tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post113535200651880979..comments2023-08-03T07:33:41.442-07:00Comments on Idealistic Pragmatist: Liberals for proportional representationIdealistic Pragmatisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18296481430598981678noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1135397632180848682005-12-23T21:13:00.000-07:002005-12-23T21:13:00.000-07:00tth,I do prefer MMP, but I fully admit that that's...tth,<BR/><BR/>I do prefer MMP, but I fully admit that that's just about familiarity. I've lived in a country that has it and I can more clearly envision what Canada would be like with it. I've been reading a lot about STV this year, though, and I've come around to the point of view that the specific system matters much less than making Canadian representative democracy both more representative and more democratic.<BR/><BR/>My earlier point to you, though, was that PR doesn't really work the way you imagine it to work. Not only will a party with 3% of the vote not get into parliament at all under any system with a threshhold, but even a party with 10% of the vote doesn't actually end up wielding a hugely disproportionate amount of power most of the time. That's the bogeyman people hold up to talk people out of PR, but looking at how things work in practice doesn't tend to bear that out.<BR/><BR/>I disagree with you, by the way, that political parties in Canada are accommodating of various groups--the Canadian political culture is a very antagonistic one as a result of the polarizing effect of our electoral system. When a majority government has a hold on power, they don't tend to want to give any of it up, and nor do they have to.Idealistic Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18296481430598981678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1135391738012014382005-12-23T19:35:00.000-07:002005-12-23T19:35:00.000-07:00Actually, I like the STV system. Reform like that...Actually, I like the STV system. Reform like that, and I mentioned I'm open to improvement, is something I'd be in favour of considering.Bloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07997512795646162604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1135383092905000152005-12-23T17:11:00.000-07:002005-12-23T17:11:00.000-07:00tth,Not true, at least not in most PR systems (and...tth,<BR/><BR/>Not true, at least not in most PR systems (and any that would be realistically considered for Canada). Under Mixed Member Proportional, each party is required to surpass a threshold of 5% in order to assume seats. Single Transferable Vote also has a built-in threshold that functions similarly.<BR/><BR/>For more information, you might want to read my <A HREF="http://idealisticpragmatist.blogspot.com/2005/11/proportional-representation-faq.html" REL="nofollow">FAQ</A>, especially the bits about coalitions toward the end.Idealistic Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18296481430598981678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1135378268579328302005-12-23T15:51:00.000-07:002005-12-23T15:51:00.000-07:00Here is what I do not like about proportional repr...Here is what I do not like about proportional representation. A party with 3% of the vote in the last election would have had nine seats. That would have given 3% of the population a HUGELY disproportionate influence on policy and politics. With our current system, minority blocs are accommodated with the party system. No political party can form power if they represent only one segment of society. Political parties in Canada have been accommodations of various groups. In that system, accommodating 3% has a low priority. Accommodating 10% has some priority. And accommodating any group with 15% or more becomes a higher priority. I think that is a better way, though there is always room for improvement.Bloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07997512795646162604noreply@blogger.com