Note to anyone who wants to reply to this: I address some of the things I say later on in the same post, so don't do the standard reply paragraph-by-paragraph thing. Just respond to the post as a whole.
At 5/3/11 06:04 PM, ScytheCutter wrote:
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how changing the way it's tallied by riding would change the outcome of the riding.
Proportional representation (at least how it's been brought up recently in Canada) means that seats are lumped into a single group, then divvied out based on the proportions of votes.
i.e. if there were twenty seats, and you had a voter breakdown like:
55% Party A
25% Party B
15% Party C
5% Party D
You'd have 11 seats for Party A, 5 seats for B, 3 seats for C, and 1 seat for D.
In the system we have now, party A could theoretically win 100% of the seats (depending on breakdown by riding) and parties C and D would be unlikely to receive any seats at all.
In other words, the entire country would be like one giant riding, with seats divided by proportion of vote. The system that went to referendum a while ago was actually a hybrid of proportional and first-past-the-post, but it got voted down, in no small part due to the fact that the "no" side had a much more organized campaign and convinced a lot of people that proportional representation destroys government efficacy.
Voting by regions in a system that is not comprised of independent candidates has been outdated for a long time, and was really only practical when it was difficult to transfer information quickly. It could be argued that removing ridings from the picture would give less attention to local issues, but having ridings basically eliminates many people's ability to vote for someone who really represents their views on federal issues.
Furthermore, people still elect a local government, and it's their job to interface with the province and the capital.