FPTP has existed for far longer than three hundred years. No where does it say it is limited to two parties.
first past the post vs. proportional representation
- Thread starter licks2nite
- Start date
I see many incorrect uses of the term "majority" as if a candidate who gets 34% of the votes in a district wins with a "majority" of the votes. Anything less than 50% plus one is not a majority. If a candidate has 34% of the vote and the other two candidates have 33% each then the guy with 34% wins with a plurality, not a majority. This happens most of the time with FPTP, even when the 64% majority of voters hate the guy who won with 34%. This is what FPTP gives you. The Ford brothers are a good example.
Both systems suck. If there were a vote for a benevolent dictatorship I'd do it.I see many incorrect uses of the term "majority" as if a candidate who gets 34% of the votes in a district wins with a "majority" of the votes. Anything less than 50% plus one is not a majority. If a candidate has 34% of the vote and the other two candidates have 33% each then the guy with 34% wins with a plurality, not a majority. This happens most of the time with FPTP, even when the 64% majority of voters hate the guy who won with 34%. This is what FPTP gives you. The Ford brothers are a good example.
We already have a group of underlying pricks who take advantage of bait-and-switch tactics in politics and they are trying to protect the FPTP system that has given them their power. PR is part of the solution.You're just going to have to hope that there isn't a group of underlying pricks who won't take advantage of bait-and-switch tactics in politics.
So you'd give up your freedom to someone who would decide what is "benevolent", and who would make all the decisions for the populace.Both systems suck. If there were a vote for a benevolent dictatorship I'd do it.
Seems to be the political situation in China, and growing closer to that definition is Turkey. How about Venezuela?
Arguing what would be "benevolent" would soon be a guarantee to a gulag invitation.
No doubt your comment was tongue-in-cheek.
No, the propositions currently on the ballot do not "smear" rural representation as before. It is no longer a one-sized fits all proposition. For example DMP leaves the rural seat count and riding boundaries exactly as they are.Not at all. PR is the scenario you describe; cities might vote in a party due to population density that are completely irrelevant to a rural community. A town of 2.5 million might have 10 percent voting for Green while a town of 500,000 not voting for Green at all. Since the big town has so much more franchise there will be seats that represent no interest from the smaller town. PR smears everyone in an area together and assumes they all want the same thing, which is great in a small geographical space or with a small population.
That makes sense to me: where geopolitics is strong, leave it geographic. Where it is weak (urban) it should represent the blended diversity.
That is thoroughly disingenuous phrasing. It does the exact opposite: it proportionally empowers fringe parties. Meanwhile, it is FPTP that disproportionately empowers non-fringe parties.Also, PR disproportionately powers small, fringe parties
Short summary: PR gives minority ("fringe") groups a voice in proportion with the portion of the electorate that shares their views. FPTP completely disenfranchises all but traditional views. I can see how FPTP would appeal to, say, conservative voters who don't give a damn about those who don't share their ideologies.
None of these are benevolent dictatorships.So you'd give up your freedom to someone who would decide what is "benevolent", and who would make all the decisions for the populace.
Seems to be the political situation in China, and growing closer to that definition is Turkey. How about Venezuela?
Arguing what would be "benevolent" would soon be a guarantee to a gulag invitation.
No doubt your comment was tongue-in-cheek.
Singapore, Taiwan, Jordan have seen great economic developments in the last century from Lee Kwang Yieu, Chiang Kai Shek and King Ab II. They went from shitty backwater countries and bloomed into economic powerhouses.
Benevolent dictatorship under good leaders are undoubtedly the best forms of government.
Democracy gives the illusion of freedom. You don't even own the land you have a house on, and your free speech and association rights only extend to the maximum granted by your government.
DMP does not mathematically resolve issues of population density. It dilutes it. Also, I hesitate about this system because it will invariably be expensive due to the bureaucracy involved.No, the propositions currently on the ballot do not "smear" rural representation as before. It is no longer a one-sized fits all proposition. For example DMP leaves the rural seat count and riding boundaries exactly as they are.
That makes sense to me: where geopolitics is strong, leave it geographic. Where it is weak (urban) it should represent the blended diversity.
It is new, never-before-used, and untested. MMP at least has case studies.
That makes no sense whatsoever. FPTP ties electorates to their constituents. PR does not (DMP just waters it down) The reason why someone wins a riding in FPTP is because majority of those voters in that constituent needs that champion to represent them on key issues, and the minority's concern did not prevail. PR is the one-size-fits-all vote because percentage of voters matter more than the circumstances under which people vote. In a PR model, the small parties who would never win a seat because they can't win support from their locals are now awarded seats simply because from a spectrum of people, they received a percentage of votes. They now have a voice which doesn't really represent interest from any particular constituent and will put electorates into a system based on... what, exactly? A platform or just a numerical process? All Green party has to do would be promote free pot and get seats based on even more farfetched promises.That is thoroughly disingenuous phrasing. It does the exact opposite: it proportionally empowers fringe parties. Meanwhile, it is FPTP that disproportionately empowers non-fringe parties.
Short summary: PR gives minority ("fringe") groups a voice in proportion with the portion of the electorate that shares their views. FPTP completely disenfranchises all but traditional views. I can see how FPTP would appeal to, say, conservative voters who don't give a damn about those who don't share their ideologies.
This massively empowers small party who now Don't nearly have to work as hard across a vast geopolitical area.
This is great for a tiny country. But BC is 150 percent the land area of France with not 8 percent of the population. Is it really a solid choice?
This whole thing was trumped up by shitty politicians who won't admit to their own shortcomings. It's not about how we vote, but who we vote. Making people vote for technocrats rather than politicians would solve most of our problems. But most people like the smoothtalking and lying ass jack more than the silent administrator.
Look at all of us fighting on the forums about these two shitty systems that both suck. At the end of the day, no change in voting style will fix the morons that lead the province. We're being distracted by the wrong issue.
Look at all of us fighting on the forums about these two shitty systems that both suck. At the end of the day, no change in voting style will fix the morons that lead the province. We're being distracted by the wrong issue.
It does but you're refusing to acknowledge that "their constituents" means everyone not just those who voted for the winners.That makes no sense whatsoever. FPTP ties electorates to their constituents.
Trump is an example of this thinking taken to the extreme. He thinks he only serves those who attend his rallies. His constituents are the entire American people, not just those that voted for him. When he calls for "unity" he really means for the "losers" to stop dissenting and fall in line. Compromise and cooperation for the common good is becoming a lost notion in political circles.
Practically speaking, politicians do not represent their constituents. They represent the people who voted for them. So who represents the people who didn't vote for the winning party? Who represents the people who would never vote for a traditional mainstream party?
The candidate PR systems don't eliminate geographic boundaries even in the urban case. Your concern there is overblown:
Increasing the urban riding boundaries 40% to fight radical partisanship, false majorities, and re-engage the disenfranchised seems like a good idea to me.
Willingdon and Burnaby North really don't have that geographically distinct interests, and I doubt the constituents could name one action taken by their representative that makes them glad their ridings were not merged. Things at that level are already more readily served under the jurisdiction of the municipality.
Ultimately the major parties will adjust their platforms to recapture the disenfranchised anyway, if they see themselves losing seats to "the fringe".
Rural is not so compromised under the candidate systems, and I honestly think opponents to urban PR are disingenuously dwelling on the (false) rural loss-of-representation boogie man to draw attention away from their actual concern: that minorities might actually get a voice (either by electing someone or by mainstream parties courting them back), and the FPTP people just aren't interested in listening to these people's concerns.
Last edited:
There are two neighbourhoods. You live in the one with shitty water supply. 25 people live there.It does but you're refusing to acknowledge that "their constituents" means everyone not just those who voted for the winners.
Trump is an example of this thinking taken to the extreme. He thinks he only serves those who attend his rallies. His constituents are the entire American people, not just those that voted for him. When he calls for "unity" he really means for the "losers" to stop dissenting and fall in line. Compromise and cooperation for the common good is becoming a lost notion in political circles.
Practically speaking, politicians do not represent their constituents. They represent the people who voted for them. So who represents the people who didn't vote for the winning party? Who represents the people who would never vote for a traditional mainstream party?
The candidate PR systems don't eliminate geographic boundaries even in the urban case. Your concern there is overblown:
Increasing the urban riding boundaries 40% to fight radical partisanship, false majorities, and re-engage the disenfranchised seems like a good idea to me.
Willingdon and Burnaby North really don't have that geographically distinct interests, and I doubt the constituents could name one action taken by their representative that makes them glad their ridings were not merged. Things at that level are already more readily served under the jurisdiction of the municipality.
Ultimately the major parties will adjust their platforms to recapture the disenfranchised anyway.
Rural is not so compromised under the candidate systems, and I honestly think opponents to urban PR are disingenuously dwelling on the (false) rural loss-of-representation boogie man to draw attention away from their actual concern: that minorities might actually get a voice (either by electing someone or by mainstream parties courting them back), and the FPTP people just aren't interested in listening to these people's concerns.
The other neighborhood has 75 people. it has good water supply.
There are 3 political parties.
1 Wants to fix YOUR neighborhood's water supply.
1 Wants to ignore your neighborhood's water supply.
1 Promises cheaper gas to everyone.
There are 9 seats to be voted for by 100 people.
In a FPTP system, since your neighborhood has cheap gas, the best chance for the 3rd party to get a seat from your neighborhood is to focus on your water problem. In a situation where the first two parties are tied, and the third party has a seat, they must vote based on your water supply issue. The water is the contentious issue between the parties whether they like it or not. This is how the current system works to represent interest from rural areas. This is the reason why the US have the electoral college and we have FPTP.
In a PR system, the free gas party just needs to scrape together 10% of votes from anywhere for a seat. It doesn't have to promise your neighborhood anything. As long as 10% the population like the idea of cheaper gas they will get a seat - and since your neighrborhood's 25% population doesn't make a difference, the Cheap Gas party just needs to get 10 people from the 75 people neighboorhood to vote in their favor because cheaper gas is more relevant to them than you. They focus their resources campaigning there exclusively and succeed. In a situation where there is a tie, the two larger parties now have to pander to the cheap gas party about the gas issue. Your water supply is no longer the contentious point because the cheap gas group now has all the bargaining power due to PR - They weren't voted in based on their advocacy of your or the other neighborhood's rights. You now have a bunch of seats allocated to people who don't care or didn't need to care about your cause and only need to advance their party's doctrine. The worst part is, the cheap gas will never come to fruition because it lacks economic foresight and was meant as a tactic to garner seats and since they have fewer people, are unlikely to force a large party to succumb to its demands even if it were a plausible cause. In the rare event that the small party does force a large party to accept cheap gas, you now have the exact same problem with FPTP of a minority government that is driven by EVEN FEWER people.
There is no variation of PR where this doesn't happen to some degree, large or small. This is because Democracy wasn't supposed to work this way. Democracy has been and should continue to be about voting based on vested interest and contentious issues rather than broad franchising for a % based seat. It's why you must be a citizen to vote in Canada and a resident to vote in BC. Elite franchising is the basis of how democracy works. The people thousands of years ago didn't invent this crap because they were stupid - They REALLY thought this through.
Italy has had 61 governments since WWII because of MMP and some form of PR, simply because the NORTH (industrial) and SOUTH (rural) are so different in culture and geopolitical climate. We are going to run into the same thing, especially if we still fight about the voting system rather than cockroaches like Horgan or Clark to never run again.
Both are systems that peddle dreams and false promises, but moving the problems of governance associated from FPTP to PR is stupid and pointless. It's again treating a fever with Tylenol rather than eliminating the infection, dealing with symptoms rather than cause.
Last edited:
Wilkinson's points are moronic because he's a shit politician, but quoting a left-winged publication that clearly has an agenda that quotes other biased sources doesn't make the situation right.
Democracy's don't prosper because of voting reform. It prospers because there's a focus on homogenizing needs, increasing an educated class, and ELECTING BETTER PEOPLE. We have so much apathy that changing FPTP to PR will not only not fix the problem, we'll end up electing more losers into power.
"Diversity" isn't going to help us right now. Diversity has made us play identity politics. This entire post has already turned into identity politics. People who don't vote PR "must be conservatives" or "elites"
I actually appreciate minority governments. They rein in the more extreme impulses of the ruling party. It isn't just the "fringe" that have extreme views. And I'd definitely prefer a minority government to a false majority. So in that sense diversity does help. And maybe if the ruling party had to face the reality that they'd always have to cooperate to get things done, maybe they'd actually give it a shot instead of holding their noses until they get to re-roll the dice.Wilkinson's points are moronic because he's a shit politician, but quoting a left-winged publication that clearly has an agenda that quotes other biased sources doesn't make the situation right.
Democracy's don't prosper because of voting reform. It prospers because there's a focus on homogenizing needs, increasing an educated class, and ELECTING BETTER PEOPLE. We have so much apathy that changing FPTP to PR will not only not fix the problem, we'll end up electing more losers into power.
"Diversity" isn't going to help us right now. Diversity has made us play identity politics. This entire post has already turned into identity politics. People who don't vote PR "must be conservatives" or "elites"
Edit to add: diversity is the antidote to identity politics. Example: when I'm inclined to catch up on American news I read both CNN and Fox News. Not to mock one, but to piece together the centre position from the two (for lack of a better word) biases. I wouldn't call everything they report an agenda, but let's say they de-emphasise things that run counter to their preferred narrative. e.g. Fox doesn't report Trump's no-show on Saturday at the Remembrance Day events outside Paris, CNN doesn't report the lawyers' objection to a non-citizen vote being dismissed in Florida. If you listen to one side, it amplifies identity politics. If you were to force both sides to hash it out interactively you might arrive at something closer to objective truth.
By the way, discounting an argument because of who said it ("left-wing source") is ad hominem. An argument should be dismissed by refuting the content, not the person making it.
Last edited:
I agree. But that's not what the modern definition of diversity is. The modern definition of diversity is to discriminate in the name of acceptance.I actually appreciate minority governments. They rein in the more extreme impulses of the ruling party. It isn't just the "fringe" that have extreme views. And I'd definitely prefer a minority government to a false majority. So in that sense diversity does help. And maybe if the ruling party had to face the reality that they'd always have to cooperate to get things done, maybe they'd actually give it a shot instead of holding their noses until they get to re-roll the dice.
"Being diverse" and "Diversity" (the modern defiitinion of diversity that is) are different. You reading two news sources and coming to conclusion makes you a critical thinker.Edit to add: diversity is the antidote to identity politics. Example: when I'm inclined to catch up on American news I read both CNN and Fox News. Not to mock one, but to piece together the centre position from the two (for lack of a better word) biases. I wouldn't call everything they report an agenda, but let's say they de-emphasise things that run counter to their preferred narrative. e.g. Fox doesn't report Trump's no-show on Saturday at the Remembrance Day events outside Paris, CNN doesn't report the lawyers' objection to a non-citizen vote being dismissed in Florida. If you listen to one side, it amplifies identity politics. If you were to force both sides to hash it out interactively you might arrive at something closer to objective truth.
Modern "Diversity" is the reinforcement of social barriers by classifying them as certain races, camps, or statuses as having special interests. The end of classification - when people stop being "Asian", "women" and are viewed as a homogenous mass of people with similar interests, is the end of identity poltiics. Diversity fuels identity politics because it identifies people or groups to go by certain identity. In Sweden, they have taken drastic approaches to not call out migrants of war for the crimes they commit. This is an extreme measure of homogenization but it will pay off in a generation of time when people assimilate, and the locals don't try to give migrants special attitutde or treatment.
Left-Winged Source is not an attack against the person. Call the person a left-winged nutjob is. The former describes bias. The latter attacks the person.By the way, discounting an argument because of who said it ("left-wing source") is ad hominem. An argument should be dismissed by refuting the content, not the person making it.
Of all places to find information about the referendum I find it on Perb....
It has been a great read, I do want to thank everyone for their opinions and for contributing to this debate. I find it hard to find information about the different systems and the pros and cons, what may or may not happen if this gets voted in or if that gets voted in. You have all been much help.
As for my humble opinion, I still need to do more research. I am leaning towards PR. FPTP i just don't feel it as being proper representation of what British Columbians want/need, at the same time I do worry that with too many parties governing that they all don't work together and nothing gets done. Although we do have proof (NDP & Greens) that parties can support each other and make things happen, especially if they now need to play more nice with the other parties. I think it's worth a shot to change the system, also I feel that a minority gov isn't all bad as there will be more check and balances.
It has been a great read, I do want to thank everyone for their opinions and for contributing to this debate. I find it hard to find information about the different systems and the pros and cons, what may or may not happen if this gets voted in or if that gets voted in. You have all been much help.
As for my humble opinion, I still need to do more research. I am leaning towards PR. FPTP i just don't feel it as being proper representation of what British Columbians want/need, at the same time I do worry that with too many parties governing that they all don't work together and nothing gets done. Although we do have proof (NDP & Greens) that parties can support each other and make things happen, especially if they now need to play more nice with the other parties. I think it's worth a shot to change the system, also I feel that a minority gov isn't all bad as there will be more check and balances.
The Greens sold their souls for a shot at electoral reform. It’s easy to agree when one side just rolls over on every issue. If it passes, it won’t be anything like this past year.Of all places to find information about the referendum I find it on Perb....
It has been a great read, I do want to thank everyone for their opinions and for contributing to this debate. I find it hard to find information about the different systems and the pros and cons, what may or may not happen if this gets voted in or if that gets voted in. You have all been much help.
As for my humble opinion, I still need to do more research. I am leaning towards PR. FPTP i just don't feel it as being proper representation of what British Columbians want/need, at the same time I do worry that with too many parties governing that they all don't work together and nothing gets done. Although we do have proof (NDP & Greens) that parties can support each other and make things happen, especially if they now need to play more nice with the other parties. I think it's worth a shot to change the system, also I feel that a minority gov isn't all bad as there will be more check and balances.
I’m not worried about things not getting done, I’m worried that governments will give it all away just to stay in power. Short term thinking will rule the day because any given government could fail at any moment. It discourages long term thinking and planning in my view.
Of course it isn't "limited" to two parties. It just fails miserably when it isn't.FPTP has existed for far longer than three hundred years. No where does it say it is limited to two parties.
Pretty sure that's been happening for a long long long time now. lol. But I get your point. still I don't believe our current system is not working, when 1 party wins an election the other party is just trashing the other party the whole time and waiting for the next election. They constantly go against the current party and do anything to try and stop anything from getting done. How is it any different? If they all have some power and a say maybe they will actually work out some issues...The Greens sold their souls for a shot at electoral reform. It’s easy to agree when one side just rolls over on every issue. If it passes, it won’t be anything like this past year.
I’m not worried about things not getting done, I’m worried that governments will give it all away just to stay in power. Short term thinking will rule the day because any given government could fail at any moment. It discourages long term thinking and planning in my view.
