equippedwithtowel
Member
Backroom deals... what some countries call democracy.
Mostly filthy PR favouring parties of course
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Canadian PoliGAF - 42nd Parliament: Sunny Ways in Trudeaupia
- Thread starter matthewwhatever
- Start date
- Status
Backroom deals... what some countries call democracy.
Mostly filthy PR favouring parties of course
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
It would be good if this system produces a durable agreement, and bad if gridlock gave the Liberals an excuse to wiggle out of any reform.
My naive assumption about party preferences:
Greens: Support any change but prefer PR > MMP > AV > Status quo.
Bloc MMP > ???
NDP: PR > MMP > unclear if they'd support AV but if the reforms had taken place while Jack Layton was still alive they would have.
Conservatives: Say no to any reasonable change. Against AV because the merger reduced their AV incentive a lot while maximizing the AV incentive for the left. Say no to PR because it'll likely lead to left coalition governments for forseeable future and quite likely lead to left coalition governments even when they win. Also, under the status quo when they win they can drag policy right, while under any change if they win they'll be dragged left towards their coalition partner.
Liberals: Not super clear. Before 2015, I'd say support everything. Now they have a pretty strong incentive to coast for the next little while as long as they don't get blamed for breaking their electoral reform promise. Would outwardly be hurt by PR in terms of seat count, but would effectively be permanent senior partners for a coalition government and so it's not clear what the strategic consideration would be.
I think MMP is probably the best compromise option for all parties, and there's a pretty credible argument to be made that balancing between regional considerations and proportionality is important in a federation with such heterogeneous interests as ours and such broad geography as ours.
So I would say if the Liberals decide to tank this process, then it's tanked, but if they decide to go for it, we get MMP. In terms of calibrating the MMP, setting districts to provinces with comparable magnitudes as they currently have will make the Bloc happy as well as benefit the Liberals due to Atlantic Canada. The Greens might grumble, but I think the major consideration for them will be the minimum threshold settings and how we deal with fractional seat rounding. That in and of itself would be a major, and I think the NDP would sign on.
My naive assumption about party preferences:
Greens: Support any change but prefer PR > MMP > AV > Status quo.
Bloc MMP > ???
NDP: PR > MMP > unclear if they'd support AV but if the reforms had taken place while Jack Layton was still alive they would have.
Conservatives: Say no to any reasonable change. Against AV because the merger reduced their AV incentive a lot while maximizing the AV incentive for the left. Say no to PR because it'll likely lead to left coalition governments for forseeable future and quite likely lead to left coalition governments even when they win. Also, under the status quo when they win they can drag policy right, while under any change if they win they'll be dragged left towards their coalition partner.
Liberals: Not super clear. Before 2015, I'd say support everything. Now they have a pretty strong incentive to coast for the next little while as long as they don't get blamed for breaking their electoral reform promise. Would outwardly be hurt by PR in terms of seat count, but would effectively be permanent senior partners for a coalition government and so it's not clear what the strategic consideration would be.
I think MMP is probably the best compromise option for all parties, and there's a pretty credible argument to be made that balancing between regional considerations and proportionality is important in a federation with such heterogeneous interests as ours and such broad geography as ours.
So I would say if the Liberals decide to tank this process, then it's tanked, but if they decide to go for it, we get MMP. In terms of calibrating the MMP, setting districts to provinces with comparable magnitudes as they currently have will make the Bloc happy as well as benefit the Liberals due to Atlantic Canada. The Greens might grumble, but I think the major consideration for them will be the minimum threshold settings and how we deal with fractional seat rounding. That in and of itself would be a major, and I think the NDP would sign on.
I've agreed in the past that that some kind of MMP is the end-game in this scenario. The only issue at hand is how that MMP would look like, as in what proportion of members are FPTP (if they choose FPTP) and which others are PR.
The other issue is whether or not this dramatically increases the number of people inside Parliament or whether certain ridings will be designated as FPTP/PR. I'm not a big fan of increasing the number of MPs by a significant amount to account for the party listed PR seats, and yet designating certain ridings as PR would cause huge issues.
I'm incredibly confused why people in this thread are suddenly referring to MMPR as a compromise. MMPR is what the NDP have advocated for in recent history, and done right is a proportional system. Many proportional systems use it.
http://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-wants-to-implement-mixed-proportional-system
http://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-wants-to-implement-mixed-proportional-system
To answer your ??? I believe the Bloc is like the Conservatives in being strongly in favour of maintaining FPTP. This somewhat makes sense in that they're a strictly regional party and in the past they've benefited from this under FPTP. While they've done poorly in recent elections, in the past they've received significantly more seats than their share of the popular vote.
When you say "PR > MMP" in the context of what you think the Greens or NDP approve of what form of PR do you mean? When I think of the PR these parties are advancing I've always thought they're basically talking about MMP.
I agree that in general it seems like MMP is the likely outcome if this committee operates effectively. I'm wonder though as the deadline approaches and the Conservatives recognize the possibility of seeing permanent left-coalition governments under MMP they'll waver in their current "only FPTP, only referendum" and try another approach to kill MMP.
It's actually probably a bit of a mixed bag for the bloc, though the brass ring effect (in their case opposition rather than government) probably keeps them firmly entrenched in FPTP in a game theory sense.
With PR they would almost always be able to have a voice, and would be far more likely to be in a position to influence policy on a regular basis since they'd probably always have a decent block of seats. It just wouldn't be able to balloon out to being the second biggest party anymore.
With PR they would almost always be able to have a voice, and would be far more likely to be in a position to influence policy on a regular basis since they'd probably always have a decent block of seats. It just wouldn't be able to balloon out to being the second biggest party anymore.
matthewwhatever
Member
Nowhere online yet that I can see, but Nathan Cullen just announced that he won't be running for the NDP leadership.
EDIT: here it is
RE: electoral reform, the Bloc apparently supported a MMP motion in 2014. Not sure why they'd want a change, since the current system gives them more seats than they'd get under any other system, but there you go.
Personally, if the options come down to MMP or FPTP, I hope MMP goes down in flames. I know that's an unpopular opinion around here, since most of you seem to think it's this incredible panacea for everything that allegedly ails our democracy, but the entire idea of MPs who aren't directly accountable to any voters seems way worse than any distortions FPTP is claimed to cause.
EDIT: here it is
RE: electoral reform, the Bloc apparently supported a MMP motion in 2014. Not sure why they'd want a change, since the current system gives them more seats than they'd get under any other system, but there you go.
Personally, if the options come down to MMP or FPTP, I hope MMP goes down in flames. I know that's an unpopular opinion around here, since most of you seem to think it's this incredible panacea for everything that allegedly ails our democracy, but the entire idea of MPs who aren't directly accountable to any voters seems way worse than any distortions FPTP is claimed to cause.
Did you get cut off at the end? o_o?
At any rate, I'd rather have full PR than MMP simply because MMP would open huuuuuuuuge issues in terms of the number of seats.
My personal preference is a run-off style similar to France.
While I would typically agree, I have seen no evidence that FPTP actually creates MPs who are focused on their voters wishes and not just towing the party line.
matthewwhatever
Member
Yep, the pro-MMPers got to me before I could finish.
I'm actually not at all opposed to increased representation -- like, dramatically increasing, to the point we have 500 or 600+ MPs. I'm totally fine with significantly smaller districts, though I can imagine that rural voters may not be happy when Toronto suddenly has, like, 70 seats. If we could massively increase the number of MPs and remove the leader's power to sign off on all candidates, we'd suddenly see a lot more independent thinking, I imagine.
I'd be fine with a France-style two-round system. It seems like a slightly more expensive version of IRV, but I don't mind the principle behind it. I was going to say that it seems like it could lead to decreased voter turnout, as voters who don't support either run-off candidate just don't vote, but Wikipedia says that's not the case -- has anyone seem hard numbers on that?
My personal favourite variation on MMPR is that the 'list' voters are just MP candidates who didn't win seats, allocated on a regional nearest-winner basis. This effectively models out very similarly to multimember ridings (STV), I think, but for whatever reason people don't like that idea (it's my personal favourite PR system).
I don't think anyone advocates for a straight ticket list MMPR anymore. If it is from a list, the current popular model is usually that you can explicitly list your rankings, giving some accountability.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
The operative difference between IRV and a two-round majoritarian system is that typically in the latter, campaigning is allowed between the rounds. So it's not just about how the electoral system allows or denies representation, it's also about how well campaigns do at securing the media narrative and endorsements from other parties.
In France, this has typically manifested itself in the far-right party doing shockingly well in round 1, then the media narrative being "France on the verge of fascism" and all of the mainstream parties doing their best balancing act between making it clear no one who voted for the eliminated parties should vote far-right while simultaneously paying enough lip-service to the far right to bleed votes.
According to my French friends, there's also a 'tradition' of parties and voters rallying around whichever party is doing the best against the far-right... Not sure how valid that is though.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
matthewwhatever
Member
That's marginally better than a list of party hacks you'd get with a straight list, I guess. Do the nearest-winners represent any specific constituencies? Also, how does that differ from STV?
I'm pretty sure I've said this before, but I think he would've been a much tougher opponent for the Liberals in the 2015 election. He'd have occupied a similar space to that of Trudeau (the happy agent of change, contrasting with Harper), but he'd have gotten there a year earlier, plus he would've been pushing for electoral cooperation with the LPC. A 2019 run against Trudeau would've presented totally different circumstances, so I don't know if he'd have been as effective, but from a purely partisan perspective, I'm glad it won't be him.
I'm thinking that if he's out, it'll come down to Alexandre Boulerice or Niki Ashton.
I think the expectation would be that they would be expected to represent their party, but they do still have to garner some level of local support so they'd be at least a little accountable to them. To clarify, though, just in case: the number of each party allocated on the list are based on topping up to the popular vote, not just "who got the most votes but didn't win across all parties". Choose the number of seats per party, then select the top loser for party A, top loser for party B, etc.
I think the main difference is that there is a single clear local representative (the one who won a local plurality). Also, not all ridings would wind up with second representations. But like I said, the end result is probably similar, I just think if the foregone conclusion is "It must be a form of MPP", this is one that merges in some of the benefits of STV and avoids the crony list problem.
It's possible there'd be a way to game this to give some regions more representation overall, but I think it'd be very very difficult, verging on impossible, since local and global confounding factors abound. You'd have to somehow lose by not too much across an entire region.
I think a lot of people would say that Cullen as the NDP leader would've changed things for the 2015 election. The unfortunate part about all this is that the NDP is very much now a top-down organization than the grassroots organization of the past. There is a significant difference in how Cullen presents himself now as compared to before.
I myself didn't want to admit that to myself for the longest time since I was a huuuge Cullen supporter, but it's very evident in the years after Layton.
Based on what I've learned from this thread, the French will do whatever they can to oppose that dastardly Mr. Mulcair.
In a perfect world the Liberals and NDP would cut deals to work together and piss off the Conservatives daily.
Happy about this move and especially since it was Nathan Cullen who brought it forward, I still wish he was interested in the leader job but oh well, he does good work for the NDP. I want to be optimistic.
In the continuous slide of the Conservatives toward insanity, they're now mad that the Liberals have stopped clapping during QP:
https://ipolitics.ca/2016/06/03/does-automatic-applause-a-trained-seal-make/
https://ipolitics.ca/2016/06/03/does-automatic-applause-a-trained-seal-make/
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
All opposition parties fall victim to thinking their job is to oppose. Hahaha.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Didn't hear about this, but it's a really good idea. If they keep at it, it will make the Conservatives actually look like trained seals. You'd think "well maybe it will just become the norm"' but there is no way the Conservatives will ever be able to hold back, so trained seals they will look like. Plus, it's typical practice in companies built on ass-kissing, like many financial institutions, to have a chance to clap for someone; it's how you show you're a good obedient ass kisser and make your way up. The Conservatives need to clap.
If I undersand O'Toole correctly, he thinks that Canadians will stop watching if QP stops being a circus. But people would have to be watching in the first place. I'd be surprised if CPAC has more than a few thousand viewers.
The real reason is that they're affraid they'll have to tone it down themselves and they're sad that their wonderfuly sarcastic zingers about selfies and sunny ways won't get the thunderous applause they deserve.
I'm pretty sure it would have the exact opposite effect. I know I'd try and tune in more frequently if it wasn't such a shit show.
In recent Alberta politics news 9 MLA's of the Wildrose Party compared a carbon tax to the Ukrainian Genocide.
At least the Wildrose Party apologized for it.
Link
http://edmontonjournal.com/news/pol...de-requires-apology-ndp-cabinet-minister-says
Edit: Also this isn't the first time MLA's of the Wildrose Party mentioned the genocide in a horrible way.
At least the Wildrose Party apologized for it.
Link
http://edmontonjournal.com/news/pol...de-requires-apology-ndp-cabinet-minister-says
Edit: Also this isn't the first time MLA's of the Wildrose Party mentioned the genocide in a horrible way.
I think you, and maybe others here are in the minority. Canadians won't watch anymore if the Commons is quiet and reserved anymore than they will it looking like a wrestling match.
It's an interesting idea though, and I hope it stays.
Now if they could just work together....
killer rin
Member
So the Press Gallery Dinner was last night, I'm watching some of the clips and it's actually pretty funny. Here are the party leader speeches if anyone wants them https://www.facebook.com/AlthiaRaj/
Mulcair gives zero fucks
Mulcair gives zero fucks
I can't support Trudeau anymore. That goatee was amazing. He's right that it did make him look like his own evil twin, but that's why it was so good.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
So I guess I totally stopped caring about Canadian politics and pulled a Bernie "bro" move of just completely disengaging after my guy lost, but I thought this was interesting.
As you may or may not know, Australia is having their election in less than a month and since they have both IRV and STV (for the House and Senate respectively), they are a potential example to look to in terms of what voting would look like.
The funny thing is, to Canadians, I'm sure their ballots look like frigging Sudoku puzzles and it makes me wonder how this would go over in Canada if we ever change our system here.
Anyway, here's their "How to Vote" website if you want to see the ballots. The Senate one is the one that's hilarious:
http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_vote/practice/
(Before if you voted below the line, you had to rank every single candidate. This time they gave a minimum of 12 so that people would actually vote that way without potentially spoiling their ballot.)
As you may or may not know, Australia is having their election in less than a month and since they have both IRV and STV (for the House and Senate respectively), they are a potential example to look to in terms of what voting would look like.
The funny thing is, to Canadians, I'm sure their ballots look like frigging Sudoku puzzles and it makes me wonder how this would go over in Canada if we ever change our system here.
Anyway, here's their "How to Vote" website if you want to see the ballots. The Senate one is the one that's hilarious:
http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_vote/practice/
(Before if you voted below the line, you had to rank every single candidate. This time they gave a minimum of 12 so that people would actually vote that way without potentially spoiling their ballot.)
People fill out more complicated forms than either of those every day. Neither seem particularly byzantine to me, and it's always worth remembering that most countries that use these systems have *higher* participation than we do, not lower (Australia exempt from comparison here due to mandatory voting).
The power of letting people express their *actual* choices far outweighs forcing them into weeks-long deliberations on the correct strategic choices to make for their desired outcome. What we do now is try (badly) to hide the complexity of voting behind a simple ballot, and it doesn't work. If people's votes get representation they will come.
The power of letting people express their *actual* choices far outweighs forcing them into weeks-long deliberations on the correct strategic choices to make for their desired outcome. What we do now is try (badly) to hide the complexity of voting behind a simple ballot, and it doesn't work. If people's votes get representation they will come.
Sapiens
Member
this is the same fuckin moron that wanted us all to apply a gendered lens to #elbowgate
matthewwhatever
Member
If a US Member of Congress had come up here during the last election to campaign on behalf of any party, there would've been outrage from all sides about Americans trying to influence our elections. This is no different.
From her perspective, I get that she's just trying to shore up her credentials before she throws her hat in the ring for a NDP leadership run, but still, kind of offensive if you think about it at all for any length of time.
How did 9 members think that it was a good idea to compare a tax to genocide. One MLA, sure, I can see that; Wildrose is known for its crazies. But out of NINE people, how did none of them step back for a second and think that, maybe, they were going a little too far? I'm starting to think that my estimation of the ABNDP as a one-term government may end up being way off base.
Man how my respect for Niki has fallen since elbowgate and now this. I don't think there is anyone in the ndp I like or hell even respect at this point.
Same for the same reasons, though i'm less bothered by this
That the Wild Rose actually resonates with anyone makes me sad. I don't see the PC bouncing back next time so, fingers crossed the NDP hold on.
TheRealTalker
Banned
NDP.... NDP
what happened
what happened
Paul Hinman compared a bill the Alberta PC's were trying to pass 5 years to the same genocide while he was the leader of the Wildrose Party. I'm surprised those nine members thought it would be a good idea to bring back that ludicrous comparison despite the party being criticized for bringing it up like 5 years ago.The NDP's are guaranteed to get at least 40+ seats in the next election unless another party is able to attract voters away from the party and I don't see the Alberta PC's or the Wildrose doing that in 2019.
Ashton should probably pack up for next week, given that Obama is starting to campaign for Clinton soon and Sanders' campaign is pretty much finished.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
It's actually been a little weird for me down here because I'd like to go work with some of the campaigns (probably not for president, probably house or ballot initiative) but I don't exactly know what the legal lines are I can't cross, let alone the ethical lines, as someone who is physically resident but a non-resident alien and can't vote here. It's strange.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked