The most common 'rant' I've heard against PR is simply that it still leaves the power in the hands of representatives, that, in effect, 'it doesn't go far enough'. However, the systems can be markedly different. If you go to New Brunswick's website, gnb.ca, you have to 'type in' the term democracy since they've already removed the link to the committee on legislative democracy (and so probably already forgotten about it); but there you can read 'their idea' of PR which is substancially different from most that I've seen, barely even PR at all. Part of the problem is that 'a certain type' of PR has to be agreed upon. Also, governments typically attempt to complicate matters in various ways so that most canadians will think 'that's enough change' since they are so politically uneducated that they will have trouble with even small changes. The main problem PR is supposed to address is the horrible 'first past the post' system of vote counting, but in New Brunswick even the committee recommending democratic changes says that that's fine! <br /> <br /> To me the biggest difficulty is convincing canadians to care and politicians to act. During a minority government would be the best time to get it enacted, because no party is going to bring in a system that will hamstring them, even the NDP in Ontario forgot about all their democratic initiatives as soon as they got into power (ironically it would have saved them come the next election) , yet many canadians already feel that 'not enough gets done' during minority governments to make it a good thing. PR in Canada would essentially mean we'd forever have a minority government. To me that's a good thing, to 'critics' its not. Yet there is a problem when the two parties are both virtually identical in main points, such as we have now. I have noticed that it is typically the most 'brainwashed' people (not a great term but it's too early to think of another) who think that. For example the ones who think that Paul Martin "did a good job" of getting finances in order when all he did was stop distributing money to canadians and paid investors instead.

   

I agree. Initiating action is nearly impossible with the level of apathy that saturates our country these days. People, even those who are aware and follow the issues, often forget that they have a roll to play one way or another.<br /> <br /> For instance, at the time I'm writing this, I can see that my article posting has had 96 viewings. Those 96 viewing have translated into 3 signatures. When you think about the impressive web traffic Vive gets, and how many thousands of hits a day it gets, it can be something of a splash of cold water to realize that the talk to action ratio is as uneven as it is.<br /> <br /> PR seems like a rather simple issue for progressives. Its democratic, it promotes equality, and it promotes balance. It would even be to the benefit of the NDP, the Green Party, and all the other small parties. Perhaps my online letter needs rewording - but no one has mentioned such a need.<br /> <br /> Lots to think about.

   

Tristan, keep in mind that Liberal, Conservative and Bloc supporters visit Vive and these may not see PR as being particularly desirable.<br /> <br /> Also, the 'comment' aspect results in people viewing the article more than once, so 96 views could translate into 40 people.<br /> <br /> I think the chief appeal of PR is in it appearing more fair and more representational of citizen political views. It doesn't make sense to many that a party that garners 30% of the popular vote could form a majority government while a party the garners 10% of the popular vote may end up with no representatives in Parliament. <br /> <br /> However, I view PR as pretty much of a red herring that in and of itself will not substantially change the overall political dynamic. Effort expended towards PR could to my mind be better expended towards change that would better further, or create, democracy in Canada.<br /> <br /> I may be totally off-base in this regard, as one real benefit that could arise from PR may be the lessening of 'strategic' voting, in that if, for example, I think my CAP vote will count for something, I may actually vote for CAP rather than voting Liberal/Conservative solely for the purpose of not 'throwing my vote away'.<br /> <br /> Depending on the level of strategic voting that occurs in Canada, the dynamic could change much more than I might expect.<br /> <br /> However, PR in and of itself does nothing to address some of the more glaring failures of representational 'democracy'.<br /> <br />

   

I quite agree with the poster above, as usual. Take running as a direct democracy candidate, essentially it simply means that your representative truly represents you, meaning that the people make the decisions, so essentially all that is needed is an effective voting system, something that elections canada claims it does. Sounds simple, and it can easily be 'modified' for different areas and population densities. This is why Switzerland has such a short constitution.<br /> <br /> However, proportional representation is a perfect 'red herring' if you want to confound a population. There are hundreds of variants out there, and of course there will always be some situations where it doesn't look good (you often hear 'we don't want to end up like Italy or Israel'). The schematics and details are endless, or at least that is how they are portrayed, so in the end you have a population that throws up it's hands and says 'forget I asked!'

   

[QUOTE BY= Tristan] You can take action on proportional represenation now and sign the online form at www.freenation.ca/1action.html to let the party leaders know you care!<br /> <br /> It didn't make front page. Thought I'd slip it in here.<br /> <br /> As for the debate itself, I would love to hear some criticisms of proportional representation systems. Anyone have a rant to pitch against PR?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> Hi Tristan. I couldn't resist replying to this.<br /> <br /> I figured I should mention that I personally was strongly in favour of proportional representation until recently..... <br /> <br /> A person who I respect greatly made the argument that although minority governments are certainly nice to have in an era of Paul Martins and Stephen Harpers, changing our system could make it much harder for well-intentioned government in the future to pass legislation.<br /> <br /> In other words, P.R. weakens the federal government, creating the possibility things could get even worse, not better. Weakening the federal government will end up increasing the power of the provinces, which are the real problem in my opinion. Federal power, whether people want to admit it or not, HAS been eroded over the years. Not the potential to get it back, but the precedent to weaken the federation has been set in court challenges and dumb decision like special side deals to win votes etc... <br /> <br /> I don't favour proportional representation, because I think the people are the problem, not the system or the parties. People have to think differently. If they don't, minority government would simply be power games like they are now.

   

I don't agree with the above post, however, I also don't favour PR for far different reasons. I think you should do some research on NAFTA, it is up to the federal government to 'enforce' that provinces follow trade agreements. This means that as long as provinces 'tow the line' or 'have money' then they can be independant. I'd like to see specific examples of that though, since the feds and provinces have each their own departments. Anyway, the only good thing about Proportional representation is it's virtually the only political topic that can even get meagre coverage or anybody talking politics. It's highly speculative anyway, since we have no say in what is imposed anyway.

   

If the provinces switch to more representative systems first (ie. BC to STV or Quebec to MMP), we will have a better idea of how these systems can affect our politics and answer a lot of questions people still have about these systems. The provinces need to change first before we decide whether or not it is advantageous for the federal parliament to do so.

   

I think we need proportional representation both federally and provincially. We also need referendums galore. We have the technology to put all the citizens at the forefront of decision making and I think we should. Yes there would be problems. So what?

   

Although I claimed before that I 'don't support' PR, that was somewhat misleading. We literally have the worst electoral system in the democratic world, meaning that Canada is the ONLY country to utilize a first past the post single representative system at all levels of it's government. People have been clamoring for this to change for decades, and ANY change is better than nothing. <br /> <br /> The argument was made that 'a strong federal government' may be necessary because it may be 'well intentioned'. That, however, goes against democracy, since a 'well intentioned' government simply means one which enacts policies YOU agree with. You don't necessarily support the majority of canadians. Likewise, majority governments NEVER represent the majority of canadians (except twice), which means effectively a rule of minority, which is what an oligarchy is. 10% of canadians earn $60,000 and over, this is a group that no doubt LOVES NAFTA and the effects of globalization as they get cheaper goods, pay less taxes (nothing to do with NAFTA I know), and have more export opportunities. However, the other 90% are simply screwed, yet have no viable voice in Parliament (except during minorities).<br /> <br /> In fact, many of our current problems could be overcome by perpetual minority governments. Despite what may has been said here elsewhere, one sixth of Quebecers vote for 'L'action democratique', even though they know their vote is wasted. This is a group that tows a 'mid line' between separatism and current federalism. With more alternatives besides "Go" or "Stay" the political landscape might be more varied than the two extremes we have now in Quebec.<br /> <br /> Proportional Representation certainly isn't the answer to all our prayers, but it certainly is better than the system we have now. I predict Harper really wants to push an election ASAP simply because he knows that those who may have supported liberals and NDP in the past simply won't bother showing up to vote, being so disgusted with the whole process, while conservatives may be mobilized by a belief that this time could be 'their opportunity'. <br /> <br /> I have no doubt we'll see this at the provincial level first, however, when that will be is a mystery. There's lots of 'activity' going on now, I've noticed more academic books on the subject, however, this is similar to the early 90's which was facing similar political malaise and saw books and pressures and yes, even a referendum on the subject in BC. The government simply ignored them and carried on until the media moved on to something else. In New Brunswick the Commission on Legislative Democracy met and presented its report, it was dumb, but at least it was done, the media of course barely even covered it, and no mention has ever been made of it since it finished.<br /> <br /> This is the main reason why I run for Direct Democracy, not because I think it would become a viable alternative, but hopefully if it 'caught on' then it would scare the bejesus out of governing officials who will realize we don't need them nearly as much as they need us. It's the old 'send them a message' theme, which has been shown to work wonders.<br /> <br /> One final point is that the change to PR doesn't necessarily mean minority governments any more than our current system necessary means majority governments, once again it is simply up to the voters. Right now we KNOW we have a system where the majority of votes are simply meaningless and most, if not all, our representatives don't even represent the majority of their constituents. If that makes sense, then welcome to cuckoo town!<br /> <br /> <br />