jmlang@water.UUCP (10/14/87)
Well New Brunswick has done it again. It looks like there is NO OPPOSITION at the provincial legislature (there could be an opposition of one, a PC candidate lost by only 25 votes: there will be a recount in that riding). My question is, how does a democratically elected government does its work properly without an opposition? Will the media become the opposition? Should they? (Especially in New Brunswick where the English language media belong almost entirely to Irving) -- Je'ro^me M. Lang || jmlang@water.bitnet jmlang@water.uucp Dept of Applied Math || jmlang%water@waterloo.csnet U of Waterloo || jmlang%water%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
acton@ubc-anchor.UUCP (10/15/87)
In article <1168@water.waterloo.edu> jmlang@water.waterloo.edu (Jerome M Lang) writes: }Well New Brunswick has done it again. It looks like there is NO OPPOSITION }at the provincial legislature }My question is, how does a democratically elected government does its }work properly without an opposition? To me this demonstrates one of the major problems of the party system in Canada and that is if you don't follow the party line your life, in the political sense, becomes miserable. It is my opinion that individual MPs, MLAs etc. should be able to speak out against the party line without fear of being banished to the political boondocks for the next millennium. (Witness the recent fall from grace of the NDP's Ian Waddell and several Liberals for their stand on the Meech Lake accord.) When one joins a political party they do so because they agree with the fundamental philosophy of the that party. It is very hard to believe that an individual (not a sheep) could agree with 100% of a party's policies. Likewise in an election sweep like this it is hard to believe 100% of the Liberal policies are preferred over those of the Conservatives and NDP by the people. Instead I am inclined to believe that the electorate preferred more of the Liberal party's policies. It therefore becomes the responsibility of the elected Liberal's who don't agree with specific policies to express their dissenting opinions and in effect act as the opposition. It is too bad that the present party system so strongly discourages such action. Donald Acton
smithsco@utflis.UUCP (10/16/87)
In article <1665@ubc-cs.UUCP> acton@ubc-csgrad.UUCP (Donald Acton) writes: # In article <1168@water.waterloo.edu> jmlang@water.waterloo.edu (Jerome M Lang) writes: # }Well New Brunswick has done it again. It looks like there is NO OPPOSITION # }at the provincial legislature # }My question is, how does a democratically elected government does its # }work properly without an opposition? # # To me this demonstrates one of the major problems of the party system in # Canada and that is if you don't follow the party line your life, in the # political sense, becomes miserable. It is my opinion that individual MPs, # MLAs etc. should be able to speak out against the party line without fear # of being banished to the political boondocks for the next millennium. (Witness # the recent fall from grace of the NDP's Ian Waddell and several Liberals # for their stand on the Meech Lake accord.) When one joins a political party # they do so because they agree with the fundamental philosophy of the that # party. It is very hard to believe that an individual (not a sheep) # could agree with 100% of a party's policies. Likewise in an election sweep # like this it is hard to believe 100% of the Liberal policies are preferred # over those of the Conservatives and NDP by the people. Instead I am inclined # to believe that the electorate preferred more of the Liberal party's policies. # It therefore becomes the responsibility of the elected Liberal's who # don't agree with specific policies to express their dissenting opinions # and in effect act as the opposition. It is too bad that the present party # system so strongly discourages such action. # # Donald Acton Just think what this will mean for Question Period!! Scott Smith. -- UUCP: {{allegra,ihnp4}!{utcsri,utgpu}}!lsuc!utflis!smithsco OR: smithsco@flis.toronto.edu [for domainists] BITNET: smithsco@utflis.utoronto BELL-TALK: (416)791-4929
brad@looking.UUCP (10/18/87)
This demonstrates the problem with the idea of representative democracy. While the popular vote total for the NB Liberals (and the Federal Tories) was quite high, it doesn't justify a "packed house" as you might say. I think the NP Grit PV was around 65%, which is to say that 35% of the population voted against the government, something the house doesn't show. There's a strong case that any group that gets even a few percent of the vote (Libertarians, Greens, Rhinoserous etc.) deserves *some* voice in parliament. That a group with 35% gets no voice is silly. The representative system (as opposed to dividing the house by P.V.) eliminates minor voices, and causes MPs to overstress local issues to the point that they will support a local pork barrel to the detriment of the nation. It also means, if you elect an opposition MP, that many riding's interests don't get brought up at government caucus meetings. On the other hand, the concept of having somebody who is *your* representative is very valuable. It's important that you have an identifiable individual to whom you can bring political matters. We would feel even more distant from the government otherwise. Perhaps a compromise is the answer. This would involve sweeping constitutional reform. The Senate is the obvious place, but unfortunately the current ideas all talk about making the senate an even MORE regional body. I would like a system with two bodies, one representative, regional and less partisan -- the other partisan, national and divided by popular vote. (Which should be more powerful? I'm not sure) The PV house would be elected. Any partisan group could stand as a party in an election. Those that meet some special criteria (names on a petition?) would be listed on a special PV ballot that would be the same in all polls. There would be a write-in space for groups not meeting the criteria. (The above is soley to keep the ballot simple.) After the election, PV would be tallied for each group. Assume a house of 100 members for simplicity. A group with 35% of the vote would get to name 35 members to that house, from their own pre-selected hierarchy. After all integer portions are taken care of by parties with 1% or greater of the vote, the remaining fractional percentages (and parties with <1%) would be sorted in order, and remaining seats would be assigned. It might be worth investigating a division of powers based on policy areas. For example, foreign policy would be best done by the national, partisan house, while many regional domestic issues would be done by the regional house. There's a lot more to be worked out here, but I think that this would be better than the proposed EEE Senate. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
pkern@utcsri.UUCP (10/18/87)
In article <1051@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > [ ... ] > >I think the NB Grit PV was around 65%, which is to say that 35% of the >population voted against the government, something the house doesn't show. Seems there was also a very low voter turnout. >There's a strong case that any group that gets even a few percent of the >vote (Libertarians, Greens, Rhinoserous etc.) deserves *some* voice in >parliament. That a group with 35% gets no voice is silly. > >The representative system (as opposed to dividing the house by P.V.) >eliminates minor voices, and causes MPs to overstress local issues to >the point that they will support a local pork barrel to the detriment of >the nation. It also means, if you elect an opposition MP, that many >riding's interests don't get brought up at government caucus meetings. > >On the other hand, the concept of having somebody who is *your* >representative is very valuable. It's important that you have an >identifiable individual to whom you can bring political matters. >We would feel even more distant from the government otherwise. > >Perhaps a compromise is the answer. This would involve sweeping >constitutional reform. The Senate is the obvious place, but unfortunately >the current ideas all talk about making the senate an even MORE regional >body. > >I would like a system with two bodies, one representative, regional and >less partisan -- the other partisan, national and divided by popular vote. A while back there was a column in the Globe and Mail's OppEd page which suggested having by-elections in different ridings every day (or whatever period is feasible) instead of a single mass election every 4-5 years. This way voters could express their opinion of government performance (or non-performance) and have a real effect on the governing party's tally. Instead of having sudden dramatic changes (such as going from a Tory majority to a complete Grit rout in one night) the changes would "flow" giving a real idea of trends and of the mood and "will of the people." Implementing this would also require drastic constitutional reform. What might be a better idea would be to have such running by-elections (after a suitable cool-off period, eg. 1 year) after a main election gives a party with an overwhelming majority (eg. better than 3 to 1) . The cool-off period would give the new gov't a chance to either perform well or fall flat. The by-elections would have to be in the ruling party's ridings. The ridings would be chosen according to the percentage of voter turnout in the last major election (eg. start in the ridings with the worst turnout). A by-election's result would be invalid if there is less than a 50% turnout (ie. riding's incumbent stays). The by-elections would stop if the majority drops below some lower bound (eg. N seats above minority) As you might have guessed, I'm not a fan of large majorities. Especially when they seem to come from "counter-voting", ie. voting for one party just to vote against the other party. And especially with the kinds of voter turnouts that have been occuring lately (ie. less than 35% (?!) of registered voters (which accounts for what %-age of elligible voters?)) -- P. Kern "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture" - Martin Mull
rbutterworth@orchid.UUCP (10/18/87)
The republic of Singapore has had a similar problem for the last 25 years or so. Although they do not have a one-party political system, the ruling party consistently won every single seat in the national legislature. They finally changed their constitution so that if the opposition parties do not elect at least 3 representatives, those seats will be filled by the opposition candidates that received the greatest percentage of the popular vote, providing that this percentage is at least fifteen. I think (but could be misremembering) that in at least one recent election only one of these three seats could be filled because no other opposition candidate received the necessary fifteen percent of the popular vote. Singapore has very little agriculture, virtually no natural resources, and not 2 but 4 official languages, yet it has an extremely stable and popular government and is one of the richest countries in the western Pacific. Their success depends to a large extent on free international trade, but it has cost them any hope of having any significant form of domestic arts or culture. Our own government seems ready to abandon domestic arts and culture, in the name of free trade, but I doubt very much that it will bring about the same degree of industrial prosperity, and I'm certain that it won't bring about the same degree of government popularity.
tmtimar@orchid.UUCP (10/19/87)
Allowing a house to be based on popular vote is a nice idea, however I
feel that the senate should be elected based on profession. This would
allow every person to be represented twice, once by a regional member,
and once by a member of his/her profession.
It seems likely that many professions do not get adequate representation
because disproportionately many members of the house are lawyers. This
system would allow people to choose how to classify their professions,
as almost noone would fit exactly into any single group. Thus, it could
be set up so that 25% of the seats in this house would be elected based
on the popular vote people who don't fit into the other groups at all.
I am also interested in knowing whether discussions like this are purely
academic or whether any similar discussion has ever led to any real
results.
- Ted Timar
...!watmath!orchid!tmtimar (Usenet)
tmtimar@watdcs (BITNET/NETNORTH)
tmtimar@orchid.waterloo (Pretty well everything else)jimr@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (10/23/87)
In article <1051@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >After the election, PV would be tallied for each group. >Assume a house of 100 members for simplicity. A group with 35% of the vote >would get to name 35 members to that house, from their own pre-selected >hierarchy. After all integer portions are taken care of by parties with >1% or greater of the vote, the remaining fractional percentages (and parties >with <1%) would be sorted in order, and remaining seats would be assigned. What seems to me to be a reasonable compromise is to have a threshold which a party has to reach in order to qualify for seats. In West Germany 5% is required. That way extreme fringe and/or frivolous groups are excluded, yet proportional representation is, for the most part, achieved. J.B. Robinson
brad@looking.UUCP (10/26/87)
In article <2885@hcr.UUCP> jimr@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >What seems to me to be a reasonable compromise is to have a threshold >which a party has to reach in order to qualify for seats. In West >Germany 5% is required. That way extreme fringe and/or frivolous groups >are excluded, yet proportional representation is, for the most part, >achieved. > >J.B. Robinson Why so high? With 25,000,000 people, a party with 2% of the vote would represent 500,000 people (around 200,000 voters). This is hardly what I would call "extreme fringe." Would even 125,000 people be an "extreme fringe" at .5 %. To suggest that anything less than 1,250,000 people is fringe or frivolous is silly. Minority viewpoint deserves serious attention in this country. If 1% of the population voted rhino, they deserve 2 seats in our 263 seat house. The fact that some people find our political system silly should not be squashed. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473