Support NeoGAF

[SRG01]

hey I also voted green out of spite! GREEN WILL RISE!

Haha, but I didn't vote Green out of spite

 

[Ultramantaro1]

I was enthusiastic to vote for Trudeau, but he's turning out to be just another lying politician. I should have trusted my instincts and voted Mulcair, but who knows, he too might have turned out the same once in power.

Monsef needs to go. That stunt is truly insulting to the voters.

 

[Tiktaalik]

What's next for the math averse Libs? Shutting down StatsCan?

We could save a lot of time and money if we applied this line of thinking to Fisheries and Oceans too. Instead of counting some fish and doing some analysis and estimation, let's just go with what Doug down by the wharf feels in his gut.

 

[explodet]

They could always kill the Census again!

 

[thefil]

As a Canadian living in the US, I feel like I've lost some high ground here. I will have to admit to my coworkers that a least-squares distance is too complex for our MPs.

I'm not even sure I want a proportional system, but this is a ridiculously stupid hill for it to die on.

So mad.

 

[bremon]

Hey, I voted Green. I was one of the dozens in my riding that did

At least we can be proud in saying we stick to our principles despite our ballots being less useful than used toilet paper.

 

[Tiktaalik]

As a Canadian living in the US, I feel like I've lost some high ground here. I will have to admit to my coworkers that a least-squares distance is too complex for our MPs.

I'm not even sure I want a proportional system, but this is a ridiculously stupid hill for it to die on.

So mad.

MPs know what least squares difference is and this isn't the actual justification for why the government is backing away from electoral reform. They wanted a specific outcome, and now that it's clear that they're not going to get it they need to find a way to stop the electoral reform idea. Trudeau was being willfully disingenuous about his election promise that this would be the last FPTP election and he created a committee that could be blown up and declared dysfunctional at any time so that he had an escape hatch on his promise.

Even if Trudeau suddenly appears and declares that he's going to accept the majority report and we are going to have a referendum, he still has an escape hatch in that he can undermine and discredit all the options except FPTP. We're already seeing the Liberals trying to frame PR in the minds of the public as "complex" with their absurd math gambit.

 

[matthewwhatever]

And yet, it's so very easy for you to be in favour of the status quo when your two favourite parties are always the winner. It's also easier when you've, I'm going to I think safely assume, ever elected someone who you voted for in your riding or in government. This is why I think it's important that your vote counts more than mine in this debate. It's just plain easy for you to say our concerns don't matter.


This is a load of horse shit. And if you want to use loaded words to describe the position of people you disagree with, how 'bout I say that you fetishize dictatorships of the minority? Can we have some respect here, or do you just want to trivialize other people's concerns by calling them fetishes?

The problem is that governments that are unrepresentative win, and have no motive to cooperate with others. These are real problems and you can't just wish them away. They brought us Harper, and they will absolutely bring us worse in the future.

1) Actually, last year's election was the first time I've ever voted for a winning party federally. Provincially I've voted for a winner maybe twice. So I'm not saying that I like the system because I've always voted for winners, I'm saying I like the system because, on the whole, I don't think it's anywhere near the disaster that some people like to portray it as. I certainly didn't like Harper as PM, but as I said -- maybe because I always voted for parties that didn't win -- I also was willing to accept that just because I wanted a certain party to form government, it didn't mean that they actually would. Sometimes your ideas and your party win, sometimes they don't. Demanding that the rules be changed to get a more desirable outcome

2) I prefer the term "fetishizing dictatorships of the plurality."

But seriously, I apologize if that came off as disrespectful, but I honestly don't think that most PR concerns are valid. I see people raise the spectre of Trump, but it seems to me that it's countries in Europe, with all their coalitions involving extreme parties, where someone like him would be an even bigger concern. All PR does is push people out to their little corners, whereas FPTP (and AV, but I know you think that's a dirty word) forces you to at least make a pretense of going after the centre.

And saying that PR can be summarized as "parties get seats proportionate to their vote percentage" is totally disingenuous,since that's not the end of any specific PR system. PR adds all kinds of little twists and mathematical jumps to get to a conclusion.

Even if Trudeau suddenly appears and declares that he's going to accept the majority report and we are going to have a referendum, he still has an escape hatch in that he can undermine and discredit all the options except FPTP. We're already seeing the Liberals trying to frame PR in the minds of the public as "complex" with their absurd math gambit.

And there it is...if we do have a referendum, I look forward to months of PR proponents saying Canadians are too stupid to get it, and then complaining afterwards about how the whole system was rigged against them from the start.

 

[Tiktaalik]

It's the opposite of that. Canadians understand math. You're the one that is suggesting that math is hard and it's too scary and complex and trying to discredit a system.

 

[Pedrito]

The most amusing thing about this debacle is that the conservatives, despite wanting to keep FPTP and the Electoral Act as is, still have to act outraged at the Liberals not doing anything.

 

[PumpkinSpice]

The most amusing thing about this debacle is that the conservatives, despite wanting to keep FPTP and the Electoral Act as is, still have to act outraged at the Liberals not doing anything.

At this point for the Conservatives their best option to return to power is to demotivate Liberal voters and turn as many soft-Liberal supporters over to the NDP as possible. A nasty, divisive referendum campaign would do wonders on both fronts for them.

(did I mention right wing political tactics are fucked?)

 

[gutter_trash]

The most amusing thing about this debacle is that the conservatives, despite wanting to keep FPTP and the Electoral Act as is, still have to act outraged at the Liberals not doing anything.

Yup, and they are willing to coax the NDP into begging for a Referendum just to have it fail..

Cons know that if there is a Referendum that it will fail, so to them this would discourage any more future debates on the matter

 

[maharg]

This is quickly risking turning into a gish gallop kind of thing, so I'm going to respond to a couple of points and then try to avoid going around in circles after that.

1) Actually, last year's election was the first time I've ever voted for a winning party federally. Provincially I've voted for a winner maybe twice.

I apologize for the assumption. That was probably not fair. Still, I think you've been largely more satisfied with the viable winning options than I ever have.

So I'm not saying that I like the system because I've always voted for winners, I'm saying I like the system because, on the whole, I don't think it's anywhere near the disaster that some people like to portray it as. I certainly didn't like Harper as PM, but as I said -- maybe because I always voted for parties that didn't win -- I also was willing to accept that just because I wanted a certain party to form government, it didn't mean that they actually would. Sometimes your ideas and your party win, sometimes they don't. Demanding that the rules be changed to get a more desirable outcome

Do you actually think people who want PR don't want to accept that sometimes their guys won't win? I'm in favour of it precisely because I don't think anyone *should* win that big, including whoever I favour at the moment (which, at least until the NDP sort out their current divide, is effectively no one anyways). I do still want the people I think represent me to have a voice in government when possible, and I see the best way for that to happen as being

And again, I didn't say you liked it because you always vote for winners. I said that your comfort with the winning options leaves you blind to the disenfranchisement of people whose views are further from your comfortable centre in every political direction.

And I'm not even saying I have it *that bad*, though for reasons I don't want to get into here any far right party is absolutely disastrous for me and mine, but when I think of the choices indigenous people and other minorities have, and how far from their needs those parties are (yes, including the Liberals), I see this as a big problem.

2) I prefer the term "fetishizing dictatorships of the plurality."

But seriously, I apologize if that came off as disrespectful, but I honestly don't think that most PR concerns are valid. I see people raise the spectre of Trump, but it seems to me that it's countries in Europe, with all their coalitions involving extreme parties, where someone like him would be an even bigger concern. All PR does is push people out to their little corners, whereas FPTP (and AV, but I know you think that's a dirty word) forces you to at least make a pretense of going after the centre.

This is all well and good when you're comfortable with the overton window, but it's been moving right for 30 years now for the most part. And when your only real options are two centrist parties, your ability to enact change through elections is extremely minimized. Again, I point south.

And saying that PR can be summarized as "parties get seats proportionate to their vote percentage" is totally disingenuous,since that's not the end of any specific PR system. PR adds all kinds of little twists and mathematical jumps to get to a conclusion.

And as I pointed out in an edit, those twists and jumps are there in FPTP as well, they just happen in entirely arbitrary ways through the combination of hundreds of small elections. But in terms of the outcome, what I said about PR is absolutely true. I'd rather have a predictable formula with an obvious outcome determine who wins the election than arbitrary and ever shifting "swing districts" deciding it.

 

[matthewwhatever]

It's the opposite of that. Canadians understand math. You're the one that is suggesting that math is hard and it's too scary and complex and trying to discredit a system.

No, I'm suggesting that you (the general, PR-advocating you, not you specifically, just to be clear) have invented a problem that's not nearly as bad as you make it out to be, and then you complain that people don't get it when they don't agree with you.

This is quickly risking turning into a gish gallop kind of thing, so I'm going to respond to a couple of points and then try to avoid going around in circles after that.

Absolutely. As I said (or at least as I meant to say), when we're arguing from fundamentally different places, then we're obviously not going to agree on anything that stems from there.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

I live in Montreal and I don't even know what he's talking about... am I the crazy one?

No, no idea what that is either

 

[Tiktaalik]

The most amusing thing about this debacle is that the conservatives, despite wanting to keep FPTP and the Electoral Act as is, still have to act outraged at the Liberals not doing anything.

I think one of the major things they were outraged about was Monsef asserting that the committee had done a bad job.

Monsef Just Insulted The People Helping Liberals Keep Their Word

Something remarkable happened Thursday.

The opposition parties -- the Conservatives, the New Democrats, the Bloc Québécois, the Green -- stood together and offered the Liberal government a road map to achieve their promise of making the 2015 election the last held under the first-past-the-post voting system.

The Liberals who served on the special committee on electoral reform, however, told the government to pump the brakes. They urged more consultations and said the 2019 timeline shouldn't be met.

The opposition, which held a majority of seats on the committee, appeared to put a bit of water in their wine. They took the government's advice and tried to achieve consensus. They recommended that the Liberals propose a system of proportional representation and asked that voters be consulted in a referendum.

Instead of thanking them for their report and taking time to review it, Democratic Institutions Minister Maryam Monsef told the House of Commons the committee had failed to achieve consensus and had "not completed the hard work we had expected it to."

Her answer infuriated the opposition, many of whom spent weeks on the road consulting Canadians and hearing from experts to meet the government's crunched timeline.

NDP democratic institutions critic Nathan Cullen said he didn't think he'd ever seen "a minister of the Crown insult members of Parliament so broadly."

Even the husband of Ruby Sahota, one of the Liberal MPs on the committee, tweeted: "My son saw his mom for total of 6 hours over 3 weeks, while #ERRE committee toured Canada. So, try again Maryam." (The post has been deleted.)

Monsef, however, stood firm. The committee hadn't done its homework, she maintained.

"Our prime minister asked that we bring together a special committee to study the options available to us and to recommend a specific system as an alternative to first-past-the-post," she said during question period, while the prime minister ducked the heated session.

"We asked the committee to help answer very difficult questions for us. It did not do that."

But neither Monsef nor the government ever asked the committee to propose a specific system.

The special committee's mandate, as voted by the Commons, states that it was being "appointed to identify and conduct a study of viable alternate voting systems to replace the first-past-the-post system" -- which it did. Nowhere does it call on the committee to recommend a system, although it does ask the committee to "advise on additional methods for obtaining the views of Canadians."

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, who described never having worked so hard in her life, couldn't imagine why Monsef had chosen to insult the committee and mislead Canadians.

"She misspoke. She didn't mean to say what she said," May told HuffPost, giving the minister the benefit of the doubt.

Conservative interim leader Rona Ambrose told reporters she might have called for Monsef's resignation had the prime minister been in the House. "Minister Monsef and [Prime Minister] Justin Trudeau are trying to find a way out of this because they don't like the answer they got," she said.

The answer the opposition gave the government was not to recommend a ranked ballot -- a system Trudeau previously said he preferred and one that the chair of the committee, Francis Scarpaleggia, suggested was at the heart of the Liberals' pledge.

"Yes, the prime minister made that commitment [to change the voting system for the 2019 election], but a lot of people thought he was talking about ranked ballots," Scarpaleggia told reporters.

"You could do ranked ballots, like that," he said of the timeline, snapping his fingers. "Nobody wants ranked ballots. So, where does that leave us?"

The committee heard testimony that ranked ballots squeeze out smaller parties and favour big-tent parties, such as the Liberals. So instead, the opposition gave Trudeau a long leash to propose a system that better reflects the popular will of the electorate in the seat count of the House of Commons.

The opposition offered only two qualifiers. First, they recommended the use of a mathematical equation known as the Gallagher index as a guide to help develop a system that limits distortions. Second, they rejected a proportional system based on pure party lists -- where political parties would decide which individuals sat in the Commons -- saying that would destroy the connection between voters and their MPs.

The 312-page majority report also recommended that, when the government proposes a new voting system, it include a comprehensive study on how the changes would affect different parts of the political system, such as the formation of governments and the impact on political parties.

May noted how she'd compromised by agreeing to a referendum so the committee could get behind proportional representation. The Conservatives, who wouldn't say whether they actually prefer the status quo, said they backed PR so they could achieve their most pressing goal of ensuring that any reform was put to the public through a referendum. The five Grit MPs on the committee, however, showed little willingness to concede.

In what they called their "supplemental report" -- described by Monsef as their "dissenting"report -- the Liberals called the committee's recommendations regarding alternative voting systems "rushed" and "too radical to impose at this time."

The timeline proposed in the majority report "is unnecessarily hasty and runs the risk of undermining the legitimately of the process by racing toward a predetermined deadline," the minority Grits wrote.

Never mind that this is the timeline Trudeau promised during last year's election, pledged in the throne speech, and repeated as late as Wednesday's question period.

Never mind that the Liberal government waited seven months before striking the all-party committee to study electoral reform.

Never mind that the government still hasn't moved to update the referendum law -- despite being warned in May by Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand that the act is outdated and has no spending limits.

Political party platforms aren't promises, Scarpaleggia offered in the party's defence.

"An election platform is an attempt to engage voters -- that is what it is for," he told reporters. "Canadians, as a whole, are not enough engaged on the issue of electoral reform" to "propose some very complex solutions," he said.

Less than one per cent of Canadians had participated in the committee's hearings, attended an MP's townhalls, or engaged in the process, Sahota said.

While the opposition suggested nearly 90 per cent of those who showed up wanted some form of proportional representation, Scarpaleggia suggested that those people, while vocal, might not represent a broad base of Canadians.

So the Liberals pleaded for more time.

Math is hard, they suggested. Canadians won't understand the Gallagher index and it hasn't been sufficiently studied, they said. In the Commons, Monsef held up a picture of the mathematical equation, dismissively and inaccurately suggesting that this is what voters would be asked to contemplate.

The drawbacks of proportional representation systems need to be studied further, the Grits said.

Canadians need to be educated and consulted on reforms before any changes are made, they said. But not through a referendum, the Liberals argued in the next page of their report.

A referendum is "premature," they wrote. It has not been adequately studied. It might result in the status quo. It might result in a change because of popular support for PR in large urban areas, but hide the fact that voters in more remote regions might prefer the status quo. It is not reflective of the majority of the evidence the committee heard, the Liberals said. It is "inconsistent with ... the will of Canadians."

What the government should do, the Grits on the committee said, is "undertake a period of comprehensive and effective citizen engagement before proposing specific changes to the current federal voting system."

"We believe this engagement process cannot be effectively completed before 2019," they added.

Even without two more years of consultations, the timelines to meet Trudeau's pledge are extremely tight.

The chief electoral officer told MPs that legislation should be in place by June 2017. Elections Canada would need two years to plan for a new voting system with new riding boundaries. It also would need six months to plan for a referendum.

Even if the agency could plan for both at the same time, because the opposition wants any riding boundary changes drafted and shared with Canadians before a referendum, the government has only a few months to propose a new system.

Cullen suggested legislation could be done in the next three to four months, leaving less than a year to educate people and hold a referendum. Conservative democratic institutions critic Scott Reid suggested that if the government doesn't tweak the ridings too much that would buy a few months. "It's absolutely possible," he said of holding a referendum and meeting the 2019 election timeline.

Monsef seems unfazed. She showed no desire Thursday to hold a referendum, blaming the committee for not achieving consensus on the issue.

She is moving ahead with the next phase of her outreach, she said, announcing the launch of a new consultation process -- in the middle of the holiday season. The federal government is sending postcards to 15 million households urging Canadians to go to mydemocracy.ca, a website that is not yet available, to respond to values-based questions on electoral reform -- and which the opposition believes will offer little indication of what voting system is actually preferred.

Monsef told reporters she hopes to introduce legislation this spring so Elections Canada has time to implement the changes.

"For electoral reform to take place, we need to take a collaborative and co-operative approach," she told reporters with no hint of irony. "When we make a recommendation to the House, it's not about us. It's about the voices of as many Canadians as possible."

It's getting more difficult to believe her.

 

[TemplaerDude]

The committee has clearly just become the fall guy. That's all it ever was and it'll be an easy thing to point the blame at when nothing changes.

 

[Pedrito]

At this point for the Conservatives their best option to return to power is to demotivate Liberal voters and turn as many soft-Liberal supporters over to the NDP as possible. A nasty, divisive referendum campaign would do wonders on both fronts for them.

(did I mention right wing political tactics are fucked?)

Yup, and they are willing to coax the NDP into begging for a Referendum just to have it fail..

Cons know that if there is a Referendum that it will fail, so to them this would discourage any more future debates on the matter

It'd be so easy for the Liberals to sabotage the whole thing and still come up smelling like roses.

1. Order a referendum, with big speeches about democracy.
2. Let the Conservatives and Post Media do their things.
3. Referendum fails: "Oh well, we tried, blame the conservatives for that".

Even if the referendum passes, they're still in good shape as the centrist party.

Instead of that they're coming up with this absurd strategy. They're so bad at playing the game it blows my mind. Even ramming ranked ballots would be better.

 

[SRG01]

I don't think Monsef will survive this session of Parliament. She'll probably be shuffled out before the summer break.

 

[Tiktaalik]

No, I'm suggesting that you (the general, PR-advocating you, not you specifically, just to be clear) have invented a problem that's not nearly as bad as you make it out to be, and then you complain that people don't get it when they don't agree with you.

88% of the experts the committee brought in to consult with advocated that Canada go with PR so I'm sure this is not a made up problem that doesn't matter. That's why the committee's majority opinion is what it is.

If people are interested in what the experts thought Kady from the Ottawa Citizen went to many of the meetings and live blogged them.

Do we want to do evidence based decision making or not? That's what it boils down to. If the Liberals were genuine about that idea none of this nonsense would be occurring.

 

[gutter_trash]

about R. v Morgan, the slowness of the Quebec justice system shot itself in the foot with the Super-Trials that take forever to get started.

you had a Super-Trial of biker gangs that took so long that they all had to be acquitted because the trial took too long to ever happen.

it is fucked up when dangerous criminals walk free because our justice system (ahem, the Quebec justice system) is too damn slow

 

[PumpkinSpice]

It'd be so easy for the Liberals to sabotage the whole thing and still come up smelling like roses.

1. Order a referendum, with big speaches about democracy.
2. Let the Conservatives and Post Media do their things.
3. Referendum fails: "Oh well, we tried, blame the conservatives for that".

Even if the referendum passes, they're still in good shape as the centrist party.

Instead of that they're coming up with this absurd strategy. They're so bad at playing the game it blows my mind. Even ramming ranked ballots would be better.

Yeah so I think that might be the outcome of this whole thing, which is a system I personally wouldn't mind, but that would create a whole 'nother circus. I could see them pushing through a ranked ballot and say that if people don't like it to vote Conservative in 2019. That or run with ranked ballot as a specific campaign promise next time. We'll see.

I'm not actually sure this whole mess is a grand strategy on the LPC's part, it might just be a really poorly thought out reaction from Monsef.

Re: the referendum as a way to drop the whole thing, reading the Liberal's minority dissent thingy it really, really, really sounds like they don't want a referendum. They also seem pissed that the NDP/Greens chose to support that as a way to get a majority vote on PR as a recommendation.

 

[maharg]

I'm going to be completely blunt and say that I don't think the Liberals expected to win, and many of their promises were of the paper tiger variety, and largely designed to knock the NDP out of opposition (which, obviously, they did).They took a fuzzy but feel good position on everything the NDP were campaigning on and now they're dealing with the consequences of winning on those promises.

The NDP in Alberta are in the same position.

 

[PumpkinSpice]

This was the reason I don't think any new system will be in place for 2019 btw:

Mayrand, who steps down Dec. 28, has already said new legislation enacting reform would need to be in place at least 24 months ahead of the next election and that his office would need an additional six months to put together an official referendum.

We're currently 34 months out. If they want a referendum they need a chosen system and all the specifics ironed out and ready to go in 4 months, then they need to pass it in the commons like immediately after the referendum is done. Good luck.

No referendum means there's a bit more time but they'd still need to draft legislation and (ideally) pass it with more than just LPC votes in the house, or else they'd look like they're unilaterally changing the electoral system to make it easier for them to win.

I'm going to be completely blunt and say that I don't think the Liberals expected to win, and many of their promises were of the paper tiger variety, and largely designed to knock the NDP out of opposition (which, obviously, they did).They took a fuzzy but feel good position on everything the NDP were campaigning on and now they're dealing with the consequences of winning on those promises.

The NDP in Alberta are in the same position.

I don't agree. The Liberals were riding high in the polls until a few months before the election when the NDP upset in Alberta happened. They would have had to have most of their campaign positions ready well before the election, and were already trying to stake out middle ground positions on pipeline issues for example in the house.

 

[Pedrito]

about R. v Morgan, the slowness of the Quebec justice system shot itself in the foot with the Super-Trials that take forever to get started.

you had a Super-Trial of biker gangs that took so long that they all had to be acquitted because the trial took too long to ever happen.

it is fucked up when dangerous criminals walk free because our justice system (ahem, the Quebec justice system) is too damn slow

Even though there's a serious problem with delays, it's extremely rare that a stay of proceeding is granted for violent crimes. It's usually for non-violent crimes (fraud and DUI mainly), and it's still rare. The only times it happens for violent crimes is when the accused has already spent years in prison and he would get out after the trial anyway because the sentence is already served for the most part.

Also, in these super-trials, even if it fails, many have pleaded guilty already.

 

[Dr.Acula]

I did my part, just filled out an Angus Reid Forum survey stating I preferred FPTP to other systems.

 

[gutter_trash]

I did my part, just filled out an Angus Reid Forum survey stating I preferred FPTP to other systems.

what Angus Reid survey? I want to play

 

[Boogie]

Are politicians and journalists elsewhere in Canada losing their shit over R. v. Jordan or is it just a Québec thing? Because here it's the only thing we hear about and you'd think the world is crumbling and the streets will be inundated with freed rapists any day now.

We're "losing our shit" over it in my world, certainly.

 

[killer rin]

...that the reason MMP failed in Ontario was just because the "average citizen" just wasn't smart enough to get it. That's nonsense. MMP failed here because it was a terrible proposal, and it didn't take much research to see that.

And it has nothing to do with me thinking my vote "counts more", it's that you and I have a fundamentally different belief as to what elections are supposed to achieve. I think their purpose is to elect a government that can achieve things, and that sometimes that means accepting that people with a point of view I don't agree with get to run the country. From my perspective, you (and most PR proponents) seem to fetishize representation and view government as a debate club.

I never said they were too stupid to get it. I said they won't take the time to understand it. Big difference there. I think given 10 minutes of research in an ideal post-called referendum world where the average voter has access to official resources on the topic, in both official languages, access to videos and charts showing the topic in detail and of course they would be able to educate themselves on it.

To suggest that the citizenry is "too stupid to get it" would be insane. No, the problem is that only a small proportion of the population would actually take those 10-20 minutes to understand what it is they are voting on. The same could be said for any other election campaign if the Media didn't do its part and rightly smash the platforms into the minds of the electorate.


And no, I do not fetishize the government as a debate club. My reasons for supporting Electoral Reform are mainly driven by the fact that First Past the Post, given enough time, will always lead to a 1 or 2 party system. As can be seen down in the USA, that leads to terrible consequences where everything is more divisive than ever; Even if you were to consider that the USA Political system was made to be divisive using mechanisms to force compromise. Compromise just isn't happening anymore down south, and that is the problem with FPTP.

The other reason I support it is because every other First World Country other than the UK and the USA uses a form of Proportional Representation. To double this, even Developing and Undeveloped Countries are beginning to transition over to Proportional Representation. We are the only ones not doing it.

And this is how that same person explains the Gallagher Index. If that's the level of math knowledge required to understand why a system supposedly works, then yeah, I'd say that general skepticism is, at the very least, understandable. Even if I was in favour of something like MMP, I'd think that I'd be concerned about the fact that the current system can be summarized pretty succinctly -- "Whoever gets the most votes wins the seat" -- whereas the alternatives can't.

Dude, I did that kind of math in Middle School. Maybe not Sigma Notation until the later years of Highschool, but if you google "E symbol math" you get an info box from google saying it's called "sigma" and if you google "Sigma math" and click the first result you get This easy article explaining exactly how to do sigma math. That took me 30 seconds with the majority of time being spent on page loading.

Even so, that is beside the fact. the ONLY reason the average citizen needs to know the Gallagher Index even exists is.

A) They are an Electoral or Math Nerd
B) If they want to know WHY the government came to any particular system over another (Though even then it can be shortened by being described as a Numerical Ranking)

But the number is just a ranking. People will do the numbers for everyone else anyhow. Other than saying that the number of the proposed system has to be under 5, it makes no difference at all what the number is.The number doesn't say

1. How the ballot is carried out
2. How it is counted
3. What the makeup of the government under the system looks like other than "roughly proportional"
ect

It is just a ranking. That's all it is, all that it would ever be.

And to be completely honest, even I didn't know it existed before yesterday, but to bring my points together. I spent the 20 minutes of research from multiple sources to figure out what it was.

 

[SRG01]

And to be completely honest, even I didn't know it existed before yesterday, but to bring my points together. I spent the 20 minutes of research from multiple sources to figure out what it was.

Not to excuse them by any means, but we literally live a strange duality where readily accessible information exists alongside low-information voters. We've seen this with Brexit. We've seen this with Trump. We've seen this with numerous referendums. Most voters simply will not research a topic -- or simply won't care -- if it cannot be succinctly described in a couple of sentences.

We, along with many posters in this thread, are the exception to the rule, and as such cannot ignore the realpolitik that occurs within the rest of the country.

 

[matthewwhatever]

I'm going to be completely blunt and say that I don't think the Liberals expected to win, and many of their promises were of the paper tiger variety, and largely designed to knock the NDP out of opposition (which, obviously, they did).They took a fuzzy but feel good position on everything the NDP were campaigning on and now they're dealing with the consequences of winning on those promises.

The NDP in Alberta are in the same position.

Agree with this 100%. No way they'd admit it now, but I suspect that deep down they believed it would be a two-step process: first winning back safe seats and forming Official Opposition in a minority situation, then going from there to government. I know they were up in the polls up until Spring 2015, and I know they'd done a lot of ground work in the years leading up to last year, but on the day the writ dropped, I don't think they expected they'd have to stick to a lot of what they promised.

And speaking of the NDP: in the wake of the pipeline decision, I'm really wondering how everything is going to shake out for them. If they want to carve out an energy niche/stop the Greens from taking away some of their base, they'd presumably want to take a more anti-pipeline stance...but doing that means implicitly throwing the most successful NDP politician in the country under the bus. On top of that, with the BC election looming, it's looking like the NDP there is going to take an anti-pipeline stance. Obviously, provincial and federal parties are totally different, but the NDP has generally tried to intertwine the two levels a little more than the other parties.

 

[Silexx]

Wat?

The Liberals were totally and completely "in it to win it". Go look up Paul Wells' account of the election campaign. Trudeau and his team had developed a sophisticated ground game designed to overtake the Conservatives in power and outflank the NDP on progressive policies. The Liberals knew they won the moment Mulcair came out in favour of balanced budgets.

 

[matthewwhatever]

Wat?

The Liberals were totally and completely "in it to win it". Go look up Paul Wells' account of the election campaign. Trudeau and his team had developed a sophisticated ground game designed to overtake the Conservatives in power and outflank the NDP on progressive policies. The Liberals knew they won the moment Mulcair came out in favour of balanced budgets.

...a few weeks into the campaign.

And I know all about their ground game. In class a few weeks ago, we even had Thomas Pitfield explain to us how they were targeting specific doors on every street. But I just can't imagine that, deep down, they believed they were going to sweep Atlantic Canada and jump from 35 seats to 180+. Historically, no party had jumped from 3rd to 1st in 90 years. The LPC was in a pretty deep hole when the last election started, and no matter how optimistic they were, like I said, it really seemed like it was going to be a two-step thing: get into Official Opposition, disprove the "Not Ready" ads, then jump into government.

 

[Silexx]

...a few weeks into the campaign.

And I know all about their ground game. In class a few weeks ago, we even had Thomas Pitfield explain to us how they were targeting specific doors on every street. But I just can't imagine that, deep down, they believed they were going to sweep Atlantic Canada and jump from 35 seats to 180+. Historically, no party had jumped from 3rd to 1st in 90 years. The LPC was in a pretty deep hole when the last election started, and no matter how optimistic they were, like I said, it really seemed like it was going to be a two-step thing: get into Official Opposition, disprove the "Not Ready" ads, then jump into government.

The country was ready to kick the Conservatives out and everyone knew it. It was just a matter of which party the electorate was going to put their weight behind: The Liberals or the NDP. The Grits knew they had a legit shot at forming government. I could maybe buy that their "realistic expectations" were to form a minority government, but they were all in to win the election.

 

[Azih]

I think their purpose is to elect a government that can achieve things, and that sometimes that means accepting that people with a point of view I don't agree with get to run the country.

The most salient quote on democracy that I have ever heard is "In a democratic government, the right of decision belongs to the majority, but the right of representation belongs to all.".

FPTP and other winner take all systems fail on both basic criteria.

It is a major problem that someone like Harper can run roughshod with less than 40% of voter support.

It is a major problem that big city conservatives are shut out of representation as are greens right across the nation as well as many other viewpoints besides.

It is a major problem that the vast majority of us only have one or two real options at the ballot box when we go to vote. If voters can only choose between two big parties where one is seen as corrupt and the other is bug fuck insane then eventually voters are going to go for the bug fuck insane option.

It is a major problem that election campaigns are hyper focused on 'swing ridings' rather than all parts of the country.

It is a major problem that the only really effective way to kick out of the two big party options in winner take all systems is by turning to smaller divisive regional protest parties (Reform and Bloc which were overrepresented thanks to their geographical concentraion of support rather than their much lower overall level of support) rather than smaller parties with broad support from coast to coast (like the Greens). The latter are unifying forces the former are the opposite.

And if 'two tiers of MPs' is your concern with MMP then you really should take a look at how the system actually works in practice in the places I mentioned. Nobody has a problem with 'different tiers' there as an MP is an MP is an MP. I can provide you with evidence for this if your mind isn't already made up on that point of course.

I'd think that I'd be concerned about the fact that the current system can be summarized pretty succinctly -- "Whoever gets the most votes wins the seat" -- whereas the alternatives can't.

It can. You get 40% of the vote you get 40% of the Seats. The End.


And for everyone else. If you've got Liberal MPs give them a call and tell them that you want PR and that you're incredibly not happy with how the results of the ERRE are being shoved into the dustbin by the party.

Before the ERRE, thirteen studies had recommended PR, now with the ERRE report there are FOURTEEN. How many studies do we need?

More than 85% of the submissions to the ERRE and more than 85% of the academic experts called by the ERRE called for PR. Exactly what kind of consensus are they looking for?

Call them and let them know. They've done a terrible job of trying to blame anybody but themselves and more pressure might just bring them around. They know that 'sunny hopeful optimisim' is what got them into power and they know looking like cynical manipulators on this will be bad for their re-election chances.

And let them know that a system of voting that is used by the vast majority of democracies worldwide is in no way 'radical' or 'too complicated for Canadians to understand'. Good Lord.

Join someone in the Every Voter Counts Alliance.
http://www.everyvotercounts.ca/
I'd suggest Fair Vote Canada but I'm a bit biased as I'm on the Board.

 

[DualReaver]

i am personally furious that the cpi gets to determine how much my baskets cost

 

[Simon Belmont]

I'd much prefer Governments get mandates when they win elections. I'd much prefer coalition building happens before I vote. I'd much prefer we didn't reward wide, shallow support, or MPs that can't win the majority of their ridings votes. I also haven't heard a single person mention this as an issue outside the Internet.

Personally I'd be happy if this proposal died on the vine.

 

[Azih]

I'd much prefer Governments get mandates when they win elections. I'd much prefer coalition building happens before I vote. I'd much prefer we didn't reward wide, shallow support, or MPs that can't win the majority of their ridings votes. I also haven't heard a single person mention this as an issue outside the Internet.

Personally I'd be happy if this proposal died on the vine.

You are fine with a system where a party can get two million votes and win two seats while in the same election a party can get like 1.8 million and win 50+ and exaggerate separatist sentiment? You're okay with that?

 

[Simon Belmont]

You are fine with a system where a party can get two million votes and win two seats while in the same election a party can get like 1.8 million and win 50+ and exaggerate separatist sentiment? You're okay with that?

Yes. If you can't field suitable candidates in more than two ridings than you don't deserve more than two seats. Yes, I'm OK with that.

 

[Azih]

Yes. If you can't field suitable candidates in more than two ridings than you don't deserve more than two seats. Yes, I'm OK with that.

You were fine with the Bloc being official opposition even though it was the fourth most popular party? Heavily exaggerating separatist sentiment?

 

[Simon Belmont]

You were fine with the Bloc being official opposition even though it was the fourth most popular?

I can keep trying to say yes in different ways if that helps you?

 

[Azih]

I can keep trying to say yes in different ways if that helps you?

Yes it does because it showcases how rotten FPTP and other winner take all systems are in representing voters.

Let's continue:

You're fine with government policies and campaigns privileging swing ridings rather than the country as a whole?

 

[gutter_trash]

I can keep trying to say yes in different ways if that helps you?

fuck the Bloc,

fuck it, give me that Electoral Reform Referendum ASAP so we can guarantee that bums like the Bloc never win so many seats again for being 4th place

 

[Simon Belmont]

Yes it does because it showcases how rotten FPTP and other winner take all systems are in representing voters.

Let's continue:

You're fine with government policies and campaigns privileging swing ridings rather than the country as a whole?

I'm fine with whoever a riding chooses as their representative even if it's not the person I'd want. I'm enough of an adult to realize I can't change the rules of the game because people aren't playing the way I'd like.

fuck the Bloc,

fuck it, give me that Electoral Reform Referendum ASAP so we can guarantee that bums like the Bloc never win so many seats again for being 4th place

A referendum would fail, so by all means let's do it.

 

[Azih]

I'm fine with whoever a riding chooses as their representative even if it's not the person I'd want. I'm enough of an adult to realize I can't change the rules of the game because people aren't playing the way I'd like.

This is not a game. It's supposed to be a representative democracy but I am not represented even though I vote. The vast majority of democracies use PR for a reason.

 

[Simon Belmont]

This is not a game. It's supposed to be a representative democracy but I am not represented even though I vote. The vast majority of democracies use PR for a reason.

Voting guarantees a say in who represents you, voting isn't a guarantee of the representation you want.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Voting guarantees a say in who represents you, voting isn't a guarantee of the representation you want.

Bu-bu-but the Bloc. The BLOOOOOOC! I heard they kill babies for fun while whispering FRENCH words into their ears.

 

[gutter_trash]

Bu-bu-but the Bloc. The BLOOOOOOC! I heard they kill babies for fun while whispering FRENCH words into their ears.

Bon débarras

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Bon débarras

L'option souverainiste bat de l'aile en ce moment, c'est le moins qu'on puisse dire, mais comme on dit, "c'est pas fini tant que c'est pas fini".

 

[Mailbox]

Voting guarantees a say in who represents you, voting isn't a guarantee of the representation you want.

the problem is fptp doesn't give you a proper say in who represents you.