87 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

Keeping the opposition out of power is part of the democratic process.

[Baro]

Democracy?? I thought BC had some sort of round-robin system.

[rjag]

Unless the opposition can form a government from time to time then we don't really have a democracy, do we?

Sure we do, the folks that bother to vote get to choose....simple as that. You don't like the present government then make sure your party gets more voters (oh and a better set of policies would be a great help too)

 

What we are missing is a 3rd alternative.

[eseedhouse]

Sure we do, the folks that bother to vote get to choose....simple as that. You don't like the present government then make sure your party gets more voters (oh and a better set of policies would be a great help too)

 

What we are missing is a 3rd alternative.

 

So during the decades that the PRP were in power in Mexico that was a democracy, eh? 

[Nparker]

Democracy??...

We won't have true democracy until some sort of representational voting system is put in place. The "FPTP" (first past the post) system only works (fairly) if not more than 2 candidates are running.  

 

Here's a simplified example to illustrate: 100 candidates run for 1 seat. Only 100 people cast ballots. One candidate receives 2 votes; all remaining votes are cast for a different candidate, none of whom gets more than one vote each. In our current system this person wins the seat with 2% of the popular vote. 98% of the electorate wanted someone else. This is NOT good democracy in action.

[Bingo]

We won't have true democracy until some sort of representational voting system is put in place. The "FPTP" (first past the post) system only works (fairly) if not more than 2 candidates are running.  

 

Here's a simplified example to illustrate: 100 candidates run for 1 seat. Only 100 people cast ballots. One candidate receives 2 votes; all remaining votes are cast for a different candidate, none of whom gets more than one vote each. In our current system this person wins the seat with 2% of the popular vote. 98% of the electorate wanted someone else. This is NOT good democracy in action.

 

Neither is it good to allow that many candidates to run in the first place.

[rjag]

So during the decades that the PRP were in power in Mexico that was a democracy, eh? 

Didn't realise we were talking Mexican politics....I thought this thread was about BC Provincial politics and the NDP leadership, perhaps you got your threads mixed up with another forum

[Nparker]

Neither is it good to allow that many candidates to run in the first place.

My example was exaggerated for illustrative purposes. Clearly there is unlikely to ever be more than a dozen candidates vying for any public office. Still, even this many candidates means the vote is spread across numerous people and it is rare that any one candidate garners 50% of the popular vote. I maintain that until one candidate secures 50% +1 vote we do not have democratically elected candidates that truly reflect the wishes of the people. 

[eseedhouse]

Didn't realise we were talking Mexican politics....I thought this thread was about BC Provincial politics and the NDP leadership, perhaps you got your threads mixed up with another forum

 

Or perhaps you don't understand an entirely relevant analogy.

[eseedhouse]

I maintain that until one candidate secures 50% +1 vote we do not have democratically elected candidates that truly reflect the wishes of the people. 

 

Many countries use runoff elections to achieve this.  When you suggest it to Canadians they complain about the extra expense.  As if democracy is only good if it is cheap.

 

The simplest way to have a more representative government is to have a lot more seats, all with equal populations.  Once again this will be objected to on the grounds of expense, of course.  We want "better" government but we don't want to pay for it.  Thus we will continue pretty much as we are for the forseeable future I suspect.

[rjag]

Or perhaps you don't understand an entirely relevant analogy.

I don't care what you think, I'm just trying to stay on topic

[Mike K.]

We want "better" government but we don't want to pay for it. Thus we will continue pretty much as we are for the forseeable future I suspect.

Better doesn't mean it has to cost more. The private sector has this figured out rather well.

More efficient government wither fewer workers, fewer politicians and lower costs to tax payers is the ultimate goal.

[jonny]

People who gripe about first past the post always seem to be Dippers.

 

I don't know. The system has worked pretty well for many, many years. We have one of the most free and fair democracies on the face of the planet and I'm not sure we require fundamental changes to our democracy. Sometimes change is not always for the better.

[Nparker]

People who gripe about first past the post always seem to be Dippers.

People who oppose a more democratic, representational system of voting always seem to be radical right-wing nut jobs. There, a tit-for-tat over-arching statement just like yours.

[jonny]

The losers would rather blame the system than themselves, I guess.

Edited by jonny, 03 April 2014 - 10:09 AM.

[Baro]

I can guarantee that if "vote splitting" and "strategic voting" was hurting conservatives and helping the NDP they'd be champions of election reform and the NDP would be talking about "sore losers" and how expensive and confusing better systems are.  This is why we'll never see it, because it generally only helps smaller parties not in power.  Good for democracy, bad for those in power.  The reforms demanded and criticisms made to the government in power by the opposition have a strange way of suddenly reversing when the roles are switched.

[eseedhouse]

Better doesn't mean it has to cost more. The private sector has this figured out rather well.

 

Every business I know is run essentially as a dictatorship.  You do what the boss says.  But dictatorship is nice and cheap, for awhile at least.

[eseedhouse]

More efficient government wither fewer workers, fewer politicians and lower costs to tax payers is the ultimate goal.

 

Your goal perhaps.  But last I heard you aren't supposed to get to dictate what the proper goal of a society is.

[eseedhouse]

I don't care what you think, I'm just trying to stay on topic

 

The topic is the NDP leadership race and you were talking about something else.  Forgive me if I suspect that you want to do is retreat from a turn in the topic you can't handle very well.

 

I wonder how many friends you get by saying "I don't care what you think"?  If so, why are you getting involved in a discussion with other people?

[Mike K.]

Every business I know is run essentially as a dictatorship.  You do what the boss says.  But dictatorship is nice and cheap, for awhile at least.

 

Every business I know is run to make the customer happy. A happy boss = happy customers. Happy customers = jobs. Jobs = employees. Employees = ...you get the point.

 

Your goal perhaps.  But last I heard you aren't supposed to get to dictate what the proper goal of a society is.

 

Luckily I'm not the only one who feels a bloated and inefficient government is bad business