![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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?
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?
