3 ms·

Sounds like a recipe for even more gridlock. Seems like the party with the most votes couldn't pass anything (i.e. satisfy voter mandates), even though they wo

by platz 12y ago

Sounds like a recipe for even more gridlock. Seems like the party with the most votes couldn't pass anything (i.e. satisfy voter mandates), even though they won.

tormeh 12y ago
No, remember that the opposition is similarly divided. The governing party just have to shop around for votes, with a variety of smaller parties to bargain with. Promises to voters (which I think is what you mean with voter mandates) are just the worst. They tend towards the unrealistic and assume party control over a majority of seats without defectors. Everything about them is dumb. Good riddance.
- platz 12y ago
  I agree promises to voters end up being silly. Interesting ideas though, I'm sure given enough thought (I certainly don't have the experience in these theings) it could work.
higherpurpose 12y ago
Would you prefer China's model more then? Just one party. No gridlock, ever. Having more parties is a good thing. It implies negotiation between them and it leads to more rational laws. When you have just one or two parties it's much easier for them to abuse their power and pass crazy laws.
- platz 12y ago
  No, but maybe something like Canada's. If the majority loses favor with the public, (simplifying a bit here) they just schedule an election and vote them out .
  - xemoka 12y ago
    I'm not sure you realise how the Canadian government works then. Once you have a majority in the House, you are effectively in power until your term is up and you ask the Governor General to dissolve the house and hold an election. Now if a party holds a minority government (the way parliamentary systems are meant to be), there can be a vote of non-confidence to oust the governing party. At that point, the governor general has to choose between allowing a coalition (if that is indeed what the other parties want) or hold another election. Public opinion does not hold sway in these matters. Our current majority government (now branded The Harper Government) was elected with ~24% of eligible voters (40% of those who actually showed up to vote). Take a look at some of the Ekos [1] polls, our governing party does not have the majority of Canadian support. There is also no way to do a MP recall campaign at the federal level, some provinces provide this though, such as BC. We very much need electoral reform in Canada. Our senate is too partisan (not to mention, appointed at the whims of the governing party) and first-past-the-post is a broken electoral system. My hopes are for Mixed Member Proportional Representation similar to Germany and New Zealand. [1] http://www.ekospolitics.com/ http://www.ekospolitics.com/
    - platz 12y ago
      Thanks for this summary

by platz 12y ago

Sounds like a recipe for even more gridlock. Seems like the party with the most votes couldn't pass anything (i.e. satisfy voter mandates), even though they won.

tormeh 12y ago

No, remember that the opposition is similarly divided. The governing party just have to shop around for votes, with a variety of smaller parties to bargain with. Promises to voters (which I think is what you mean with voter mandates) are just the worst. They tend towards the unrealistic and assume party control over a majority of seats without defectors. Everything about them is dumb. Good riddance.

platz 12y ago
I agree promises to voters end up being silly. Interesting ideas though, I'm sure given enough thought (I certainly don't have the experience in these theings) it could work.

higherpurpose 12y ago

Would you prefer China's model more then? Just one party. No gridlock, ever. Having more parties is a good thing. It implies negotiation between them and it leads to more rational laws. When you have just one or two parties it's much easier for them to abuse their power and pass crazy laws.

platz 12y ago
No, but maybe something like Canada's. If the majority loses favor with the public, (simplifying a bit here) they just schedule an election and vote them out .
- xemoka 12y ago
  I'm not sure you realise how the Canadian government works then. Once you have a majority in the House, you are effectively in power until your term is up and you ask the Governor General to dissolve the house and hold an election. Now if a party holds a minority government (the way parliamentary systems are meant to be), there can be a vote of non-confidence to oust the governing party. At that point, the governor general has to choose between allowing a coalition (if that is indeed what the other parties want) or hold another election. Public opinion does not hold sway in these matters. Our current majority government (now branded The Harper Government) was elected with ~24% of eligible voters (40% of those who actually showed up to vote). Take a look at some of the Ekos [1] polls, our governing party does not have the majority of Canadian support. There is also no way to do a MP recall campaign at the federal level, some provinces provide this though, such as BC. We very much need electoral reform in Canada. Our senate is too partisan (not to mention, appointed at the whims of the governing party) and first-past-the-post is a broken electoral system. My hopes are for Mixed Member Proportional Representation similar to Germany and New Zealand. [1] http://www.ekospolitics.com/ http://www.ekospolitics.com/
  - platz 12y ago
    Thanks for this summary