[can.politics] The non-interference society ... and govt responsibility

haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (08/22/84)

<.^.>

Henry says:

> You want comments, you get comments...
> 
>> .....................the government must answer for its actions later,
>> at election time...
> 
> Oh really?  When our choice is between Tweedledee, Tweedledum, and poor
> old Ed Broadbent who has no real chance of ever getting in?  Canadian
> elections provide essentially *no* meaningful input to the government.

Now this is a problem with the Canadian (and the U.S.) parliamentary
system.  From each riding, only one candidate is elected.  Hence, to
get *any* seats in the commons, you must get the most votes in some
riding.  Therefore, minor parties (Libertarians, Rhinos, Greens,
Communists) will never get into the parliament.  Also, nobody but the
Big Blue and Big Red Machines ever have a chance of forming a
government.  This is almost always a majority government, allowing the
governing party to do pretty well as it pleases (as long as it cleans
up its act ust before the next election).

Now, in many Western European and Scandinavian countries, the ridings
are much larger.  Each party sets up maybe 10-20 candidates, and you
vote for the party as much as the person.  Basicaly, if there are 10
seats contested, and your party gets 10%+ of the vote, at least your
top vote-getter will be in the Parliament.

This causes several things to happen:
- Small (fringe?) parties get seats in the parliament
- No party can usually win a majority.  However, a minority government
  is not formed, but instead a coaition is worked out.

And in turn,
- There are numerous fringe parties, which terribly complicate and
  slow down parliamentary proceedings.
- The government can not act tyrannically, as the argest party has to
  keep its coalition partners happy.
- Medium-size or smallish parties can often wield the balance of power
- The governments are often not very long-lived

This is obviousy not without its problems (witness Italy and Israel),
but improvements can be made: in West Germany, a party must win 4% of
the national vote in order to gain any representatives, thus getting
rid of may fringe-fringe parties.  Italian govenrment changes about
every fortnight.  And the Israelis can't even put one together...

However, the European system will definitely allow the voters more
saay in the government: a vote for NDP would be much more likely to
make a difference, and people would have incentive to vote for smal
parties like Libertarians and Communists.

I would propose a change where three or four ridings were joined into
one, and the same number of candidates be elected, on the basis of
votes (*not* winner-takes-all).  Any body care to comment (beside the
fact that with 99.9999% certainty this will never happen)?  I'll be
wearing my asbestos suit, just in case...

	Tom Haapanen
	{allegra,decvax,ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!haapanen
	-----
	Not all immigrants vote Liberal...

julian@deepthot.UUCP (Julian Davies) (08/23/84)

Although proportional representation schemes have some merit, I
consider the existence of *parties* to be a root cause of much
political ill.  All ridings should elect the best person, and
party whips should be abolished from parliaments.  
		Julian Davies