Collaborative Proposal Creation
Create, improve and sponsor proposals in a respectful, fully bilingual environment. Grow proposals in the "Hothouse", for promotion to the "Workshop", to become official GPC policy.
Proposal text
The Green Party of Canada will consider a Single Member Party Proportional Voting system alongside other Proportional Representation systems, and that a nation-wide Citizen’s Assembly will be held on democratic reform and will include presentations on all Proportional Representation systems.
Type of Proposal
Public policy that the party would represent
Objective / Benefit
The objective is to implement proportional representation in the voting system.
If your proposal replaces an existing policy or policies, which one does it replace?
N/A
List any supporting evidence for your proposal
N/A
Does this proposal affect any particular group and what efforts have been made to consult with the group or groups?
N/A
Jurisdiction: Is this proposal under federal jurisdiction?
Yes
Please indicate the language the proposal is being submitted in.
English
This proposal is being evaluated
Posted on the Continuous Motion Development Vote tab for member review prior to the all-member vote.
We're building a new kind of politics. One that is open, participatory, and people-powered
If you believe in what we're doing, please consider making a small donation to help us build it
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
View all comments
Conversation with Colin Creasey
You would appear to have not read our proposal, which is the exact opposite of convoluted. The convoluted proposal that I was referring to was the one that changed riding boundaries, had you voting for 2 people, and involved Party's appointing people. There is none of that in SMPP. However, as it seems that you have already decided your preference, and that all others are unworthy, so there seems to be little point in discussing this with you any further.
And by the way, these exchanges are meant to be kept civil. Your use of the acronym KISS is scarcely that, and I take
offense at your insinuation. Trying to belittle people who disagree is not the way to have civil discourse.
While I should have dropped the last S, I do not consider your proposal simple. While it clearly attempts to bring proportionality to the voting process in the house, any scheme that brings computer generated (as opposed to computer counted) results into play is not simple, and would render election night effectively a boring non competition.
I still prefer a ranked ballot scheme, that does not change riding boundaries. It's not proportional but would engage the public.
No offence meant. Criticism is tough even when polite.
I am having some difficulty in accepting your assertion that this proposal isn't simple. However, surely an approach should be that whatever system is chosen should be up to a Citizens Assembly, and let them decide from all of the variants that have been put forward, which they consider the best. Personally, I am not a fan of a ranked ballot, but I see no problem in it being presented to a Citizens Assembly. It isn't my choice, but it should be considered. We all have our own favourites, but we shouldn't limit the choices to be considered.
We need to have a simple option to start things off, in order for PR to be readily accepted by the general public. Our proposal could be an interim one. The thinking behind it was that we could use it for, say, two elections, then go back to the Citizens Assembly to see if they feel that the general public might be ready for another version of PR, or if they are happy with what the one that they decided on.
Our proposal was put together by a group of concerned citizens, made up of Greens, NDP, and Liberals, plus a few who were non-aligned, who believed that the current PR systems were a little to complex to be readily understood by the general public, and that that hurdle had to be overcome in order to get PR accepted generally.
Several months were spent on this proposal, and it took 21 drafts to get it passed by the group. They also presented it to a provincial Green Party leader, (not ours), who considered it a legitimate proposal.
I don't know what else to tell you. This proposal has no change to electoral boundaries, no voting for more than one candidate, and no Party-appointed MP's. If a Party did not get any seats, then they would have to appoint a representative to Parliament in order to represent those who voted for that Party. The only change to the current system is that there would be a second National vote to reflect the percentage of the vote that a Party received. A simple computer program could be set up in Parliament to do the math when voting on legislation.
Oh, and by the way, despite what I said in my previous response, no offense taken. 🙂
Loading comments ...