Please, British Columbia, Don't Be Stupid.

[Bizud]

...and we don't have proportional representation...

[Matt]

We don't need proportional representation, little would be accomplished, and it would take longer to pass bills through the house of commons.

[Bizud]

Just like it does in other countries...oh wait. Rooooooolleyes.

 

More than likely it wouldn't take longer to pass legislation, it would just mean the government could no longer pass unpopular legislation.

[Matt]

It's rather difficult to do that now because the ruling party would like to be re-elected so they have to be careful or else the public might turn against them.

[Bizud]

Yeah, but it's still done. After the 1988 elections, Mulroney's Conservatives, safe in their majority despite having won fewer votes than the anti-treaty parties (Liberals and NDP) combined, passed the Free Trade Agreement even though most Canadians were opposed to it. Or, look at some of the unpopular decisions the NDP made in the 90's, like the fast ferry project. That never would have passed if the legislature had been elected by a form of proportional representation - of course you can't predict how people would vote if they knew their vote wasn't wasted, but there probably never would even have been an NDP government after that election.

 

Five years is a long time. Governments make unpopular decisions quite often in Canada in Britain, but they do far less often in countries with proportional representation electoral systems like the Netherlands (I just read a book a few months ago, I forget what it's called but I could try to find it, and anyway one of the points the author makes is that it's been pretty clearly established that voters in countries with PR systems are more satisfied with their governments, which just makes sense - they get the parliament they vote for, and we don't).

Edited June 4, 2005 by Bizud

[Matt]

The system we're in works better because we can have bills passed more at a good pace. Why should some bills wait? No system is perfect but at least our system functions well, and at a good pace.

[Bizud]

Tell me the system used in Germany, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, the newly established Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, the European Parliament, etc., doesn't work at a fast enough pace. Better yet, tell it to the British, who invented the system we use, and have abandonned it when creating new elected bodies - it's probably only a matter of time before the British House of Commons switches electoral systems too, now that some of them are electing regional representatives with MMP, and they're all electing their Members of the European Parliament with pure party-list PR. First-past-the-post is antiquated.

 

It's not about bills having to wait, it's that bills shouldn't be passed unless the MPs passing them were elected by a majority.

Edited June 4, 2005 by Bizud

[Matt]

But not every bill that is passed is bad, some that are good, might not be passed every bit as much as some that are bad anyways, but at least there is a greater chance of having the good ones passed in the house of commons.

[Bizud]

If they're "good" in the democratic sense, meaning most people want them, then they won't have trouble being passed, because people will vote for parties that will pass them, won't they? That's how it works elsewhere. Our toddler democracy has to grow up sometime.

[Matt]

If they're "good" in the democratic sense, meaning most people want them, then they won't have trouble being passed, because people will vote for parties that will pass them, won't they?  That's how it works elsewhere.  Our toddler democracy has to grow up sometime.

Some bills are too controversial so that they might not be passed in a proportional representation situation. But people generally vote for who they want now. Sure some may vote for one party to help block another party from getting a majority of seats, but that can happen in any democratic system anyways.

Edited June 7, 2005 by Matt

[Bizud]

Some bills are too controversial so that they might not be passed in a proportional representation situation.

 

With very few exceptions, that means they shouldn't be passed, doesn't it?

 

Some bills are too controversial so that they might not be passed in a proportional representation situation. But people generally vote for who they want now. Sure some may vote for one party to help block another party from getting a majority of seats, but that can happen in any democratic system anyways.

 

It's not just about being able to vote freely, it's about seats matching votes. A party can get many votes but few seats, because their votes aren't concentrated enough to win any ridings. In simplest terms, one could imagine a hypothetical scenario where party A gets 40% of the vote in every riding, and parties B and C get 30% each in every riding. What does that mean? It means party A would win every seat with only 40% of the votes. Scenarios aren't usually that exaggerated, but parties routinely win a majority of the seats with a minority of the vote. Even within an individual riding, a candidate doesn't need a majority to win, they only need to beat everyone else. If a left-leaning Liberal candidate, an NDP candidate, and a Green candidate split the vote on the left, a Conservative candidate can be elected, winner-take-all, with 30% of the vote, or even less in a particularly close race. The riding is overwhelmingly leftist, but has just elected a right-wing candidate. And the same thing happens on the right, look at the troubles the PCs and Alliance had. Is it fair? Of course not.

 

Parties should not be US-style, broad umbrella groupings of different political persuasions. It's absurd that some Conservatives are closer on the political spectrum to some Liberals than to some other Conservatives. Parties should present a clear, concise platform to the voters so that the voters can really choose who they want. Voters in this country come in more than just three varieties.

 

And you know what? I'd like to stop giving my vote to a party that, in my opinion, doesn't lean nearly far enough to the left. Other countries with powerful social democratic parties have other electorally successful parties further to the left, why shouldn't we? Not just the left, either, I know a couple of Libertarians that would love someone to vote for (most of them now either vote Conservative or don't vote).

Edited June 7, 2005 by Bizud