MightyAC

Do you see "action"? Do you also see ghosts, leprechauns, elves and dwarves? I saw a proposed, lack luster, bill that bombed. I then saw Harper and Layton expertly bury it in committee where it will stay until after the election. Black Jack Layton can tell his supporters that he is setting the agenda and saving the world. Steve-O Harper can pretend to be doing something about the environment as well as use this as an example of cooperation. In the end nothing has happened but two politicians have gained brownie points with their followers. Keep in mind that Harper could advocate for the eradication of seals in Canada and you'd be on here the next day telling us that Steve-O has done more to save the Cod stocks than the Libs ever did. The point of my post is that despite the many blows to its image lately, Harper and the CPC will be strong in time for an election.

Politicians aren't actually idiots despite what political geeks like us espouse on a regular basis. I don't like Harper much at all but he is a smart, cunning, calculating man. They knew they'd loose some ground over the big IT lie and they know they can buy back some votes with tax cuts. They have already thrown the geriatriacs a nice soft, easy to digest bone in full pension splitting. They will likely follow that with the capital gains promise from a year ago....and thanks to a Liberal like surplus they may even squeak in another 1 point GST cut. Harper has successfully burried the "Hot Air Act" in committee, so they can still pretend they are trying to save the environment. Now all they need is a vote for the status quo on SSM and they're back in the game...provided Harper can keep the socons quiet afterwards....but then again he is great at telling the boys what to say and think. The boys in blue seem to be on their heels now, but they'll be battling for another minority next spring.

That political blog contains exactly the same link you've just provided. Some people may actually read the Vancouver Sun article almost nobody will read a quoted blog entry.

Here's a link to a source a little more reputable than a political blog. http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/bu...85d&rfp=dta

Is this supposed to be interpreted as a racist comment or is it simply Don cherry has a general dislike to visors worn by hockey players? He often makes blanket negative statements about both groups, generally calling them wimpy, whiners, etc. He does make positive comments about a handful of foreign or French players but for the most part he speaks negatively about them as a group. I guess he's technically being a racist but most players seem to let it slide. I guess they just consider the source. He's a loud mouthed, bigoted, fool but entertaining at the same time. He's kind of like Archie Bunker, a bigot but a boob....people seem to understand that. In short I'd say the boos were deserved and I'd guess that they didn't bother Grapes one bit. We've no doubt discussed it longer than he did.

I like coalition governments. Well written bills that appeal to most of the population pass easily. Flawed or more controversial bills get revised; require team-work/coercion to pass or they get defeated.

Right...at exactly the same time the rest of the non-cabinet CPC and the media found out. This theory of yours is weak. The CPC hasn't even tried to spin it that way. Actually, just a few days after being turfed, Garth's office asked for the reasons he was fired in writing and the CPC has yet to resond.

Cherry repeatedly refers to European and French Canadian as wimps that hide behind visors. His sometimes controversial comments endear him to some and make enemies of others. The jeers were deserved but I'm sure he couldn't care less. If Grapes doesn't care why should we?

Is a specific type of PR not on the referendum? If so, what ype? If not, is it not true that list candidates could be a feature of a system chosen? It seems like you're trying to silence my concerns. No electoral system has been chosen yet. In fact, the citizens committee hasn't even decided if they feel a change is necessary yet. If they do decide that a change is warranted they will propose a new system and that will appear on the ballot. I'm not at all trying to silence your concerns. I have already said that I can understand why people would object to list candidates. I don’t agree with the objections but the concern is a valid one. That's why when you use list candidates as an argument I mention that there are proportional systems that do not use party lists. I certainly agree with that! You deliberately removed the middle of a quoted sentence...that is pretty sad. Those examples show that our current system doesn't just screw fringe parties, which was your point. That's not a "problem", it's a strength... makes people take their vote seriously. You seriously see forcing Canadians to vote in favour of a party they do not support because their vote would otherwise be wasted as a strength?! Good one. Using that logic voting scandals like the one in Florida 6 years ago are strengths as well. Votes aren’t counted unless they are republican….I guess that too makes people take their vote seriously.

Easy children... The hair remark was stupid, plain and simple. Those trying to draw a parallel to the MacKay incident are a little dense as well. One incident involved a prominent cabinet minister who referred to a female opposition MP as a dog and then lied about it. The other involved a member of an environmental group commenting on Rona's hair in an attempt to reduce her credibility. Both incidents involved stupidity but one on a larger scale than the other.

The topic of the thread is a fair referendum process...nothing to do with a specific type of PR. I've explained clearly that list candidates would make that worse, since they represent no-one, even in theory. I've explained clearly that since MPs currently choose their party over their constituents, the fact that list MPs would at least provide the correct amount of representation is preferable to our current situation. I've also shown that a more proportional and much fairer system can be achieved without list MPs. !! You quoted my reply just above -- I said: Because they're fringe voters. If they can't muster enough support to elect a person against other persons, I see no reason to indulge them. Pump any ridiculous belief into a search engine and you'll find a lunatic fringe supporting it. Personally I don't think indulging fringe interests with legislature seats is useful. I provided three examples from our last federal election that illustrate of how our current first past the post system doesn't just screw fringe voters. You seem to have ignored those. Another problem with our current system that I haven't yet mentioned is strategic voting. Do to the fact that our winner take all system wastes all votes cast for other parties people often feel they have to vote to oppose the perceived strongest party in their riding rather than voting for the party they support. Here is a common example. Last election many voters were angry with the Liberal party, yet they live in a riding with a strong Liberal incumbent. Knowing full well that a vote for the Green party or the NDP is simply a wasted ballot in their riding, under a winner take all type system they vote Conservative hoping to defeat the Liberal.

Garth wasn't privy to that information so that would be impossible. Nice try though.

I was asking what specific "voted on policy" that Garth based, not where the vote took place.

There must be a reason for setting a minimum wage, yet the wage itself seems to be arbitrary. Maybe it shouldn't be. Maybe there should be some kind of formula to determine the appropriate minimum wage in each province. Here's one example. In Canada we don't have an official poverty line like they do in the US. There are two indicators of, so called, poverty that seem to be quoted. Maybe Canada should set an actual official poverty line for each province then base minimum wage on that number. So if the poverty line for Manitoba was set at $15,000 for 1 individual then based on a 2000 hour work year minimum wage should be $7.50 per hour. Every 4 years the poverty line and minimum wage could then be recalculated.

It makes sense to me, if the alternative is having members who represent parties rather than people Because they're fringe voters. They can't muster enough support to elect a person against other persons, I see no reason to indulge them. Odd that you always come back to list MPs, despite admitting that under our current system MPs rarely choose to represent their constituents ahead of their party anyway. Besides, the alternative doesn't have to be a system that uses list MPs. You still didn't address the fact that our current system favours concentrated local support. The Bloc receives a major boost simply because it is a concentrated regional party. You also mentioned that our current system hurts "fringe" parties. Are the Liberals and Conservatives "fringe" in your mind? - 400,000 Conservative voters in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver received absolutely no representation. - All Liberal, NDP and Green voters in Alberta received zero representation. - Bloc voters represent 10.5% of Canadians and received 51 seats. NDP voters represent 17.5% of Canadians and received 29 seats. These aren't fringe examples. Our current system just flat out does not give us the government we vote for.

The timing here was calculated for sure. Haggard was rallying his drones for the Colorado SSM vote. Still glib comments about timing do not discount the fact that this hypocrite did buy meth and receive massages from a gay, drug dealing, hooker. The American righteous right was appalled that their president could ding his intern. I wonder how they feel now after following this hypocritical, low-life, criminal.

Hold on...how is that anti-Israel? The parallel drawn by Figleaf between the school election and what the west did to Palestine isn't far off the mark. We, the west, didn't install a different government but we did immediately render a democratically elected government powerless. I will refrain from further comment on Israel as there are other active threads for that. On the topic of this thread, anything different than one vote for one person is ridiculous. It's nice to think about though, as I'm sure we all believe our own political reasoning is more sound than all others. If we really want electoral reform let's push for a system that treats every vote equally, improves voter turnout and actually elects MPs according to the way Canadians vote.

Let's say only 40% of District Alpha oppose resolution 16. How is democracy served by one vote representing 100% of the population being cast against it? In my 10 member district example, the 4 Cons would vote no to resolution 16. Let's say the remaining 6 candidates all vote yes. In this example the all voices were heard in the proper proportion and the result is quite different that what our current system would deliver. Let's use the example of SSM. According to a poll in the local paper my riding is evenly split on the issue. My lap dog CPC MP will/did vote against SSM. How was democracy served on that issue? It wasn’t. Nor would it be served if I had a Liberal or NDP member vote in favour of SSM. The problem there is that the members are not responsive to their constituents. PR won't solve that, and for the reasons I've already listed multi member districts won't solve that either. In this case I agree there's a real problem, but its one PR won't solve. What we need is Recall. Currently MPs are tied to a district but very few actually put their constituents before their party so I don't see the point in your objection to list MPs. Under MMPR every district would have 1 MP, plus all voters would receive representation by having the appropriate party numbers in Ottawa. Best of both worlds. I realize that mixed member PR isn't for everyone, however I believe I have also handled your exceptions to multi member districts. Recall doesn't solve anything. In fact it is a hindrance. Recall simply prevents politicians from doing anything that may be considered unpleasant...and sometimes tough decisions have to be made.

I don't see why people who can't win in a district should be given special dispensation because their party manages pull a small spackle of votes across the country. Why should concentrated local support be favoured over national support? For example six hundred thousand Green voters produce zero representation as is...but if they all lived in the Maritimes they'd win 20 seats. Does that make sense? Why do like minded voters have to be neighbours to receive a voice? Also, like I mentioned previously on average districts are being won with 40% of the vote. Which means a majority of Canadians are not receiving representation. We're not talking about a “small spackle of votes across the country”.

Would any one term be sufficient to rate our current system? I doubt it. I agree that if a second referendum was proposed before votes were cast for the first one that it absolutely must take place. People would be more apt to vote in favour of change if they knew it was a trial. Politicians should not be able to manipulate the process for political gain, kind of like what is being done with the 60% threshold in Ontario and BC. However, if the motion for electoral reform passes even with a ridiculous threshold the same ridiculous threshold should be applied to return to the status quo. Wouldn't you agree? On a new topic I would also suggest that the ability of the opposition to topple a coalition government should be abolished. If Canadians vote in a coalition government then it should be forced to work on behalf of the voters for the full 4 years.

In theory I have no problem with that provided a suitable trial length was implemented. I wouldn't want people to vote on system in transition. An example would be rating the new NHL before the players and coaches fully learned to play within and get the most out of the rule changes. Just like players who trained under an old system for 20 years plus and then are forced to use another looked sloppy at first, I expect old politicians to be slow to warm up to team work and deal making. In the end I'm all for democracy. If the citizen's assembly suggests we need a new system great. Let's educate the masses and vote on it. If 50% or more of the public says yes, let's implement it. I have no problem allowing the public to vote it out with a simple majority as well. I’m not sure what the ideal trial period would be. Maybe two terms, so eight years…any thoughts?

Let's say only 40% of District Alpha oppose resolution 16. How is democracy served by one vote representing 100% of the population being cast against it? In my 10 member district example, the 4 Cons would vote no to resolution 16. Let's say the remaining 6 candidates all vote yes. In this example the all voices were heard in the proper proportion and the result is quite different that what our current system would deliver. Let's use the example of SSM. According to a poll in the local paper my riding is evenly split on the issue. My lap dog CPC MP will/did vote against SSM. How was democracy served on that issue? It wasn’t. Nor would it be served if I had a Liberal or NDP member vote in favour of SSM. The result of having a voice is quite profound. More people show up at the polls as their vote will actually help create representation. Fewer people are pissed off at the government because someone is actually fighting for their views. Can you imagine how frustrating it would be to be a Liberal in Calgary or a Conservative in Toronto? Under PR those people would still be heard in the appropriate proportions.

The end result is some parties work together to pass shared parts of their vision and oppose one another where they disagree. I believe a coalition is preferable to one party imposing its vision on the entire country because it has the support of 40% of it. I'm not looking for an arbitrary voice for anyone not represented. I'm looking for the appropriate number of voices for the amount of votes received. If a party receives 5% of the vote they should receive about 5% of the seats. If we use our current total of 308 then that would equate to about 15 seats.

Betsy is discussing a disgusting idea…so what it’s just discussion. What bothers me is the fact that so many religious folk have no problem blasting other sects while simultaneously overlooking their own faults. Let’s discuss that for a moment. How many Canadians have been attacked by terrorists on Canadian soil? Now, how many Canadians children have been attacked by Christian preachers? Who should be interned, monitored or segregated? I think a lot of the Islam bashing stems from Christian insecurity. Islam is the fastest growing major religion. That has to scare some faith leaders. Now that empire building seems to be a thing of the past a religion can no longer be as easily forced on people around the world. Religion now has to be built by convincing people to join or brainwashing our young early on. I would guess the latter is much more effective though, which is a problem. The areas of the world that are still churning out human beings at an alarming rate tend not to be primarily Christian. I can see why many conservative Christians are opposed to immigration and multiculturalism. If Betsy, et al. could only have their way we’d have a beautiful segregated utopia. Christian, white, heteros wouldn’t have to mix with those dirty coloured folk or those degenerate gays or those who worship an obviously fake god. We just need some big walls built eh Betsy?

The term special interest is a little misleading but I agree with that statement...I disagree that it is a problem though. First of all the idea that MPs represent the entire riding right now is rubbish. Garth Turner is one of the few bright spots in politics in terms of a politician representing constituents instead of the party, yet he still only represents those that agree with his platform. The average MP in Canada represents about 40% of their riding...which means the majority of people in each riding are without representation. Let's say a mega riding has 10 MPs in it. Let's also say that Garth still won the riding for the Cons with 40%, a Liberal came in second with 30%, a Greener received 20% and an NDP candidate grabbed 10% of the vote. The Cons would get 4 seats, Libs 3, Greens 2 and the NDP would receive 1 seat. Assuming all those politicians keep their word and vote as they campaigned much more of that riding is now represented than was before. I'm not sure what this means...and I'm not sure what advantage 1 voice has. Right now each federal MP is simply 1 vote out of 308...that's it. I don't see any advantage to having 1 person speak for an entire district considering they likely only represent of the people anyway. Using the simple example I gave above most of the riding has a voice. The Conservative and Liberals that represent most of the population have multiple voices as they should and the smaller segments of the population have fewer… I would guess that that very few people physically drop into to a constituency office to pay a visit and most communicate electronically and by mail. So in terms of communicating with an MP I don't see a problem. Also, in more heavily populated areas I don't see a problem as districts would not have to grow significantly. However, I agree that districts in rural areas would have to become very large which introduces the possibility that geographic representation could be lost. The number of MPs in rural ridings could be reduced to keep the district size down but then some of the proportionality is lost and those ridings would be stuck with the same BS lack of voice we have now. That's why I prefer mixed member PR. The single MP in a district would still only represent a plurality of voters as they do now…However those without a local voice sill help to elect list MPs, in the correct proportion, that then represent them by voting along the lines of the party platform. I think it's the best way to achieve proportional rep, without sacrificing geographic representation in a sparsely populated country.