Apolitical Staples

I think Coyne overstates Layton’s problems because he needs to bring him into the argument. The only ones demoralized by the vote on Afghanistan were Liberals, who as usual, whined mightily and then voted against Layton’s motion for immediate withdrawal.

I would have thought a string of majorities would be a better argument for PR - inherent injustice, false majority, blah blah blah, etc.

Well a string of Conservative majorities anyway.

“We would have a long string of minority governments and the arguments for PR become more and more valid.”

Sounds like a win-win to me.

You also have to consider that the longer voters park their votes with the Greens the more of them that will actually begin to identify themselves as Greens. The belief that these votes are reclaimable may be over stated.

Maybe the the right-leaning Liberals could merge with a social-Conservative-free Conservatives and call themselves the Liberal Conservatives.

They would truly be the party of MacDonald, then. :-)

What’s a social conservative? Are there DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for that? How many criteria do you have to hit before you can be classed as one of those? Are they dangerous?

My take on this is quite simple. Mathematically the libs and cons are tied (basically their core vote). What will swing it one way or the other will be people who will vote them off the island. These people for the most part are not political junkies and take in very little of newsworthy articles. They will vote for whoever pisses them off the least.

Why do the arguments for PR become more valid? Nothing prevents parties from forming coalitions, including with the intent of voting non-confidence on a minority government and then governing as that grail of PR flacks, the Coalition.

Why do the arguments for PR become more valid? Nothing prevents parties from forming coalitions, including with the intent of voting non-confidence on a minority government and then governing as that grail of PR flacks, the Coalition

PR (or some PR rather plus our usual single-member ridings) would make potential coalitions much easier to form, since the Bloc in particular would be permanently prevented from winning two thirds of more of seats in Quebec on the basis of less than 50% of the vote.

One of the fears of PR is that you get perpetual minority governments. If we have perpetual minority governments anyway with the current system we may as well have ones that are more representative of the popular vote.

We would have a long string of minority governments and the arguments for PR become more and more valid.

I got a great idea. What this game needs are a lot more shells and a couple more peas thrown in. Let the marks rank their shell picks from one to three. The sharps running the game get paid every time someone picks their shell, whether it has a pea under it or not. If the marks win they get to keep the pea. The sharps win by raking in 1/2 of all the money the marks are carrying, plus a share of what their pickpocket associates can score while everyone is distracted by the game.

Step right up folks …

PR (or some PR rather plus our usual single-member ridings) would make potential coalitions much easier to form

I don’t confuse “necessary” with “much easier”.

The correct response to possibly - not certainly - facing a long string of minority governments is surely not to cripple the system’s ability to deliver majority governments and weaken the principles of direct representation in pursuit of the vague and unrealistic hope that 50%+1 will sanctify whatever it is the victors of populism will demand of the losers.

PR enshrines the exclusion of certain political groups from participation in governance. And yes, the more parties which exist (above two or perhaps three), the more certain groups self-select their own exclusion.

But just as the Alliance and former federal Progressive Conservative Parties realized the need to work together to overcome the dominance of the Left, so too will other wise leaders in other fringe parties learn the need to work under a larger umbrella.

PR simply assures that the group (Party) with the highest voter density (i.e. the single most popular Party) always forms the government, in coalition with politically-adjacent parties. Parties more distant from the perpetual winner are forever excluded from such participation.

This is the difference between theory and reality: in theory coalitions are formed among any Parties. In reality, they are formed among similarly-minded Parties. It is when there are two main coalitions, on the “right” and on the “left”, which are roughly in balance that all political views are best represented. Neither coalition can afford to exclude their “fringes”, and either coalition has the opportunity to govern after any given election.

I’ll say it again: PR is designed to forever exclude certain viewpoints from influence, not to include them.

I’ll say it again: PR is designed to forever exclude certain viewpoints from influence, not to include them.

Not that I buy your premise, but even if it was true, it is still better than FPTP which excludes many, many view points and rewards major but still minority parties with total power, with no input whatever from any other group.

“FPTP … excludes many, many view points and rewards major but still minority parties with total power, with no input whatever from any other group”

I’ve addressed this in my earlier comment, but I’ll approach it differently in responding again: the difference is when the “coalition” is formed, and whether the electorate are given the opportunity to review their collective platform.

If a coalition is formed after the election (as PR advocates recommend), neither party can implement its previously declared platform: such a government was definitively NOT elected by the people.

It is much better that any coalition be formed prior to the election, and that all significant viewpoints be represented by either of two main coalitions. Other groups are to be encouraged, but they choose to exist in order to gain attention and influence over individuals, and not for the purpose of gaining power or influence over government.

In such an environment, that is with coalitions being formed prior to elections, a balance can be struck between competing coalitions, and the electors can choose either. While any one government might exclude the other coalition from power, the alternate government will include all its own members when it is given the reigns of power.

If a coalition is formed after the election (as PR advocates recommend), neither party can implement its previously declared platform: such a government was definitively NOT elected by the people.

No government is elected by the people per se - we vote for individual members and parties (and, by proxy, party leaders). The actual government is chosen by the Governor General, which by convention is formed by the largest party (or grouping of parties) in the House of Commons.

None of that changes under PR - the only difference is that one party is not permitted to have a near monopoly on legislative power unless it actually has massive popular support at the ballot box. And that is what is more democratic about PR.

Josh: Your point, while misguided and confused in my opinion, does not require twisting my words in order to be proposed. Please exercise appropriate care.

To your point, though: under PR, the coalition has the same monopoly on legislative power which you find so offensive under the current system. The coalition still has only one leader, one proposal before the legislature. And, just as today, excludes all from influence who are not part of the coalition.

None of that changes under PR - the only difference is that one party is not permitted to have a near monopoly on legislative power unless it actually has massive popular support at the ballot box.

The problem is that you’ve given legislatures a near monopoly on the of life of the country.

Believe it or not, ordinary people are not such clueless, greedy fools that they need a powerful government to tell them what to do all the time. And the people whom you propose to empower through whatever electoral system you choose, aren’t anywhere near as smart, as philanthropical or as selfless as they would have to be in order not to abuse so much power.

No wonder governments are so corrupt, and citizens are so desperate to find a way to influence and choose the government. Your legislatures have seized half of the wealth of the country and they’ve made it impossible for anyone to make any new wealth unless they first come crawling to the legislature on their knees, chequebook in hand.

If you’d demote the legislators back to issuing passports, sending a school inspector around once a year and collecting modest tariffs on a small number of goods, then who the hell would care if they’re selected by FPTP, PR, or ESP?

“excludes many, many view points and rewards major but still minority parties with total power, with no input whatever from any other group”

You say that like it’s a bad thing.