tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post113302776269808291..comments2023-08-03T07:33:41.442-07:00Comments on Idealistic Pragmatist: Proportional representation FAQIdealistic Pragmatisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18296481430598981678noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-76019079628045731532007-02-24T18:14:00.000-07:002007-02-24T18:14:00.000-07:00Two very late additions about Germany since I see ...Two very late additions about Germany since I see that you stil link to your FAQ in your newer posts.<BR/><BR/>1. Germany had only two short-lived minority governments. Erhard in 1966 and Schmidt in 1982. Brandt in 1972 definitely wasn´t a minority government.<BR/><BR/>2. Just to make it clear. The 5% clause in Germany is valid only for the "second vote" (the "party" vote). Anyone who wins in a riding has a seat in the "Bundestag" even if her party on the whole gets less than 5%.<BR/><BR/>Detlef in GermanyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-68365308737959442732007-02-17T09:16:00.000-07:002007-02-17T09:16:00.000-07:00For me the main reason to go to some sort of propp...For me the main reason to go to some sort of propportional ballot is to end the undemocratic and authoritarian practice of having a minority get most of the seats and then use that majority to ram through unpopular legislation. Most of the bad things that have been done to us during the past 25 years, such as "free trade" (corporate mercantilism) the GST, the savaging of UI etc were done by governments that had the support of only a minority of the population. Government ought to reflect the will of the people rather than being a format for corporate and foreign interests to bully the population.Larry Gambonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04965037776214596919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-31138766760464373502006-12-13T12:21:00.000-07:002006-12-13T12:21:00.000-07:00Crap, sorry, the field changed from Google/Blogger...Crap, sorry, the field changed from Google/Blogger to Blogger and my name, and since I thought I hit preview the first time, and then corrected a numbering mistake, I accidentally submitted twice. Naughty little monkey!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08206836648232467068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-45557096331354112132006-12-13T12:18:00.000-07:002006-12-13T12:18:00.000-07:00While I applaud your interest in improving the ele...While I applaud your interest in improving the electoral system, there are a few points that need to be made before I can answer on proportional models.<br /><br />1. One should assure that electoral systems are democratic in the first place, before even thinking of better system management.<br /><br />2. To do this, we must agree on what makes an electoral system democratic, in a basic sense.<br /><br />3. Since I do not believe that the Canadian system is at the present time democratic, I will have to lay out why it is not, and how that could be changed, before I comment further on your points.<br /><br /> The following deals with what I believe is a basic democatic system, and why if you take my definition, Canada does not qualify.<br /><br />1. I define a democratic system as one where every voter has an equal chance to effect the choosing of the representative that will stand for them in a parliment or legislature. (This means that it is not necessary to have prop. rep. to be democratic, since in a particular riding, you had a chance to elect the person you wanted, you just lost, because more people in said riding wanted someone else.) To be democratic, seats must also be divided up among the provinces and territories according to population. Representatives must also be elected.<br /><br />2. Since in Canada, number of ridings are awarded by province or territory, if one province receives more than a fair share of the seat totals, you are denying the people in a certain province the equal chance to effect the nature of the representation in the leg. or parl. in total.<br /><br />3. It is the case in Canada that Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta are being governed in an anti democratic fashion, because seats are not given to them in the proper proportion. The senate is not divided equally either, and is not an elected body, so they are garbage from all angles.<br /><br />4. To make the system democratic, seats in the parl. must be divided equally, according to province population. The ridings can be formed with a 1% difference in number of people living in them, and the number required to form a riding must be clear. I prefer 100,000 but you could make the number anything you want, as long as each province receives at least one seat. Thus they are represented according to population.<br /><br />5. The Senate must be elected and equal, between what are historic and geographic regional lines. So the Atlantic provinces would get a certain number to elect, Ontario and Quebec would get that number, the Prairies which include Alberta, Sask., and Manitoba would get the same, B.C. as well, with the North as a region also getting that number to be divided among them. I abhor having territories, they must be made provinces immediately. The Senate is for second thought, so they could review, ammend, send back to the house, review the changes the house makes, agree or disagree, and then the bill gets passed, whether they like it or not. Second thought does not mean gridlock. They may delay for a certain period of time, which must be set in law, but may not stop altogether. Since it may be hard to get people to agree on what makes something a region, lets just forget it and give a number of Senate seats to each province and elect them by prop. rep. so we don't waste time argueing. Just give them ten seats per province, with one seat per ten percent of House riding votes added up for that province. <br /><br />When all these changes have been accompished, then, and only then, will I agree to impove the system by allowing prop. rep. to be brought in. I will now list the components of the prop. system I favour and would agree to.<br /><br />1. Ridings stay the same, with the same way of choosing the rep. by first past the post, winner take all. And each province getting one seat per 100,000 population, to be divided up in the province with only a 1% difference allowable. And that to help with regional boundary problems. At present, that would mean Canada's House would have 330 seats, for a population of approx. 33 million.<br /><br />2. Twenty seats per province are given (13 provinces)(for a total of 230 seats) in the House, and these are then awarded by taking the percentage vote each party got in the riding votes added up in every province, and given to each party by way of one seat per 5% vote count. The parties who don't get 5% have their numbers given to round up each recieving parties decimal numbers, starting with the closest to 0.9%, and going down to 0.01 etc., Whatever remains is given to the party that received the most votes in that particular province, for all the ridings combined.<br /><br />3. Party lists to get 20 or 10 candidates (for House or the Senate) must be one member one vote, with no bias for gender, race, colour, sexual orientation, or disablility, per party.<br /><br /> I would go into more detail, but this is getting too long, so just ask a question and I will answer it. Thanx.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08206836648232467068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-69103128936446923432006-12-13T12:10:00.000-07:002006-12-13T12:10:00.000-07:00While I applaud your interest in improving the ele...While I applaud your interest in improving the electoral system, there are a few points that need to be made before I can answer on proportional models.<br /><br />1. One should assure that electoral systems are democratic in the first place, before even thinking of better system management.<br /><br />2. To do this, we must agree on what makes an electoral system democratic, in a basic sense.<br /><br />3. Since I do not believe that the Canadian system is at the present time democratic, I will have to lay out why it is not, and how that could be changed, before I comment further on your points.<br /><br /> The following deals with what I believe is a basic democatic system, and why if you take my definition, Canada does not qualify.<br /><br />1. I define a democratic system as one where every voter has an equal chance to effect the choosing of the representative that will stand for them in a parliment or legislature. (This means that it is not necessary to have prop. rep. to be democratic, since in a particular riding, you had a chance to elect the person you wanted, you just lost, because more people in said riding wanted someone else.) To be democratic, seats must also be divided up among the provinces and territories according to population. Representatives must also be elected.<br /><br />2. Since in Canada, number of ridings are awarded by province or territory, if one province receives more than a fair share of the seat totals, you are denying the people in a certain province the equal chance to effect the nature of the representation in the leg. or parl. in total.<br /><br />3. It is the case in Canada that Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta are being governed in an anti democratic fashion, because seats are not given to them in the proper proportion. The senate is not divided equally either, and is not an elected body, so they are garbage from all angles.<br /><br />3. To make the system democratic, seats in the parl. must be divided equally, according to province population. The ridings can be formed with a 1% difference in number of people living in them, and the number required to form a riding must be clear. I prefer 100,000 but you could make the number anything you want, as long as each province receives at least one seat. Thus they are represented according to population.<br /><br />4. The Senate must be elected and equal, between what are historic and geographic regional lines. So the Atlantic provinces would get a certain number to elect, Ontario and Quebec would get that number, the Prairies which include Alberta, Sask., and Manitoba would get the same, B.C. as well, with the North as a region also getting that number to be divided among them. I abhor having territories, they must be made provinces immediately. The Senate is for second thought, so they could review, ammend, send back to the house, review the changes the house makes, agree or disagree, and then the bill gets passed, whether they like it or not. Second thought does not mean gridlock. They may delay for a certain period of time, which must be set in law, but may not stop altogether. Since it may be hard to get people to agree on what makes something a region, lets just forget it and give a number of Senate seats to each province and elect them by prop. rep. so we don't waste time argueing. Just give them ten seats per province, with one seat per ten percent of House riding votes added up for that province. <br /><br />When all these changes have been accompished, then, and only then, will I agree to impove the system by allowing prop. rep. to be brought in. I will now list the components of the prop. system I favour and would agree to.<br /><br />1. Ridings stay the same, with the same way of choosing the rep. by first past the post, winner take all. And each province getting one seat per 100,000 population, to be divided up in the province with only a 1% difference allowable. And that to help with regional boundary problems. At present, that would mean Canada's House would have 330 seats, for a population of approx. 33 million.<br /><br />2. Twenty seats per province are given (13 provinces)(for a total of 230 seats) in the House, and these are then awarded by taking the percentage vote each party got in the riding votes added up in every province, and given to each party by way of one seat per 5% vote count. The parties who don't get 5% have their numbers given to round up each recieving parties decimal numbers, starting with the closest to 0.9%, and going down to 0.01 etc., Whatever remains is given to the party that received the most votes in that particular province, for all the ridings combined.<br /><br />3. Party lists to get 20 or 10 candidates (for House or the Senate) must be one member one vote, with no bias for gender, race, colour, sexual orientation, or disablility, per party.<br /><br /> I would go into more detail, but this is getting too long, so just ask a question and I will answer it. Thanx.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08206836648232467068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1133946484222962442005-12-07T02:08:00.000-07:002005-12-07T02:08:00.000-07:00Wilf,Thanks! That's some great additional informa...Wilf,<BR/><BR/>Thanks! That's some great additional information. And your last comment got emailed to me URL-intact, so I'll add the link for the other PR model nerds out there--it's <A HREF="http://www.wilfreddaylawoffice.com/MMPFEDERALMODEL.pdf" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Idealistic Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18296481430598981678noreply@blogger.com