[fvc-wat-disc] Conservatives & concerns

[Rick Fairman]

Thanks for your response Paul.  The points you make are very interesting and 
perhaps overly optimistic regarding the implied degree of altruism that 
pervades our civilization.

I observe our society as hugely competitive wherein many seek advantages 
over their fellows economically, influentially and otherwise, which is why I 
see a disincentive to the reform of a system which often rewards 
disproportionately the two parties in question.  It's like if you bought 
something for ten dollars, paid the cashier the ten and got back twenty 
dollars change.  There are some who would point out the mistake and not take 
advantage and others who wouldn't.  Just what portion of which is at large 
in society is anybody's guess, but I fear it is significant for the latter.

Ethically, within a nation claiming to espouse democracy, FPTP is just plain 
wrong---it should be obvious.  Why isn't it to many?  The reason, I believe, 
at least some Conservatives and Liberals don't want FVC to present is that 
they are afraid they may become convicted of this fact.  There is a 
disincentive to want to listen if it means giving up some of their excessive 
influence and power.  The need is to somehow awaken people's innate sense of 
decency and fairness.

Another problem, I believe, is fear ("stick with the devil you know").  
People would much rather have a dictator than chaos.  And chaos is what is 
being pushed at people by MMP's detractors.  A strategy to assuage people's 
fear by pointing out MMP's successes is needed.  Is there some kind of 
quick-reference guide to such successes?

These are some of the challenges, I think we need to effectively face.  
Thanks.

Rick

>From: Paul Nijjar <pnijjar at sdf.lonestar.org>
>Reply-To: FVC Waterloo Region Discussion 
><fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org>
>To: FVC Waterloo Region Discussion <fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org>
>Subject: RE: [fvc-wat-disc] Conservative riding nomination
>Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 21:51:03 -0400 (EDT)
>
>On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Rick Fairman wrote:
>
>>With the exception of Kim Campbell's PC's in 1995 (or thereabouts) 
>>federally, I don't know of any other examples when FPTP was not 
>>advantageous to the Libs or the Cons (perhaps in B.C.?).  It seems to me, 
>>it serves their electoral interests rather well--- giving them more than 
>>they deserve almost always.  I am very interested to know why you say that 
>>FPTP does not serve them well.
>
>	I have been thinking about this quite a bit over the past little while. 
>Here are a few examples (without numbers to back them up, although others 
>should feel free to pitch in):
>
>	- Both the federal and provincial governments are starting to understand 
>that people are losing faith in their democracy, which is why they both 
>have instituted portfolios for "Democratic Renewal". I wonder whether such 
>portfolios are mostly lip-service, but they at least acknowledge the 
>disaffection many voters -- including Liberals and Conservatives -- feel 
>about their democracies.
>
>	- Just because Liberals and Conservatives usually win elections does not 
>mean that they don't get squished when they don't get into power. McGuinty 
>felt this when Mike Harris got elected for the second time -- people worked 
>hard to kick Harris out of power, but thanks to our voting system Harris 
>got another phony majority.
>
>	- The Conservatives have problems winning federal seats in Ontario, and in 
>urban ridings. There are lots of people in Toronto who like the 
>Conservatives, but their votes are wasted because more of their neighbours 
>vote Liberal. (FVC has numbers on this phenomenon.)
>
>	- The Liberals have traditionally had problems winning provincial seats in 
>Ontario for much the same reason. There was a long string of Conservative 
>governments that did not come to an end until the David Peterson-Bob Rae 
>coalition of the mid 1980s.
>
>	- Federally, the right has been trying to deal with the unfairness of the 
>voting system ever since Kim Campbell's big loss (which was actually 1993). 
>The Reform Party and the PCs kept splitting the vote, and the Liberals kept 
>winning elections by going up the middle.
>	The right has tried to address this issue with its "Unite the Right" 
>campaign. To some degree it worked -- there is one right wing party 
>federally and it formed the government. But it's not a very stable solution 
>-- different factions who call themselves conservative have very different 
>views on social issues -- and Derek says that the new Conservative Party 
>received less of the vote than the combined vote of the old Reform and 
>Progressive Conservative parties before "Unite the Right".
>
>	- One of the things that both Liberals and Conservatives value is the 
>market. One of the big reasons markets work over centralized command 
>economies is because markets make use of information better. Everybody is 
>allowed to pursue their own interests according to their local conditions.
>	Our voting system throws away HALF the votes that are cast, in the sense 
>that about half the votes do not contribute to electing political 
>representation. Why do we think that throwing away all of that information 
>is a better way to run a government than making use of it by remembering it 
>across ridings?
>
>	- There's one argument that I think people in the Liberal and Conservative 
>parties may not appreciate, but that they maybe should: competition between 
>parties gives us more responsive governments. MMP gives us two layers of 
>opposition for the ruling (i.e. major coalition) party: one in the form of 
>the official opposition (which is the case now) and another layer in the 
>form of junior coalition partners, who have incentives to prevent the 
>ruling party from going too off track.
>
>	- Finally, voting systems where more people's votes count are *more 
>democractic* than systems where half the votes are thrown away. That is an 
>issue for people of all parties who actually believe in the concept of 
>democracy, which I would hope includes many people who vote for big-tent 
>parties. So many defences of FPTP smack of elitism -- that the people 
>cannot be trusted to have more than two choices in their elections.
>I am not articulating this point very well, but I feel it pretty strongly, 
>and I think that many people who vote for big-tent parties share this 
>populist sentiment. (People who oppose MMP often do so by trying to play on 
>this sentiment, which is why they try to say that the list MPPs under MMP 
>are "unelected", ignoring the way that candidates are nominated and the way 
>that people vote for governments now.)
>
>- Paul
>
>--
>Paul Nijjar - http://www.fairvotecanada.org/WaterlooRegion
>Next electoral reform info night: Tuesday June 12, 7pm
>_______________________________________________
>fvc-wat-disc mailing list
>fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
>http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc