IMO MMP is a way better system, perhaps combined with IRV at the constituency/riding level (to avoid weird results when many candidates are running in a single constituency).
I was looking for the clearest statement, that I could post on fb, and, for me, this is it. I enjoyed several of the other videos but I really want to make the point with people who might not know about this.
Although ANY type of PR would be a step forward, I prefer MMP... DPR excludes any parties that have a significant portion of the popular vote, yet don't have any seats (such as was the case for the Green party for so many years).
This is a great educational video. Just a couple of criticisms. I think MMP - mixed member proportional is a more accepted term than DPR. Also one of the big criticisms for MMP is party control of candidates for the party vote with closed lists. Would have been great to see MMP with open lists..
Here's part of what the UK Jenkins Commission had to say about what it calls the "weighted vote member system", or as the video calls it "DPR": "Whether they [MPs] would carry these [additional voting strength] numbers round their necks or on their backs, rather like prize bulls at an agricultural show, is not clear, but what is clear is that there would be great problems if one of these vote-heavy beasts were to find himself in a lobby different from his party leader and whips, or worse still, if he were permanently to lumber off across the floor. There would inevitably be the most excited attempts to re-corral him. And the ability sometimes to take independent action must surely be preserved, even encouraged, if MPs are not to become party automata. Therefore, while we respect the ingenuity and conviction with which this weighted vote solution has been put forward, we think that it would arouse more mockery than enthusiasm and be incompatible with the practical working of parliament." ("The Report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System", 1998)
+Gregg Hill I am an admirer of Roy Jenkins. He let himself and his Commission report down with this comment. In a digital world numbers do not have to be carried around in any physical sense except perhaps in the form of a smart card which looks identical regardless of the number encoded. Let’s take the extreme case where a party has one MP. That MP will be the sole representative of the party in the parliament. If that MP can be the sole voice speaking up for, representing, the party in the parliament when there is a party political debate, why cannot that MP vote on behalf of the party, and why should that vote not reflect the full weight of votes determined by the votes cast by the electorate in the General Election? If you support the idea of PR you support the basic premise of DPR Voting that each Parliamentary Party should have votes in proportion to the number of votes cast for that party in the General Election. Incidentally Roy Jenkins did not comment on DPR Voting. He died in 2003 before DPR voting was devised.
+Stephen Johnson Two points. First, I think that Lord Jenkins was making a joke, one among several which distinguish his report from so many others on electoral reform. Two, no, he did not comment on DPR by name, but he certainly did on it in effect . His facetious comment aside, the rest of what he says are noteworthy criticisms, and it is for DPR advocates like yourself to refute them, and by refute I don't mean the unfortunate MSM usage as a synonym for "rebut".
weighted means how much one MP's vote on bills from a party counts for. if 0.5, it counts for half a vote if 4.0, it counts for 4 votes. it's not hard at all. weight adjusts for the amount of power a party holds in parliament by giving underrepresented parties more weight based on the second ballot vote.
This video has one of the best explanations/illustrations about why we need PR but it is loaded down by the section explaining DPR. The latter is a "difficult" proposal and has something gimmicky about it: "90% MPs" ? Could be a hard sell.
Independents could, of course, get elected at the riding level. However, I don't see that there could be any grouping of independent votes overall as they would not collectively represent a particular political view.
@@fairvotingNL so I don't understand why it would matter who gets to represent you at the riding level if it is parties that get the voting power and not the representatives themselves. Might as well just use PR party-list through some highest averages or largest reminader method. Also, you might as well just use MMP if you dislike multi-member districts or STV if part lists are just not favourable. However, I don't think you'll ever get a system that has neither party lists nor multi-member ridings.
So you are worried about a party without many MPs having a ‘heavy’ vote. Let’s take the extreme case where a party has one MP. That MP will be the sole representative of the party in the parliament. If that MP can be the sole voice speaking up for, representing, the party in the parliament when there is a party political debate, why cannot that MP vote on behalf of the party, and why should that vote not reflect the full weight of votes determined by the votes cast by the electorate in the General Election?
I agree with those that say this isn`t much of an explanation. At the end of the video, we get why you want to do it, but your chosen mechanism it is still very largely unclear. Also the presence ome misleadings facts for example when yousingle out two countries withinthe OECD: France also does not use proportional representation along with many more than just the two you singled out. And finally, when you talk about this, you have to adress the concerns that comes from complications seen in real life application of this, like in the case of Italy.
MMP - The two party's that come in first and second (Under FPP.) and the people that vote for those two party's will never agree to changing the system, because it means less power for them.
DPR is needlessly complicated. I would suggest overlapping districts. If, for example, a party got five seats in Newfoundland and Labrador, that party would carve five districts out of the province, each with a roughly equal number of their voters. If another party only got two seats, that party would make two districts, splitting their voters in the province in half. These two districts would overlap the five districts of the other party. Voters would take questions, requests, and concerns to their party's representative for their part of the state, and their next door neighbors who voted for a different party, would take their issues up with that party's local representative.
WRONG. We HAVE DIRECT REPRESENTATION BY MAJORITY VOTES IN EACH RIDING. That is as democratic as it gets. EVERY ELECTED MEMBER OF A RIDING REGARDLESS OF PARTY AFFILIATION IS supposed to represent YOUR INTERESTS, regardless of how you voted...they dont even know how you voted. We vote regionally and by ridings, so that there is grass roots direct representation of diverse local and regional interests in the legislature. At this level candidates DO win by majority vote, not by party votes. This a very good system for a large diverse country like Canada. Prop rep removes candidates from direct accountability to their locality , community and region. FALSE..gerrymandering is a big problem in the US. False arguement.. Canada in fact often has coalition governments, what we dont have and dont want is a dozen splinter parties with narrow agendas unable to reach consensus, making decision making long and unsatisfactory to majority voters, as they have in Europe. Voters might consider that proportional representation helped Hitler gain power. Suggest you look that up to understand how that can happen. Fairer system? Cumulatve party stats are misused in this argument, because they capture votes thinned out accross the province or country, and ignore grass roots candidate and regional interests. PROP REP..is actually more autocratic and centralized, because seats are assigned based on the spread of party votes, not by the number of direct votes for an incumbant, as I understand it. ...PROP REP proposes increasing number of urban MLAs per riding, one option, how is that fair to rural communities? How does that even work unless they create new ridings,? Did you say Gerrymandering- ? THE AGENDA. The real agenda of the Yes campaign, is power politics. Third and fourth parties and frnge parties which do not have sufficient number of ridings behind them to win many seats want to take a shortcut, because their incumbants can get more seats by counting party votes spread, watered down over a larger geographical area, than by direct representational voting in ridings. I know there are problems with direct representation as we have it, but prop rep. Doesnt solve them.
It creates VERY weak governments. Nothing can ever get done because rarely is there 1 single policy that more than 50% support. That is why the UK doesn't have it. We voted on this in 2011 and 60% voted against using PR in the UK.
No, it actually creates stronger more stable governments because it helps to prevent flip-flop. You say _"Nothing can ever get done..."_ but what it really means is that it's difficult to enact extreme policies. Under our current FPTP system a given party gets elected and swings policy in one direction. A term or two later a different party gets in and swings policy back the other way. A PR voting system would provide an even keel to government policy that businesses and our trading partners could rely on.
Well, if you can't get anything done, then why do so many countries prefer this system? And why do countries like Germany or the Nordic countries actually manage to run and enforce new policies?
IMO MMP is a way better system, perhaps combined with IRV at the constituency/riding level (to avoid weird results when many candidates are running in a single constituency).
I was looking for the clearest statement, that I could post on fb, and, for me, this is it. I enjoyed several of the other videos but I really want to make the point with people who might not know about this.
Although ANY type of PR would be a step forward, I prefer MMP... DPR excludes any parties that have a significant portion of the popular vote, yet don't have any seats (such as was the case for the Green party for so many years).
This is a great educational video. Just a couple of criticisms. I think MMP - mixed member proportional is a more accepted term than DPR. Also one of the big criticisms for MMP is party control of candidates for the party vote with closed lists. Would have been great to see MMP with open lists..
Here's part of what the UK Jenkins Commission had to say about what it calls the "weighted vote member system", or as the video calls it "DPR": "Whether they [MPs] would carry these [additional voting strength] numbers round their necks or on their backs, rather like prize bulls at an agricultural show, is not clear, but what is clear is that there would be great problems if one of these vote-heavy beasts were to find himself in a lobby different from his party leader and whips, or worse still, if he were permanently to lumber off across the floor. There would inevitably be the most excited attempts to re-corral him. And the ability sometimes to take independent action must surely be preserved, even encouraged, if MPs are not to become party automata. Therefore, while we respect the ingenuity and conviction with which this weighted vote solution has been put forward, we think that it would arouse more mockery than enthusiasm and be incompatible with the practical working of parliament." ("The Report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System", 1998)
+Gregg Hill
I am an admirer of Roy Jenkins. He let himself and his Commission report down with this comment.
In a digital world numbers do not have to be carried around in any physical
sense except perhaps in the form of a smart card which looks identical
regardless of the number encoded.
Let’s take the extreme case where a party has one MP. That MP will be the sole representative of the party in the parliament. If that MP can be the sole voice speaking up for, representing, the party in the parliament when there is a party political debate, why cannot that MP vote on behalf of the party, and why should that vote not reflect the full weight of votes determined by the votes cast by the electorate in the General Election?
If you support the idea of PR you support the basic premise of DPR Voting that each Parliamentary Party should have votes in proportion to the number of votes cast for that party in the General Election.
Incidentally Roy Jenkins did not comment on DPR Voting. He died in 2003 before DPR voting was devised.
+Stephen Johnson Two points. First, I think that Lord Jenkins was making a joke, one among several which distinguish his report from so many others on electoral reform. Two, no, he did not comment on DPR by name, but he certainly did on it in effect . His facetious comment aside, the rest of what he says are noteworthy criticisms, and it is for DPR advocates like yourself to refute them, and by refute I don't mean the unfortunate MSM usage as a synonym for "rebut".
weighted means how much one MP's vote on bills from a party counts for. if 0.5, it counts for half a vote if 4.0, it counts for 4 votes. it's not hard at all. weight adjusts for the amount of power a party holds in parliament by giving underrepresented parties more weight based on the second ballot vote.
100% agree!!!
MMP systems in use don't have weighted voting for their MPs.
This video has one of the best explanations/illustrations about why we need PR but it is loaded down by the section explaining DPR. The latter is a "difficult" proposal and has something gimmicky about it: "90% MPs" ? Could be a hard sell.
How would independents work in this system?
Independents could, of course, get elected at the riding level. However, I don't see that there could be any grouping of independent votes overall as they would not collectively represent a particular political view.
@@fairvotingNL so I don't understand why it would matter who gets to represent you at the riding level if it is parties that get the voting power and not the representatives themselves. Might as well just use PR party-list through some highest averages or largest reminader method.
Also, you might as well just use MMP if you dislike multi-member districts or STV if part lists are just not favourable. However, I don't think you'll ever get a system that has neither party lists nor multi-member ridings.
Super...
i dont like dpr i prefer the 1st 2cd 3rd choice system
proportional representation vs direct representation youtube
So you are worried about a party without many MPs having a ‘heavy’ vote.
Let’s take the extreme case where a party has one MP. That MP will be the sole representative of the party in the parliament. If that MP can be the sole voice speaking up for, representing, the party in the parliament when there is a party political debate, why cannot that MP vote on behalf of the party, and why should that vote not reflect the full weight of votes determined by the votes cast by the electorate in the General Election?
well explained
I agree with those that say this isn`t much of an explanation. At the end of the video, we get why you want to do it, but your chosen mechanism it is still very largely unclear. Also the presence ome misleadings facts for example when yousingle out two countries withinthe OECD: France also does not use proportional representation along with many more than just the two you singled out. And finally, when you talk about this, you have to adress the concerns that comes from complications seen in real life application of this, like in the case of Italy.
MMP - The two party's that come in first and second (Under FPP.) and the people that vote for those two party's will never agree to changing the system, because it means less power for them.
DPR is needlessly complicated. I would suggest overlapping districts. If, for example, a party got five seats in Newfoundland and Labrador, that party would carve five districts out of the province, each with a roughly equal number of their voters. If another party only got two seats, that party would make two districts, splitting their voters in the province in half. These two districts would overlap the five districts of the other party. Voters would take questions, requests, and concerns to their party's representative for their part of the state, and their next door neighbors who voted for a different party, would take their issues up with that party's local representative.
put some strength in ur voice sorry but true
Ur voice has no energy
Pretty sure it's text to speech.
WRONG. We HAVE DIRECT REPRESENTATION BY MAJORITY VOTES IN EACH RIDING. That is as democratic as it gets. EVERY ELECTED MEMBER OF A RIDING REGARDLESS OF PARTY AFFILIATION IS supposed to represent YOUR INTERESTS, regardless of how you voted...they dont even know how you voted. We vote regionally and by ridings, so that there is grass roots direct representation of diverse local and regional interests in the legislature. At this level candidates DO win by majority vote, not by party votes. This a very good system for a large diverse country like Canada. Prop rep removes candidates from direct accountability to their locality , community and region.
FALSE..gerrymandering is a big problem in the US.
False arguement.. Canada in fact often has coalition governments, what we dont have and dont want is a dozen splinter parties with narrow agendas unable to reach consensus, making decision making long and unsatisfactory to majority voters, as they have in Europe.
Voters might consider that proportional representation helped Hitler gain power. Suggest you look that up to understand how that can happen.
Fairer system? Cumulatve party stats are misused in this argument, because they capture votes thinned out accross the province or country, and ignore grass roots candidate and regional interests.
PROP REP..is actually more autocratic and centralized, because seats are assigned based on the spread of party votes, not by the number of direct votes for an incumbant, as I understand it.
...PROP REP proposes increasing number of urban MLAs per riding, one option, how is that fair to rural communities? How does that even work unless they create new ridings,? Did you say Gerrymandering- ?
THE AGENDA. The real agenda of the Yes campaign, is power politics. Third and fourth parties and frnge parties which do not have sufficient number of ridings behind them to win many seats want to take a shortcut, because their incumbants can get more seats by counting party votes spread, watered down over a larger geographical area, than by direct representational voting in ridings. I know there are problems with direct representation as we have it, but prop rep. Doesnt solve them.
It creates VERY weak governments. Nothing can ever get done because rarely is there 1 single policy that more than 50% support. That is why the UK doesn't have it. We voted on this in 2011 and 60% voted against using PR in the UK.
There's a difference between PR and AV.
No, it actually creates stronger more stable governments because it helps to prevent flip-flop. You say _"Nothing can ever get done..."_ but what it really means is that it's difficult to enact extreme policies. Under our current FPTP system a given party gets elected and swings policy in one direction. A term or two later a different party gets in and swings policy back the other way. A PR voting system would provide an even keel to government policy that businesses and our trading partners could rely on.
Well, if you can't get anything done, then why do so many countries prefer this system?
And why do countries like Germany or the Nordic countries actually manage to run and enforce new policies?
Luredreier "Nothing can ever get done" is surely an advantage. Too much 'gets done' in our legislatures.
Why Wrong because FPTP can also form coalitions just because it never happened in Canada does not mean it doesn't happen somewhere else.