Apolitical Staples

I knew you would like that column. :)

Under your scenario, all of us political intellectuals would be able to find a party that we could feel completely comfortable with. Well, that’s just great for those of us who like to live in ivory towers, and see things only in black and white (hello, Andrew). Unfortunately we would have so many different parties that most people who actually have a life instead of spending their time analyzing political nuances would find that there were so many options, they would completely lose interest in voting. In just looking at Ontario and right-wing, you are up to 5 already. Then you have to split up the left, and add in all the special interest groups. I mean do you seriously think that the Rhino Party or the Marijuana Party should be in a a position to win a seat based on the proportiuon of the vote received ?

I think it is more important to keep as many people involved in casting votes as possible, and if this means KISS instead of MMP, so be it.

Incidentally, why do none of you guys who try to promote this sort of system ever discuss the state of politics in Italy for instance, where they have a gazillion different parties, can only rule by the most contorted coalitions, and change their governments about as frequently as most people change their socks ?

Mostly agree with Jad. I’m not sold on proportional representation. FPTP has its flaws, but overall I think it serves the majority of Canadians well.

I think MMP gives too much power to fringe parties that don’t represent the views of average Canadians.

I consider myself a conservative, but I’m not a big fan of an extreme-libertarian like Ron Paul, or an uber-social conservative like those in the Christian Heritage Party. I think most Canadians are near the centre politically, and thats why you see the Liberals and Conservatives dominate national politics historically. I’m in favour of the ‘FPTP-Winner take all’ system because it keeps the power in the hands of the more moderate parties, which helps prevent power from falling into the hands of extremists during times of crisis, war, etc. If you’re a fringe group like the NDP has been, on a federal level, and you want to gain power, then you need to moderate your policies to appeal to a plurality of voters. You need to committ to doing whats in the interest of the majority, not the isolated minority on the far-left, or even far-right in the case of the old Reform Party.

I could live with the minor parties getting MP’s under a PR system, even if that means that the Marijuana party and Rhino’s ending up getting representation.

What I struggle with the most is how do voters get a bad apple off of a parties list? You could be the worst MP in the world and you would be assured of keeping your seat if you were #1 on the list.

In my mind democracy ends up being subverted, or bypassed, by the fact that He (or She) who builds the list controls who goes to Ottawa and who doesn’t. And how do you separate the good ones from the bad ones?

At least with FPTP you have a chance of getting rid of the bad ones.

I don’t buy into the concept that drastically changing the electoral system will somehow magically get more people voting. If a person doesn’t want to spend the 5 minutes it requires to vote on the way home from work they aren’t going to vote under any system.

Two very simple ways of increasing turnout would be to:

1) Add a nominal fee to your Income Tax if you didn’t bother to vote ($25 or so).

2) Apply the lessons learned in Iraq and dip the voters thumb in green paint. It solves the problem of people voting in multiple polls and demonstrates to society that you excercised your right to vote (or didn”t).

Calling the NDP fringe and the Reform Party far-right is just ignorant. Must be a Liberal or an old school Tory. One party is almost always in charge of at least one provincial government and the other was the official oppostion and nurtured our current Prime Minister.

Ignorance…which is why you and Jad bring up the example of Italy. Well that’s just as stupid as me bringing up the example of India which has a FPTP system AND has even more parties represented in parliament, with criminal charges against 10% of the MP’s at any time and at least a couple elected from jail. Government just like Italy’s (big coalitions, frequent elections) but elected by FPTP. Dysfunctional and diverse countries produce dysfunctional governments. No amount of political reform can prevent it. Italy and India aren’t relevant. Germany and New Zealand are since they actually have MMP.

Look at the citizens’ assembly that produced this recommendation. 90%+ support. People who study the issue almost always come to the same conclusion; FPTP sucks. The debate is where you go from there….many different options…not only proportional representation, presidential/republic, Single Transferrable Vote, MMP, preferential ballot. When was the last time a new democracy picked FPTP for their elections?

Davide,

We’re trading in a seriously flawed system for a flawed system. A 77 Ford Pinto for 99 Neon.

The assembly should have gone for “Open List” instead of “Closed List”. It IS a serious flaw with this proposal. There isn’t even any requirement for any form of election of list candidates either by party members or the general public. There is however a requirement for transparency in how they were selected, but that just acknowledges the flaw and doesn’t really fix it. This will undermine MMP both now and afterwards, if implemented.

I don’t want Canada locked into eternal minority governments that are only formed through patchwork coalitions.

Call me ignorant or old-school, or whatever you want, but I like the stability of the current system. I think its more conducive to long-term governance. I could be wrong, but thats my opinion.

I like the fact that everyone who sits in the House of Commons won their seat democratically. I don’t think that political parties should be able to appoint candidates to multi-seat ridings. There are enough political appointments as it is, particularly in the Senate over the past half century.

Run-off elections would be fine, to determine the final outcomes in multi-seat ridings, if PR were adopted in Canada.

I do honestly think that PR gives too much power to fringe parties. Maybe the NDP and Reform were bad examples, but I personally prefer the system as it is, with a few tweaks to eliminate some of the patronage and increase accountability.

From where comes the naive belief that the voters who tend to vote Party “X” will not just take the gimme and vote twice for Party “X”: in the riding, and on the list?

IrC, there is nothing wrong with that and I suspect most would do that.