myata

Nomination of a figure like Trump would be a stain on the party for perpetuity. I don't see how it can be redeemed, giving in to a mindless mob, a total and accomplished failure of the democratic duty to the society. A new low and the new normal for the foreseeable perspective, but already beyond the clear boundaries of democracy, a discourse on the level of African dictators. It is better to think about it now as I can see. On the day the decision comes, the layout of options will be exactly the same.

I'm not at all worried or disappointed because you won't take anything seriously. Preserving the grotesquely outdated, ineffective as can be observed in any number of conundrums soon to develop into crises, and grossly inefficient management system is the only correct answer. We know it's the only answer that is allowed and we proved it again, hurray! Have your wish. It comes with a cost though, you know. Dinosaurs know.

Your best hope. Others discuss meaningful change, progress and advancement. Real democracy means and can do that, not the show one though. Noooo, such a can of worms yawn yawn.

funny funny funny word, explained funny counting bs It means the total vote received from the voters in the election, that fair and accurate representation should reflect. Not some funny old and far from innocent gimmicks. That's what was said. Much funny nonsense that can fool nobody in this time and century. Very much. Just think a bit more and you'll see it, clearly. Happy to oblige.

All a recidivist robber, scammer etc want ... please complete the sentence. Just because they want it should be given to them. Brain dead. Nothing personal.

You are not interested in 50+ instances of lying thrown out of the courts, in a row? Just couldn't see it, in plain sight, no way? Or courts and democracy don't matter because He said so today c'mon say it aloud I can feel you itching, yes you can and nothing to be ashamed of. Will ya dare? Let's see!

First you cannot read then this. It's really interesting, and scary to observe how grown up people seemingly normal people decide to part with reason, consciously and knowingly. But it wouldn't be the first time happens all the time. Oh well.

Look, let's not be funny and use funny words, ok? If you have real parties in the real normal meaning of the word, parliamentary parties, many of them, there's only one fair to compare them: based on their total vote, the full count of votes given to them by the citizens. The one with most votes, not some funny tokens distributed in some funny way, wins the election. Fair and clear. These would be real parties. And if you have funny management corporations splitting vote between themselves in a funny way sure. Just don't use the same word. Be grown up and honest about it. Seriously, in this age the funny wordplay cannot fool anybody.

Sure. My professional field operates on openness and critical questioning. Only proposals that pass open critical questioning are considered viable. And in managing public matters at someone else's expense it is not just a choice but an absolute must.

Deaf wouldn't see. Dumb cannot understand. Just a fact, nothing personal. Reality check: more than 50 Trump's election lawsuits thrown out Would anyone with basic common sense buy, ever, again from a seller who cheated them twice? Here you have over fifty blatant, bullshit lies, in a row. Result: not a dent. Learned: zero. No, it is a diagnosis really. Nothing personal. If the mob manages to corrode a large part of the party, nothing rational can be done about it. Nobody to talk to, no one is listening.

No you don't understand. No you cannot limit my choice by effectively allowing only two pseudo-parties by funny tweaking with representation (below). No you cannot understand? How many votes were given for each party? Does it look anything like your funny parody of "representation"? Why does it have to be this way, who said so? But wait, there's more. You cannot, not with a grain of credibility, claim that if the representation was indeed fair and accurate, your "parties" would get anything even remotely close to what they boast now. Because it never happened. Never in the entire proud history have you competed with other, real parties on an honest and fair basis. Always, every single time it was for the least of the bad and if not one then the other. Do you understand that? How else can be explained?

Looks like there's something in human genes that makes them tired of logic, rationality and reason generally, every so often. Some self-defense mechanism of the Universe against species getting too smart for it.

Absolutely, 100%. Except it's I who gets to decide how I will be doing all that, and with whom, and not you, for me. See, the difference? And for that, so that it would make any sense, we will need fair and accurate representation. As many parties as citizens need, not told they could have; all votes counted and none, thrown away. See, the difference?

Facts are ridiculous? Objective reality is? Indeed.

It doesn't really work this way until and unless we have a common ground and a language for a meaningful discussion. If I (for example) can make up "facts" on a whim and refuse to acknowledge any factual evidence, we cannot have a rational discussion on any subject. Then, there's no point in wasting the effort and time.

You may have some of your interests represented maybe but only by US and through US only. Nope. Doesn't work. Doesn't make any sense. "You" don't have to be in the picture, thank you though. I don't need you there and never asked for you being there. I have the right to vote for who I choose and have my choice represented accurately and fairly. Nothing short of.

Well, you've got it: all. None of legitimate interests of the society can be represented with this system because it tries to convert them into its own thirst and quest for power. Transparency and accountability in federal and provincial governments. Many others. In each election or almost, there will be specific issues that will need an open and honest discussion in the society that is simply not possible in the status quo system.

None, zero are represented and that is the reality not some fancy picture book. You have a system that represents only its own interests: to stay at the trough forever without any real challenge, and pay itself out of citizens pocket as much as it wants no questions asked. Pretending that it represents, or can, even theoretically a modern society with its rich and diverse interests is such a grotesque bull that it begins approaching the level of Russia and China. We have to see the real choice and the real numbers, only then we would know the true worth of inflated cheeks and pumped chests. 33%, 42% give me a break and don't be ridiculous, please.

Not my problem but democracy. It requires from citizens responsibility, that includes recognizing objective facts and the ability to have a conversation with compatriots of different views and opinions. Where these don't exist or exit, democracy exits and becomes a mob rule.

The problem is of course, that if one doesn't have, or forgot these foundations, a sane conversation cannot happen.

First we have to accept objective facts. What kind of sane conversation can happen if we can make and deny facts on a whim. Secondly, we would need to establish some common ground. A sane conversation cannot happen without it.

The conclusion: the entrenched pseudo parties can defend the status quo only to the detriment of democracy. A modern functional democracy cannot exist and function without fair and accurate representation of citizens views and interests.

A fair and accurate representation of citizens interests. I think in this age, a democracy cannot pretend to exist without it. The time to draw this line. It can be post-colonial self-governing dominion, but no: not a modern democracy. A ritual does not make a democracy. It is much, much more.

So wishful thinking in place of the reality. The Great Leader feeds, buys loyalty of "MP" out of citizens' pocket, the bottomless bucket. China MP can decide to vote against the leader and lo, freedom. So many times, so many examples and not a single spark. Or wilful ignorance.

I'll repeat: as it's becoming absolutely obvious that none of the default pseudo parties have any genuine interest in implementing meaningful change, the society has only two options: find a way to do what is necessary; or face accelerating systemic crisis. Managing from screw up to screw up; choosing the least worst of exactly two inadequate options; near-absolute rule with no real checks and accountability; detachment from the reality and the culture of privilege and entitlement; is not an effective nor efficient management model for a complex modern society and will lead only to deepening and accelerating failures. The society itself has to find effective ways to begin this conversation and take it to the result over the resistance of the entrenched political system.