Trudeau's electoral reform will lead to much larger deficits

[sooperphreek]

the new liberals and liberal leader has deep ties in BC and in BC politics. look at his grandpa. so he is partial to 3 provinces. and then with all the welfare/ei bailouts in alberta - that could be 4 provinces. saskachewan premier made his bed. and the maritimes swept back into the fold like they always used to be.

[Glacier]

I was not surprised to see right wing Fraser institute taking the con side of being against electoral reform.

The right wing needs the status quo to remain so that they can keep the status quo. The conservatives are a vicious circle of regression and anachronism.

They want to keep the system that favours 1/3 of the population and grants them 100% power. They will resist at any cost any attempts to give voice to the other 70% of the population. And God forbid any kind of system that makes them have to work together with other parties for the good of the country, rather than just the good of their MPs or oil buddies.

You're right, but the exact same could be said about Liberals and NDPers. Liberals want electoral reform that fits the system that favours them (preferential ballot), and the NDPers want electoral reform that fits the system that favours them (proportional representation).

[sooperphreek]

and the liberals are in power. and have a clear majority. and wont have a referendum (especially after the brexit debacle) nor should they have to. and if there is too much trouble from the tory opposition - prorogue and omnibus that legislation in. and if the torys say anything they will show how plainly hypocritical they are. considering their record doing so how many times? we can be a G nation that can buck the trend and not beat the drum of an austerity - faux "surplus" mantra.

[Glacier]

Preferential balloting might not work the way the Liberals hope. The current system has benefited them more than any other political party in the western world. It is my view that changing the system will not hurt the NDP and Conservatives like the Liberals think it will. Remember that BC tried preferential balloting in the 1950s which did not give the expected result. Instead, the upstart socially conservative, fiscally moderate Social Credit party came into power out of nowhere.

[hobbyguy]

Perhaps the most difficult part of the discussion is recognizing that proportional systems will shift the balance of effective power even further toward heavily urbanized areas. Each segment of society needs to feel it has, and actually have, some voice in the affairs of the nation. On a proportional basis, there are regions of the country that are over represented and vice versa. Gnerally, it is rural and small provinces that are over represented.

That is actually a good thing. It plays into this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority (which in my opinion also plays into things like Brexit).

Moving toward direct democracy may sound good, but it assumes that voters will have both the time and inclination to stay informed on large variety of matters, and have the skills requisite to process that information.

Any "direct democracy" experiments that I have seen can have some very unintended consequences. It is also of note that in many cases, "direct democracy" issues can be overwhelmed very easily by the power of money (a big issue in California "initiatives").

First past the post, in its ideal, elects a representative whom we trust to represent our interests - including regional and local ones. However, when you add in political parties, things move away from that ideal. Without political parties, however, I can not see how anything would get done and how anything but chaos would ensue. Difficult balance.

Alternative systems of electing our representatives actually do nothing to resolve the issues of government. The issues we face really stem from the subversion of the voices of our local representatives.

Much of that subversion comes from special interests, very often interests that have out-sized economic power. We see this in lobbyists, in organizations that spend a lot of money on propaganda, in the structure of party funding and donors which allows the buying of influence.

In a sense, changing the methodology of how we count votes toward who gets elected is simply changing which bottoms we put in the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Campaign finance reform has far more potential to make our country more democratic. "We", however, would have to be prepared for a system of public only financing of political campaigns, and that could means slightly higher taxes - a worthwhile investment in my opinion.

[JLives]

Moving toward direct democracy may sound good, but it assumes that voters will have both the time and inclination to stay informed on large variety of matters, and have the skills requisite to process that information.

Any "direct democracy" experiments that I have seen can have some very unintended consequences. It is also of note that in many cases, "direct democracy" issues can be overwhelmed very easily by the power of money (a big issue in California "initiatives").

I think moving towards Direct Democracy is inevitable. With the internet and access to information we already have the infrastructure. People are getting tired of elected officials carrying out their own, or their party's agenda, instead of the will of the people. I would like to represent myself. And grouping people into left and right doesn't work well either. Everyone has their own opinions on individual issues that really can't be grouped under a broad label like that, I certainly don't define myself as a left winger, for one thing I support the death penalty. It sometimes doesn't work well in the short term but I believe over the long term people will take the time and effort to become informed on issues. Especially when you can see, in real time, that your vote matters. There will always be results some won't agree with but the will of the people will truly be carried out. It's the only pure form of Democracy.

[Woodenhead]

This thread reads like an Onion article. Aside from JLives' post above. To which I'll reply: I like that idea on paper, but what's the (best, if any) mechanism to protect against "tyranny of the majority"?

[Gone_Fishin]

and the liberals are in power. and have a clear majority. and wont have a referendum (especially after the brexit debacle) nor should they have to. and if there is too much trouble from the tory opposition - prorogue and omnibus that legislation in. and if the torys say anything they will show how plainly hypocritical they are. considering their record doing so how many times? we can be a G nation that can buck the trend and not beat the drum of an austerity - faux "surplus" mantra.

Is 39% a "clear majority" which represents the wishes of the majority of Canadians? I don't think so.

[Rwede]

Is 39% a "clear majority" which represents the wishes of the majority of Canadians? I don't think so.

Math is hard. Quit giving the Liberal fanbois migraines as they ponder your question.

When the Liberals bring in this "ex-spurt" to back their reasoning for evading a referendum, we see just how much people's opinions matter to the Laurentide Elite who seized power in Ottawa.

https://www.facebook.com/ronaambrose/vi ... 171128525/

[Omnitheo]

Thank you for arguing in favour of election reform.

Liberals, NDP, Green etc are all much closer in policy than the conservatives. When it comes down to common policy and ideology, more people voted left than voted right. Even if some of that left vote was split.

This election also had a much higher turnout. The result being that while Trudeau may have had a slightly smaller popular vote percentage, more people voted for him than ever voted for Harper in any single election.

[Rwede]

^^^ I don't really care what political parties and ideological zealots think.

I care what Canadians think.


According to the poll, 65 per cent of Canadians agree a national referendum is needed before MPs can change the way they are elected, while 18 per cent say such a step isn't necessary.

Seventeen per cent told the firm they have no opinion on the matter.


http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/07/11 ... 28892.html

A vast majority of CANADIANS (65%) believe a referendum is necessary.

The Liberal fanbois on this forum are part of the puny 18% who believe a referendum is not necessary.

[JLives]

^^^ I don't really care what political parties and ideological zealots think.

I care what Canadians think.


According to the poll, 65 per cent of Canadians agree a national referendum is needed before MPs can change the way they are elected, while 18 per cent say such a step isn't necessary.

Seventeen per cent told the firm they have no opinion on the matter.


http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/07/11 ... 28892.html

A vast majority of CANADIANS (65%) believe a referendum is necessary.

The Liberal fanbois on this forum are part of the puny 18% who believe a referendum is not necessary.

I didn't realize you were a Direct Democracy supporter too.

[Rwede]

I didn't realize you were a Direct Democracy supporter too.

In a case where there's a decision of whom we as electors are going to hire for public office, I believe it's up to the employer (us) to determine the terms and conditions of employment (for politicians).

Who on earth would hire an employee who dictated the terms of his own hiring? It's asinine.

So yes, if you want a bit of common ground with me on an issue J, you and I are direct democracy supporters on this issue.

[hobbyguy]

There are indeed some fundamental questions where direct democracy can inform and direct action.

The question is when and how often? For what issues? National security? Trade agreements?

And then I ask, "would the Harperites support the need for a referendum on electoral changes if Harper were still PM?". They certainly weren't calling for one when Skippy was making significant changes.

I can see how difficult it would be for many to keep abreast of all the issues that could come up. Folks have busy lives, families, careers, etc. that are going to necessarily preoccupy them. Very few have the luxuries of time to properly research every topic.

The other issue that comes up is the discussion I alluded to regarding "the Tyranny of the majority".

If you think "political correctness" goes too far, think about the possibilities of what could, for practical reasons, become a "Facebook likes contest" over every issue.

I for one would like to see a referendum on: TPP, CETA, NAFTA, the China FIPA, etc. How many have the luxury of the time I have to really look at those things? (And lol, there is no guarantee I will understand them.)

Is it not better to elect competent representatives, pay them full time, with a staff, to properly examine these issues?

Is it not better to have a party system where like minded individuals can aggregate and espouse their perspective? Subject, of course, to the kinds of issues that Michael Chong and Brent Rathgeber raised during the previous government.

How, in "direct democracy", do you ensure that minorities have a voice and their issues are dealt with?

The only model example we have is Switzerland. http://classroom.synonym.com/places-direct-democracy-government-23257.html And the Swiss voted in this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-ammann/the-real-reasons-why-the_b_373947.html Plus Switzerland is both geographically compact and a much smaller population than Canada.

I could see a Swiss system being somewhat effective in Canada, but really, really awkward to administer. However, Switzerland does not face many of the issues that Canada faces as the Swiss economy is more homogeneous.

So the closest model would be to introduce "initiatives" as they have in many US States. Those have had mixed results.

[sooperphreek]

Is 39% a "clear majority" which represents the wishes of the majority of Canadians? I don't think so.

again adnauseum - you thought 38 % was great for a few years. was it bad in your eyes then?