Electoral Reform

[Chaerophon]

In B.C., the Citizens' Assembly actually recommended a Single Transferable Vote system rather than MMP (although it seems that public support would have probably been higher for MMP, and it got plenty of discussion in the media, which might be the source of your confusion;)). MMP never really got a fair shake in BC due to the fact that there was an informal mandate put in place (some say it was a shady bit of deception - others say it was necessary for the sake of the process) stating that the parliament could not be increased in size. In Ontario, as in New Zealand, the Assembly has recommended MMP.

The success of MMP in New Zealand has had a LOT of influence on the Ontario Assembly's decision-making process, and the model they're recommending is quite similar to that in NZ.

[Swiss Mercenary]

Isn't there already an income tax thread open, or does Kan subvert every political discussion into a libertarian vs the rest of us stand-off?

[Jester]

Isn't there already an income tax thread open, or does Kan subvert every political discussion into a libertarian vs the rest of us stand-off?

To shoulder my share of the blame for directing the thread off topic, I was the one who first took issue with his assertion.

-Jester

[Chaerophon]

I couldn't agree more with Mr. Cairns, it seems. I'll have to track down his article.

The strength granted to anti-Liberal (and anti-federal) forces in this province by their essential monopoly on the provincial government really grates on me. Their position appears implacable, since they win every election, and yet there is a consistent opposition to them that is almost totally silenced by the nature of FPTP.

Thanks for the reference!

-Jester

BTW: did you just reveal the fact that you live in Edmonton, or are you one of those few and unfortunate pariahs in the southern city?

;)

[Jester]

BTW: did you just reveal the fact that you live in Edmonton, or are you one of those few and unfortunate pariahs in the southern city?

;)

Lethbridge? :shuriken:

I live in Edmonton, yes. B)

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Isn't there already an income tax thread open, or does Kan subvert every political discussion into a libertarian vs the rest of us stand-off?

If you look back I did reply with my view on the electoral reform, and then drifted onto a tangential thought I've been wrestling with for awhile, that of the original intent of the guarantee by government to treat citizens equally. I didn't mean to derail the thread. I know what would happen in my locality if we had such an electoral system. Special interests on all sides and extremes would pack the local offices with people not interested in doing the job for which they are elected. That would vary from greens, to pro-lifers, to neo-nazis.

I was also going to comment on your statement, "It's definitely helped to jar some preconceptions (among political scientists) about the ability of average citizens to reason about politics." It seems a bit pretentious to assume "Joe and Josephine Average" citizen are clueless about the functions of government.

[Chaerophon]

Kandrathe, given what I know of you (;)), I think you'd actually be interested in the procedure by which these decisions about electoral reform were made (maybe not). Regardless, if you find time and are interested, here's a link: http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/en...0page.aspx

I know what would happen in my locality if we had such an electoral system. Special interests on all sides and extremes would pack the local offices with people not interested in doing the job for which they are elected. That would vary from greens, to pro-lifers, to neo-nazis.

First of all, let's face it: electoral reform is never going to happen in the U.S. - at least not at the federal level.

All of the comparative politics literature on electoral reform has found that your fears are most likely unfounded. Even if they do get a little crazy for the first election: who cares, let them. Voters WILL make strategic decisions at the point of decision, the party system will quite rapidly adapt, and within 2-3 election cycles, the negative opportunity cost of "fringe" party formation will be quite evident. MMP is very unlikely to produce a high number of viable parties - in general, most systems with less than 35-40% of seats devoted to lists maintaining "full proportionality" have a low "effective number of parties" (ie, less than 5), two or three of which coalesce around the center and obtain the majority of votes.

EDIT: depending on where exactly you're at, I guess that I can see where some fear might arise re: racist parties. Imposing a threshold on the percentage of the vote required to obtain a seat (e.g. 5%) can go some way towards fixing that problem. If they're getting substantially more than that, then I'd say that the problem is pretty deep, and no electoral system is going to be able to "mask" it very well for long (ie, it's probably manifesting itself in local politics already - to the extent that the constitution/legal system allows, anyways)... Xenophophic parties in Austria are a bit scary, but don't forget, Le Pen got into the final Presidential runoff in France (due to a freakish turn of events) and they don't have proportional representation.

I am fully prepared to argue that most proportional systems in Europe are more stable than Anglo-American plurality systems, where a change in government leads to radical, wholesale changes in policy. You will, doubtless, raise Italy as a counterexample, to which I will respond:Pthat Italy's system is (1) actually far less proportional than most, and (2) influenced by sociological factors (and widespread corruption) which predispose the region to a certain amount of upheaval for which the electoral system cannot account. If there's a problem with proportional systems, it may be that not enough change is possible in a short time - it's harder to "throw the bums out" - but if the number of seats reflects the vote, the influence of such an "undesirable" party should, nonetheless, be significantly curtailed by a fall in public support.

I was also going to comment on your statement, "It's definitely helped to jar some preconceptions (among political scientists) about the ability of average citizens to reason about politics." It seems a bit pretentious to assume "Joe and Josephine Average" citizen are clueless about the functions of government.

Most people don't understand the effects of the electoral system on society. That's a statistical fact that has been proven time and again. Electoral systems can be quite a complex and nuanced subject, and researchers have been very impressed by the way that citizens have become "experts" within a matter of a few weekends worth of education.

I've definitely got some populist leanings, but I'm not naive about the level of Joe and Josephine Average's understanding of politics. Most people don't know much about how things actually work, and most people don't really care until election time. One need only look at the strategies employed by parties and candidates around election time to see that the name of the game is sound bytes and opinion manipulation, not "public reason". My hope is that some of these new democratic "experiments" might play some small role in partially mitigating this trend in politics as usual. Now THAT might be naive, but I'll stick with it for now (while I'm young;))

[Swiss Mercenary]

If you look back I did reply with my view on the electoral reform, and then drifted onto a tangential thought I've been wrestling with for awhile, that of the original intent of the guarantee by government to treat citizens equally. I didn't mean to derail the thread. I know what would happen in my locality if we had such an electoral system. Special interests on all sides and extremes would pack the local offices with people not interested in doing the job for which they are elected. That would vary from greens, to pro-lifers, to neo-nazis.

I happen to agree with Chaerophon. The lunatic fringe might get a seat, or two, or three, but will not wield real power. Just look back at the "Oh noes one man controls the balance of power" bit in the second to most recent Canadian Election - his vote was... Not very relevant.

I was also going to comment on your statement, "It's definitely helped to jar some preconceptions (among political scientists) about the ability of average citizens to reason about politics." It seems a bit pretentious to assume "Joe and Josephine Average" citizen are clueless about the functions of government.

Actually, I think it's quite reasonable to do so. I need only look at the opinion pieces in my local paper, to see the level at which Joe Average can understand concepts such as "Freedom".

It's not good.

[kandrathe]

Kandrathe, given what I know of you (;)), I think you'd actually be interested in the procedure by which these decisions about electoral reform were made (maybe not). Regardless, if you find time and are interested, here's a link: ...

Interesting. It sounds very fair.

It's not that I am necessarily pitched against changes to the electoral process. I am just cautious. As it is now, we do have many areas where a national political movement will target a politically inactive geographic area and try to replace everyone from dog catcher to mayor. The apathetic populace usually figures it out after the election, does what they can to immobilize them during their term, then boots them out at the next election.

Here is an extreme and very interesting example of active political reform; http://www.freestateproject.org/

[Jester]

Here is an extreme and very interesting example of active political reform; http://www.freestateproject.org/

As a somewhat tinfoil-hat-type observation linking this to the other thread, it is interesting that the state chosen for the Free State Project, New Hampshire, happens to be the only state with an *explicit* (rather than, as Occhi argues, 9th-10th amendment derived) right to resist the government, should it cease to defend the rights of the people, and all other avenues of redress have bene exhausted.

Libertarians rejoice, you have found your haven, and its name is New Hampshire. "Live free or die" indeed.

-Jester

[NuurAbSaal]

Just came across the earlier comment by Kandrathe and yours about Xenophobic parties in Austria. I hope you'll forgive the double-answer:

@ Kandrathe: Jörg Haider's FPÖ never "took control" of Austria, they entered into government as junior partner of the conservative party ÖVP. They had little to no impact on actual political decisions and while I totally agree on them being xenophobic, they are not ultra-conservatives.

@ Chaerophon: Our far right-wing parties (yes we have two now, a nice political comedy, if anybody is interested), aren't that scary when you look at the general situation of the country. Jörg Haider rose to power because Social Democrats and Conservatives got used to being in power in the "big coalition" for decades, almost constantly since the end of WWII. He didn't win votes because a large portion of Austrians sympathise with Xenophobia, but because the voters were sick and tired of the two large parties' conduct. Both his former party FPÖ and his new breakaway project BZÖ have been totally marginalised over the last years, the BZÖ has all but ceased to exist.

I'm more scared of the general anti-EU and anti-Islam attitude that seems to be en vogue around Europe these days.

take care
Tarabulus

[Ashock]

I'm more scared of the anti-Islam attitude that seems to be en vogue around Europe these days.

take care
Tarabulus

Are you also scared of the Anti-Everything attitude that seems to be en vogue around Islam these days?

[kandrathe]

...
I'm more scared of the general anti-EU and anti-Islam attitude that seems to be en vogue around Europe these days.

take care
Tarabulus

I wonder as well. From what I hear, France might be on the verge of some level of mass internal rioting and civil war, but you'd never know it reading the news. Well, at least the US news.

Anti-Islam; I can understand the thought process. You have masses of adherents to a religion living amongst you where hardly none of their leadership will openly condemn the subjugation of women, or the beheading of unarmed so-called enemies in the name of God. You have a religion whose extremists believe in the establishment of world dominion, and the subjugation (Dhimmi) or elimination of all non-Muslims. If you have Islamic neighbors, how would you tell the difference between the ones that are peaceful, or the ones that will strap explosives to themselves or their children and send them into a crowded market?

Anti-EU; I guess, being a patriot, I would loathe to give up our national currency, identity, and sovereignty to a group of people that made decisions collectively against my interests. Each of the European countries have a distinct culture, so a union does not come so easily in one generation (The US's did not either). The original United States was created as a bulwark against the larger scarier European Powers that would have sought to divide and reconquer an disunited North America. Frankly, as an American, I liked the distinctive differences between the various nations of Europe, and I think it is a shame that they would blend away over time.

[NuurAbSaal]

Are you also scared of the Anti-Everything attitude that seems to be en vogue around Islam these days?

Oddly enough, no. I should have used better wording and wrote "afraid of growing radical movements" or something like that. I am no more afraid of Islam as a religion than I'm afraid of Christianity. Both cater to some human need I have never felt and I have a hard time understanding how you can base your actions on something like that.

It's just the Islam=bad connection people seem to accept as fact nowadays I find disconcerting.


take care
Tarabulus

[NuurAbSaal]

Anti-Islam; I can understand the thought process.

I don't. But as I posted in my reply to Ashock I have trouble understanding the concept of why anybody needs a religion. Looks like a "terrorists are muslims - muslims are terrorists" conclusion to me. If that made any sense, not too sure about the wording yet again.

Anti-EU; I guess, being a patriot, I would loathe to give up our national currency, identity, and sovereignty to a group of people that made decisions collectively against my interests. Each of the European countries have a distinct culture, so a union does not come so easily in one generation (The US's did not either). The original United States was created as a bulwark against the larger scarier European Powers that would have sought to divide and reconquer an disunited North America. Frankly, as an American, I liked the distinctive differences between the various nations of Europe, and I think it is a shame that they would blend away over time.

I agree with you that the EU has a bad image of strwamlining everything and of being a bloated bureaucracy (sp?). Deserved, in part. But it really is, from my point of view, an idea to bring the people closer together, without taking away their identity. The fact that a lot of people shun the idea right out and turn towards nationalist movements is what scares me. Hooray for chauvinism. I understand Americans have a different concept or idea of patriotism than the average European, I still don't get it. But, similar to my opinions on religion, I may be weird in that matter and accept that I hold a minority opinion.

Might be best for me to drop religion and patriotism topics.


take care
Tarabulus

[kandrathe]

As a somewhat tinfoil-hat-type observation linking this to the other thread, it is interesting that the state chosen for the Free State Project, New Hampshire, happens to be the only state with an *explicit* (rather than, as Occhi argues, 9th-10th amendment derived) right to resist the government, should it cease to defend the rights of the people, and all other avenues of redress have bene exhausted.

Libertarians rejoice, you have found your haven, and its name is New Hampshire. "Live free or die" indeed.

-Jester

I think one of the most interesting things about New Hampshire is that many of the provisions of it's government are codified into their constitution. Such as, the legislatures pay is set at $200 and it would require a constitutional amendment voted on by the people to change it. This results in the politicians in New Hampshire being normal citizens who need to lay in the beds they make, and are interested in public service.

Look at New Hampshire's Taxes! I mean, how could they function without the excessive taxation most other states impose? All the other states surrounding New Hampshire are in the top ten tax levying states. But NH's burden is nationwide ranked at 49 out of 50 at the state level, and 20 out of 50 after adding federal taxes. And they seem to have a high quality of life.

The first act of the new legislature in my state was to vote themselves a pay raise in the form of $77 (House) and $96 (Senate) per day expense account (on top of their $31000 salary for 120 days of a legislative session). The unconstitutional rub on this was that if the legislator voted "no" on the per diem raise they are denied it, while those voting "yes" get the raise. So, their pay, including per diem, if extended to the entire year would be $125,000. Most of our legislature also work in other professions outside of the session, but still feel the need to engorge themselves at the public trough.

[Sarcasm]I believe Minnesota's legislatures new goal is to reclaim the #1 spot as the most tax punitive state in the union. Perhaps we could work on changing our state electoral system to be more parliamentary as well. We do this in hopes of encouraging State growth by attracting Canadians who are looking for a better climate, and still desire a highly socialist state and tyrannical government oppression. [/Sarcasm] ;-)

[kandrathe]

I don't. But as I posted in my reply to Ashock I have trouble understanding the concept of why anybody needs a religion. Looks like a "terrorists are muslims - muslims are terrorists" conclusion to me. If that made any sense, not too sure about the wording yet again.
I agree with you that the EU has a bad image of strwamlining everything and of being a bloated bureaucracy (sp?). Deserved, in part. But it really is, from my point of view, an idea to bring the people closer together, without taking away their identity. The fact that a lot of people shun the idea right out and turn towards nationalist movements is what scares me. Hooray for chauvinism. I understand Americans have a different concept or idea of patriotism than the average European, I still don't get it. But, similar to my opinions on religion, I may be weird in that matter and accept that I hold a minority opinion.

Might be best for me to drop religion and patriotism topics.
take care
Tarabulus

There is a difference between patriotism and nationalism. There is a difference between being religious and zealotry or fanaticism. I can be a patriot, a libertarian, and still have Christian moral standards. The difference is that I don't seek to force anyone to live my beliefs. And, I would never seek to have the State implement and enforce laws for the stated reason of liberty, and for the secondary reason of the cost of enforcement. I can seek to discuss, argue, educate and enlighten people to my way of thinking, but I would never force anyone to pay for the enforcement, or live my morality by law. Anyhow, this is how I define Liberty.

An example; on my way home from work the other day a van full of what I can only guess were strippers was in front of me. I suppose they were contracted to work some of the entertainment on the cruise boats on the vast lakes near where I live. They tried repeatedly to attract my attention through various very lewd behaviors, and being a happily married man I chose not to look. The more obviously I was unaffected, the more persistent and lewd their behavior became. Many men my age would have enjoyed the free peep show during rush hour. I don't really mind that they were doing what they were doing, but I had the freedom (and iron willpower) to choose not to partake even when it was thrust into my face.

I desire all people to be free to live as they desire within the boundaries of what is defined in law as a civil society. But, if we encroach on liberty with excessive taxation, laws, and government for the governors, then we succumb to the shackles of the state. In many places in America, we have forgotten what liberty, equality and justice really mean. And, I think people like Jester may marvel at a state motto like "Live free, or die". That revolutionary fervor and revulsion at the tyranny of King George which made America's early patriots consider that living under the yoke of an unjust government was worse than death. I cherish the freedoms defined within the US Constitution, for me and my children. So much so, that I would be willing to die to defend them from usurpation or dilution. This is patriotism. But, I don't believe my nation is better than another's. That is nationalism.

There are Christian kooks and there are Muslim kooks. But, the news is now filled with many more Muslim kooks these days. And, comparatively, I don't recall Christian militants beheading anyone lately, or sending their people strapped with bombs into crowds. While, the Muslim kooks are reaching into the very souls of nations and telling their peoples and government to watch out or they will incite their adherents to intifada or jihad. It's not that Muslim = terrorist, just that Muslim might = terrorist. Maybe not today, but maybe next week. The problems in France for example are partly a social justice issue, but also a Muslim issue.

[eppie]

I If you have Islamic neighbors, how would you tell the difference between the ones that are peaceful, or the ones that will strap explosives to themselves or their children and send them into a crowded market?

Wow, what about the fact that the chance your neighbors are terrorist that want to blow things up is smaller than being struck by lightning twice?


This is the whole problem here. There are a lot of problems rising from people that use Islam as an excuse. Simply mentioning how bad Islam is in general is the worst thing that we can do.

Most clashes (like in France) are far more class struggle than they are religious struggle. However also among politicians in Europe nowadays it is common to be, what we 15 years ago called, racist. Saying that everything is the fault of the evil Muslim wins votes.

[Ashock]

It's not that Muslim = terrorist, just that Muslim might = terrorist.

or

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but at least in the last 10 years or so, all terrorists are Muslims.

[kandrathe]

Wow, what about the fact that the chance your neighbors are terrorist that want to blow things up is smaller than being struck by lightning twice?
This is the whole problem here. There are a lot of problems rising from people that use Islam as an excuse. Simply mentioning how bad Islam is in general is the worst thing that we can do.

Most clashes (like in France) are far more class struggle than they are religious struggle. However also among politicians in Europe nowadays it is common to be, what we 15 years ago called, racist. Saying that everything is the fault of the evil Muslim wins votes.

Evidently, there are many severe lightning storms in the Netherlands. The chance of getting struck by lightning once is 576,000 to 1. But it probably depends on where you live and your daily activities.

Check out --> Centre for extremist studies established -- Amsterdam

"The study found 40 percent of the Moroccan youth in the Netherlands reject western values and democracy. Six to seven percent are prepared to use force to defend Islam."

A similar poll by the Washington Post conducted in Detroit cites, "The study also found that only 8 percent of participants described themselves as "Wahhabi" or "Salafi," two terms used to described very literal, extremist interpretations of Islam. Bagby described an extremist as one who "rejects America, rejects participation in the political system and holds very conservative views of Islam."

8 percent of 3 million is 240,000 potential extremists in the US. When you see a severe lightning storm you choose to get off the golf course and find a safe place to sit out the storm. Its bigoted and xenophobic, but when a group of people do not denounce the barbarism carried out in their names, they are complicit with it. If anyone moves into my neighborhood, I welcome them regardless of their demographics. But, if they tell me they approve of suicide bombings, beheading, and terror, then I would change my opinion of them.

The problem in France is a class struggle, but one that is extremely exacerbated by Islam. This problem in France could merely be civil unrest and rioting, or erupt into a civil war, but it might also draw in jihadists from the entire Islamic world. At what point do you just surrender your democracy, and submit to an Islamic theocracy. This is Darfur; this is Somolia; this is Ethiopia; this is Sudan; this is etc etc etc. And, longer ago most of the middle easts population was forced to choose to become Islamic, a slave, or die.

In 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with Arab diplomats from Tunis, who were conducting terror raids and piracy against American ships. They wrote back to the US explaining thus; "We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Muslim who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

This was their world view over 200 years ago, and this is the world view held by a significant portion of the Muslim world. I believe it was Madison who commented that once we go to war with these people we would be at it forever.