Re: Ontario Citizens Assembly comes up with a voting system.
What's so great about "leading" and "taking tough positions" if it's against what the majority of MPs want?
What is the purpose of wanting to be elected to govern if not to bring your ideas and political beliefs into play? The purpose of government is to effect legislation. That is done by acquiring political power by way of the consent of the electorate.
In Canada we have this idea that government is about ramming through legislation and dismantling the previous government's programs in the limited time you're in power, then the winds shift, another party wins a majority, and the whole thing happens again. The opposition spends all its energy attacking the ruling party, no matter how good the ideas might be. In a minority this happens even more, since a majority can be won with a little momentum, so bringing down the government is priority #1. Maybe that's one of the reasons people are so disillusioned with government, it's so childish.
Passing legislation is a little more complicated than you picture it, and representatives from other political parties do have a say in the drafting of legislation. As for establishing, augmenting or closing programs, that is both the task and the prerogative of a government. They are voted in to do such things. They are constrained by the constitution, the courts and the electorate.
Beyond that, programs are not legislated to last for an eternity; they can become less effective or even useless over time. Such assessments can, to a large degree be subjective in substance, and no amount of electoral restructuring will change that. Some people may take the view for ideological or economic reasons that certain programs should be curtailed and eliminated. Others may want to see these programs sustained or even broadened, based on their own political positions. Somehow, there is this magic view that a consensus can be struck that will make everyone happy. This conclusion is arrived at only by disregarding the far higher probability that what you will end up with is nothing, or an ineffectual, poorly structured program that has little or no effect, and costs money to support. Because it is a product of consensus, everyone has to take responsibility for the sitaution, but nobody may want to do anything about the mess because that would be an admission that they, too, are responsible for it.
Governments make programs. That's what they do. They legislate them into being, support them, reduce them, eliminate them when they see fit. Programs and legislation don't drop on us from the sky. They are products of political activity, and I bet every program out there has its political opponent of some kind or another because of political difference
Ask yourself this, in a time where governments can achieve majorities, why have so many province-wide or nation-wide programs failed to be put in place by government? Now, do you really think that a consensus between ideologically opposing parties will somehow make this happen? Do you think that these differing parties would somehow automatically see everything the same way? There is no proof to support such a view.
bozorky, you keep saying that a minority is a minority, regardless of the system, but you're wrong, the system does affect it. That's like saying that density is density, regardless of how it's designed. But just like urban design affects how people use the urban environment, the political system affects how people practice politics.
How is a minority not a minority? Three minority parties are three minority parties - unless one becomes a majority in an election, or two gang up on one. But if they all disagree, nothing gets done. What does any of this have to do with density or urban planning? If you are going to assert that I am wrong, you might want to provide some explanation other than analogies that bear no resemblance to the topic at hand.
Nobody said that changing the system will automatically guarantee stability.
I think some people actually have alluded to this. I've stated that there is no proof that this assertion is valid. No one can prove that governments made up of parties with no clear majority will be stable. Some may be, but that does not mean that it is given that all such governments will be. There is also no guarantee that they will all come to an agreement on a many aspects of legislation.
I think there is a degree of confusion between politics (ideology) and electoral structure. If people want to pursue changes to the electoral system so as to make it more "fair," that's fine - so long as you spell out what you mean by fairness in that process (because that is contested territory as well). Nevertheless, this particular aim should never be confused with the political activities of parties or individuals, or the beliefs and ideals upon which these actions are based. Democratic politics offers up no absolute "right" view. This can be viewed as both a great gift and a curse at the same time - but anyway, there it is.
Everyone has a say in a democracy (which is also a product of a political belief), and if they want to gain support for their ideas, they have to come up with a good enough arguments to convince others that these ideas are sound. But it is extremely rare to find exactly the same views or ideals shared by all. So long as this difference exists, there will be a political spectrum, and so long as this spectrum exists, people will try to move their ideals to the forefront. The notion that somehow everything will always be stewed to a happy consensus is unrealistic.
Altering the system of representation will not automatically guarantee stability or better government. Altering the electoral system is an effort to provide more fair voter representation. Let's not confuse the two. And let's not forget that fair has its interpretations as well. It, too, is political.
