Thursday, October 16, 2008

Proportional Representation - The Losers Bleat

It's no accident that the MSM is spinning this in the wake of a strong conservative electoral success !

Proportional Representation... It boils down to this ....

When you can't succeed by the rules everyone lives with then bitch and moan about the rules.

Proportional representation advocates claim that it's more fair. Except they won't acknowledge that it's just a way of stacking the deck based on creating further social divisions and opening the door to the kind of un-democratic political coalitions that prevail everywhere it is used.

Update on this point:

Arguments that claim because voter turn out is low we have less democracy are fallacious.
Those who choose not to participate are voluntarily forgoing their rights. This is not a problem that is the result of our electoral system, rather it is a symptom of social malaise that I would squarely put at the feet of the same sort of people who would promote PR as the solution. I say that PR would do nothing to correct this and that no one is able to demonstrate otherwise. Point of fact is that voter turn out in European nations who have various forms of PR is as bad or worse than our own.

I might as well argue that true proportional representation would account for low voter turnout by taking a proportional number of representative positions out of parliament. In other words how about if Toronto turned out only 36% of eligible voters? Could we then argue that 64% of the MP seats from the area be eliminated? would that be more democratic or less?

Is my suggestion going to make a better democracy or is it simply absurd?

No more or less absurd than the arguments offered in favour of PR!

Voter participation is simply a canard in the discussion. Irrelevant to the matter of whether or not PR is a better system than our own.

Previous :

They point to the fact that in Canada and in the USA we are in the minority of nations who do not adopt this or similar forms of representation. They do not care to acknowledge that in fact our government works much better because we do not follow the herd.

They claim that it is more democratic .... not acknowledging that the concept is at its root a socialistic idea that regards the so called rights of groups who cannot succeed without some systemic form of interference on their behalf to be of greater importance than having the actual level playing field that respects the one citizen = one vote rule in favour of a form of affirmative action that rewards failures and incompetence rather than providing some level of filtration to eliminate the waste from the system.

They who promote proportional representation are in fact the same sort that demand their children be allowed to play on sports teams that they do not qualify for. They are same people who have promoted the steady lowering of standards in our education systems. They are the same people who constantly feel free to end any meaningful debate with some invocation of political correctness. They are the same people whose fall back position is always seeking the interference of the Nurse Nanny state.

.... they are whiners.

Canada's electoral system works and it is the BEST system to elect a parliament.

We do not need to follow the herd of dysfunctional nations down the toilet bowl of political correctness or socialistic statism by adopting the electoral processes that only encourage such devolution.

The fact is We Are Better because of our institutions and the only conclusions that can be drawn from the moaning of those who wish to change this is that they are either completely ignorant of and blind to the consequences of adopting their ideas or that they are willfully advocating for a weaker and more socialistic nation.

Either way ignoramuses or outright enemies of our society the proponents of proportional representation should be viewed with suspicion and disdain.

It's no accident that the MSM is spinning this in the wake of a strong conservative electoral success !


Labels: , , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a conservative (notice the small-c, not the big C fake watered down Harper style Tories) I would be all for a sensible PR system as it would mean a real conservative party that respected the rights of the unborn, did not pander to Quebec, stood for senate reform, and did not flip flop on income trusts would elect some MP's.

Sure we might only have 15-20% of the population behind us, but unlike the bastard Conservative party which has tried to quiet down the former Reform members like myself in order appeal to Easterners it would honestly represent me.

OMMAG, how can you support Harper and his merry gang of Quebec pandering socialist-lites? I voted for the Chrisitan Heritage Party.

10/16/2008 1:57 p.m.  
Blogger OMMAG said...

How can I?

Simple ... they are the closest to my views and best able to represent me and my concerns.

I do not expect any party to do everything I want or to do nothing I don't approve of. Although I may wish for a perfect world I will continue to work the world that exists.

I am probably more conservative in some social issues than Mr. Harper is and certainly less tolerant of much of the LIberal/ lefty BS that is shoved down my throat.

Although it may seem that our country has been usurped by socialist and secular ideologies in a sudden manner in reality it has happened incrementally and continues to do so.

The challenge is to stem the rot and begin a process of rebuilding and healing of our society. This can only be done incrementally and requires persistence and dedication.

Know anyone who is up to it?

10/16/2008 5:32 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I enjoyed reading this post. As a opponent to proportional representation my biggest fear is how much unchallenged candy coating will the MSM allow the next time this topic seriously comes to the forefront.

10/16/2008 10:56 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll note - as a Green supporter - that PR has been supported by right-wingers like Andrew Coyne and our anonymous poster above. To whit, from Coyne:

"Suppose the Greens, despite outpolling the Bloc, win no seats, while the Bloc comes home with — worst-case scenario — 30 or more. Could this absurd situation be maintained for long? A system that shuts out a party with more than a million votes — and particularly strong representation among younger voters — while handing a bushel of seats to a party dedicated to the country’s destruction?"

I've posted on my blog a chart of historic voter support for the government. We are not just at an all-time low (22.22%), but this low is part of a long term trend since WW2 towards illegitimacy. I'm not saying that the Conservatives didn't win or that they don't deserve to govern, just that we are not in as healthy a democracy as we could be.

And, you right-wingers should remember that only a few years ago you had two parties to appeal to the different types of right-wing voters. But, the system forced you to stop voting for what you believe and instead for what is most likely to win.

10/16/2008 11:47 p.m.  
Blogger Wayne Smith said...

This is from the last election, but still relevant:

Why would a Conservative support PR?

But believe it or not, elections are not about dividing us into (a few) winners and (lots of) losers. Elections are about choosing our representatives, and we are ALL entitled to representation. And we just get better government when every voice is heard and everybody gets a seat at the table.

10/17/2008 2:58 a.m.  
Blogger OMMAG said...

To DS and WS ....

Go back and read again.

It dose not matter what the political affiliation of PR supporters is. The concept is collectivist in origin, inherently divisive, destructive of our institutions and proven to lead to bad governance.

10/17/2008 10:28 a.m.  
Blogger Wayne Smith said...

Actually, it is the current winner-take-all system that is divisive and leads to corrosive politics. Proportional voting generally requires coalition government. It creates a more consensual type of government and a more civilized style of politics.

Most of the best-run countries in the world use proportional voting, countries like Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Holland, Denmark, Germany, New Zealand, and 75 others.

I agree that it's not about which party you support. It's not about parties at all, it's about what's good for voters, and proportional representation was invented to give voters the power to hold political parties accountable.

10/17/2008 11:15 a.m.  
Blogger OMMAG said...

"Most of the best-run countries in the world use proportional voting, countries like Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Holland, Denmark, Germany, New Zealand, and 75 others."

Really .... if you think that is a list of the best run countries in the world you have a very different set of standards that I.

10/17/2008 4:59 p.m.  
Anonymous bb26 said...

The lefties seem to want PR more than anything else. I wonder how long would the bleating for PR would go if some neo nazi like party decided to appear. I think at that point people would drop PR

10/18/2008 2:51 p.m.  
Blogger OMMAG said...

Although PR has resulted in the enabling of Euro style big government, big brotherism and fascist nurse nannyism .... those deluded lefties refuse to admit the failures. Perhaps they actually like these results .... I'd prefer to avoid it.

And yes most of those "Superior and more enlightened" Euro nations do have massive fascist movements at both ends of their political spectrum. These extremist factions are enabled by the PR system.

So take a good look at who promotes it here!

10/18/2008 4:12 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PR is one of many options - and far from perfect. Other options do exist, though, such as automatic run-offs which voters in BC actually voted for by 58% to 42% in a referendum - just shy of the 60% needed.

The slow, steady, 60 year drop in turnout and the slow, steady, 60 year move towards diversity of opinion has resulted in governments being less and less representative of the public. That trend is undeniable. This is a non-partisan concern.

And, let's stop with the fascists. Why does every blog discsussion end in bringing up the nazis? The nazis, fascists, death camps, genocide, and global conflagration all predate proportional representation. And besides, is your view of Canadians so low that you think that they would vote for fascists if only given the chance?

10/19/2008 4:21 p.m.  
Blogger OMMAG said...

DS ... go back and read what I actually said about them....

Try to learn form other peoples mistake instead of advocating for repeating them.

One definitive characteristic of irrational people is repeating behaviours that produce bead results and expecting something different to happen.

10/19/2008 5:17 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"One definitive characteristic of irrational people is repeating behaviours that produce bad results and expecting something different to happen." -OMMAG

Which is my point about the current electoral system. We are headed in the wrong direction and this is a problem that needs serious non-partisan consideration.

From Andrew Coyne: "the system is broken, and if this election won't persuade us to change it, nothing will."

I'm not just advocating pure PR. There are many options - and we need a transparent non-partisan, public investigation of those options and Canadians' opinions of them.

I've just read your edited post and the comments on low turnout. I think that the low turnout is related to other factors, including the fact that most ridings are decided long in advance, and so is very relevant. Also, an un-engaged public is a sign of disconnect between the government and its citizens - an important point. If a government gets the votes of 37% of 59% of voters versus if it gets 37% of 75% - this is not insignificant, that would mean millions more people choosing the government.

That people are forfeiting their right is given, and I'm not arguing that we assign empty seats to the non-voters (although that could save cash). The fact is that we have fewer and fewer people voting for the government, which controls all the power and is said to respresent the public.

10/19/2008 9:19 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home