the 8.1 million people, representing 59% of the voters, that got 0% say for the next for years - they, the significant majority got screwed. This country is run by parties, and party leaders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

You are forgetting the 8.1 million people, representing 59% of the voters, that got 0% say for the next for years - they, the significant majority got screwed. This country is run by parties, and party leaders.

Again - a false premise: you are assuming that every voter is a rabid partisan who can only be represented by the party they voted for on election day. Most voters are more fluid than that and will find that all parties represent their interest some of the time. So it is simply false to say that 59% of the voters got zero say. 100% of voters had their say on election day because they voted. In the next election all parties will want those votes and will keep them in mind when they make policy decisions.

Your view that governing is a cake that can be sliced up and handed out as spoils is also very problematic. It is this kind of thinking is what makes PR so bad because it leads to parties like Green party with 5% of the vote thinking they are entitled to demand concessions that 95% of population does not want. Governing means looking out for interests of the country as a whole.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TimG said:

PR so bad because it leads to parties like Green party with 5% of the vote thinking they are entitled to demand concessions that 95% of population does not want

FPTP is so bad because is forces people to park their vote in parties that are likely to get 100% of the power that those parties think their are entitled to and actually do exercise. FPTP is trying to find the least horrid alternative, not the best. FPTP is the tool of the dictator pretending to actually give any power to the voter. PR is about finding workable solutions for the entire population, and not running roughshod over the majority. The cleaning house strategy you brought up earlier is necessary in FPTP because it is so bad in day to day operation. Unfortunately the problem with cleaning house is as a nation we never make any progress, we just have opposing ideals with 100% of the power tearing down what the previous government did just out of spite.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ?Impact said:

FPTP is so bad because is forces people to park their vote in parties that are likely to get 100% of the power that those parties think their are entitled to and actually do exercise. 

Vote "parking" as you call it is called compromise. Something that you seem to think would happen in a world of perpetual minority governments. Why is this bad? The reason I don't like PR is because the compromise occurs after the election and is usually designed to justify the existence of minority parties rather than what is good for the country as a whole. The fact is that governing a diverse country requires a government that can make unpopular decisions from time to time. Regular elections are more than sufficient to provide a check on this power because no government likes to lose power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TimG said:

usually designed to justify the existence of minority parties rather than what is good for the country as a whole

So tyranny of the 40% is what is good for the country as a whole? Those who don't conform will be assimilated?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

So tyranny of the 40% is what is good for the country as a whole? Those who don't conform will be assimilated?

Except "tyranny of the 40%" is an "alternative fact" because there is always some overlap between major parties. i.e. the Liberals adopt a number of policies which Conservatives like and vise versa. Governments want to get re-elected and that is not going to happen if they piss off the majority of the population. Under PR the parliamentary dynamics mean small minorities can hold the government hostage unless they get a payoff. Government by blackmail is not good government.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TimG said:

Under PR the parliamentary dynamics mean small minorities can hold the government hostage unless they get a payoff.

Since you claim there is a large overlap between the two major tyrannical parties, they obviously hold the people hostage for their own payoff far more frequently. You paint minority as monsters, when in fact they are often the victim of the far bigger monsters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Since you claim there is a large overlap between the two major tyrannical parties, they obviously hold the people hostage for their own payoff far more frequently. You paint minority as monsters, when in fact they are often the victim of the far bigger monsters.

The major parties have to appeal to the large moderate middle. If they piss off those moderates they lose power. This is the way it should be. Under PR these moderate parties can't govern with making payoffs to fringe parties that represent small portions of the electorate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TimG said:

The major parties have to appeal to the large moderate middle. If they piss off those moderates they lose power. This is the way it should be. Under PR these moderate parties can't govern with making payoffs to fringe parties that represent small portions of the electorate. 

Why do they have to make payoffs to 'fringe' parties as you call them? They can make their deals with the other 'moderates' as you call them. The fact is that the major parties run roughshod over the majority of the population because they have a system that virtually guarantees they have their kick at the can for 4 years. Most people don't vote for the party because they support them entirely, they vote because they are forced into making a single decision that they have to live with for 4 years and the alternative is worse. Some of our most productive Parliaments have been minority ones because they are forced to make compromises and not push their own agenda.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, TimG said:

FPTP favors individuals at its core. Parties are not essential to the system

This completely ignores the reality and the complete impotence of an MP if they are not in cabinet.  

From a conservative ex-MLA:

 

Quote

 

In fact, the Government of Canada is run by the prime minister's office on the advice of unelected advisers at his side.

The MP's only "power" is the right to speak up behind closed doors in caucus, and I leave it to you to guess how many backbenchers will make serious noises in opposition to the prime minister given the likely consequences.

Here is the biggest political crime of all.

The principal reason for a Parliament in the first place was to manage the public purse. The budget is far and away the most important function of the political year, yet backbench MPs very much including government MPs have no say whatsoever in the process! Neither, for that matter, do cabinet members.

The budget is essentially the PM's demand for money and Parliament only gets to see it first when it's tabled in the House!

 

 

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/10/29/PM-Monstrous-Power/

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

This completely ignores the reality and the complete impotence of an MP if they are not in cabinet.  

Well that is an artifact of the Canadian system where we have allowed parties to control the process. In the UK and Australia MPs have the ability to dispose a sitting PM. We need to bring that back to Canada. Legally entrenching the power of parties is the opposite of where we want to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TimG said:

... Australia MPs have the ability to dispose a sitting PM...

Bad example to try and prove your point TimG since:

Quote

Australia uses various forms of preferential voting for almost all elections. 

  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Australia#Voting_system

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The_Squid said:

Australia uses various forms of preferential voting for almost all elections. 

Preferential ballot is not PR and I am not that opposed to it. It does not change my point: PMs are disposed in Australia by MPs which gives MPs a lot of power. Canada party constitutions prohibit this and that is why PMs have so much power. If we want to fix that we force parties to change their constitutions ti allow MPs to depose PMs as was originally intended.

BTW: Australia has preferential ballots because the vote on the right was split and a conservative PM thought it would improve their chances. Not unlike the Liberal machinations here.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue here is that they make the excuse that a consensus was required to do anything. Have 3 models PR, Ranked Ballots and FPTP and have it in a referendum for the 2019 election. 

I suspect FPTP would win that referendum, and they just couldn't stomach that, so they took their ball and went home. 

Awful leadership! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So apparently Trudeau is saying he abandoned electoral reform because he didn't want to give power to 'fringe voices', and cited Kellie Lietch!

Now I'm not sure if this is a case of poor translation. Perhaps Trudeau's English isn't very good, but the only actual indication of what Canadians think of Lietch's proposal to interview potential immigrants to see if their values are hostile to ours is a Toronto Star poll which showed 70% of Canadians liked the idea.

So maybe what Trudeau was actually trying to say was he was afraid proportional representation would allow 'mainstream voices' to gain power, and that this would damage his fringe party.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-asks-woman-at-iqaluit-event-if-leitch-should-have-her-own-party/article33978880/

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.




  • Tell a friend

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