News   Jul 31, 2024
 293     0 
News   Jul 31, 2024
 391     0 
News   Jul 31, 2024
 334     2 

MMP: How do you intend to vote?

How are you planning to vote?


  • Total voters
    56
I guess the question is, how intelligent do we think the electorate is? Judging by some of the comments in this thread, voters are not to be trusted.

Voters can vote, regardless of the system. If one wants to consider the activity or intelligence of the voters, then one must look at the ever reduced turn-outs to elections and find out what is causing that. Falling voter turn-out is not only something to be found in Canada, but in other countries where MMP exists.
 
The one thing that I find a positive in the Canadian system is the fact that every 10 years (typically max), the electorate will throw out the current ruling parting in a "resounding loss" which typically really equates to a move of maybe 7 - 10% of the electorate. The end result is that the system gets renewed since a large number of encumbant MPs get flushed out the door. There are other ways that can accomplish the same effect, such as term limits etc. With the new MPP system a candidate in the local riding could end up back in parliament based on the list -- end result -- less renewal. I believe you will find that more people will be in parliament longer since those landslides will never happen again.
 
Oh, and Germany and Italy aren't such great models. Germany has a higher percentage requirement for a party to enter the Bundestag, so it's harder for fringe parties than it would be in Ontario. Even so, their system allows the ex-Communists into the Bundestag and neo-Nazis into the state legislatures. I can't quite see how that's a good thing. In Italy, politics are a mess, and they're even worse than they were in the past when at least the Christian Democrats had a unifying role. Now, elections are contests between vast and unwieldy coalitions of tiny parties, many of which are based around the personality of one leader. As you might imagine, people who decide to create parties around themselves have rather large egos, and they hold the government hostage for every single decision. Urgent reform is almost impossible in Italy. For example, cracking down on crime is extremely difficult because many of the small parties have been penetrated by criminal elements, and they threaten to leave the coalitions and bring down the government if any tough laws are passed. Same goes for labour reform, tax reform, etc. etc.
If enough people vote for parties we don't like, then they should be represented...unless of course they've been banned for violating basic democratic principles, something Germany is no stranger to. We may not like some people's views but democracy isn't about everybody agreeing. Besides, if neo-Nazis ever tried to run candidates in this country they'd face nothing but ridicule at best.

As for Italy, that's a red herring. We don't have organized crime penetrating our political parties in the same way, in fact we're the polar opposite. The Liberals got nailed to the wall when a few of their members got caught up in the sponsorship scandal, something that was pretty minor compared to the crooked deals in Italy or the United States. We have a longstanding tradition of a small number of stable parties, something Italy has never had. If Italy switched to a first past the post system it wouldn't be any more stable - so your argument using Italy as an example could be used against democracy itself.
 
I would have liked to have seen the Citizens coalition come up with 2 or 3 new systems to take to the people in a referendum, instead of just one option (or the old one). I guess that makes the possibility of getting a supermajority next to impossible. I would like to see a new voting system, but definitly NOT MMP. If the citizens coalition opted to promote a ranking system for electing MPP's, then I would have gone for that.
 
The one thing that I find a positive in the Canadian system is the fact that every 10 years (typically max), the electorate will throw out the current ruling parting in a "resounding loss" which typically really equates to a move of maybe 7 - 10% of the electorate. The end result is that the system gets renewed since a large number of encumbant MPs get flushed out the door.

That is interesting, but I have counterpoints - Herb Grey is an excellent example of someone who has been in office for an eternity. Current provincial politicians - Monte Kwinter, Gerry Phillips, Norm Sterling or Peter Kormos - are practically fossils. The ones at the top of a party lists would often be the ones getting safe seats in a first-past-the-post system.
 
Remember that the winning party wouldn't actually receive any list seats. The top 2 parties would have to keep all their bigwigs in local ridings.
 
The two most extreme examples of long terms in office.


Jean Chretien went from 1963 to 2003 (exempt 1986-1990) as an MP...

Thats like 36 years in office...

Wilfred Laurier had almost 45 years 1874-1919

Just Shows you how long some people can stay around in this system...
 
The two most extreme examples of long terms in office.


Jean Chretien went from 1963 to 2003 (exempt 1986-1990) as an MP...

Thats like 36 years in office...

Wilfred Laurier had almost 45 years 1874-1919

Just Shows you how long some people can stay around in this system...
Winnie Churchill spanned 1900-1964...
 
^^^^^^ apart from Jean Chretien, those two are seen as two of the greatest statesmen ever...

i don't fringing commies and bible lovers in the house of commons to be represented.
I'm sorry, but what are you trying to say here? I can't follow you. What's fringing mean? You say you "don't fringing commies..." but that doesn't make sense.

i missed the word "want" and i think i was referring fringing to the slang word, freakin. :confused:

I was saying I do not want to see extreme fringe parties to have seats in our legislature and house of Commons...

Really I think its a big scam by NDP supporters to always have minority governments. By having more minority governments the NDP would always have the balance of power and thus become much more powerful.


Yes, i know i am being an elitist SOB about this... but the referendum gives me the right to be one... :p


So, I will vote for the old system because i don't want to see more minority governments. If you can't win enough seats to win, stop crying about it and try to actually win next time. The NDP got a Majority govt in the early 90's, so they can again (even though i hope it never happens).
 
i don't want to give rights to parties that want to take away other peoples rights.
 
If enough people vote for parties we don't like, then they should be represented...unless of course they've been banned for violating basic democratic principles, something Germany is no stranger to. We may not like some people's views but democracy isn't about everybody agreeing. Besides, if neo-Nazis ever tried to run candidates in this country they'd face nothing but ridicule at best.

As for Italy, that's a red herring. We don't have organized crime penetrating our political parties in the same way, in fact we're the polar opposite. The Liberals got nailed to the wall when a few of their members got caught up in the sponsorship scandal, something that was pretty minor compared to the crooked deals in Italy or the United States. We have a longstanding tradition of a small number of stable parties, something Italy has never had. If Italy switched to a first past the post system it wouldn't be any more stable - so your argument using Italy as an example could be used against democracy itself.

Are you making reference to Germany of the 1930's and 1940's? I think things are just a little different today than back during those times, don't you? I think you have missed unimaginative's point.

And speaking of red herrings, to suggest that Italy's political parties are all penetrated by organized crime borders on the worst kind of ethnic stereotyping. How do you know what would happen in Italy if they changed their election system? How would you presume to know what would happen here if MMP is adopted?

Do you have a crystal ball?
 
Are you making reference to Germany of the 1930's and 1940's? I think things are just a little different today than back during those times, don't you? I think you have missed unimaginative's point.
You're the one missing the point. unimaginative posted about neo-nazis and former communists being elected in Germany. Germany can ban parties if they violate democratic principles. I don't know what the 1930s have to do with anything.

And speaking of red herrings, to suggest that Italy's political parties are all penetrated by organized crime borders on the worst kind of ethnic stereotyping.
How about you stop making unfounded accusations of racism? I was responding to this:

Urgent reform is almost impossible in Italy. For example, cracking down on crime is extremely difficult because many of the small parties have been penetrated by criminal elements

How do you know what would happen in Italy if they changed their election system? How would you presume to know what would happen here if MMP is adopted?

Do you have a crystal ball?
You've been predicting what would happen if MMP is adopted too. Re: Italy, like I said, the whole postwar history of Italy is one of a fragmented government. Anyway this whole thread is speculation so I don't see why you're making a big deal of it now after 3 pages.

I was saying I do not want to see extreme fringe parties to have seats in our legislature and house of Commons...
If enough people vote for "extreme fringe parties" (belittling them with namecalling isn't going to put the issue to rest) then they should get seats. It's the most basic concept of democracy. I don't see what the problem is.

i don't want to give rights to parties that want to take away other peoples rights.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The Conservatives campaigned against people's rights (same sex marriage) in the last provincial election. Though to John Tory's credit I've heard that he's in favour of same SSM.
 
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The Conservatives campaigned against people's rights (same sex marriage) in the last provincial election. Though to John Tory's credit I've heard that he's in favour of same SSM.

there would be more parties that think along the conservative line but more extreme that would have more power under MMP IMO.

like i said, the only good thing i could see is more power to the green party under a MMP but they could get more influence if only they were allowed in the leadership debates.
 

Back
Top