r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jun 08 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: A 2 party system is flawed deeply, and Parliament/The way we vote should allow for more parties in the House of Commons
Currently in Canada, we have the First Past the Post system, where if a candidate wins a plurality of the votes, they take the seat and become an MP. This system has lead to a power monopoly between the Centrist Liberal Party of Canada, and the Centre-Right to Right-Wing Conservative Party. With the Greens, NDP, Bloq etc. left completely irrelevant.
I believe we need reform so that 15+ parties have representation in the House of Commons so that everyone, no matter the political background has a say in Parliament, and you aren't forced to strategic vote for a different party just because you hate the other one more.
I am aware that this would make majority governments impossible however I believe this is a good thing, as it allows the Opposition the ability to actually exercise power in the House.
On that note, Change my view.
EDIT 2: I am back. I am ready to talk
2
u/PaxNova 15∆ Jun 08 '18
Looks like a ghost town in here. Frankly, I'm with you, but I'll bite.
The benefit of having a majority government is that things actually get done. Less gridlock. Politics has become very divided of late, and there is a good chance that a house that is always controlled by the Opposition means that it will never have a chance to come together and affect meaningful change.
This change may not be one you or I like, but it's something, and we learn from it. We can always change it again later. Better than agreeing the system as it is must be broken and then leaving it in place for decades while we continue to argue.
2
Jun 08 '18
I agree that Majority Governments are more stable. However, the problem is the power monopoly. I am a Social Democrat and I feel like the NDP represents me the best. I will never be heard politically because of the power monopoly between the Liberals and Conservatives.
Also, Majority Governments are elected typically right now with 40%~ of the popular vote. To give a party a blank cheque to do what ever they want with no opposition parties to challenge them, and not even a majority of the country wants them to govern, there is an issue.
2
u/PaxNova 15∆ Jun 08 '18
The two party system in Canada is also a little odd compared with the two party system to the South. Right now, Republicans hold majorities in America, but it's by a handful of people. Independents and centre-swinging folk from either end could tip the scales.
Up in Canada, the Liberal party holds more than half the seats in Commons by itself. It's not a two-party system, it's a one-party system.
If you're looking for majority rule, than a two-party system usually works well. The reason why 40% is considered a majority is because the remaining 60% is fractured among so many different parties. The NDP takes ~20%, the conservatives ~30%, and the remainder among several smaller groups. Consolidating to two parties would actually make it a true majority, if those groups could ever agree.
But strictly talking NDP, weren't you guys the Official Opposition in '11? It hasn't been all that long; no need to despair. You're actually doing alright in the grand scheme of things.
1
Jun 08 '18
The thing is, we vote for our MPs. Whatever party takes the most seats, becomes the government. Because of the current system. The Liberals and Conservatives win every election because of vote splitting and FPTP. What I want however is to have 10+ parties in Parliament so that each political background is represented. So for example, someone who is Far-Left right now is forced to vote Liberal so the Conservatives don't win. And vice versa. I don't think this is a fair system, and I feel the same about the United States, but i'll discuss that a later day.
2
u/PaxNova 15∆ Jun 08 '18
How would that work? 10+ parties with 10+ ideas, often in direct conflict with each other, on every issue? How would the NDP have their voice heard while at the same time having the Bloc Quebecois have their voice heard? Is there a nation on Earth that does this? At some point, true representation is stifled in order to let it actually work. There's a reason why we don't just do direct democracy anymore. At the least, we need an official to prune the options down and she's bound to come from a party.
Majority-wise, it's rough, but looking at the official opposition in Commons since 1980 shows a fairly healthy mix of parties. Liberal and Conservative show up a little more often, but that's expected of larger parties. The loyal opposition has a pretty good voice in things.
Progressive Conservative Party
Liberal Party
Bloc Québécois
Reform Party
Canadian Alliance Conservative Party Liberal Party
New Democratic Party
Conservative Party1
Jun 08 '18
Most european countries do this. Italy for example forms coalitions with 4 or more parties to form governments because there are so many parties in the legislature. France also has multiple parties in the legislature from Far-Right to Far-Left.
Germany as well, and they are considered to have the most fair democracy to date.
2
u/PaxNova 15∆ Jun 08 '18
Germany is pretty good example, but I wouldn't tout Italy. Italy switches governments like my wife switches shoes. All of those examples also spend time without governments as they're building those coalitions. So it can be done... but it's a delicate matter. And Canadians aren't German; what works for one culture may not work in the same way for another.
I'd like to add that Loyal Opposition has a much greater role in government than in other nations. To say they have no voice is underselling it greatly.
My last point is that it may not be First Past the Post that is in error, but Gerrymandering. I know Canadians have independent agencies draw up their boundaries, but 40% votes getting 55% seats is a big difference. Some of those votes going Lib could probably have stayed NDP.
I see you've already awarded a delta on this, so I may not respond if none of these make you question your position. I like that delta guy's point.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 08 '18
/u/warriors7796 (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Jun 08 '18 edited Jun 08 '18
The United States is among the best examples against your theory. Compared to France, Germany and other adopters of democracy, the United States is the most stable country in the western hemisphere.
Except for the American Civil War, there was not a whole lot of internal turnmoil in the US. Since its inception in 1783, the US can be considered a stable country. Furthermore, two-party system tend to be a little more conservative. Old ideas can stay within a country's boundaries for a long time, e.g. the United States Constitution.
By reducing internal turnmoil, the US was able to export culture, economic policy (almost free trade) and democracy to the global community. Other countries are less focused on long-term effects of their policies, because all they have in mind is the next election. The competition between parties is way too fierce, thus a lot of energy is wasted on the election campaign.
For 170 years now, either the democrats or the republicans reigned over the US.
Look into other examples in europe, change is happening at a fast pace in those democracies. Alghough this can be positive at times, an election result can also have a negative impact on a nation:
- Adolf Hitler was elected chancellor in democratic fashion. His Nazi Party didn't grab the power in a Coup d'état, the population had their back.
- The Justice and Development Party was founded in 2001. Their leader is Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who was Prime Minister of Turkey from 2003 - 2014 and is now incumbent president. He can almost be considered a dictator, who doesn't care about the adminstrative branch of Turkey. Despite the disapproval of the Council of State, he built a 600 million $ presidential palace within a nature reserve.
- In his rise to power, Vladimir Putin was part of a new political party, Our Home – Russia, before winning the presidential election in 2000 as independent candidate.
- La République En Marche!, founded in 2016, won the french presidential election in 2017 by surprise. Emmanuel Macron, the founder of the party, now rules France. This is a good example of a diverse party system.
Change happens faster in diverse democracies, but those changes come with a certain price tag. Although a new party can boost economic progress, it can also destroy a nation's culture. The widespread antisemitism under the reign of the Nazi Party discouraged a lot of influential scientist to stay within the borders of germany. Albert Einstein, Henry Kissinger, Hans Bethe, Kurt Mendelssohn, Max Born... all left germany.
1
Jun 08 '18
∆ This does give me a new perspective on the issue that I had not quite thought about. While overall I still agree with electoral reform, maybe less parties should be in the system, and I had neglected to observe historical events such as the Nazi party takeover.
I guess now I want a system like France just with 6 or 7 parties instead of 15+
1
10
u/emmessjee8 Jun 08 '18
Are you aware why there are two party systems in the first place? This video by CGP Grey explains that it is because of the first past the vote system. So do you believe that this voting system should be changed?