Results 1 to 66 of 66

Thread: Electoral Reform - Federal Elections

  1. #1

    Default Electoral Reform - Federal Elections

    Special Committee on Electoral Reform

    On Tuesday, June 7, 2016, the House created this Special Committee. Learn about this Committee.

    For more information about the Canadian Electoral System, please consult this document: The Canadian Electoral System.

    For more information about the different electoral systems, please consult this document: Electoral Systems and Electoral Reform in Canada.

    PARTICIPATE in the study.

    http://www.parl.gc.ca/Committees/en/ERRE

    Good articles on the never ending debate:


    Debate over electoral reform about values
    By: Tom McIntosh
    Posted: 08/31/2016

    Currently, a Parliamentary committee considering changes to the Canadian electoral system is holding hearings and gathering testimony from experts near and far. Simultaneously, proponents of both the current "first past the post" (FPTP) and various proportional representation (PR) models have taken to the newspapers, social media and the blogosphere to engage in a debate that is mystifying in its obscurantism.

    The problem is the two sides are not really debating, but arguing past each other. They argue about the mechanics of various models, the possible scenarios different models might bring about and, mostly, they argue the other side fails to really understand the model they would either throw out or keep in place.

    "It does not do that because you fail to understand that we do not elect governments, we hold 300-plus individual elections to choose representatives and those representatives then form a government. That’s how Canadian democracy works," reply the FPTPers.

    The thing is, the FPTPers are right. ...

    The reason PR is supported by many in Canada is precisely because it elevates a somewhat different set of values that are attractive to many.

    Since 1867, our conception of what constituted democracy in Canada has..."

    http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opi...391834921.html





    Electoral Reform Could Come At The Cost Of Our National Unity
    Posted: 08/30/2016

    ...
    This brief history demonstrates that regional or single-issue parties can secure seats under our FPTP system, but it also shows that without a willingness to grow beyond their narrow appeal they generally fade away. A move to Proportional Representation would actually discourage the consensus building that has been the hallmark of our parliamentary democracy and lead to a narrowing of interests that we see causing disruption in other parts of the world.

    A PR system would set a threshold (of seats or popular vote) that once passed would allow regional or single-issue parties to join the House of Commons even when they fail to elect an MP in a riding. Once these parties gain the legitimacy provided in the House of Commons and the financial resources that come with it, their motivation will be to perpetuate their narrow views and horse trade with other parties in shifting coalitions.

    This has certainly been the experience in New Zealand, which...


    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/erin-ot..._11765028.html




  2. #2

    Default Electoral Reform

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Special Committee on Electoral Reform

    On Tuesday, June 7, 2016, the House created this Special Committee. Learn about this Committee.

    For more information about the Canadian Electoral System, please consult this document: The Canadian Electoral System.

    For more information about the different electoral systems, please consult this document: Electoral Systems and Electoral Reform in Canada.

    PARTICIPATE in the study.

    http://www.parl.gc.ca/Committees/en/ERRE

    Good articles on the never ending debate:


    Debate over electoral reform about values
    By: Tom McIntosh
    Posted: 08/31/2016

    Currently, a Parliamentary committee considering changes to the Canadian electoral system is holding hearings and gathering testimony from experts near and far. Simultaneously, proponents of both the current "first past the post" (FPTP) and various proportional representation (PR) models have taken to the newspapers, social media and the blogosphere to engage in a debate that is mystifying in its obscurantism.

    The problem is the two sides are not really debating, but arguing past each other. They argue about the mechanics of various models, the possible scenarios different models might bring about and, mostly, they argue the other side fails to really understand the model they would either throw out or keep in place.

    "It does not do that because you fail to understand that we do not elect governments, we hold 300-plus individual elections to choose representatives and those representatives then form a government. That’s how Canadian democracy works," reply the FPTPers.

    The thing is, the FPTPers are right. ...

    The reason PR is supported by many in Canada is precisely because it elevates a somewhat different set of values that are attractive to many.

    Since 1867, our conception of what constituted democracy in Canada has..."

    http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opi...391834921.html





    Electoral Reform Could Come At The Cost Of Our National Unity
    Posted: 08/30/2016

    ...
    This brief history demonstrates that regional or single-issue parties can secure seats under our FPTP system, but it also shows that without a willingness to grow beyond their narrow appeal they generally fade away. A move to Proportional Representation would actually discourage the consensus building that has been the hallmark of our parliamentary democracy and lead to a narrowing of interests that we see causing disruption in other parts of the world.

    A PR system would set a threshold (of seats or popular vote) that once passed would allow regional or single-issue parties to join the House of Commons even when they fail to elect an MP in a riding. Once these parties gain the legitimacy provided in the House of Commons and the financial resources that come with it, their motivation will be to perpetuate their narrow views and horse trade with other parties in shifting coalitions.

    This has certainly been the experience in New Zealand, which...


    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/erin-ot..._11765028.html

    I have always thought electoral reform should start first with the unelected legislative body, rather than the elected one. I think it would make sense to try proportional representation first in the Senate. Of course, there is the issue of the distribution of the number of seats in the Senate (where the west is under represented) that would also have to be addressed at the same time, but I believe this is a mathematical issue. I don't buy into the conventional wisdom that the Senate is not reformable. Obviously triple E does not work for some provinces and the current distribution does not work for others, but there is probably some numerical distribution in between that is reasonably fair, that most provinces could probably live with.

  3. #3
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,422

    Default

    I don't really care whatever form our new electoral system takes, I will just be happy to never use FPTP ever again. So outdated!

  4. #4

    Default

    Surprise, surprise, realizing that all the research shows the ranked voting wouldn't improve our electoral system, that only proportional representation would (which would likely prevent a future majority government for the Liberals, unlike ranked voting which would cement Liberal governments forever), Trudeau is now backing away from electoral reform:

    Nathan Cullen, the NDP's democratic reform critic, said Trudeau promised electoral reform during the election one year ago when he needed progressive voters to support him.

    "Why make the promise, why back away from it now? Well, because the system that is broken now works for him. That's the only conclusion one can come to. And why did he make the promise in the first place?" Cullen said after question period. "To get elected."

    "This is a longstanding policy of the NDP," he added. "This was part of a package to attract particularly progressive voters over, and in large extent it worked."

    "The expectation though from Canadians is that he actually follows through on this commitment."

    Francis Scarpaleggia, the Liberal MP who chairs the electoral reform committee, said it's a complex issue, with supporters of change proposing several different systems with a number of variations, and that the MPs are going to continue to do their work.
    http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-ba...?autoPlay=true

  5. #5

    Default

    "We're not going to prejudge that it's necessary," Trudeau told Le Devoir.

    The prime minister suggested Canadians are happier with the existing system now that Stephen Harper is out of office.

    "With the current system, they now have a government with which they're happier. And the need to change the electoral system is less compelling," Trudeau said.

    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  6. #6
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    So in other words, the system is fine now that the Liberals are in power. I would say that this is unfreaking believable, except it was completely predictable.

  7. #7

    Default

    I expect every governing party to make mistakes and eventually break down, but this is a monumental disaster very early on. This is the type of gaffe that could cost Trudeau a 2nd term.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  8. #8

    Default

    Anything that keeps the CONS away from power is good by me!

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    I expect every governing party to make mistakes and eventually break down, but this is a monumental disaster very early on. This is the type of gaffe that could cost Trudeau a 2nd term.
    Idoubtthatbutitmakeshimlook...weak.Andwhyismyspace barnotworkingwiththissite?

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Man From YEG View Post
    Anything that keeps the CONS away from power is good by me!
    A government should last because it's good, not because of bad rules. I don't know if electoral reform is the right answer, or what version it should take if it happened, but he campaigned on it and it earned him a lot of fringe votes with the hopes that it would earn those fringe parties their fair voice at the table in future elections, and this takes a crap all over that. No person should feel like they aren't being represented, even if their views are different than mine.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  11. #11
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    "Anything that keeps the CONS away from power is good by me!"
    Really? Anything? Do you even think before you post?

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Man From YEG View Post
    Anything that keeps the CONS away from power is good by me!
    So how does keeping the status quo, which means they could win a total majority with 39% of the vote just like Trudeau did, keeping the "CONS" away from power?

    I think this is smart by Trudeau, albeit unethical. Only 14% of Canadians consider electoral reform a significant issue. Its awkward though for a future Liberal government, when the Conservatives are in power. They won't be able to pull this argument again, given they are selling out electoral reform now, because they know the only valid recommendation is proportional representation (which will end their power, which per Trudeau, we all love so much).
    Last edited by moahunter; 20-10-2016 at 03:14 PM.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    "Anything that keeps the CONS away from power is good by me!"
    Really? Anything? Do you even think before you post?
    Yep, because unlike you I will never vote CON, Wildrose or PC

  14. #14

    Default

    It could just be a sneaky plan by Trudeau to make a totally useless system like ranked ballots, which is not proportional at all and biased towards centrist parties at expense of parties like NDP, more palatable.

    If, after all, you were preparing to renege on one of the central promises in your platform, a black-letter pledge (“2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system”) that allowed no possible room for weaselling, would you not begin by suggesting it was not your own support for the idea that had wavered, but the public’s?

    Or, if you were trying to steer the discussion towards some less-than-real reform, something that could be presented as change but that did not begin to meet your oft-stated commitment to “make every vote count” — something like ranked ballots, Trudeau’s original preference and the option widely held to be most favourable to the Liberals — would you not try to plant the idea that this was the only reform that could pass muster with the public?

    Or, if you had decided to kill reform outright, but did not want your fingerprints to be found at the scene, would it not be convenient to hand the murder weapon to the public? Would you not discover a desire for some tangible expression of the “substantial support” for reform Trudeau now regards as essential, his own election on precisely that platform no longer being sufficient? Might you then reluctantly accede to demands for, say, a referendum?
    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...ectoral-reform

  15. #15
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    YEG, an open mind is a wonderful thing, a closed one is just sad. I've personally voted Liberal provincially more often than Conservative. I am also a big fan of Jean Chretien. Obviously, I'm a conservative but I try to see things from a variety of perspectives. To say you would agree to anything to keep a party out of power is both scary and pathetic.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JBear View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    I expect every governing party to make mistakes and eventually break down, but this is a monumental disaster very early on. This is the type of gaffe that could cost Trudeau a 2nd term.
    Idoubtthatbutitmakeshimlook...weak.Andwhyismyspace barnotworkingwiththissite?
    I really doubt it. First, it doesn't seem to matter that much to voters most who seem fairly comfortable with the current election system - first past the post. It is not perfect, but every other system also has strengths and weaknesses. Second, there didn't seem to be any consensus on what would replace the current election system such as ranked transferable ballot or proportional representation . The NDP and Conservatives had different preferences to the Liberals, nor did there seem any consensus or likelihood of consensus in the public at large.

    Therefore, it is quite likely that what happened in BC on this issue could have happened Federally if a referendum were held - either no option would receive majority support or the proposed option would not meet the threshold required. Perhaps Trudeau actually did us a favour here, by not wasting a lot of time and money only for us to end up no further ahead.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    YEG, an open mind is a wonderful thing, a closed one is just sad. I've personally voted Liberal provincially more often than Conservative. I am also a big fan of Jean Chretien. Obviously, I'm a conservative but I try to see things from a variety of perspectives. To say you would agree to anything to keep a party out of power is both scary and pathetic.
    I use the term CON on purpose because as far as I am concerned the Harper brand of politics was and is the CON and they need to be kept out of power by any means possible. I supported Richard Clippingdale in the Ottawa nomination years ago when another CON-type named Mulroney parachuted in Richard de Cotret for that nomination.

    I have zero respect for the present CON federally and their provincial cohorts, the Wildrose. The PCs got what they deserved.

  18. #18

    Default Electoral Reform Committee to Recommend Referendum

    Makes sense. The Liberals dream of banging through a non-proportional system like ranked ballots looks dead, thankfully- we can have a proper vote on the only real alternative that makes sense, which will be a proportional system like MMP:

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/elect...ndum-1.3175262

    In the measure agreed to Thursday morning, the committee notes the overwhelming majority of those who want to change the system prefer proportional representation. It recommends a referendum that includes the current first-past-the-post system as an option, along with an alternative system.

    The government would design the new system to be put to referendum before the referendum campaign starts, according to the committee’s recommendation. The recommendation sets a benchmark for the alternative proposal according to the Gallagher index, a scale designed to measure the difference between ballots cast and seats won.
    Under MMP, Trudeau would have minority government right now.

  19. #19
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Makes sense. The Liberals dream of banging through a non-proportional system like ranked ballots looks dead, thankfully- we can have a proper vote on the only real alternative that makes sense, which will be a proportional system like MMP:

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/elect...ndum-1.3175262

    In the measure agreed to Thursday morning, the committee notes the overwhelming majority of those who want to change the system prefer proportional representation. It recommends a referendum that includes the current first-past-the-post system as an option, along with an alternative system.

    The government would design the new system to be put to referendum before the referendum campaign starts, according to the committee’s recommendation. The recommendation sets a benchmark for the alternative proposal according to the Gallagher index, a scale designed to measure the difference between ballots cast and seats won.
    Under MMP, Trudeau would have minority government right now.
    If he was a minority government, the Muppet would have to stay home, he's such a con artist, he makes me puke.

  20. #20
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,422

    Default

    I was reading that even if a referendum is held, it's likely not going to be a simple yes / no ballot. The question is how can they make the ballot most fair? Perhaps a ranked ballot? Lol

  21. #21

    Default Electoral Reform is Toast - Thank Goodness

    If the government takes up this recommendation, which is more than possible, this means electoral reform is toast. If there is a referendum, the status quo will prevail. Plus Elections Canada boss Marc Mayrand has said there’s no time to hold both a referendum and then change the system in advance of the 2019 election. And so: Trudeau will have broken his promise.

    Does this matter? Well, you tell me. How many people in your life were grousing on and on about our supposedly unfair and inequitable electoral system? I’m going to guess slim to zero, unless you work at a progressive think-tank or live in Toronto’s Annex neighbourhood.

    ...

    So when word got around that Trudeau was actually thinking of changing the way we’ve successfully voted since Confederation, a lot of regular people wondered what was going on. The Conservatives delivered an effective messaging campaign to the people about the hastiness of electoral reform and why it looked like the centre-left was just trying to switch to a voting system that would likely favour them.

    Polls from the past year have consistently shown a staggering majority of Canadians want a referendum. The Liberals are poised to listen to these people. If they do, good for them. And good riddance to electoral reform.
    http://www.torontosun.com/2016/12/01...thank-goodness

    In other words, its not really in the Liberals or Conservatives interest to change to proportional representation, as both parties gain power beyond their vote when they win. The Liberals suggestion of ranked voting, which is even less proportional than the current system (i.e. would hurt the Greens and NDP more), is clearly now dead.

  22. #22

    Default

    Instead of electoral reform, I would rather see some of the Prime Minister's powers reduced.

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    If the government takes up this recommendation, which is more than possible, this means electoral reform is toast. If there is a referendum, the status quo will prevail. Plus Elections Canada boss Marc Mayrand has said there’s no time to hold both a referendum and then change the system in advance of the 2019 election. And so: Trudeau will have broken his promise.

    Does this matter? Well, you tell me. How many people in your life were grousing on and on about our supposedly unfair and inequitable electoral system? I’m going to guess slim to zero, unless you work at a progressive think-tank or live in Toronto’s Annex neighbourhood.

    ...

    So when word got around that Trudeau was actually thinking of changing the way we’ve successfully voted since Confederation, a lot of regular people wondered what was going on. The Conservatives delivered an effective messaging campaign to the people about the hastiness of electoral reform and why it looked like the centre-left was just trying to switch to a voting system that would likely favour them.

    Polls from the past year have consistently shown a staggering majority of Canadians want a referendum. The Liberals are poised to listen to these people. If they do, good for them. And good riddance to electoral reform.
    http://www.torontosun.com/2016/12/01...thank-goodness

    In other words, its not really in the Liberals or Conservatives interest to change to proportional representation, as both parties gain power beyond their vote when they win. The Liberals suggestion of ranked voting, which is even less proportional than the current system (i.e. would hurt the Greens and NDP more), is clearly now dead.
    Sometimes you put something up the flag pole and if it just doesn't fly - then that is the answer. Do Canadians have a burning desire to reform the electoral system? No, not really. The Liberals never really wanted a referendum and if no one is really clamoring for it, then why waste the time and money to have it, if the answer is people are generally ok with the status quo. There was an opportunity for the parties to come to an agreement about electoral reform, but they are as divided about it as Canadians - except Canadians care even less. Maybe at sometime in the future this will become an issue and then changes will happen - or maybe not.

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Sometimes you put something up the flag pole and if it just doesn't fly - then that is the answer. Do Canadians have a burning desire to reform the electoral system? No, not really.
    The Liberals wanted an amendment which was not an improvement compared to the current system, ranked voting. That system would have got them an even bigger majority than FPP, despite winning less than half the proportional vote. Now, the committee who researched this, came to the same conclusion I presented earlier in this thread, which is that proportional representation is the only valid alternative to the current system. And they are mocked for that conclusion (presumably because the primary beneficiaries of that system will be the NDP and Greens):

    On June 16, 2015, as he announced a broad agenda for political reform, Justin Trudeau declared that his Liberals were "committed to ensuring that the 2015 election will be the last federal election using first-past-the-post."

    Standing behind him were a few dozen Liberal candidates who applauded in agreement, including Maryam Monsef, prominently positioned to Trudeau's right and smiling, no doubt blissfully unaware of what that commitment would mean for her.

    ...

    The Liberals could also simply walk away. And they might get away with it without suffering great harm. At least so long as they don't seem insultingly cynical or brutish in doing so.

    But a prime minister who stood in front of a chalkboard decorated with algebra and proudly explained quantum computing to reporters might want to question the sight of his minister in the House mocking the equation used by some academics to measure the results of electoral systems.

    And Trudeau might want to worry that electoral reform could leave a promising minister with lasting political scars.
    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/showt...ectoral+reform

    Its funny how this thread has gone deathly silent about the need for electoral reform, now all of a sudden the Liberal party realizes its not in their parties best interest to pursue further... at least, not worth pursuing now that they have a majority that a minority of Canadians voted for. No doubt if the Conservatives ever win a majority again, electoral reform will be taken up again by the Liberal party...
    Last edited by moahunter; 02-12-2016 at 10:15 AM.

  25. #25
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,167

    Default

    I'm glad Mosef apologized. What a ride little snit she is. She was on CTV QP, and acted like Trudeau himself!

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Sometimes you put something up the flag pole and if it just doesn't fly - then that is the answer. Do Canadians have a burning desire to reform the electoral system? No, not really.
    The Liberals wanted an amendment which was not an improvement compared to the current system, ranked voting. That system would have got them an even bigger majority than FPP, despite winning less than half the proportional vote. Now, the committee who researched this, came to the same conclusion I presented earlier in this thread, which is that proportional representation is the only valid alternative to the current system. And they are mocked for that conclusion (presumably because the primary beneficiaries of that system will be the NDP and Greens):

    On June 16, 2015, as he announced a broad agenda for political reform, Justin Trudeau declared that his Liberals were "committed to ensuring that the 2015 election will be the last federal election using first-past-the-post."

    Standing behind him were a few dozen Liberal candidates who applauded in agreement, including Maryam Monsef, prominently positioned to Trudeau's right and smiling, no doubt blissfully unaware of what that commitment would mean for her.

    ...

    The Liberals could also simply walk away. And they might get away with it without suffering great harm. At least so long as they don't seem insultingly cynical or brutish in doing so.

    But a prime minister who stood in front of a chalkboard decorated with algebra and proudly explained quantum computing to reporters might want to question the sight of his minister in the House mocking the equation used by some academics to measure the results of electoral systems.

    And Trudeau might want to worry that electoral reform could leave a promising minister with lasting political scars.
    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/showt...ectoral+reform

    Its funny how this thread has gone deathly silent about the need for electoral reform, now all of a sudden the Liberal party realizes its not in their parties best interest to pursue further... at least, not worth pursuing now that they have a majority that a minority of Canadians voted for. No doubt if the Conservatives ever win a majority again, electoral reform will be taken up again by the Liberal party...
    I think the hope was that the committee would come up with a clear recommendation, but it seems to have come up with something like "this might work and here are 5 possible variations on that - someone else should pick what would be best" I think the liberals have been consistent in not wanting a referendum and I think there are good reasons to not go this route, including that if you have to pick from numerous options it is unlikely any one will get majority support.

    I suppose we could go further down the path and have a referendum - Meech Lake, Charlottetown Accord, those were so much fun (haha), they failed and the nation was so divided after them. Not much was accomplished except wasting a lot of time and money. Perhaps sometimes it is wiser to know when not to proceed further.

  27. #27

    Default 'A dating website designed by Fidel Castro': Opposition blasts Liberal electoral reform survey

    ^not true, they came up with two variants of proportional representation. But they didn't support the system the Liberals keep trying to force down Canadians throats, ranked ballots, which is a system that is less proportional than our current system. Now, the Liberals are trying to manipulate with a survey, there is a certain irony in a party that was opposed to the long form census being a survey, now trying to use a survey to avoid a referendum / push their preferred electoral system:

    Conservative MP Scott Reid said MyDemocracy.ca "feels like being on a dating website designed by Fidel Castro."

    "No matter how hard someone tries to be against the prime minister's preferred electoral system, the survey tells them that they really do support it. It is like magic," he said.

    Green Party Leader Elizabeth May made a similar dating site comparison after checking out the survey, which asks Canadians about their values, preferences and priorities for a political system, but not about what specific model they prefer.

    "I thought it was a dating survey. They forgot 'do you like pina coladas and taking walks in the rain?'" May tweeted.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mons...form-1.3882359

    Take the survey here. If you want proportional representation, I think select choices that talk about co-operation between parties, and following the party ahead of personal views. If you want status quo or ranked ballots, choose choices that emphasize "accountability", "local representation" and keeping out "extremism".

    https://www.mydemocracy.ca

    Oddly there is no question on whether Canadians should have the right to vote on any electoral system change.
    Last edited by moahunter; 06-12-2016 at 09:43 AM.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^not true, they came up with two variants of proportional representation. But they didn't support the system the Liberals keep trying to force down Canadians throats, ranked ballots, which is a system that is less proportional than our current system. Now, the Liberals are trying to manipulate with a survey, there is a certain irony in a party that was opposed to the long form census being a survey, now trying to use a survey to avoid a referendum / push their preferred electoral system:

    Conservative MP Scott Reid said MyDemocracy.ca "feels like being on a dating website designed by Fidel Castro."

    "No matter how hard someone tries to be against the prime minister's preferred electoral system, the survey tells them that they really do support it. It is like magic," he said.

    Green Party Leader Elizabeth May made a similar dating site comparison after checking out the survey, which asks Canadians about their values, preferences and priorities for a political system, but not about what specific model they prefer.

    "I thought it was a dating survey. They forgot 'do you like pina coladas and taking walks in the rain?'" May tweeted.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mons...form-1.3882359

    Take the survey here. If you want proportional representation, I think select choices that talk about co-operation between parties, and following the party ahead of personal views. If you want status quo or ranked ballots, choose choices that emphasize "accountability", "local representation" and keeping out "extremism".

    https://www.mydemocracy.ca

    Oddly there is no question on whether Canadians should have the right to vote on any electoral system change.
    That Conservative MP seems to have a strange fascination here with the Cuban leader. He should look at the news, there are two very obvious problems with what he said - Castro's not dating and he's dead.

    You would think the Conservatives would be happy here - they preferred the current system and it seems like it will remain for a while. Perhaps they confuse being the opposition with being cranky and complaining about everything, or perhaps they believe they had better consultation websites when they were in power.

  29. #29

    Default

    ^The Conservatives, Greens and NDP are all concerned that the Liberals will make a change to ranked ballots with no referendum. That change would not be supported by the commission they just had, and would result in a system that is heavily rigged in the Liberal parties favor. They would have received an even larger majority last election, despite winning only 40% of vote.

  30. #30

    Default

    Yes, it seems to be one of the few things the opposition parties can agree upon - they all dislike the governments ideas. However, they seem to have no agreement between themselves as to what the better alternative system would be, which is part of the reason there will likely be no change to the current electoral system.

  31. #31
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,476

    Default

    The survey and the government behind it are disingenuously suggesting that ballots would become too complex for some people to know what they are voting for under a proportional representation system. That is nonsense. It would be entirely possible to implement a MMP system with no changes whatsoever to the ballot format or the way people vote. All that is required is some extra adding (of the votes received by all candidates representing each party across each province) and dividing (by the number of candidates that each party has elected + 1, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Hondt_method) to allocate the top-up seats. One could take the results of any past election and determine what the House would look have looked like with 15-25% more MPs, selected by this method.

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    The survey and the government behind it are disingenuously suggesting that ballots would become too complex for some people to know what they are voting for under a proportional representation system. That is nonsense. It would be entirely possible to implement a MMP system with no changes whatsoever to the ballot format or the way people vote. All that is required is some extra adding (of the votes received by all candidates representing each party across each province) and dividing (by the number of candidates that each party has elected + 1, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Hondt_method) to allocate the top-up seats. One could take the results of any past election and determine what the House would look have looked like with 15-25% more MPs, selected by this method.
    I think one of the trade offs for many other systems is more complexity. Yes, perhaps you could keep the existing structure so nothing would change on the surface and the ballot would look much the same, but it wouldn't be the same. You would also be voting for that plus 1 or whatever in addition to your MP. It could give parties even more control over MP's, as some would not be directly responsible to a constituency. It would also affect the size of constituencies - presumably the number would have to be reduced to allow for the proportionately elected MP's.

    Personally if we were to go that way, I would prefer a more complicated ballot, so it would be clear exactly who or what I am voting for rather than trying to obscure or hide it from the voters in the name of simplicity. It is possible that some voters might vote for a certain person for their MP, because they feel they are a good candidate, but they are not so enthusiastic about the party. If you are going to choose MP's both ways, then I think you should be able to vote for both ways then.

  33. #33
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,476

    Default

    ^ A two part ballot where you could pick your favorite local candidate and your favorite party separately is still not overly complicated. It would be simpler than the ranked ballot system initially favored by the Liberal party.

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^ A two part ballot where you could pick your favorite local candidate and your favorite party separately is still not overly complicated. It would be simpler than the ranked ballot system initially favored by the Liberal party.
    I suppose you could have a ranked ballot, where instead of putting an X, say voters put 1,2 and possibly 3 in the boxes which doesn't seem very complicated to me either. However, in both cases the complication is not so much in the marking the ballot as understanding the impact your vote would have. For instance, for the second choice the voters should also have to information about the party level candidates in order to make a well informed decision, so you wouldn't just be following a local race, but possibly a provincial one too. I think generally people are more interested in local issues and local candidates, so I am not sure the provincial level would get the attention deserved. However, I am not saying any of this is not possible, but it is fair to say it is more complicated than the current system and there are pluses and minuses to every alternative.

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^ A two part ballot where you could pick your favorite local candidate and your favorite party separately is still not overly complicated. It would be simpler than the ranked ballot system initially favored by the Liberal party.
    Agreed my home country New Zealand shifted to this system, MMP, and its one of the two proposed by the committee (the other, is a similar variant). If New Zealanders can figure out that the party vote is the most important one, I'm sure Canadians could. New Zealanders voted for it in a referendum as well, so a clear mandate to do it. I prefer FPP, but if we change, then I think clearly MMP is the best option. The nice thing with MMP is it doesn't matter if you live in a safe seat, or a swing seat, your vote counts exactly the same (subject to the regional checks that they would likely put in place on the party votes).

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^ A two part ballot where you could pick your favorite local candidate and your favorite party separately is still not overly complicated. It would be simpler than the ranked ballot system initially favored by the Liberal party.
    Agreed my home country New Zealand shifted to this system, MMP, and its one of the two proposed by the committee (the other, is a similar variant). If New Zealanders can figure out that the party vote is the most important one, I'm sure Canadians could. New Zealanders voted for it in a referendum as well, so a clear mandate to do it. I prefer FPP, but if we change, then I think clearly MMP is the best option. The nice thing with MMP is it doesn't matter if you live in a safe seat, or a swing seat, your vote counts exactly the same (subject to the regional checks that they would likely put in place on the party votes).
    I have always thought that we should experiment with a new system for the Senate first, rather than the House of Commons. It is currently unelected, so arguably any elected system would be an improvement. As Senators are generally appointed by province, rather than by specific electoral district it would be easier to change to a proportional system by province. One problem with MMP for the House of Commons (and to be fair every system has different problems) is it would probably require reducing the number of constituencies where MP's are directly elected, so the constituency size would increase. It's not a big concern in urban areas, but in rural less populated areas the constituencies are already physically quite large. Maybe its not a big problem in New Zealand, but here in Canada which is physically the second largest nation in the world, it would be a problem.

    I am not sure of the history of how MMP came about in New Zealand. I wonder if there was a sense of a clear problem and a clear alternative, so change occurred. I get the feeling we don't have the sense of either right now in Canada.

  37. #37
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,476

    Default

    ^Constituency sizes wouldn't need to increase by much. Reserving 25% of the seats for the "top up" would produce a highly proportional result in most cases, while even 15% would raise the threshold for a majority government to ~45% of the popular vote.

  38. #38

    Default

    The Senate could be set up with it's members distributed based on popular vote in each province, or just as the top-up house for each province. It would be interesting to see a Senate full of liberals from Alberta and conservatives from the maritimes, and almost always in opposition to the house government, and with just as strong a mandate.
    There can only be one.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    The Senate could be set up with it's members distributed based on popular vote in each province, or just as the top-up house for each province. It would be interesting to see a Senate full of liberals from Alberta and conservatives from the maritimes, and almost always in opposition to the house government, and with just as strong a mandate.
    I don't know if it would always be in opposition to the house, but it could happen and the legitimacy of being popularly elected would provide more of a check to the house (or perhaps more specifically to the PM).

  40. #40
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,167

    Default

    He is backing away, its a joke!

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^ A two part ballot where you could pick your favorite local candidate and your favorite party separately is still not overly complicated. It would be simpler than the ranked ballot system initially favored by the Liberal party.
    Agreed my home country New Zealand shifted to this system, MMP, and its one of the two proposed by the committee (the other, is a similar variant). If New Zealanders can figure out that the party vote is the most important one, I'm sure Canadians could. New Zealanders voted for it in a referendum as well, so a clear mandate to do it. I prefer FPP, but if we change, then I think clearly MMP is the best option. The nice thing with MMP is it doesn't matter if you live in a safe seat, or a swing seat, your vote counts exactly the same (subject to the regional checks that they would likely put in place on the party votes).
    I have always thought that we should experiment with a new system for the Senate first, rather than the House of Commons. It is currently unelected, so arguably any elected system would be an improvement. As Senators are generally appointed by province, rather than by specific electoral district it would be easier to change to a proportional system by province. One problem with MMP for the House of Commons (and to be fair every system has different problems) is it would probably require reducing the number of constituencies where MP's are directly elected, so the constituency size would increase. It's not a big concern in urban areas, but in rural less populated areas the constituencies are already physically quite large. Maybe its not a big problem in New Zealand, but here in Canada which is physically the second largest nation in the world, it would be a problem.

    I am not sure of the history of how MMP came about in New Zealand. I wonder if there was a sense of a clear problem and a clear alternative, so change occurred. I get the feeling we don't have the sense of either right now in Canada.

    Interesting...

    Electoral reform in New Zealand

    Up until the 2004 local elections, all territorial authorities were elected using the bloc vote (although often referred to as first-past-the-post). In 2004, at the discretion of the council, they could use the single transferable vote. Eight local bodies used STV in the 2007 local body elections.[citation needed] However, only five territorial authorities used STV in the 2013 local elections.[19]

    Almost all regional authorities in New Zealand use FPP. However the Greater Wellington Regional Council used STV for the first time in the 2013 elections, becoming the first time that a regional authority used STV.[19]

    All District Health Boards must use STV.[19]
    ...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electo...in_New_Zealand
    Single transferable vote

    The single transferable vote (STV) is a voting system designed to achieve proportional representation through ranked voting in multi-seat constituencies (voting districts).[1] Under STV, an elector (voter) has a single vote that is initially allocated to their most preferred candidate and, as the count proceeds and candidates are either elected or eliminated, is transferred to other candidates according to the voter's stated preferences, in proportion to any surplus or discarded votes. The exact method of reapportioning votes can vary (see Counting methods).

    The system provides approximately proportional representation, enables votes to be cast for individual candidates rather than for parties, and—compared to first-past-the-post voting—reduces "wasted" votes (votes on sure losers or sure winners) by transferring them to other candidates.

    Hare–Clark is the name given to STV in lower house elections in two Australian states and territories, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory. The name is derived from Thomas Hare, who developed the system, and the Tasmanian Attorney General, Andrew Inglis Clark, who modified the counting method on introducing it to Tasmania. Hare–Clark has been changed to use rotating ballot papers (the Robson Rotation). The upper houses of New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia, use a variant of STV allowing "group voting".[2] ...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

    MMP is interesting and it seems to successfully integrate the reality of the "party" system.


    PEI here seemed to address the risk of a reform taking power away from the voters. Now what makes me really suspicious of reform proposals is the fact that the second candidate voter method WAS NOT part of the original proposal, meaning, bizarrely if I assume correctly, that the party itself would arbitrarily give seats to whoever they wanted. I must be missing something.



    Voting options: Mixed member proportional
    Hybrid system combines proportional representation with first past the post
    By Kerry Campbell, CBC News Posted: Oct 19, 2016

    "...
    Prince Edward Islanders have already been asked once if they wanted to change to a mixed member proportional model for Island elections.

    The answer the first time around was a fairly resounding "no."

    But the model is back as one of five options on a new plebiscite, along with a new twist which might help make it more palatable to Island voters.
    ...

    Voting for two candidates

    Under MMP Islanders would be faced with a two-part ballot. On the first part, they would vote for their local district representative just as they do now.

    On the second part of the ballot, Islanders would see lists of candidates put forward by each party. They would be asked to mark an "X" beside one candidate.
    That second vote would be used — not just to help determine which list candidates make it to the House — but also to determine the proportion of seats for each of the parties.

    This second half of the ballot contains the big change from the 2005 MMP model Islanders rejected. That was a closed-list model, meaning Islanders didn't get to choose a candidate on the second part of the ballot, only a party.
    ...

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince...tion-1.3811511



    Last edited by KC; 06-12-2016 at 05:49 PM.

  42. #42

    Default

    He is backing away, its a joke!
    So,he's like every other politician then..LOL
    Or not,whatever he does, will be wrong for some of you..
    Putz.

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^ A two part ballot where you could pick your favorite local candidate and your favorite party separately is still not overly complicated. It would be simpler than the ranked ballot system initially favored by the Liberal party.
    Agreed my home country New Zealand shifted to this system, MMP, and its one of the two proposed by the committee (the other, is a similar variant). If New Zealanders can figure out that the party vote is the most important one, I'm sure Canadians could. New Zealanders voted for it in a referendum as well, so a clear mandate to do it. I prefer FPP, but if we change, then I think clearly MMP is the best option. The nice thing with MMP is it doesn't matter if you live in a safe seat, or a swing seat, your vote counts exactly the same (subject to the regional checks that they would likely put in place on the party votes).
    I have always thought that we should experiment with a new system for the Senate first, rather than the House of Commons. It is currently unelected, so arguably any elected system would be an improvement. As Senators are generally appointed by province, rather than by specific electoral district it would be easier to change to a proportional system by province. One problem with MMP for the House of Commons (and to be fair every system has different problems) is it would probably require reducing the number of constituencies where MP's are directly elected, so the constituency size would increase. It's not a big concern in urban areas, but in rural less populated areas the constituencies are already physically quite large. Maybe its not a big problem in New Zealand, but here in Canada which is physically the second largest nation in the world, it would be a problem.

    I am not sure of the history of how MMP came about in New Zealand. I wonder if there was a sense of a clear problem and a clear alternative, so change occurred. I get the feeling we don't have the sense of either right now in Canada.

    Interesting...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electo...in_New_Zealand



    MMP is interesting and it seems to successfully integrate the reality of the "party" system.


    PEI here seemed to address the risk of a reform taking power away from the voters. Now what makes me really suspicious of reform proposals is the fact that the second candidate voter method WAS NOT part of the original proposal, meaning, bizarrely if I assume correctly, that the party itself would arbitrarily give seats to whoever they wanted. I must be missing something.



    Voting options: Mixed member proportional
    Hybrid system combines proportional representation with first past the post
    By Kerry Campbell, CBC News Posted: Oct 19, 2016

    "...
    Prince Edward Islanders have already been asked once if they wanted to change to a mixed member proportional model for Island elections.

    The answer the first time around was a fairly resounding "no."

    But the model is back as one of five options on a new plebiscite, along with a new twist which might help make it more palatable to Island voters.
    ...

    Voting for two candidates

    Under MMP Islanders would be faced with a two-part ballot. On the first part, they would vote for their local district representative just as they do now.

    On the second part of the ballot, Islanders would see lists of candidates put forward by each party. They would be asked to mark an "X" beside one candidate.
    That second vote would be used — not just to help determine which list candidates make it to the House — but also to determine the proportion of seats for each of the parties.

    This second half of the ballot contains the big change from the 2005 MMP model Islanders rejected. That was a closed-list model, meaning Islanders didn't get to choose a candidate on the second part of the ballot, only a party.
    ...

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince...tion-1.3811511



    Thank you, it is good to see an actual example. I had initially assumed with +1 there would only be one candidate on the party list, so you wouldn't need to choose the candidate for the party. This might work for PEI, however a province with a lot of MP's could also have a lot more party candidates. For instance, if the province had 100 MP's and 25% were elected province wide, you could be putting an X 25 times. I thought the idea of party lists was to try and avoid all that. However, I would hope the lists would still be public, so you would at least know all the candidates in advance, so you could avoid voting for a party if you found a candidate on their list particularly distasteful.

  44. #44

    Default

    ... and you don't want parties running phoney high-appeal candidates while having a covert strategy to stack their decks with fanatics. We already risk getting enough of that via cabinet control.

  45. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    ... and you don't want parties running phoney high-appeal candidates while having a covert strategy to stack their decks with fanatics. We already risk getting enough of that via cabinet control.
    I am genuinely not sure how it is done in other places. I presume generally the party lists are public before the election and candidates are listed in order (ie. if Jim Smith is first on the list and his party only gets enough % of the votes to get one candidate elected province wide then the second candidate on that party's list does not become an MP, but Jim Smith does). Alternatively, we could say to the parties, your list - you pick them (ie. no ranking, just a list). If you are truly just voting for a party, one could potentially argue the candidate name isn't relevant and doesn't even need to be public before the election (ie. we'll tell you after who your MP is).

    I think the PEI voters were good to scrutinize the model - the devil can be in the details.

  46. #46
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,476

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    ... and you don't want parties running phoney high-appeal candidates while having a covert strategy to stack their decks with fanatics. We already risk getting enough of that via cabinet control.
    ...Alternatively, we could say to the parties, your list - you pick them (ie. no ranking, just a list). If you are truly just voting for a party, one could potentially argue the candidate name isn't relevant and doesn't even need to be public before the election (ie. we'll tell you after who your MP is).
    I think that is exactly what KC was talking about. I would be OK with open or closed lists, but for closed lists the parties would need to establish the order before the election.

    Open lists would give maximum choice, at the cost of increasing complexity - how many voters will be in a position to make an informed choice regarding their favored party's list candidates?

    Another approach to the party list problem would be to assemble the list from the constituency candidates that were not elected, in order of the number of votes received. The candidates who lost close constituency races by small margins would then be first in line for any top-up seats awarded to their party.

  47. #47

    Default

    Dave.
    I too have long been in favour of having some major reforms done to the Senate and I have long backed the former Reform Party's mantra of E.E.E. Mr. Harper failed to make any progress in his term of office even though it was one of his Election Platform Issues. The reality probably occurred to him that before we can have elections there must first be a re-assignment of the number of Senators to each Province (and Territory). Whereas the Prairie Provinces would like to increase their allotment of Six each, would Ontario, Quebec , Nova Scotia and P.E.I. be willing to lose a few?

  48. #48
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,476

    Default

    ^Senate seat redistribution would be essential before the body is given any real legitimacy through election of senators, and proportional representation in the Senate to balance FPTP in the House is an interesting idea. I'm not sure full equality between provinces is workable though. The size disparity between the largest and smallest provinces is similar to that between the largest and smallest states in the USA, but we are a much smaller federation so each individual province would have much more power. A small US state controls 2% of their Senate, but PEI would control 10% of an equal Canadian Senate. There is also the question of what to do with the territories - do you treat them like provinces and have 25% of the seats representing less than 1% of the population north of 60, or do you give them an arbitrarily smaller allotment? There is also no point in going to representation by population, as that would simply mirror the Commons.

    A middle ground solution might be to bin provinces and territories into size categories. "Large" provinces with >20% of the country's population, "medium" with >5% and <20%, "small" with >1.2% and <5%, "smaller" with >0.3% and <1.2% and "smallest" with <0.3%. Large provinces (currently ON and QC) would get 12 seats each, medium (BC and AB) would get 10, small (SK, MB, NB, NS, NL) would get 8, smaller (PEI) would get 6 and smallest (YT, NT, NU) would get 4 each.
    Last edited by Titanium48; 07-12-2016 at 01:00 AM.

  49. #49

    Default

    T.48.
    I take your point about the proportional amount of representation each Province and Territory would have compared to the lesser degree of control that the more numerous individual States of the U.S.A. have. However, I disagree with the line "There is also no point in going to representation by population, as that would simply mirror the Commons." This to me would be perfectly fair as the the Senate could still operate effectively as a second body of thought on issues. When the Senate was first formed around 1864, the country was divided more or less into Upper Canada, Lower Canada and the Maritime's each area being allotted 24 seats each. At the time the majority of the the population was way higher in the East than it is today but still we in the West are under represented. As an existing anomaly, Nova Scotia with an area less than half of that of Alberta, still retains it's Ten seats so the Senate's present compilation is currently neither entirely by Population or by Land Mass. This is why I believe that Senate representation should be proportional to population.

  50. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^Senate seat redistribution would be essential before the body is given any real legitimacy through election of senators, and proportional representation in the Senate to balance FPTP in the House is an interesting idea. I'm not sure full equality between provinces is workable though. The size disparity between the largest and smallest provinces is similar to that between the largest and smallest states in the USA, but we are a much smaller federation so each individual province would have much more power. A small US state controls 2% of their Senate, but PEI would control 10% of an equal Canadian Senate. There is also the question of what to do with the territories - do you treat them like provinces and have 25% of the seats representing less than 1% of the population north of 60, or do you give them an arbitrarily smaller allotment? There is also no point in going to representation by population, as that would simply mirror the Commons.

    A middle ground solution might be to bin provinces and territories into size categories. "Large" provinces with >20% of the country's population, "medium" with >5% and <20%, "small" with >1.2% and <5%, "smaller" with >0.3% and <1.2% and "smallest" with <0.3%. Large provinces (currently ON and QC) would get 12 seats each, medium (BC and AB) would get 10, small (SK, MB, NB, NS, NL) would get 8, smaller (PEI) would get 6 and smallest (YT, NT, NU) would get 4 each.
    I like the large, medium and small idea. Unlike the US, we only have 10 provinces vs. 50 states, so the variation in size can not be as easily ignored. I think one of the reasons Senate reform failed was because of Triple E. It was too rigid and it only gives proper representation to one or two provinces (the rest are quite over or under represented). I don't think you could ask any province to reduce its representation either, so I think it would mean the medium size provinces would have to get more than 10 senators . It would mean the total number of senators would need to increase. I also think this all needs to be done almost concurrently, it is like a log jam. The numbers won't change because now it doesn't matter much, as the senate is currently unelected and not that politically powerful. Only a serious concrete proposal for an elected body would actually lead to a reform of the number of senators by province.

  51. #51

    Default

    Rona spells it out correctly, have a proper referendum on a proper alternative (e.g. MMP), not just try to ram through a poor and even less proportional alternative, ranked ballots, because the Liberals would win more elections with it:

    But when the prime minister told a journalist that “under the current system, (Canadians) now have a government they’re more satisfied with and the motivation to change the electoral system is less compelling,” he laid his motivations bare.

    Advocates for a new voting system would have been dismayed to hear the prime minister link his own partisan interests to electoral reform. But for most of the public, this was the first time they’d heard him say anything at all on the topic.

    When the prime minister indicated his preference for the ranked ballot, it was a clear indication of his intention to adopt a voting system that unfairly favours Liberal politicians. A CBC analysis shows that a ranked or “preferential” ballot would help the Liberals win more elections. That kind of advantage should never be obtained through secretive cabinet processes or in the absence of the consent of Canadians. But from the beginning, the Liberal approach to electoral reform has been opaque, inadequate and worthy of mockery.

    Let me be very clear: the Conservative opposition will use every tool at our disposal to fight any change to our voting system that isn’t endorsed by the people of Canada in a national referendum. Ranked ballots are confusing, constitute substantial change to what our vote means, and would only serve to advance the interests of Liberal party politicians.

    ...

    It’s time to park this failed Liberal attempt at electoral reform. The Prime Minister has not made a convincing argument that our democracy is broken, or that a change to our voting system is required. But if he wants to proceed, he owes it to each and every Canadian to move in an open, mature, and competent manner.

    Start with making the case. Listen to all parties in the House of Commons. And seek the consent of the people in a referendum.
    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...ectoral-reform
    Last edited by moahunter; 28-12-2016 at 04:04 PM.

  52. #52

    Default

    The only thing Rona has ever gotten right is not running for the CON leadership.

  53. #53
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,167

    Default

    Rona is correct, most of Canada agrees with her. Let's see what Mr Dithers 2.0 does, getting rid of dopey monsef should be first!..lol

  54. #54

    Default Trudeau government abandons promise of electoral reform

    Realizing that electoral reform that is real would mean proportional representation (not ranked ballots), which would likely mean no more Liberal majority governments, the Liberals cynically abandon their electoral promise. They aren't even willing to put electoral reform to a referendum now:

    Trudeau first committed to replacing the current first-past-the-post electoral system in June 2015, shortly before the federal election campaign. His government's first throne speech then promised that the Liberals would "take action to ensure that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system."

    A special committee of the House of Commons was struck last June and all MPs were invited to hold town hall meetings on electoral reform. In addition, Monsef conducted her own national tour and launched an online survey about the Canadian political system.

    When the committee returned its final report to the House in December, a majority of members recommended calling a referendum on some form of proportional representation.

    "The past year was an incredible important conversation that we had with Canadians," Gould said. "We took the time, we consulted and we listened. And now we're moving forward with a plan that respects all of those contributions. I thank everybody who participated.

    "It is a difficult conversation to talk about how we govern ourselves. But we have listened to Canadians and this will not be part of my mandate."
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trud...date-1.3961736

    Per the NDP (emphasis added):

    "What Trudeau proved himself today was to be a liar, was to be of the most cynical variety of politician," the New Democrat said. "Saying whatever it takes to get elected, then once elected seeking any excuse, however weak, however absent, to justify that lie to Canadians."
    Last edited by moahunter; 01-02-2017 at 03:42 PM.

  55. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Realizing that electoral reform that is real would mean proportional representation (not ranked ballots), which would likely mean no more Liberal majority governments, the Liberals cynically abandon their electoral promise. They aren't even willing to put electoral reform to a referendum now:

    Trudeau first committed to replacing the current first-past-the-post electoral system in June 2015, shortly before the federal election campaign. His government's first throne speech then promised that the Liberals would "take action to ensure that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system."

    A special committee of the House of Commons was struck last June and all MPs were invited to hold town hall meetings on electoral reform. In addition, Monsef conducted her own national tour and launched an online survey about the Canadian political system.

    When the committee returned its final report to the House in December, a majority of members recommended calling a referendum on some form of proportional representation.

    "The past year was an incredible important conversation that we had with Canadians," Gould said. "We took the time, we consulted and we listened. And now we're moving forward with a plan that respects all of those contributions. I thank everybody who participated.

    "It is a difficult conversation to talk about how we govern ourselves. But we have listened to Canadians and this will not be part of my mandate."
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trud...date-1.3961736

    Per the NDP (emphasis added):

    "What Trudeau proved himself today was to be a liar, was to be of the most cynical variety of politician," the New Democrat said. "Saying whatever it takes to get elected, then once elected seeking any excuse, however weak, however absent, to justify that lie to Canadians."
    ... and no more majority Conservative governments either, which may explain why the Conservatives were against it too. Actually proportional representation would probably work out better for the Liberals than the Conservatives. If they had a minority, they could potentially work fairly well with the NDP. Conservatives might be the biggest losers under proportional representation because working with the NDP it would shift the government further left.

    The NDP would be big winners under proportion representation, which is probably why they are so outraged right now.

  56. #56

    Default

    ^yup. The conservatives knew that the Liberals would never accept proportional representation (or a referendum on that), they just had to fight ranked ballots, which would hurt both the NDP and Conservatives (a system even less proportional than what we have, and unsupportable academically). The Conservatives have won on this one, the Liberals have some egg on face (but can hope will be forgotten by next election which is a few years off), the NDP are the losers.
    Last edited by moahunter; 01-02-2017 at 04:04 PM.

  57. #57
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,422

    Default

    I'm really not happy about this.

  58. #58

    Default Thank you, Liberals, for so thoroughly botching electoral*reform

    lol:
    This was always absurd. By the very logic of those calling for electoral reform, the Liberals, elected with a minority of national support, had no mandate to proceed with so dramatic (and unmistakably self-serving, given the advantage certain reforms offer such a centrist party) task of altering our system of voting. The Liberals claimed that since a majority of votes were cast for parties that support some form of electoral reform, that proved their mandate. This was a curious logic, since more than half of Canadians also voted for either the Conservatives or the NDP, and both parties had pledged balanced budgets, a preference the Liberals manifestly do not consider to be their own mandate. Monsef’s attempts to claim that referendums fail to capture every voter in the country also fell flat, since she was, after all, herself voted into office by winning only 43 per cent of the vote in a riding with 74 per cent turnout. One does not need to be a mathematician to see the problem there for an elected representative arguing the referendums aren’t inclusive enough to be democratically valid.

    In short, the Liberals couldn’t have done a worse job on electoral reform if they’d tried. While many Canadians may be*angry about that, we consider the outcome, however expensive and corrosive the process was to get there, a happy one. Absent a clear public desire for change, expressed through a properly conducted referendum, electoral reform should not be, and should never have been, pursued. It is truly remarkable the government had to foist more than a year of unforced errors on itself before reaching the same self-evident conclusion. Let it be a lesson.
    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...ectoral-reform

  59. #59
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,476

    Default

    ^ Did that editorial just call for a referendum on some sort of vague question to the effect of "should Canada change it's electoral system?"? That would have been worse than what actually happened. A referendum should present a clear, simple question, like "should Canada adopt the mixed member proportional system as detailed in (insert well-publicized reference)?". To ask the people if they want change without specifying exactly what kind of change would be ridiculous.

  60. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    lol:
    This was always absurd. By the very logic of those calling for electoral reform, the Liberals, elected with a minority of national support, had no mandate to proceed with so dramatic (and unmistakably self-serving, given the advantage certain reforms offer such a centrist party) task of altering our system of voting. The Liberals claimed that since a majority of votes were cast for parties that support some form of electoral reform, that proved their mandate. This was a curious logic, since more than half of Canadians also voted for either the Conservatives or the NDP, and both parties had pledged balanced budgets, a preference the Liberals manifestly do not consider to be their own mandate. Monsef’s attempts to claim that referendums fail to capture every voter in the country also fell flat, since she was, after all, herself voted into office by winning only 43 per cent of the vote in a riding with 74 per cent turnout. One does not need to be a mathematician to see the problem there for an elected representative arguing the referendums aren’t inclusive enough to be democratically valid.

    In short, the Liberals couldn’t have done a worse job on electoral reform if they’d tried. While many Canadians may be*angry about that, we consider the outcome, however expensive and corrosive the process was to get there, a happy one. Absent a clear public desire for change, expressed through a properly conducted referendum, electoral reform should not be, and should never have been, pursued. It is truly remarkable the government had to foist more than a year of unforced errors on itself before reaching the same self-evident conclusion. Let it be a lesson.
    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...ectoral-reform
    I don't think most Canadians are angry about how the electoral reform issue was handled - the only people really worked up about it are some of the chattering political classes, some of whom might benefit from certain changes. Most Canadian's realize there are more important issues for us to deal with now - there are a lot of unexpected challenges happening now internationally and with the US that the government and the rest of the country really needs to focus on instead. If we had a referendum on this now, I fear it would really distract from dealing with these more important problems.

    We elected a government, which had electoral reform in its platform, so that provided an opportunity to start a discussion about it, which in itself is not a bad thing. However, in the end the discussion didn't go anywhere - the government got the message it wasn't a really a priority for the country or most Canadians right now. There was no burning desire for change, nor a clear choice for change.

  61. #61

    Default

    Yeah, fortunately or unfortunately like a lot of reform issues, this issue is incredibly boring, rather intangible, of indirect relevance to most citizens, and fairly complex. So no one cares about it.

  62. #62
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,422

  63. #63
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    193

    Default

    PR would mean minority governments. Business hates minority governments. They're unstable.

  64. #64

    Default

    PR usually results in coalition governments, but sometimes a party can try to govern by itself if it's close to 50% of the seats. Coalitions can actually be quite stable because it takes pretty large swings of voting patterns to result in a change of the composition of the coalition in power. Some people would actually say that coalition governments under PR are too stable, as it can become difficult to dislodge a troublesome minor coalition partner.

  65. #65

    Default

    I'm pleased that PR is gone. Last we need is representation by fringe lunatics beyond what undue attention the media tries to give them.

  66. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the.tru.albertan View Post
    PR would mean minority governments. Business hates minority governments. They're unstable.
    Interestingly, in New Zealand, this hasn't been the case. PR has resulted in a majority government - over half of people voted for one party, because they didn't want minorities. Normally with MMP / PR there is a threshold parties have to meet, which keeps lunatics out (typically 5% of overall vote, or a seat in parliament).

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •