myata

The default winners, the only possible in theory and practice. Barriers, talking heads everything is skewed heavily against any new players. And then there's a place at the top for two only. That isn't going to change while the system is in place. I invite you to look at it this way: of the two, Liberals are out as possible agents of change, reneged on their own pledge, cannot be trusted. Conservatives can bow out or ignore based on selfish considerations, they've been feeding from the same trough for ages. And that leaves us only a small number of options: - there will be another agent of change and it will happen. That wouldn't be a good news for you as folks will remember your position as selfish and entitled. - people wouldn't be interested in a meaningful change and accept the status quo in perpetuity. That would lead all the way to a third world condition that in the end wouldn't be good for most. First bells are already here. See, refusing to embrace positive change leaves you no good options. You can "win" a few times in a heavily skewed system but it won't change the outcome.

Results by riding should be available online, but I doubt someone would be compiling this statistic, not exactly productive for the status quo especially together with participation.

Just to understand: Putin is here for nothing less than rewriting the world order for decades or ages to come. Dictators with nukes can do anything they like, genocides included, total open season. This is what's really at stake here, far from Ukraine.

"How" is possible. The real question is: why. Why even consider real change if it's going to hurt the owners of the system, designed and engineered to benefit them, only and exclusively? You really have to look very hard to find an environment with more resistance and fewer incentives for change. And what would it bode for the country, going forward?

I'll explain only once more, no need in endless repetition: the system severely limits the choice by imposing the condition of a single winner, as opposed to every vote counts. If there's an organized gang and you're naively "voting your mind" as cute and fuzzy professors and media heads invite you to, you will loose in every single district and the gang will get all of the representation, 100 : 0. So the natural result is two closely matching gangs and nothing else matters. Now, dream on that it's free and open. A two year old child choice, porridge, different porridge or go and throw tantrum. Exactly, 100% the same level of freedom and openness.

Maybe this is taking it too far but it can be argued that any system that essentially limits the choice, by any means and methods cannot be considered a full contemporary democracy. Some choice isn't the same as free, unrestricted and open choice.

Exactly. You have different choices, you make them differently. There's no reason to expect that in a free and open political arena current behemoth would perform anywhere near the results that they get in the environment created by hands for them to succeed, excluding any meaningful competition. Give it a few cycles, two or three. And that (above) answers your question. Primarily, it's the most severe restriction of available choice, not on paper, but in real, visible results. In fact, only one step less severe than that of the dictators. And then, even some of them will show you some pet parody of "political competition".

Why are you answering a different question? The question was not is America perfect and unblemished standard of the world. Good that we agree. There's a subtle question that still hangs, how do we define occupying "with the will of people"; not by fake "referendums" conducted by armed occupiers by any chance? but OK next time. As soon as you any factual evidence of such intent everybody should know.

Let's see. When was the last time America invaded and attacked an independent, democratic European nation?

You are only repeating Russia's bullshit. No that doesn't justify in any way, even very minimal one, Russia's invasion of a sovereign European nation anymore than did fake pretexts of Nazi's. There may be devil himself residing in Ukraine and still it wouldn't justify Russia barging in and behaving like a devilish horde without any reason. Russia is Nazi 2.0 of this time, it's that simple.

You said it: sport, entertainment. It's not real. The rules are a joke. Openness and fairness, absent. I would say go along for a ride for as long as it last because we know that bread and circuses story will not go forever. Too bad for us who seem to care only about circuses, but that bill is coming. Not a chance of ducking it, sooner or later.

You are naive beyond belief (literally). What if your "tournament" included exactly two teems with others taken out by little peculiarities of the "fair" process and one of them claimed "fair victory" regularly and all the time. How long would you be watching it before tuning out for good? Good luck selling it as something cool or even worthy of any attention.

And Hitler said exactly the same thing. "Asserting" means to be exact: bombs; shelling of cities; injuring and killing innocent civilians and so on, no need to waste anybody's time. This is beyond blind, naive or stupid. You are apologizing for Hitler of our time. Cheers!

Maybe. But I'm not convinced. Too many cute and fuzzy coincidences.

It would be entirely frivolous to call such events "sport". Though of course one can use any words not like they can object the meaning or nonsense they cover. Same with "democracy" by the way.

It's leading here: this is Nazi 2.0. This is what Hitler did. It respects no boundaries, no principles. If you don't resist and defeat it now; if it's allowed to grow and propagate; what will you do when it comes to your door? Who guaranteed that it wouldn't? Do you have these guarantees?

Something missing here, conveniently. Did it suppose to include fair competition in an open process? Or just about anything goes to win elections? Imagine a sports tournament where your opponent has to "compete" with an arm tied and a lead ball attached? Why would anybody be interested?

From negation to construction of a new the distance can be long. The next step would be self-organization not as reaction to overreaching policies but for some positive change. From that further results can follow. But it still seems to be a long way from that. And I would question the role of the learned community media and such. Are they hand fed to quack for supporting the status quo in perpetuity? When a supposedly experienced political host in response to dismal voter participation suggests another panel discussion or combining existing parties is it a conviction that nothing better is possible, naivite or something else? Watching it over the recent period I cannot be sure there's anything independent left in this country.

Let's see. Can't say it's obvious to me, but good that at least someone here still has hope.

In other words, lock them out of this trough that benefited them (a party) since times immemorial? Wait and we thought it was about the country, its needs, how it will progress in the modern age and challenges? Silly. How naive. Its so much simpler as vouched here by QM: I have a place at this trough. For all I know, forever. Why would I want anything else?

If we were looking for ways to create a project of renewal or rather, first conscious and deliberate construction of a functional modern democracy in the country, why would be dependent on the leaders? And not for example on shared values and priorities, ability to self-organize, discuss and agree on priorities and ways to move forward? I can't see how all of that could come from one individual, even a genius one.

First, informed and engaged electorate would need to create a system of governance that would reflect and prioritize their problems and needs rather than its own. In this country nothing like that exists. The system has been stitched hastily on top of colonial administration and its main priority is to continue itself. Does it, informed and engaged exist? Probably not - the political history of 160 years speaks for that. And one has to agree, it's where the core of the problem is.

Yes we need to be more responsive in this digital age! Try calling a government office of your choice. Let's have an improvement: a bot responding you have options 1, 2 and 3 or call this number (and the same at the other number). All 24 levels of management freed to work productively on... what? Change without changing anything, how good you can get at it in some twenty decades? "Yes we have to be more responsive to ..." (append as and when needed). We get what we accept that is quite certain.

That's all what is wrong here. This is almost word to word that Kathleen Wynne said in the panel yesterday. "More responsive" is a vague, fuzzy notion and Wynne will be very happy with that! Even now, like two terms out of power she still counts herself as "us" more responsive (sic) to "you" there down below. No we don't need "responsive", we need effective in solving our issues and problems (try calling virtually any govt office good luck); efficient, including cost (why do we need 24+ levels of management hierarchy doing what - for us?) and real, visible results. This is quite obviously not the same, and with only a small effort could be made the opposite of "responsive".

It's way, way bigger than Justine. I could try to describe it - again, but oh.. the apathy. In short, it's the whole country. Us. It's we how ensure and guarantee what no change is possible here. Not saying ever because it can still happen - the hard way.