Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!utcsri!pkern
From: pkern@utcsri.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: N.B. Elections
Message-ID: <5545@utcsri.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 18-Oct-87 14:58:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsri.5545
Posted: Sun Oct 18 14:58:46 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Oct-87 17:44:53 EDT
References: <1168@water.waterloo.edu> <1665@ubc-cs.UUCP> <1010@utflis.UUCP> <1051@looking.UUCP>
Reply-To: pkern@utcsri.UUCP (pkern)
Distribution: can
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 63
Summary: 

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