From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 19:39:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.200854.26493@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.180742.5242@bnr.ca> alanw@bnr.ca writes:
>
>>The Canadian Parliamentary system wouldn't be that bad, if only we could crack
>>party discipline.
>
>Once again:  Proportional representation!  If a party gets 40% of the
>votes, they get 40% of the seats.  Period.  So no majority government
>unless a party gets more than 50% of the votes, which is unlikely even
>now, and would be even more unlikely in a proportional representation
>system (how many people favour the Green Party, for example, but vote
>PC or liberal because they feel voting Green would be throwing their
>vote away?  But with PropRep, 1% of the vote would get the Greens 2 or
>3 seats, so the vote WOULD count.)


Hear hear! I think it's frightening that a party could theoritcally
win 51% of the vote in every riding, and get 100% of the seats. That
doesn't happen, but parties often get 40% or so of the vote, and get
a solid majority government (Like Harcourt here in BC. He gets 40 something
per cent, and he struts around as if God himself (herself?) appointed him!)

I don't think proportional by party is a very good idea though, but maybe
it's the lesser evil. Federal parties are held together on common issues
(left, right etc.) that people all over Canada can get into one camp or
the other. But what about regional parties? A party might have strong
following in one region, but not nationally. So proportional party rep.
could dilute local votes. If a party gets 50% nationally, they shouldn't
get 50% of seats in a province that didn't vote at all for them. If everyone
in Newfoundland votes for the Fiddle&Jig party, all the Newfie seats should
go to that party; nationally, the party might have too small a prop. to
count. 

What I don't like about prop. party rep. is who becomes your MP?
Will the electoral process divide them fairly among the candidates,
or will party cronies get hand the seats out according to their proportion.

I like my idea for proportional representation. I justify it this way:
my vote is like a share in a company, although one I can't sell or
acquire more than one. Any shareholder can go to a general meeting and
nominate directors etc. 

I think an MP or MLA should be a proxy for MY vote, not a party's agenda.
An MP in parliament should be a proportional MP. It sounds funny to have
1/2 an MP, but it makes sense, at least in a purely democratic way. If
a candidate gets 25,000 votes, that person should be able to go to 
parliament as proxy for those 25,000 people. When voting, they would get up
and  say "the 25,000 votes I represent are cast for ..." This would mean 
more people in parliament, but not realy any more money: an MP would get
paid according to his clout. Someone with a few hundred votes might
get a few bucks tops. 

Unwieldy, but more fair. Now 30% vote for one party, 30% for another, and
the one with 40% gets the seat in parliament. In the actual parliament,
the majority govt. will ignore everyone else. The opposition parties,
which are the last chance for the other voters will get ignored. Some
democracy.

>
>The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr
>This has been a paid broadcast by the Rhealist Party of Canada
>   Electoral Platform, Point 1:  Abolish suits and ties!


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  Just another "Enemy of Canada"
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  Say NO/NON to Constitutional
 Electrical Engineering                 |  hegomony and fear-mongering
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca                     |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada