[martin14]

llama66 llama66:

FPTP is a retarded system. I've wanted proportional representation pretty much my entire ("adult") life.

And that, my friend, is only because you have never lived under it.

[DrCaleb]

*cough*prestonmanning*cough*

[Prof_Chomsky]

martin14 martin14:

llama66 llama66:

FPTP is a retarded system. I've wanted proportional representation pretty much my entire ("adult") life.

And that, my friend, is only because you have never lived under it.

True, Germany, New Zealand, Scotland, Wales. They're all know as shit-holes with terrible economies, unhappy residents, poor quality of life and tons of inequality. Then of course you have all the other 3rd world countries running variations of proportional representation like Australia, Austria, Denmark, the entire EU, Finland, Norway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportio ... esentation




Current usage
MMP is currently in use in:

Bolivia adopted MMP in 1994.[9]
Germany
Bundestag, the federal parliament (see Electoral system of Germany)
most state parliaments. Exceptions are Baden-Württemberg (MMP without lists), Bremen, Hamburg and Saarland, but it is being introduced in Hamburg: see Elections in Hamburg.
Lesotho adopted MMP in 2002.
New Zealand adopted the system for its unicameral House of Representatives in 1994 following a long electoral reform process, beginning with the Royal Commission on the Electoral System in 1985 and ending with the 1993 referendum on the voting system. It was first used in an election in 1996. The system's use was reviewed by referendum in November 2011, with the majority (56.17%) voting to keep it.
See also: Electoral system of New Zealand
United Kingdom – though the UK Parliament does not use MMP, two constituent countries use MMP (referred to as the additional member system) in their devolved parliaments:
Scotland – the devolved Scottish Parliament uses MMP.
Wales – the devolved National Assembly for Wales uses MMP.

[Sunnyways]

The PR debate depends on how much significance one gives to the popular vote. Under FPTP a party can get a comfortable majority of seats with 40% of it. Coalitions at the federal level are unfamiliar to Canadians and PR would bring more of them. One consolation would be that the parties governing the country would probably enjoy the support of a majority of voters.

We have also been fortunate with the lack of enduring regional parties. Under FPTP they tend to win seats out of all proportion to their national vote share e.g. the BQ and, in the UK, SNP, DUP, SF etc.

Multi-seat constituencies give voters the opportunity to choose the candidates they want from the party they favour and also encourage parties with a smaller fraction of the vote to campaign vigorously with a realistic hope of success. At the moment, if you’re trapped in the wrong constituency, e.g. most of Alberta, the result is a foregone conclusion and there’s really no point voting for another party.

[martin14]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

True, Germany, New Zealand, Scotland, Wales. They're all know as shit-holes with terrible economies, unhappy residents, poor quality of life and tons of inequality. Then of course you have all the other 3rd world countries running variations of proportional representation like Australia, Austria, Denmark, the entire EU, Finland, Norway.

In case you haven't noticed, those countries are all getting more polarized,
and the 'crazy' parties are coming out. Not a sign that things are OK.

Greens
AfD
SNP
FPO
True Finns
Norway has a rightist party cant remember the name.

The 'EU' MEPs, this is such a farcical joke, it's not worth mentioning.

Oh and Italy, currently run by Lega and 5star, best example of all.


Sunny is right.
Do it in Canada and the country will fall apart.

Alberta the OIL IS MINE Party
BC is Dope Party
Toronto fuck the ROC Party
and of course, Quebec.

The only way parties like these would work together, is to dramatically
increase the gibs and bribes paid out for votes.

No.
Never.
This country stays together (mostly) because you need to cobble together a
party that can run nationwide.

[CharlesAnthony]

herbie herbie:

If Bernier can bring all the narcissistic assholes like himself together that would be great. Specially if it were all in one place where one bomb would do the trick.

Oh, I get it!
After that, the non-narcissistic assholes like everybody else would never have to vote!

[N_Fiddledog]

Maxime Bernier: Why my new political movement? Because Canada has been hijacked

$1:

Since I left my Conservative colleagues and announced I would be creating a new party last week, I have been accused of being a sore loser and only interested in my own ego, of being excessively obsessed with the issue of supply management and of splitting the conservative vote — guaranteeing Justin Trudeau’s re-election.

To understand my real motives, my critics should read up on “public choice theory.” Developed by James Buchanan, who won a Nobel prize for economics in 1986, it explains how interest groups hijack political debates and capture politicians, winning huge benefits in the form of subsidies, trade protection, fiscal or legal privileges and other favourable regulations. They are willing to devote enormous lobbying effort and large amounts of money to get them.

Of course, ordinary taxpayers ultimately have to pay for these benefits. But a favour worth millions, even billions, of dollars to an interest group may cost only a few dollars to each individual taxpayer. Why would anyone make the effort to understand, let alone oppose, complex government policy? It’s just not worth it. As public choice theory explains, “rational ignorance” is a much better default mode.

This dynamic, of “concentrated benefits versus dispersed costs,” explains why we have so many bad policies that are obviously not in the public’s interest, why it is so difficult to reform such policies, and why government keeps growing: The number of groups a politician can pander to in order to buy votes is endless.

When I became Industry minister in 2006, I was squarely confronted with this dilemma. The Conservative Party was then totally reconciled to corporate subsidies; opposing them in the 2004 election had made it difficult to compete with Paul Martin, who was promising government money to various industries. There was no point in arguing. I concentrated on other files where I could have an impact, like telecom deregulation. And whenever there was a big corporate welfare announcement to make, I asked one of my colleagues to do it for me. They thought I was doing them a favour. The reverse was true.

Expressing my doubts publicly did not go down well. Some may remember that, in 2010, I publicly broke ranks with my colleagues from the Quebec City area who were pushing our government to subsidize a new sports amphitheater in the city. They had seized on this popular project to … What else? Buy votes. They were furious at me. I could mention the Bombardier bailout and many other similar cases.

Of course, the mother of all political hijackings is the ridiculous influence the small supply management lobby for dairy, poultry and eggs has managed to exert over every political party and every politician in Canada. Should we be surprised that it had 25 lobbyists at the Conservative convention in Halifax last weekend?

Beyond the importance of this issue at the NAFTA negotiations, the reason I have focused on supply management so much is that it is a litmus test: If you let yourself be manipulated by such a small cartel, how will you be able to resist other interest groups and make the right decisions for all Canadians? Simply, you won’t.

This is what I have been concerned with for the past 12 years: How to reconcile my desire to serve the public with a political dynamic entirely dominated by pandering and vote-buying strategies. Conservatives play that game as much as the Liberals, even though it directly contradicts the small-government, free-market principles the party purports to defend.

As I said when I resigned, I have come to the conclusion that the Conservative party cannot be reformed and that if I want to do politics differently, I need to do it elsewhere.

How do I plan to do this? By systematically reversing the dynamic described by public choice theory. That is, by taking positions based on principles I believe in and that accord with what I think is the public interest; and by resisting pressure from interest groups seeking favours, despite the short-term political cost.

I recognize this is a risky enterprise. It certainly explains why none of my caucus colleagues were interested in joining me. But the payoff for Canadians could be huge.

And what gives me hope is that with the Internet, it is now much easier and less costly to find relevant information and mobilize around an issue. A small group of motivated citizens can potentially have as much influence as a lobby group spending millions of dollars.

I know many Canadians are fed up with the traditional way of doing politics. We’ll see if enough of them are ready to follow me.

Maxime Bernier has been MP for the Beauce riding in Quebec since 2006. He was minister of industry, foreign affairs and small business in the Harper government.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/maxime ... n-hijacked

[PluggyRug]

PR is like the committee which designed the camel, couldn't decide on one hump or two so we have both.

PR would give us a monkeykangorillapig government pandering to every bullshit fringe request.

[Prof_Chomsky]

martin14 martin14:

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

True, Germany, New Zealand, Scotland, Wales. They're all know as shit-holes with terrible economies, unhappy residents, poor quality of life and tons of inequality. Then of course you have all the other 3rd world countries running variations of proportional representation like Australia, Austria, Denmark, the entire EU, Finland, Norway.

In case you haven't noticed, those countries are all getting more polarized,
and the 'crazy' parties are coming out. Not a sign that things are OK.

Greens
AfD
SNP
FPO
True Finns
Norway has a rightist party cant remember the name.

The 'EU' MEPs, this is such a farcical joke, it's not worth mentioning.

Oh and Italy, currently run by Lega and 5star, best example of all.


Sunny is right.
Do it in Canada and the country will fall apart.

Alberta the OIL IS MINE Party
BC is Dope Party
Toronto fuck the ROC Party
and of course, Quebec.

The only way parties like these would work together, is to dramatically
increase the gibs and bribes paid out for votes.

No.
Never.
This country stays together (mostly) because you need to cobble together a
party that can run nationwide.

Saying proportional representation is causing these countries to be polarized is the same as saying FPTP is causing the USA to be polarized. It's a red herring BS reason to allow parties to form a super majority government with 30% of the vote.

Conservatives always seem to love FPTP because they know there wouldn't have been a single conservative majority government in the past 30 years without vote splitting.

Even stack ranking is better than FPTP.

[Thanos]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

PR is like the committee which designed the camel, couldn't decide on one hump or two so we have both.

PR would give us a monkeykangorillapig government pandering to every bullshit fringe request.

Yup. It's about the dumbest thing possible. And it would make Canada's already goofy system that much worse. If every special interest got their own seats in Parliament via PR then paralysis would set in as every vote got hijacked, especially in a minority government situation. The insanity in places like Italy or Israel really need to be studied first hand just to put a permanent rest to this idiotic belief that every single minority camp deserves not just a say but a bloc of voting seats to represent them.

[llama66]

Instead we'll continue to be blessed with the first 4 years of a new government trying to dismantle the legacy of the last government, followed by the next 4 years (if they are lucky) of building their own legacy only to see it dismantled by the next government when they inevitably get voted out,

The best years for Canada recently, was probably when Harper had his minority. He had to temper his government so as not to be super ideological. This is the problem with Trudeau's Trans-Canadian Trainwreck, people stupidly gave him a massive majority, and we were rewarded with this *motions to Post-Modernist Wasteland*

Just my two cents.

[raydan]

That's why I'd want to get rid of political parties altogether.

[llama66]

raydan raydan:

That's why I'd want to get rid of political parties altogether.

I can get behind this notion.

[Prof_Chomsky]

llama66 llama66:

raydan raydan:

That's why I'd want to get rid of political parties altogether.

I can get behind this notion.

That's sort of the whole reason for proportional government. It's almost impossible to get a majority (unless everyone in the country is truly united, in which case, that's perfect). Then you have to partner with other voting blocks to get shit done. The result is less insane liberalism and brutal conservatism, and more non-partisan logical policies.
Yeah, you'll get the Neo-Nazi party with 1 seat, but he'll be the dunce in the corner no one lets speak that gets beat up at recess.

[martin14]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

llama66 llama66:

raydan raydan:

That's why I'd want to get rid of political parties altogether.

I can get behind this notion.

That's sort of the whole reason for proportional government. It's almost impossible to get a majority (unless everyone in the country is truly united, in which case, that's perfect). Then you have to partner with other voting blocks to get shit done. The result is less insane liberalism and brutal conservatism, and more non-partisan logical policies.
Yeah, you'll get the Neo-Nazi party with 1 seat, but he'll be the dunce in the corner no one lets speak that gets beat up at recess.

I'm sorry, you haven't got a clue. You just don't.

By your own words, the AfD is not one seat, they are now the official opposition
in Germany. And they continue to grow.

5s and Lega now run the government in Italy.


And watch the election in Sweden.
The party with the highest percentage will not form a government.. is that fair ?