Politics

[c9]

Here's today's discussion topic: Political reform in Canada (federally).

First Item: In Canada, come April 2004, there will be 308 ridings across the country. Some have 27,000 people in them (Labrador, PEI x 4), while others have 126,000 people in them (Vancouver, Toronto, a couple others). 44% of Canada's population is represented by 37% of MPs. I think we should redistribute ridings more strictly according to population. Elections Canada is allowed to vary riding population by up to +/- 25% of the average or even more in extreme situations. Also, PEI has been guaranteed to never have fewer MPs than Senators (four), despite having only one riding's worth of population. In British Columbia, 22 of 36 ridings have populations above the national average (using a weighted Elections Canada formula). But not a single riding in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland meets the national average.

Would you accept Atlantic Canada losing seats (probably a good chunk of them) to more fairly represent the nation?

Second Item: our election system rewards the "first past the post" candidate, meaning that even though 60%+ might vote against a certain person or party, that person and party can still (and often do) gain power. Many suggest proportional representation, but that would mean that in your riding you might end up with a representative from a different party -- how would you distribute the representation?

(as an example: in the 2000 federal election, the NDP received 8.5% of the vote, but only 4.3% of the seats. The PCs received 12.2% of the vote, but only 4.0% of the seats.)

Would you accept a Christian Heritage MP (for example) if it meant that your pick (let's call them the "LiveJournalParty, or LJP") got it's fair share of seats instead of being shut out?

Comments

[nihilicious.livejournal.com]

(1)No.
(2)Yes.

Both of your discussion topics focus (intentionally?) on making the process more "democratic". In other words, each individual vote counts equally.

But I don't think that "democratic" is the only adjective to strive for here. While democracy is an ideal that is used to frame the system, it's unrealistic to think that we will actually have real, fleshy democracy in a system the size of ours. We already compromise pure democracy for the sake of administrative convenience, for example, by having a representative system.

I think whatever "democracy" we make work for us will have to reflect the realities of the Canadian political identity. And regional participation is part of that reality. The founding moment of Canada was a "Confederation." It is anti-Confederation, and therefore unCanadian, to suggest that Edmonton gets more voted than New Brunswick and PEI combined. To be sure, it's a compromise on democracy. But it's one we've chosen because of our unique Canadian situation.

With respect to first-past-the-post, however, I find that to be a compromise on democracy for no reason other than a sheer lack of imagination. There are ways to make proportional representation work, without sacrificing regional representation.

One suggestion is to have a hybrid, with first-pasters to represent (larger) regional chunks, and proportionals for the remainder. Another would be a requirement for each party to assign its reps in accordance with some regional assessment of their spread of the vote. Yet another idea would be to determine the total # per party using a proportional system, but fill the actual seats by assessing which names did best on the ballot in their region. There are ways to make it work.

I guess in the one case, I'd compromise in favour of regionalism, and in the other in favour of democracy.

Did I hear someone whisper "benevolent dictator?"

[c9.livejournal.com]

1. Regionalism certainly allows smaller regions to remain relevant, but as taxation shifts westward, and government need shifts eastward, is there any way to counter the inevitable "we're being ripped off out here in Alberta" feeling? Especially in the current situation: the Atlantic provinces are all chomping at the bit for "a new deal" from Ottawa. In the NL election, the Premier-elect is upset that a recent study of the Ottawa-NL relationship does not include a balance sheet. I would wager at least a nickel that the balance is NOT in the federal government's favour. Does the regionalism artificially inflate the power of one region, while punishing another? I agree that regionalism has benefits, but I worry that 127,000 versus 27,000 in a riding is too much of a gap.

2. I fear that any system that includes true proportiona representation, even partially, becomes too mathematically complex for Jean Voter to follow -- further reducing participation in the system.