[ShepherdsDog]

only one poll counts.

[JaredMilne]

Getting rid of FPTP is long overdue, in my view. Keep in mind that it was adopted at a time when Canada was barely bigger than the United Kingdom, a country roughly the size of the Maritimes. Despite its small size, the UK has some 650 members in its House of Commons today, more than twice Canada's 308. Canada's FPTP system is somehow expected to provide fair representation to a mammoth country where some ridings alone can be larger than the entire UK (e.g., Nunavut) with far fewer elected officials to do so. This is one of the things that skews representation and fuels regional alienation-when so much of the national population is concentrated in the central Canadian provinces and in the large cities, which necessitates more ridings for those areas. It also necessitated a minimum number of seats for each province in the Constitution (more on that later).

FPTP also makes Canada seem more fractured than it really is. Writers as diverse in their views as Roger Gibbins and Mel Hurtig have all noted how Liberal support in Ontario or Conservative support in Alberta masks the respectable vote totals each of those parties got in the province where the other party led. Large percentages of the population who vote for the losing parties are effectively counted out, and winning parties get more seats than their vote count would justify. It also adds to regional alienation, since people could point to Ontario's seemingly overwhelming support for the Liberals to say that Ontarians would never elect a Western conservative, while others could point to Alberta's overwhelming support for the Conservatives and say that Albertans always blindly follow the Conservatives, no matter what.

Unfortunately, replacing FPTP could open up a whole other can of worms.

For one thing, when somebody has a beef that they want to talk to their Member of Parliament about, it's pretty easy to determine who they need to talk to. Individual MPs perform all kinds of services for constituents, ranging from notarizing documents to providing information that they need on programs, services, etc. If the MPs are just elected proportionally, how are constituents supposed to know exactly which MP to talk to when they need help? Even if we go with a mixed-member system, we're still going to make the ridings a lot bigger all around, unless we want to make the House itself bigger and add all-new seats for the proportionate part of the vote...

The other big problem is that the Constitution mandates that each province has no fewer seats in the House of Commons than it does in the Senate. Realigning the number of seats in the House devoted to ridings, and the number aligned to the proportionate part of the vote, could turn into a gong show of epic proportions if it's not handled correctly...and you can bet that at least some of the provinces could easily kick up a fuss about it, as they are now with the NDP's idea of abolishing the Senate.

So if we do it, it's going to be very difficult, and it will have to be done very carefully...which could be even harder than it normally would, given how polarized things seem to be on the surface.

The TL;DR Version:

Reforming Canada's electoral system won't be nearly as easy as Justin Trudeau seems to be portraying it as. That suggests to me that he either hasn't thought this through or that he's got the policy smarts of a tree stump.

Neither one is particularly encouraging.

[andyt]

He's just throwing out a decoy. If he gets in with FTP, he'll keep it, since it favors him at that point. All trying to bring in a different system would do is create a lot of sturm und drang, so he'd only bring it up while in power if he needs a diversion again. Same with Mulcair, same with Harper, who lost any interest in Senate reform once elected, appointed the worst set of hacks ever seen. Same with his fussing about Dingwals entitled to my entitlements, now the head of the mint is acting the same way. And so on.

I do like the sound of the Australian system.

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

same with Harper, who lost any interest in Senate reform once elected,
.

Besides the 4-5 bills they tried to pass that were blocked by Liberals?

[herbie]

No, that's a stupid conservative idea - PUNISH those that don't participate.
A liberal idea would be to REWARD those that do - say with a $50 tax rebate attaching your voting stub.
And I'm still 100% opposed to allowing voting online. Too fucking lazy to go vote, too bad.

[JaredMilne]

andyt andyt:

He's just throwing out a decoy. If he gets in with FTP, he'll keep it, since it favors him at that point. All trying to bring in a different system would do is create a lot of sturm und drang, so he'd only bring it up while in power if he needs a diversion again. Same with Mulcair, same with Harper, who lost any interest in Senate reform once elected, appointed the worst set of hacks ever seen. Same with his fussing about Dingwals entitled to my entitlements, now the head of the mint is acting the same way. And so on.

I do like the sound of the Australian system.

...If that's the case, then in the end he's just setting himself up to be accused of being a liar only in it for himself and being no better than the guy he preceded, to which he and his supporters will reply with vitriol, get vitriol thrown back at them in return, only for the next guy to come along and portray himself as the big saviour of Canadian democracy, only to open himself to accusations of being yet another cynical opportunist.

The merry-go-round continues as the politicians continue throwing barbs at one another, while the rest of the public do their best not to tear their hair out in frustration and order another jumbo case of Pepto-Bismol...

Plus ça change, plus ça reste la même...

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Oooo it's not just a promise, it's a vow. Well gosh, now we know he's serious and will follow through fer sure

Sorry but I don't see anyone changing the electoral system that gets them elected.

[martin14]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Oooo it's not just a promise, it's a vow. Well gosh, now we know he's serious and will follow through fer sure

Sorry but I don't see anyone changing the electoral system that gets them elected.

So watch out for the Mulcair / May ticket !

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

andyt andyt:

same with Harper, who lost any interest in Senate reform once elected,
.

Besides the 4-5 bills they tried to pass that were blocked by Liberals?

Strawman. Senate reform can only happen with blessings from the Provinces, and Constitutional amendments. According to the Supreme Court, anyhow.

Conservatives hold a majority in Parliament and the Senate. Harper has appointed 46 of the 49 Senators there, and there are still 20 unfilled seats. There is no reason Harper can't pass bills to reform the Senate, if he wanted to.

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

There is no reason Harper can't pass bills to reform the Senate, if he wanted to.

You've contradicted yourself.

You preceded that comment with:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Senate reform can only happen with blessings from the Provinces, and Constitutional amendments. According to the Supreme Court, anyhow.

And he has tried. Specifically, Bill C-7, S-4, C-43, C-19, C-20, S-7.

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

There is no reason Harper can't pass bills to reform the Senate, if he wanted to.

You've contradicted yourself.

You preceded that comment with:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Senate reform can only happen with blessings from the Provinces, and Constitutional amendments. According to the Supreme Court, anyhow.

And he has tried. Specifically, Bill C-7, S-4, C-43, C-19, C-20, S-7.

It's not a contradiction. He can pass legislation to reform the Senate, but it needs Provincial approval if the reforms require constitutional amendments.

C-7 wasn't defeated by Liberals, it was proposed for Second Reading, never made it to Second Reading, and abandoned in 2012.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDet ... l=41&Ses=1

Bill S-4 was about warrantless eavesdropping. Bill C-43 was another omnibus bill, with no mention of 'Senate' in the preamble. Bill C-19 was passed, but it repealed the Gun Registry, nothing to do with the Senate. Bill C-20 or 'The Clarity Act' was introduced by Jean Cretien. Bill S-7 or "Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act" has nothing to do with Senate Reform.

Game over, insert 25 cents to continue.

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It's not a contradiction. He can pass legislation to reform the Senate, but it needs Provincial approval if the reforms require constitutional amendments.

C-7 wasn't defeated by Liberals, it was proposed for Second Reading, never made it to Second Reading, and abandoned in 2012.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDet ... l=41&Ses=1

Bill S-4 was about warrantless eavesdropping. Bill C-43 was another omnibus bill, with no mention of 'Senate' in the preamble. Bill C-19 was passed, but it repealed the Gun Registry, nothing to do with the Senate. Bill C-20 or 'The Clarity Act' was introduced by Jean Cretien. Bill S-7 or "Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act" has nothing to do with Senate Reform.

Game over, insert 25 cents to continue.

The game hasn't started.

You really need to familiarize yourself with the way bills are presented.

S-4- An Act to amend the Constitution Act May 30, 2006: http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISInfo/BillDet ... e=E&Mode=1

S-7- An Act to amend the Constitution Act May 28, 2009: http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/ ... l=40&Ses=2

C-20 Senate Appointment Consultations Act. December 12, 2007 http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/ ... l=39&Ses=2

Getting the gist of it?

Do a little more homework before you end on a cocky note

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It's not a contradiction. He can pass legislation to reform the Senate, but it needs Provincial approval if the reforms require constitutional amendments.

C-7 wasn't defeated by Liberals, it was proposed for Second Reading, never made it to Second Reading, and abandoned in 2012.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDet ... l=41&Ses=1

Bill S-4 was about warrantless eavesdropping. Bill C-43 was another omnibus bill, with no mention of 'Senate' in the preamble. Bill C-19 was passed, but it repealed the Gun Registry, nothing to do with the Senate. Bill C-20 or 'The Clarity Act' was introduced by Jean Cretien. Bill S-7 or "Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act" has nothing to do with Senate Reform.

Game over, insert 25 cents to continue.

The game hasn't started.

You really need to familiarize yourself with the way bills are presented.

S-4- An Act to amend the Constitution Act May 30, 2006: http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISInfo/BillDet ... e=E&Mode=1

S-7- An Act to amend the Constitution Act May 28, 2009: http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/ ... l=40&Ses=2

C-20 Senate Appointment Consultations Act. December 12, 2007 http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/ ... l=39&Ses=2

Getting the gist of it?

Do a little more homework before you end on a cocky note

I obviously did do my homework, or I wouldn't have come up with that list. Not my responsibility to translate your argument into English.

Those bills are all well and good, but Harper has had a majority in both the House and Senate since 2011. "Liberals" were pretty much made a 3rd party in that election, so they have had zero effect on any bill Harper introduced since then. Which is none of the ones you mention.

He's had 4 years to do things like legislate spending or expense claims, and he hasn't! The SCoC has said, because of the legislation he did try to introduce, that he needs Provincial buy-in in order to substantively change the Senate.

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I obviously did do my homework, or I wouldn't have come up with that list. Not my responsibility to translate your argument into English.

It was in plain English. It's not my fault you searched Google and found the first reference to any of the bills because you don't know any better to look at other years.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

He's had 4 years to do things like legislate spending or expense claims, and he hasn't! The SCoC has said, because of the legislation he did try to introduce, that he needs Provincial buy-in in order to substantively change the Senate.

Another contradiction. If you know he needs the Provinces to participate, how can you criticize him for something that's out of his control?

FWIW, the Senate Reform Act has been sitting in the red chamber since February.

The point is my comment was simple, andy mentioned that Harper lost all interest in the Senate when elected which is categorically false.

My comment was incorrect when I suggested the Liberals blocked all of the attempts.

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I obviously did do my homework, or I wouldn't have come up with that list. Not my responsibility to translate your argument into English.

It was in plain English. It's not my fault you searched Google and found the first reference to any of the bills because you don't know any better to look at other years.

I searched Parl.gc.ca, but hey, what's the difference right? After all they don't recycle bill numbers during different sessions, do they? We all should just have known which S-4 and S-7 out of the many different bills with those designations that you meant!

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

He's had 4 years to do things like legislate spending or expense claims, and he hasn't! The SCoC has said, because of the legislation he did try to introduce, that he needs Provincial buy-in in order to substantively change the Senate.

Another contradiction. If you know he needs the Provinces to participate, how can you criticize him for something that's out of his control?

All he has to do is get the Provinces on board, but he hasn't even tried. Andy was correct on that point. Harper gave up, but not when Andy thinks he did. There is still a lot he can do, with out having to change the constitution, so it's not a contradiction. I'd like it as well if he applied changes the Senate needs to also apply to the house.

But I'm a dreamer.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

FWIW, the Senate Reform Act has been sitting in the red chamber since February.

The point is my comment was simple, andy mentioned that Harper lost all interest in the Senate when elected which is categorically false.

My comment was incorrect when I suggested the Liberals blocked all of the attempts.

And that's all I'm trying to point out.