October 10 Referendum on Electoral Reform

[Danish]

On October 10 (yes, the same day as the election), Ontarians will have to opportunity to change the political future for the province.

We will be asked whether we want to stick with our outdated First-Past-the-Post electoral system, or switch to a system of proportional representation know as MMP (Mixed Member Proportional).

All I'm saying is make sure you vote the right way. It isn't about what party you like or what political views you have. MMP will make the provincial gov't more democratic, and it will increase the level of co-operation that happens between parties. We'll have a better-working and more efficient parliament where more than two parties will have influence on public policy. No longer will a single party be able to monopolize power and push through whatever reforms they like (cough cough Mike Harris cough); MMP will mark the end of single-party majorities and replace them with majority coalitions, where two (or more) parties will share power. Imagine that concept.

For for MMP!

http://www.voteformmp.ca/

[griftadan]

i'd prefer mmp to fpp, but if i had my way i'd have single member districts with runoff voting. PR does increase diversity but also gridlock, which arguably is less preferable to the two party system.

is the thing being voted on in canada similar to the german system?

[Smokey D]

Yes.

MMP doesn't always cause deadlock. There's never been true deadlock in NZ and we've had it for over 11 years.

[griftadan]

yeah generally they have to play the coalition game, but something tells me this wouldn't be helpful in the US when it comes to trying to resolve things like the war and the budget/debt. we can't even do it with two parties.

[Danish]

i'd prefer mmp to fpp, but if i had my way i'd have single member districts with runoff voting. PR does increase diversity but also gridlock, which arguably is less preferable to the two party system.

is the thing being voted on in canada similar to the german system?

The system being proposed in Ontario is my preferred option. I think gridlock will be unlikely. If things go a little slower, it's made up for; no more upheaval from radical policy shifts such as in the mid-90s.

[Iskandar]

I had already decided to vote for this. I just love electoral reform!

[Independent_CA]

Could someone export this to the US please??

[ashman]

Doesn't Italy use MMP? I know they use some sort of Proportional Representation and it's worked great for them :confused:

[Iskandar]

Doesn't Italy use MMP? I know they use some sort of Proportional Representation and it's worked great for them :confused:It's often led to gridlock in Italy, I think, but that's because of their political situation. They have eight or so major parties, none of which is able to gain a clear advantage over the others. But in Canada the situation is different. We have four/five major parties but the Liberals and Conservatives have historically been able to dominate the scene in most of Canada. This reform is about increasing fairness and giving a voice to underrepresented views.

[ashman]

It's often led to gridlock in Italy, I think, but that's because of their political situation. They have eight or so major parties, none of which is able to gain a clear advantage over the others. But in Canada the situation is different.

It was a joke :p

Can we possibly get an unbiased view of this MMP please? That website that Danish posted was pretty much "The sun shines out of MMP's arse".

[Iskandar]

It was a joke :p

Can we possibly get an unbiased view of this MMP please? That website that Danish posted was pretty much "The sun shines out of MMP's arse".Well, a brief history:

The Government of the Province of Ontario, Canada, established a Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform in March 2006. Modelled on the British Columbia equivalent, it reviewed the first past the post electoral system currently in use to elect members of the Ontario Legislature, with the authority to recommend an alternative. In April, 2007, the Assembly decided to recommend that Ontario adopt a form of mixed member proportional representation (MMP). This option was chosen over the Assembly's runner-up option, Single Transferable Vote, by a vote of 75-25.

And this is what it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_member_proportional_representation

It's simple. Two votes are cast per person: one for a constituency candidate, and the other for a party. So it's a variant of proportional representation that attempts to synthesize fairness and local representation. I'd support it over FPTP any day.:)

[griftadan]

Could someone export this to the US please??

it works like this, if you're voting for parliament or whatever legislative body your country has, you vote once for whoever is running in your district that you like, and once for a party of your choice. the seats in the legislative body are divided up so that the winners of the district elections get some and the rest are divided up between the parties in proportion to the outcome of the proportional vote.

germany and japan have this i believe. the idea is to get a balance between diversity and expedience.

[Hababi]

Could someone export this to the US please??

California Republicans are trying to get something similar in their state, for the Presidential elections, and Democrats are balking and calling it anti-Democratic.
Proportional representation has its benefits, with a few tradeoffs...

[griftadan]

not the same thing really, there just trying to get california to split its electoral votes so that each electoral district won by a candidate gives a point to that candidate, as opposed to whoever winning the popular vote of the state getting all 55 or so electoral points. if anything it's more democratic, more states should do this.

[Hababi]

not the same thing really, there just trying to get california to split its electoral votes so that each electoral district won by a candidate gives a point to that candidate, as opposed to whoever winning the popular vote of the state getting all 55 or so electoral points. if anything it's more democratic, more states should do this.

Yeah, I don't see how it's not more democratic...but it'd be difficult for Democrats, who would then need to make up for the 10-15 seats, at least, that would go to Republicans in California. Plus a few in NY. They'd get a few in Virginia, North Carolina and a few other Southern states.

[lfantwister]

not the same thing really, there just trying to get california to split its electoral votes so that each electoral district won by a candidate gives a point to that candidate, as opposed to whoever winning the popular vote of the state getting all 55 or so electoral points. if anything it's more democratic, more states should do this.

This doesn't make any sense. We think that this indirectly-proportional thing is bad, so let's make more areas for it to cover. The best idea is clearly to abolish the electoral college and have a popular vote

[griftadan]

Yeah, I don't see how it's not more democratic...but it'd be difficult for Democrats, who would then need to make up for the 10-15 seats, at least, that would go to Republicans in California. Plus a few in NY. They'd get a few in Virginia, North Carolina and a few other Southern states.

the districts with bigger cities would be more likely to go blue

This doesn't make any sense. We think that this indirectly-proportional thing is bad, so let's make more areas for it to cover. The best idea is clearly to abolish the electoral college and have a popular vote

yeah that's the logical progression of the idea

[lfantwister]

yeah that's the logical progression of the idea

we should skip this middle step

[griftadan]

well we would have to amend the constitution as opposed to letting the states handle it, which would be difficult.

[lfantwister]

If that many states would impose this change anyway they might as well try to amend the constitution. This idea doesn't really fix anything; it's like a temporary fix

[Reaganista]

and then after the electoral college we can abolish the senate

[italic zero]

yes good idea

[Reaganista]

no really

[Smokey D]

Why should Wyoming have the same level of influence in the Senate as California, Texas or New York?

[italic zero]

no really
no i was serious too

[Danish]

The US has the highest "democratic deficit" in the industrialized world. The political system is so complicated and tainted with money.

In the US, they need to outlaw corporate contributions to campaigns. And they need to reign-in lobbyists.

[Reaganista]

Why should Wyoming have the same level of influence in the Senate as California, Texas or New York?
it shouldn't
no i was serious too
cool

[griftadan]

Why should Wyoming have the same level of influence in the Senate as California, Texas or New York?

it's a federal system it's not designed to maximise equal representation

The US has the highest "democratic deficit" in the industrialized world. The political system is so complicated and tainted with money.

In the US, they need to outlaw corporate contributions to campaigns. And they need to reign-in lobbyists.

as long as they do labor and other interest groups too

[Smokey D]

it's a federal system it's not designed to maximise equal representation

It doesn't need to be as unequal as it is, either.

Wyoming has 500 thousand people, California has 36 million, but they both have 2 senators. I don't see why rural interests should so predominate.

t shouldn't

Well, it does now.

[Danish]

as long as they do labor and other interest groups too

Labour needs to build their own party.

[lfantwister]

That won't ever work. America hates commies. It's in our constitution.

But really, any party that tries to absorb the labour interest group (since they are too small to form their own viable party) will take a few major points and marginalize the rest of the group's stance. If it's not mainstream it's not going to be effective

[CarnageFairy]

Could someone export this to the US please??

Good god yes.


The world can thank the electoral college for George W.

[pedro durruti]

as long as they do labor and other interest groups too
Well yes but if that were to happen I doubt labor would need to bargain for representation.
don't see why rural interests should so predominate.
Well they rarely do when Congress is passing legislation. The Senate has the privilege to represent the states and the people who produce them within their territories and is meant to prevent other states populations to encroach upon state rights. At least I think... I sold my American government textbook for $3.

[Smokey D]

Of course it does. Densely populated urban states receive the same representation in the Senate as sparsely populated rural states. There are 20 times the number of people in New York City alone as there are in Wyoming, but New York State and Wyoming have the same number of Senators. Hence, rural states (and therefore) interests have more power per person than urban states (and interests).

[griftadan]

It doesn't need to be as unequal as it is, either.

Wyoming has 500 thousand people, California has 36 million, but they both have 2 senators. I don't see why rural interests should so predominate.

the idea is to give smaller states leverage to maintain sovereignty, that's the point of federalism

[Smokey D]

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_democracy/v010/10.4stepan.html

[Reaganista]

Well, it does now.
really!!? This is news to me!!!!!
btw i have no idea what your problem is
the idea is to give smaller states leverage to maintain sovereignty, that's the point of federalism
actually the idea was to help states disenfranchise as many people as they pleased for as long as possible

[griftadan]

maybe, not too many people were allowed in that constitutional convention.

[Smokey D]

really!!? This is news to me!!!!!
btw i have no idea what your problem is


Rural interests receive more power per person than urban ones.

[Reaganista]

Rural interests receive more power per person than urban ones.
do you have any other shocking revelations!!!!!?

maybe, not too many people were allowed in that constitutional convention.
ya and most of the ones there thought it would be a bad idea to let women, blacks or nonlandowners vote

[recklessrick]

Anyway the loon looks better than it has in alongtime.

[Smokey D]

do you have any other shocking revelations!!!!!?

You asked what my problem was. I told you.

[Reaganista]

i meant what is your problem with anything ive said itt
since you just keep saying stuff ive said already as though it's contradictory

[Smokey D]

Nah, I have a problem with the way federal structures in the US give such preeminent concern to rural interests. If you were supporting it, then I had a problem with you, but you're wording was pretty ambiguous so I can't really tell what you're on about.

[Reaganista]

i was the one who suggested abolishing the senate ffs

[Smokey D]

I dunno. I can't tell with you. Your history of trolling makes confuses me.

[Danish]

*cough*

Referendum?

[Reaganista]

nobody cares about canada

[Danish]

nobody cares about canada

:amaze:

Ok, so referendum. Make sure you vote for MMP!

[Reaganista]

what are the odds of your vote counting

[Smokey D]

They're rather higher in MMP, so that's something.

[-1up!-]

*cough*

Referendum?

The only referendum I'm interested in is the next one which will ask me whether I want my nation to secede from Canada :p

But MMP for the win, though

[Iskandar]

I got my electoral junk today.

[Reaganista]

They're rather higher in MMP, so that's something.
comparatively high i guess
but what are the odds of your vote counting in the referendum

[Smokey D]

I don't know what they are to actually changing the law (since referenda aren't binding until the law goes through parliament), but each additional vote adds pressure one way or the other.

[Reaganista]

that makes the referendum completely pointless then

[Smokey D]

No. It makes it a tool to gauge public opinion, not write law by plebiscite.

[Reaganista]

like i said completely pointless they could conduct a random survey at any time if they wanted a to gauge public opinion that's the stupidest thing i ever heard

[lfantwister]

except public opinion polls dont instigate debate

[Smokey D]

like i said completely pointless they could conduct a random survey at any time if they wanted a to gauge public opinion that's the stupidest thing i ever heard

It's about engaging the community, maintaining the concept of government by the people and creating debate. Stop being stupid.

[Iskandar]

This referendum will decide if Ontario adopts a new electoral system or not, so it's clearly not pointless and Tway is just being a troll.

[Reaganista]

It's about engaging the community, maintaining the concept of government by the people and creating debate. Stop being stupid.
except the people's decision has no bearing on anything
thus it is pointless

[Reaganista]

This referendum will decide if Ontario adopts a new electoral system or not, so it's clearly not pointless and Tway is just being a troll.

actually according to smokey d it will decide absolutely nothing so it is pointless

and voting for anything is always pointless unless your side wins by one vote

[Iskandar]

actually according to smokey d it will decide absolutely nothing so it is pointless

and voting for anything is always pointless unless your side wins by one voteit will decide whether ontario will adopt a new electoral system or not can't you read

[Reaganista]

actually according to smokey d it will decide absolutely nothing so it is pointless

and voting for anything is always pointless unless your side wins by one vote
cant you read

[Smokey D]

Unless Canada has a wildly different parliamentary system to everywhere else, decisions made in referenda aren't laws until a bill is passed in parliament. But that doesn't mean they're useless, because parliament will abide by the decision, and it generates a lot of discussion etc. It is not an attempt to write the law by plebiscite, but to see where people stand on the issue.

and voting for anything is always pointless unless your side wins by one vote
cant you read

Seriously, game theory > this point.

[Iskandar]

As Parliament is indeed going to accept whatever decision the public make, this referendum is far from useless.