News   Oct 02, 2024
Resubmission Bumps Mid-Rise to 12 Storeys on Lake Shore in Long Branch
 156     0 
News   Oct 02, 2024
News Roundup for October 2, 2024
 344     0 
News   Oct 02, 2024
Pieces of the Puzzle
 709     0 

Ontario Citizens Assembly comes up with a voting system...

Re: Ontario Citizens Assembly comes up with a voting system.

Party politics isn't something that can really be influenced by the manner in which representatives are elected, short of banning parties.

The US system is no ideal we should be aspiring to. It is nigh on impossible to get elected as something other than a Democrat or Republican.

And cacruden, I disagree that it's a bad thing for third parties to hold the balance of power. As Harper is demonstrating, they don't have undue influence over the agenda. What is really wrong is for one party to garner 40% of the vote (24% of eligible voters), 60% of the seats and 100% of the power.
 
Re: Ontario Citizens Assembly comes up with a voting system.

The problem with PR is that it might to lead to a situation where extremists could hold the balance of power.
 
Re: Ontario Citizens Assembly comes up with a voting system.

can't that happen now anyway?
 
Re: Ontario Citizens Assembly comes up with a voting system.

The main criticism of PR is not that extremists gain influence, but rather that it produces unstable minority governments. It requires the political culture to change somewhat, and perhaps a more consensus-forming approach to developing a budget.
 
Re: Ontario Citizens Assembly comes up with a voting system.

I'm likely to vote for democratic reforms regardless of the voting system chosen. Why not try it out? How much less effective or onerous could the government become than it already is? One of Canada's greatest weaknesses is our risk aversion and increasingly from my personal experience I find you can only learn by doing. If "good government" is one of our central societal goals we should be prepared to constantly reform the way government operates.
 
Re: Ontario Citizens Assembly comes up with a voting system.

The problem with PR is that it might to lead to a situation where extremists could hold the balance of power.
Click to expand...

But that "balance of power" is powerless unless the other parties see eye-to-eye on a plan. If a party is going to make a trade of you pass our bill we will pass yours despite finding the deal reprehensible then that says more about the party that would make the deal than the system. If a party had extreme ideas that the majority doesn't agree with then those ideas wouldn't likely get passed which is great, because likely the majority don't want those extreme ideas to get passed. Minority governments with a myriad of different views in the house are more likely to represent the true will of the people. I think "balance of power" is probably poor terminology... it should probably be called "a relevant voice" because they really don't have power unless people talk and listen to them.

What is the point of smaller parties sitting in the house of commons if their vote will never mean anything? Maybe parties with no balance of power should simply go home and save taxpayers money because their voice in the house will be irrelevant. In majority situations that could save up to 49% of the salaries currently paid in the house of commons. I'm not advocating that of course, I'm just pointing out that all members of parliament should be important in some way. A good democracy would mean their voices are not meaningless and that can only be true if there are more votes in the house which are free votes and/or if there are more minority governments.
 
Re: Ontario Citizens Assembly comes up with a voting system.

Example of how the two systems work using fictional parties and issues:

Key Election Issues: Capital Punishment, Environment

Party A: Capital punishment, environmental protection, multiculturalism
Party B: No capital punishment, no environmental protection, multiculturalism
Party C: No capital punishment, environmental protection, multiculturalism
Party D: Capital punishment, no environmental protection, white supremacy.

Vote: A 45%, B 34%, C 19%, D 2%

FPTP System Results
--------------------------
Likely government: Majority Party A
Bills Passed: Capital punishment, envrionmental protection, multiculturalism
Summary: Majority of voters voted against capital punishment but get it anyways.

MMP System Results
-------------------------
Government: Minority government, even extreme view party gets a seat
Bills Passed: No capital punishment, environmental protection, multiculturalism.
Summary: Issues are voted in a way that more closely matches the will of the public rather than the party platform of the party with the most votes. Despite having a voice in the house the extreme views of one party don't negatively affect the results of house votes in any meaningful way but at the same time the fact that 2% of the population has extreme views is not so easily ignored.
 
Re: Ontario Citizens Assembly comes up with a voting system.

Your percentages and hypothetical situations are flawed.

First, most people don't vote on issues usually. They vote for the party (but more often just the leader) that they think will best represent them in parliament. So on an issue by issue basis, people are not represented in government any better by a PR system.

Lets just take capital punishment (which I am against) -- and which is unlikely to return under ANY government.

If you want percentage vote totals to match individual issues, then I guess we could just run the government by referendums. That would be more democratic if that is what you are looking for.

Of course, that would likely have meant that capital punishment would never have been abolished. It was also one issue where in the 80's the people favoured capital punishment by a substantial margin, but the party in power was against it (in fact both parties generally are against bringing back capital punishment at that time -- and I don't see it as an issue on the Conservative platform right now).
 
Re: Ontario Citizens Assembly comes up with a voting system.

Your percentages and hypothetical situations are flawed.
Click to expand...

How can a scenario of fictional parties, fictional issues, and fictional votes be flawed? They are FICTION.

The point is that with proportional representation if any bill gets passed it will have done so with parties that have in total recieved greater than 50% of the vote. In a majority government situation with the current system a party which most people didn't vote for can do whatever they want and the other members of the house become little more than lobbyists. In a proportional representation more than the largest party can get things done if the parties working together hold the support of greater than 50% of the electorate. It seems much more fair that if the government is passing stupid bills that at least half the electorate be responsible for having voted for the parties passing them.
 
Re: Ontario Citizens Assembly comes up with a voting system.

^fictional characters and scenarios can have flaws.

The unstated assumption that if a certain percentage of people vote for a party that that same percentage supports each and every item that that party has in its election platform. It is a flaw since it has no basis in fact/reality, and he has not stated that to be hypothetical axiom.

Actually, the US type of system is much better at restricting the ability of government to implement bills that have do not have a wide consensus of support (although it has been corrupted/crippled by the lack of controls on election contributions/spending).

Having a bi-cameral system where each level of government has power (as opposed to our unelected senate that wields little power), and an independant executive.... actually does a better job of restricting implementation of laws that do not build a consensus.

You require a majority of the members of the house to vote on a bill.

You require a majority of the members of the senate to vote on a bill (and sometimes 60% if their is a filibuster).

Then you have a reconcilation process for bills (to make sure the bill is the same in both houses).

Then the president has veto power which he could use.

Very rarely are all three levels of government controlled by the same party.

The argument for not having this type of system is that it is much harder for the government to get things done (which a lot of Americans actually appreciate sometimes), and the consensus building process will often require tradeoffs on potentially unrelated issues that increase the footprint of the legislation.

Moving to a PR system -- will have the same drawbacks.

Personally, I would prefer an adapted version of the US system than a PR system since it allows the government to function without party control, and maintains the direct relationship between a representative and their riding. I would make changes -- like constitutional limiting the ability to add unrelated riders, etc. Restricting donations to individuals (no corporations, no unions). Eliminating the ability of a state to allocate the "votes" for president as all or none (proportional to the vote) [i.e. if you win California by a majority -- you get all the votes for the state].
 
Re: Ontario Citizens Assembly comes up with a voting system.

The unstated assumption that if a certain percentage of people vote for a party that that same percentage supports each and every item that that party has in its election platform. It is a flaw since it has no basis in fact/reality, and he has not stated that to be hypothetical axiom.
Click to expand...

But the other criteria was that the two most key issues were capital punishment and the environment. Definitely not everyone votes simply due to the key issues but it is key issues that define the election.

I don't think the US system works all that well. I don't think there is any concensus building in the US and the whole situation has turned into bi-partisan bashing all the time. Their whole bill amendment system is equally messed up where a single bill deals with completely unrelated topics for the purpose of trying to defeat a bill or sneak in extra benefits. I would think that a system with more parties would spend less time ripping apart the other side for show knowing that they couldn't get anything done without them would work better. Why would a bill passed in the house need to go to the senate for approval and pass by the president for possible veto if the house represented the electorate? Why have three elected bodies when you can have one instead? In all the debate about an elected senate I think the better question is the need for a senate at all if there is proportional representation. The goal should be to remove the number of steps to pass a bill while ensuring the bill passers have the support of the population.
 
Re: Ontario Citizens Assembly comes up with a voting system.

I'm thrilled they didn't pick the somewhat ridiculous STV system they were proposing out in BC. Adding a limited number of party list proportional seats isn't necessarily a bad idea. I think that the biggest advantage is that it could increase the quality and diversity of MPs. Right now, the Liberals for instance, have endless lines of highly qualified people trying to run in certain Toronto ridings. Meanwhile, the party has to go begging to find candidates in some ridings elsewhere. This is true in different places for all the parties. A party list would allow some of those impressive people who don't get a coveted riding to run anyway. It would also allow parties to more-or-less guarantee a seat for a star candidate since each major party has a floor in terms of popular vote which it rarely drops beneath.

At a national level, it would also potentially have a strong regional-balancing effect. The Liberals would likely make a disproportionate number of the high-ranking candidates on their list come from Alberta. The Tories would do the same for Quebec and big cities, while the NDP would likely emphasize Quebec and perhaps rural areas.

It's important to note, however, that it will unquestionably lead to greater fractioning of the system into single-issue parties. At various times in recent elections, even a limited number of proportionally elected seats would have produced Marijuana Party MPs in Quebec, as well as several Family Coalition/Christian Heritage MPs.
 
Re: Ontario Citizens Assembly comes up with a voting system.

The system most likely to be adopted has a 3% popular vote minimum threshold for parties to gain list seats. This should do away with almost all single-issue parties. I would be astonished, really, if one snuck through. Maybe an evangelical party?

STV is not a bad system. What makes you think that? It's certainly a vast improvement on FPTP.
 
Re: Ontario Citizens Assembly comes up with a voting system.

Remember that a lot more people will vote for single issue parties if they actually have a chance of getting in. People will also have two votes, so some might be tempted to spread them around. I think they should have, at the very least, a 5% threshold. Maybe even 10%. At three percent, you can pretty much guarantee a Green party which would further split the left and an Evangelical party.
 
Re: Ontario Citizens Assembly comes up with a voting system.

What's the German threshold? (I think it's fairly high, 5%ish, so as to ward off far-right parties...)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top