Election 2009

[GraphicMatt]

Proportional systems almost necessitate coalitions - that's kind of the point. In most other parliamentary democracies, coalitions aren't some kind of devious coup d'etat. They're just a government construct.

I don't think anything would help the CPC in Toronto beyond actually bothering to run serious candidates. With a proportional system, I think more Torontonians would vote NDP if anything because they wouldn't have to worry about strategic voting to ensure a left-wing seat in their riding.

 

[Whoaccio]

The problem with electoral reform, practically, is that any party who wins under the current system does it by exploiting its quirks. "Winning" just means getting a few close ridings to swing your way by two or three percent, which almost always translates into the party with a plurality having more seats than it is should proportionately. So, yea, the CPC is underrepresented in Toronto and the NDP overrepresented, but at the national level the NDP is underrepresented compared to just about anyone except maybe the Greens.

 

[nfitz]

In my riding, I'm pretty sure that one party is overrepresented and the other ones are all underrepresented.

 

[waterloowarrior]

The problem with electoral reform, practically, is that any party who wins under the current system does it by exploiting its quirks. "Winning" just means getting a few close ridings to swing your way by two or three percent, which almost always translates into the party with a plurality having more seats than it is should proportionately. So, yea, the CPC is underrepresented in Toronto and the NDP overrepresented, but at the national level the NDP is underrepresented compared to just about anyone except maybe the Greens.

Both the Conservatives and NDP are underrepresented in Toronto, it's the Liberals that are overrepresented.

Current situation: Liberals 21, NDP 2
It should be (±): Liberals 11, Conservatives 6, NDP 4, Green 2

 

[nfitz]

You just added 6 Tory seats though for Toronto; yet provincially they got 48% of the seats, and only 39% of the vote. So they are over-represented by 9 seats in the province already.

If we went from FPTP to proportional in Ontario instead of:
Cons: 51
Lib: 38
NDP: 17 we would have

Cons: 42
Lib: 36
NDP: 19
Green: 8
Other: 1

Perpetural minority governments. And you get some really minor parties getting seats ... like in the recent European election where there's now a neo-Nazi part with an English seat.

 

[salvius]

Perpetural minority governments.

What is so bad about that? If no party gets over 50% of votes, that means they don't have a full mandate of the people. A party which cannot get over the 50% + 1 threshold should not rule like it cleared it. We respect this rule when it comes to parliamentary (or judicial) votes, but disregard it for elections.

 

[nfitz]

What is so bad about that? If no party gets over 50% of votes, that means they don't have a full mandate of the people. A party which cannot get over the 50% + 1 threshold should not rule like it cleared it. We respect this rule when it comes to parliamentary (or judicial) votes, but disregard it for elections.

... well then you'd have the horror of the Liberals having to work with the Socialists and Separatists.

(oh man, I can't get over that one ... Harper really stuck his foot in his mouth on that one ... )

 

[Whoaccio]

I don't really buy this PR would lead to never ending political fragmentation BS. There are like, 3, countries in which this is an issue (Israel, Italy, Belgium) and none of them are at all similar to Canada. Countries like Germany and New Zealand have been more politically stable than us in most ways, despite PR, and neither have admitted some kind of parade of Neo-Fascists and Communists into their Legislature.

 

[nfitz]

Countries like Germany and New Zealand have been more politically stable than us in most ways, despite PR, and neither have admitted some kind of parade of Neo-Fascists and Communists into their Legislature.

Germany simply bans such parties outright. And I'll disagree on New Zealand. The anti-Asian immigration New Zealand First party might not be as facsist as the BNP, but I'd hardly call their bigoted views as acceptable.

 

[lordmandeep]

Considering Canada is so decentralized compared to those counties, I think perpetual Minority Govts will further weaken the federal govt...

 

[Northern Light]

Mmpr

I personally support MMPR.

Mixed Member Proportional Representation.

I will come back to that in a moment.

On the issue of obscure minority parties, there are 2 controls.

One, simply enforce 'hate' statutes, that is to say, outlaw parties whose views overtly cross the line. I don't mean parties whose views are merely disagreeable or offensive, obviously, that is highly subjective and can result in profoundly undemocratic circumstances.

Rather, I would suggest saving that kind of draconian action for any party that clearly endorsed either violence, or overt discrimination based on race or other constitutionally protected grounds. I would also advise that such power be used sparingly, and only by the courts or a non-partisan, arms length body.

The other, easier course of action is merely to enforce a tiny minimum on the percentage of vote a party must receive. As I recall, in Germany the number is 5%....but anything over 3% should do the trick.

***********

Back to MMPR

The exact #s of seats are variable.

But the essence is simple; you vote just like you do now, no difference.

There are 'X' number of local ridings (for easy math, let's say 100)

The seats are still awarded by plurality. (most votes gets the seat)

But

There are an 'extra' 50 seats, awarded to bring any underrepresented party up to their correct level.

Example:

In the 100 seats

you get:

39 Cons
29 Lib
16 Bloc
6 NDP

But the actual percentages show that it should be

36% Cons
30% lib
10% Bloc
18% NDP
6% Green

As such, seats from the 50 would be awarded to make the totals as close to correct as possible.

In general such seats would be awarded by party list; but requirements could be imposed on this (such as in France where every other name must be female/male in alternation)

 

[Northern Light]

I should add

I should add, that such a scenario would most create coalition and/or consensus gov't which I don't see as a bad thing.

Nor is it necessarily unstable.

 

[lordmandeep]

Yeah I remember in a politics class also talked about elected Senators and how it would really screw up things if lets say a Conservative controls the House of Common and the Liberals+NDP control the senate...


Unlike the US, the PM is in the midst of all the action. So imagine a PM in the Common having a majority and then has to square off against a senate Majority Leader.

So under that insane situation, you would theoretically get two people who share the same power...

Lets Hope if we ever have elected Senators we have a system that just won't slow things down and make our government even more complicated.


By the ways of it, it appears no party will be able to push anything major through unless they use some real complex political tricks to make the other parties to support it. Like forcing non-confident votes upon the opposition when it is weak.

Plus I dislike the MMP system... because we won't see hilarious election results.

I am still laughing over the 1993 election, 16% of the vote equaling 2 seats!!!

LOL!!!

I remember hearing the conservatives getting 2 seats but I thought they got like 2% of the vote or something...

 

[nfitz]

Unlike the US, the PM is in the midst of all the action. So imagine a PM in the Common having a majority and then has to square off against a senate Majority Leader.

Which is why it is almost impossible legislatively to get anything done in the USA ... and why after 40-years they still don't have such basics as healthcare, maternity benefits, and have a huge illegal alien problem.

 

[lordmandeep]

True but in Canada the situation would get even more funny as you would have two people who have almost identical power, or in other words two PM's...


Yeah, Australia has a funny system...

If there is a deadlock, the PM can dissolve both houses...

It happened 6 times in Australia and its called a double dissolution.

If even if there is an election and the result is about the same as before and the senate still refuses to pass the bill. The PM can ask the Governor General to have both houses sit as one and that happened in 1974...

Also the senate can deny supply bills like small budget bill and really choke the ruling govt to death.


Yeah the 1970's saw really crazy politics in Australia.

I think The GG of Australia actually dismissed a PM in 1975!!!
What Happened was the senate blocked off any supply bills and the govt was then running out of money to meet its obligations. The GG in these situations generally listen to the advice of the PM. Instead the GG sacked the PM and put the opposition leader as a caretaker PM who then called elections of both houses and won easily..

Lol that would be an epic crisis and the thing I don't Understand is why didn't the PM just call for an election???

So I was wondering if these wacky situations would happen here if we start to have elected senates???