You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] shorternet [S] ago 

Any intelligent discussion of parliamentary reform must focus on restoring the centuries-old system in which legislators had a strong personal stake in protecting voters’ interests. And neither PR, STV nor anything else in the baffling electoral reform alphabet soup can further this goal.

I completely disagree with Robson's conclusion. PR, specifically as it will make majority governments harder to obtain, will empower MPs. When the party in power cannot take a majority number of seats for granted and must actually work to convince their caucus that some particular piece of legislation is worthy of passage those MPs have power. When the party in power has to convince MPs from other parties to support some particular piece of legislation before it has any hope of passage through The House those MPs are empowered.

At this point in time MPs have no power, especially in a majority government situation. They do the bidding of their party master and hope that it aligns at least somewhat with what they think may be good for the country and/or their riding - to do otherwise is to find themselves out of caucus and sitting with the Independents in some dim back corner of The House.

No, the way to empower MPs is to make their vote something that has to be worked for as opposed to something to be used by the party leader.

Regardless of details, they will produce unwieldy legislatures barely able to function.

If by "unwieldy legislatures barely able to function" Robson means "legislatures where party leaders do not have the skill and diplomacy to work with their caucus and the caucuses of others to achieve consensus in order to pass legislation", then he is correct. It sounds like a hell of a way to weed out lazy party leaders that we don't need.