New Canadian Politics Thread

[Wayward DP]

we are talking about MMP like the way Germany does it right?

this is the middle ground between FPTP and PR

I'm more familiar with the Kiwi model than the German one, but they may be the same. you get two votes, one for your local MP, as is the case at present, and a party vote. local MP is FPTP. all the party votes are divided proportionally among x number of PR seats.

but yeah, definite middle ground between FPTP and PR. and if I had my way, it would be mostly FPTP with a sprinkling of PR (i.e. at most, half the amount of PR seats to FPTP ones)

 

[worm]

in theory that sounds promising but seems waaaaay too complex. and that also doubles the size of Parliament (which if nothing else is expensive)

I agree though that there is no perfect system. all will have assets and faults.

that is the issue for sure

but honestly in a country as big and regional as canada it makes some sense to have non local MPs
hell it might be a way to deal with the "senator" thing

 

[Wayward DP]

The solution to the highly disproportionate balance of vote weight is not just to go proportional representation. They could keep fpp and rebalance the ridings to better reflect population numbers. That would be a huge improvement over what we have now from a representation pov.

I don't think this would solve the NDP gets 25% of the vote but 8% of the seats conundrum (numbers are made up for this example)

 

[Wayward DP]

that is the issue for sure

but honestly in a country as big and regional as canada it makes some sense to have non local MPs
hell it might be a way to deal with the "senator" thing

it is a tricky balance. I think a lot of people, in that type of system, may be inclined to vote for single issue parties (i.e. environmental party, separatist party, Alberta party). which is not entirely a problem in and of itself.

so on the one hand a wider variety of issues and perspectives are brought to Parliament. on the other hand, if you go too far down that road, you have fringe groups wielding way too much power and screwing with the functioning of government.

just look at Israel, where Bibi is currently beholden to the religious crazies to prop up his coalition.

democracy really is the worst form of government. except for all the others.

 

[worm]

I'm more familiar with the Kiwi model than the German one, but they may be the same. you get two votes, one for your local MP, as is the case at present, and a party vote. local MP is FPTP. all the party votes are divided proportionally among x number of PR seats.

but yeah, definite middle ground between FPTP and PR. and if I had my way, it would be mostly FPTP with a sprinkling of PR (i.e. at most, half the amount of PR seats to FPTP ones)

ya - i noticed you knew what you were talking about after you next post

i am just sick of political parties being your "team"
i mean the party whip makes it so you cant vote against your party

i am a political person (follow it a bit - have a poli sci degree, etc) and i for the life of my cannot think of who my local MP or MLA is (but i know my city councillor)

 

[BeLeafer]

I don't think this would solve the NDP gets 25% of the vote but 8% of the seats conundrum (numbers are made up for this example)

It probably would. The closer the seat distribution reflects population distribution the less the disparity between popular vote and outcome.

The devil would be in the details, of course. My riding (St. Paul's) is overrun by sticking poorer immigraion populations with highly wealthy and mobile voters. Toronot Centre puts Regents Park with Rosedale. Gerrymandering is a big issue but it would still be mitigated by seat redistribution better reflecting population numbers.

 

[UWHabs]

Transparency is good thing. I run a research firm but we do not do political polling or even consumer research (or rather very little of it). I did, however, design the one poll that got the Rob Ford election right (which was IVR, btw)! IVR is an excellent tool if used properly. Online is mostly garbage, not because it's online but rather because they are almost all recruited using non-probability techniques that end up populating them with professional respondents.

Yeah, I mean, any polling firm is only as good as the methodology, and the biases of who's running it. Stats is my bro's business, not mine, so I can't comment fully. I do know that Forum stinks, but also I'm shocked this year whenever I check the CBC poll tracker how little difference there are between all the firms. Other than Abacus running the Liberals at 23%, all the others are virtually identical between all the polling firms.

in theory that sounds promising but seems waaaaay too complex. and that also doubles the size of Parliament (which if nothing else is expensive)

I agree though that there is no perfect system. all will have assets and faults.

You'd halve the number of ridings, so each would be double the size. So, for example, under that, maybe Spadina-Fort York and Toronto-Centre get merged together to make a single riding that elects 2 people, so you're not doubling the size of parliament. But it does mean that ridings double in size, which make it even harder to canvass, not to mention what it would do to the rural/northern ridings that are already massive in area.

 

[BeLeafer]

Yeah, I mean, any polling firm is only as good as the methodology, and the biases of who's running it. Stats is my bro's business, not mine, so I can't comment fully. I do know that Forum stinks, but also I'm shocked this year whenever I check the CBC poll tracker how little difference there are between all the firms. Other than Abacus running the Liberals at 23%, all the others are virtually identical between all the polling firms.

Some firms (won't name them) massage numbers to stay in line. It's not unusual to see a lot of polls in the same range. If they were all using good sampling and methodology this would be fine, but they're not.

 

[UWHabs]

It probably would. The closer the seat distribution reflects population distribution the less the disparity between popular vote and outcome.

The devil would be in the details, of course. My riding (St. Paul's) is overrun by sticking poorer immigraion populations with highly wealthy and mobile voters. Toronot Centre puts Regents Park with Rosedale. Gerrymandering is a big issue but it would still be mitigated by seat redistribution better reflecting population numbers.

You'd probably need to more than double the number of MPPs to get small enough ridings that a local population actually has an impact. They already rebalanced the ridings so that they're all roughly the same population before this election, but when you're talking about 140k people in some ridings, the simple fact is that they're just too big to really have any individual group matter.

 

[worm]

party lists are very indirect democracy

sure ... so is the way cabinet is selected and that has a bigger impact

guess i am just not that concerned about that

 

[BeLeafer]

You'd probably need to more than double the number of MPPs to get small enough ridings that a local population actually has an impact. They already rebalanced the ridings so that they're all roughly the same population before this election, but when you're talking about 140k people in some ridings, the simple fact is that they're just too big to really have any individual group matter.

Over the last 50 years, Ontario's population approximately doubled. During that same time the number of seats went up and down but are about the same as they were in 1968.

I know everyone loves to hate politicians but we need much greater representation than we have currently. Yeah, when you pile a lot of people into one riding, things can get washed out, particularly when voter mobility favours some over others.

 

[worm]

it is a tricky balance. I think a lot of people, in that type of system, may be inclined to vote for single issue parties (i.e. environmental party, separatist party, Alberta party). which is not entirely a problem in and of itself.

so on the one hand a wider variety of issues and perspectives are brought to Parliament. on the other hand, if you go too far down that road, you have fringe groups wielding way too much power and screwing with the functioning of government.

just look at Israel, where Bibi is currently beholden to the religious crazies to prop up his coalition.

democracy really is the worst form of government. except for all the others.

i actually think one of the benefits is that people can vote for more specific parties

the problem is parties have generation after generation built in this child like method of not playing well with others

so there would be some growing pains

 

[Altair]

I could do with the occasional coalition, but the constant coalitions that make up Germany, Israel, Italy, no, no way,no how.

Hell, in the one coalition Canada has, 3 green members of the BC house have pretty much held up a national infrastructure project to the point that every Canadian now owns part of a pipeline.

 

[worm]

i dont care for coalition but i say hey on this issue lets work together
and on that issue lets work together

 

[Wayward DP]

sure ... so is the way cabinet is selected and that has a bigger impact

guess i am just not that concerned about that

true.

but all cabinet members are at least elected by their local voters first. so the threshold they clear is direct democracy. party list, the threshold you clear is party politics.

I think you are being naive if you don't think you will see party insiders ride their connections, fundraising clout etc to parliament without the support of voters. of course, that is just one in a number of trade offs. to get more PR, something will have to give.

 

[Wayward DP]

I could do with the occasional coalition, but the constant coalitions that make up Germany, Israel, Italy, no, no way,no how.

Hell, in the one coalition Canada has, 3 green members of the BC house have pretty much held up a national infrastructure project to the point that every Canadian now owns part of a pipeline.

Canadians have this bizarre reflex reaction against coalitions. I'm not saying I want coalitions and only coalitions, but they can and do work in many places. Israel and Italy are on the chaotic side and I want no part in that (they are also fully PR I believe). But New Zealand or Germany? I can live with the coalition building that happens there.

 

[UWHabs]

Canadians have this bizarre reflex reaction against coalitions. I'm not saying I want coalitions and only coalitions, but they can and do work in many places. Israel and Italy are on the chaotic side and I want no part in that (they are also fully PR I believe). But New Zealand or Germany? I can live with the coalition building that happens there.

Yeah, I'd be willing to give it a try. Especially if it splits up the fringe from the middle a bit more, having a true conservative/PC/Lib/NDP/Green system would be fine. Of course, you'd have to change other things of the system (would probably need true fixed elections so that you don't have people quit a coalition and force an election every year or two).

 

[Altair]

Canadians have this bizarre reflex reaction against coalitions. I'm not saying I want coalitions and only coalitions, but they can and do work in many places. Israel and Italy are on the chaotic side and I want no part in that (they are also fully PR I believe). But New Zealand or Germany? I can live with the coalition building that happens there.

Germany was without a government for what, 4 months?

And in the end, despite the two main parties having no love for one another, and drastically different platforms, they had to make it work again.

Ya, no thank you. I firmly believe that a party needs to own the mess they make. If they end up being a disaster, the voters will punish them next election. In a coalition, everyone is somewhat to blame.

 

[MindzEye]

Germany was without a government for what, 4 months?

And in the end, despite the two main parties having no love for one another, and drastically different platforms, they had to make it work again.

Ya, no thank you.

I prefer a bit of chaos to 36% of the electorate holding the rest of us hostage for a decade of Harper rule because of vote splitting on the left. The Conservative Party as it exists today wouldn't exist if it wasn't for FPTP. There would be a wildrose/reform style party, and a Conservative Party. I much prefer that to 51% of the Conservative party picking someone like Doug Ford and then having 36% of the electorate give that guy a mandate.

Horseshit system

 

[CaptainBolduke]

Canadians have this bizarre reflex reaction against coalitions. I'm not saying I want coalitions and only coalitions, but they can and do work in many places. Israel and Italy are on the chaotic side and I want no part in that (they are also fully PR I believe). But New Zealand or Germany? I can live with the coalition building that happens there.

It's not really Canadians per-say.

But partisanship runs thicker than you think here.

The NDP and Libs ****ing hate each-other. Trust me -- i've been part of it.