tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post115842907322970820..comments2023-08-03T07:33:41.442-07:00Comments on Idealistic Pragmatist: A lefty's interview with Stéphane DionIdealistic Pragmatisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18296481430598981678noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1159369553931747162006-09-27T08:05:00.000-07:002006-09-27T08:05:00.000-07:00Wilf,He didn't mention it of his own accord; he wa...Wilf,<BR/><BR/>He didn't mention it of his own accord; he was asked about it. But he was willing to discuss it rather than play it down, which is something.<BR/><BR/>I entirely agree with you that the Mixed-Member Majoritarian system would be pointless for Canada, as it wouldn't actually address the problems that need addressing in our electoral system. It also strikes me as ironic that Scott Tribe would say that "Canada is a nation of compromises" and then argue that coalition governments would never be embraced here. The fact that Canadians are so good at compromise would make such a system even more appropriate here than it is in many countries that already use it successfully! It'd just be a matter of getting the pesky First Past the Post system out of the way that encourages politicians to promote their party above all else, and then giving them a few years to adjust. If New Zealand did it, then so can we.Idealistic Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18296481430598981678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1158677963063809972006-09-19T07:59:00.000-07:002006-09-19T07:59:00.000-07:00I'm sorry if I'm not coming across clearer myself....I'm sorry if I'm not coming across clearer myself.. but I'll just say this:<BR/><BR/>I dont have a problem with a Citizen's Assembly; I'm not sure if you thought I was in disagreement with that or not. I'm just advocating that the Globe's system is the model the Citizen's Assembly should pick. :)Oxford County Liberalshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12181314055142726735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1158668202757631422006-09-19T05:16:00.000-07:002006-09-19T05:16:00.000-07:00Scott,Okay, I'm not sure why I'm doing this when y...Scott,<BR/><BR/>Okay, I'm not sure why I'm doing this when you're clearly not reading what I'm writing. But one last try:<BR/><BR/>I am, first and foremost, in favour of <I>citizen involvement</I> in determining the voting system. Why? Because it's the only way reform actually ends up being accomplished for exactly the reason you point out--no ruling party is willing to put into practice a reform that gets rid of the system that elected it.<BR/><BR/>In other words, if a federal Citizens' Assembly is put together, and they spend a lot of time learning about electoral systems, and they decide together that the Globe and Mail's semi-proportional system is the best one, then that's one thing. But there's no reason to choose a compromise system right off the bat, since under the citizens' assembly model, it won't be the politicians who choose the new system anyway. And when citizens choose the voting system, they tend to choose what's best for the voters and not what's best for any particular political party.<BR/><BR/>And like I said earlier, you can call this model unrealistic until you're blue in the face, but it's the model that's <I>actually being used</I> in Canada right now, and it's the model that's come closest to producing results.Idealistic Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18296481430598981678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1158537117734060342006-09-17T16:51:00.000-07:002006-09-17T16:51:00.000-07:00I would contend this model meets proportionality I...I would contend this model meets proportionality Idealist; its just not as much proprtionality as you "purists" would like.<BR/><BR/>But Canada is a nation of compromises.. and I think you folks are going to have to learn to do that if you want nay hope for a new electoral system in Canada to make it more reflective of voters wishes.Oxford County Liberalshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12181314055142726735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1158455936148628302006-09-16T18:18:00.000-07:002006-09-16T18:18:00.000-07:00Scott,In response to all of your points, I can onl...Scott,<BR/><BR/>In response to all of your points, I can only say one thing: when it comes to electoral reform in other countries and other jurisdictions, the winning model for reform hasn't been a wishy-washy compromise, but a grassroots movement followed by public education, heavy citizen involvement in designing the new voting system, and then a referendum pitting it against the status quo. New Zealand did it in 1993. B.C. came less than three points of the massive 60% necessary for achieving it in 2005, and because of that near-success, they're going to get another shot at it alongside the next provincial election. By contrast, there's not a single success story you can point to in which a compromise model that falls short of proportionality was proposed and got through by some other means. Not a one. You can make all the assumptions you want about the impracticality of pushing for the reforms Canada really needs, but the hard data from other jurisdictions tells another story.<BR/><BR/>You're right that the bitter partisanship of the Canadian political scene would make multiparty coalition governments very difficult right now. But I submit that this antagonism is a <I>direct result of our electoral system,</I> because all the parties are trying so hard to reach single-party majority governments that they lose sight of what's really best for Canada. Under a new PR-based system, that carrot would be removed, and the parties would <I>need</I> to learn to be less antagonistic and compromise with each other to find the best solutions to problems. That's precisely what happened in New Zealand when they switched to the system Dion favours. There would almost certainly be a long period of growing pains in which the politicians learned how to do their jobs under the new system (again, evidence from NZ bears that out), but in the end we'd have not only a better voting system, but a more workable political culture as well.<BR/><BR/>Jason,<BR/><BR/>Thank you; I appreciate your comments. And thanks for any input you may have had into suggesting me as the Blogging Dipper interviewer, as well. It was fun, and I learned a lot as well.Idealistic Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18296481430598981678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1158453798847999872006-09-16T17:43:00.000-07:002006-09-16T17:43:00.000-07:00Thanks for a doing this. I think its a very fair ...Thanks for a doing this. I think its a very fair report.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure Dion will aim his message more at non-Liberals when it comes to winning an election instead of the leadership.Jason Cherniakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12473304114206630747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1158438829016831832006-09-16T13:33:00.000-07:002006-09-16T13:33:00.000-07:00Well, I dont think you can go with such a radical ...Well, I dont think you can go with such a radical overhaul of the system without facing resistance from not only the mainstream political parties who know it may hurt their chances of getting majorities but from voters who are used to this systen that we've had since Confederation and will be afraid to change if the system being proposed is a radical overhaul.<BR/><BR/>Even this system that I've tried advocating faces resistance from a lot of Liberal or Tory bloggers who feel it will perpetuate constant minorities. While I can argue that point til the cows come home, just think of the resistance to systems who advocate greater PR then this.<BR/><BR/>As for advocating only having a majority government who has a majority of voters.. that's pretty well impossible. You can check thru Canadian history since the 1900's how often thats happenned - particularly since we've had a multi-party system established. You'll find it doesnt happen all that often.<BR/><BR/>Dion is right about the other argument he makes; multi-party coalitions just dont happen in Canada. There is I believe one instance... in World War I when the Tories and the english-speaking members of the Liberal Party (Unionists) combined.<BR/><BR/>Nowadays, the ideological diffrences in the multi-party system in a such a diverse country as Canada are deep and bitter.. and I highly doubt that parties would set aside their partisan differences. They can barely do that in times of minority governments.<BR/><BR/>If that's going to be your main selling point, I can almost guarantee you PR will never see the light of day. The big parties will never go for it. Y<BR/><BR/>You guys must compromise on this issue for it to even have a faint hope of getting any traction with the Canadian public. The Globe's model of MM-PR is - I contend - the best way to go in that regard.<BR/><BR/>If that system gets implemented and further tweaking to its model is required.. then there's nothing to say that cant be done. Rome wasnt built in a day.Oxford County Liberalshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12181314055142726735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1158435030256002932006-09-16T12:30:00.000-07:002006-09-16T12:30:00.000-07:00west end bound,Happy to help!Scott,I suppose that ...west end bound,<BR/><BR/>Happy to help!<BR/><BR/>Scott,<BR/><BR/>I suppose that makes me a "PR purist," then, because I too don't think the Globe's proposed electoral reform would go quite far enough. I'm all for majority governments (I agree with you that minority governments are <I>not</I> the way to go), but only if they've actually been elected by a majority of the voters. In most other countries, this means governments of multiple (usually two) parties, who then compromise between their two visions, and work together to make policy.<BR/><BR/>It's worked in European countries (including Germany, who pioneered the electoral system Dion favours) for decades. The New Zealanders are finally starting to get the hang of it after <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform_in_New_Zealand" REL="nofollow">switching to Mixed-Member Proportional</A> in 1993. A reform to some version of proportional representation, followed by a shift to majority coalition governments would be <A HREF="http://idealisticpragmatist.blogspot.com/2005/11/proportional-representation-faq.html" REL="nofollow">a tried and true, stable solution</A> to pretty much everything that ails both our electoral system and our political culture. What are we afraid of?Idealistic Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18296481430598981678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1158434273900053652006-09-16T12:17:00.000-07:002006-09-16T12:17:00.000-07:00As you might know, I've come out on record as supp...As you might know, I've come out on record as supporting <BR/><A HREF="http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/PermaLink.aspx?guid=b7633cfc-ee21-4cd2-bd76-5ae674910eb9" REL="nofollow">this version</A> of Mixed-Medium Proportional Representation that the Globe and Mail published details about and endorsed in their editorial of May 2005.<BR/><BR/>However.. because that system doesnt necesarily remove the possibility that a mjaority government can still occur on a regular basis, some of the PR purists criticize the model.<BR/><BR/>Myself.. I think its the perfect compromise between those afraid of too much minority governments and those who want fairer representation of people's votes.Oxford County Liberalshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12181314055142726735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1158433598904880072006-09-16T12:06:00.000-07:002006-09-16T12:06:00.000-07:00Once again you are making it easier for the "futur...Once again you are making it easier for the "future Canadians" in blogland to gain an understanding of Canadian politics . . . . Thanks, we appreciate it!!West End Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05757317517075393438noreply@blogger.com