Topic: Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

[RangerRay]

But let's remember that the purpose of incorporating PR into a mixed system is to enhance ideological representation; I don't care if the person representing me lives three hours away as long as I know the he is representing me ideologically. Under our present system, if the representative has ideological opinions different and perhaps even opposed to mind, he is not representing me even if he were my next door neighbour. And what of representatives elected with less than 50% of the vote in the riding; is that person truly representing the riding? No! To me, ideological representation is far more important than local representation, and that's why we need PR. Just ask yourself, what do most people vote for? Do they vote for the person, or do they vote for the political party that the person represents? If you're honest you'll agree that most people vote for the party and really don't care too much who the person is. People want ideological representation and that's why we need PR.

That's nice that you want someone to represent your ideology, but in my experience, most voters want their MP/MLA to be their local representative in Parliament.  Most people couldn't give two figs for ideology, holding views that are often contradictory (myself included).  They may vote for a party that reflects mostly what they agree with, but they want to send someone to Parliament who understands their local issues.  I lived in a riding that had and MLA from party that was not traditionally elected in that riding.  Because he effectively represented the riding in Parliament, rather than represented the party and its ideology, people voted for him despite coming from a party that they would not normally vote for.

All politics is local.

Because you want a representative that agrees with you ideologically does not mean most people do.

EDIT TO ADD:  The Westminster system we have, and the representative system in the US, is based on electing local representatives, not ideological representatives.  As Mr. Campbell says, to do what you say is to turn our system upside down.

[OTBthinker]

All opinions are freely expressed in Canada today, but rarely in parliament

Hence the need for PR.

All opinions are freely expressed in Canada today, but rarely in parliament - they are expressed, heard, considered and then, mostly, rejected by the government of the day.

Should the government of the day have the right to reject the opinion of a majority of Canadians? Doesn't the government exist to represent Canadians and to serve them? So how would they be serving Canadians by going against their wishes?

We have discussed, elsewhere, that some people, including Stephen Harper, want a more clearly defined, à la the UK, two party system

The question should be, what do Canadians want? I would say that they want to be properly represented and heard and their views taken into consideration when decisions are made. Hence PR!

We have discussed, elsewhere, that some people, including Stephen Harper, want a more clearly defined, à la the UK, two party system: one major right of centre/centre right party and one major centre left/left of centre party, probably "bookended" by a hard right and a hard left party, too. I'm not sure such a thing provides the desired stability. I'm guessing that the only way to find stability is to have a large centre party with two smaller parties on each of the (economic and social) right and left wings - the voters from the right of centre and left of centre will gravitate to the centre as, mostly, economics dictate: in "hard times" the fiscal conservatives will prevail, in good time the "free spenders" will be in power - look for 8-12 year cycles. (the hard right and hard left voters will be permanently shut out of power, as they should be. their voices are heard and, properly, ignored.

Most Canadians don't view themselves that way anymore; they are individuals with differing opinions on different issues. Even members within a political party don't agree on everything. On certain issues, I myself lean right, whereas on other issues I lean left. Canadians don't want to be stuck under the rule of one ideology for a time and then under another ideology for a time; they want to be properly represented all the time. Only PR can help with that.

PR proponents betray only their own misapprehensions of the workings of the social, economic and political processes.

Times have changed, and Canadians have evolved. Welcome to the 21st century.

[OTBthinker]

That's nice that you want someone to represent your ideology, but in my experience, most voters want their MP/MLA to be their local representative in Parliament.  Most people couldn't give two figs for ideology, holding views that are often contradictory (myself included).  They may vote for a party that reflects mostly what they agree with, but they want to send someone to Parliament who understands their local issues.  I lived in a riding that had and MLA from party that was not traditionally elected in that riding.  Because he effectively represented the riding in Parliament, rather than represented the party and its ideology, people voted for him despite coming from a party that they would not normally vote for.

All politics is local.

Because you want a representative that agrees with you ideologically does not mean most people do.

EDIT TO ADD:  The Westminster system we have, and the representative system in the US, is based on electing local representatives, not ideological representatives.  As Mr. Campbell says, to do what you say is to turn our system upside down.

When I want someone to represent local issues, I look towards my municipal councilor or perhaps my provincial representative. The federal issues that concern me are rarely local issues and if they are, it's usually because someone has done something they shouldn't have. When I think of issues concerning the economy or social welfare, or defence related and foreign affairs, these issues are governed by ideology, so yes I do want ideological representation and I think most Canadians would on those issues as well.

[GAP]

I think you think you have found an audience for you views. You have made your points and they have been roundly discounted for good valid reasons. So.............stop 

[E.R. Campbell]

...
Times have changed, and Canadians have evolved. Welcome to the 21st century.

You cannot effect change in the 21st century until you understand what it is that you want to change, and that means mastering the complexities of what evolved in the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Simon de Montfort and Robert Walpole must be as familiar to you as Stephen Harper and Bob Rae or you cannot hope to make changes in an enormously complex system.

In my considered opinion you do not understand much of anything about political history, political science, the Constitution or, for that matter, Canada and Canadians. The changes you say you want and that you imply, without foundation, that some (many? more than just a few hundred?) Canadians want, reflect the sophomoric yearnings that one hears most often late at night in the junior common rooms of some universities. You are whining because some votes in parliament do not go your way; they don't go my way either and I work from inside the system, as an active, due paying and maximum allowable donor to a political party. I make my voice heard by presenting the government and the party I support, when they are not one in the same, with coherent ideas on specific policy issues.

Your ideas - an Israeli style constitution for Canada - are so far from the mainstream and from the possible as to be laughable.

[OTBthinker]

You cannot effect change in the 21st century until you understand what it is that you want to change, and that means mastering the complexities of what evolved in the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Simon de Montfort and Robert Walpole must be as familiar to you as Stephen Harper and Bob Rae or you cannot hope to make changes in an enormously complex system.

In my considered opinion you do not understand much of anything about political history, political science, the Constitution or, for that matter, Canada and Canadians. The changes you say you want and that you imply, without foundation, that some (many? more than just a few hundred?) Canadians want, reflect the sophomoric yearnings that one hears most often late at night in the junior common rooms of some universities. You are whining because some votes in parliament do not go your way; they don't go my way either and I work from inside the system, as an active, due paying and maximum allowable donor to a political party. I make my voice heard by presenting the government and the party I support, when they are not one in the same, with coherent ideas on specific policy issues.

Your ideas - an Israeli style constitution for Canada - are so far from the mainstream and from the possible as to be laughable.

I don't want to be stuck in our ways because of history. The world has changed - it has evolved - and so must Canada. Sure I would like to see Constitutional change; though I love Canada I recognize that it isn't perfect and wish it could be changed for the better. And though I recognize that Constitutional change is difficult - which is why the government is seeking to add additional seats to the House instead of negotiating Constitutional change that would allow taking seats away from certain provinces - sometimes it must be tried and we should be able to bring about Constitutional change. The framers of our Constitution did not envision all the changes that have occurred in the past 145 years, and so we should be able to bring about change that better responds to the current reality and to the desires of Canada's citizens.

As for the changes that I would bring to our electoral system, they are not as radical as you seem to think and would require no constitutional change. It's a mixed system because it would simply incorporate components of PR to our present FPTP system. Canadians would see no change in the way they vote, but the end results would be more closely proportional to the actual vote. What's so wrong about that?

[E.R. Campbell]

... What's so wrong about that?

It would, fundamentally, alter the rationale for any representation at all.

Peoples' views on issues, great and small, reflect much more than just political ideology - because, I would argue, Canadians, in the main, are not especially ideological. Canadians vote because of how things happen to them, personally, in their homes, in their communities (that's why we have "une chambre des communes", it is a House of Communities (not of commoners)) far more than they vote for (or against) some abstract ideology. That's why Jack Layton moved the NDP away from the ideological "left" and towards the centre: to make his party more attractive to more people by offering solutions that made sense to them in their local communities; that's why he did so well in Québec - he offered himself and his party as being "in tune" with Québec's aspirations and sympathetic to Québec's point of view; that counted for a lot more than left wing ideology which is more popular in Québec than elsewhere in Canada. Ditto for the Liberals' failures: Liberals post St Laurent/Pearson have been ideological and they have steadily, inexorably declined from being the natural and national governing party to being a regional, urban rump; in other words they forgot that "all politics is  local."

There is a reason we have, for 10,000 years, banded together in communities and, more recently, in organizations of like minded people - political parties: we have local issues that matter to us and, to a great degree we want and need the support of other communities; it's not about ideology, it's about communities and local concerns. Political representation needs to be local. PR is a solution looking for a problem - it is an unnecessary frill designed to make clueless people think that life is (somewhat) "fair."

[OTBthinker]

E.R. Campbell,

I first have to tell you how much I am enjoying our interaction; it's nice talking to people who have strong opinions about things that matter to you.

Let me ask you this: do you find you have more in common with the people in your community, or do you find you have more in common with other members of the Conservative Party? If it's the latter, I would think ideology matters more to you than your local community. Your ''community'' is a group that you see yourself as belonging to, and it can very well be based on ideology rather than on proximity.

I agree with you that most Canadians don't view themselves along the ideological spectrum but that is how they vote, whether they know it or not, and their ideological leanings can vary from issue to issue.

As for the NDPs success in Quebec, it had everything to do with the NDP being a left of center party. Quebecers wanted to try something different than voting for the Bloc and did not want to vote Liberal (mostly a question of Liberal leadership). As you say, being more left leaning than the rest of Canada, they never would have voted Liberal, so they parked their votes with the left leaning NDP whose leader they could relate to. As far as I can see, this is a temporary arrangement which will probably change at the next federal election.

As for the Liberals, I would argue that their problem is that they have lost touch with their ideology. They have become a party bent on winning at all costs and therefore shifting their policies to fit the latest polls. They have lost direction and no longer stand for anything except opportunism.

There is a reason we have, for 10,000 years, banded together in communities and, more recently, in organizations of like minded people - political parties: we have local issues that matter to us and, to a great degree we want and need the support of other communities; it's not about ideology, it's about communities and local concerns.

What you are describing here are ideologically-based communities, so how can you say it's not about ideology?

PR is a solution looking for a problem - it is an unnecessary frill designed to make clueless people think that life is (somewhat) "fair."

Life isn't fair, but wouldn't you agree that it should be? And if it should be, shouldn't we work at making life a little more fair?

[E.R. Campbell]

...
Life isn't fair, but wouldn't you agree that it should be? And if it should be, shouldn't we work at making life a little more fair?

No and no.

Life is what you make of it ... then it's over. "Fair" is about apportioning the chocolate cake to children, not running countries.

For all the rest ... 

[OTBthinker]

No and no.

Life is what you make of it ... then it's over. "Fair" is about apportioning the chocolate cake to children, not running countries.

For all the rest ... 

Running this country is all about apportioning in a fair manner. Whether you talk about equalization payments, or transfers for health care and education, to the pension program and regional developmental projects; running this country is all about redistributing money so that every citizen has their fair share of services. To bring it back to the topic at hand, this way of running the country should simply be naturally extended to our electoral system.

[RangerRay]

Running this country is all about apportioning in a fair manner. Whether you talk about equalization payments, or transfers for health care and education, to the pension program and regional developmental projects; running this country is all about redistributing money so that every citizen has their fair share of services. To bring it back to the topic at hand, this way of running the country should simply be naturally extended to our electoral system.

 

[E.R. Campbell]

Running this country is all about apportioning in a fair manner. Whether you talk about equalization payments, or transfers for health care and education, to the pension program and regional developmental projects; running this country is all about redistributing money so that every citizen has their fair share of services. To bring it back to the topic at hand, this way of running the country should simply be naturally extended to our electoral system.

I was going to quit, but ... that's 

Running the country, in a responsible manner, is all about creating equal opportunities for individuals to succeed and become productive members of society - their communities. "Equalization payments, or transfers for health care and education, to the pension program and regional developmental projects" are all about equality of outcomes and all are, therefore, to some large degree wasteful, morally unjustified and destructive.

[OTBthinker]

I was going to quit, but ... that's 

Running the country, in a responsible manner, is all about creating equal opportunities for individuals to succeed and become productive members of society - their communities. "Equalization payments, or transfers for health care and education, to the pension program and regional developmental projects" are all about equality of outcomes and all are, therefore, to some large degree wasteful, morally unjustified and destructive.

Wow! Quite revealing. Are you sure you're in the right country? The land of ''equal'' opportunities, where the rich get richer and poor get poorer and where the quality of services that one receives is dependent on how much you can afford, is just south of here. This is Canada where we value free access to quality services to all, rich or poor. People here still get rewarded for their hard work, but it doesn't come at the expense of the less fortunate (in theory anyways; life isn't always fair as you know). Our programs offering ''equality of outcomes'' as you call them, are what Canadians have come to view as being morally justified. If you want to change that about Canada I think you're in for a harder fight than I am with PR.

[Technoviking]

Perhaps you ought to purchase a shirt like this one:



And there used to be a country that was all about equal outcomes irrespective of input:

[ballz]

This is Canada where we value free access to quality services to all, rich or poor.

Please quit saying "we." You represent yourself and yourself only, and that's why you get one vote.

You don't represent me, I can do a poor job of that without your help.

[E.R. Campbell]

Wow! Quite revealing. Are you sure you're in the right country? The land of ''equal'' opportunities, where the rich get richer and poor get poorer and where the quality of services that one receives is dependent on how much you can afford, is just south of here. This is Canada where we value free access to quality services to all, rich or poor. People here still get rewarded for their hard work, but it doesn't come at the expense of the less fortunate (in theory anyways; life isn't always fair as you know). Our programs offering ''equality of outcomes'' as you call them, are what Canadians have come to view as being morally justified. If you want to change that about Canada I think you're in for a harder fight than I am with PR.

The last refuge of a scoundrel and all that ... you are just parroting the mindless babble of campus drones.

Welcome to the  feature which our host so kindly provided.

[Larry Strong]

Running this country is all about apportioning in a fair manner. Whether you talk about equalization payments, or transfers for health care and education, to the pension program and regional developmental projects; running this country is all about redistributing money so that every citizen has their fair share of services. To bring it back to the topic at hand, this way of running the country should simply be naturally extended to our electoral system.

Must have come from an Occupy camp. Sounds like their drivel!!!

[Bruce Monkhouse]

This is Canada where we value free access to quality services to all, rich or poor. .

This just assures me you have absolutely zero idea of what you are talking about. My 15 year old daughter understands the workings of life better that you.

I feel sorry for you actually.......

[ModlrMike]

TNSTAAFL

[OTBthinker]

I see that my views are generating quite the response. I should have known that this type of forum would attract people with particular views over others.

Please quit saying "we." You represent yourself and yourself only, and that's why you get one vote.

You don't represent me, I can do a poor job of that without your help.

I'm only describing Canada as it is and how it is different from other countries, and more specifically the U.S. It's what Canadians have chosen to make of their country and I agree with it. When I say ''we'' I'm only including myself in what Canadians clearly value because that is what they have made of their country. I'm clearly not alone in this and in fact, it would be safe to assume that a majority of Canadians feel the same way as I do or we would have a different country built on a different set of values.

This just assures me you have absolutely zero idea of what you are talking about. My 15 year old daughter understands the workings of life better that you.

I feel sorry for you actually.......

I feel sorry for your daughter.

[recceguy]

 

[ballz]

Sorry RG, I know you're right but dear lord the self-righteousness is awful

I'm clearly not alone in this and in fact, it would be safe to assume that a majority of Canadians feel the same way as I do or we would have a different country built on a different set of values.

No, you're not alone, but unfortunately you've been surrounded by like-minded individuals at university and have the false impression that those classrooms are a good sample of the average Canadian.

If your ad populum was even close to correct, we wouldn't have a majority Conservative government. We wouldn't even have a majority Liberal government. We'd have a majority NDP government, and if there was a major party even more to the left of them, they'd have the majority.
 
Instead, Canadians have chosen to go in the exact opposite direction of you.

Now go away troll.

[E.R. Campbell]

... we would have a different country built on a different set of values.

Those who hold these views are, generally, ignorant of both history and the USA, presuming, as is usually the case, the authors refers to that country.

The historical fact is, notwithstanding any and all m nonsense spouted in Canadian secondary schools and universities, the USA started down the road to an advanced welfare state before Canada did and it got there first.

The other fact, equally undeniable, is that the American welfare state is at least as advanced as Canada's and equally caring and sharing - there are minor differences: Americans without health insurance go to hospital emergency rooms, from which that cannot be turned away, for routine medical problems; Canadians, benefitting from universal health insurance, go to hospital emergency rooms for routine problems because our 'system' cannot afford to pay for enough family physicians; and it goes on and on ... But, at bottom, there is nothing much to choose between them. In terms of the social safety net and the underlying social principles Canada and the USA are about as different as Norway is from Denmark. We do not have a different vastly country from the USA, we never intended to have much of a different country - some people, including a lot of abysmally ignorant people with PhDs, want a different country, but most Canadians, the ones who vote Conservative and 2/3 of the ones who vote Liberal, like things the way they are like things the and the way they are headed, too, so the loony left does not get its way.

I, personally, am sick and tired of university professors propagandizing in their lecture halls for socio-economic and political systems that consistently fail, and I am even more tired of high schools that graduate people without the intellectual skills to recognize plain old BS when they hear it in a classroom.

[MARS]

This editorial by Rex Murphy touches on some of the recent posts in this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hf94tXosjU&sns=fb

[ModlrMike]

Funny to read the comments accusing the CBC of toadying to the PM.