5 Provinces Mulling Changing to PR Voting

Written By: whelan costen
Date: 2004-07-10 16:20:08
<a href="/article/122008239-5-provinces-mulling-changing-to-pr-voting">Article Link</a>

In B.C., the provincial government has convened the Citizen\'s Assembly on Electoral Reform, a random group of men and women to decide in the fall whether to stick to the current electoral formula, or switch to another system, most likely some form of proportional representation.

If the group decides the current system needs to be replaced, it will be put to a province-wide referendum during the next provincial election which takes place on May 15, 2005. The new system would take effect in the 2009 provincial vote.

Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are also considering some type of voting reform.

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do? ... ID=1660461

Well it is a start and we have to start somewhere, I just wish Alberta was one of the Provinces.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

CWC, I wish Alberta was one of the provinces too. So I'm going to start sending emails to Ralph and his crew, asking for their thoughts on a referendum for proportional representation. Then I'm going to check out petitions, are there any, where are they, can we get some going if none already are?

Ralph shouldn't have a problem with PR. His popular vote is well over 50% is it not?

---
RickW

Rick your right. But PR would still work against them in a way when their oppostion get more seats then usual as well. All parties will gain more seats. In the end it will be best for democracy if there is more representation in Alberta and not just Ralphy calling the shots.

Kevin

---
"Love actually, is all around us" --From the movie Love Actually.

I suppose Ralph would like to retire "undefeated" from Alberta politics.--- RickW

Is preferential voting considered a form of PR? From what I understand, preferential voting involves at least two votes, and possibly several votes. If we are having trouble getting out the vote now, I think layers of voting would discourage it even more, and we still end up with a form of FPTP. I think we have to concentrate on governmetn by concensus rather than adversarial government. People would have less targets to vote against. And that might help revive voter apathy.--- RickW

Preferential voting can be very confusing, and that is why I am on board with PR.

Even PR is going to have a rough time because of the different systems we can look at, but as far as I know, Preferential has another downside in that it can be maniplulated by the politicians.

I suppose that is true of most systems.

My main beef with politics these days is simple: if a province or riding has a need, and if it happens to be an NDP riding, or a CONS riding, wouldn't it make sense for the government of the day to look after these needs, since a by-product of this would be more respect for the system.

Party politics is part of the problem, and if politicians in power look after everyone that has needs, we would have a better country for it.

Simply saying "they voted for the other guys, to hell with them" is an attitude that needs a serious adjustment.

---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca

"My main beef with politics these days is simple: if a province or riding has a need, and if it happens to be an NDP riding, or a CONS riding, wouldn't it make sense for the government of the day to look after these needs, since a by-product of this would be more respect for the system." You mean use honey instead of vinegar to "capture" that particular "fly"? Yes, "winning" parties DO seem to like to "get even" with those who didn't vote for them..... That's why I prefer a government of consensus rather than an adversarial one.--- RickW

New Zealand seems to have instituted a good system but they don't have to get as many disparate regions on-side in order to change their constitution. We may be stuck with the FPTP system but that doesn't necessarily mean that people don't get represented. A few years ago an issue like gay marriage would not have even gotten off the ground at all but now it's legitimate even though the members of the political spectrum that initiated the idea were never actually in power.

All systems have their drawbacks, but some PR is a good thing considering our current Canadian political situation. Germany has an interesting system, it is Mixed Member Proportional (MMP). What distinguishes it is that half of the members are voted in by PR, so the parties get representation, the other half are voted in by FPTP so people can vote for a representative for their region which they can directly contact.

A New Way of Voting:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/educa ... op-rep.htm

New Zealand's electoral system:

http://www.elections.org.nz/elections/e ... elect.html

I think the biggest benefit of PR will simply be the discussion it generates, and perhaps canadians will get more educated on the system.
Gay marriage didn't arise because of the political system but because the affected parties have been challenging the ruling since 1982. The federal government hasn't played ANY part in its implementation, it was the courts who finally recognized this right. The government simply didn't contest it (yet?) I still haven't seen any beneficial legislation which arose out of our specific mode of governance. Mostly it has been groups fighting for decades until they finally have the numbers. We've been hearing about national day care for thirty years, and a federal program to aid the homeless is just a pipe dream.
Back to PR though, go to the New Brunswick government home page and do some reading. This is NOT a good thing. Virtually nobody in the province even knows that the government is talking about it, and the changes it is so far recommending will make legislate referenda (well, New Brunswick has only had one referendum) so that they can ONLY be held on constitutional matters. The referendum they had was on video lottery terminals. So, while it provides a cosmetic change from the past it legislates MORE power to parties, and less for the people. One can argue that it's better than nothing but I'd argue that it's not much.