NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm curious as to what the thoughts are of other Canadians on NS regarding Federal Electoral Reform. In my mind, it's in severe need of overhaul. A lot of people I speak to seem indifferent about it (although they tend to be indifferent about politics in general), but NS'ers seem much more politcal (and I love ya for it). So...

Here's my thoughts;

a) Parliament should be completely proportional, with multiple parties forming coalition governments. I believe that this would help reduce the size and power of the BQ in federal politics, and eliminate all-powerful PM's who are elected continuously with less than 50% of the popular vote.

b) Senate should be elected on a regional basis, as Parliament currently is, but on a non-partisan basis, purely for the purpose of represenenting their constituents on whether or not to pass legislation put to it by Parliament. I don't see much sense in a Senate that doesn't receive its mandate from the People, and I like the idea of the 'sober second thought'.

c) Judges, at least at the Supreme Court level, should be elected. I know that there are many people who think that law shouldn't be influenced by popular opinion, however I don't buy that. Laws are created by a combination of Parliamentary acts and jurisprudence. Judges should always be considering the opinions of the electorate when deciding how they interpret the law, and applying sentencing (obviously, still making their decisions based on the boundaries of the law.)

That's my basic opinion anyway. Anyone who likes the system the way it is? Or has different ideas?

a) Parliament should be completely proportional, with multiple parties forming coalition governments. I believe that this would help reduce the size and power of the BQ in federal politics, and eliminate all-powerful PM's who are elected continuously with less than 50% of the popular vote.

Are you suggesting that seats be divided equally between the four main parties?

Are you suggesting that seats be divided equally between the four main parties?

No, that instead of voting for your local representative, that all votes across Canada are tallied up, and seats are divided based on their percentage of the popular vote. So, theoretically, if there were 100 seats, and the Green party had 4% of the popular vote, they would get 4 seats. What this would mean, is that minor parties would have to work together to create coalition governments, so that the governing party would be much more representative of what people actually want (in theory.)

Regional representation/protection could apply in an elected/regional senate, and of course the provinces always have the use of the non-withstanding clause.

No, that instead of voting for your local representative, that all votes across Canada are tallied up, and seats are divided based on their percentage of the popular vote. So, theoretically, if there were 100 seats, and the Green party had 4% of the popular vote, they would get 4 seats. What this would mean, is that minor parties would have to work together to create coalition governments, so that the governing party would be much more representative of what people actually want (in theory.)

Regional representation/protection could apply in an elected/regional senate, and of course the provinces always have the use of the non-withstanding clause.
That's an interesting idea-to divide seats to parties. You are contemplating a massive restructuring of the the entire electoral process, however. I don't see that being a true possibility, because the people won't approve it. They would see it as lossing their representational voice, because all the action would be based on party issues, not their issues. Furthermore, how would the ridings be divided? If you were to have given the Green party four ridings in the last election, which ones would they get? They didn't win any of them. Dictating where the parties are represented out of is a nasty can of worms- the people would, in the ridings where the green party was their rep, feel wrongly represented.

That's an interesting idea-to divide seats to parties. You are contemplating a massive restructuring of the the entire electoral process, however. I don't see that being a true possibility, because the people won't approve it. They would see it as lossing their representational voice, because all the action would be based on party issues, not their issues. Furthermore, how would the ridings be divided? If you were to have given the Green party four ridings in the last election, which ones would they get? They didn't win any of them. Dictating where the parties are represented out of is a nasty can of worms- the people would, in the ridings where the green party was their rep, feel wrongly represented.

Not necessarily. Other countries use this system, Germany being a prominent example. Australia had the same sysem we do and changed to some form of representation. The four seats that the Green party would receive in this example are just that; seats in parliament. Your regional voice would be supplied by your elected senator. Also, parties like the BQ would still have a large number of seats which they could use to influence coalition governments. Plus, the 4% of Canadians who voted Green feel wrongly represented, since they have no imput into the forging of Canada's government, other than to 'not vote for the big 3', once every 2 to 5 years.

BC came close to voting for a proportional representation system. They needed 60% to change, and only had 52 - 54% in favour. However, nationally, I think it would be more palatable.

No, that instead of voting for your local representative, that all votes across Canada are tallied up, and seats are divided based on their percentage of the popular vote. So, theoretically, if there were 100 seats, and the Green party had 4% of the popular vote, they would get 4 seats. What this would mean, is that minor parties would have to work together to create coalition governments, so that the governing party would be much more representative of what people actually want (in theory.)

Regional representation/protection could apply in an elected/regional senate, and of course the provinces always have the use of the non-withstanding clause.

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr?????? I would consider looking into an elected Senate, but I also don't want to see partisanship and block voting coming nto play in that body - which I fear it would do. The appointment process means that people get to work according to personal conscience without need to continually pander for votes. So, it would need to be very carefully structured to gain my support.

I would NOT be opposed, however, to putting a simple term limit on the job. Say, max 8 years with the ability to do an early recall via a 66% supermajority in the Commons. Frankly, it probably takes most a year to really get into the job, so you need to grant new Senators that. And I think that retirement dates should be tied to appointment dates so as to stagger the changes in membership.

As to your notion of proportional representation - Sorry, but it seems to me that you toss a sober FIRST look right out the window with that technique.

Assume Party1 gets X% of the vote. Quick math is used, and it is determined that party1 is entitled to 25 seats. Now - who fills those seats? This is the commons. The people who actually WRITE the laws.

Using this technique - the leader of the party gets to decide who he wants to fill those 25 seats. HE can pick to satisfy a personal agenda. He can pick to satisfy his bank account as people pander to him for a slot. And if one of them fucks up but is a personal friend, there is no direct way to punish a single offender without punishing the whole party.

More representative of what people want?

Quite the opposite I'd say.

At this point you are only voting for ONE person - the party leaders - who will then stack the decks with their yes-men. Local representation to the task of writing laws and setting budgets goes completely out the window.

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr?????? I would consider looking into an elected Senate, but I also don't want to see partisanship and block voting coming nto play in that body - which I fear it would do. The appointment process means that people get to work according to personal conscience without need to continually pander for votes. So, it would need to be very carefully structured to gain my support.

I would NOT be opposed, however, to putting a simple term limit on the job. Say, max 8 years with the ability to do an early recall via a 66% supermajority in the Commons. Frankly, it probably takes most a year to really get into the job, so you need to grant new Senators that. And I think that retirement dates should be tied to appointment dates so as to stagger the changes in membership.

As to your notion of proportional representation - Sorry, but it seems to me that you toss a sober FIRST look right out the window with that technique.

Assume Party1 gets X% of the vote. Quick math is used, and it is determined that party1 is entitled to 25 seats. Now - who fills those seats? This is the commons. The people who actually WRITE the laws.

Using this technique - the leader of the party gets to decide who he wants to fill those 25 seats. HE can pick to satisfy a personal agenda. He can pick to satisfy his bank account as people pander to him for a slot. And if one of them fucks up but is a personal friend, there is no direct way to punish a single offender without punishing the whole party.

More representative of what people want?

Quite the opposite I'd say.

At this point you are only voting for ONE person - the party leaders - who will then stack the decks with their yes-men. Local representation to the task of writing laws and setting budgets goes completely out the window.

How do you think party delegates are chosen in the first place? Popular vote? The regional delegate is chosen by the party, not by the local constituents. The seat is simply a vote in the house of commons, and a chance to sit in caucus or 'shadow cabinets'. Under the current system, the PMO has absolute power over who he appoints to cabinet, and as Paul Martin recently showed, can ban their memberships to their Party for Life.

The recent election, under the current system produced seats in the following manor;

BQ - 51, Con - 124, Lib - 103, NDP - 29, Ind - 1

If you went by popular vote, (assuming 308 seats/%of popular vote, rounded down, obviously you would need a mechanism for fractions.)

BQ - 32, Con - 111, Lib - 93, NDP - 53, Green - 13

Obviously significantly different, and this isn't taking into account people 'strategically voting' for a party they don't feel comfortable with to prevent another party gaining power.

Now, I realize that there would have to be some sort of mechanic to keep parties from total cronyism, but our current method doesn't seem to prevent that. (Or are Emerson/Fortier indicative of the people's choice?) There are proportional representation systems in countries that actually work.

As for appointed senators... sorry, no proper representation there at all.

Siliopolous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-list_proportional_representation

It's not like proportional representation and allocating seats based on percentage of popular vote is some strange alien concept. And there's more than one way to skin a cat. My main point, is that the current system provides the worst of both worlds; disproportionate results for the electorate, combined with dictator-like powers for the administration.

That's an interesting idea-to divide seats to parties. You are contemplating a massive restructuring of the the entire electoral process, however. I don't see that being a true possibility, because the people won't approve it. They would see it as lossing their representational voice, because all the action would be based on party issues, not their issues. Furthermore, how would the ridings be divided? If you were to have given the Green party four ridings in the last election, which ones would they get? They didn't win any of them. Dictating where the parties are represented out of is a nasty can of worms- the people would, in the ridings where the green party was their rep, feel wrongly represented.
First, unless your member is an independant, your member of parliment votes the way his/her party votes, not the way his/her constituants want. Canada's parliment is already ruled by the parties issues.

Also the parties would not represent any riding. The member of parliment would try to best represent the voters accross Canada the he/she think voted for him/her. It you wanted to write a letter to a member of parliment, you would write to a member that you would think would be on your side on a particular issue. That is unlike what we have now were you may end up writing to a member that may never talk about your issues because he/she disagrees with what you think should be done.

-snip-
I think that Senators should have a term limit, but do you think that Senators should be allowed to be re-appointed?

No, that instead of voting for your local representative, that all votes across Canada are tallied up, and seats are divided based on their percentage of the popular vote. So, theoretically, if there were 100 seats, and the Green party had 4% of the popular vote, they would get 4 seats. What this would mean, is that minor parties would have to work together to create coalition governments, so that the governing party would be much more representative of what people actually want (in theory.)

Regional representation/protection could apply in an elected/regional senate, and of course the provinces always have the use of the non-withstanding clause.

I'm not sure if that would be a very effective way to govern in a nation as large and as diverse as Canada. You may get more regional fragmentation. Various regional groups could start their own regional parties like the Bloc feeling their was no other way to have their unique issues addressed.

It works OK in Germany because the country isn't that large. The interests of one region aren't significantly different than others.

No, that instead of voting for your local representative, that all votes across Canada are tallied up, and seats are divided based on their percentage of the popular vote. So, theoretically, if there were 100 seats, and the Green party had 4% of the popular vote, they would get 4 seats. What this would mean, is that minor parties would have to work together to create coalition governments, so that the governing party would be much more representative of what people actually want (in theory.)

Regional representation/protection could apply in an elected/regional senate, and of course the provinces always have the use of the non-withstanding clause.

I like this idea...
I was thinking something along the lines of having two elected people from each riding, so that the top two viewpoints from everywhere are represented, but it would be WAY more politicians, which would suck.
Actually letting people vote and then splitting up the seats according to the final percentages would be really, really interesting...

Okay, thinking about the percentages, and "who fills the seats?" problem.
It might involve two separate elections...
One major one to determine the percentages, then one that can be held by the individual parties and their members to see who they want to send to parliament. A slightly longer process, but there has to be some way to make it work... because I definitely like this idea better than our current one.

Okay, thinking about the percentages, and "who fills the seats?" problem.
It might involve two separate elections...
One major one to determine the percentages, then one that can be held by the individual parties and their members to see who they want to send to parliament. A slightly longer process, but there has to be some way to make it work... because I definitely like this idea better than our current one.

I'm thinking this way...

Canada is broken down into regions with a specified number of seats based on population. So, Atlantic Canada might be considered one region, where as The Greater Toronto Area might be considered another (rough guesses based on population density on my part.) Any party running for election federally would have to nominate a 'team' of candidates for that region, and would have to nominate exactly the number of candidates as are available for that region (not totally different than the current system.) Here's the difference; that team must present it's 'seating order' to the electorate. How it decides that seating order is up to the party in question, but unpopular choices could cost them votes....

So, based on that assumption, you take the percentage of the popular vote for the region and assign a number of seats to that team, specifically to the team members in the order that they presented in their platform. Thus, your vote still continues to count for something after the whole election process is said and done.

So, you have the best of both worlds, proportional representation with regional representation. Now, it's true that the really marginal parties would be excluded, but that would happen in the current system anyway.

I'm not sure if that would be a very effective way to govern in a nation as large and as diverse as Canada. You may get more regional fragmentation. Various regional groups could start their own regional parties like the Bloc feeling their was no other way to have their unique issues addressed.

It works OK in Germany because the country isn't that large. The interests of one region aren't significantly different than others.

There's a significant difference between east and west germany, trust me.

Germany's a perfect example of why it could work. It's full of little parties that have to contribute to a collective effort. If forces compromise, and a cabinet made up of people from more than 1 party.

Okay, thinking about the percentages, and "who fills the seats?" problem.
It might involve two separate elections...
One major one to determine the percentages, then one that can be held by the individual parties and their members to see who they want to send to parliament. A slightly longer process, but there has to be some way to make it work... because I definitely like this idea better than our current one.
So basically you want to do elections the way Germany does?

I'm thinking this way...

Canada is broken down into regions with a specified number of seats based on population. So, Atlantic Canada might be considered one region, where as The Greater Toronto Area might be considered another (rough guesses based on population density on my part.) Any party running for election federally would have to nominate a 'team' of candidates for that region, and would have to nominate exactly the number of candidates as are available for that region (not totally different than the current system.) Here's the difference; that team must present it's 'seating order' to the electorate. How it decides that seating order is up to the party in question, but unpopular choices could cost them votes....

So, based on that assumption, you take the percentage of the popular vote for the region and assign a number of seats to that team, specifically to the team members in the order that they presented in their platform. Thus, your vote still continues to count for something after the whole election process is said and done.

So, you have the best of both worlds, proportional representation with regional representation. Now, it's true that the really marginal parties would be excluded, but that would happen in the current system anyway.
That is basically the Single Transferable Vote (STV). It was proposed in BC and rejected because it was much too complex for the average voter to understand. The main question people had about the system was "Once all the votes are cast, how do we decide how many people getelected with those votes?" The STV system proposedin BC was slightly different than what you described. For instance, multiple people from a party would all appear on the ballot. People wondered how many votes would be needed to elect someone and how/when do second/third/fourth/etc (for each candidate you voted for you gave them a rank). Your idea is significantly simpler however, but people may not like it because people would think it would make things too complex.

That is basically the Single Transferable Vote (STV). It was proposed in BC and rejected because it was much too complex for the average voter to understand. The main question people had about the system was "Once all the votes are cast, how do we decide how many people getelected with those votes?" The STV system proposedin BC was slightly different than what you described. For instance, multiple people from a party would all appear on the ballot. People wondered how many votes would be needed to elect someone and how/when do second/third/fourth/etc (for each candidate you voted for you gave them a rank). Your idea is significantly simpler however, but people may not like it because people would think it would make things too complex.

I'm not a huge fan of overcomplicating the voting process either. However, I think if we continue to see back to back minority governments and parties like the BQ becoming the 'official opposition' again, you may find a growing demand for some sort of reform.

As for the ballot itself, I would have something to the effect of;

vote for

Party X - Regional Party Leader - Citizen X, Regional Deputy - Citizen Y.

Those people who are really, into politics could examine the 'team list', and journalists (and rival teams) would be sure to point out their sore spots. However, the 'average' Canadian, who probably makes his choice based on the Party name, and might not know the name of his candidate until election day, still gets to put his X beside the party he wants, and knows that if a significant number of like-minded people vote the same way, he'll have a local party office he can contact, and a member of parliament he voted for.

However, I do understand the difficulties of trying to change a system that 'the powers that be' find in their favour. Also, once you start working in strange mathematical formulas into the mix, you'll turn some people off as well.

But the current system has got to go.

How do you think party delegates are chosen in the first place? Popular vote? The regional delegate is chosen by the party, not by the local constituents. The seat is simply a vote in the house of commons, and a chance to sit in caucus or 'shadow cabinets'. Under the current system, the PMO has absolute power over who he appoints to cabinet, and as Paul Martin recently showed, can ban their memberships to their Party for Life.

The recent election, under the current system produced seats in the following manor;

BQ - 51, Con - 124, Lib - 103, NDP - 29, Ind - 1

If you went by popular vote, (assuming 308 seats/%of popular vote, rounded down, obviously you would need a mechanism for fractions.)

BQ - 32, Con - 111, Lib - 93, NDP - 53, Green - 13

Obviously significantly different, and this isn't taking into account people 'strategically voting' for a party they don't feel comfortable with to prevent another party gaining power.

Now, I realize that there would have to be some sort of mechanic to keep parties from total cronyism, but our current method doesn't seem to prevent that. (Or are Emerson/Fortier indicative of the people's choice?) There are proportional representation systems in countries that actually work.

As for appointed senators... sorry, no proper representation there at all.
One major flaw in your re-alignment figures. You have assigned seats based on the votes of the parties in areas where that party ran candidates. IF you have a porportional representation, that means that people all over Canada could vote for the Bloc or the Green Party. These two parties did not run candidates right across Canada.

In many national polls before the election Gilles Duceppe had the highest rating among the leaders. IF that translated into votes on election day, then the separatists could possibly have the most seats in Parliament.

What a disparaging thought.

However, I do understand the difficulties of trying to change a system that 'the powers that be' find in their favour. Also, once you start working in strange mathematical formulas into the mix, you'll turn some people off as well.
Accually, the STV failed to pass the referendum. It never entered the BC Legislator as it was the brain child of Elections BC. One of the few things they got right with it was having a referendum on it.

Here is my scheme for electoral reform:

Dissolve the Senate, and create a new Senate, comprised of 100 Senators. Upon an election, the popular vote is tallied, and Senate seats are appointed by the Party leaders in the House of Commons, on the basis of the popular vote.

As an example, let us suppose the popular vote in a given election breaks down thusly:

Conservatives 28%
Liberals 27%
NDP 24%
BQ 18%
Green 3%

Tories would appoint 28 Senators, Grits 27, NDP would have 24 Senators, the Bloq 18, and the Greens would have three. And there's an interesting notion: for a really small Party like the Green Party, having 3 Senators could help them to raise their profile on the Canadian political landscape. And of course, Senators are not appointed for life in this model. They are as subject to the whims of the electorate as the person who appointed them.

As far as reforming the lower House, I can only offer the suggestion that Elections Canada be drafted in order to rewrite the constituency maps - and that some form of dynamic model be considered in future, as we continue to chart growth inside our major urban centres. To as great an extent as possible, our elected officials must represent a rough but relatively equal approximation of the same numbers of constituents. I don't mean this as a way of denying people in sparsely-inhabited regions their right to representation, I mean to convey that we need a significantly larger House of Commons.

I've had friends try explaining how it works in Germany, but I must admit my eyes begin to glaze over past a certain point.

One major flaw in your re-alignment figures. You have assigned seats based on the votes of the parties in areas where that party ran candidates. IF you have a porportional representation, that means that people all over Canada could vote for the Bloc or the Green Party. These two parties did not run candidates right across Canada.

In many national polls before the election Gilles Duceppe had the highest rating among the leaders. IF that translated into votes on election day, then the separatists could possibly have the most seats in Parliament.

What a disparaging thought.

Actually, no, those 'very rough figures' are based on the total number of votes put forth towards candidates across Canada, as based on information of Elections Canada's website.

Also, the Green party [U]did[U] run candidates in every single riding across Canada. Secondly, the polls regarding Gilles Duceppe were regarding his leadership ability, not whether or not Canadians would vote for him to lead the country. Thirdly, I think I've covered the regional responsibility issue in a later post.

On a side note, Election Reform is on the national agenda in some dank bureaucrat's office: http://www.lcc.gc.ca/about/voting_toc-en.asp

Also, fellow Canadians pushing for electoral reform: http://www.fairvotecanada.org/

Here is my scheme for electoral reform:

Dissolve the Senate, and create a new Senate, comprised of 100 Senators. Upon an election, the popular vote is tallied, and Senate seats are appointed by the Party leaders in the House of Commons, on the basis of the popular vote.

That's not bad at all...


I've had friends try explaining how it works in Germany, but I must admit my eyes begin to glaze over past a certain point.

Trying to follow the mathematical formulas presented in wikipedia hurts my brain... I empathize...

Also, fellow Canadians pushing for electoral reform: http://www.fairvotecanada.org/
Based on the name alone, I assume that what they want is not all that fair.

The Bloc shouldn't even be a federal party... and we should get rid of this first past the post junk.

Alright, some more electoral math for you (and then I'm off to dream and count electoral sheep.)

Since our current system demands constituencies based on location, we already have a skewed format. The idea that one vote per person, isn't what we're really getting.

Let's take for example two Canadian ridings that each equate to one Seat in Parliament.

Toronto - Danforth; Number of Registered voters = 72,606
Nunavut (with one riding - Nunavut) = 16,499

So, already, essentially the vote from an elector in Nunavut, is worth 4.5 times the vote of someone in Toronto-Danforth.

However, when you take into account our 'first past the post system', any one who voted for someone who's not in power, essentially lost their representation in any future government. So if you compare the number of votes it took to get a seat in each riding, the math adds up like this;

Nunavut - Liberal with 3,673 votes
Danforth - NDP with 24,412 votes

So, suddenly, it looks like the Nunavut Liberal voters have 6.65 votes, the Danforth NDP supporters get 1 vote in comparison, and any one who voted for a different party entirely, have no say at all.

I know I'm contrasting two completely different areas, but it kind of puts things into perspective, doesn't it?

So, already, essentially the vote from an elector in Nunavut, is worth 4.5 times the vote of someone in Toronto-Danforth.

However, *snips*


Let's leave out the 'howevers' for a moment - I agree. Toronto-Danforth should be divided into 4 and a bit ridings. Parliament should be significantly larger than it is.

No, Parliment should be smaller. much smaller.

We need a few things.

A recall formula for unwanted politicians.

Equal representation based on region, not population. Its not the number of residents that counts, its the specific needs of an area that matter.

An elected senate, or two elected reps from each riding/area. I'd say go with the two people with the highest portions of the vote. The two MPs from a region could hash out their differences and then represent their area based on that consensus.

Less Representatives. why do we need 305 people to do what 40-50 could easily do? Less fighting, less deal making, and more law making. LESS HOT AIR! less government salaries and pensions...

Less Representatives. why do we need 305 people to do what 40-50 could easily do? Less fighting, less deal making, and more law making. LESS HOT AIR! less government salaries and pensions...
If we did get rid of about 80% of parliment, like you suggest, the total governmenr saleries will stay the same.They would just give themselves a big ass raise.

No, Parliment should be smaller. much smaller.

We need a few things.

A recall formula for unwanted politicians.

Equal representation based on region, not population. Its not the number of residents that counts, its the specific needs of an area that matter.

An elected senate, or two elected reps from each riding/area. I'd say go with the two people with the highest portions of the vote. The two MPs from a region could hash out their differences and then represent their area based on that consensus.

Less Representatives. why do we need 305 people to do what 40-50 could easily do? Less fighting, less deal making, and more law making. LESS HOT AIR! less government salaries and pensions...

I'm not a big fan of big bloated government either, but I definitely don't agree with the idea that someone living in a rural area should have 'a leg up' on someone in an urban area simply because of demographics.

There are several mechanics in place (or could be put in place) to safegaurd the interests of regional disparity. For starters, a clear delineation of powers and responsibilities of federal/provinical governments. There are some areas, for which the government, would be 'hand's off'. Secondly, each province already has use of the not-withstanding clause. Thirdly, if you had an elected senate, which would be based on regional parity, and regional representation, there's another mechanic to safegaurd regional interests.

Or, how about this; offer elected senators the opportunity to pass legislation, that would have to be ratified by Parliament. This would encourage compromise between the two houses, i.e., we'll pass your bill if you pass ours.

Or, instead of two distinct houses, combine them, with half the seats belonging to MPs based on Proportionate representation, and the other half with Senators elected locally, and non-partisan. That way, anything passed in Parliament would have to appeal not only to 'the party line', but not piss off a significant number of Senators from any particular region.

As for the breakdown, or Parliamentary seats, I think it would be difficult to get around the population issue in the Territories. I would break it down like this;

The territories each have one seat, for a total of 3. The rest of Canada is broken down into 10 electoral districts of 30 seats each, based on population. Each electoral district is assigned seats based on percentage of popular vote for the district. Take those 30 seats and divide them by the percentage of the popular vote, with fractions rounded down. The remaining seats which haven't been accounted for yet due to rounding down, would then be assigned to the largest percentage party that has yet to receive a seat, (there would have to be a minimum quota, 2% or something to that effect) then down the list for all parties who met the quota until all the fractals have been assigned. In the event that there are still seats left to assign, you would then go down the list of the major parties in order of highest percentage first. (Seats assigned based on the provided party list of course.)

In regards to the HOT AIR of politics, I don't think that will ever go away, and 50 is too small a number to properly represent people.

And why there isn't a recall method in place for unwanted politicians already, is mind boggling.