Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

[ModlrMike]

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 realize this wasn't addressed to me, however I have to ask. How do you propose redistribution? We already have ridings where one vote counts more than it does in another riding. Witness Labrador: 10200 votes cast vs Winnipeg South at 43000 votes. It's easy to see a 1:4 vote disparity. The urban ridings run about 50K, while the urban about 10K. The challenge is to represent the large rural ridings like Labardor without making them too large to represent, while not disenfranchising more densely populated ridings. This is why we need more seats, particularly in Ontario and the west where the population has expanded more rapidly than in the east.

 

[ballz]

I realize this wasn't addressed to me, however I have to ask.

No problem. I only addressed him because of the proposed extra 91 seats....

How do you propose redistribution? We already have ridings where one vote counts more than it does in another riding. Witness Labrador: 10200 votes cast vs Winnipeg South at 43000 votes. It's easy to see a 1:4 vote disparity. The urban ridings run about 50K, while the urban about 10K. The challenge is to represent the large rural ridings like Labardor without making them too large to represent, while not disenfranchising more densely populated ridings. This is why we need more seats, particularly in Ontario and the west where the population has expanded more rapidly than in the east.

I haven't put a ton of thought into who would get what seats, I figured I'd ask to see if my question was even valid before I started making proposals. However, I guess I had a false idea in my head that keeping it simple would be the best solution. Perhaps I am using too much common sense for a situation that requires more than common sense, but here is the logical answer (according to my logic ;D):

35 million / 300 seats = ~116,667 people per seat, within geographic reason of course.

But then take the province's population and divide it by the 116,667 to see how many seats they should have to be represented close to properly in the HoC, and then just start grouping seats together within the province's new "limit" according to what makes sense and sticks to somewhere around the rule of thumb.

NL = 5 seats... Common sense = 4 in Newfoundland 1 for all of Labrador.

Not everybody is going to pleased but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that 1.43% of the population shouldn't represent 2.27% of the HoC (so over 59% more influence then they should have).

There's really no need for all these small ridings to be represented by an individual MP at the Federal level. From what I can see most of these riding-level issues are the responsibility of the provinces. The federal election seems to be more about the relationship between the provinces and the federal government. How all these neighboring ridings in Ontario can possibly have different issues that need to be addressed at the Federal level is beyond me.

NL = 5
NS = 8
PEI = 2
NB = 7
QC = 68
ON = 113
MN = 11
SK = 9
AB = 32
BC = 39
YK = 1
NWT = 1
NV = 1

= 297 seats... use the other 3 as necessary (or give them to QC and tell them to go frig their hat with them, whatever).

Equal representation in a democracy. I'm a dreamer, I know. I guess I have too much faith that your average citizen is going to be reasonable and accept that equal representation AND saving money is important.

Now, I expect I will shortly be told by this is more complicated than common sense answers allow for :nod:

 

[Edward Campbell]

No problem. I only addressed him because of the proposed extra 91 seats....

I haven't put a ton of thought into who would get what seats, I figured I'd ask to see if my question was even valid before I started making proposals. However, I guess I had a false idea in my head that keeping it simple would be the best solution. Perhaps I am using too much common sense for a situation that requires more than common sense, but here is the logical answer (according to my logic ;D):

35 million / 300 seats = ~116,667 people per seat, within geographic reason of course.

But then take the province's population and divide it by the 116,667 to see how many seats they should have to be represented close to properly in the HoC, and then just start grouping seats together within the province's new "limit" according to what makes sense and sticks to somewhere around the rule of thumb.

NL = 5 seats... Common sense = 4 in Newfoundland 1 for all of Labrador.

Not everybody is going to pleased but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that 1.43% of the population shouldn't represent 2.27% of the HoC (so over 59% more influence then they should have).

There's really no need for all these small ridings to be represented by an individual MP at the Federal level. From what I can see most of these riding-level issues are the responsibility of the provinces. The federal election seems to be more about the relationship between the provinces and the federal government. How all these neighboring ridings in Ontario can possibly have different issues that need to be addressed at the Federal level is beyond me.

NL = 5
NS = 8
PEI = 2
NB = 7
QC = 68
ON = 113
MN = 11
SK = 9
AB = 32
BC = 39
YK = 1
NWT = 1
NV = 1

= 297 seats... use the other 3 as necessary (or give them to QC and tell them to go frig their hat with them, whatever).

Equal representation in a democracy. I'm a dreamer, I know. I guess I have too much faith that your average citizen is going to be reasonable and accept that equal representation AND saving money is important.

Now, I expect I will shortly be told by this is more complicated than common sense answers allow for :nod:

The constitutional problem with your proposal is that PEI must have four MPs because it has four senators and NB and NS must have 10 MPs each because they have 10 senators, and NL must have six for the same reason. Somewhere in this thread - many pages/three or so years back - I did the math and calculated that by 2025 we would need nearly 900 MPs if, big Big IF we wanted one PEI seat to be 'worth' the same as one Toronto or Calgary seat and we didn't or couldn't amend the Constitution. We can get a fairer system with fewer than 900 MPs but not with 308 or even 380.

 

[a_majoor]

Starting with getting candidates might be a good first step:

http://spinassassin.blogspot.com/2011/05/absentee-ndp-mp-should-open-door-to.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SpinAssassin+%28Spin+Assassin%29

Absentee NDP MP should open the door to electoral reform

Ruth Ellen Brousseau's life time absence from the electoral riding she now represents could become common.  The NDP may have forged her nomination documents and Elections Canada officials may have helped her do it.

This is an opportune time to strengthen the nomination procedure.  If reforms that would require national parties to run candidates in all national riding's becomes law, they we could see the Honourable Brousseau's example repeated everywhere.

Those reforms were first floated to deny regional parties like the separatist BQ seats in the Canadian House of Commons.  If they had to run candidates in every riding, it's reasoned that the BQ would find it extremely difficult to maintain its ability to participate in federal elections at all.

This, in conjunction with the removal of the per vote subsidy would effectively eliminate the Bloc from federal elections permanently.

The fact that Quebeckers  have chosen to remove the Bloc themselves doesn't mean they aren't broken or won't be back later.    This is a reform worth investigating, but it will also have other side effects.

The Green Party, the Libertarian Party,  the Marijuana Party and the Communist Party will feel the impact  in addition to the Bloc.  Most people won't miss any of those but consider that the Reform Party may not have been so successful in that environment.  A law like that may encourage stagnation and stifle the renewal and rebirth of new parties.

For new and weaker parties to be successful they will have to run phantom candidates the way the NDP ran Ruth Ellen Brousseau.  She has admitted to never visiting her riding even once and may not have even filled the requirement for nomination.  This could become standard practice.

Good electoral reforms measures include:

    creating new riding's to account for population changes
    remove per vote subsidy
    Federal Parties must run candidates in every riding
    MPs crossing the floor should trigger a bi-election

Some poor ideas are:

    mandatory vote laws
    paid to vote laws
    online votes

The importance of voting should be obvious.  Unmotivated voters have chosen not to participate for their own reasons and will accept the consequences of their choice like all other voters.

The case of Ruth Ellen Brousseau begs for changes to be made.  The nomination process should be strengthened while other ideas are also considered.  There have been many calls for reform, some of them good and some of them not so good.  A committee should investigate all of these ideas and update our system.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It is common practice in all political parties to run "sacrificial lambs" in ridings where the strategists believe there is not even a remote hope of victory. It is not the fault of Mlle Brosseau or the NDP, per se, that the BQ vote collapsed and the Dipper "sacrificial lambs" cruised to victory. It is the fault of the 20,000+ voters who elected her, sight unseen, voice unheard and so on.

Mlle. Brosseau is qualified to be a member of parliament; she won the election; she deserves an opportunity to serve.

Case closed until the next election, in my opinion.

 

[Kirkhill]

She won by playing by the rules.

 

[ModlrMike]

She won by playing by the rules.

Which should tell us that if we're unhappy with the outcome, we should seek to change the rules.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Regarding Spin Assassin's 'good' and 'poor' ideas:

Good electoral reforms measures include:

    creating new riding's to account for population changes    Agreed, good idea.
    remove per vote subsidy                                              Agreed, good idea
    Federal Parties must run candidates in every riding        Nope; this is a silly idea.
    MPs crossing the floor should trigger a bi-election          Nonsense. The people elect an MP, not a party representative.

Some poor ideas are:

    mandatory vote laws  Agreed, bad idea.
    paid to vote laws        Agreed, bad idea.
    online votes              Nope. This is a good idea which will come.

 

[Kirkhill]

Which should tell us that if we're unhappy with the outcome, we should seek to change the rules.

Perhaps ... but maybe we shouldn't be over hasty in doing so.  Systems have a tendency to self-correct and often, IMO, it is appropriate just to sit back and watch for a while.  In this instance I think a number of "electors" will have been educated to the possibility of this type of outcome.  I find it hard to believe that the same dynamic will be in play the next time around.  I think that both the electors and the press are more likely to be on the hunt the next time around and offer more scrutiny of the candidates.  And if they press doesn't then I would anticipate that opponents' tweets will.

As well, these particular candidates will be under a microscope like no others and will have to work really hard to gain re-election. 

Frankly, I would not like to be young Mlle Brosseau facing her constituents for the first time - Neville Chamberlain's comment about the Czechs comes to mind "strange people, in foreign lands about which we know nothing".  She will confront them in a foreign tongue, imperfectly understood with people in the crowd anxious and willing to make her look as bad as possible.

And she has never even faced a nomination crowd of friends in her own language.

Talk about your learning curve.

 

[Infanteer]

As Edward says, I don't see a problem with Ms Brosseau's election or the way she achieved it.  The electorate of a riding chooses whom they want to represent them - it is up to them to decide and we don't need to interfere by imposing limitations.  The fact that many Canadians have second homes/cottages/lands seems to underscore how tricky it could be to implement this.  If the better candidate happens to be from the next town (or next province) over, then so be it - we should respect the will of the electorate.  If the electors of Quebec sent 75 cowboys from Alberta to represent them, then so be it.

I don't see how forcing parties to run in all ridings is a good idea for reform; it - like ideas for Proportional Representation - only further reduces the standing of the Representative.  Is this guy saying that if I'm an independent, I am SOL now?  Ridings vote for a representative, and the backing of a party that can run across Canada shouldn't determine who can or can't run for office.

Same for the by-election trigger in crossing the floor.  This locks representatives to their caucus.  This further binds the representative to their party.  A system of recall should exist to deal with dishonoured contracts between the representative and their electors, but this shouldn't be automatically triggered through representative actions, but rather by overwhelming initiative by the electors.

 

[a_majoor]

The NDP gamed the system and ran the "pylon" candidates for the simple reason of collecting $2.00/vote from the Canadian taxpayer, nothing more. The end of the per vote subsidy will eliminate the incentive to run pylons in every riding for monetary reasons, future parties which seek national office will have to run candidates in most ridings to show a "national" presence.

The real blame rests on the voters who elected a candidate without seeing or hearing the individual, and they get to reap the "benefits" of having such a person as a representative.

 

[Kirkhill]

Regarding Spin Assassin's 'good' and 'poor' ideas:

Argyll, as a fellow Burkean (I think it is safe to categorize you that way) I agree with most of your commentary.  However I have to disagree with "on line votes".  I find that that both reduces the distance between thought and action to such a thin sliver that it will impose results equivalent to those published on TFLN, and as well, it will gradually diminish the role of MP as Burkean representative. 

On the other hand, perhaps I have misread you and you find yourself more in tune with direct democracy Swiss style where every issue is determined at the Canton level by a show of swords by the entire electorate.

Cheers.

 

[Donaill]

The NDP gamed the system and ran the "pylon" candidates for the simple reason of collecting $2.00/vote from the Canadian taxpayer, nothing more. The end of the per vote subsidy will eliminate the incentive to run pylons in every riding for monetary reasons, future parties which seek national office will have to run candidates in most ridings to show a "national" presence.

The real blame rests on the voters who elected a candidate without seeing or hearing the individual, and they get to reap the "benefits" of having such a person as a representative.

This could be said of any party though, as how useful is it to run a Liberal in a staunch Tory riding?

 

[vonGarvin]

A system of recall should exist to deal with dishonoured contracts between the representative and their electors, but this shouldn't be automatically triggered through representative actions, but rather by overwhelming initiative by the electors.

I really like this idea.

The NDP gamed the system and ran the "pylon" candidates for the simple reason of collecting $2.00/vote from the Canadian taxpayer, nothing more. The end of the per vote subsidy will eliminate the incentive to run pylons in every riding for monetary reasons, future parties which seek national office will have to run candidates in most ridings to show a "national" presence.

Agreed; however, it wasn't just the NDP who ran pylons.

 

[Kirkhill]

This could be said of any party though, as how useful is it to run a Liberal in a staunch Tory riding?

Donaill has a point there Thuc.  Somebody once said you can't score if you don't shoot.  Same rules apply.

 

[Infanteer]

The NDP gamed the system and ran the "pylon" candidates for the simple reason of collecting $2.00/vote from the Canadian taxpayer, nothing more.

Agreed; however, it wasn't just the NDP who ran pylons.

Those are accusations and nothing more.  Parties of course run candidates with the hope of winning - any money they get is a product of the system (which will soon be gone).  The NDP would have fielded candidates in all 308 ridings without the vote subsidy.  The NDP were rewarded for finding a candidate to run in a Quebec riding and the electorate will be rewarded with having a Member of Parliament sitting as a member of the Official Opposition.

 

[vonGarvin]

Parties of course run candidates with the hope of winning

:rofl:




Oh, wait, you were serious?  ???

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

There are regularly candidates belonging to a dozen or more parties receiving 100 or less votes in elections.  I was asked once to be a Social Credit candidate and declined.  If I had ever been a party member I might have given it some thought.  I would have had no thoughts about beating the Tories but I would have gone through the motions.  The fringe parties are great for democracy.

The Quebecois were voting honestly when they thought an NDP bale of hay was better than a Grit or a Tory.  Nothing wrong with that.  I can respect it.

 

[Infanteer]

Oh, wait, you were serious?  ???

What would a party run a candidate for if it didn't want to compete for the seat?  Do you think, if there were no vote subsidies, that the NDP wouldn't run 308 candidates with the objective of winning as many seats as possible?  Of course, in many ridings it's a long shot, but as this year's election showed us, nothing is ever for certain.

 

[ModlrMike]

Personally, I think there's a difference between being a "lamb" and a "pylon". If I were to run, I would have no objection to contesting a riding that I had little chance of winning, solely to gain the experience. As the old adage holds: there's often more to be learned from losing than winning.

I don't think it serves democracy to run as a pylon. Just the same, the voters in these ridings got the MP they selected, so they will have to live with that choice. I accept that's the nature of the process we've developed.

With the $2 vote subsidy on the chopping block, perhaps the "pylon" effect will be reduced at the next vote.