I know that there are many other pressing issues that Harper will be targeting, but unless we have PR any gains will be temporary when the next majority is voted in.

Since there are many babblers who seem to be quite connected, can anyone please let me know if PR will be at the top of the agenda and provide any known updates on it's progress. It's so hard to get decent information from a media that always ignores the NDP.

Layton Lays Out NDP Plan For Accountability

[ 27 January 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

the grassroots reformers can't say no to that, can they? (im thinking doris day)

edit: "the country would be governed by a Liberal/NDP coalition for a reaaaaally long time"

not necessarily true. who ever gets the highest vote share gets to try to form a coalition first, and who knows where the greens will be in five to ten years. and coalition always change during a mandate, so the cons could team up with the ndp on certain ethics and reform issues in exchange for budgetary support.

the only question is how far a party is willing to compromise, and i think the canadian public will punish any party that does not.

[ 27 January 2006: Message edited by: profit mohammed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
From what I understand the Bloc supports PR and did not try to delay it during the last parliament. Only the Liberals did this which is why we have to push ahead. If that means agreeing to Harpo's "elected" / appointed bigoted Senators then so be it. As long as no constitutional ammendments are required.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by profit mohammed:
why not just put it to a referendum, along with a question on senate reform?

the grassroots reformers can't say no to that, can they? (im thinking doris day)

---

Put what to a referendum? We are a federal state with a separation of powers and the provinces need to approve constitutional changes before anything can presented as 'a referendum'.

If you can convince the federal governmnet and provincial leaders to open up constitutional talks and then get agrreemnet, then good luck. It isn't going to happen.

hint: Why doesn't the NDP make the needs of the people the top prioity? How about a decent wage for waitresses or better health care for seniors?

[ 27 January 2006: Message edited by: asterlake ]

you do not need to amend the constitution in any way what so ever to put the question to the electorate in a national referendum if they favor a move to a system of proportional representation.

technically, the constitution already says we are to have a proporational representation system - one based on ridings, however, where ridings are proportional to population. why do you think the 416 and 905 have so many ridings compared to our northern ridings?

edit: "Why doesn't the NDP make the needs of the people the top prioity? How about a decent wage for waitresses or better health care for seniors?"

they do, and they can do this more effectively with more members in the house, and by ensuring that more that 50% of people would have to vote conservative for decent wages and better senior care be relegated to the backburner

[ 27 January 2006: Message edited by: profit mohammed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
PR doesn't need a constitutional amendment as long as all members come from a specific province. So, no national list, but that's a good thing. PEI and the Territories are tough/weird but that's acceptable. There are lots of models within the bounds of the current constitution.

Plenty of references in threads around here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by asterlake:
We are a federal state with a separation of powers and the provinces need to approve constitutional changes before anything can presented as 'a referendum'.

---

A constitutional change would not be required to enact PR. Provinces really wouldn't have much to do with it on the federal level. And senate reform could also be enacted without a constitutional amendment for that matter, if it were done carefully.

quote:

---

Originally posted by asterlake:
hint: Why doesn't the NDP make the needs of the people the top prioity? How about a decent wage for waitresses or better health care for seniors?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by profit mohammed:
if the senate is elected, would not the leader of the majority party in the senate be the real prime minister (he would have ultimate control, would he/she not)?. do we really need a bicameral legislature anyways?

---

I think the Liberals would be the biggest beneficiaries of PR. They would be included in almost all possible coalition governments whether NDP-Liberal or Conservative-Liberal.

Under PR, the BQ would benefit in one way - they would always be guranteed of winning at least 30 seats. So they wouldn't lose much by supporting PR. And their chances of holding the balance of power would be greatly increased because PR ensures that majority governments hardly ever happen. So their 30 seats in a minority parliament would be more poserful then their 50 seats in a majority parliament.

The only big losers from PR would be the Cons. That's why they will support keeping FPTP or at worst adopting the preferential system used in Australia.

If the campaign for PR gets bogged down, the NDP should agressively campaign for it. This means marching for it and taking it to the courts.

And all the provincial NDP wings must support it.

It's pathetic that the NDP governments in Manitoba and Saskatchewan haven't supporter PR.

[ 27 January 2006: Message edited by: JKR ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JKR:
The Conservatives will be the ones most opposed to PR. PR would exclude them from government. The only realistic partner the Cons have in forming a coalition is with the Liberals. As things stand now, PR would establish perpetual NDP-Liberal coalition governments.

[ 27 January 2006: Message edited by: JKR ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TweakedEnigma:

You do have a point but non-the-less there is no rule that you can't have a minority under a PR system.

---

PR sytems do away with minority governments. Minority governments are a part of our system because they are considered to be an anomaly. The supposition is that in the next election a majority government will occur. But with PR minority governments are untenable because the prospect of a majority is very dim. Coalition governments become the rule because political stability demands it.

As it is, the current minority situation is very unstable. The BQ, NDP, and Liberals are closer to each other then they are to the Conservatives. In a few months these parties will have to either bring down the government on a budget vote or vote against the policies they ran on during the election. If the Cons get into trouble and their numbers go down, an election could happen before the Libs get a new leader.

[ 28 January 2006: Message edited by: JKR ]

quote:

---

No federal governmnet is not going to 'push through' any change in electing the House of Commons without the approval of the provinces. Get real

---

Why don't you get real? Provinces have changed their electoral systems without the approval of the Feds (check out BC in the 1950's, and Quebec once had an upper house which it got rid of). Not to mention various federal and provincial restrictions on campaign financing, advertising, etc.

Only the allocation of MP's among the provinces and territories is constitutionally mandated, and beyond this the Feds can do what they please.

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
please let me know if PR will be at the top of the agenda and provide any known updates on it's progress.

---

The Conservative Policy Declaration adopted last March says:

quote:

---

10. Electoral Reform

i) A Conservative Government will consider changes to electoral systems, including proportional representation, the single transferable ballot, fixed election dates, and the use of referendums.

ii) In reviewing options for electoral reform, a Conservative Government will not endorse any new electoral system that will weaken the link between Members of Parliament and their constituents, that will create unmanageably large ridings, or that will strengthen the control of the party machinery over individual Members of Parliament. A national referendum will be held prior to implementing any electoral reform proposal.

---

This is the same policy applied by their caucus last June in their addendum to the House Committee Report.

A well-designed MMP model can satisfy those criteria as well as follow NDP policy. It's one of the few points where co-operation between the two parties is workable.

As to the Liberals, the Alberta Liberals are for PR, even Anne McLellan (too bad she won't be in the House), and some of the Ontario MPs who support the provincial initiative.

PR wouldn't just help the NDP. On the recent election results, if voters cast the same votes, the Conservatives would gain:
- eight MPs from Quebec, seven of whom would be from metropolitan Montreal.
- five MPs from Toronto
- an MP from PEI
- another MP from New Brunswick

A problem I had with the NDP's support of PR in the campaign was that this issue seemed to be buried in the platform. It was there for the diehard supporters of PR but not there to convince average voters of the merits of PR.

Another problem seemed to be the NDP's support for a particular type of PR: Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) where about half the seats are composed of one elected member, and the other half are topped off and proportioned from party lists. This makes me think that the NDP wants one particular type of PR to suit its own interests and not the interests of Canadians.

Overall, the NDP's message on PR was "we'll whisper about it and we want Canadians and other political parties to support PR so that the NDP can elect more members." Sounds self-gratifying.

If the NDP really wants Canadians to support PR, it needs to promote this actively and not just hide it in a platform document or webpage. It needs to talk about the benefits of PR that go beyond distributing seats based on party vote percentages. The NDP needs to talk about how PR governments make better laws (social-democratic, liberal, or conservative), encourages more and better women and men of different social and cultural backgrounds to run, that it can provide better regional and national representation based on party votes, and that it can provide stable governments.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:

On the recent election results, if voters cast the same votes, the Conservatives would gain:
- eight MPs from Quebec, seven of whom would be from metropolitan Montreal.
- five MPs from Toronto
- an MP from PEI
- another MP from New Brunswick

---

Conservatives can also subtract so I don't think they will support PR.

On the recent election results, if voters cast the same votes, the Conservatives would lose:
- eight MPs from Alberta
- five from Saskatchewan
- three MPs from BC
- three from Ontario
- two from Manitoba

Overall the Conservatives would have received only 112 seats, 12 less then they received.

PR would make it basically impossible for the Conservatives to ever form a majority government. Why would the Conservatives support a system that would take power away from them? Why would they support a system thaty would in all likelyhood give power to coalition governments of Liberals and NDP'ers with the possible inclusion of the Bloc and Greens?

Conservatives spent so much energy conforming to the reality of FPTP by uniting the Alliance and PC parties. The only way the Conservatives will support PR is if they think their party could break apart again. And many Conservatives will be smart enough to understand that PR would probably lead to their party breaking up again.

The Conservatives are very aware that they are the only right-wing party represented in Parliament. They know that FPTP greatly benefits their cause. It allows them to form governments with 1/3 of the vote!

My guess is that the Conservatives will support the preferential vote system as used in Australia.

But the Conservatives support for a national citizens assembly will further the prospects of PR because the majority of Canadians want seat totals to resemble vote totals. Most also want to get rid of strategic voting. They don't want anymore "wrong winners". And they want most of their votes to count - to elect people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skinny Dipper:
PR needs to be good for Liberals, Conservatives, Bloquistes, and Greens as well as NDPers.

---

PR needs to be good for Canadians. PR is not good for certain political parties. This is why we don't have PR. Parties that obtain far too much power because of FPTP don't want to give it up.

This is why the NDP in Saskatchewan and Manitoba are against PR. It would take power away from them.

If the NDP wants to really help the cause for PR, the NDP governments in Saskatchewan and Manitoba should implement it in their provinces. Maybe Jack Layton should get on the phone with Calvert and Doer?

[ 29 January 2006: Message edited by: JKR ]

spell edit

[ 29 January 2006: Message edited by: Ward ]

I sometimes even think it will make it worse, giving a flase shine of credibility.

quote:

---

Everything here points to constitutional talks

---

No it doesn't. For the umpteenth time, the FPTP system is not constitutionally mandated at either the federal or provincial level and can be changed by simple legislation, as it already has been provincially (e.g. BC in 1950's).

quote:

---

The Conservatives are very aware that they are the only right-wing party represented in Parliament. They know that FPTP greatly benefits their cause. It allows them to form governments with 1/3 of the vote!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ward:
I might suggest this:

rather than the $1.75 a party recieves per vote we up that to $15 or $20 or $50. And stop all other funding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JKR:
PR needs to be good for Canadians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thrasymachus:
it also causes them (Conservatives) to be completely shut out of power 95% of the time.

---

As Louis Massicotte said this past week:

quote:

---

An electoral system which, over 60 years, in three elections out of 16 gave unbridled power to a party which did not even have the most votes, is a system, in my eyes, at the very least defective. Would you fly on an airline with an accident rate of three times out of 16?

---

[ 29 January 2006: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by brookmere:
The NDP had its best chance for change with the previous Liberal minority, and passed it by.

---

We fool ourselves if one believes most voters are clammering for PR and endless minority governments. I for one am pleased that the NDP used its finite leverage in the last parliament on health care and so on and didn't get sidetracked on something like PR which federally is a dead issue.

[ 29 January 2006: Message edited by: asterlake ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by asterlake:
We fool ourselves if one believes most voters are clammering for PR and endless minority governments.

---

How many more minority governments do we have to wait before we can get a PR system in parliment? I don't want to wait 2 years for the NDP to have the balance of power, 2 years for the NDP to put PR on the agenda of whatever party is in power at the time, and another year for a citizens assembly to organize and find the best electoral system in the country, another year or two (or whenever the next election would be) for the new electoral system to be brought up in a referendum, only for it to be defeated when 59.5% of the country votes for it!

quote:

---

This would forever prevent the creation of new parties and forbid independent candidates

---

A good idea is to send an email out to your candidates asking them to make electoral reform a priority. They in turn should take this request and work harder to spread the message through their campaigning.

An email to the sitting MPs is a good idea too. I'll be doing that. I've sent a letter about this subject to my local weekly papers too.

There are so many people (voters and non-voters) who don't understand the significance of this subject (FPTP vs PR) that it's a hard sell. Explaining it in the context of voter apathy reduced through a better more representative system seems to come across well.

quote:

---

PR is the absolute highest priority for me, anyway. Until we have a government that has been elected by half or more of its constituents, we are in the Dark Ages.

---

So you then support a quorum too.

Besides, even under PR (mixed system proposed anyway) you can still see legislation passed by members that less than half of Canada voted for.

What about within the NDP? Should the various leader candidates share leadership of the party? What about the delegate system? What about the list system?

[ 04 February 2006: Message edited by: up ]

quote:

---

A couple of babblers have confused proportional representation and apportioning seats. Proportional representation means distributing seats to political parties in a given area based on their percentage of popular vote. For example, if the Conservatives get 38% of the vote, they should get around 38% of the seats. Apportioning seats means distributing seats in the House of Commons to provinces and territories based approximately on their respective populations. Another example would be in the United States Senate where each state is apportioned two seats no matter the population of the states.

A problem I had with the NDP's support of PR in the campaign was that this issue seemed to be buried in the platform. It was there for the diehard supporters of PR but not there to convince average voters of the merits of PR.

Another problem seemed to be the NDP's support for a particular type of PR: Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) where about half the seats are composed of one elected member, and the other half are topped off and proportioned from party lists. This makes me think that the NDP wants one particular type of PR to suit its own interests and not the interests of Canadians.

---

I wrote to the NDP about such a concern during the election. Got a reply from Layton - presumably via a staffer - that amounted to 'au contraire', claiming that the NDP is indeed proposing a Citizen's Assembly through which the people will select the system. Alas, that is not what is stated in their platform or on their website.

2006 Platform:
"Introduce an Every Vote Counts Act to change Canada’s federal electoral system to a mixed electoral system that combines constituency-based MPs with proportional representation."

There is NO mention of a citizen's consultation process.

Website:
In Ed Broadbent's and the NDP's '7-point plan', again MMP is called for. Nothing about a citizen's assembly.

It's interesting that it's Conservatives on the federal committee who have been proposing a CA, not the NDP.

[ 04 February 2006: Message edited by: BCseawalker ]

[ 04 February 2006: Message edited by: BCseawalker ]

[ 04 February 2006: Message edited by: BCseawalker ]

Why not a Parliament elected by proportional representation and an executive branch elected by a national vote with a run-off between the two top finishers or a transferable ballot.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BCseawalker:
There is NO mention of a citizen's consultation process.

It's interesting that it's Conservatives on the federal committee who have been proposing a CA, not the NDP.

---

quote:

---

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that New Democrats join with others, including Fair Vote Canada, in calling for an independent public commission to make recommendations for reform of the voting system, followed by a national referendum on those recommendations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BCseawalker:
it's clear that the party is pushing for MMP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BCseawalker:
the NDP is pushing a certain system (doesn't matter which - PR, MMP, STV, FPTP, ...), rather than pushing for public consultation on which system should be considered by the electorate.

---

quote:

---

WHEREAS the Canadian electoral system has repeatedly proven to be incapable of adequately reflecting fundamental tenets of representation and accountability; and
WHEREAS widespread voter alienation, as exemplified in the falling percentage of citizens casting a ballot, is provoking the mobilization of popular opinion around demands for electoral and parliamentary reform; and
WHEREAS the voting system belongs to all Canadians and, as such, its future must be determined by them in a national referendum; and
WHEREAS New Democrats should take a leadership role in the campaign for electoral reform that is gaining momentum in Canada; and
WHEREAS a Committee of the NDP, struck by the previous Convention, recommended that an appropriate system of proportional representation for a social democratic society would aim to reflect the following principles:
1. Proportionality: A party's proportion of seats in the legislature should be nearly equal to the proportion of the popular vote won by that party;
2. Accountability: There should be a close and ongoing relationship between the elected member and the voter to ensure that legislators reflect the will of citizens;
3. Inclusiveness: The system should hold greater promise to address and remedy the traditional under-representation of specific groups;
4. Sincere Voting: Voters should be able to cast their ballot in a positive way that is for their preferred candidate or party, rather than in a "strategic" way to prevent a disliked option from being elected. Similarly, their ballot should be reflected in the calculation of the electoral results and not discarded at an earlier stage; and
5. Strengthening Representation: Increasingly, Canadians define their politics in terms of issues, values and social identities, in addition to where they live. A new electoral system must give representation to those ideas that are not tied only to a constituency,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the NDP promote the adoption in Canada of a system of proportional representation, variations of which exist in Germany, New Zealand, Scotland and Wales; such a system would embody the following features:
1. Voters would have two votes. The first would be used to elect their local MP through the first-past-the-post system, as is done at present;
2. The second vote, or 'party vote', would determine the overall number of seats to which each party would be entitled in the House of Commons;
3. Parties would put forward lists of candidates in each province and territory;
4. The number of candidates elected from a party's list would depend on the number of constituency seats that the party had won and on the number of additional seats it would need in order to bring its representation in the House to a level proportional to its share of the popular vote;
5. To qualify for seats off the list, a party must receive 5% of the vote.
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that New Democrats join with others, including Fair Vote Canada, in calling for an independent public commission to make recommendations for reform of the voting system, followed by a national referendum on those recommendations.

---

Until one or two provinces brings in a new voting system and the rest of the country can see it in action for a few election cycles, you can forget about reform at the national level. That's why what happens in Ontario is so important. I hope the citizens' assembly process in that province can improve on what happened in British Columbia. (particularly the 60% requirements)

I think there are some really critical issues that need to be addressed before you can seriously look at reform alternatives:

1) Do the people ultimately decide the nature of their voting system or do politicians and governments? Are there adequate means in place for the people to express their will?
2) Should a supermajority be required for the enactment of a new voting system or should a simple majority? What threshold turnout, if any, should be required to bring in the new system?
3) A new system will probably need some tinkering over several election cycles. Will the people be able to express their will in regard to these changes or will change revert to government control.
4) Why are minority/coalition governments preferable to majority governments? Under what circmstances, if any, are majority governments preferable to minority governments? Does proportional representation make it too difficult for a majority government to form?
5) In a democracy, how important is it for all parties to obtain legislative seats in proportion to their votes? Is it necessary for seat allocations to be closely proportional to the vote every time? At what level of support is it OK for small parties to be shut out of representation?
6) What makes for adequate local representation? For example, if a party has a lock on a majority of the votes in a local district, is it fair for the remaining minority voters to go unrepresented? (Over multiple election cycles?) Even worse, is it fair for a minority party to obtain the only representative in a closely divided local district.
7) Can voters have too much choice? - to the point where candidates can't get their message across or voters can't adequately sort through all the candidate information or even accurately express their choice(s) on the ballot?

quote:

---

The FPTP tradition runs long and deep in the U.S. and Canada. New electoral systems have only achieved success in newly emerging democracies in the last 60 years or so. There wasn't an entrenched system to overcome in either Germany or Ireland.

---

What about New Zealand? Their history and political tradition is remarkably like ours and they have been around as long as we have. Contrary to myths about the US being our "best" (gag) friend (gag), New Zealand's history resembles ours closer than any other nation. It is the only nation in the world that matches our past military involvement.

Even those in yankified Australia have PR (albeit in an inferior form).

No? Maybe ... France?

I think you get the idea. In fact every major democracy in the world has a form of except the USA, UK and Canada. Even Scotland, Wales and I believe Northern Ireland have moved to PR.

quote:

---

Originally posted by New West:
Until one or two provinces brings in a new voting system and the rest of the country can see it in action for a few election cycles, you can forget about reform at the national level. That's why what happens in Ontario is so important.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New West:
In the recent election the Conservatives, the Liberals, and the Bloc all got more than their fair share of seats. Twenty-three percent of the vote - for the NDP, Greens, others - got substantially less than its fair share. Most Canadians aren't losing any sleep over these results.

---

quote:

---

Voters should take a close look at the smoking ruins of the latest electoral disaster. It's not a pretty sight. The NDP wins 1 million more votes than the Bloc but gains 22 fewer seats; Green party supporters are denied even a single MP.

More than 6 million voters cast wasted ballots that elected no one.

Consider the following outcomes: more than 650,000 Canadians voted for the Greens and returned nary a rep. Meanwhile, 475,000 Liberal voters in Atlantic Canada elected 20 Liberal MPs.

In the Prairie provinces, Conservatives got three times as many votes as the Liberals but won nearly 10 times as many seats. In Alberta, the half-million people who did not vote Conservative sent no one to Parliament.

Toronto will not have a single MP in the governing caucus, let alone in cabinet, even though a quarter-million locals voted for the winning party.

---

In Quebec, 906,741 Conservative voters elected 10 MPs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by New West:
there are some really critical issues that need to be addressed before you can seriously look at reform alternatives:

1) Do the people ultimately decide the nature of their voting system or do politicians and governments? Are there adequate means in place for the people to express their will?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New West:
4) Why are minority/coalition governments preferable to majority governments? Under what circumstances, if any, are majority governments preferable to minority governments? Does proportional representation make it too difficult for a majority government to form?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New West:
5) In a democracy, how important is it for all parties to obtain legislative seats in proportion to their votes? Is it necessary for seat allocations to be closely proportional to the vote every time? At what level of support is it OK for small parties to be shut out of representation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New West:
6) What makes for adequate local representation? For example, if a party has a lock on a majority of the votes in a local district, is it fair for the remaining minority voters to go unrepresented? (Over multiple election cycles?) Even worse, is it fair for a minority party to obtain the only representative in a closely divided local district?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New West:
The FPTP tradition runs long and deep in the U.S. and Canada. New electoral systems have only achieved success in newly emerging democracies in the last 60 years or so. There wasn't an entrenched system to overcome in either Germany or Ireland.

---

[ 04 February 2006: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

What about New Zealand? Their history and political tradition is remarkably like ours and they have been around as long as we have. Contrary to myths about the US being our "best" (gag) friend (gag), New Zealand's history resembles ours closer than any other nation. It is the only nation in the world that matches our past military involvement.

---

quote:

---

Actually there was. Ireland had, as part of the UK, used FPTP until 1922. Germany had used FPTP in the North German Confederation since 1867, and in the German Reich since 1871. With the Weimar constitution of 1919, the voting system changed from single-member constituencies to proportional representation. Then in 1946 - 9 they switched to their new MMP system.

---

Good points and more welcome information. Both Germany and Ireland had just undergone great change and they were ripe for change when they brought in their voting systems. That New Zealand was able to sustain and finally implement its reforms after more than 10 years of effort was a real achievement. Overcoming the inertia and fear of changing a long-standing system is a real challenge without the right preconditions. In BC I think the memory of 1996 and 2001 is already fading and New Zealand only had to get majority approval. Any requirements like BC's 60/60 rig the process in favour of the status quo.

quote:

---

These are excellent questions. There nay be more than one answer. A Citizens' Assembly followed by a referendum can be the best. The jury is out on the Quebec model: a quickie citizens' assembly (the Estates General on Reform of Democratic Institutions), followed by an expert commission, followed by a hearings panel of nine MNAs and eight randomized citizen volunteers. Federally, we need a citizen-driven process of some kind, but who can say what? If a couple of Liberal or Bloc MPs would please cross the floor, the NDP would suddenly have the balance of power and might be able to negotiate a fast citizen-driven process.

---

Actually, my concern is with ongoing oversight of any electoral change. The Citizens Assembly is a great tool for a major overhaul of the electoral system. Adjustments could be the responsibility of the legislature or a commission so long as it is approved by the voters What you don't want is a government (with a so-called mandate) to change the voting system without direct voter approval. Some necessary changes will only become apparent after a reformed voting system goes into effect. There needs to be room for evolution and that needs to be explicitly built into the referendum language.

quote:

---

Experience elsewhere suggests that we can't generalize. If the public tires of coalitions they will give the most popular party over 50%. Yet at the second-last election in New Zealand, as that was about to happen, the public said "wait a second, a coalition is still better than unbridled power in the PMO," Labour dropped back below 50% again, and they re-elected Labour with a minority. PR didn't stop the ANC from getting a huge majority in South Africa.

---

This is the most important question that reformers need to answer - why minority/coaliton governments are more democratic and less radical. Guys like Norman Spector and the big corporations love the "stability" of majority governments - really "steamroller" governments - that allow the programs of the inner circle to be rammed through without any serious scrutiny or checks.

quote:

---

Actually there was. Ireland had, as part of the UK, used FPTP until 1922. Germany had used FPTP in the North German Confederation since 1867, and in the German Reich since 1871. With the Weimar constitution of 1919, the voting system changed from single-member constituencies to proportional representation. Then in 1946 - 9 they switched to their new MMP system.

---

quote:

---

I favour a two seat threshold for the small parties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New West:
This is the most important question that reformers need to answer - why minority/coalition governments are more democratic and less radical.

---

quote:

---

Thirty academic experts, political journalists and retired mandarins, consulted by the Institute for Research on Public Policy, have shown that five years of unstable, minority government in Ottawa were the most productive in the past half-century. . .

How, then, did Mr. Pearson wrest success from what often looked like chaos? During a train trip across the Prairies in that period, he invited me and other reporters to his private car for a nightcap and a chat. The talk turned to the time he won his Nobel Prize by persuading a reluctant UN to create the first peacekeeping force, and he explained that it was possible only because the alternative might have been a clash between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. In fact, he said, major change was usually possible only when the alternative was even more frightening.

In my view, it was that understanding that made him successful. With personal charm, the skill of a diplomat and a willingness to negotiate, he was able to put together enough votes to pass highly controversial legislation because the alternative would have been defeat in the Commons and a general election, which neither the voters nor the minor parties wanted.

Perhaps the lesson is that if proportional representation does produce coalition governments, we shall need a type of Prime Minister quite different from the overbearing leaders to whom we have become accustomed.

[Anthony Westell, The Globe and Mail's bureau chief in Ottawa during most of the Pearson years, has long advocated PR.]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New West:
Actually, my concern is with ongoing oversight of any electoral change. The Citizens Assembly is a great tool for a major overhaul of the electoral system. Adjustments could be the responsibility of the legislature or a commission so long as it is approved by the voters. What you don't want is a government (with a so-called mandate) to change the voting system without direct voter approval.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New West:
Most of the time 25% top-up would fully cover the distortions of the local elections. Is that an acceptable price to pay for a system where local elections and reasonably small district sizes still predominate?

---

quote:

---

Another problem seemed to be the NDP's support for a particular type of PR: Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) where about half the seats are composed of one elected member, and the other half are topped off and proportioned from party lists. This makes me think that the NDP wants one particular type of PR to suit its own interests and not the interests of Canadians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Policywonk:
The proportion of single seat MPs to party list MPs can vary, leading to various degrees of proportionality, or simply as a consequence of a compensatory system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JKR:
What would be wrong with having 3 list seats for every 2 constituency seats? Or 4 list seats for every 3 constituency seats?

---

[ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: RANGER ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RANGER:
While I am in favor of moderate PR myself, can someone explain how PR will stop politicians from "crossing the floor"?

---

In the context of Emerson and, more sensibly, Fortier, PR eliminates the underlying problem of large chunks of Canada being unrepresented in a governing caucus (Calgary Liberal voters in past governments, Montreal Conservative voters in this one, and so on.)

In the broader context of coalitions, they will become more common and acceptable when they are a more normal part of our political system. This is not unique to PR, look at India with its 39 parties under FPTP. If your party can be part of a governing coalition, that's a more coherent approach than one MP crossing the floor. And if your party is perpetually divided as to whether it's a centre-right party or a centre-left party, maybe it's time it divided, so those who want to be part of a coalition with Conservatives can stick together.