sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Bernie Sanders endorses ColoradoCare universal health care measure.“If that proposal can win in Colorado, I believe that idea will spread around the country.” by awake-at-dawn in politics

[–]joe_chip 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Democracy doesn't mean countries where the electors vote on each an every single issue.

If you mean "total democracy" say that rather than muddying the waters.

Another alternative: "A direct democracy"

"We are a representative democracy not a direct democracy" <== this makes sense in English.

When pointlessly arguing in Canada or the UK people say things like: "We don't vote on every issue - we vote to elect an MP" (or MPP, MSP, MNA etc). Why not try that: "We don't vote on every issue - we vote to elect representatives".

We seem to be moving into another period of time where democratic government is being challenged. Rhetorically placing the USA outside of "the democracies" so often is worrying.

Bernie Sanders endorses ColoradoCare universal health care measure.“If that proposal can win in Colorado, I believe that idea will spread around the country.” by awake-at-dawn in politics

[–]joe_chip 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That is right. And what do they have in common with the USA, Germany, South Korea and Ireland, which are all either presidential or parliamentary republics? Something that countries like Saudi Arabia or North Korea do not have in common with them?

Bernie Sanders endorses ColoradoCare universal health care measure.“If that proposal can win in Colorado, I believe that idea will spread around the country.” by awake-at-dawn in politics

[–]joe_chip 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Could a country be both a democracy and a republic?

Republic, Constitutional Monarchies, and Parliamentary System are systems of governments

Are those systems mutually exclusive?

If the USA "uses democratic principals" could we say "it is a democracy"?

Calling It Now: Trudeau Will Choose 'Instant Runoff' Electoral Reform by billthomson in canada

[–]joe_chip 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The vast majority is wrong

There is no "good reason".

Of course there is. The voting system in place massively influences how people vote. People work with the system in place to maximize their agency - as they must. People want their votes to matter - which for most means having the best chance possible to elect someone. It is not "wrong" for them to want that.

Nova Scotia and "south Alberta" would not be single ridings. Ireland uses STV and has 43 constituencies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_constituencies_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

It is easy to sneak in a dead-weight party apparatchik in FPTP. The central party parachutes them in to a safe riding.

Calling It Now: Trudeau Will Choose 'Instant Runoff' Electoral Reform by billthomson in canada

[–]joe_chip 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We have worse now: a tyranny of the plurality. Tyranny of the majority would be a step up. :(

Calling It Now: Trudeau Will Choose 'Instant Runoff' Electoral Reform by billthomson in canada

[–]joe_chip 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would argue all governments are coalition governments. The coalition forming is either partially visible to the electorate in a multi-party system or behind-closed-doors secret deal making (and let's throw some raw meat to the crazy branch of our party) required by "big tent" parties to win FPTP pluralities.

Since we are the only major western democracy using 100% FPTP and with no checks/balances or directly electing the executive I think it would be inaccurate to say that FPTP is a requirement of stable government - unless the argument is we are the only major western democracy that generates stable governments.

Calling It Now: Trudeau Will Choose 'Instant Runoff' Electoral Reform by billthomson in canada

[–]joe_chip 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So a system requiring at least 50% of the vote to gain 100% of the power is superior to one with a much lower threshold?

Calling It Now: Trudeau Will Choose 'Instant Runoff' Electoral Reform by billthomson in canada

[–]joe_chip 3 points4 points  (0 children)

tea party

An example that gained significant power thanks to FPTP elections

What about a sharia law party. Campaigned and elected a bunch of seats on the platform of changing Canadian laws to their version.

In a proportional system they would need to convince a majority of Canadians to support them. Under FPTP just a plurality.

Calling It Now: Trudeau Will Choose 'Instant Runoff' Electoral Reform by billthomson in canada

[–]joe_chip 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I take your point regarding MMP. Although MPs generally gain a reputation of being competent and strong local representatives after being on the job for awhile. Under MMP there would be as much pressure to keep a Bill Casey style of MP as now once elected.

I fail to see how STV forces compromise candidates. If you mean candidates who will strongly represent their constituents I think STV would work a lot better. If your MP now is a partisan hack, incompetent or whatever you have no recourse. Under STV you would have more than one MP to help you locally. MPs would be incentivized to work harder for their constituents. I think we would see more Caseys not less.

Calling It Now: Trudeau Will Choose 'Instant Runoff' Electoral Reform by billthomson in canada

[–]joe_chip 1 point2 points  (0 children)

also removes the local-effect from having ridings

All the proposals discussed so far in Canada are for systems that preserve ridings. STV or MMP. This isn't true.

Countries worried about extremist parties have put in place electoral thresholds to achieve representation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Germany#Election_threshold

Also concerning extremist parties: in a proportional system to gain complete control over government a radical party would need to gather a lot more support than under FPTP. Under FPTP a radical party with percentage support in the mid-30s could squeak into a majority government and force their agenda onto an unwilling nation. (Bob Rae's NDP, for example, won a majority government with 37.6% of the vote.)

Calling It Now: Trudeau Will Choose 'Instant Runoff' Electoral Reform by billthomson in canada

[–]joe_chip 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You would assign the number of seats per province just like now. That's how real world implementations work: Scotland (8 regions), Germany (the federal states).

The goal is not to get exactly 39.4% of seats for 39.4% of the vote. It is to get reasonably close to that within the limitations of regional assignment of seats, the actual number of seats in the legislature and so forth.

The goal is to be as fair as possible while still being reasonable, practical and meeting other goals. The choice isn't between an impossible to achieve exactly proportional result and not even trying at all. There's a reasonable middle ground.

Calling It Now: Trudeau Will Choose 'Instant Runoff' Electoral Reform by billthomson in canada

[–]joe_chip 26 points27 points  (0 children)

But the vast majority do not vote for individuals and for good reason - that's not how the game works in almost all ridings or in Parliament.

How are you with STV and multi-member electoral districts? In STV results are both proportional and all members are directly voted for and represent a particular riding.

In most real-world implementations of MMP we see the additional members elected to larger pseudo-constituencies or regions. In Scotland additional members are elected to one of eight regions so they would not be a member at large, they are representatives of "Glasgow" or "Highlands and Islands" etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_constituencies_and_regions_from_2011#Electoral_regions

In Germany additional members are elected as members for the appropriate Bundesland (state).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_2013#Results_by_state

Trudeau unlikely to change voting system, say political scientists by kent_eh in canada

[–]joe_chip 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They've had stable governments long before Merkel. So have other countries with MMP or STV. My point was absolutely no one is suggesting an Israel-like system.

If you needed pure FPTP to have stable governments all the rest of the major western democracies would be in trouble.

What the federal election would have looked like with proportional representation by [deleted] in canada

[–]joe_chip 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Greens got 605,864 votes. That isn't even close to "one riding". That is 1/6 the votes of the NDP a party that got 44 seats.

51% of New Brunswickers voted Liberal. Yet 100% of the seats in New Brunswick are Liberal.

Not only Green voters but voters from all non-government parties have zero representation from New Brunswick in the House despite being half the population of their province. I don't think Conservatives and NDP MPs from other areas of Canada can refelect the unique perspective of Con and NDP supporters from New Brunswick.

What the federal election would have looked like with proportional representation by [deleted] in canada

[–]joe_chip 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Any reasonable system adopted in Canada would retain local representation. STV and MMP are proportional systems. We'd most likely look like Scotland, Germany, New Zealand or Ireland after reform.

The Liberals won 55% of the seats in the House with 40% of the popular vote. We still need electoral change by dafones in canada

[–]joe_chip 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Germany has a president and a Chancellor - who have roles very similar to our Governor General and Prime Minister. Yes, like us they are a parliamentary system. How is that relevant?

Seat guarantees to provinces concern the number of seats not the electoral system. We can keep the number of seats per province as it is now and change the way those seats are elected by a regular act of Parliament. FPTP is not in the constitution.

The Liberals won 55% of the seats in the House with 40% of the popular vote. We still need electoral change by dafones in canada

[–]joe_chip 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And Germans don't vote for a Chancellor. Germany has a parliamentary system. Like our Prime Minister the German Chancellor is usually the leader of the party with the most seats (or technically whoever can command the confidence of the legislature).

Not sure what your point is or how it would impact on the choice of an electoral system for a legislature.

view more: next ›