[QUOTE="RustedArmor"]

Conservatives won the single seats in Yukon Territory and Nunavut and one seat in Prince Edward Island. I doubt the Conservatives would do anything that would severely alienate their supporters in any of these ridings. Now some questions. Is proportional representation ethical, considering many Canadians in the smallest Provinces would be effectively voiceless because of the overwhelming numerical advantage that the populations of Ontario and Quebec have? Is proportional representation really effective, considering only the Libs, Bloc, and Greens would gain seats, especially when left wingers are represented by NDPs in the House of Commons already? Is proportional representation accurate, considering that voters in the prairies decide not to sacrifice a few hours salary to vote when they know their riding is going to be a conservative blowout whether they vote or not? Simply put proportional representation doesn't make sense unless voter turnout was 100%.

GabuEx

This line of reasoning makes no sense for the simple fact that the smallest provinces are already voiceless for that exact same reason. You keep asserting that proportional representation would somehow silence these provinces, yet they already are utterly ignored for precisely the reasons you're saying they'll be ignored under proportional representation.

You have to remember that just because proportional representation would benefit you today, it doesn't mean that it will benefit you 4 years, 8 years, 12 years, and 16 years down the road. On the other hand, I have to remember that just because today's electoral process would benefit me today, it doesn't mean that it will benefit me 4 years, 8 years, 12 years, and 16 years down the road. That being said look at it this way, in 1984 the Progressive Conservatives gained won 211 seats. 7 years later, in 1993 the Progressive Conservatives won 2 seats. It took 13 years to rebuild a party that could win a minority government and 18 years to build a party that could win a majority government. This is after the Reform Party and Progressive Conservatives unified the right by merging so that they could seriously challenge the Liberals. If you feel that vote splitting is killing the left, maybe you can decide whether it is redundant to have a Liberal Party, a New Democrat Party, a Green Party, and the Bloc Quebecois.

RustedArmor

Or, we could enact proportional representation, which would enable people to vote their conscience, knowing that every vote counts, as opposed to tactically, choosing between the lesser of two evils just because they know anything else would be throwing their vote away.

This has nothing to do with what benefits me; this has everything to do with ensuring the government in Parliament actually accurately represents the interests of the people in Canada. When a person or party who only a minority voted for gets elected or gets a majority, that is an utter failure of the democratic process.

Under the current system the territories and Atlantic Canada receive 35 seats in the House of Commons. Under proportional representation they would only receive 22 seats. If the current system leaves these regions of Canada voiceless, then proportional representation leaves them even more insignificant and irrelevent. Look at it this way, if the Consevatives completely ignored Atlantic Canada and the territories and lost every seat there, then the Conservatives would be four seats short of a majority. Basicaly, Conservatives are forced to remain accountable to these provinces and territories if they intend to maintain their majority going into the next election.

[QUOTE="RustedArmor"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Why would any party fight for the interests of the Territories or PEI right now? Combined they're worth all of six seats. Whoop-dee-doo.

Ace6301

Although not quite right now, Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives were exactly six seats short of a majority government after the 1979 elections. Potentially, Albertan families wouldn't have lost $18000 annually per household due to the National Energy Program if the Liberals and NDPs hadn't forced an election within 273 days.

In the 1993 federal elections, the Preston Manning's Reform Party was three seats short of being the official leader of the opposition. Perhaps the Bloc Quebecois would never have been in the position necessary to try to break the county apart twice. Plus Quebec wouldn't be in a good enough position to force highly disproportionate equalization cheques from the federal government.

Trust me 6 seats can change history.

Conservatives won the single seats in Yukon Territory and Nunavut and one seat in Prince Edward Island. I doubt the Conservatives would do anything that would severely alienate their supporters in any of these ridings. Now some questions. Is proportional representation ethical, considering many Canadians in the smallest Provinces would be effectively voiceless because of the overwhelming numerical advantage that the populations of Ontario and Quebec have? Is proportional representation really effective, considering only the Libs, Bloc, and Greens would gain seats, especially when left wingers are represented by NDPs in the House of Commons already? Is proportional representation accurate, considering that voters in the prairies decide not to sacrifice a few hours salary to vote when they know their riding is going to be a conservative blowout whether they vote or not? Simply put proportional representation doesn't make sense unless voter turnout was 100%.

You have to remember that just because proportional representation would benefit you today, it doesn't mean that it will benefit you 4 years, 8 years, 12 years, and 16 years down the road. On the other hand, I have to remember that just because today's electoral process would benefit me today, it doesn't mean that it will benefit me 4 years, 8 years, 12 years, and 16 years down the road. That being said look at it this way, in 1984 the Progressive Conservatives gained won 211 seats. 7 years later, in 1993 the Progressive Conservatives won 2 seats. It took 13 years to rebuild a party that could win a minority government and 18 years to build a party that could win a majority government. This is after the Reform Party and Progressive Conservatives unified the right by merging so that they could seriously challenge the Liberals. If you feel that vote splitting is killing the left, maybe you can decide whether it is redundant to have a Liberal Party, a New Democrat Party, a Green Party, and the Bloc Quebecois.

[QUOTE="RustedArmor"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Seats are already proportionally allocated according to population; it's just that they're not distributed proportionally according to who the people want in office. How exactly would the Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver areas dominate the scene under proportional representation in a way that they don't already?

GabuEx

I guess I overstated the affect that proportional representation would have in Toronto. However, Vancouver has for example 18 out of 308 seats at a federal level. That is 5.84% of seats compared 6.21% it would get under proportional representation. Montreal has 34 out of 308 seats which is 11.04% of seats compared to 11.31% it would get under proportional representation. Although that doesn't seem like much that margin of difference is 218296 people/votes. However, it is larger than Prince Edward Island's population or the populations of every single territory combined. Why would any party fight for the interests of the Territories or PEI when they have relatively little influence in the grand scheme of things regarding which party becomes the government.

Why would any party fight for the interests of the Territories or PEI right now? Combined they're worth all of six seats. Whoop-dee-doo.

Although not quite right now, Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives were exactly six seats short of a majority government after the 1979 elections. Potentially, Albertan families wouldn't have lost $18000 annually per household due to the National Energy Program if the Liberals and NDPs hadn't forced an election within 273 days.

In the 1993 federal elections, the Preston Manning's Reform Party was three seats short of being the official leader of the opposition. Perhaps the Bloc Quebecois would never have been in the position necessary to try to break the county apart twice. Plus Quebec wouldn't be in a good enough position to force highly disproportionate equalization cheques from the federal government.

Trust me 6 seats can change history.

[QUOTE="RustedArmor"]

[QUOTE="Tylendal"] I've got what I feel is a really good concept for a form of proportional representation. I'm planning on speaking to Jean Crowder (local MP, and NDP, so she'll actually be interested in listening) about it and how we could get the ball rolling. It would take the focus off of local voting and strategic voting, whereas the MP your riding would receive would be based more on how much the leading MP in your riding won by, allowing the number of MPs per party to be divided up by percentage of popular vote for the party. This probably sounds really confusing and convoluted, but I don't feel like going into detail right now.

GabuEx

A federal government is supposed to represent every region of Canada, not the 2 or 3 provinces that have the largest population and definitely not just MTV(Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver). For example, Ontario and Quebec make up 60% of Canada's entire population. It would be pretty easy for Liberals and NDPs to say "Screw the West. We'll get the Rest.".

I am not just fear mongering. Wonder why the liberals do pathetically in the west? Look no further than the early 1980s. Pierre Trudeau didn't give a damn about the West because he didn't need support from BC, AB, SK, MB to win a majority government. As a result the Liberals passed the National Energy Policy, costing the West 50 Billion to 100 Billion dollars. But hey, at least Ontario and Quebec are satisfied. That's the only thing that matters, right? Oh well, at least they finally got what was coming to them a belated 30 years later. (4 seats out of 92 in the West. LOL).

Another example, Greater Montreal, the Greater Toronto Area, and Metro Vancouver have a combined population of 11 million. That's more than the populations of 12 out of 13 individual provinces and territories. Urban Canada will get what they want at the expense of rural Canada. Support from as little as three cities gets federal parties halfway to a majority.

And what about Atlantic Canada and the territories. These four provinces and three territories make up only 7% of the population. Would their interests be considered at a federal level if it meant less money would go to Quebec? Probably not.

Proportional representation means federal parties don't have to be accountable to most of Canada. If the NDP can only get 16 seats west of Ontario they don't even deserve to be a minority government. The fact is the Consevatives have the majority of votes in three separate provinces(Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba) and 49.9% in Nunavat. The closest the NDP has is 42.9% in Quebec(funny how that works out) and 45.8% in the Northwest Territories. The current system is fine as it is.Although if Alberta and British Columbia had the same population per riding ratio as Quebec those provinces would have 35 seats (compared to 28 ) and 43 seats (compared to 36) respectively. If somehow the NDP win next time and introduce proportional representation, don't expect there to be 10 provinces and 3 territories anymore.

Seats are already proportionally allocated according to population; it's just that they're not distributed proportionally according to who the people want in office. How exactly would the Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver areas dominate the scene under proportional representation in a way that they don't already?

I guess I overstated the affect that proportional representation would have in Toronto. However, Vancouver has for example 18 out of 308 seats at a federal level. That is 5.84% of seats compared 6.21% it would get under proportional representation. Montreal has 34 out of 308 seats which is 11.04% of seats compared to 11.31% it would get under proportional representation. Although that doesn't seem like much that margin of difference is 218296 people/votes. However, it is larger than Prince Edward Island's population or the populations of every single territory combined. Why would any party fight for the interests of the Territories or PEI when they have relatively little influence in the grand scheme of things regarding which party becomes the government.

[QUOTE="Haziqonfire"]

Proportional Representation seat distribution would have been:

Cons 122

NDP 95

Lib 58

Bloc 19

Green 14

--

Too bad we use FPTP still.

Tylendal

A federal government is supposed to represent every region of Canada, not the 2 or 3 provinces that have the largest population and definitely not just MTV(Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver). For example, Ontario and Quebec make up 60% of Canada's entire population. It would be pretty easy for Liberals and NDPs to say "Screw the West. We'll get the Rest.".

I am not just fear mongering. Wonder why the liberals do pathetically in the west? Look no further than the early 1980s. Pierre Trudeau didn't give a damn about the West because he didn't need support from BC, AB, SK, MB to win a majority government. As a result the Liberals passed the National Energy Policy, costing the West 50 Billion to 100 Billion dollars. But hey, at least Ontario and Quebec are satisfied. That's the only thing that matters, right? Oh well, at least they finally got what was coming to them a belated 30 years later. (4 seats out of 92 in the West. LOL).

Another example, Greater Montreal, the Greater Toronto Area, and Metro Vancouver have a combined population of 11 million. That's more than the populations of 12 out of 13 individual provinces and territories. Urban Canada will get what they want at the expense of rural Canada. Support from as little as three cities gets federal parties halfway to a majority.

And what about Atlantic Canada and the territories. These four provinces and three territories make up only 7% of the population. Would their interests be considered at a federal level if it meant less money would go to Quebec? Probably not.

Proportional representation means federal parties don't have to be accountable to most of Canada. If the NDP can only get 16 seats west of Ontario they don't even deserve to be a minority government. The fact is the Consevatives have the majority of votes in three separate provinces(Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba) and 49.9% in Nunavat. The closest the NDP has is 42.9% in Quebec(funny how that works out) and 45.8% in the Northwest Territories. The current system is fine as it is.Although if Alberta and British Columbia had the same population per riding ratio as Quebec those provinces would have 35 seats (compared to 28 ) and 43 seats (compared to 36) respectively. If somehow the NDP win next time and introduce proportional representation, don't expect there to be 10 provinces and 3 territories anymore.

How about Toronto. Even for just the novelty of GTA: GTA(Greater Toronto Area).

I went to the Canadian Junior National Debate Championship in Calgary last month. The best debaters are those who can present a convincing argument on both sides of the debate. I think it is easier to debate the side that is opposite of the social norm most of the time as you can anticipate what your opponents are going to say before they even open their mouths.

:oops:

I would suggest Google Documents for any projects that involve collaboration among multiple computers and people. Especially projects with multiple files. Another plus is that the files can be edited from any computer with Internet whether it be Windows, Mac, Linux...