first past the post vs. proportional representation

[rlock]

Maybe if they'd been using PR that never would've happened.

Edit to add: seriously, thinking about it... if Trump, Hillary, Bernie and Jeb had been on an STV ballot, I'm confident Bernie would've won.

Saw a survey not too long ago that 1/3 of Americans are sick of both their main parties. More than 50% thought there should be other parties in contention. (There are, of course, but they get nowhere, because of FPTP as well as the ocean of dark money in US politics).

So it's pretty clear their people are tired of the two main mired-in-eternal-bullshit parties; yet as long as either of those two are in charge, they're never going to let people really judge them. They are remaining there by default, and milking that for all it's worth.

All in all, the US system is way too complex, and weird, and subject to manipulation by lower-level officials that basically answer only to themselves. Every state has its own rules, and sometimes every county uses different methods of counting the results.

For POTUS, the US could obviously just count total votes nationwide instead. They could have a preferential system to decide the POTUS in one round, or even a runoff system like France does, where if nobody takes a majority, the top two candidates go head to head in a second round of voting.
I get that their "electoral college" thing is still there so that small states don't get overwhelmed by bigger ones, but wouldn't it make sense for each state to divide its EC votes up according to how their people actually voted? I think mayube only one state does that, and it's a small one, not one of the big game-deciding ones like Florida.

After every election people complain about the system in general, but every suggestion just goes nowhere.

 

[nightswhisper]

Nightwhisperer, you are conveniently (or ignorantly) overlooking that the government in Italy didn't really change governance every election. The Christian Democracy party held power for all but five years between 1946 and 1991. So actually the government was quite stable throughout that period. This is the often overlooked fact that FPTP supporters ignore when citing Italy's electoral history.

Another little known fact - no FPTP democracy ever permanently reverted back to FPTP after moving to a PR system. No PR democracy has ever switched to FPTP.

One exception out of sixty is hardly worth noting. stable government should be the norm, not the exception. what kind of logic is that

fptp does not revert because of two reasons:

a) the successful cases like NZ, scotland and wales does not need to.

b) the unsuccessful cases like Germany, italy and albania can't.

 

[nightswhisper]

And you're above average then, because you still get to vote? Is that your point ? I guess some people have a very high opinion of themselves.

Personally, I think the fact that the shittiest governments come out of the lowest voter turnouts is evidence of the opposite. The less people vote, the stupider the outcome. Conversely, if you as a party/government want to do something really stupid, you have to suppress most people from voting, because the ordinary people are the ones who won't buy your bullshit and have the power to stop it.

On the other hand, being low-information voters has never stopped fanatics from voting (or thinking) exactly as their leaders tell them. Such people are usually low information (by choice), on the grounds they don't need any information but what the Leader tells them.

Example: If Andrew Scheer came out in favour if building a bridge into an erupting volcano, there are some of his supporters who would not only fund it, but drive right into the lava denying all evidence that it's a bad idea. "Self-cremation in molten rock is the key to economic prosperity!"

I think you'll find every major party has people like this.

You are the King of strawman arguments there.

I don't support either system. I think they both suck. I think most people shouldn't vote. Failing that I think a few people should vote at best. Failing that, the fewer votes from fewer franchised elite should count than mass franchise.

Just because you disagree with a vote doesn't mean it's stupid. Lower voter turnout can also mean tacit complacency whereby the voter base thinks either candidate is fine. You have absolutely no idea what people are thinking and your commentary about good or bad leadership is irrelevant because not enough time has passed to witness results.

 

[rlock]

How is Germany unsuccessful? They've had political stability and the best economy in Europe.
They solved the problem of having unstable coalition governments because of how their no-confidence rules work, and they've got a 5% electoral threshold, so there are no loony micro-parties in parliament.

 

[nightswhisper]

In fact, Canada has had more elections post WW2 than Italy had. The Italy example is a lie, or at least a half-truth. Their "minority" governments are never the sort where a single-party parliamentary minority tries to govern. (Harper did so in Canada, because he would not share power.)
A more accurate example is Germany's system -

That's what this issue's really about: the desire of some parties to hold power ALONE, even when a majority does not support them and they do not have the popular support to justify it.

Under PR: You want to govern? You better have a majority of voters backing you. That can be one party, two, or more, but a majority of voters must be behind the formation of any government.

It is a grotesque distortion where a party forms government knowing most people do not support (or even tolerate) them being in charge.

Look at the election where the BC Liberals got more votes than the NDP, but the NDP (under Glen Clark) won power anyway. Absurd result, but typical FPTP stuff.


Besides, nobody's talking about making the BC PR system like Italy's; or Albania's; or Israel's. Those are all red herrings, when the closest thing to BC's options are found in Germany, New Zealand, Australia, and maybe Ireland.


No point in sounding the alarm about systems which aren't even being considered. But I guess the FPTP supporters are not above dodging the real issues, and refusing to debate the actual facts at hand.

Their whole campaign is based on fear, lies, partisanship, and deliberately creating confusion.

I can't even begin to analyze the number of strawman arguments in this one post. If you want to make examples of good PR, do it to NZ. Don't talk about Italy, at all. The Italians know they failed. The people knows it sucks. It's not a worthy cause to defend a failed institutional that once out a moron like Berlusconi into power.

The PR campaign is based on equivocation, identity politics and extortion. It's just as stupid. I don't defend FPTP because it's good, but because PRs suck.

 

[nightswhisper]

How is Germany unsuccessful? They've had political stability and the best economy in Europe.
They solved the problem of having unstable coalition governments because of how their no-confidence rules work, and they've got a 5% electoral threshold, so there are no loony micro-parties in parliament.

Germany's political stage is horrid. They are kept afloat by excellent management and technocrats who are appointed based on merit and skill. They have, foster and allow skilled administrators to rise in ranks because that is their political culture.

Their economy is also attributed to a strong Protestant work ethics culture that focuses on high end products after the Marshall Plan implementation salvaged them.

This does not equate to good electoral system. Their system works insofar as everything is happy and sunshine. Throw a migrant crisis in there or two and old scars begin to show between the Bavarian and East Germany.

 

[rlock]

You are the King of strawman arguments there.

I don't support either system. I think they both suck. I think most people shouldn't vote. Failing that I think a few people should vote at best. Failing that, the fewer votes from fewer franchised elite should count than mass franchise.

Just because you disagree with a vote doesn't mean it's stupid. Lower voter turnout can also mean tacit complacency whereby the voter base thinks either candidate is fine. You have absolutely no idea what people are thinking and your commentary about good or bad leadership is irrelevant because not enough time has passed to witness results.

Not my opinion alone, not by a longshot, that low voter turnout election produce terrible governments and dysfunctional societies. Studies show that the reason for low turnout is generally not a sign of passive contentment with the system, but the idea that the voter has no desirable choices available to them. People can't find what they want inside the existing major parties, shouldn't they have other choices available? It's the degree of actual support which should decide which political movements are legitimate contenders or not. I don't think there should be some other "gatekeeper" that just takes options out of consideration entirely - even ones which are extreme or which I disagree with. The people being right or wrong is not the point; the point is, it's up to them to risk making a mistake, instead of having some tiny elite decide it for them without any consent, and force them into a way of life they never actually chose.

As for the rest, sounds like you're saying you'd like to go back to the days when only owners of substantial amounts of property could vote? (I.E. before Canada's 19th century voting reforms happened?) Or some sort of vote multiplier where it's not one voter = one vote? Probably a mismatched concept for a society where everyone's supposed to be equal under the law. In any case, I guess much depends on whether that's in your own self-interest. For most people, it isn't, and they would never stand for it.

 

[Uncled]

As for the rest, sounds like you're saying you'd like to go back to the days when only owners of substantial amounts of property could vote?

How about doing it like the movie Starship Troopers - only citizens (those who have performed military, government, or public service) could vote.

 

[storm rider]

In the grand scheme of things it really does not matter as politicians just plain FUCK TAX PAYERS OVER.In Canada they legislate it and the most perfect example is the MP pension plan.For every dollar an MP contributes to his/her pension tax payers contribute 5 dollars.Or how about the Parliament Dining Room where our MP's get to eat 5 star meals for pennies on the dollar as tax payers pay for it(this would never be brought to the attention by ANY of the media as they enjoy it as well) whilst a good portion of Canadians
think it is a luxury to add some cooked ground beef to their Kraft dinner.

Given the on going riots in France over the fuel tax THAT is exactly what we need in Canada right now and fast.We need an angry mob of pissed off people standing up to the BULLSHIT Carbon Tax that will do NOTHING to lower GHG emissions....and Canada's stance on that issue is a fucking farce.....Canada is responsible for 1.5% of total worldwide GHG emissions.....yet Canada's northern boreal forest cleans up 50% of total world wide GHG's.

Taxation is THEFT and the Carbon Tax is a straight up consumption tax.....with the GST stacked on top of it.

SR

 

[licks2nite]

From the U.S. based Gatestone Institute, an example of what can happen even in parliamentary stable Sweden with a PR electoral system. Sweden is 86 days past an election without forming a government. The reason, to keep a fledgling conservative party out of any ruling coalition. Four years ago, contrary to the wishes of the electorate to have free-enterprise parties in power the liberal block threw their support behind socialist parties to avoid an alliance with the new socially conservative "Sweden Democrats". The same scenario is playing out again and twice now, the same man in the last 86 days has lost a vote in parliament to be prime minister. Swedes going back to the polls again right away is a possibility.
Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13381/sweden-parliamentary-crisis

 

[80watts]

One of Canada's problems is its size for its population. Infrastructure too. Look at the amount of road we need between cities (maintenance). Canada is a rich country in resources, but how does it get to those resources. Private companies... Look at NW Ontario, it is rich in natural resources, but it is hard to get to it. Private companies do the mining and make most of the profit. Those companies usually get tax write offs.

Also everybody thinks in the now, not long term. its cash in my hands or nothing at all attitude. Wrong !!!!

All mineral wealth in Canada should be taxed at 15 to 25 %. That money should be put into a large fund (like the Norwegian Trillion dollar fund) and only use the a % of the interest used to general use, meanwhile allowing the fund to grow and grow, so that when the mineral run out there is something for the Canadian Citizen in the far future... Don't be like the Albertans that sank their Heritage fund....

Ontario was a have province with the autopack and manufacturing, it has a large population, now its barely hanging on.

BC has coal and hydro-power and mining and natural gas, is it still a have province? I don't think so.

Alberta was a have province, until the oil price fell due to fracking in the states which lowered world prices.

Newfoundland became somewhat solvent with offshore oil, again world prices.

Canada should not be importing oil, we have the knowledge and resources to make our own oil, gasoline, plastics, grow our own food year round, yet we import because its cheaper....

Our problem too is environmentalism-- too much idiots that think they know the best for the environment, or they don't have their hand in the till....which causes delays in pipelines etc.

We also don't export enough manufactured goods, we allow our base mineral and resources to be sold to other countries so they can process it....

Big thing that we now cant recycle is plastics, Canada should start research and development of recycling plastic and recycle plastic. Probably no worse that sawmill stink....

In case people don't understand, our economy runs on oil..... oil .... oil..... transport goods needs oil to move it. heating, is oil or natural gas. plastics are hydrocarbons (oil). Asphalt for roads is from the bottom of the cracking chamber (which makes gas and diesel).

The answer is a federal program for energy owned by the people to consist of solar and wind farms (which can make electricity) across the country, which can be stored for future use. Nuclear is also on the table (sorry but the enviro people can go fuck themselves on this one).

All new houses should be net-zero houses (means they produce the energy they need themselves). New building material or old (brick). Notice the California fire, only thing standing after the houses was the trees. A little damage for wear, but still standing, everything else burnt down around them....

More hydroelectric plants (again fuck the enviro nuts).

High speed trains between cities powered by solar and wind farms located along the train lines. #1, #16 , the individual provinces can figure where they need extra like the 401 and 404 in Ontario . Initial costs will be high, but the future benefits will outweigh the initial costs. The extra energy can be used to make green houses to support food that can be grown in winter.
The green houses built by the hydrocarbons of the oil industry and steel industry.

Although most transport across Canada is done by tractor trailer, Trains are more efficient, waterways more so.

Canada has to get tough on its port of calls for ships not registered in Canada. For instance in Thunder Bay, ships from outside Canada sit and wait for the price of grain to drop before they load. It should be a Canadian ship that will take the grain to a major port that is on the east coast. Unfortunately companies that have to pay the higher Canadian wages (on Canadian ships), its easier for them to use foreign flags ships on the Great Lakes, costing them less in wages. The US has a rule, if you want to go port to port in the US, you have to fly the US flag. Ships can stop at their ports but have to leave the states and go to another country.

Forestry management should be like cutting individual trees, not clear cutting. Look at Sweden and Norway and Finland.... they have to conserve their forest, yet they have a healthy industry..... Maybe that is too late in Canada due to all the clear cutting.... Oh and up the price of raw lumber to the states by export tax, not import tax where the US gets to make money on our wood.

 

[clu]

FPTP prevails. At least now hopefully both sides of the argument can now agree on something: that was a total waste of time.

 

[vanperb]

FPTP prevails. At least now hopefully both sides of the argument can now agree on something: that was a total waste of time.

No one ever said democracy was an efficient process... Still it ended better than what happened with the HST.

 

[MissingOne]

FPTP prevails. At least now hopefully both sides of the argument can now agree on something: that was a total waste of time.

Not a total waste of time. The result is clear enough that no political party will be tempted to try yet another referendum on PR for many years.

 

[treveller]

Not a total waste of time. The result is clear enough that no political party will be tempted to try yet another referendum on PR for many years.

More like you're a mark, the con worked and the political parties who conned you won't need to deal with the threat of electoral reform for many years. Enjoy the fantasy.

 

[nightswhisper]

Not my opinion alone, not by a longshot, that low voter turnout election produce terrible governments and dysfunctional societies. Studies show that the reason for low turnout is generally not a sign of passive contentment with the system, but the idea that the voter has no desirable choices available to them. People can't find what they want inside the existing major parties, shouldn't they have other choices available? It's the degree of actual support which should decide which political movements are legitimate contenders or not. I don't think there should be some other "gatekeeper" that just takes options out of consideration entirely - even ones which are extreme or which I disagree with. The people being right or wrong is not the point; the point is, it's up to them to risk making a mistake, instead of having some tiny elite decide it for them without any consent, and force them into a way of life they never actually chose.

Even if 100 percent of people voted, there will be a lot of unhappy people. Voting in politicians as a concept is a shitshow. We have established a norm of voting in fuckwits who have more parliamentary skills than technical knowhow. If someone is too complacent to vote, it means they don't care. And if they don't vote, they have no rights to complain.

The logic failure of democratic complacency is absurd. The reason why people become complacent and don't want to vote is because they have no faith in any of the politicians. And the reason why politicians suck is because the voting franchise chose shit people to begin with. Democracy is not efficient because the franchise is entrusted with responsibility they shouldn't possess and you create these cycles of government that swings wildly left and right.

As for the rest, sounds like you're saying like to go back to the days when only owners of substantial amounts of property could vote? (I.E. before Canada's 19th century voting reforms happened?) Or some sort of vote multiplier where it's not one voter = one vote? Probably a mismatched concept for a society where everyone's supposed to be equal under the law. In any case, I guess much depends on whether that's in your own self-interest. For most people, it isn't, and they would never stand for it.

Being treated equally under the law (which I support) does not mean we are equals. You might be smarter, I might be taller, she might be prettier. But it doesn't mean we should all vote nor equal ability to vote

I heavily favour franchised elite. Property owners only. If you don't own shit in this country, you don't get to vote. It's the same reason why the US and France allows citizenry through military service - serve your country and prove you are willing to defend it and you can become a citizen. I don't need a bunch of hobos voting on how much property tax I should pay just so they can spend the night at a shelter. Your interest should be tied to the state.

Excuse errors. on a phone

 

[johnsmit]

No one owns property in this country.
It all held by the crown/or defector Canadian government.
You pay a fee every yr to keep using it and the services that government provides. You do own the building on the land and if the government wanted if for any definable social beneficial reason they will ask for it or expropriate it from you . And pay you a fair maker value.

But if you think you should gave more right because you own property your wrong. Depends on how you obtained the property and pay for it . If you have a business that wmploies people then there productivity and the profits you make if there work and abilities pay a for that owner ship.
And if you pay them enough to own there own property then you are responsible for there owner ship also ..

Any one renting is helping the owner pay for that building.
They played for their right too.
But that not what gives us right to vote or determined the future of the country we call home.

I own property at one time .but under your way of thinking , now I have no voting right because I sold my property.
Sorry our conditional right are garentied by the charter of right and freedoms.

I am happy with the out come of the reafrendom
Those that voted no saw through the deception of the parties in power that wanted to undemocraticly keep power. Maybe a little harsh evaluation of their motives ,but many thought the same by listening to there argument to change what was not broken in the first place .

The government you get depended on the people you vote in.

 

[nightswhisper]

No one owns property in this country.

Yes. But that's not my argument. This was a philosophical exercise.

But if you think you should gave more right because you own property your wrong. Depends on how you obtained the property and pay for it . If you have a business that wmploies people then there productivity and the profits you make if there work and abilities pay a for that owner ship.
And if you pay them enough to own there own property then you are responsible for there owner ship also ..

You can become a Canadian citizen by investing or bringing large amounts of cash. Nations love innovative people who bring productivity, creativity, and employment. The fact that you can, even in limited ways, bring more material wealth to a country to gain citizenship rather than through residency only means that bringing productivity has higher value to just technical immigration. The US does this. Canada does this. The UK and many other first world countries do this for the same reason.

Any one renting is helping the owner pay for that building.
They played for their right too.

No. You don't have the "right"to be employed by someone. You are employed because;

a) If you don't work for a guy who has more creativity and capacity than you, you'd probably starve to death. This includes jerks who own shady businesses and are shitty human beings but are productive to the state.
b) The business owner is feeding more family than you as an individual can and will.

I own property at one time .but under your way of thinking , now I have no voting right because I sold my property.
Sorry our conditional right are garentied by the charter of right and freedoms.

If you sell your property, you have lost your interest in the state.

My philosophy is the same as why the average person needs to reside 5+ years in Canada before they become a citizen; Citizenship is a duty, not a right. The same with Voting. You need to participate and support yourself in some capacity AND be attached to Canada before you're allowed to vote

Every time you vote someone into power, they now hold the power of governance over EVERYONE. It is absolutely important that those who vote exercise their intelligence and duty in voting. Those who are irresponsible do not vote. How do you feel that you as a productive citizen of society have the same voting power as the guy overdosing on the streets?

You cannot simultaneously vote in a Canadian election as a Canadian citizen while disagreeing with having a franchised elite because Canada does exercise elite franchising in a limited capacity.

I support your rights and freedoms of all citizens. I don't support the right to vote for citizens without significant attachment to the wellbeing of the state.

I am happy with the out come of the reafrendom. Those that voted no saw through the deception of the parties in power that wanted to undemocraticly keep power.

Me too.

 

[clu]

You can become a Canadian citizen by investing or bringing large amounts of cash.

...

If you sell your property, you have lost your interest in the state.

Seems contradictory. Renters contribute to the economy too. In fact, you could literally be working for the state, dedicating your life and skill to its betterment and still be a renter. Ownership of real estate seems an arbitrary measure.

And like johnsmit says, the landlords owe their ability to own those properties to the revenue their tenants contributed. The rent covers their mortgage and property taxes and makes ownership feasible. Obviously they had the resources to acquire those mortgages which sets them above but they would not be able to maintain the ownership without the tenants' contribution.

I am happy with the out come of the reafrendom
Those that voted no saw through the deception of the parties in power that wanted to undemocraticly keep power. Maybe a little harsh evaluation of their motives ,but many thought the same by listening to there argument to change what was not broken in the first place .

On that I completely disagree. Yes the parties in power were motivated by the desire to keep it, but that on its own doesn't make it the wrong choice or undemocratic. Both sides were self-motivated, so by that measure it's a draw.

Irrespective of their motives, PR is objectively more democratic than FPTP. If you voted "no" solely to spite the fact that it would help those in power, you've fallen for the deception of the "no" side. The "no" side didn't want PR because it would have inhibited their ability to regain power (through existing disproportionate means). Either that or you are aware of the unfair advantage FPTP gives certain parties and legitimately do want to continue to tip the scales in their favour.

But the people want what they want, and I'm apparently also advocating for informed and uniformed votes to carry equal weight, so c'est la vie I guess.

They say that better government comes from a more informed voter though, so it's telling a big part of the "no" side's argument was "understanding PR is hard, so just don't bother."

 

[nightswhisper]

Seems contradictory. Renters contribute to the economy too. In fact, you could literally be working for the state, dedicating your life and skill to its betterment and still be a renter. Ownership of real estate seems an arbitrary measure.

And like johnsmit says, the landlords owe their ability to own those properties to the revenue their tenants contributed. The rent covers their mortgage and property taxes and makes ownership feasible. Obviously they had the resources to acquire those mortgages which sets them above but they would not be able to maintain the ownership without the tenants' contribution.

Not all property owners need rent. Eg Vancouver housing crisis

People who work for the state or business owners are labour. Labour is not useful unless it can be exploited for profit. Business owners house and feed large number of employees and therefore should have more political power (which in an oligarchic plutocracy like the US they do). Again, you as a productive citizen and have the same political power as a homeless cocaine addict seems unenlightened to me.

Countries that actively have franchised elite (Arab countries) or passively have franchised elite (US) have more efficient governments.