Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why, rather than celebrating, are Canadians not asking themselves why they continue with an outdated British electoral system that is so screwy in translating votes into parliamentary seats, and is subject to wide swings based on small changes in opinions or new parties being formed?
I mean this in no way to be partisan - the fate of the Liberals in 2011 was the fate of the Progressive Conservatives in the 1990s. Now the conservatives are united while the centre(-left?) and left are divided but (if you add the Greens) scored over 50% of the vote.
Would Canadians support electoral reform (i.e. a move to some sort of proportional representation or instant runoff voting within each riding?)
Why, rather than celebrating, are Canadians not asking themselves why they continue with an outdated British electoral system that is so screwy in translating votes into parliamentary seats, and is subject to wide swings based on small changes in opinions or new parties being formed?
I mean this in no way to be partisan - the fate of the Liberals in 2011 was the fate of the Progressive Conservatives in the 1990s. Now the conservatives are united while the centre(-left?) and left are divided but (if you add the Greens) scored over 50% of the vote.
Would Canadians support electoral reform (i.e. a move to some sort of proportional representation or instant runoff voting within each riding?)
In your scenario of Conservatives = 40%; Liberals + NDP = 49% who would be the prime minister right now?
so the conservatives didnt do as well as the baath party used to do in Irak with a 99,4 % average of the vote. But even they never managed to reach 100 % which proves it was never rigged
Isn't this what happens when you DON'T have a 2 party system?
I think you all are missing the point.
Canada's system of voting in winner-take-all ridings represented by a single MP, combined with a parliamentary system, results in 2 outcomes: 1. tendency to parliaments that don't reflect the will of the people; and 2. tendency to large swings based on small changes in public opinion. A third might be recent tendency to minority government.
Thsi "Westminster System" inherited from the British, was created before political parties existed, and is considered outmoded by most students of democracy. As an example, New Zealands elections resulted twice in a row in the party with fewer popular votes actually holding a majority in parliament - first on the left, then on the right. This was enough to convince Kiwis to change their electoral system to proportional representation.
Quote:
In your scenario of Conservatives = 40%; Liberals + NDP = 49%
who would be the prime minister right now?
Who would be PM? It depends what alternative system were used. Two potential scenarios:
1. Adoption of proportional representation - Probably the Liberals would be the centrist kingmakers in this election, entering into a coalition government with either the Conservatives (Harper as PM, but only as long as he maintains support of the Liberals) or with the NDP (which would either be a minority government at 49% of the vote or would include the greens to get to over 50% (assuming Greens get over the minimum threshold to enter parliament).
2. Adopt instant runoff voting in each riding: Another alternative that I won't explain but that can be googled. Who would be PM in this situation? Impossible to say. But the MP's elected would enjoy majority support in their riding.
My point is the choice of electoral system can create odd results. As an example, here is the US George Bush won with less than 50% of the votes and also with less votes than his opponent, a situation that has happened I think 3 or 4 times in our history.
So I'm talking about the question of whether parliament should reflect the popular vote and whether democracy should include at least a majority to make decisions ... I understand its hard to change systems that are deeply ingrained in the national process, but New Zealand did move from the British system to a proportional representation system, and a majority of BC voters supported the same, but fell short of the 60% needed.
Yeah, the Conservatives won a majority with 40% of the vote, but why are the NDP and the Liberals being lumped together as an argument? The Liberals have as much in common with the Conservatives as they do with the NDP, one fiscally and one socially.
Why, rather than celebrating, are Canadians not asking themselves why they continue with an outdated British electoral system that is so screwy in translating votes into parliamentary seats, and is subject to wide swings based on small changes in opinions or new parties being formed?
I mean this in no way to be partisan - the fate of the Liberals in 2011 was the fate of the Progressive Conservatives in the 1990s. Now the conservatives are united while the centre(-left?) and left are divided but (if you add the Greens) scored over 50% of the vote.
Would Canadians support electoral reform (i.e. a move to some sort of proportional representation or instant runoff voting within each riding?)
The idea of electoral reform was floated officially several years ago and there was apparently not enough support/political will to produce changes.
All systems have their imperfections; exchanging one set of inadequacies for another "newer" set isn't necessarily the best choice.
We have seen the enemy, and it's us.
Even the NDP gets real, real quiet the moment you start talking pension reform, crossing the floor to change parties, or changing the "rules" they're gotten used to.
To personally quote Dave Barrett, B.C. first NDP premier:
Until the average person gets involved, politics will never really change.
Kim Campbell is retired early in Paris, with a younger man.
And Svend Robinson is in the south of France, retired early, with a younger..........
[quote=thedwightguy;19050637]We have seen the enemy, and it's us.
Even the NDP gets real, real quiet the moment you start talking pension reform, crossing the floor to change parties, or changing the "rules" they're gotten used to.
To personally quote Dave Barrett, B.C. first NDP premier:
Until the average person gets involved, politics will never really change.
Kim Campbell is retired early in Paris, with a younger man. And Svend Robinson is in the south of France, retired early, with a younger..........[/quote]
And? I don't see what connection you are making?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
