Bc Will Have Second Referendum On Stv

[Bizud]

Whether change should come at a moderate pace or overnight should be up to the voters, and proportional representation allows them to express their will. You'll get no argument about stability from me, but you still haven't demonstrated that PR leads to instability. True, there are some cases (Israel) where it seems to have bred instability and a fractured parliament, but there are also cases where our system has done the exact same (India).

[Matt]

However, our system works well here and we should keep it. It has allowed our country to be run well for many years, so we should keep it.

[Bizud]

That's not enough. The status quo is not self-justifying. You have to argue why FPTP is better than PR systems.

[Matt]

Our system is better, all you do is say I haven't argued it when I have stated why it's better. It's because it allows good government to take place.

[Bizud]

Groan.

 

Why do systems like MMP and STV not allow for good government? Demonstrate. Be specific. Give examples.

[Matt]

Because for the most part our current system has most of its parties on the far right or far left, with the Liberals in the middle, it wouldn't work well. Our current system provides more stability.

[Bizud]

Maybe, maybe not. It sure isn't providing the type of stability you're talking about in India, and it sure didn't provide stability in 2004. Nor has PR made for unstable politics in Norway, Scotland, Spain, Hungary, or even Germany, where, despite initial overreactions, it's looking increasingly like a stable coalition will be formed that will last the full parliamentary term.

 

I still don't understand how the left-right positioning of the parties has anything to do with the suitability of an electoral system.

 

You have repeatedly argued that proportional representation creates instability. Explain how this is the case.

Edited September 26, 2005 by Bizud

[Matt]

It has provided instability in countries like Israel and Germany. Canada has minority governments from time to time that are instable, but we always go back to having a stable government in time when one party forms the majority.

[Bizud]

We also had minority governments under Pearson and Diefenbaker that are commonly ranked among the best in Canadian history. They certainly didn't have any problems getting things done. The fact is that coalition government is inherently better than single-party government. When the government is composed of multiple parties they can keep each other in check - any government is at its best when it doesn't have a fixed mandate. When a government is composed of a single party, strong party discipline (or even not that strong party discipline) will enable it to have no serious difficulty maintaining the confidence of the house, which means the government can take for granted that it won't be defeated before the parliamentary term is up, which means it's only really accountable at election time. More importantly, it's democratic. It is profoundly undemocratic for one party to get all the power with a third of the votes, which happens in plurality systems like ours all the time, and it's profoundly undemocratic for one party to "win" the election when another party wins more votes (as in BC in 1996), which is another not uncommon occurance in two-party FPTP systems.

 

I'll grant you Israel, which has a very fractured parliament because they have no electoral threshold and a peculiar political culture. Germany, though, you're gonna have to elaborate. It's not enough to just list a few places that use proportional electoral systems that have experience instability. You know, I could do that with first past the post. You have to actually explain how proportional representation contributes to instability in, say, Germany, and I'm really hoping you don't pull the Nazi card (or the Italy card), because that's just too easy to refute.

Edited September 26, 2005 by Bizud

[ecnarf]

Your vote does count because if you vote for such and such and other people see such and such doing better they are more likely to vote for such and such if they like such and such as well. Change comes at a moderate pace it should not come overnight. Overnight leaves more room for mistakes to happen which is why our system works. Stability also makes more sense because that means people don't have to worry so much about what the government will do, they can let the government do it's job and if they are upset and make a bad decision people can voice their opinion.

You'd make Burke proud, kid.

[Cherry Poppin' Daddy]

But Matt, if there's a majority government, then change CAN come overnight... thus completely undermining your argument.

[Matt]

Having a fixed mandate though gives parties time to develop bills properly before introducing them rather than having them be pushed through. The 1996 election though is a good example for my argument because the Liberals still were able to turn the situation around for them, and they did much better, obvisouly the anti-NDP situation helped, but they still managed to hold onto a majority despite people warming back up to them again, obvisouly they managed to capture more voters in key ridings to the point where they won the election.

[Bizud]

That doesn't make any sense.

[Cherry Poppin' Daddy]

The level of trust Matt has in the government is scary.

[Matt]

The government wants to be re-elected, so they generally go with the will of the people.

[Bizud]

Yeah, but with our system they can be re-elected without the support of a majority of the people!

[Matt]

But they are re-elected with the support of the people. It makes more sense to have a system in which order can happen, like in ours. It works best for our country, so we should keep our current system.

[TheKwas]

Really?

 

When was the last time the Liberals got more than 50% of the votes?

[Matt]

So what, the Conservatives and the other parties have less support, thus the Liberals should form the majority in the interest of keeping order.

Edited October 2, 2005 by Matt

[Bizud]

The Liberals don't have the support of a majority of Canadians. By what right do they claim a mandate to govern us? Our voting system gives them that mandate, but the voters sure don't. The voting system does not reflect the will of the electorate. It should be replaced with one that better reflects that will.

 

Oh yeah, and you insist that single-party majority government is the only way to "maintain order," but have yet to explain how.

[Matt]

I have explained how, we have too many parties that go too far to one side or another to ever be able to get along well enough to govern us.

Edited October 3, 2005 by Matt

[TheKwas]

Name an example.

[Matt]

Last spring. It was impossible on many occasions for the government to actually accomplish much if anything.

[Cherry Poppin' Daddy]

You're clearly in love with the Liberal Party and will blindly defend the electoral system that keeps it in power.

[Bizud]

Last spring.

 

You mean when PR would have delivered the Liberals + NDP a workable combined majority? Yeah, they would have either worked together or else the government would have fallen, which wouldn't have been the end of the world. I have absolute confidence that politicians and parties can work together. It's just that in our electoral system, it's often not in their interest to. They treat minority governments as an inconclusive result (Stephen Harper: "The battle is not won or lost until someone wins a majority."), so they play for time until they can win a majority and get on with what they were doing before. If the Liberals knew they'd probably never win another majority government they'd change their tune very quickly indeed, as the examples provided by the rest of the world have demonstrated. Matt thinks Canadian politics are too polarized for PR to work? That's garbage, we just have politicians that have no need to cooperate. So they don't.