Election Reform in Canada - Proportional Representation
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13 Next
DerbyX @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:36 pm
dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:
Ya, it was a dumb move on his part to break his own law and the optics were terrible.. But for anyone to say Parliament was functioning in a healthy and constructive manner, well I'd simply have to tell them to take their rose coloured glasses off. Wasn't it Dion who openly and publicly contemplated bringing the house down just weeks earlier?
Except they are. Harper and his supporters are gloating that it was. Bills were passed, legislation happend and us Liberals endured having our face rubbed in.
No parliment works perectly but it was in no way dysfunctional.
dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:
Besides, the abstaining from votes thing was getting tiring just a much as Harper trying to ram through bills he knew no one would support. Harper wouldn't consult and the opposition and the opposition jumped on everything the Conservatives did regardless of merit of doing so. Bottom line they were all acting like a bunch of doe heads.
They still might.
dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:
Personally I don't think were going to see anything changing soon. It will be, as I mentioned earlier, a pissing match were nothing gets done.
Because our leaders listen more to people like starcraft and riden then people like us.
saturn_656 @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 7:06 pm
lily lily:
saturn_656 saturn_656:
lily lily:
No, there would be the same number of MPs, give or take a few. The ridings would be expanded is all.
Everything that will be done to effect a change in the way we elect our MP's should be set in stone before any vote. IE I'd want to know what ridings would be merged, which would be left alone, etc.
It was. If the link still works, the animated one explained it all really well.
The Animation didn't say anything about which ridings would be merged.
Besides I was looking at it from a "federal" prospective... not a provincial BC one.
All the info seems to be on "BC-STV".
saturn_656 @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 7:12 pm
lily lily:
That's because it was us BCers that were voting on it. 
I don't remember how exactly the ridings were made up, but right now, my area is split into several ridings. Instead of having say 5 ridings in one city, you'd have 2 or 3 larger ones (or maybe even just one) with the same number of overall MPs.
Federal or provincial, the idea is the same. With STV, you wouldn't have one MP getting 30% of the vote representing the entire riding. The MPs would be more representative of the riding as a whole, so everyone would feel their vote mattered.
I don't remember how exactly the ridings were made up, but right now, my area is split into several ridings. Instead of having say 5 ridings in one city, you'd have 2 or 3 larger ones (or maybe even just one) with the same number of overall MPs.
Federal or provincial, the idea is the same. With STV, you wouldn't have one MP getting 30% of the vote representing the entire riding. The MPs would be more representative of the riding as a whole, so everyone would feel their vote mattered.
So if the entire city of Vancouver were only to have 1, 2, or 3 ridings for millions of people... What would underpopulated rural riding's look like?
Geographically massive?
herbie @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 7:42 pm
1- The STV movement in BC wasn't instigated by the 'losers', it was chosen as the best alternate method by a Citizens Committee. The NDP were silently opposed....
2- The criticism that you somewhat lose your "local" representation is that you end up with multiple people who must outdo each other for support in your town. You actually gain.
3- Yes it's likely to result in more minority elections. That's the best bloody part about it!
OnTheIce @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 8:58 pm
Derby, had Dion or Layton forced an election, which they all threatened to numerous times, would you accuse them of breaking the law?
If they knew the election date was law, why would they keep threatening to take down the government?
Bottom line, whether it's the Liberals or the CPC at the helm, the law doesn't work nor does it make sense in a minority situation...hence the reason why Harper disolving the House was ruled to be legal.
Had Harper called an election with a majority to catch the Liberals broke and mis-managed, than I could understand all this talk.
When parties abstain from votes numerous times, you have a dysfunctional House.
OnTheIce @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:09 pm
lily lily:
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Derby, had Dion or Layton forced an election, which they all threatened to numerous times, would you accuse them of breaking the law?
If they knew the election date was law, why would they keep threatening to take down the government?
Bottom line, whether it's the Liberals or the CPC at the helm, the law doesn't work nor does it make sense in a minority situation...hence the reason why Harper disolving the House was ruled to be legal.
Had Harper called an election with a majority to catch the Liberals broke and mis-managed, than I could understand all this talk.
When parties abstain from votes numerous times, you have a dysfunctional House.
If they knew the election date was law, why would they keep threatening to take down the government?
Bottom line, whether it's the Liberals or the CPC at the helm, the law doesn't work nor does it make sense in a minority situation...hence the reason why Harper disolving the House was ruled to be legal.
Had Harper called an election with a majority to catch the Liberals broke and mis-managed, than I could understand all this talk.
When parties abstain from votes numerous times, you have a dysfunctional House.
What does any of that have to do with electoral reform?
Besides nothing, I mean.
It's been discussed above in numerous posts about the law being broken and the dysfunctional house.
Perhaps you should get on them for going off topic as well?
No? Didn't think so.
Let Derby answer the post...don't try and be cute and make yourself look like an idiot....again.
OnTheIce @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:18 pm
lily lily:
Take it to any of the other topics where it's being discussed. I'm sure you'll have no problem finding one - just click at random.
Funny how that didn't come out when your fellow Liberals were discussing the matter.
OnTheIce @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:45 pm
lily lily:
The earlier posts were done though, and the thread was back on topic.... till you came along with your usual hackery.
Take it somewhere more appropriate, please.
Take it somewhere more appropriate, please.
And yet, you allowed their posts to take place without a word, lily.
Stop your bickering and attacking my post simply because I support the CPC. You allow your friends to talk about the same issue, so I expect you to sit back and STFU just like you did when they talked about it.
Thank-you.
OnTheIce @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:07 pm
lily lily:
I "allowed" nothing. I was at work for most of the exchange, and by the time I started posting again, it was on topic... till you showed up.
What a shocker!
What a shocker!
You make it to easy, lily.
The topic of the House being functional or not was started around 17:00. It went back and forth all night.
Then you posted at 19:51, nothing said about Derby taking the post directly off topic. 2 hours in, what you waiting for?
You were involved in the topic 3+ times during the talk about the dysfunctional house and Harper breaking the 'law'.
You stayed on topic, but you talked around the others who were going a bit off topic.
So, I would appreciate the same courtesy you extended your fellow Liberals.
Now, if you're so concerned about saving the topic, stop forcing me to make you look like an idiot numerous times.
bootlegga @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:31 pm
I like the STV system. Given the massive fragmentation we have these days at the federal level, it's getting almost impossible for a majority government no matter who's running the show.
$1:
It has become almost structurally impossible to form a majority government in this country. If you start each election, as it appears we are condemned to do, with 50 seats off the table — the Bloc's gift to Canadian democracy — then it is not 50 per cent of the seats you need to win a majority, it is 60 per cent: 155 of 258. Add to that the growing, institutionalized fragmentation on the left, and the mathematics become almost insurmountable. Eight years ago, the NDP and the Greens took less than 10 per cent of the vote between them. Today, it is 25 per cent. Throw in the Bloc, and the two parties with any chance of forming a government, the Liberals and Conservatives, are working with just two-thirds of the vote between them.
http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?cont ... ail&page=3
Either we need a new system, new leaders willing to compromise, or a switch to a two party system. I think getting a new system is more realistic than the other options.
OnTheIce @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:38 pm
I'm all for some type of change to this system we have.
in the case of STV, how is the PM selected?
martin14 @ Sat Oct 18, 2008 12:51 am
lily lily:
martin14 martin14:
lily's all star list seems ok, but in reality it doesnt work.
How do you know this?
saturn_656 saturn_656:
lily lily:
The benefit is that one riding may have 3 reps, which could be all one party, or it could be a mix. THe example in the one link above gave my riding 2 Libs, 2 NDP and 1 independant for that provincial election, which is more representative of the riding than the Libs who represent it (them) now.
You couldn't fit that many MP's in the House of Commons. Full stop.
We'd have to build a new Parliament... and pay a few hundred more MP's salaries.
No, there would be the same number of MPs, give or take a few. The ridings would be expanded is all.
you can pick and choose the all star list, but at the end of the day
the party picks who sits in Parliament, not the people.
cause it all depends how many seats the party gains, and people
need to be paid for service to the party.
ealier post mentioned the fringe parties, Communists, Christian Heritage,
and others to come,
and yes they can easily win 1 or 2 seats per election..
no problem Derby, until the ruling parties are short one or two votes to make
a coalition.. then watch the shit that will fly.
we would have constant coaltion gov'ts, and turn the fanatics into
kingmakers.
Derby likes it because it would give really disproportionate power
to people living in TO.. funny, so many Liberals there.
Canadaka @ Sat Oct 18, 2008 1:25 am
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Derby, had Dion or Layton forced an election, which they all threatened to numerous times, would you accuse them of breaking the law?
If they knew the election date was law, why would they keep threatening to take down the government?
Bottom line, whether it's the Liberals or the CPC at the helm, the law doesn't work nor does it make sense in a minority situation...hence the reason why Harper disolving the House was ruled to be legal.
Had Harper called an election with a majority to catch the Liberals broke and mis-managed, than I could understand all this talk.
When parties abstain from votes numerous times, you have a dysfunctional House.
If they knew the election date was law, why would they keep threatening to take down the government?
Bottom line, whether it's the Liberals or the CPC at the helm, the law doesn't work nor does it make sense in a minority situation...hence the reason why Harper disolving the House was ruled to be legal.
Had Harper called an election with a majority to catch the Liberals broke and mis-managed, than I could understand all this talk.
When parties abstain from votes numerous times, you have a dysfunctional House.
The fixed election law harper amended to the Federal Elections Act does NOT prevent the opposition from bringing down the government with a non-confidence motion. It only prevents the government from bringing down there own government. No law would have been broken, maybe you should read about it before sounding like an idiot.
But back to the topic of this thread. If you want to discuss the elections act start a new topic and I will merge these posts.
HyperionTheEvil @ Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:17 am
The point mised by many here is that the Liberals for years had all the power to do this for 10+ years, and didnt do it. And yet now that the left in general is on the ropes suddenly its a great idea.....
dino_bobba_renno @ Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:06 am
I don't think that fact is lost on everyone. First off, remember all those years of Liberal majority? How would PR have effected the Liberas standing back in those days considering the Liberals never once obtained over 50% of the popular vote.
Lets look at the Liberal seat standing under PR in the past elections:
2004 - 113 of 308 seats - a loss of 22 seats - result = minority government
2000 - 123 of 301 seats - a loss of 49 seats - result = minority government
1997 - 116 of 301 seats - a loss of 39 seats - result = minority government
1993 - 122 of 295 seats - a loss of 55 seats - result = minority government
So like I mentioned before, a.) PR has a tendency to elect minority governments and b.) the Liberals historically would have been the biggest losers under a PR system. As Canada's natural ruling party they (and the Bloc) have the most to lose from a change from FPP to PR.
That's why I think it's kind of quaint that many Liberals are now leading the charge for PR. Conservative's historically have rarely held office for more than 2 consecutive terms and I don't think that will change much in the future. To switch to PR now would actually have a negative effect on the Liberals in the future.
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13 Next