Proportional Representation

[Hurtlander]

He didn't. The Liberals acted in good faith and appointed a majority of seats around the table to the other parties. In the end, there was no consensus that made the Liberals willing to use their majority for the options tabled over and over. The PM had a hill he was standing on - and he used his authority to veto. If the opposition truly wants to examine the issue - they need to come to the table with the knowledge of the PM's preference. And convince him otherwise. After all - he is the PM. His opinion matters.

You are a typical politician and totally avoided my question, maybe you should look up what Electoral reform actually is.

According to the promise JT made during 2015 election was that election was to be the last time “First-past-the-post voting” was going to be used.

GordonH, you’re wasting your time arguing with someone who wasn’t old enough to vote in 2015, and undoubtedly isn’t even aware of the fact that one of the two main reasons Trudeau won a majority in 2015 was because of Trudeau’s promise to bring in electoral reform, and that there’d never be another “first past the post election”.... the other main reason he won a majority in 2015 was his promise to legalise weed, one of the very few promises he actually followed through with...
Last week when Trudeau’s internal polling showed that he wasn’t going to win a majority, Trudeau once again said he’s willing to entertain the possibility of electoral reform.. anyone wanna bet Trudeau was just talking outta his butt once again ?

[crookedmember]

Okay, why did your leader bs the voters about Electoral reform.

I will second this question.

That's easy. Because in spite of trying, no consensus could be reached among the parties and Trudeau didn't want to ram his preference down the opposition's throats.

The Liberals wanted ranked ballots, which would benefit them. The NDP wanted proportional representation, which would benefit them (and the other small parties). The CPC wanted to hold a referendum, because doing nothing is best for them.

Keep in mind BC held a referendum in 2018 and 'keep the current system' won by almost 2:1 over proportional representation.

[roseridge]

As long as we have a representational democracy that will be the possible case, proprep would help alleviate that though ... south of us they have the same thing happen, their president in some cases is not a product of the direct popular vote but indirectly through the apportionment of electoral college votes, and you think we have it screwed up?

If you follow their elections, look at the popular vote vs the electoral college seats. Trump lost both in terms of seats, and popular vote in 2019. Their system seems to be much more tightly coupled with popular vote than we are.

[spooker]

As long as we have a representational democracy that will be the possible case, proprep would help alleviate that though ... south of us they have the same thing happen, their president in some cases is not a product of the direct popular vote but indirectly through the apportionment of electoral college votes, and you think we have it screwed up?

If you follow their elections, look at the popular vote vs the electoral college seats. Trump lost both in terms of seats, and popular vote in 2019. Their system seems to be much more tightly coupled with popular vote than we are.

Both 2000 and 2016 are examples of the popular vote reflected in the election of the President ... it doesn't happen often

Most states throw all their electoral votes to the popular winner in their state versus splitting it by percentages ... except for Nebraska and Maine ... which use their congressional districts to award their votes ... most of the time the majority of the votes have gone to the winner but in 2008 and 2016 they didn't ...

[seewood]

Can PR work if there is not a continual increase in various taxes to pay for everyone's pet projects?

I rather not get to a point where, like the Scandinavian countries, rather high taxes are the norm and disposal income is not the same as say Canada's.
Thirty years ago, a fellow we met in Denmark had to save for years to afford a trip to Canada. Took us one year to go to Denmark and England. Is this indicative today, not sure.

[spooker]

Can PR work if there is not a continual increase in various taxes to pay for everyone's pet projects?

I rather not get to a point where, like the Scandinavian countries, rather high taxes are the norm and disposal income is not the same as say Canada's.
Thirty years ago, a fellow we met in Denmark had to save for years to afford a trip to Canada. Took us one year to go to Denmark and England. Is this indicative today, not sure.

How do you feel that that would be a requirement for PR?

[rustled]

Can PR work if there is not a continual increase in various taxes to pay for everyone's pet projects?

I rather not get to a point where, like the Scandinavian countries, rather high taxes are the norm and disposal income is not the same as say Canada's.

Lots of pros and cons to consider. It seems to me, more cons than pros.

[seewood]

Con's want increased military spending , greenies want money to subsidize windy solar, NDP want the feds to use taxpayers money for building subsidized housing, libs want taxpayers money to cover Trudeau's lawyers fees.
Now everyone gets their wish list but how is that paid for within existing tax revenues? Currently it cannot I believe. Raise taxes and companies now don't have money to reinvest or pay out dividends to all the public sector union retirement pensions, nor be competitive to industry. Perhaps exodus then to lower tax regimes and Canada gets no taxes for said companies.

Retirees on fixed incomes pay increased taxes, not much perhaps, but some either on personal income or higher taxes on fuel, heat, clothing etc., I doubt would go for PR if they knew it may increase their taxes.

Simple thing in my opinion is to present a platform that is good for the country without pandering to a section that keeps you on the government payroll at $240,000 or so a year.

[rustled]

Con's want increased military spending , greenies want money to subsidize windy solar, NDP want the feds to use taxpayers money for building subsidized housing, libs want taxpayers money to cover Trudeau's lawyers fees.
Now everyone gets their wish list but how is that paid for within existing tax revenues? Currently it cannot I believe. Raise taxes and companies now don't have money to reinvest or pay out dividends to all the public sector union retirement pensions, nor be competitive to industry. Perhaps exodus then to lower tax regimes and Canada gets no taxes for said companies.

Retirees on fixed incomes pay increased taxes, not much perhaps, but some either on personal income or higher taxes on fuel, heat, clothing etc., I doubt would go for PR if they knew it may increase their taxes.

Simple thing in my opinion is to present a platform that is good for the country without pandering to a section that keeps you on the government payroll at $240,000 or so a year.

I've yet to see anyone make a case for a PR system that would be an improvement for ordinary Canadians.

[spooker]

Con's want increased military spending , greenies want money to subsidize windy solar, NDP want the feds to use taxpayers money for building subsidized housing, libs want taxpayers money to cover Trudeau's lawyers fees.
Now everyone gets their wish list but how is that paid for within existing tax revenues? Currently it cannot I believe. Raise taxes and companies now don't have money to reinvest or pay out dividends to all the public sector union retirement pensions, nor be competitive to industry. Perhaps exodus then to lower tax regimes and Canada gets no taxes for said companies.

Retirees on fixed incomes pay increased taxes, not much perhaps, but some either on personal income or higher taxes on fuel, heat, clothing etc., I doubt would go for PR if they knew it may increase their taxes.

Simple thing in my opinion is to present a platform that is good for the country without pandering to a section that keeps you on the government payroll at $240,000 or so a year.

With minority governments we still get a budget passed, no single party should monopolize the monies ... if the parties are more balanced that would mean that the specific projects brought forth by a single party would need to appeal to a broader audience ... still doesn't change the need to balance the budget (in regular times) ...

It seems like you want to say that with PR everyone gets what they want ... I disagree with that interpretation ...

[GordonH]

Highly doubtful any of main political parties in Canada really want to drop FPTP.

[spooker]

Highly doubtful any of main political parties in Canada really want to drop FPTP.

... the Libs just knew it played well to the populace

[my5cents]

That's easy. Because in spite of trying, no consensus could be reached among the parties and Trudeau didn't want to ram his preference down the opposition's throats.

The Liberals wanted ranked ballots, which would benefit them. The NDP wanted proportional representation, which would benefit them (and the other small parties). The CPC wanted to hold a referendum, because doing nothing is best for them.

Keep in mind BC held a referendum in 2018 and 'keep the current system' won by almost 2:1 over proportional representation.

The logical answer is that the type of reform should be decided by the people.

...and before you say "Well look what happened in BC."

I remember how confusing the options were presented to British Columbians. The government wanted to keep the status quo and put out enough confusing material, that that's what happened.

And we haven't even started to talk about gerrymandering.

[hobbyguy]

The only electoral system change I could support is STV (single transferable vote) coupled with campaign and party financing reform.

Donation limits to parties should be small, at the level that 90% of Canadians could and might give to a party. Something $20 month. That would cut out the "big money" problem with our politics.

Elections Canada would then run the elections AND the campaigns. Riding by riding debates for local candidates, plus leader's debates and web pages for each riding where candidates could display their priorities etc. . Modest campaign allowances to all candidates.

60 day campaign periods. If more than 6 candidates qualify and register to run, a small allowance, a run-off online vote after 20 days, then the 40 day full on campaign for top 6 and normal vote.

That type of system would democratize candidacy, and give more independents a shot. Independents could be "courted" by other parties for support or to caucus with them like Bernie Sanders. The beauty, of course, is that independents can not be whipped.

But then STV isn't really proportional representation. Candidates still have to win the riding, but it requires at least qualified support of 50%+ of the constituents. STV is more an improvement on "first past the post" because it sets the "post" at 50%+ qualified support.

I can't support any of the true proportional representation systems because they have "representatives" without constituents to represent. I fail to see how that is anything but a political game.

[ninetyninepct]

Proportional Representation would be better than what we have, but getting rid of political parties is the best solution.

We vote for our local representative on a 4 year contract basis. All of them then go to Ottawa and choose those who would be best as various Cabinet Ministers as well as the Prime Minister. Every member could submit ideas for Bills and Budgets, and would have to work to convince the majority of others to support their ideas. A simple majority of 50%+1 would not work.

We would also have the Right of Recall. If our local Rep is *bleep*, remove them and vote for their replacement with a maximum of three terms. Every vote would count.