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

[Brighter Hell]

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

Okay, be clear on this: nowhere did I say that anything was or is inconceivable. Do you understand that?

That's exactly what you're implying.

Yeah, and there is a long history of minority and coalitions governments falling well within their mandates in many different countries.

Including Canada

I am asking for proof for statements suggesting that minority governments, whatever their structure, make for more stable governments than majorities.

Nowhere did anybody say that minority governments, whatever their structure, make for more stable governments than majorities. Do you understand that?

The effort you expend to miss my point leaves me with no other suggestion than that you go back and carefully reread what I have written.

What I have stated is that there is no guarantee that it will make for more stable or effective governments.

You're the one who's missing the point. You insist of speaking in absolutes. Nobody's saying that minorities are more stable than majorities. Nobody's saying that PR guarantees more stable government.

What we're saying is that PR more accurately reflects the desires of the electorate, so it's more desirable. A PR legislature would usually have minority governments, but if designed the right way it would likely be more stable than a FPTP minority and allow for effective government (the reasons have already been covered). There's obviously no 100%, rock-solid, indisbutable guarantee that PR would be stable, but that's true of our current system too.

 

[bizorky]

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

That's exactly what you're implying.

You have not read what I have written. It is silly to debate a point with you when I have never suggested such things.

Including Canada

Yes, minority governments have fallen well within their mandate. The last was Paul Martin's government. Now you are supporting my point. You appear confused.

Nowhere did anybody say that minority governments, whatever their structure, make for more stable governments than majorities. Do you understand that?

IT IS SIMPLY A POINT WORTH MAKING! No?

I was the one who pointed out that minority governements have a stronger tendency to be less stable. Part of this debate has been about how PR structures may result in more minority governments, forcing parties to cooperate. I have pointed out that minority governments don't gaurantee cooperation, effectiveness or stability. Circumstances change, these changing circumstances will affect government. We are, after all, talking about political parties that exist due to political and ideological differences. They are not going to magically come together and play nice just because the electoral system changes. Nothing of that system makes politics change, or ideologies vanish. People take their political ideals seriously, and many of them may see fit to bring an issue or a set of issue to the people rather than to dilute or discard them because another party wants nothing to do with these things.

You, on the other hand, can't assume that PR structure will make minority governments more stable or more effective because the specific structure of representation has yet to be chosen or legislated into place! Get that? It ain't happened yet! Understand that? So stating what it will do something along those lines is presently without basis!

You're the one who's missing the point. You insist of speaking in absolutes. Nobody's saying that minorities are more stable than majorities. Nobody's saying that PR guarantees more stable government.

You are repeating yourself. And yes, there have been suggestions made in this thread that minority representation will "force" parties to cooperate, resulting in stability. I have suggested that this is not a given, or an absolute. So clearly it is you who have failed to read this. That ain't my fault.

When one states "less stable" one is not speaking in absolutes. I have pointed out that both politics and government are nuanced because of diversity with respect to people, parties, politics and ideological differences; representational structure alone determines nothing about how those elements flow or mix because it is not structure that determines the outcomes of a government. The issues of the day, and a myriad of other timely details or pressures, can have an impact on the direction of a given parliament. Some issues can drive parties together, others will drive them apart. Majority governments have a greater capacity to weather many of these shifts. It ain't rocket science.

 

[jordancerovic]

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

I was the one who pointed out that minority governements have a stronger tendency to be less stable. Part of this debate has been about how PR structures may result in more minority governments, forcing parties to cooperate. I have pointed out that minority governments don't gaurantee cooperation, effectiveness or stability. Circumstances change, these changing circumstances will affect government.

You seem to confuse the behaviour of minorities under FTP with that of minorities under PR. As was stated previously, the behaviour of PR minorities is markedly different because the system of incentives has been altered. You are correct that minority governments in a FPTP system do not guarantee any of those things. Why should they? In a FPTP system, minority governments exist only as placeholders. This is not so much the case in PR.

We are, after all, talking about political parties that exist due to political and ideological differences. They are not going to magically come together and play nice just because the electoral system changes. Nothing of that system makes politics change, or ideologies vanish. People take their political ideals seriously, and many of them may see fit to bring an issue or a set of issue to the people rather than to dilute or discard them because another party wants nothing to do with these things.

Again, you confuse the behaviour patterns of FPTP parties and PR parties. A change in the incentive system necessarily leads to a change in behaviour. Obviously ideology would remain a vast divide even under PR - one might even argue that it would become more prominent. Under FPTP, however, opposition parties really have almost no incentive to cooperate with anyone. If they are faced with a minority gov't, their only incentive in cooperating lies in maintaining the status quo until they feel they have enough momentum to cause a large swing of seats in an election. If they are faced with a majority, they are bystanders.

Under PR, the incentives change. An opposition party has no incentive to topple a minority government unless they actually overtake them in the polls. In the meantime, they have no choice but to attempt to barter with the gov't party and force them to compromise on divisive issues, so that they have something to show to their power base. This in effect means that the policy enacted under PR is generally more representative of the diversity of values and opinions within government, and indeed within the country/province as a whole, as you do not have one party with an artificial majority setting out policy unilaterally for the whole of the electorate.

You, on the other hand, can't assume that PR structure will make minority governments more stable or more effective because the specific structure of representation has yet to be chosen or legislated into place! Get that? It ain't happened yet! Understand that? So stating what it will do something along those lines is presently without basis!

Huh? I acknowledge that we have no idea how the current Canadian political culture will react to PR. That does not do away with the fact that PR has proved successful elsewhere, nor that it theoretically and practically does make minorities more stable.

 

[bizorky]

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

You seem to confuse the behaviour of minorities under FTP with that of minorities under PR.

As we do not presently have a PR structure in place in this country, and as the structure of this form of representation is yet to be determined either provincially or federally, your accusations are without basis.

Again, you confuse the behaviour patterns of FPTP parties and PR parties. A change in the incentive system necessarily leads to a change in behaviour.

There is no pattern of behaviour with respect to PR governments in this country. Different provinces may opt for different forms of PR, some may opt out altogether. Beyond that, you do not know if it will lead to changes in behaviour. Can you predict at any given moment individual behaviour or group behaviour on the basis of specific circumstances or ideological inclinations?

Under FPTP, however, opposition parties really have almost no incentive to cooperate with anyone.

Odd that you should say that, but ten years of working in government at the federal level tells me otherwise. There is cooperation. Cooperation, though, is always politically charged. What is offered today in the name of cooperation could be off the table tomorrow in the name of politics. I see no reason why that behaviour, or the political beliefs that shape it, would automatically change with an augmented system of representation.

Under PR, the incentives change. An opposition party has no incentive to topple a minority government unless they actually overtake them in the polls.

Again, you speak of PR as if it is a done deal, of if there is a version upon which everyone is settled. Don't confuse theory with what actually happens on the political side of governing.

This in effect means that the policy enacted under PR is generally more representative of the diversity of values and opinions within government, and indeed within the country/province as a whole, as you do not have one party with an artificial majority setting out policy unilaterally for the whole of the electorate.

Sure. So you say. So we can have a government and a policy that both rejects the war in Afghanistan, dislike having our troops there, and has them fighting there at the same time. That kind of approach would represent the broad contemporary political spectrum of today. Or maybe we can promote the ideals and values of public health care, but slash all funding, put all doctors into private business, ditch all fee structures and hand out big tax cuts. Such a policy saves money, upholds our belief in fairness and supports the right of people to do as they please.

Stating policy and forming programs as such is a form of restraint.

Public policy is not a collection of all values and opinions. It must be a little more precise and restricted, particularly if it is to be shaped into a government program of one type or another. Beyond that, the fact that certain policies do not make everyone happy should suggest that forming province-wide or national policy does not satisfy all political points of view. Don't forget that a considerable portion of policy and programming originates from pressures or circumstances that are external to government activity, these are things that become part of government activity by selection. What you have on the on the one hand is, for example, social policy that has been "forced" on government during the 20th century. On the other hand, it continues to have its ardent critics over the generations, and not all of their arguments are without merit

As for jumping on me over concerning PR versus FPTP, as I have stated earlier, I am not against PR in theory. My interest in it is for creating more fairness in representation - which there is considerable agreement for as illustrated on this thread.

That being said, there are many PR structures to choose from, and there is nothing wrong with examining them and taking the time to weigh out their strengths or weaknesses. But will the effort result in a perfect system? No, because there is no such thing. Will it automatically result in better government, more effective government, more stable government? I don't think so. Those things are dependent on much more than structure. PR has its risks, but I am willing to take them as part of the parcel for a better democratic system, because that is the reward of this pursuit.

 

[Brighter Hell]

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

Passing legislation is a little more complicated than you picture it,

Do you understand that?

You appear confused.

Get that?

Do you always resort to belittling people's intelligence when they disagree with you?

Yes, minority governments have fallen well within their mandate. The last was Paul Martin's government. Now you are supporting my point. You appear confused.

I'm simply pointing out that FPTP can be just as unstable as existing PR systems, and likely more so in minorities.

IT IS SIMPLY A POINT WORTH MAKING! No?

NO! NOT AT ALL! Because nobody's disagreeing with you. We're not debating minorities vs majorities here, obviously majorities are more stable. So are dictatorships. A strawman perhaps, but there's more to government than stability, which is meaningless without proper representation. In most elections the majority of the population doesn't support any one party in this country, so the question is how do we reflect that fairly in the most stable system possible?

I have pointed out that minority governments don't gaurantee cooperation, effectiveness or stability.

Majority governments have a greater capacity to weather many of these shifts. It ain't rocket science.

Again, You're making arguments where there are none. Nobody's disagreeing with you on those points, there's no need to keep making them.

And yes, there have been suggestions made in this thread that minority representation will "force" parties to cooperate, resulting in stability. I have suggested that this is not a given, or an absolute. So clearly it is you who have failed to read this. That ain't my fault.

I'm repeating the point because you seem to be missing it. It's not the minority itself that forces parties to cooperate, it's the fact that the minority is entrenched. Take away the possibility of getting a majority and politicians are less likely to try to bring down the government, and disagree for the sake of disagreeing. Again, that doesn't guarantee stability, but it can't hurt. It's not strictly theory, stable minority PR governments are more common around the world than unstable ones.

You, on the other hand, can't assume that PR structure will make minority governments more stable or more effective because the specific structure of representation has yet to be chosen or legislated into place! Get that? It ain't happened yet! Understand that? So stating what it will do something along those lines is presently without basis!

As we do not presently have a PR structure in place in this country, and as the structure of this form of representation is yet to be determined either provincially or federally, your accusations are without basis.

Again, you speak of PR as if it is a done deal, of if there is a version upon which everyone is settled. Don't confuse theory with what actually happens on the political side of governing.

It's not without basis at all. It has happened, it's been happening for 150 years, and it's the most common form of democracy in the world. Why do you refuse to look at other countries with perfectly stable PR systems? Do you really think the Citizens Assembly didn't study these governments as part of their research? Mixed member PR systems like the one proposed in Ontario are operating in governments based on the British Parliament model, in New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa, and Wales. Plus Germany and a few other countries. They're all stable AFAIK. It doesn't matter if it hasn't happened in Canada yet.

That being said, there are many PR structures to choose from, and there is nothing wrong with examining them and taking the time to weigh out their strengths or weaknesses. But will the effort result in a perfect system? No, because there is no such thing. Will it automatically result in better government, more effective government, more stable government? I don't think so. Those things are dependent on much more than structure. PR has its risks, but I am willing to take them as part of the parcel for a better democratic system, because that is the reward of this pursuit.

Agreed.

 

[bizorky]

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

Do you always resort to belittling people's intelligence when they disagree with you?

It's unfortunate you are feeling belittled. The problem is that points already covered were being missed, misrepresented or avoided altogether.

I'm simply pointing out that FPTP can be just as unstable as existing PR systems, and likely more so in minorities.

And I have been pointing out that PR systems can result in many more minority governments. Since you appear to agree on some level that minorities can be more unstable, then it is not too clear as to what you have been arguing about.

because nobody's disagreeing with you. We're not debating minorities vs majorities here, obviously majorities are more stable. So are dictatorships. A strawman perhaps, but there's more to government than stability, which is meaningless without proper representation. In most elections the majority of the population doesn't support any one party in this country, so the question is how do we reflect that fairly in the most stable system possible?

Well, actually we have been discussing aspects of minority versus majority in terms of party representation. My original comment was an aside, one pointing out that there was far greater likelihood for minority government situations in PR structure, and that minorities are typically less stable. And yes people, such as yourself, have been disagreeing.

As for dictatorships, maybe you can fill in the details as to what a dictatorship has to do with a discussion on democratic representation.

Yet once again, if you are going to attempt to restate what I have said, you would have noted that I never suggested that only thing of importance to government is stability. But is an issue; one of many.

You then go on to say that stability is meaningless without proper representation. What do you mean by "proper" representation? How extensive is your interpretation of this notion? To what degree? In your opinion, have all previous governments based on FPTP been illegitimate?

Maybe we should opt for direct public participation on legislation. But I am quite sure that there would be many complaints about this approach as well.

As for the public not supporting any one party in an election, how do you know what the majority of people are thinking? If you don't know for sure, then how can you argue for changes to the electoral system of representation on the basis of such a point? The purpose of PR is to give some representation to those who have expressed a specific party preference, and then see no expression of that choice in parliament.

Again, You're making arguments where there are none. Nobody's disagreeing with you on those points, there's no need to keep making them

So stop commenting on it.

It's not without basis at all. It has happened, it's been happening for 150 years, and it's the most common form of democracy in the world. Why do you refuse to look at other countries with perfectly stable PR systems? Do you really think the Citizens Assembly didn't study these governments as part of their research? Mixed member PR systems like the one proposed in Ontario are operating in governments based on the British Parliament model, in New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa, and Wales. Plus Germany and a few other countries. They're all stable AFAIK. It doesn't matter if it hasn't happened in Canada yet

I am talking about Canada. Since we have been talking about introducing PR to Ontario, and to Canada, my comments have been restricted to this country. That should have been clear to you.

As for commenting on what I have or have not looked at, you have no idea, do you? I would not be commenting on the issue if I had no prior knowledge of it. Besides, it's not what other countries do that interest me; it's what we ought to do for ourselves that interests me. What goes on elsewhere has little bearing on the functions or particular issues of our government, or how it is structured or elected in. That is our concern.

 

[Brighter Hell]

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

And I have been pointing out that PR systems can result in many more minority governments. Since you appear to agree on some level that minorities can be more unstable, then it is not too clear as to what you have been arguing about.

Right back at ya. Nowhere on this thread did anyone deny that PR systems can result in more minority governments, so there's no need to keep pointing it out.

My original comment was an aside, one pointing out that there was far greater likelihood for minority government situations in PR structure, and that minorities are typically less stable. And yes people, such as yourself, have been disagreeing.

No I haven't. What people have been saying is that a PR minority can be stable. In fact they usually are, and all the mixed member PR parliaments are stable. They seem to function as well as ours.

You then go on to say that stability is meaningless without proper representation. What do you mean by "proper" representation? How extensive is your interpretation of this notion? To what degree? In your opinion, have all previous governments based on FPTP been illegitimate?

The way you cling to semantics is nothing short of amazing. I used the word "proper" and you jump all over it. You know what I meant, the number of seats being close to the percentage of the popular vote. I never suggested that previous governments were illegitimate. Why would you imply that?

As for the public not supporting any one party in an election, how do you know what the majority of people are thinking? If you don't know for sure, then how can you argue for changes to the electoral system of representation on the basis of such a point?

Election results are freely available to the public. Look them up sometime, it's quite easy. Yes, I'm being facetious, but I seriously don't know what you're getting at. I know who the public supports by looking at election results. There have been only 4 elections since WWI where one party got 50% of the vote (before then it was common).

I am talking about Canada. Since we have been talking about introducing PR to Ontario, and to Canada, my comments have been restricted to this country. That should have been clear to you.

As for commenting on what I have or have not looked at, you have no idea, do you? I would not be commenting on the issue if I had no prior knowledge of it. Besides, it's not what other countries do that interest me; it's what we ought to do for ourselves that interests me. What goes on elsewhere has little bearing on the functions or particular issues of our government, or how it is structured or elected in. That is our concern.

You're getting stuck on semantics again. You may or may not have looked at other countries, my point was that you're ignoring them. Why would you limit yourself to Canada? Are you serious?? When we as a province are researching something that's never been done in Canada, the most obvious sources of information are other countries. Give me one good reason that we should ignore them. You haven't yet.

 

[bizorky]

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

Okay, just to let you know, afransen was the first to mention that a main criticism against PR was agreater liklihood of minority governments. He has a different take on what the outcome could be.

Here is my first mentioning of the topic:

A minority is a minority - regardless of the voting system that creates it. Stability, cooperation, consensus - these all depend on the parties, the members and the issues that have been central to that particular election, so no specific voting system will determine how well a government or a parliament functions.

Altering the system of representation will not automatically guarantee stability. It is an effort to provide more fair voter representation. Let's not confuse the two.

Note that in no way do I argue that all minority situations in and of themselves are less stable. I have stated that stability is dependent on things other than a voting or representational structure - things such as politics, parties, political intentions, ideology, specific issues and the ability for individual parties and players to steer agendas. This is as true of PR system as it is of FPTP. Is that clear enough for you?

The way you cling to semantics is nothing short of amazing. I used the word "proper" and you jump all over it. You know what I meant, the number of seats being close to the percentage of the popular vote. I never suggested that previous governments were illegitimate. Why would you imply that?

With respect to the word "proper" you were unclear. It has nothing to do with me; you should try to qualify your terms a little more clearly - as you have now done so above. The antonyms to "proper" include potential allusions to fakeness or not genuine.

Election results are freely available to the public. Look them up sometime, it's quite easy. Yes, I'm being facetious, but I seriously don't know what you're getting at. I know who the public supports by looking at election results.

I've seen the results, too. But I've also had the opportunity to interview people and ask them about voting decisions. Many people carry out strategic voting (according to their own thinking), vote for a party because of family tradition, vote for a party because of one issue rather than a part of whole platform, vote for the MP who does not belong to the party they actually like, destroy their ballots, vote for who their fathers or husbands tell them to vote for, vote for who their friends vote for, and the like.

That being said, I took your use of the word "people" as being the individuals who go and vote, when in fact you meant the "population." You can see how this confusion could occur. Neverthless, I'm guilty as charged on this one.

I know who the public supports by looking at election results. There have been only 4 elections since WWI where one party got 50% of the vote (before then it was common).

As I have been saying (and agreeing) there are very good reasons to be looking at PR.

You're getting stuck on semantics again. You may or may not have looked at other countries, my point was that you're ignoring them.

I'm not ignoring them at all. They are relevant only to a degree. First, I don't vote in those other countries, so my focus is on this one. It's where my interests lie. Second, there is no PR system in Canada as of yet, so the exact structure is not established. Maybe we should be a little more adventerous and look beyond what other countries do. Third, without the structure in place there is no way to guage the specific impact of the electoral outcomes in terms of parties, politics, participation, cooperation and the like (this is the link to my statements about minorities). Fourth, we could possibly end up with a number of PR systems established in different provinces, some of which could net all kinds of unexpected political happenings. Beyond that, I stand by what I have said because it represents my thinking about this issue. Something you just have to put up with in a democracy.

 

[Brighter Hell]

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

^Come on, you could argue that if another province had PR, the exact structure wouldn't be in place because it's not Ontario. After all, the provinces are pretty autonomous, so the electoral system in another country could very well have more in common with Ontario than Ontario has with another province. Arguing that systems that aren't exactly like what we're proposing, down to every detail, have only limited relevance is pretty ridiculous. Obviously we're focusing on Canada and we vote here, but ideas from other countries are every bit as relevant as ideas from Canada.

The only other point I really feel like debating is this:

Note that in no way do I argue that all minority situations in and of themselves are less stable. I have stated that stability is dependent on things other than a voting or representational structure - things such as politics, parties, political intentions, ideology, specific issues and the ability for individual parties and players to steer agendas. This is as true of PR system as it is of FPTP. Is that clear enough for you?

All those can affect stability, but representational structure should be in the list. Do you disagree that the way the system is designed affects how people use it?

 

[bizorky]

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

Come on, you could argue that if another province had PR, the exact structure wouldn't be in place because it's not Ontario. After all, the provinces are pretty autonomous, so the electoral system in another country could very well have more in common with Ontario than Ontario has with another province. Arguing that systems that aren't exactly like what we're proposing, down to every detail, have only limited relevance is pretty ridiculous.

Maybe you'd like to rephrase this as I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

All those can affect stability, but representational structure should be in the list. Do you disagree that the way the system is designed affects how people use it?

You say it should be on the list, but you don't say why it should be. Why would the type of voting and representational structure affect the MP's of a sitting parliament after an election?

As for the question that follows, I really can't speak on behalf of all voters, nor can you. The present system has seen a significant drop in voter turn out even though the number of parties has arguably increased over the last few years (more so in the province of Quebec). Does that drop in turn out have to do with the electoral system alone? I highly doubt it. Until an election is held with a PR system in place, there is no way to know whether voter turn out will increase on the basis of that change alone.

 

[Brighter Hell]

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

Maybe you'd like to rephrase this as I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

You said the exact structure isn't in place in this country. I said that the idea that other countries' systems whose structures aren't the same in every detail (ie. exact) than what we'd adopt have only limited relevance is ridiculous. Clear enough for you?

Voting in and focusing on this country in now way makes the examples of other countries less relevant.

You say it should be on the list, but you don't say why it should be. Why would the type of voting and representational structure affect the MP's of a sitting parliament after an election?

Those reasons have been covered several times in this thread.

As for the question that follows, I really can't speak on behalf of all voters, nor can you. The present system has seen a significant drop in voter turn out even though the number of parties has arguably increased over the last few years (more so in the province of Quebec). Does that drop in turn out have to do with the electoral system alone?

No. Why would you suggest that?

The way any kind of system is set up affects how people use it, government's no exception. Building a subway line affects how people travel. Changing tax structures affects how people invest. The NHL changing rules affects how the game is played. And changing the structure of government affects how Parliament functions.

 

[bizorky]

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

You said the exact structure isn't in place in this country. I said that the idea that other countries' systems whose structures aren't the same in every detail (ie. exact) than what we'd adopt have only limited relevance is ridiculous. Clear enough for you?

Hey, reread your own original statement. It's more than a little convoluted. Consider what I said ridiculous all you want to - if you think it worthy or ridicule. But going beyond your contempt, since a PR system could be my voting and representational system, too, I think I and everyone else can raise all the criticisms and defintional problems we like. You don't just do things because other people do them, you have to have good reasons for doing so. You appear to bridle at the very idea of asking critical questions about moving into the process. Too bad.

No. Why would you suggest that?

You keep asking for an accounting of what other people may be doing or thinking.

The way any kind of system is set up affects how people use it, government's no exception. Building a subway line affects how people travel. Changing tax structures affects how people invest. The NHL changing rules affects how the game is played. And changing the structure of government affects how Parliament functions.

The comparison is so extremely superficial that it is meaningless. Changing the tax structure does not affect how NHL games are played, building subways does not affect how the tax structure is to be changed, and how people invest does not affect how parliament functions.

Just stick with the subject at hand.

 

[jordancerovic]

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

The purpose of PR is to give some representation to those who have expressed a specific party preference, and then see no expression of that choice in parliament.

This is a gross simplification. The purpose of PR is to give representation to those parties which have broad support but lack high concentrations of support in given arbitrary geographical areas, procluding them from having the amount of representation their share of the overall vote would indicate they should. It is not a zero-sum game where people either see their votes represented or not represented. The crucial part is the degree to which it is represented, and whether it's commensurate with that party's overall share of the vote. FPTP rewards parties that have specific geographical power bases and punishes parties that lack such bases but have broad-based support. PR certainly isn't perfect, but I don't understand how you can dispute that it's more equitable in this regard.

As for the question that follows, I really can't speak on behalf of all voters, nor can you. The present system has seen a significant drop in voter turn out even though the number of parties has arguably increased over the last few years (more so in the province of Quebec). Does that drop in turn out have to do with the electoral system alone? I highly doubt it. Until an election is held with a PR system in place, there is no way to know whether voter turn out will increase on the basis of that change alone.

You contradict yourself. If we cannot attribute the drop in voter turnout to the system, as you correctly point out, then we couldn't attribute any changes in turnout solely to a change of electoral systems, could we? The issue does not become any less complex after a change of systems. If anything, the transition itself introduces all kind of complicating factors.

I've seen the results, too. But I've also had the opportunity to interview people and ask them about voting decisions. Many people carry out strategic voting (according to their own thinking), vote for a party because of family tradition, vote for a party because of one issue rather than a part of whole platform, vote for the MP who does not belong to the party they actually like, destroy their ballots, vote for who their fathers or husbands tell them to vote for, vote for who their friends vote for, and the like.

So what you're saying is that people vote the way they do for many different reasons. People would continue to do so in a PR system. I do not see how this is relevant to a discussion of the structural stability of PR as opposed to FPTP, except in that the set of external influences on voters changes, but it is an ever-changing set to begin with.

I'm not ignoring them at all. They are relevant only to a degree. First, I don't vote in those other countries, so my focus is on this one. It's where my interests lie. Second, there is no PR system in Canada as of yet, so the exact structure is not established. Maybe we should be a little more adventerous and look beyond what other countries do. Third, without the structure in place there is no way to guage the specific impact of the electoral outcomes in terms of parties, politics, participation, cooperation and the like (this is the link to my statements about minorities).

It sure seems that you are ignoring them on the flimsy pretext that their situations aren't 100% identical to our own. And while we certainly can't know the specific impacts a switch to PR would bring right here right now, why can't we make predictions based on the effects the theory and practice of PR around the world has had? Because they are not the same down to the very last detail? What does this matter? We are postulating general causes and effects, not specific ones. This strikes me as a rather weak argument from your end.

Hey, reread your own original statement. It's more than a little convoluted.

Funny, I found it rather easy to understand what he was saying.

 

[EnviroTO]

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

Enviro - a PR minority is more stable than a FPTP minority because the incentinve to constantly try to bring down the government in a PR system just isn't there, for reasons that have been covered.

The government is brought down to increase the power of those who wished the government to fall. I don't see the "reasons that have been covered" which show that in a PR system this motivation is removed. Why would these parties all of a sudden not care about powere? If there is a swing in the polls to support parties that were less represented then there will be an incentive to want to bring down the government. More viable parties with more balanced levels of support would increase the stability of a minority government but that balanced support is what would bring stability, not the electoral system.

 

[bizorky]

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

You contradict yourself. If we cannot attribute the drop in voter turnout to the system, as you correctly point out, then we couldn't attribute any changes in turnout solely to a change of electoral systems, could we? The issue does not become any less complex after a change of systems. If anything, the transition itself introduces all kind of complicating factors.

I am not contradicting myself as there is nothing with which to create a contradicition. There is no PR system in place to alter voter habits - should such a change actually generate some change in voter habits. In other words, it's up in the air as to what could happen. That is what I am getting at.

So what you're saying is that people vote the way they do for many different reasons. People would continue to do so in a PR system. I do not see how this is relevant to a discussion of the structural stability of PR as opposed to FPTP, except in that the set of external influences on voters changes, but it is an ever-changing set to begin with.

You left out the last few sentences that followed. The quote you cited was a clarification in communication between Brighter Hell and myself. It had to do with the use of the word "people" in the singular and plural sense. If you had read the following sentences you probably would not have felt compelled to make a comment.

It sure seems that you are ignoring them on the flimsy pretext that their situations aren't 100% identical to our own. And while we certainly can't know the specific impacts a switch to PR would bring right here right now, why can't we make predictions based on the effects the theory and practice of PR around the world has had? Because they are not the same down to the very last detail? What does this matter? We are postulating general causes and effects, not specific ones. This strikes me as a rather weak argument from your end.

I am not ignoring them at all. As for the "flimsy" pretext, until we have selected one such system, or created one of our own, a PR system does not exist here, so we don't know what the impacts are, major, minor, or out of the ballpark, do we? If you want to engage in speculation, knock yourself out. Just don't call it "proof" for this electoral environment. As for your judgement concerning my argument, believe it or not, I was not looking to satisfy you.

Funny, I found it rather easy to understand what he was saying.

Good for you.