Canadian Republicanism

[ecnarf]

Ugh, an awful thought. Would Camilla Parker Bowles ever make it on to the money? I know it's unlikely, I only ask becasue of the recent press regarding the possibilities of her becoming queen after all. Looks like it might happen. I'd like to see Charles decide to forgo the crown and give it to his kid, maybe that would spur back some of the interest people had in the monarchy 30 years ago.

Charles, not Camilla, would be the "ruling" monarch.

 

Hopefully he dies before the Queen goes. I wanna see Andrew on our money. He's dreamy. *sigh*

[Matt]

Why do things need to be passed faster? Isn't the point of the process to scrutinize what's trying to be put through? Over-night bills are not something to shoot for.

I said I'm not aiming to see over night bills. I said I don't want extremely long waits though either.

[Bizud]

STV is a flawed system, far more than our system of goverence. It slows down the government which infinitely means it takes more time to pass anything. That is not acceptable, the government also has a duty to pass bills in a timely matter. Because our government takes three votes before it passes any bills, it means that overnight bills really cannot be passed what so ever either. Our system runs at the right pace.

 

Provide evidence, not speculation, that proportional representation and minority/coalition governments would slow down the pace of government.

[Matt]

Nazi Germany. Or you could look at just how different some of Canada's parties are. They seem to all disagree with each other so it's unlikely they will work together.

Edited April 2, 2005 by Matt

[Munk]

[Bizud]

Nazi Germany. Or you could look at just how different some of Canada's parties are. They seem to all disagree with each other so it's unlikely they will work together.

That's not evidence, that's speculation. I specifically said "evidence, not speculation." And other than that, you give "Nazi Germany." Great, one example which ignores:

 

-The many jurisdictions, including modern Germany, (and Scotland, Ireland, Malta, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, etc.) which use proportional representation electoral systems and have not degenerated into "nazism."

-Whatever criticisms you could make of Nazi germany, "acting too slowly" is not one of them.

 

Boggles.

[Matt]

Please, proportional representation is nothing more than smaller minority parties trying to exploit people for more power by offering worse representation.

[Bizud]

I guess that explains why it's used in Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Ireland, Poland, Spain, Portugal, Finland (almost every country in Europe, actually, you get my drift - France and the UK are the only ones I can think of that don't use PR nationally, and even within the UK, PR systems are used in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales), New Zealand, and so on and so forth. Note, there is no significant electoral reform movement, to my knowledge, in place in any PR country to change to a first-past-the-post system. Wonder why?

 

Oh, and thanks for the evidence, MAtt, it makes it so much clearer!

[Matt]

Really just because some countries in Europe have it does not mean we have to have it. Quite frankly our system works best, and there's obvisouly a movement against Proportional Representation, considering they have voted before on whether or not to keep it.

[Bizud]

Oh, you mean in one country, where the "movement" was initiated by the government and rejected by the voters?

 

The "some countries in Europe" you're referring to are "all of them except three" (to my knowledge, only France, the UK, and Belarus - hardly a democracy - use non-proportional systems).

 

You've made claims of the disadvantages inherent in PR systems, and have yet to provide a shred of evidence to support them. Chief among them are the claims that PR slows down the pace of government and empowers fringe parties. Has this happened in Denmark, Germany (in the past 50 years, just in case you try to bring up the idiotic Nazi example), Austria, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Finland, etc? The answer is quite simply, no, it hasn't, but I'd be delighted to hear you argue that it has.

 

You have nothing but baseless assertions, as usual.

Edited April 4, 2005 by Bizud

[Matt]

Fringe parties, eh? Like the Marijuana Party? Coalitions do not work, because then no one can pass anything controversial. It is a grab for more power though, that's why the N.D.P. is pushing it forward. Before you say it is not a grab for power, then why did their leader, Jack Layton, ask Prime Minister Paul Martin for a cabinet position after the last election? He is trying his hardest to give the N.D.P. more power at the expense of the country. Everyone wants to insult the Liberals, but they have done a good job, they balanced the budget, they have made some good calls, such as no to Missile Defence, and the Iraq war.

[Bizud]

Coalitions work in most countries; why not ours?

 

If the Liberals have done such a great job, why do the majority of Canadians continue to vote against them?

[wonks]

does anyone else remember the old Union government under Sir Robert Borden? That seemed to work just fine during the First World War.

[Bizud]

Coalitions are the norm in modern democracies. Canada, Britain, and the US are a bunch of straglers in this respect. There's absolutely no reason a coalition government can't be stable and efficient. Look at New Zealand, which used our electoral system until 1996; some people there were afraid that coalitions and minorities would never be able to get anything done, but those fears have proven totally baseless. The current governing Labour/Progressive coalition doesn't even have a combined majority in the house; they have to rely on support from other parties, mostly the Greens and the centrist United Future party, to pass various bills. And it's working just fine.

Edited April 4, 2005 by Bizud

[Matt]

Coalitions work in most countries; why not ours?

 

If the Liberals have done such a great job, why do the majority of Canadians continue to vote against them?

There's several more parties now, it's no longer a two party system. But, that does not change the fact that coalitions do not work. Look at Israel, they take hardliner stances because to pass bills, generally you need the support of hardliner parties so harsh stances are taken because of it. STV does not work because it gives half a vote to the Liberals because they have more votes and a full vote to a fringe party which does not work because that is not proportional representation.

[Bizud]

To say that coalitions do not work is just patently false; they work for most democracies.

 

Look at Israel, they take hardliner stances because to pass bills, generally you need the support of hardliner parties so harsh stances are taken because of it.

 

Finally, something worthwhile to talk about. Israel has no threshold, I agree, it's a problem. You win .5% of the votes, you win .5% of the seats - this means you get a lot of 1 and 2 seat parties. This can be easily avoided with threshold requirements, which most PR systems use. New Zealand has a threshold of 5% - to be considered for additional list seats (the seats that are added to a party's seat count to bring their seat percentage up to their vote percentage), a party must receive either 5% of the votes or at least one constituency seat. Does it work? Yes. Countries with this kind of threshold do not experience the same problems that Israel's political system does.

 

STV does not work because it gives half a vote to the Liberals because they have more votes and a full vote to a fringe party which does not work because that is not proportional representation.

 

I don't even know what you're saying here. Every vote in STV has the same value, some votes are just split. Each single vote is transferable. Get it? Somehow I doubt it. I don't even know what you're talking about; fringe parties, what? Consider the two countries which use it: No fringe parties (except maybe Sinn Fein, which I wouldn't call a fringe party given their level of support) have any seats in Ireland, and Malta basically has a two-party system. As for its proportionality, that depends on the district magnitude; the more members per district, the more proportional it is. Elections in Ireland have been shown to produce parliaments that are actually pretty close to proportional to the votes.

Edited April 5, 2005 by Bizud

[Matt]

I like how you avoided Layton's request to the P.M. Also once you have so many votes they half them and so forth, and send your vote to someone else.

[Bizud]

I'm a poli sci student, I know how STV works. I wrote an explanation of it on Matt Good's blog a while back.

 

As for Layton's request to the PM, I can't see how it's relevant. Jack Layton asked Paul Martin if he'd be interested in a coalition; Martin said no thanks. What's the problem here? Is it just another "coalitions are bad, Jack Layton shouldn't have the audacity to ask to be part of a coalition?"

 

The fact is, coalition governments are the norm in most western democracies. Canada had a coalition government during the first world war, as did Britain. To say they can't work is just idiotic, there's so much evidence to refute this it's hard to know where to begin.

[Matt]

No, Layton asked for a Cabinet position, big difference. Martin refused on the grounds that this is not a coalition govenment, but Layton asked for power basically. People work together when they have to, like the European Union. But it takes a lot to make them to have to work together. Europe had to be basically destroyed before they did. Canada, risked much by going to war so everyone backed the government. But the truth of the matter is there would be little reason for people to work together in these times, considering Canada is doing better in the last year.

[Bizud]

No, Layton asked for a Cabinet position, big difference. Martin refused on the grounds that this is not a coalition govenment, but Layton asked for power basically.

 

Actually, no difference. Do your homework; a coalition is when the government (cabinet) is composed of MPs from more than one party. That's what "coalition government" means, period.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_government

 

People work together when they have to, like the European Union. But it takes a lot to make them to have to work together. Europe had to be basically destroyed before they did. Canada, risked much by going to war so everyone backed the government. But the truth of the matter is there would be little reason for people to work together in these times, considering Canada is doing better in the last year.

 

It's not hard at all for people to work together. We're not talking about confederalism here, we're talking about multiple parties within the same country working together. It's obviously possible, it happens all the time, just not in Canada - but there's no reason that has to be the case. It's hardly exclusive to continental Europe - look at the New Zealand example. Or Britain or Canada during the first world war. If Labour, Liberal, and Conservative ministers can sit at the same table and govern the country together during wartime, they can certainly do it in peacetime.

 

But you're right, people work together when they have to. So let's change the electoral system so that they'll have to, and then they'll be able to. Right?

Edited April 5, 2005 by Bizud

[Matt]

No they will not have to work together actually, look at the current Liberal government.

[wonks]

No they will not have to work together actually, look at the current Liberal government.

you mean the minority government that needs to work with other parties in the house to get bills passed? yeah, they can't work together can they...

 

also, I feel I should bring up the fact that Mackenzie King was able to lead a minority government for four years...

 

edit: oh, and before you bring up the current budget problems, they seem to have been worked out. at least for now. the liberals have agreed to drop the 'Kyoto' wording.

Edited April 6, 2005 by wonks

[Bizud]

No they will not have to work together actually, look at the current Liberal government.

I don't care either way, minorities and coalitions are both far preferable to majorities, because they make the cabinet actually responsible to the Parliament.

[Matt]

The Cabinet is still responisible, if a government is really that bad they will be voted out.

[ecnarf]

Yeah, but if there's a majority, how will they be voted out? In five years time by voters? That's no democracy.