The ‘experts’ speak, but they don’t support the Liberal narrative, so…
If so, you can take tentative comfort in the fact that, with very few exceptions, virtually every expert witness to testify before the House committee charged with studying the issue seems to agree — albeit reluctantly, in some cases, and only when pressed, with dramatically varying degrees of enthusiasm — that any attempt to change the vote-counting formula without widespread public support would be spectacularly ill-advised and politically risky, although almost certainly not actively unconstitutional.
It’s not unconstitutional when liberals do it…..EVER!!
Not only would proportional representation remove direct representation, but would result in a fractious Parliament. Based on 2015 results, Parliament would look like this: (2015 results in brackets)
Lib: 133 (184)
Cons: 108 (99)
NDP: 67 (44)
BQ: 16 (10)
Greens: 11 (1)
Other: 3 (0)
…and we’d end up with a body that would twist itself into knots trying to please everyone and getting nothing – other than a truly socialist agenda – accomplished.
Worst. Idea. Ever.
An interesting article in praise of FPTP, with what I think are some very good points.
http://www.pressreader.com/canada/calgary-herald/20160802/281891592650618
So far, I’ve heard people saying that you shouldn’t look at either Israel or Italy, because those are outliers, and they do it wrong.
You could have the Hare-Clark system
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-17/hare-clark-system/5202798
So, they can do it and the Libs will.
*
“jaedo drax says… you shouldn’t look at either Israel or Italy, because those are outliers”
what… just because italy has had a government per year since world warII, that’s no
reason to doubt prime minister care bear.
*
I lived in Europe long enough to see the horrors of several proportional representation systems. Germany passed stupid laws to get the Greens on-side with their budget. Belgium ran for over a year with no government at all since nobody agreed enough to form a coalition. Italy is a classic study in electoral paralysis. First Past the Post may not be perfect, even terrible, but it is still better than all the alternatives.
I’m not really concerned about fractious parliaments or elections every two years cause I don’t think any of that would happen. What would happen is a perpetual parliamentary majority coalition of Dippers and Liberals running this country into the ground. That’s the potential disaster. And, if the Torys ever did manage to command the most seats short of a majority, they would be governing so far to the left it would make little to no difference. Anyone who believes in limited government in Canada cannot possible support such a system.
Slaw, you are absolutely right! And try to find an MP who supposedly represents your constituency. The idea stinks.
Does anyone really believe that PM Hairdo came up with this idea himself? I’m sure that Butts is behind it as, after all, we need an alternate economy, don’t we?
The question is, who’s the one that encouraged Butts? I think many of us already know the answer and his initials are George Soros.
The crux of what the article tries to paper over is that unless the liberals can get the NDP on side justin is left with two choices neither one of his choosing.
One, ditch the idea
Or
Swallow his pride and admit the conservatives are right…..
So he’ll be looking for a way to wiggle out of this one.
Any electoral reform should start at seats. PEI with one per 25000 is 4 times more weighty in its vote not counting Duffy
Should be a simple solution – you can’t sell off a Crown corporation in Saskatchewan without putting it through an election campaign, then it should be that you can’t change the electoral system without putting it through an election campaign. I would also submit that a supermajority should be employed as 40% of the 65% that vote shouldn’t have such a huge impact on the country.
They only wanted reform after nearly a decade of tories running the show. Can’t have that. We must establish a democracy with only one party to vote for. The whole point of “democracy” to leftists is that everyone is supposed to agree. They’re pretty open about it.
Most Canadians if they think of this at all, assume the constitution would prevent 1 party from changing rules on how our very votes are counted, just because they happen to command a majority in Parliament.
Apparently that is not the case, and while the SC is not shy about interpreting the 1982 Constitution as they think best, McLachlin and friends cannot be relied upon to defend the best interests of citizens in this case.
In the early 1980s the SC found that Trudeau Sr. did not require Provincial approval to repatriate the constitution, but it stated that public perception, or convention suggested that it should. The most recent attempt at changing the Senate rules, resulted in the judges reading in totally new parts of the 1982 Act.
This does not mean they will do so with a bill to change voting rules.
Liberals and their accomplices are moving with speed this summer to have something to present to Parliament so that Elections Canada can have time to implement the changes before the next election. Canadians may be sleep walking to another Parliamentary disaster.
Or the Libs can bypass the whole discussion merely by instituting electronic voting – either with voting machines or online. The Democrats have already successfully done that, to their (eternal) advantage.
I’ve always thought that the French system, which has a first round of voting to determine the top two candidates in each district (or nationally, in the case of President) and then a second round a couple of weeks later where voters choose between the top two, has a lot of merit. It is majoritarian and it allows for some time for voters to think through which of two choices they want to make. Something like the French system is also used in Georgia and Louisiana for everything except Presidential races, and is increasingly used elsewhere (California/Washington) albeit with a longer time span between the primary and the runoff.
For those who think it would lead to perpetual leftist victories, look at the experience of other countries (e.g., like France) where the result is (not surprisingly) usually one where voters end up dividing into 51/49 for right versus left in one election and then 49/51 in the next one. Something about elementary economics and marketing seems to apply.
It is better than the preferential ballot, which has the disadvantage of requiring a degree in mathematics and probability theory to enable voters to determine their preference rankings of all the candidates all in one go.
It is also better than the PR concept. Proportional representation ends up giving representation to parties (and thereby encouraging more and more single issue or group parties), but not to actual living human beings (i.e., MPs) who voters want in Parliament. So it creates a more tribal approach than representative democracy.
Finally, on this set of musings, I’ve always chuckled at those who want PR and say it is only fair that minority interests get represented in Parliament. Why? They assume that having representation in Parliament is a good thing, even though when votes in Parliament are taken, majority rules. So the minority voices get drowned out, albeit in Parliament rather than in an election campaign. If PR advocates really wanted to have proportionate representation in governing, why not provide for what some academic writings I stumbled across in the 1980’s argued for? They suggested that the only way to have true representation in governing was to allocate time to govern based on how many votes each party (or candidate) got. So if the Trudeau Liberals got 39% of the vote, they would get to govern for 19 months, then the Conservatives would be in for 16 months, then the NDP for 9 months and the Greens for 2 months and the Bloc for 2 months and finally the Communists and Rhinoceros Party for a couple of days at the end. That would make up the full 48 months between elections. But such a system would also allow a bunch of peculiar and un-representative parties some time at government. The dangers in that are almost as horrible as the dangers of electing the NDP in Alberta (or anywhere). When anyone in favor of PR starts pontificating about its virtues, try asking if they’d favor that kind of an approach and see them sputter.
If the reason for their sputtering is that they really don’t want insignificant minority parties to have a role in governing and really only want them to have a forum to spout off, while leaving the more serious business of governing for major parties, ask why it is necessary to fiddle with how Parliament is composed to achieve that.
We are so far down the rabbit hole, at this point, what difference would it make?
The system needs to crash and burn. Then we must hope that a completely new one will chosen. Unfortunately, history tells us we must roam in the wilderness for a few centuries before common sense takes hold.
Remember what Einstein said? “I know not what weapons WWIII will be fought but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones”
Sure sounds like Dark Ages redux!
The whole “debate” is a red herring… Libranos will do as they please, whatever is best for them they will impose just as they always do… Libranos and their proxies in the Media simply want to give the impression of “consultation” and “consensus”.. The fact is the Libranos will game the system in their favour without permission from the idiot populace and the King of the Idiots will remain the hairy princess of Trudopia for ever… thats all. The pretense of “consensus” and “consultation” is ever so tedious. Hint: the only reason this is happening is not because Canadians wanted “electoral reform” but rather because the Libranos said they want change to the electoral system, therefore the system will be gamed in order to meet the demands of the Libranos.
It is a red herring.
The libs guaranteed it wont go ahead when they voluntarily gave up the majority on the committee. All in the name of ‘fairness’.
It’s a game.
Soros or the UN. I think Butts is just the point man. Of course Trudeau is just the front man. Canada is being run by the globalists who are pushing Agenda 2030. You can see traces of their impact already. The immigration push, plus no need to speak French or English for citizenship. We now have a department of “global affairs” rather than “Foreign Affiars” (note that Canada at the centre is lost in the name change). The National Gallery is closing the Canadian Gallery — to open next spring as the Canadian and Aboriginal Gallery. Aborigial rights are at the forefront (this is UN stuff), as well as pushing women.
Our 150th will be dominated by the UN priorities: Diversity and Inclusion, Environment, Youth and Reconciliation with Aboriginals. (History, Heritage, and honouring Canadian heroes who have made our country great — not a focus for the 150th.) Some of this would be o.k., and may even be well intentioned by some, but I believe the overall intent is to undermine Canada’s sense of itself as a country. We are to be put on an equal footing with First Nations and allow our own traditions that give us a sense of being a sovereign country to take a back seat to multi-culturalism. Well — we are the first post-national country (according to Trudeau), so I guess it is all going according to plan. Decision makers at the UN will decide how we vote and the Liberal trained seals will push the legislation through. (I apologize to those who are getting tired of my rants about this, but I do think the undermining of Canada as a sovereign nation is the biggest problem we currently face.)
There are a great many here who resist the Liberal formula for PR, and rightly so IMO, however PR could be beneficial to the governing of Canada if it was instituted not along the lines of what the politicians want but along the lines of true representational governance. In other words the amount of weight that an individuals vote carries is a function of the benefit that the individual is worth to the country. A convicted felon in jail is not worth the same vote as a taxpayer who has never been to jail! A welfare recipient that has been on welfare for their entire life is not equal to a voter that has been paying taxes for their entire life. A college/university student that has not contributed to the Canadian culture other than attending demonstrations opposing the government should not have the same voting privileges as a senior who has worked their entire life. The examples are too numerous to mention. In short a weighted voting structure that takes into account “what you can do(have done) for your country.” This should be the basis of electoral reform not some exotic formula dreamed up by the ineffectual elite to install more over-educated morons at the trough of entitlements.
The Clown Prince is carrying on from where Daddy left off.
B has it right. Trudeau is the puppet, Butts is Soros’ front man, and Sean M sums up where we will end up after this parliament ends.
Like democracy itself, the least bad system.
Election reform/proportional representation is gonna fade away,forgotten like all the Pretty Vacant’s promises.
These are Liberals…Maths is hard..I know,lets legalize Dope instead.
I’m beginning to think the whole Democracy gambit is a scam firstly and lastly.
Firstly: every wiseman’s vote is equal to every fools vote and there are 100 fools for every wiseman.
Secondly: the wisemen are only voting for what they have been promised by politicians, but politicians have zero penalty for lying and plenty of status quo benefits for enacting zero changes in the program which is already in progress.
Thirdly: the pretense of the illusion of the possibility of Democratic change precludes the chance that the masses will revolt against government that is widely portrayed as being the People’s Choice.
Fifth: all of the leaders are already followers of the Shadow Government and any arising leaders of the masses are interdicted if the have not aligned themselves with the Shadow Government’s agenda. Insider operatives of the Shadow Government like Edward Snowden are portrayed as traitors, which they are, but they are traitors of the government agenda, not traitors of the Government of the People.
Yeah, I skipped Fourth. Nothing matters, we’re all hooped and living a dream which has zero chances to become reality. Mohammedan Females are joining the Politicized National Gestapo(RCMP) and SDA has NO COMMENT about them wearing the POLITICAL SYMBOL of the Hijab.
Thanks SDA for being a meaningless place where legacy Canadians can come to vent and hopefully nothing more, because the ‘more’ part will be that you are fly paper and we are the flies.
Thanks Sikhs, for being the Pointy End of the Wedge that Destroyed Canadian expectation of Unbiased Policing represented by a Uniform Code of Law and visually seen by Canadians by the National Police Force wearing the same uniform which represented a uniform enforcement of a uniform law to all citizens.
Even when someone like SDA Kate says that the vote margin must exceed 3% to beat the Socialists, does it ever occur to the mass of voting citizens that the recognized culture of citizen hope/expectations is too low to even abide by a system that can be fudged or corrupted as an accepted matter?
3%? If 3% is expected and accepted how can Democracy work at all? What if in any voting cycle the threshold is higher. 4% cheating- 10% cheating 20% cheating, what is the acceptable level of FECES that is tolerated in the wine before we say it’s just SHIT and we won’t drink it any more?
And the unvoiced assumption is that the difference between the parties is actually a genuine difference instead of an imagined difference, an illusion, to prevent a violent revolution against the powers which abuse and treat us all so shabbily.
Oz
That dissertation could have easily been titled – why the Americans have a second ammendment.
when 60% of the population are socialists no amount of fiddling with the system will change our socialist population. Canadians always think they can get some thing for nothing from the government, but seem to be surprised when taxes go up, and the debt goes up, and our ability to survive becomes questionable. the current crop in ontario are trying real hard to turn everyone into welfare cases. How they will pay that welfare is unknown.
It must have stressed dear Kady O’ to come up with that convoluted statement.
It appears, or may be fact that it is difficult and possibly painful, almost intimidating, for the drooling MSM to say anything that could might be interpreted as ever so slightly, or grandly, however one would take it, if it in anyway appears to disagree with or point out flaws, albeit minor imperfections of the Lovely One, the Pretty Boy, the so called PM.
See? I can do that too….
Yeah. I should have ended it with: Don’t drink the Chablis.