Electoral Reform

[ShadowHM]

In today's news I finally saw the headline I have been waiting some time to see. :w00t:

I will get to cast my vote for some long overdue electoral reform. :D

The First Past the Post system (FPP) in use throughout North America is antiquated and has (over and over again) given us governments that do not reflect the popular vote. The Mixed Member Proportional system (MMP) that is recommended will do much to improve that problem. I have followed the issue of electoral reform for years now, watching as it s l o w l y has been working its way through the procedural gymnastics needed to get itself to my ballot box. (I just did a search on this board, and I am on record discussing this back in 2004.:rolleyes:)


And, next fall, I will have my chance to change my world - for the better. :cool:

[--Pete]

Hi,

And, next fall, I will have my chance to change my world - for the better. :cool:

Good for you. I've wanted similar changes for a long time, but there are no indications that anything like that is even on the horizon here. Though I've never before heard it called 'First Past the Post', the present system is indeed greatly flawed. In the case of the USA, if very slightly over half of the population throughout the country votes one party, then every elected official from president to county dog catcher will be from that party and the other half of the population will be effectively unrepresented. Although it is not that bad in practice nationwide, it is that bad in many states, counties and municipalities -- exactly the levels that have the greatest effect on everyday life. And for anyone not committed to one of the two major parties, the hope of having representation at any level that reflects that individual's desires is slim indeed.

Although the solution proposed has some flaws, chief amongst them the fact that it increases the number of political positions, it does look to be a step in the right direction. Perhaps this might even be the pebble that unleashes the avalanche of political reform throughout North America. If so, it is long past overdue.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

In today's news I finally saw the headline I have been waiting some time to see. :w00t:

I will get to cast my vote for some long overdue electoral reform. :D

The First Past the Post system (FPP) in use throughout North America is antiquated and has (over and over again) given us governments that do not reflect the popular vote. The Mixed Member Proportional system (MMP) that is recommended will do much to improve that problem. I have followed the issue of electoral reform for years now, watching as it s l o w l y has been working its way through the procedural gymnastics needed to get itself to my ballot box. (I just did a search on this board, and I am on record discussing this back in 2004.:rolleyes:)
And, next fall, I will have my chance to change my world - for the better. :cool:

It is not all good. This is how, if I recall correctly, an ultra-conservative (Jörg Haider) extreme rightist movement took control of Austria for a time. A majority (even slim ones) guarantees that the political movement that is the most mainstream will succeed. My locality is pretty much divided and sways between the major parties, however, most of the time what happens is deadlocks. The minority party spends most of its time trying to prevent the majority from passing any legislation. It is frustrating, but I am reminded now how beneficial deadlocks can be. Our state just finished the year with a 2.1 billion dollar surplus (meaning the people paid in more taxes than were consumed), and the current progressive legislature is trying to raise the tax rates across the board to collect an additional 3.1 billion. Yes, that's correct. We over paid, so they decided to collect more.

I believe there are at least four main problems with politics. Number one is the ignorance and apathy of the voters. Number two is that politician is now viewed as a career instead of a public service. And, number three is that there is not transparency in the monetary contributions given to candidates. Number four is that the laws and the constitution have been ignored for a brand of progressive moral prerogatives.

In the USA, I think we might be watching the beginning of the end of democracy. Where I live, 30% of the people pay no taxes at all, and 1/2 of those actually receive a payment at tax time (low income tax credit) for being low income. The voting trend of those non-paying voters is toward the party that keeps them off the tax roles, and the party that panders to them tries to increase the number of people who pay zero taxes to as high a level as is possible. So you see over time, a majority would be formed and be controlled by a group who do not pay for the government services they consume. This is a path toward financial ruin and defacto communism, where large complicit corporations (corporations not interested in capitalism, or free markets) fund politics and choose their own self sustaining puppet politicians. People believe that corporations are all "capitalist" and in favor of democracy, but it is not true. In my opinion, progressive taxation is a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Citizens should be treated equally, even in taxation. If you want to tax incomes, then all incomes should be taxed equally, and the yoke and lash of government should be felt equally by all.

It sounds far fetched, I know. I am concerned though when we openly allow and accept wealthy foreigners dedicating wealth toward influencing the politics of a nation (mine or yours). I am reminded of our revolutionary past when James Otis said, "taxation without representation is tyranny".

[Jester]

In my opinion, progressive taxation is a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

I don't see the argument. Everyone, equally, is taxed based on their income. You make X money, you pay Y taxes. Don't like how much Y is? Make less money, it's not like anyone's forcing you to work.

It is, to my mind, like the justice system. If you steal something, you are not entitled to avoid prison because people who didn't steal anything don't have to go to prison. That's not how equal protection works. You get the same set of laws applied to you as anyone else. It says nothing about the outcome, except that it be fairly applied to everyone equally.

There is nothing enshrined in the constitution that says each dollar must recieve equal protection. I can see the argument that progressive taxation is bad, although I strongly disagree. But that it's unconstitutional? I don't think that makes sense.

-Jester

[Jester]

In today's news I finally saw the headline I have been waiting some time to see. :w00t:

I will get to cast my vote for some long overdue electoral reform. :D

The First Past the Post system (FPP) in use throughout North America is antiquated and has (over and over again) given us governments that do not reflect the popular vote. The Mixed Member Proportional system (MMP) that is recommended will do much to improve that problem. I have followed the issue of electoral reform for years now, watching as it s l o w l y has been working its way through the procedural gymnastics needed to get itself to my ballot box. (I just did a search on this board, and I am on record discussing this back in 2004.:rolleyes:)
And, next fall, I will have my chance to change my world - for the better. :cool:

I'm glad they're going ahead with this.

Alberta could sure use something like that. A majority of people *didn't* vote for the Tories last election, but yet the opposition is an almost laughable minority of barely 25%. FPTP skews the numbers dramatically, almost halving the strength of the opposition. And those numbers are much better than the previous legislature, where the opposition did slightly worse on election day, but dramatically worse in result.

-Jester

[Chaerophon]

Hi Shadow,

I, too, am very excited about the Citizens' Assembly and its proposal. When I was doing my undergraduate work in BC I had the opportunity to watch the proceedings first hand and was amazed at the quality of the citizen deliberations. I've been similarly impressed in Toronto (where I'm doing my MA) and my PhD will likely relate to "experimental" deliberative exercises like the CA format, which (I think) might have interesting ramifications for the future of political representation. It's definitely helped to jar some preconceptions (among political scientists) about the ability of average citizens to reason about politics. When placed in the right setting, members have shown an impressive willingness to change their mind and actually respond to arguments and reasons rather than simply adhere to pre-formed biases and interpretations. Rather promising, I think.

I'm also excited at the prospect of electoral reform, although I've been shocked at the strongly pro-establishment attitude of several Toronto "media elites" who are presently controlling much of the public dialogue surrounding the issue. This was definitely not the case in BC - a sign of differences in political culture that might have been predicted, I suppose.

Anyways, I hope you get your wish and the proposal goes through.

BTW: our friends in California should get to know the process a little bit; from what I understand, there may be a proposal made sometime in the future that similar exercises (of a smaller scale) be used as deliberative "filters" on proposed ballot initiatives. There's also a similar process going on re: electoral reform in the Netherlands, so eppie should be paying attention!

[kandrathe]

I don't see the argument. Everyone, equally, is taxed based on their income. You make X money, you pay Y taxes. Don't like how much Y is? Make less money, it's not like anyone's forcing you to work.

It is, to my mind, like the justice system. If you steal something, you are not entitled to avoid prison because people who didn't steal anything don't have to go to prison. That's not how equal protection works. You get the same set of laws applied to you as anyone else. It says nothing about the outcome, except that it be fairly applied to everyone equally.

There is nothing enshrined in the constitution that says each dollar must receive equal protection. I can see the argument that progressive taxation is bad, although I strongly disagree. But that it's unconstitutional? I don't think that makes sense.

-Jester

This will be a long stretch for you, since I think you are a progressive and believe the government has a right to take peoples property. I am a libertarian and believe that the government has only those rights as is spelled out in the charter of government, and all other rights are retained by the citizens.

No, dollars do not receive equal protection. Citizens do. If the government seizes part of my property in the name of X, but allows my neighbor to keep all his because of some "status", that is a violation of equal protection. If that "status" was skin color... Or sexual orientation... You'd sing another tune. In creating a protected class of "Low Income" people the government has burdened the remainder with an unequal share of the costs of government. When the reason for the ever increasing cost of government is to give more to the protected "low income" class, and the bar of who is "low income" is raised ever higher, the result is that eventually the burden will be shifted to a minority of tax payers. Ergo, class warfare.

So, those people who report low income, or actually have low income are given protected status. As the definition of the bar of "low" is raised, and as the burden on the "producers" increases your advice is for them to get poor. And, then... Allow the government to be your nanny. This is the road to communism. If you can't see that, well, I can't paint the picture any more clearly. How about instead all people pay taxes equally? If you earn income you should pay income taxes, so when you vote for people that support tax increases you are burdening yourself along with all the other citizens.

I would rather we do away with income taxes over time, and begin to tax consumption. If you are really a "Save the Planet" global citizen, then you'd embrace taxing consumption as a way to curb consumerism. But, progressives don't want to tax consumption. That would force the low income people to share in the burden of government according to their share of the consumption. I don't know where this idea came from that "government" could go looking around to the deepest pockets and go take that money. The fundamental right of a citizen is to keep his legally obtained earnings and property, and this was the reason for the American Revolution. Just because a person is successful and diligent, or just lucky is no cause for the government to target that citizen and unfairly burden them. If that fortunate citizen has a soft spot for the underprivileged, it is their decision if they would share their good fortune. If we decide as a society to fund social programs, then we citizens should shoulder that burden equally and not duck out to pass the burden onto a fortunate minority, or borrow it from the future.

I would also like to point out a distinction here: We are not talking about the wealthy and the poor. The wealthy have no reason to earn an income. If Bill Gates wanted to pay zero taxes, it would be entirely within his means to do so and still remain the worlds richest person for his entire life. So, when we tax wage earners, we are really taxing productivity and those who choose to contribute to the GNP. So, do the "Low Income" class fund elections? Or, is it more likely that some wealthy "No Income" force is forging a political voting block?

There is no free lunch. Someone earned it and bought it for you. Why? There is a motive if you care to see it.

[Jester]

If the government seizes part of my property in the name of X, but allows my neighbor to keep all his because of some "status", that is a violation of equal protection. If that "status" was skin color... Or sexual orientation... You'd sing another tune.

That argument is bogus. The "status" of skin colour, and very likely sexual orientation, is not chosen, and, to boot, has no relevance to taxation. What does it matter that you're black or white, gay, straight or otherwise come tax season? Your income, on the other hand, is a result of your own choices, and is directly perntinent to the issue of how much you can be taxed without undue burden.

I don't think this notion of "status" has any legal weight whatsoever. Any American lawyers or jurists care to correct me on that?

The constitution clearly grants these powers of income taxation to the federal government. The sixteenth amendment, at the very least, is nonsensical unless you grant this. The argument that progressive taxation is unconsitutional is bogus.

The rest of your post a rant, one assertion after another about communism, class warfare, a rather novel interpretation of the american revolution, etc... You will, I hope, forgive me if I ignore it as being rather beside the point.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

I don't think this notion of "status" has any legal weight whatsoever. Any American lawyers or jurists care to correct me on that?

Actually, it does, and we have had court cases for the last ten years addressing this. The Affirmative Action programs are being challenged on just those grounds, the most common challenge being about admission to Universities in a number of states. The mechanism behind this status is based on rather Old Testament thinking: visit upon the grandchildren the sins of their grandfathers and great grandfathers, by assigning a remediation status in selected cases, based on ethnicity. My daughter is not eligible for about 2/3d's of the scholarships easily available here in Corpus Christi and Texas because I did not lie and claim that I am of Mexican or Hispanic heritage. Her status as an Anglo precludes her being considered. (Other programs are means based, and we make enough to qualify for very small grants, which I have directed her to apply for.)

As to some of the red herrings already netted, I don't think homosexuals have yet achieved that "special victim status", but rather are currently working to redress the special status of straights/breeders that they feel does not accrue to them on the legal front in marriage.

Both "status" matters are related to the Fourteenth amendment.

The sixteenth amendment does indeed change, fundamentally, the original prohibition against a head tax. Article I Section VIII grants to the Congress the authority to enact statutes to enable them to act, within the bounds of the constitution, to put into practice the general powers enumerated to them. So, the income tax is legal, all arguments against, and hair splitting over the word "income," noted.

Amendments can be repealed, as the Prohibition was repealed. The sixteenth could be repealed. Kandrathe's suggestion that head tax be replaced by a consumption tax is a model similar to what I saw in Italy. The IVA was about 19%, and Italy had as fine a collection fo tax dodgers as I ever saw. :lol: My state, Texas, has no income tax, but has property and sales tax.

Property Tax is an area, completely unrelated to income, where property owners and "haves" are soaked by local governments in what is well framed by many libertarians as "legal theft" by the mob.

Basically, we all vote ourselves a share of your property.

Coming up with a fair tax system is not a trivial undertaking. Some of the simplistic arguments made in favor of such are sadly only a millimetre deep. (Hey, I used metric! :w00t: )

Occhi

[eppie]

In the USA, I think we might be watching the beginning of the end of democracy. Where I live, 30% of the people pay no taxes at all, and 1/2 of those actually receive a payment at tax time (low income tax credit) for being low income. The voting trend of those non-paying voters is toward the party that keeps them off the tax roles, and the party that panders to them tries to increase the number of people who pay zero taxes to as high a level as is possible. So you see over time, a majority would be formed and be controlled by a group who do not pay for the government services they consume. This is a path toward financial ruin and defacto communism, where large complicit corporations (corporations not interested in capitalism, or free markets) fund politics and choose their own self sustaining puppet politicians. People believe that corporations are all "capitalist" and in favor of democracy, but it is not true. In my opinion, progressive taxation is a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Citizens should be treated equally, even in taxation. If you want to tax incomes, then all incomes should be taxed equally, and the yoke and lash of government should be felt equally by all.

It sounds far fetched, I know. I am concerned though when we openly allow and accept wealthy foreigners dedicating wealth toward influencing the politics of a nation (mine or yours). I am reminded of our revolutionary past when James Otis said, "taxation without representation is tyranny".

I disagree with two things kandrathe. First, usually (maybe I'm wrong and in your case this is different) the lowest incomes (or people without jobs) usually don't vote. In Holland a lot of right wing people say that immigrants are voting for left wing parties and the left wing parties try to be nicer to immigrants etc. etc. while in fact voting percentage among immigrants is very low, and if they vote they often have a tendency to vote for the christian conservative parties (because christian and muslim conservatives share many opinions). So I might be wrong but I find it hard to believe that what you say is true. I thought it was more a republican theme during elections to say that taxes should go down?

Second; I agree with higher taxes for higher incomes for the following reason. Higher incomes profit hugely from economic prosperity while they don't suffer so much when there are bad economic times. The economy is also based on people paying taxes. I mean pharmaceutical companies for example all go belly up when there are no health plans for people. So in fact a small contribution to a health insurance for poor people makes another group very rich....because they can sell stuff to them.

[Nystul]

There is no reason that something like that couldn't be implemented in more local jurisdictions in the U.S., and if it was successful you could push it at the state level. As far as I can see, there is zero possibility of a federal amendment to this effect unless it were to happen at the state level first. You need more third party politicians in actual positions of power and more people accustomed to voting for them to get the huge demand needed for a Constitutional amendment.

[eppie]

Hi Shadow,

I, too, am very excited about the Citizens' Assembly and its proposal. When I was doing my undergraduate work in BC I had the opportunity to watch the proceedings first hand and was amazed at the quality of the citizen deliberations. I've been similarly impressed in Toronto (where I'm doing my MA) and my PhD will likely relate to "experimental" deliberative exercises like the CA format, which (I think) might have interesting ramifications for the future of political representation. It's definitely helped to jar some preconceptions (among political scientists) about the ability of average citizens to reason about politics. When placed in the right setting, members have shown an impressive willingness to change their mind and actually respond to arguments and reasons rather than simply adhere to pre-formed biases and interpretations. Rather promising, I think.
BTW: our friends in California should get to know the process a little bit; from what I understand, there may be a proposal made sometime in the future that similar exercises (of a smaller scale) be used as deliberative "filters" on proposed ballot initiatives. There's also a similar process going on re: electoral reform in the Netherlands, so eppie should be paying attention!

I will, and I must say that I think the subject of your PhD research (will you start or have you already started?) looks very interesting to me. Be sure (if you can) to post some of your findings later on here.


ps I'm a bit confused by all the terms used here. Are you talking about what we (in Holland) call a referendum?

[ShadowHM]

I'm a bit confused by all the terms used here. Are you talking about what we (in Holland) call a referendum?

In short, yes. There will be a referendum in Ontario this fall to decide if we move to the MMP form of voting for provincial elections.

First referendum in this province since 1921 :w00t:

[kandrathe]

I disagree with two things kandrathe. First, usually (maybe I'm wrong and in your case this is different) the lowest incomes (or people without jobs) usually don't vote. In Holland a lot of right wing people say that immigrants are voting for left wing parties and the left wing parties try to be nicer to immigrants etc. etc. while in fact voting percentage among immigrants is very low, and if they vote they often have a tendency to vote for the christian conservative parties (because christian and muslim conservatives share many opinions). So I might be wrong but I find it hard to believe that what you say is true. I thought it was more a republican theme during elections to say that taxes should go down?

Second; I agree with higher taxes for higher incomes for the following reason. Higher incomes profit hugely from economic prosperity while they don't suffer so much when there are bad economic times. The economy is also based on people paying taxes. I mean pharmaceutical companies for example all go belly up when there are no health plans for people. So in fact a small contribution to a health insurance for poor people makes another group very rich....because they can sell stuff to them.

From my experience of poll watching the same percentages of population votes regardless of income status. Our turnouts and civic involvement levels are low, but low consistently. A motivated minority and apathetic majority can greatly sway the outcome of an election. At least until the next election cycle.

The dirty little secret is that you and most people in the world think that rich people work and earn lots of income. The way that taxation works (at least in the US) is that a very very wealthy person only needs to earn as much income as they want to consume. So, they choose the method by which they will pay the lowest tax and use that to convert an asset into income. They might pay some taxes, but it is a very very small fraction in the growth of their asset portfolio. You only pay capital gains taxes when you convert an asset into income. Understanding these mechanisms of capitalism is the key to transforming yourself from a lowly wage earner doing time for the man, to rich capitalist pig.

The poor and the wealthy share common interests in how they are treated by the government. Neither are real wage earners, so neither care about income taxes. Neither want to pay sales or property taxes. So, my advice to you middle classes is to go to San Francisco or New York (highest wage cities) during your most productive years and live frugally, then retire in Florida (a no sales tax, low taxation state) or next door to Doc if you'd like to raise fainting goats or go do some target shooting once in awhile for fun.

But, to offer an argument to my own hypothesis; If the government taxes income, then they profit most by encouraging and maintaining the highest productivity possible. This also means they should desire to keep the most number of people employed at the highest wage possible (note: this might explain the crush for higher and higher minimum wage). But, from a wage earner perspective progressive taxes become like leveling in Diablo II. Every level requires an even higher income to get to "rich enough". For most of us, rich enough means that we can afford to stop working at sometime before we become too decrepit to work and die of old age.

The wealthy begin at the end point, and so could care less if the middle classes battle politically for "who" pay's for the excesses of government. Some of those wealthy are on one side of the political spectrum, and some are on the other. The wage earners bear the burden, and the wealthy profit either way. Those too poor to contribute are used as political pawns pandered to by both sides. Now, I am not an anti-capitalist, but if you are going to pay the burden of government by taxing incomes you should understand the reality of taxation politics.

We are ruled by the wealthy, and they choose the puppets who don the mantles of political parties.

[kandrathe]

That argument is bogus. The "status" of skin color, and very likely sexual orientation, is not chosen, and, to boot, has no relevance to taxation. What does it matter that you're black or white, gay, straight or otherwise come tax season? Your income, on the other hand, is a result of your own choices, and is directly pertinent to the issue of how much you can be taxed without undue burden.

I was not equating skin color or sexual orientation with taxation.

I don't think this notion of "status" has any legal weight whatsoever. Any American lawyers or jurists care to correct me on that?

How about David Bernstein, 1991 graduate of the Yale Law School, has just completed a clerkship on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and now practices law in Washington, D.C.? Equal Protection for Economic Liberty <-- No flames please. Yes, I know it's a conservative think tank. But the article clearly references sources which show that the principal of equal protection being applied to economic justice are not new.

The constitution clearly grants these powers of income taxation to the federal government. The sixteenth amendment, at the very least, is nonsensical unless you grant this. The argument that progressive taxation is unconstitutional is bogus.

Yes, I agree the government has the right to levy a tax to support the government. My equal protection argument is that the government needs to apply that tax fairly. "Fairly" is the word in question. You consider it fair to burden 10% of the citizens with 80% of the taxes. I don't. And, as I've pointed out in other writing here, being a wage earner is in no way equal to being wealthy. The burden of taxation is unfairly distributed across wage earners, and even more unfairly distributed if you consider taxes paid in relation to net worth.

The rest of your post a rant, one assertion after another about communism, class warfare, a rather novel interpretation of the American revolution, etc... You will, I hope, forgive me if I ignore it as being rather beside the point.

Not a rant, but whatever. I'm just glad you read past the first sentence. :-)

[Icebird]

New Zealand voted to change to an MMP system about, oh, 4 elections back now? (We have elections every 3 years so its not quite as long as you might think).

I was also in BC when they went through their electoral reform process. I'm not 100% sure, but I think MMP had wider support in BC than it did in New Zealand, but the threshold to actually switch electoral systems was much higher than a simple majority. It was a bit of a confusing result really, since a clear majority did want a change, but the result was still significantly short of what was required.

In New Zealand, MMP has worked fine, and I don't think there would be a lot of support to change back. The two major parties under the FPP system are still the two major parties, but there are 6 other minor parties represented who managed to either get an electorate MP elected, or secure enough party votes to get over the 5% threshold. Under the old system there were absurd scenarios such as one where a third party got 20% of the vote, but only 2 members (out of 99) in parliament.

Chris

[Chaerophon]

I'm glad they're going ahead with this.

Alberta could sure use something like that. A majority of people *didn't* vote for the Tories last election, but yet the opposition is an almost laughable minority of barely 25%. FPTP skews the numbers dramatically, almost halving the strength of the opposition. And those numbers are much better than the previous legislature, where the opposition did slightly worse on election day, but dramatically worse in result.

-Jester

Alan Cairns wrote an interesting article in the '60s or '70's about the effects of FPTP on federal politics. His conclusion was that it greatly exaggerates regional tensions - e.g. the Liberals consistently gain 25% support in Alberta, and yet the province is thought of as strongly "anti-Liberal". Most experts agree that, over time, a more proportional system would likely lead to some softening of the perception that, for example, Western interests are entirely "distinct" from those of central Canadians. The effects of the electoral system on a country's political sociology are so much greater than most people realize. We all take our method of voting for granted, but it really does help to shape the way that we look at our fellow citizens.

[Jester]

Yes, I agree the government has the right to levy a tax to support the government. My equal protection argument is that the government needs to apply that tax fairly. "Fairly" is the word in question. You consider it fair to burden 10% of the citizens with 80% of the taxes. I don't. And, as I've pointed out in other writing here, being a wage earner is in no way equal to being wealthy. The burden of taxation is unfairly distributed across wage earners, and even more unfairly distributed if you consider taxes paid in relation to net worth.

There is nothing in either the constitution or the 16th amendment specifically that says an income tax must be in precise proportion to one's income. Nor is there any mention whatsoever, in the constitution or in my argument, about weath (as related to income taxes). Since the power to tax based on income is granted to the government, there does not seem to be any basis for the claim that it is unconsitutional that this income tax be progressive. If it is the case that any person, all other factors being equal, earns the same quantity of money as another, they pay the same quantity of taxes. That is, to my mind, fairness. There is only the obligation to treat people equally, not the dollars they earn equally.

Clearly the government of the United States agrees with me, because they levy progressive income taxes every year. Constitutional challenges go up and down, but this concept has been pretty secure since what, 1913?

Again, your argument seems to be that you don't *agree* with progressive income tax, that it strikes you as unfair. And I disagree. But the issue here is whether it is unconsitutional. I think that argument is, both de facto and de jure, wrong.

There does not appear to be anything in that article that specifically adresses the constitutionality of progressive income taxes. I have neither the time nor the expertise to even approach an argument about the broad rubric of "economic liberty." However, it appears that, whatever the result of that overall debate, income taxes, whatever their form, are a power granted to the federal government by the 16th amendment, and unless there is some compelling argument to the contrary, I think your argument is, once again, bogus.

-Jester

Postscript: It is, perhaps, interesting that I read and reply to this CATO institute article (being warned not to flame it) while I have on, in the background, the 4th season of a rather wonderful show by two of their fellows.

Edit: Clarification, correction. Penn and Teller are Fellows at CATO.

[Jester]

Alan Cairns wrote an interesting article in the '60s or '70's about the effects of FPTP on federal politics. His conclusion was that it greatly exaggerates regional tensions - e.g. the Liberals consistently gain 25% support in Alberta, and yet the province is thought of as strongly "anti-Liberal". Most experts agree that, over time, a more proportional system would likely lead to some softening of the perception that, for example, Western interests are entirely "distinct" from those of central Canadians. The effects of the electoral system on a country's political sociology are so much greater than most people realize. We all take our method of voting for granted, but it really does help to shape the way that we look at our fellow citizens.

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

[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

No problem. It really is a great article.