Canada's Parliament

[vid]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

How can you dismiss the very system that we've used to form governments as a central reason for our success?

I'll be the first to say that when it comes to getting shit done, dictatorships are the best way to do it!

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Other countries haven't been so fortunate.

And some have been more fortunate. Look at the success China has had with its one-party system.

Originally Posted by jmt18325

What works well isn't somrthing that people will be in a hurry to change.

It functions, but does it represent? I suppose it depends on you position on government: Do you want a government you dislike but that gets shit done, or do you want a government that you like but has to fight to accomplish its goals?

It certainly works very nicely for the few of you who actually support either the Liberals or Conservatives. For the rest of us, and for the half of you that are stuck in opposition on an alternative basis, not so much.

Originally Posted by jmt18325

The real aim of democracy is to provide a stable transition between governments that doesn't involve violence.

As if Australia breaks out in sectarian violence every time government changes hands! And who can forget the Belgian Civil War 2007–2011? Their society nearly collapsed!

Originally Posted by jmt18325

It allows people to choose government and create the transition.

Except it doesn't. It only allows people to choose who represents their home constituency.

I don't get to cast a ballot that says who I want to be Prime Minister, ever. That's not a thing in our political system. We cannot directly choose our head of state or our head of government, we can only choose a representative and hope that enough of the 337 other constituencies feel the same way. And what happens when the results are tallied?

39% of Canadians voted for a party that holds over 53% of the seats. We've had decades now of Prime Ministers using this situation to pass unpopular legislation like gun laws, trade agreements, law concerning women or crime or minorities, and budgets or omnibus bills riddled with god knows what, often against the popular opinion of the nation. How is this democratic?

I suppose you could make that claim in that it certainly is people, and not lizards, that sit in that house!

Originally Posted by jmt18325

FPTP has done that very well for Canada.

33% of Saskatchewanians voted NDP. There are exactly 0 NDP MPs from that province to represent their voice in Parliament. 44% of New Brunswickers voted Conservative, but 80% of New Brunswick's seats are Conservative MPs! That doesn't seem to be accurately representing what the people there wanted as a representative at all.

It's like going to a buffet and saying "oh, the butter chicken looks quite nice!" and so they take away everything but.

Originally Posted by jmt18325

It has forced major parties to adopt policies of broad appeal in order to get broad support.

The CPC's approval rating is in the 30s. That's neither broad appeal nor broad support.

Originally Posted by jmt18325

It has also prevented governments from being beholden to fringe views.

Health care was a fringe view. Same sex marriage was a fringe view. God forbid we have to listen to the fringe views!!

Originally Posted by jmt18325

You're going to have a hard time making the case that we need change based on some made up concept of subjective fairness.

If the idea that the composition of our democratically elected government should be at least a reasonable representation of the will of the people seems "made up" to you than I'm not sure if you really understand what democracy means. It's more than just "ensuring a smooth transition" from one dictator to the next. Fuck, China and Russia have smooth transitions between their dictators (and Russia even "elects" theirs!) but I don't see you championing them! (Although Trudeau did a while back.)

[vid]

And don't you find it a bit suspicious, that the Conservatives had electoral reform as part of their platform... until 2006?

And the NDP... until 2011?

And the Liberals, since 2011?

Isn't it strange how the ruling party and the leading party of the opposition never seem too willing to change the status quo?

[jmt18325]

Because the status quo works, unless your someone such as yourself who's ideas aren't broadly supported. You can try to pick the points apart all you want, but your complaints ring hollow, because most people don't share your view.

And I'm well aware of how our government system works. Canadians, do indirectly choose their government, just as many others do.

[BretttheRiderFan]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

How can you dismiss the very system that we've used to form governments as a central reason for our success? Other countries haven't been so fortunate. What works well isn't somrthing that people will be in a hurry to change.

The system itself is great. Our Westminister-style democracy and federation are among the best in the world.

The way we elect those Members of Parliament? Extremely outdated, and has been phased out by practically every other democracy in the world outside of a handful.

Frankly, Canadians deserve better than the current electoral system. But that doesn't mean we need to overhaul our system of government. An electoral system and a system of government are two separate things.

[BretttheRiderFan]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

The real aim of democracy is to provide a stable transition between governments that doesn't involve violence. It allows people to choose government and create the transition. FPTP has done that very well for Canada. It has forced major parties to adopt policies of broad appeal in order to get broad support. It has also prevented governments from being beholden to fringe views. You're going to have a hard time making the case that we need change based on some made up concept of subjective fairness.

This is actually the opposite of what First Past the Post does. It encourages parties to play the divide and conquer game and win elections based on regional strongholds. First past the post is what allowed the Bloc to win over 49 seats in 2008 with 9.98% of the vote and the NDP to win 37 with twice the number of votes.

Not to mention the Greens winning precisely zero with just under 7% of the vote.

Heck, there have even been elections in the past where a party won the majority of nationwide votes but another party won a majority of seats.

[vid]

Originally Posted by BretttheRiderFan

This is actually the opposite of what First Past the Post does. It encourages parties to play the divide and conquer game and win elections based on regional strongholds. First past the post is what allowed the Bloc to win over 49 seats in 2008 with 9.98% of the vote and the NDP to win 37 with twice the number of votes.

Not to mention the Greens winning precisely zero with just under 7% of the vote.

But if your statement were true, that would mean strategic voting would be a thing, which it isn't!!

Originally Posted by BretttheRiderFan

Heck, there have even been elections in the past where a party won the majority of nationwide votes but another party won a majority of seats.

Most voters simply didn't hold that party's point of view!!

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Because the status quo works, unless your someone such as yourself who's ideas aren't broadly supported.

The Conservative Party's ideas aren't broadly supported. They've never had a level of support equal to the amount of power they wield in Ottawa. Not since Mulroney's first term has the composition of a parliament even closely mirrored what the people actually voted for.

[BretttheRiderFan]

For the record, I consider myself a Red Tory and go back and forth between Team Blue and Red.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue, it's a democratic issue. And frankly I believe we'd be all the better if we overhauled our electoral system to something resembling what a true 21st century OECD nation should have.

It's time we stopped pretending that it's somehow acceptable for parties that fewer than 40% of Canadians vote for should be given effectively what amounts to friendly dictatorships every few years.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by vid

The Conservative Party's ideas aren't broadly supported. They've never had a level of support equal to the amount of power they wield in Ottawa. Not since Mulroney's first term has the composition of a parliament even closely mirrored what the people actually voted for.

The country is seen, overall, as going in the right direction according to the most recent polling. Their party doesn't have majority support, but their overall policy seems to.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by BretttheRiderFan

This is actually the opposite of what First Past the Post does. It encourages parties to play the divide and conquer game and win elections based on regional strongholds.

Generally, no. You can't win Canada with just one region. You have to appeal to a very broad audience. You can see that with the Conservatives having seats in every region (and the NDP as well).

[ozonemania]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

The country is seen, overall, as going in the right direction according to the most recent polling. Their party doesn't have majority support, but their overall policy seems to.

If by 'right direction' you mean 'correct direction', perhaps this is so:

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/c...on-on-polling/

Interesting presentation on the shifting societal values of Canadians over the past 15 years. Presentation is by Frank Graves of EKOS Research.

[BretttheRiderFan]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

The country is seen, overall, as going in the right direction according to the most recent polling. Their party doesn't have majority support, but their overall policy seems to.

It is certainly possible to believe the country is going in the right direction and not to approve of the current government. With the way our economy is tied in with that of the United States and the world at large, and the relatively minor role that government policy seems to have on the economic climate, it's entirely feasible to disapprove of government policy whilst believing the country is headed in the right direction.

There's a piece in the Globe and Mail about this very thing.

More people (43 per cent) say the country is heading in the right direction than say it is off on the wrong track (25 per cent). But the Conservatives are having trouble getting credit for what’s going right. As of now, 33 per cent approve of the job the Conservatives are doing, meaning at least 10 per cent of the electorate feels things are going well, regardless of, not because of, the Conservatives.
Even more striking, while 33 per cent “approve” of the government’s performance, only 19 per cent are convinced the Conservatives “have governed well enough to deserve re-election.” Put differently, 14 per cent of voters give the government a passing grade, but a barely passing grade.
Of the voters who think that Canada is heading in the right direction, 59 per cent are not planning on voting Conservative. As of now, 32 per cent would vote Liberal, 18 per cent for the NDP. While this could change, today the Tories are converting just 41 per cent of those who are happy with the way things are going.

There are several reasons why this is happening.

For years, Canadians have watched how interconnected our economy has become with that of the rest of the world. This government, possibly more than any before it, has been at pains to stress this fact. On the positive side for the incumbents, it means that when things go badly in the rest of the world, Canadians aren’t so quick to blame Ottawa. But it also means that as things recover in Europe and the U.S., Canadians can decide to credit good times here, with better times elsewhere.

Canadians have also come to believe that governments can’t wave a policy wand and make a sick economy well. Again, Conservatives more than any other party, preach that markets, not governments, are chiefly responsible for solving economic problems, providing economic momentum, creating jobs. It’s tricky to demand too much credit, when your overall economic philosophy is more hands off than interventionist.

A third factor is that Canadians care plenty about the economy, especially when times are bad, but when times improve, interest in other priorities is kindled. Some want more emphasis on the environment, others on health care, or pensions, or poverty. For many, tax cuts, a stronger military, and getting tough(er) on crime simply doesn’t excite them, the way it does the Conservative base.

Finally, a good number of centrist voters have felt themselves pushed away or excluded by the partisan and divisive language the government sometimes uses to advance its agenda. These are people who voted Conservative in the last two or three elections even though they do not consider themselves to be “right wing,” and distrust ideology generally. If the wolf no longer is at the door, and seeing leaders they like across the aisle, some of these voters are more tempted by, and perceive less economic risk, in the idea of a change.

Our latest polling numbers suggest a path to a fourth victory is possible for the Conservatives, but it would require rejuvenation – at the very least a change in tone and style. Between the 19 per cent who say “governed well enough” to deserve a fourth term and the 43 per cent who say the country’s going in the right direction, there are a lot of votes up for grabs.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle20298672/

[BretttheRiderFan]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Generally, no. You can't win Canada with just one region. You have to appeal to a very broad audience. You can see that with the Conservatives having seats in every region (and the NDP as well).

I never said you could win Canada with just one region. Our majority governments have always been based on winning seats in multiple regions. The problem with that, however, is that you're still relying on that method of winning seats. The only thing you need is more votes than anyone else in a riding. In the case of Ontario, the surge in NDP support last election actually played a major role in so many Liberals seats in the GTA going to the Conservatives.

The Conservatives won the majority of seats in Ontario, but they certainly didn't win the majority of voters over.

The "divide and conquer" method of winning elections was perhaps no more evident than during the Chretien years. This is not a partisan issue at all, it's a democratic issue.

In a system of proportional representation, parties aim not to win seats in electoral districts, but to get votes. The more votes you win, the better. And in a multiparty system it's virtually impossible for one party to win a majority, necessitating cooperation and coalition building between parties. This ensures that a government is always reflective of the actual voters of the country. This is the most democratic system in place in the world.

If the aim is for Canada to be a true first world democracy, then a reform of our first past the post system is key.

Preston Manning stresses the combative nature of our current system and the virtues of a proportional system in this interview with Jian Ghomeshi.

• Video Link

[SignalHillHiker]

That'd be ideal, but aren't we far too regionally divided for it to work for long? Playing devil's advocate...

Canada is a large federation, and such a style of government seems better suited for a nation state or a smaller sort of union.

The Bloc certainly wouldn't want it.

And how would the seats be allocated? Would they just divy them up based on the combined, federal vote? Or would each province's seats be decided based on its popular vote and form the federal government as a consequence?

Say the latest polls are true and Newfoundland votes 54% for the Liberals, 27% for the Conservatives, and 15% for the NDP. Does that mean 54% of our MPs would be Liberal? Or would our MPs only be Liberal to whatever, lower extent Canada supports the Liberals?

If the federal government goes Liberal with, say, 44% of the vote - does that mean 44% of Alberta's MPs must be Liberal? Or can they remain almost completely Conservative?

[BretttheRiderFan]

There are a very long list of examples worldwide that we could use to choose from. Many federations employ systems that are more proportional than our own...Germany and Australia come to mind.

Obviously we'd have to formulate some sort of "made in Canada" solution to it.

"The Bloc certainly wouldn't want it"

And here we have the greatest argument for electoral reform that could possibly be made.

Though the way the polls are in Quebec at the moment, the Bloc might just prefer a system that would actually reward them based on their vote percentage, because their prospects in individual ridings are about as good as toast.

[SignalHillHiker]

Maybe.

So I was going to ask you if the Bloc could lose official status but Googled it instead:

In the House of Commons since 1985,[1] a party must have at least 12 seats to be recognized as an official party.[2]

(Wikipedia)

So with just two members right now, does that mean the Bloc isn't an official party anymore? The Green Party has as many MPs.

[BretttheRiderFan]

Well, they don't have "official party status" in the House of Commons, but yes they're still a political party.

Official Party Status basically means that your party is given certain privileges during Question Period and funding for staffing and research offices.

There are times in the past twenty years when I believe the NDP even lost "Official Party Status" in the Commons, but the party always still existed of course.

Some parties have lost it and regained it, like the PCs in the 90s.

[BretttheRiderFan]

I'm really interested in hearing about the Bloc right now, if any Quebec members could shed some light onto this. There's basically zero coverage of them now in the national media.

Their leader isn't even an MP, and having just two MPs I wonder how much they're really doing as far as "party work" (obviously they're still serving as MPs for their ridings and doing all that relevant work).

I know it's dangerous for a party to get too small, usually it means there's less of a real drive or focus towards message control or party unity.

This has definitely been the case with the Alberta Liberals here. They've been decimated over the past decade and now they're basically a loose band of five MLAs who happen to share office space.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

You can try to pick the points apart all you want, but your complaints ring hollow, because most people don't share your view.

You know who else's views most people don't share? Every government we've had for the last century except four. That's right, out of 28 governments in 100 years, 24 of them didn't get the majority of the votes.

Before the 1920s we really did have a two party system and FPTP actually made sense. The concept has been obsolete ever since.

[vid]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Before the 1920s we really did have a two party system and FPTP actually made sense. The concept has been obsolete ever since.

Actually, we didn't. Sir John A. MacDonald's first government in 1867 only got 34.5% of the vote! There were lots of minor parties and independents for the first 20 years. It wasn't until the late 1880s that governments started to be formed with more than 45% of the vote, but even then, the PC's lost in 1896 in spite of getting the most votes (48.2%!)

Between 1900 and 1921 we had a two party system like the US but before and after that period, you can't say FPTP made sense. Of course, try explaining STV to a 19th century farmer from Essex County.

[SignalHillHiker]

Canada didn't start with just two parties? What were they?

Our first election after independence was in 1855, and there were only two parties - ironically the same names we have federally in Canada today: Liberal and Conservative. (Liberals won).

It wasn't until 1869 (four elections later) that we got a third party - the Anti-Confederation Party - and it won. Of course, then it blew up and we had multiple parties and coalition governments. We even elected a Prime Minister from the Newfoundland People's Party in 1908. Long live da revolution, b'y.

What were the parties in the first election for Canada? Were there really more than two?