Representative government, means that the elected member is responsible to a group of people. First post the post is no by any means a perfect system, but in my opinion there is only one system better, the one that cross section of British Columbians came up with after approximately one year. That was the BCSTV. This had a number of representatives elected for a larger constituency. They are ranked by voters and voters then have the ability to pit the candidates against each other while trying to get the highest popularity, under threat that they will be downgraded if they do not satisfy the majority of their constituents. This puts more power in the hands of the constituents, and less in the hands of the party.
Marco - 7 years ago
The bottom line is that if you're for FPTP you don't believe in democracy and you should be happy that Liberals are in power with less then 40% of the votes.
Our system is of elections and indeed our political culture is deeply broken and only some form of PR can fix it. Elections aren't hockey games were you cheer on your team alone, there is only one team and we're all on it, and all of our voice need to be respected equally not just those who voted for the government.
Mike Leney - 7 years ago
Many times we Canadians vote for a party to keep out another. If one votes with the party they believe in (say the Greens) their vote counts for nothing (even if they get 8-10% of the popular vote). Then we get governments that get 100% power with less than 40% of the popular vote (meaning 60% of Canada DID NOT WANT THEM). This is not democracy. This is not representing the people of Canada. Yes PR will pretty much eliminate majority governments...but maybe we`ll finally see politicians working together and bringing out the best ideas instead of one point of view that changes every 4-8 years.
Sandy - 7 years ago
Clinton did not convincingly win the popular vote! Since when is a 1% difference convincing? That's what Clinton supporters say to make themselves feel better. Just look at the map, geographically she was in deep trouble. Whether you like it or not, that is the way the vote went and I think it shows that the system works. If she had won with only concentrated pockets of the country for her, how would that have been fair?
Eric - 7 years ago
Arguments that FPTP is more stable are false and evidence doesn't support this view across the overwhelming majority of countries with some form of PR. When compared to most OECD countries with PR, Canada has had more elections in the last 100 years. So stop spreading lies John Leefe.
Also, I'm tired of this local representation argument. Since when is the federal government passing laws that benefit YOUR particular riding? And if your request to your local MP goes against party values/lines it's not happening. So having a local MP is pointless.
If you want local government that's what provincial and municipal elections are for.
John Leefe - 7 years ago
First Past the Post is most likely to allow stable government. For those who prefer other systems, look at the US where Clinton convincingly won the popular vote, but lost in the Electoral College. Look at Belgium and Spain where it took many months of political wrangling after an elections before new governmens were formed. Look at Israel where the government's has to bow to extreme right wing religious parties to stay in power. Consider that systems other than FPTP encourage creation of special interest political parties with narrow agenda which, in a fractious minority parliament, could have powerful influence on a minority government (think fundamentalists in any religion). FPTP let's us elect our MPs. The winner may not be our candidate of choice, but he or she is still "our" MP. Would we rather have a system whereby substantial MPS are selected by political parties instead of by the voters? Is an MP selected in such a system any better than a party appointed senator? No matter it's warts, the current system provides greater assurance of stable, centrist government than we see in other s ystems.
We need to form a republic immediately and have three levels of government elected Senate and the Congress Get rid of the British occupation army and get a federal police force do away with predominantly English names and change them or to indigenous and multicultural that truly represents our country today. We have to stop the genocide of the indigenous people immediately.And start building a second layered country with a firm national self-sufficient plan.
Bob Haynes - 7 years ago
Change for the sake of change? How will a new system provide more benefit to Canadians than the traditional one
Representative government, means that the elected member is responsible to a group of people. First post the post is no by any means a perfect system, but in my opinion there is only one system better, the one that cross section of British Columbians came up with after approximately one year. That was the BCSTV. This had a number of representatives elected for a larger constituency. They are ranked by voters and voters then have the ability to pit the candidates against each other while trying to get the highest popularity, under threat that they will be downgraded if they do not satisfy the majority of their constituents. This puts more power in the hands of the constituents, and less in the hands of the party.
The bottom line is that if you're for FPTP you don't believe in democracy and you should be happy that Liberals are in power with less then 40% of the votes.
Our system is of elections and indeed our political culture is deeply broken and only some form of PR can fix it. Elections aren't hockey games were you cheer on your team alone, there is only one team and we're all on it, and all of our voice need to be respected equally not just those who voted for the government.
Many times we Canadians vote for a party to keep out another. If one votes with the party they believe in (say the Greens) their vote counts for nothing (even if they get 8-10% of the popular vote). Then we get governments that get 100% power with less than 40% of the popular vote (meaning 60% of Canada DID NOT WANT THEM). This is not democracy. This is not representing the people of Canada. Yes PR will pretty much eliminate majority governments...but maybe we`ll finally see politicians working together and bringing out the best ideas instead of one point of view that changes every 4-8 years.
Clinton did not convincingly win the popular vote! Since when is a 1% difference convincing? That's what Clinton supporters say to make themselves feel better. Just look at the map, geographically she was in deep trouble. Whether you like it or not, that is the way the vote went and I think it shows that the system works. If she had won with only concentrated pockets of the country for her, how would that have been fair?
Arguments that FPTP is more stable are false and evidence doesn't support this view across the overwhelming majority of countries with some form of PR. When compared to most OECD countries with PR, Canada has had more elections in the last 100 years. So stop spreading lies John Leefe.
Also, I'm tired of this local representation argument. Since when is the federal government passing laws that benefit YOUR particular riding? And if your request to your local MP goes against party values/lines it's not happening. So having a local MP is pointless.
If you want local government that's what provincial and municipal elections are for.
First Past the Post is most likely to allow stable government. For those who prefer other systems, look at the US where Clinton convincingly won the popular vote, but lost in the Electoral College. Look at Belgium and Spain where it took many months of political wrangling after an elections before new governmens were formed. Look at Israel where the government's has to bow to extreme right wing religious parties to stay in power. Consider that systems other than FPTP encourage creation of special interest political parties with narrow agenda which, in a fractious minority parliament, could have powerful influence on a minority government (think fundamentalists in any religion). FPTP let's us elect our MPs. The winner may not be our candidate of choice, but he or she is still "our" MP. Would we rather have a system whereby substantial MPS are selected by political parties instead of by the voters? Is an MP selected in such a system any better than a party appointed senator? No matter it's warts, the current system provides greater assurance of stable, centrist government than we see in other s ystems.
We need to form a republic immediately and have three levels of government elected Senate and the Congress Get rid of the British occupation army and get a federal police force do away with predominantly English names and change them or to indigenous and multicultural that truly represents our country today. We have to stop the genocide of the indigenous people immediately.And start building a second layered country with a firm national self-sufficient plan.
Change for the sake of change? How will a new system provide more benefit to Canadians than the traditional one