Previous  1 ... 5  6  7  8  9  10  11 ... 13  Next

But usually, the impetus for wanting change to the FPTP system is that one guy's particular party didn't form the government. Otherwise, there's no overwhelming advantage to MMPR that we need to fundamentally overhaul electoral systems in Canada.

What advantage do you feel you would have if you could vote MMPR style?

   

more Socialists in government.....
thats what lily's thinking, i wonder what she'll type.


nice hit on Roman too
140 years

   

He earned it. I don't know how much education he has, but to make sweeping generalizations about late 20th Century democratic processes rolled into 19th Century fledgling federations is just plain amateurish.

Here's what I don't get about the MMPR position: Every time they list some other country that has MMPR or some variant, there's never an analysis of HOW that government serves the people better BECAUSE of MMPR. Quality politicians, governmental checks and balances and sound policies have nothing to do with MMPR, but somehow, MMPR takes all of the (unestablished) credit for (unestablished) better government than any DR government. RomanP is guilty of this. That he ran away crying because he doesn't like being called stupid certainly doesn't alter the material points he didn't answer. He can make excuses all he wants, but the salient point is that he failed to address them.

Hey, Hitler was elected by PR, so can I blame the Holocaust on MMPR? Oh wait, that would be grossly unfair.

The bottom line is, those in favour of MMPR consistently fail to establish that MMPR leads to better government, higher voter satisfaction (hello fines for not voting in Australia!) or is deserving of replacing FPTP which has given North America and the UK fine governments for many years.

   

Seems like just about everybody on this thread lacks any ability to think for themselves. Arguing one bad idea against another and trying to decide which is worse.

Would I have voted for MMPR if I was in Ontario or if it was brought up in New Brunswick? Heck Friggin' No! And don't try to tell me it's because I don't get, I absolutely do. I for one hate minority governments... mainly because political parties these days seem unwilling to compromise and work together AND I don't like the idea of fringe parties holding balance of power.

Do I like FPTP and think it works wonderfully? Absolutely NOT!!

How about this? It's a start, haven't done a huge thesis on it or anything... It's FPTP with a twist.

Everything is set up the same as it is now. We go to the polls, there are four names on the ballot (5 in some ridings, 6 in others, 3 in others, etc.).

John ____
Jim ____
Jerry ____
Jorge ____

Beside their name you will order them by preference from 1 to 4. Votes are counted.. if over 50% give John a 1st place vote, he's our MP. If not, the the top 2 candidates are kept. 2nd place votes for them are added to their 1st place votes, then 3rd places votes, until one gets over 50%.

Pro... you don't get elected unless over 50% of the voting people in the riding vote for you in some way or another.

Con... may take a little longer and cost a little more.

Can anyone think of more pros and cons?

   

I can. Con, it opens up the process to manipulation and allows for undue influence by one issue special interest groups.

Pro, pretty much nothing.

I side with the anti-electoral reform bunch.

Since WW2, consistently the most stable, reliable governments have been found in the in non-PR countries like the UK and North America. The system we have now works well. Canadians, are by nature, fairly cautious and conservative (I mean that in the literal sense of the word, not political). We tend to elect governments that govern from the middle.

The howls of indignation that are demanding change to the system invariably come from fringe groups. Greens, NDP, one-issue advocacy groups, etc. The one thing these groups all have in common is a solid, active core of supporters, but limited broad-based appeal.

PR would give an inordinate voice to such groups, something Canada can do without.

   

Please explain.



These are solid points against PR, but I am NOT arguing in favour of PR. How about actually responding to my post? This is what I mean by people not listening or thinking for themselves.

   

My thoughts exactly. You must be brilliant!

   

Nothing brilliant about either of you not being able to read. The whole first paragragh of my post was about how I don't like PR and why. But since I don't like the status quo either, he presents arguments against PR.

Yeah, Brilliant!

   

The problem with PR schemes is they tend to result in minority parliaments almost without exception. At the same time, they also allow such one-issue groups to focus all their resources on one or two select ridings where, through the quirks of the voting patterns, they have a chance of achieving success.

The result is governments often end up striking deals with 3 or 4 seat parties who don't necessarily advocate on behalf of the average voter, but on behalf of their narrow special interests. That gives way too much power to the fringe, in my opinion.

Australia has such a system, and there, it led to the emergence of groups such as Pauline Hanson's "One Nation" (anti-immigrant), the "Shooters" (gun rights), the "Australians Against Further Immigration Party, etc. I don't think Canadians are eager to see that here. And Australia has the advantage of being a much more homogenous country than Canada.

I fear that Canada, with it's sharp regional/language differences, could find itself bogged down by permanent fractious infighting.

   

Somebody's in the bitter barn!

I don't see a huge difference between FPTP and your idea (whihc is one I've actually heard before; I'm sure it even has a name). Thta is to say, the person who gets, say, 35% in the inital ballot (of four candidates) is likely going to be the guy who ends up with +50% of the vote in the "Final Showdown." As a pro, it would offer more opportuniteis for more strategic voting, but I'm not sure that's enough of an advantage to recommend it. On the con side, it would be tough to get people out--it's tough enough to get them to vote once.

   

You know what. If you're writing a short essay against PR, I give you an A+. Excellent. But it has nothing to do with what I represented. If anything, my idea is a FPTP scheme.

   

No, they'd only have to come out once. First time out you say what your second and third choices are. Nobody has to vote twice. No recount. 1st place votes stand. 2nd place votes are added to them. If somebody gets 51% of the first place votes, they win the seat in that riding.

   

But the essential problem remains. Let's say, you've got a riding in Tory Alberta. The FTPTP candidate wins the largest number of votes, but less than 50%. The second choice for most of the Tories, and a significant number of others could end up being a one issue group like the "Alberta Shooter's Party."

The result could be an MP whose only goal is to relax the restrictions on gun owners. Now add that to a minority parliament where the government has to stitch together coalitions to get their legislation through. Suddenly, the survival of an entire parliament is focused on gun regulations, when that's something that is of concern to only a tiny fraction of the electorate.

   

Not sure I got the first part there but... if it's what I think you're saying, you're wrong. The fringe party would already be eliminated by not having enough 1st place votes. Only the two candidates with the highest number of first place votes remain. So 2nd and 3rd place votes only count toward THEM,until there is a winner. No party can come up the middle and win.

If your first place vote is for a fringe party in your riding, then it won't end up counting as much as your 2nd or 3rd place vote does.

So if I vote...

Alberta Shooters 1
Conservatives 2
Liberals 3
NDP 4
Greens 5

... and the result of the 1st place votes is...

Conservatives 45%
NDP 30%
Liberals 15%
Greens 9%
Alberta Shooters 1%

... the Conservatives get my 2nd place vote added to their total of 1st place votes.

   

Now that's the most ignorant reason yet not to reform the system.

Jason7000 you're talking about STV. That's why the BC Committee chose it over MMPR, you don't get any seats because you got 100 votes in each riding and therefore deserve a seat.
But if there's 3 members in a riding and the Liberals get 40% of the vote vs the NDP's 35%, not all 3 will be Liberals.
Ridings are bigger, but you keep ties between all MPs and their ridings intact,
You avoid 3rd Party routes where you get 78 seats with 38% of the vote and 2 seats with 34% of the vote.
The Campbell route over Ujjal would have been like 60 Libs, 12 NDP and a couple PDAs and Socreds. Still a significant majority win.

   

Previous  1 ... 5  6  7  8  9  10  11 ... 13  Next