kairos

If the Conservatives have a problem about UN corruption then they can voice it. What they have done here is disgraceful. Hundreds of thousands of people starve to death every year from famine and drought. To not even be willing to discuss their plight in an international forum is disgraceful. To add to that its obvious the Harper administration doesn't want to get involved in such conferences not simply because they are upset with UN corruption, but because they would have to face their own responsibility for the thousands of people that are dying of drought and famine due to their disgraceful environmental policies.

Clearly enough to pass it through parliament.

Its good to see the cons are occupying their time in office with irrelevance.

Stephen Harper and the Canadian Conservatives have worked very hard to compensate Canada by putting the 'Armed,' into the Canadian Forces.

You completely contradicted yourself Roy. You denied global warming and then said there was global warming, but that it was a natural cycle. At least try to be consistent next time.

This is what anti-environment conservatives think.

Anti-Environmental Canadians never cease to amaze. If the arctic gets green that doesn't help increase c02 absorption, because the world's deserts will logically increase to an utterly massive area. (See the camel).

How much hot air do anti-environment conservatives collect?

At this rate it'll have to be renamed the great green north... http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/researchers-climate-change-is-turning-earths-northern-latitudes-green/

The winners like the system to stay the way it is they prefer to maintain their positions rather than have real democracy. This includes the NDP, the liberals and the Conservatives. However now its in at least two of those best interests to change to a true democratic system. If they get cocky and think because they hold power for awhile under a charismatic leader when that charismatic leader retired then its all back to square one, a minority government which only a small portion of the populace voted for. As for indepdents I don't see your point. STV is the single best system for independent candidates.

I'm not so sure. Its in everyone, but the conservatives' interest at the moment. Lets say for example Trudeau wins a decisive election. He'll have one of two options: Institute a progressive voting system, or watch his party implode again the day after he leaves office.

The economy is built on destroying the environment, so yes the two are inseparably related.

Yes I like the idea of STV very much.

There should be a rule under pr that if in any riding a candidate wins the majority and is not affiliated with any of the partys the candidate should get a seat. That way the running would not be limited to party members.

That doesn't seem very representative.

Yes there is some truth to that. There are advantages and disadvantages either way. Although there would be some imbalance in the number of seats coming from ridings, far more people who be getting their votes represented on a national level. I think the latter outweighs the first. For example say you have a riding cut 3 ways, and you have 3 really popular but closely ranked people in the running. If they are all 2 percent apart, and only one gets elected then just under 2/3s will not be represented with their votes on the national level, but with proportional representation everyone will be represented on the national level. There is even a chance that all 2 or even 3 candidates would go on to Ottawa, but that is like you say possibly a disadvantage when a riding with only one candidate might be sent or even none if there are say 6 popular candidates with neither gaining much of a percentage of a vote, but then those candidates weren't really popular from that riding anyway so why should they represent that riding when most of the riding didn't vote for that candidate? And in that scenario at least people are still having their vote reprsented on a national level.

Well that's too bad for Ontario. Ontario doesn't speak for Canada.

I pointed out numerous times on this thread how this could be fixed. Ridings are still used, but only the people who received the most votes in their ridings go to Ottawa. The proportional numbers determine the number of seats, then the people sent are those who received the most from their ridings.

I made no such claim. You're making up what I said. Your claims about me and my positions are consistently based on nothing more than thin air.

A democracy is not a business. Democracy requires a level of consensus, and democracy represents the interests of all (the demos) rather than simply those in the business hierarchy.

Completely non sequitur. I've voted for 3 different parties. I have no party affiliation and am not the member of any party. What I find disgusting is that the parties that are most powerful maintain their power against the interests and realization of democracy. This includes all of the 3 main parties the NDP, the Liberals, and the Conservatives.

A broken clock strikes twice correctly each day, that doesn't mean it represents my view of what the time is.

In over 10 years of voting, I've not once had one of my votes represented, yet most of the time I've been ruled over by people who have received a decisive minority of the Canadian votes. I'm living under an oligarchy (rule of the few)

kairos, on 05 Mar 2013 - 21:13, said: Why would you use the 2006 results? They got close to that number of seats in 2006 anyway without proportional representation. The last election was in 2011. The BQ got 6% of the national vote which would mean they'd get somewhere around 30 seats federally, which would be precisely fair based on the number of people who voted for them. Just because you may not like the BQ doesn't mean that the people who vote for them don't deserve fair representation. That's called Democracy.

There is no reason why proportional representation can't be based on ridings. The total number of seats nationally are divided by percentage of votes, and only the people who got the most votes from their ridings would get elected.