Jump to content

Scallywag

Members
  • Posts

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

81 profile views

Scallywag's Achievements

Apprentice

Apprentice (3/14)

  • Week One Done
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Collaborator
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Conversation Starter

Recent Badges

8

Reputation

  1. Millions of Canadians elect one MP per riding in a short time. That couple of hundred MPs would have the wherewithal to quickly select various members for various tasks. The selection could change at any time. There is no need to form a government – one has already been elected – or turn it into a team sport. Maps would be redrawn regularly based on specific criteria with every person recognized as equal. That is not a task for politicians to ponder, that is a straight up accounting function. That’s a job for audited data. When power and a large number of people are involved, ritual is soon to follow. That prescribed order brings familiarity, comfort and control to some at the exclusion of others. As the country has grown and moved about, our political rituals are no longer suitable for Canada. Rituals are being questioned in institutions across the globe. We are not who we were, we are the product of our past, not members of it. Whether we agree with the questioning of ritual or not, it is going to happen; it’s evolution. If enough Canadians still detect political residue from the divine right of kings and town criers than they must be heard as well. Not listening would be far more damaging than listening.
  2. Nothing gets dissolved, ridings electing independents would simply have their voice heard instead of having it replaced by that of a party. If enough independents were elected, parties would be less likely to get a majority and they would have to start listening to MPs serving their ridings directly. If the parties remain obstinate and dictatorial they may well end up in the bin, it would be their choice. If there were enough independents to instigate change, they would represent their constituents’ best interest in contributing to that change. That goes with creating an independent future. I don’t understand why MPs would be competing over local issues, each riding would still only have one MP. Provinces would continue to do what provinces do. Redrawing the maps may be one of those rare cases in which the objectivity of raw data might trump the subjectivity of people.
  3. As electing independents has always been an option the electorate can change parliament without asking for the parties’ blessing. At any time any group in any riding can select and elect a candidate who will vote according to their wishes. Any riding could change before the next election. Collectively, the electorate would ensure it would be a slow process. The argument has been an independent has no voice in parliament. Thanks to whips and party structure it is the opposite. Independents can vote as they wish, party candidates generally have to answer to the party powerful. They vote as a very small group, generally in the Liberal party, want them to vote. The results of that are very obvious and not satisfactory to a growing number of Canadians. Ridings feeling they don’t get proper or adequate attention could garner more by sending independents to parliament. Just a couple of mavericks in a riding could get the ball rolling.
  4. There would only be 338 votes, the MP for each riding would be the decision maker, not the party powerful. How the MP arrives at the decision is up to the electorate. The difference being, that politician would have to please the constituents rather than the party. Apathy, a very powerful force, would still be a major player but there would be a greater reason not to employ it.
  5. If an independent MP kept in touch with the riding (something of an obligation?) why would it be any more time consuming than it should be presently? (Is the time saving in the party specifying how to vote and therefore not having to bother with the riding at all?) Is there a quicker, more cost effective way to allay Canadians concerns about proper representation than overhauling the whole parliamentary process?
  6. 1. I think those who have shown no interest in any important issue can be depended on to continue pursuing their disinterest. I also think there are a lot of highly-informed, highly-intelligent Canadians who are interested...they’re not all MPs. 2. If everyone puts their own interest first that would create the national interest. There is no sense for someone in Calgary trying to choose the best option for someone in Montreal. Isn’t that the same initiative that drives people’s votes for party candidates? The only difference I see there is the poetry of party politics versus the prose of reality. Tough decisions like helicopters? 3. It would seem more equitable if all Canadians presented new ideas, not just the same families that have been presenting all the ideas all along. Thirty-nine million people usually boils down to three countable opinions in politics: yeas, nays and abstentions. It’s really just a matter of how we get there. What sides? There are options, individuals and communities. We have become too reliant on information of unknown or little known sources. We just need to think for ourselves and give others the same respect.
  7. What are the benefits of parties in a time when everyone can be in touch with everyone else in seconds? Why do we need highly-paid information couriers bringing the latest from Ottawa? Why do we need small groups of people making big decisions for us? We use the Internet for everything from banking to presenting images of ourselves in every conceivable situation, why not parliament? If millions of Canadians can make political decisions resulting in the election of 338 MPs, surely those few folks could make open and honest decisions after consulting with their constituents. The only protection required would be for reactionary government and that wouldn’t have to cost as much as bureaucracy.
  8. We decidedly need change. I'll wait for the delivery.
  9. Heaps of data about us are influencing more decisions effecting us than we are. Many of those decisions are political. That’s not good. The information is too often of questionable origin and is collected in questionable ways. Data is always collected from a point of view, it is always analyzed from a point of view and piled together it doesn’t represent any Canadian or collection of Canadians. We are not items on neatly ordered shelves in a warehouse. We are not data points, we are fully human, fully alive and should be treated as such. We should understand ourselves as such. Our first reaction shouldn’t be ‘there’s nothing I can do’. We can stop saying that for starters. AI works in stock management; for infinitely complex things such as life and the politics it generates it’s not up to much. It has no imagination, just data and algorithms programmed by humans with a mandate. Data isn’t real, it’s an alphanumeric representation of reality in the way a plastic banana is representative. When anyone treats you as a widget, stand up and prove them wrong. There is an election looming, this is our big role. It’s our opportunity to prove we are someone, not something.
  10. Politics is global. Political power is global. I don’t see how creating a less significant subset of this country will help solve any problem. Canadians, for the most part, are not using the political power we have. No solution to any problem we have now will come from continuing to do what we have been doing or emulating it with a new identity or party. We may have to get actively involved, even if it means socializing (as in person) for a few hours every month.
  11. I don’t see separation or parties as a viable solution to any of the comparatively small issues Canada faces. We have the technical ability to distribute decision making across the country and include all concerned Canadians in the process. There are very powerful entities around the world who may not have our best interest at heart. It is much harder for them to influence 338 independent representatives answering directly to the ridings of 38 million people than twenty or so. We don’t need to break the country up into smaller political pieces, we just need to allow all the pieces to have equal rights and opportunities.
  12. A couple of years ago, while reviewing my untenable position on politics, I concluded it was a fixed race. The Liberals have the best marketing (who could forget AdScam), the most famous celebrities, the best hairdressers and makeup artists...they know theatrical production. They know what sells and the professionals who can deliver it. Other than a handful of people, how does that serve Canadians? After far more consideration than the situation deserved I usually did the near-equivalent of destroying my ballet, I voted for an also-ran party. Not wanting to betray my better judgment I thought about what I could do. The concentration of media usually presents two options; vote Liberal or don’t. As always, when the presented options are inadequate, I chose an unlisted alternative. Independents seemed a good idea, if for no greater reason than to have the parties genuinely notice the rest of Canada. Apparently the concept of independents doesn’t exist in our realm. Mention of such an option is usually met with a long silence followed by a return to a responsible discussion on politics. Occasionally, there is a ‘wouldn’t work’ thrown in. The media once promoted free love with reckless abandon – it wasn’t. Now it’s all about free money – I wonder. Parties, to varying degrees, are given the economic power to present the narrow spectrum of possibilities as a rainbow bridge to an amazing future. Before buying a bridge – it’s your money they use - it’s advised to check the load capacity and cost. Independents serving only the community would have no such power. They would have to appear in public without the marketing or production departments and present locally pertinent ideas. They would have an obligation to listen...even if it’s in the changing room at the gym. We would have to learn to use that voice in parliament to our advantage. From time to time I like to check I am not confusing good luck with good planning. Or good marketing with good intentions.
  13. I definitely don’t see value in some of the things on which we spend it. MPs spending hours (days?) smiling and wishing old folks happy birthday is important. Those sales calls could be managed for a lot less than MPs cost. The public is a major component of our political problems. I understand use of the term ‘common sense’ even less than faith economics so I’ll just watch what happens. Currencies, as I understand it, are controlled by a small global group with their best interests in mind, not ours. Money is a paltry deity and a popular one. Economics, as a social science, fails the repeatable results test. Maybe I am just being pessimistic but I feel concern.
  14. Jack and Jill, their children and grandchildren would need to work hard to provide the money required to pay themselves more. Politicians don't have to change a thing. It’s odd we elect people who see squandering money as a privilege of office but are frugal with ourselves. Fortunately, frugality has no place in the new economics. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men have been rebranded to appeal to a new, more informed audience. I wonder if all that information is cluttering up our minds.
  15. They will all commit to such a worthy notion once their scriptwriters can get something out to them. Action, that's quite another matter. The process is too long for the cameras to catch in a short eye-gripping way.
×
×
  • Create New...