Talk:Canadian House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform: Difference between revisions
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
It says that a system should reflect the will of the people better, but that a party list should not be considered. Proportional representation is never mentioned by name and the concept of eschewing party lists is antithetical to proportional representation altogether. I have no idea why someone mis-understood that as meaning "report recommended the very thing it discredited" but someone wrote that down so I am removing it on the basis it is untrue. |
It says that a system should reflect the will of the people better, but that a party list should not be considered. Proportional representation is never mentioned by name and the concept of eschewing party lists is antithetical to proportional representation altogether. I have no idea why someone mis-understood that as meaning "report recommended the very thing it discredited" but someone wrote that down so I am removing it on the basis it is untrue. |
||
[[User:Kirkoconnell|Kirkoconnell]] ([[User talk:Kirkoconnell|talk]]) 14:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC) |
[[User:Kirkoconnell|Kirkoconnell]] ([[User talk:Kirkoconnell|talk]]) 14:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC) |
||
::I think you're both splitting hairs and misunderstanding a common usage of a term. When the committee says they're recommending an electoral system with a Gallagher score of 5 or less, they're recommending a proportional system. Hence the multiple news articles saying the same thing. I'm not sure why you think "the concept of eschewing party lists is antithetical to proportional representation altogether", just look at the very wikipedia article on proportional representation, there are multiple forms of it that do not have party lists. I have no idea how you got "report recommended the very thing it discredited". It discredited party-list PR, not PR altogether. I think you may have the idea that the definition of proportional representation implies party-list, when it does not. [[User:Moeburn|moeburn]] ([[User talk:Moeburn|talk]]) 05:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC) |
::I think you're both splitting hairs and misunderstanding a common usage of a term. When the committee says they're recommending an electoral system with a Gallagher score of 5 or less, they're recommending a proportional system. Hence the multiple news articles saying the same thing. I'm not sure why you think "the concept of eschewing party lists is antithetical to proportional representation altogether", just look at the very wikipedia article on proportional representation, there are multiple forms of it that do not have party lists. I have no idea how you got "report recommended the very thing it discredited". It discredited party-list PR, not PR altogether. I think you may have the idea that the definition of proportional representation implies party-list, when it does not. If you'd like to see examples of proportional representation that do away with party-lists and instead use local representation, see MMP, STV, or Urban-Rural. [[User:Moeburn|moeburn]] ([[User talk:Moeburn|talk]]) 05:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:34, 10 February 2017
Elections and Referendums Start‑class | |||||||
|
Canada: Governments C‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Politics C‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Recommendations in the report
This line was in the article: "On December 1, 2016, the committee released its report recommending that a form of proportional representation be adopted, and that a referendum be held on the issue.[1][2][3][4]"
This is untrue. The report Committee Report clearly states as it's recommendations:
"E. Recommendations
Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that the Government should, as it develops a new electoral system, use the Gallagher index in order to minimize the level of distortion between the popular will of the electorate and the resultant seat allocations in Parliament. The Government should seek to design a system that achieves a Gallagher score of 5 or less.
Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends that, although systems of pure party lists can achieve a Gallagher score of 5 or less, they should not be considered by the Government as such systems sever the connection between voters and their MP."
It says that a system should reflect the will of the people better, but that a party list should not be considered. Proportional representation is never mentioned by name and the concept of eschewing party lists is antithetical to proportional representation altogether. I have no idea why someone mis-understood that as meaning "report recommended the very thing it discredited" but someone wrote that down so I am removing it on the basis it is untrue. Kirkoconnell (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- I think you're both splitting hairs and misunderstanding a common usage of a term. When the committee says they're recommending an electoral system with a Gallagher score of 5 or less, they're recommending a proportional system. Hence the multiple news articles saying the same thing. I'm not sure why you think "the concept of eschewing party lists is antithetical to proportional representation altogether", just look at the very wikipedia article on proportional representation, there are multiple forms of it that do not have party lists. I have no idea how you got "report recommended the very thing it discredited". It discredited party-list PR, not PR altogether. I think you may have the idea that the definition of proportional representation implies party-list, when it does not. If you'd like to see examples of proportional representation that do away with party-lists and instead use local representation, see MMP, STV, or Urban-Rural. moeburn (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Start-Class Elections and Referendums articles
- WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
- C-Class Canada-related articles
- Mid-importance Canada-related articles
- C-Class Governments of Canada articles
- Mid-importance Governments of Canada articles
- All WikiProject Canada pages
- C-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles