Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

[dapaterson]

Perhaps this is one of the electoral reforms that needs to happen. It should be a requirement that you live in the riding you represent. The exception would be party leaders or winners of by-elections who would then have to conform at the next general election.

Why?  If I live alone on an island in Northern Ontario, why shouldn't I be able to run in Rosedale?

Ultimately, it's the voters who decide - and in this case, they decided that someone they've never seen, who went to Vegas instead of campaigning, who doesn't speak the same language as them would better represent them than any of the others in the running of the reptiles.  If voters wish to make that choice, it's up to them.


(And it may force a bit of sober reflection by the other parties - a good thing. )

 

[Redeye]

I am an extremist zealot when it comes to opposing "proportional representation".  It would mean an unworkable country, in which appealing to the lowest common denominator would make us a laughing stock of a democracy.

I used to be.  I'm not anymore, and the degree to which I become passionately involved in scrapping FPTP will be a function of how Harper governs from here on in.  Fact is, the only outcome I considered remotely palatable was a Conservative minority - the status quo.  Ignatieff bet the farm on bringing down the government and lost big time, so when my friends who are more up in arms about the outcome of the election bitch, I tell them they can thank him and Jack Layton.  In fact, Harper had better send quite a thank you card to Mr. Ignatieff.

I find it interesting that opponents to our "First Past the Post" (FPTP) system will utter such statements as "Only in the US, Canada, the UK and Australia do we have FPTP!"  Yes.  Nice.  Use the four most functional (least disfunctional?) democracies on the planet as a reason to NOT use that system which they use.  Our system offers fair representation, local representation and a functional (if not functioning) and somewhat stable government that allows us to get things done.  Things that really matter.

The UK looks like it's going to scrap FPTP, and while I'm not an expert on Australian politics, I am pretty sure they have a two party system.  They also have an elected, functioning Senate which would be nice.  And the US, well, I'm not remotely interested in copying any feature of their system.

"60% voted against the conservatives, and they have a majority?  What a joke!" (or words to that effect) were muttered last night.  I could also offer that 60% voted *for* middle of the pack parties (conservative and Liberal) and some 35-40% voted for the far left.  Or I could say that a Conservative/NDP coalition got 70% of the vote, or I could say.....

Again it is worth reminding people that the last PM to win a majority of the popular vote was John Diefenbaker in 1958.

For me, I would rather select the guy I send to Ottawa, rather than have some party hack being forced upon me based on numbers of votes.  (Arguably, however, sometimes party hacks and cronies are parachuted into ridings).  But the beauty is that when we have our current system, things like this happen, which would NEVER happen in proportional representation.

Fact is, the local guy you sent to Ottawa in most cases is so beholden to party discipline that he doesn't really represent your riding to Ottawa, he represents the ruling party in your riding.  That's not the way I think it should be.  Consider Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley where my parents live - the former MP, Bill Casey, was furious about what he viewed as a travesty of a budget because it wasn't a benefit to his constituents, so he voted against it and was booted from the party.  That's a rare thing to see, but that's what should be the case - a vigourous debate that builds consensus, not a top-down approach where party sycophants who allegedly represent me just rubber stamp what the backroom dreams up as policy.

Some form of PR would force the parties to actually work together and represent the nation broadly.  It's no wonder voter turnout sucks in this country, so many people walk away with a bad taste in their mouth feeling like they just wasted their time.

 

[McG]

Some form of PR would force the parties to actually work together and represent the nation broadly.

I cannot agree.  We would be better served with the transferable vote.

There are people who will argue that political parties are what is wrong with our system and that we should do away with them, but the fact is that political parties are not going away.  In many ways, they do serve a necessary function.  That being said, a PR system would strip any ability of the individual to compete for and gain office.  We as a nation would be beholden to the political parties to select our acceptable candidates before our opportunity to vote.  For the most part, that is what happens - but every now and again an individual stands-up to the parties and successfully gains office.  We should not close the door to this.

Another problem with the PR system is that it removes the responsibility of the incumbent to the constituents.  Sure, an MP can be booted from the party for choosing the home riding over the scripted message.  Coincidentally (or not) these are the individuals who are more likely to be re-elected as independants for thier troubles.  In a PR system, the incumbent's only responsibility is to the party.

 

[vonGarvin]

I used to be.  I'm not anymore, and the degree to which I become passionately involved in scrapping FPTP will be a function of how Harper governs from here on in.  Fact is, the only outcome I considered remotely palatable was a Conservative minority - the status quo.

Well, I for one am glad you aren't running the show.  Sure, Casey was booted from the party, but it wasn't because of his riding:

"I have never seen a budget that has had more in it for the people of my riding than this one does," Casey said from his Ottawa office, yesterday.
He said benefits can be easily pinpointed throughout the budget for the high population of seniors, working families with children and low-income families in his riding.

It doesn't matter.  Mr. Casey was re-elected as an Independent:

And in Nova Scotia, MP Bill Casey — who was kicked out of the Conservative caucus for voting against the budget because he believed Mr. Harper broke his promise to leave offshore resource revenues untouched under the Atlantic Accord — won by a huge margin to keep his seat as an Independent.

  He wasn't part of a party.  How then, could that happen in a PR system?

Again, it offers stability, and too bad for you that Mr. Harper has a majority.  I'm sick of minority governments, as are many Canadians.  Our system works, and if anyone thinks that being part of the political process stops when you mark your X, they are sadly mistaken.

Besides, any change from FPTP to PR would require constitutional reform, and I think we better get Quebec to sign on first.

 

[Journeyman]

Again, it offers stability, and too bad for you that Mr. Harper has a majority.  I'm sick of minority governments, as are many Canadians. 

Shhhhh....gentle.....he's spent most of the day in denial -- sulking in various "I love Obama" threads  >

 

[Loachman]

We as a nation would be beholden to the political parties to select our acceptable candidates before our opportunity to vote.  For the most part, that is what happens

And who makes up these political parties?

Ordinary citizens willing to pay the princely sum of ten dollars annually and contribute a little of their time and effort to influence things.

If one wants more say in who is nominated as one's candidate, and perhaps a little more say in how that candidate represents one, then one only has to increase one's participation.

 

[Kirkhill]

On the subject of parliamentary reform:

AV Referendum results map
Results by area for the AV Referendum.
4:15PM BST 06 May 2011
The UK has voted to keep First Past The Post over changing to the Alternative Vote system for parliamentary elections.

Map and Story

Apparently not one riding came out in support of changing the system from First Past the Post to the Alternative Voting system of ranking your choices.

 

[Old Sweat]

And to add another twist to the story, in almost half of the Canadian ridings the winner received over fifty percent of the vote:

Cons 107 (64%)
NDP  36  (35%)
Lib      2  ( 6%)

 

[Kirkhill]

And to add another twist to the story, in almost half of the Canadian ridings the winner received over fifty percent of the vote:

Cons 107 (64%)
NDP  36  (35%)
Lib      2  ( 6%)

Conservative supporters seem to be like Keith's drinkers: "Those that like them like them a lot".  That appears decidedly less so for the Liberals.

 

[vonGarvin]

The UK looks like it's going to scrap FPTP,

Wrong:

The UK has voted to keep First Past The Post over changing to the Alternative Vote system for parliamentary elections.

Plans to change the way the MPs are elected have been overwhelmingly rejected by voters.
More than two thirds of people voted to keep the first-past-the-post system in what was the first UK-wide referendum for 36 years.

(My emphasis added)


Source

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

As with everything Canadian, electoral redistribution can never be simple.  Simple would be taking 300 seats and divvying it up based on population of each province and throwing in one each for the territories.  Way too simple.

Instead we get

51. (1) The number of members of the House of Commons and the representation of the provinces therein shall, on the coming into force of this subsection and thereafter on the completion of each decennial census, be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time as the Parliament of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to the following rules:

1. There shall be assigned to each of the provinces a number of members equal to the number obtained by dividing the total population of the provinces by two hundred and seventy-nine and by dividing the population of each province by the quotient so obtained, counting any remainder in excess of 0.50 as one after the said process of division.
2. If the total number of members that would be assigned to a province by the application of rule 1 is less than the total number assigned to that province on the date of coming into force of this subsection, there shall be added to the number of members so assigned such number of members as will result in the province having the same number of members as were assigned on that date.


(2) The Yukon Territory as bounded and described in the schedule to chapter Y-2 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, shall be entitled to one member, the Northwest Territories as bounded and described in section 2 of chapter N-27 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, as amended by section 77 of chapter 28 of the Statutes of Canada, 1993, shall be entitled to one member, and Nunavut as bounded and described in section 3 of chapter 28 of the Statutes of Canada, 1993, shall be entitled to one member.


51A. Notwithstanding anything in this Act a province shall always be entitled to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of senators representing such province.

The killers for growing provinces are no less MPs than senators and then no decrease in the number of MPs for a province.  The provisions mean that provincial growth is minimally reflected in redistribution.

Trudeau, while having some silly ideas, seemed to provide an over-ride button.  In this case Section 52.

52. The Number of Members of the House of Commons may be from Time to Time increased by the Parliament of Canada, provided the proportionate Representation of the Provinces prescribed by this Act is not thereby disturbed.

The ridiculousness of this is that if population growth continues in the same provinces the House of Commons will become very large.  The choice is undemocratic representation or a ridiculously large House Of Commons.  So Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta are behind 30 seats to 2001 and many since then.  At least the next election will be fought with fair electoral distribution.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Correct and, as we have 105 senators, we also have a 'floor' of 105 MPs. But in fact we have 308 due to several redistributions and some "special" factors being applied - special beyond those in the Constitution, proper. There is a porposal to add 30 seats next year - in plenty of time for the 2015 election, to AB, BC and ON.

Province or Territory Number          Number        Number
                                of Senators     of MPs          of MPs
                                                            (2011)        (proposed)
British Columbia               5                  36                43
Alberta                             6                  28                33
Ontario                           24                106              124
Quebec                           24                  75                75
Manitoba                           6                  14                14
Saskatchewan                 6                    14                14
Nova Scotia                     10                    11                11
Newfoundland 
and Labrador                   6                      7                  7
New Brunswick               10                    10                10
Northwest Territories       1                      1                  1
Prince Edward Island       4                      4                  4
Yukon                               1                      1                  1
Nunavut                           1                      1                  1
TOTAL                              105                  308              338

There will be further redistributions until we, sooner or later, get to something which is both constitutionally proper and more generally - bout not completely - equitable; something akin to what I have proposed before:

NV .......    1
NW .......    1
YK .......      1
BC .......    51
AB .......    42
SK .......    14
MB .......  15
ON ....... 150
QC .......  92
NB ........  10
NS .......    11
PE .........    4
NF .........    7
Canada  399

This could be done with redistributions in 2012, 2017 and 2022.


Edit to add: Mods - I think this should be merged into the Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen) thread. which is 'stickied' at the top of this page.

 

[ballz]

Mr Campbell,

Is there any possibility of redistributing the seats without adding seats... At $110,000 per MP it seems to me adding 91 seats as you have proposed is pretty steep.

I realize a riding that gets semi-merged with parts of another riding and therefore basically loses some representation in the HoC isn't going to be pleased with it initially... but that'll just be a bit of temporary bitching and moaning.

 

[infantryian]

If only it were just $110,000. It is closer to $160,000, not including travel allowances, staffing, and all other ways that the government loves to spend money.

Source: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Lists/Salaries.aspx?Menu=HOC-Politic&Section=03d93c58-f843-49b3-9653-84275c23f3fb

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

I realize a riding that gets semi-merged with parts of another riding and therefore basically loses some representation in the HoC isn't going to be pleased with it initially... but that'll just be a bit of temporary bitching and moaning.

I'll leave it to you to explain it to Quebec.  Shouldn't be a big problem, should it?  The Bloc was displeased with adding to Anglo provinces without reducing Quebec representation.

 

[ballz]

Well, whatever which way we realign the seats, Quebec will get less representation. The change to the balance of influenc isn't much different between adding more seats in Ontario and the West, and taking away seats from places that are overrepresented... But there's a big difference in cash flows.

Either way we do it, it has to be done. Quebec can complain all they want (they're going to do that anyway, so who cares), once it's done it just means the less we have to bend over and be afraid of upsetting them. Besides, there's only 4 BQ MPs now, I thought that meant Quebec was now part of the team ;D

 

[wannabe SF member]

I always wondered, won't they end up running out of space in the commons if they keep on adding seats (and desks)?

 

[Edward Campbell]

I always wondered, won't they end up running out of space in the commons if they keep on adding seats (and desks)?

The simple thing is to provide desks for the front row only - ordinary padded benches will do for the back benchers, and then we can fit a whole lot more in.

 

[Old Sweat]

The simple thing is to provide desks for the front row only - ordinary padded benches will do for the back benchers, and then we can fit a whole lot more in.

And only sell cabbage gruel in the Parliament Hill restaurant.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Mr Campbell,

Is there any possibility of redistributing the seats without adding seats... At $110,000 per MP it seems to me adding 91 seats as you have proposed is pretty steep.

I realize a riding that gets semi-merged with parts of another riding and therefore basically loses some representation in the HoC isn't going to be pleased with it initially... but that'll just be a bit of temporary bitching and moaning.

I think others have answered most of your question: It is a practical and, very often, a legal impossibility to reduce seats in many provinces. The only practical method is by adding seats.

Oh, and as to the cost - figure each MP costs you (and me, and all the other Canadian taxpayers) about $1 Million per year by the time you've added up all the costs of running the HoC. It also costs about $1 Million per riding for each general election. But what is the value of equality of representation?