+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Politics (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Thread: General Politics Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=66)
RE: General Politics Discussion - danbrotherston - 04-24-2022
(04-23-2022, 08:48 PM)cherrypark Wrote:(03-31-2022, 09:55 AM)ac3r Wrote: Current voting intent for Ontarians: https://twitter.com/338Canada/status/1509506969865969667
- PCPO - 37%
- ONDP - 29%
- OLP - 25%
- GPO - 4%
Despite how shit everything is, people still want 4 more years of Doug Ford. Crazy.
I am unsure if its wanting 4 more years of Ford or that the alternatives are just so listless and uninspiring. Our provincial politics has a serious shortage of imagination or ambition. That said, its also a depressing reality of FPTP that 37% is what it takes to flirt with a majority again (and that goes both federally and provincially). Would look a lot different if that 58% had an even partially proportionate share of power.
Our electoral system is so frustrating. But what is weird to me, or at least was weird, is that many people, especially conservatives and centrists liberals, seem to believe that a system of government where we have proportional representation and frequently must form coalitions and cooperate with others is a bad thing. They WANT a strong leader who has full control. The idea of co-operating with others is at best scary.
I was kind of shocked by this concept at first. But I realized that it's a feature of weak minded people. In many ways, a lot of people feel more comfortable under an authoritarian government. It absolves them of responsibility to think for themselves. Democracy inherently puts the responsibility for governing on US, and people often don't like that, they don't want the responsibility of evaluating policy and deciding what is best, they want to be told by someone they feel (through personality) knows what is right. More over, co-operating with others, involves empathy and understanding of others positions. Which is just easier not to do.
This was a very shocking realization for me. And this isn't a totally inherent thing to people, like all things human, it is affected by context. When people are scared (perhaps because of a trifecta of simultaneous global climate, global pandemic, and housing crises) they are more likely to be susceptible to this thinking.
I think this is why you see a rise in the success of anti-democratic movements in many countries like the GOP in the US (yes the entire GOP is fundamentally anti-democratic at this point) as well as less successful but still effective groups in Canada like the PPC, the Ontario freedom party or whatever they're calling themselves, and even Pierre Poilievre.
And I get it, it's scary to give people you disagree with power in our system. I see this with progressives as well. I mean, obviously opposition to electoral reforms use the PPC as a scaremonger "in a proportional system the PPC would have seats SEATS! can you imagine the horror!" But they don't say that the extremists in the PPC have more power today because the CPC is bending over backwards to pander to them. Of course, even some of the progressives I speak with suggest stuff like "well we should have a floor on the support a party must get to seats". So I guess this makes me a radical because I think this is a bad idea, and that the extremists who support the PPC deserve and should get representation.
They should get seats because like anyone. However, their extreme views will relegate them to an irrelevant party that nobody will work with, because nobody CAN work with them. They will either become less extreme and learn to work with people (a good thing) or remain irrelevant. By explicitly disenfranchising this group of people, all you do is make them feel disenfranchised and help them grow their movement.
This has been a common operating script among conservatives, convincing privileged white people (who are perhaps suffering because of the economic situation, but not as much as others, and not for the reason of skin colour) that they are not being represented by anyone, and they are being left behind.
I wish the left would do more to directly attack this ugly aspect of the opposition. Most people, despite how they act, still believe democracy is good, (kind of like folks object to being called racist even when they are acting racist). So the progressive movements should directly call out this attack on democracy.
Of course, I guess the limitation of that is that the centrist Liberals (and Democrats in the US) share the same values, if perhaps to a lesser extent. (And the media coverage reflects that).
RE: General Politics Discussion - plam - 04-26-2022
(04-24-2022, 01:55 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Of course, even some of the progressives I speak with suggest stuff like "well we should have a floor on the support a party must get to seats". So I guess this makes me a radical because I think this is a bad idea, and that the extremists who support the PPC deserve and should get representation.
Look at that, I can vote in NZ now if I show up in the country a year before the next election---residents can vote.
NZ kind of got its MMP system by a unique set of circumstances. People didn't really think it would happen and then it did. It does tend to drive things towards the center, which is probably good. There has been a fringe party (NZ First) which has been, as they put it, the "handbrake" on the governing party, but they got booted out of Parliament in the 2020 election.
NZ has a 5% floor to get seats unless a party elects a riding MP (and then they get additional MPs "coat-tailing" on the elected MP). Government commissions have said the floor should be 4% but that hasn't happened yet.
I think MMP is a good thing, though I understand why Trudeau didn't implement it. Didn't seem like a good idea for the Liberals until it is obviously needed and then it's too late.
RE: General Politics Discussion - dtkvictim - 04-26-2022
(04-26-2022, 06:07 PM)plam Wrote:(04-24-2022, 01:55 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Of course, even some of the progressives I speak with suggest stuff like "well we should have a floor on the support a party must get to seats". So I guess this makes me a radical because I think this is a bad idea, and that the extremists who support the PPC deserve and should get representation.
Look at that, I can vote in NZ now if I show up in the country a year before the next election---residents can vote.
NZ kind of got its MMP system by a unique set of circumstances. People didn't really think it would happen and then it did. It does tend to drive things towards the center, which is probably good. There has been a fringe party (NZ First) which has been, as they put it, the "handbrake" on the governing party, but they got booted out of Parliament in the 2020 election.
NZ has a 5% floor to get seats unless a party elects a riding MP (and then they get additional MPs "coat-tailing" on the elected MP). Government commissions have said the floor should be 4% but that hasn't happened yet.
I think MMP is a good thing, though I understand why Trudeau didn't implement it. Didn't seem like a good idea for the Liberals until it is obviously needed and then it's too late.
The last two columns are all we need to understand... Obviously it's impossible to predict how people would vote under a proportional system, but I suspect the Liberal popular vote would plummet, and the Conservative party would cease to exist in its current form.
Canadians will continue to be poorly represented, and suffer as a result, as long as the two leading parties continue to benefit from the weak democratic system.
![[Image: UzfTfuz.png]](https://imgur.com/UzfTfuz.png)
RE: General Politics Discussion - neonjoe - 04-27-2022
Proportional representation does break down if there is an anomaly or a geographic voting block. In certain circumstances a small block voting heavily for one party can garner far more influence over the rest of the house. Ideally there would be a balance of proportional representation and geographic representation.
RE: General Politics Discussion - danbrotherston - 04-27-2022
(04-27-2022, 10:56 AM)neonjoe Wrote: Proportional representation does break down if there is an anomaly or a geographic voting block. In certain circumstances a small block voting heavily for one party can garner far more influence over the rest of the house. Ideally there would be a balance of proportional representation and geographic representation.
I don't understand this.
A small block voting heavily for one party would get votes EXACTLY proportional to their percentage of the population? Why is that wrong?
In my experience, local representation seems mostly used for grift/corruption (where pols try to get stuff for their riding) and to paper over broken systems (when constituents talk to their representatives because the systems they should use are broken).
Neither of which are good things.
But if we MUST have geographic representation, there are plenty of options for that MMP works, as does STV, both which lead to a (more) proportional result.
RE: General Politics Discussion - plam - 04-27-2022
(04-27-2022, 10:56 AM)neonjoe Wrote: Proportional representation does break down if there is an anomaly or a geographic voting block. In certain circumstances a small block voting heavily for one party can garner far more influence over the rest of the house. Ideally there would be a balance of proportional representation and geographic representation.
There had been a proposal for Quebec which would have basically lists for like 5 different regions of Quebec and seats allocated proportionally in that region. But, I don't think it can cause a bloc to be *overrepresented*; indeed, our current FPTP overrepresents Quebec for instance.
RE: General Politics Discussion - ijmorlan - 04-27-2022
(04-27-2022, 10:56 AM)neonjoe Wrote: Proportional representation does break down if there is an anomaly or a geographic voting block. In certain circumstances a small block voting heavily for one party can garner far more influence over the rest of the house. Ideally there would be a balance of proportional representation and geographic representation.
I think you’re talking about riding-based systems like what we have, where for example the Bloc gets many seats due to its support being all in a small area. Under proportional representation it doesn’t matter how a party’s support is spread out: they get the same number of members elected.
That being said, it is not axiomatic that number of seats should be proportional to number of votes. Some arguments for proportional representation essentially boil down to the tautological argument that seats should be proportional to number of votes, and therefore proportional representation is the best system. I could just as well argue that the person who gets the most votes should win. It’s pretty clear to me that almost anything is better than first past the post however.
Personally I think we should start by replacing all first past the post elections with ranked ballots. That means MPs, MPPs, mayors, councillors, school board trustees, condominium directors, …. This would be an improvement in how we select these roles but doesn’t really change much about the system — only what we write on the ballots and how we count the ballots. In principle you wouldn’t even have to change the ballots: just write 1, 2, 3 in the circles instead of an X in a single circle (although this would be a pain to count and is not actually a good idea). Then have a separate discussion about improving the way we select large groups of people (House of Commons, legislatures, city councils) and possibly bring in proportional representation or other systems.
Also, bring back the per-vote vote subsidy, but this time do it right by simultaneously cancelling the per-dollar vote subsidy that we have always had.
RE: General Politics Discussion - plam - 04-28-2022
(04-27-2022, 07:14 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Also, bring back the per-vote vote subsidy, but this time do it right by simultaneously cancelling the per-dollar vote subsidy that we have always had.
Hmm, makes it a bit harder to jumpstart parties, but I guess we can always donate to parties without getting a tax credit for it.
RE: General Politics Discussion - jamincan - 04-28-2022
(04-27-2022, 07:14 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Personally I think we should start by replacing all first past the post elections with ranked ballots. That means MPs, MPPs, mayors, councillors, school board trustees, condominium directors, …. This would be an improvement in how we select these roles but doesn’t really change much about the system — only what we write on the ballots and how we count the ballots. In principle you wouldn’t even have to change the ballots: just write 1, 2, 3 in the circles instead of an X in a single circle (although this would be a pain to count and is not actually a good idea). Then have a separate discussion about improving the way we select large groups of people (House of Commons, legislatures, city councils) and possibly bring in proportional representation or other systems.I like ranked ballots for the simplicity as well. It would adapt well to a single-transferable vote system of proportional representation in the future, which is probably my preferred system of PR for a country like Canada.
Also, bring back the per-vote vote subsidy, but this time do it right by simultaneously cancelling the per-dollar vote subsidy that we have always had.
The per-vote subsidy with a ranked ballot is an interesting idea. Presumably allocations would be based on who you put as #1 on your ballot and not necessarily who your vote ended up going to in the end. That could help support grassroots political parties grow, which I personally think is a good thing as it would force the major parties to be more responsive to grassroots issues.
RE: General Politics Discussion - ijmorlan - 04-28-2022
(04-28-2022, 07:28 AM)jamincan Wrote: The per-vote subsidy with a ranked ballot is an interesting idea. Presumably allocations would be based on who you put as #1 on your ballot and not necessarily who your vote ended up going to in the end. That could help support grassroots political parties grow, which I personally think is a good thing as it would force the major parties to be more responsive to grassroots issues.
To be honest, I wasn’t really thinking about the interaction between ranked ballots and the per-vote subsidy, but I think your suggestion makes a lot of sense. It makes sense that your money should go to your top preference, even if your vote ends up going to a less preferred choice.
One could also consider splitting up the vote subsidy between choices but that gets more complicated; and surely there are many who are at least OK with their vote going to a 3rd choice or whatever to help defeat their worst choices, but still wouldn’t want their money going to that choice.
RE: General Politics Discussion - bravado - 04-28-2022
I think it's a real shame that none of our politicians are talking about PR, especially since we can all clearly see what is happening south of the border. It really shows how selfish and short sighted the political class is since they are willing to roll the dice on this dangerous stuff for their own gain.
I also think that simplicity is VERY important, so STV is my choice. I think our riding-based system has some value (considering the political stability of the UK and Canada for hundreds of years) and STV/ranking is a great way to even it out a bit but not rock the boat too much.
RE: General Politics Discussion - tomh009 - 04-28-2022
(04-28-2022, 11:43 AM)bravado Wrote: I think it's a real shame that none of our politicians are talking about PR, especially since we can all clearly see what is happening south of the border. It really shows how selfish and short sighted the political class is since they are willing to roll the dice on this dangerous stuff for their own gain.
I also think that simplicity is VERY important, so STV is my choice. I think our riding-based system has some value (considering the political stability of the UK and Canada for hundreds of years) and STV/ranking is a great way to even it out a bit but not rock the boat too much.
MMP would be a nice compromise and works well in NZ. We could still have an MP Kitchener (but maybe only one) and then there would be a pool of provincially-elected MPs based on the percentage of party vote.
RE: General Politics Discussion - bravado - 04-28-2022
(04-28-2022, 11:58 AM)tomh009 Wrote:(04-28-2022, 11:43 AM)bravado Wrote: I think it's a real shame that none of our politicians are talking about PR, especially since we can all clearly see what is happening south of the border. It really shows how selfish and short sighted the political class is since they are willing to roll the dice on this dangerous stuff for their own gain.
I also think that simplicity is VERY important, so STV is my choice. I think our riding-based system has some value (considering the political stability of the UK and Canada for hundreds of years) and STV/ranking is a great way to even it out a bit but not rock the boat too much.
MMP would be a nice compromise and works well in NZ. We could still have an MP Kitchener (but maybe only one) and then there would be a pool of provincially-elected MPs based on the percentage of party vote.
The fact that I can't point to an MP in Parliament and say who they represent is off-putting to me. I know that my MP already barely represents me, but it is a part of the system that I think is easy to understand for most people. Random party hacks in the house that got their seats through a bit of math? Not as palatable (to me, at least).
RE: General Politics Discussion - plam - 04-28-2022
(04-28-2022, 01:24 PM)bravado Wrote:(04-28-2022, 11:58 AM)tomh009 Wrote: MMP would be a nice compromise and works well in NZ. We could still have an MP Kitchener (but maybe only one) and then there would be a pool of provincially-elected MPs based on the percentage of party vote.
The fact that I can't point to an MP in Parliament and say who they represent is off-putting to me. I know that my MP already barely represents me, but it is a part of the system that I think is easy to understand for most people. Random party hacks in the house that got their seats through a bit of math? Not as palatable (to me, at least).
I guess both tomh and I didn't really explain how MMP works in NZ. Here's the deal. You get two votes: a party vote and a riding (electorate in NZ-speak) vote. There are 72 ridings and 120 seats. So most MPs are actually riding MPs. Then, they go and tally the percentages of party votes, and assign the 48 remaining seats so that the distribution of MPs in the House matches the party vote. The assignment is based on the list, which is determined by the party leader---so it consolidates party leader power to some extent.
In NZ, my MP for Wellington Central is Grant Robertson, who is the local equivalent of Chrystia Freeland, being deputy PM & finance minister. NZ is small, so the riding had a turnout of 48k in the previous election, which was 89% of eligible voters. Also running in Wellington Central were 3 other parties who returned to Parliament on their lists, including the Green party co-leader.
RE: General Politics Discussion - danbrotherston - 04-29-2022
(04-28-2022, 01:24 PM)bravado Wrote:(04-28-2022, 11:58 AM)tomh009 Wrote: MMP would be a nice compromise and works well in NZ. We could still have an MP Kitchener (but maybe only one) and then there would be a pool of provincially-elected MPs based on the percentage of party vote.
The fact that I can't point to an MP in Parliament and say who they represent is off-putting to me. I know that my MP already barely represents me, but it is a part of the system that I think is easy to understand for most people. Random party hacks in the house that got their seats through a bit of math? Not as palatable (to me, at least).
MPs are supposed to represent the whole population...but they never do that. When I have a conservative MP I have zero representation from them in government.
But I have no problem feeling represented by representatives who align with my values but aren't in my local riding. For example, I feel represented in provincial parliament by Guelph MPP Mike Schreiner who aligns more with my values.
So I guess I don't understand the sentiment. I feel represented by values, not by geographic happenstance.