myata

Which doesn't seem to be a part of this game. These people seem to want status quo captured and legitimized exactly one second after dirty little affairs have been accomplished. Instantly reincarnated as holy saints / agnes who descended this Earth that one second ago and have neither knowledge nor responsibility for their past (or present) acts. Today I grab your land or raid your territory killing and injuring a bunch of civilians - that's in the past or something else or it doesn't really matter. Tomorrow you hit me back - OMG, I'm a poor innocent victim of aggression, "MURDER"!

Great apologies for quoting self, but it describes the problem. That is serious enough for me to the extent that I did not participate in the last election and not planning to in any near future, i.e till things change (or at least there's real possibility of such change).

So, perpetrator of the act investigates themselves? No surprise, it's all too familiar. But truth will come out, neither US nor Canada hold the keys to it; the only question is which side of it will Canada find itself on. Goodbye independent, objective and non partisan position, internationally. One more thing that's too costly to keep in this volatile world. Better to get by, somehow, based on priorities and friendships of the moment.

OK thanks for clarification! I read about country wide STV, where a Green voter in Ottawa would be able to cast their vote in Vancouver.

That is a good point and I agree that something would have to be done about it. But as explained in another thread, STV has problems of its own. So what if we have one half of the House elected from parties, the other - from non partisan local candidates (who could still use party affiliation in campaigning, but it won't be shown on the ballot)? A voter having a choice which way to vote (only one counts). That would solve my problem for sure. And have people who want to vote locally for non partisan candidate satisfied as well.

The problem for me at least. is that in this democracy I cannot make my vote count. I'm faced with a choice premade for me - Tweedledum A or Tweedledum B or throw it away. And I'm long past the age of two when people make this kind of choices. So faced with this artificial choice I can only choose one option remaining to an independent individual - not participate in the process. And I think that I'm not alone. However, STV won't solve this problem. Really why would one be reluctunt to vote for a candidate appointed by a party committee, but be OK with transfering vote somewhere thousands miles to somebody they (or majority of voters) would know nothing about? Then, the parties won't go away just because they aren't on the list. Common interests, common goals, common programs will persist and prevail even if not immediately visibile on the ballot. The thing will become a nightmare of vote transfer strategisms. So, instead of looking for outlandish solutions, why not just ask (and answer) in honesty to ourselves, what kind of political choices we desire? Seriously why don't we run a referendum with only a few options, like: 1. I want all independent MPs = banish political parties and end up with a 300+ strong city council. 2. I don't want to make any choices = declare one party (toss a coin if necessary) as the only legitimate party in the country 3. I want to make as few political choices as possible without going to #2: keep the current system, it guarantees you exactly two choices: for the government and against it. 4. I want to be able to make political choice that counts from all the variety of ideas that exist in the country = proportional representation. If we want to be able to choose from the whole spectrum of political ideas, there's neither rational nor justifiable reason to restrict or distort it - other than maybe cutting off really marginal parts of the spectrum (participation threshold). It is really this simple. What we want (deep inside, truly) is what we get.

Then you keep bulldozing your way throgh, no doubts no questions asked. And keep your fingers crossed that it won't hit you back; and it wouldn't be logical to count on universal sympathy when it does, not like you'd be an innocent victim of vicious aggression, right? What else can be added to the troglodyte politics? One side will emerge.. the other will be beaten to ... (yes that). Which one, we'll just have to see; if we live long enough. But on the other side of things, even calling things their own names will make its way, eventually. Remember South Africa, all the traditional friendships and positive engagements? Then calling it apartheid. Then, universal condemnation. Then, the change. The same is coming to this conflict, just watch it. The unspoken conventions, dirty little secrets, elephants in the room, behind the door politics won't cut it anymore. When the world sees each act for what it is, without preconceptions and prejudged excuses, the realization that just brute force won't do it all may finally come to Israel - and its international sponsors. Which is just as well, because that would be their only chance to have long term future in that region, as all the history shows us the will to fight tooth and nail won't run in a society forever and both the time and demographics aren't exactly on their side.

Even that is a natural result of development of binary political system. When there're only two dominant political parties, one in the power and one waiting to get in, neither has anything to gain from bold distinctive postition that would instantly open it to attacks and bring inherent risk. We'll end up, no ended up already with near twin political bureacracies alternating at the helm of the country. Either way, through logical analysis, or simple principle of freedom of choice, our situation is dead clear: we can have a status quo of stagnating near identical monstrous political partocracies endowing us with stability and predictability we desire; or we can have real choice, real variety in our politics and take full responsibility for the outcome. These two options are dead opposite and can be intermixed no more than water and lead. It's OK if we continue to choose predictability over freedom as long as its a conscious choice and we accept the cost. Although mental apathy and illiteracy is also a choice of a kind, and choices never fail to bring consequences, eventually.

Aside from handing gratuitous evaluations; maybe you ever wondered what people whose land is taken away daily by those "well armed" shoud feel, instead of being scared? Perhaps, love and eternal gratitude? On a serious note, what's telling here is that fear of armed to the teath aggressor somehow supposed to take precedence over that of those they persecute. Try to think, in what logical system things usually work that way? That Israeli government of the day does not want peace is obvious from their policy of accelerated settement building which is nothing short of direct, blatant in the face of the world that condemns it, aggression. But you have to be more careful about "the other side", as things stand NOW. Who exactly are "THEY", what exactly did they state and much more importantly, what they did they DO to justify your statement? Unless as per noble tradition, you'd want to equate words with act? To preempt potential questions, please note that I do not suggest in any way that the other side is blameless. Only request current evidence of that statement, that is as of current, still missing. But I said so many times over that any act of aggression has to be condemned and acted upon, regardless by which side and whose friends it happen to be. What you fail to notice it so consistently is entirely your problem, and I really can have no remedy for this difficult case.

Seeing half of the world, speaking half of the truth, again and always? Perhaps Isreal has moved many "notions" from approprating more and more of the land it occupies? As defined by ...? You mean you have the authority to tell other people what is "progress" for them? Just like conkistadors, of old?

No Dancer, if it was really so easy, why deny independent international investigation? And, where do we go from here? Israel is officially recognised and approved by its staunch democratic friends law onto itself, responsible to nobody or for anything? How do we go then about calling to responsibility other countries and societies? Wouldn't it look, quack and smell like cheap, empty and pathetic verbal bs?

Let's slow down right here, can we? If these are really such routine events, you'll have no problem posting evidence confirming these incidents, say, for the last week, daily. Please oblige. And if not, I hope you'll eat these statements back as deliberately false pretext to justify inacceptable by civilized standards acts of Israeli military. Please don't keep us waiting ))

No, they won't, but people can make them to, if they are interested to see the change and have will and persistence to see it through. One way to achieve it is to stop voting either of the two incumbents to power on principle, until one of them (or both) accept the need for the change. If we try that - and it's purely private democratic and legitimate act - I'm certain we'll see the change within a decade. M-H: it was already explained that in a majoritary democracy there can be only two real parties (i.e those with a national agenda and meaningful representation): that of a government and, possibly, the opposition. Possibly because if opposition is split, the government party dominates political process, becoming the only real party in the country (yes we've been there). Other parties have no chance to obtain significant representation and exist only as background decorations of the main duo. Now ask yourself a question, if you really prepared and want to see many parties representing many views and interests to appear and play role in the Parliament, would it still make sense to severely undercut their representation by cutting off all votes that did not result in winning a riding? On one hand, you want to see many parties elected; on the other, you're saying that only one choice (in a riding) really matters, all other are thrown away. Therein lies the unsurmountable logical contradiction, so pick what you really want: less real choices, more stable and predictable politics, even at the cost of stagnation; or more real choice, coalitions and certainly, more variable politics. One is direct opposite of the other and they can be combined in one system only in a dream. Of course one doesn't even have to go to all these complexities. The simplest argument in favour of PR is that I have the right to a meaningful choice according to what I think and desire, and not from options prepared for me. In other words, I have a right to have my vote count regardless of peculiarities of electoral system. In a first by the post system it is simply not the case, as all votes that are not for the winning party are thrown away.

Well some of them were. Not that one, though. Oh, you now equate one sided and likely illegal blocade of Gaza by Isreal with UN sanctioned operation? In any case, if Canada etc didn't have serious reasons to do that, and / or it caused unwarranted loss of life it would cause serious repercussions for those who commanded operation, not in the least in Canada itself. Why would anybody be welcoming armed belligerents seeking to board ship in international waters? Yes and it shows. Does the same rule apply to people on the ships that were attacked (i.e. stopped by force) in the international waters? Or it applies only to those on the "right" side of your vision? I did read several news reports that cited information from both sides, and in a complex situation like this can't really think of a reason to cite an excerpt from one side, other than unquestioned prejudged apology of it regardless of the actual situation. And that's fine, understanding that's it's a general nature of things and you'll excuse it as easily if and when the same methods are used by others. I was about to ask the same of you, so let's see: 1) There's a country with a bunch of A-bombs, full of C-bombs bursting of tanks and all kind of explosive ammunition that is occupying other people's territory and persting in expropriating other people's land. Who has the right to "fight back" here? 2) Heavily armed military patrol boards unarmed humanitarian ship in the international waters. Who is the attacker, and who has the right to fight back? But there's no UN sanctions against Gaza. And you still unquestionnably support foreign military using excessive force against civilian ship. How so? Wow, that's quite a leap of logic there. So absense of vocal condemnation (although that wouldn't be entirely true, particularly on the UN part, see e.g. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932010_blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip) somehow equates with official sanctioning of Isreal's blocade? While reserving the right to attack oneself, unconditionally and without restrictions or limitations? I'm afraid there's no logical way out of this conundrum, only physical one, ie. to wait till one manages to beat the other to.. and so on.

If we accept the notion of coalition of parties as a way to ensure predictable and stable government in the situation where no single party has majority support, the existing representation system would become irrelevant and counter productive. The main intent of "first by the post" system is to produce majority governments, by consolidating electoral support into two main groups (government / opposition). This obviously leads to the two party model. Split opposition = domination of government party; the only viable strategy to defeat the government is to consolidate opposition. But what would be the point of it in a true multiparty situation? Why would smaller parties agree to a system that reshuffles electoral support from them in favour of the two dominant behemoths? What would be the meaning of our current situation where the coalition of Liberal/NDP, having more popular votes, has less representation than CPC? No, outside of "banish the parties" pipedream, there're only two viable options for our political system. Status quo of two dominant, stagnating behemoth parties, forever. Or dynamic multiparty system based on fair representation. Pretty much everybody else has figured out that much already.

Unfortunately that solution would be like putting out the fire with gasoline. Imagine 300+ independents trying to come to a solution to a critical problem. We have an example of our city council with just a dozen of councillors. No, parties have come to be for a reason and that reason is the ability to have things done. This democracy is suffocating in the atmosphere of stagnation and lack of meaningful choice. The practical solution to this conundrum is more choice, more competition and more parties. Not less, we're already at the level only one notch above where there wouldn't be meaningful democracy anymore. But for it to work, parties must have fair representation according to their level of popular support. This is the only thing that can be done now, other than going to sleep with never ending never changing status quo. Or pipedreaming about rolling back the clock to the time of independents.

No, I only noticed that your post was based entirely on information from one side. While duly noting that fact, I also read it that makes your statement absurd and untrue. Let's say, a convoy of humanitarian aid that has cleared customs of a NATO country. Let's say to a country that's in the middle of an armed conflict. Like e.g..... Georgia? Oh, you mean those armed guys that boarded the ships were just Santa Clauses? And their shooting was only Cristmas crackers? It does indeed. We need to understand how do you apply criteria justifying use of deadly military force against civilians. If you're about to excuse military boarding humanitarian ships and killing several civilians in the process only on their word, would you be applying the same approach in all cases? Or only when this particular military is concerned?

I believe that broad coalition of progressive parties (Liberal, NDP, Green and possibly some agreement with Bloc) based on a program of meaningful democratic reforms and not just for power wrestling sake is the only positive development that could happen in the federal politics here. Personally I've no further interest in election time struggles deciding which side of the eternal duet smells a tidy bit better than the other. I've no interest either in watching perpetual transformations and consolidations that change nothing in the essense, leaving us with the same eternal duet. Democratic change now or our federal politics is dead for as much as I care. If I can't choose the party that represents my opinion and interests with any meaning, there's no point in pretending to having any choice at all. Let's leave "porridge or potato" game to politically two year olds. P.S By meaningful democratic change I mean (e.g.) a referendum on some form of proportional representation; fixed - for real - election dates; strengthening independence of the Parliament by removing government's total control over Parliamentary agenda, and so on.

What move, we have arrived at (or never left) the destination. After all, that's the way things have been since the times premordial, those amaebae, dinosaurs, troglodytes and cave people with clubs and stones. Why bother moving anywhere else?

The number of high speed train lines set in operation. The number of space research projects attempted and executed. Total population of countries in the united economic zone. Take all of the above that's happened in the last 25-30 years in some democracies in the world; and compare with what happened here in Canada; even in per capita calculation. BTW what actually did happen in Canada in the last 25-30 years? We need that once in a lifetime event to start fixing cracks and potholes. Forget that raw sewage that goes by tons and volumes daily into our picture perfect streams, rivers and oceans. That's gonna take like, generations. And, actual reduction in greenhouse emissions? Sustainable development? Ecologically friendly technologies? For all that please head stright to the library, no need to bother looking around. Seriously though, I never said anything about "better" government. The only thing that was mentioned is that it's about freedom and choice. Some value their choice in the hope that it'll provide them with a good government. While others put ahead stability of their government and hope that it'd give them some choices. It's just too bad that in the situation we find ourselves now, the leeway of actual choice we have is about 2mm each way.

And if the eyes of the staunchly supported and defended" the right to exist is synonimous with continuous policy of provocation and aggression, as is becoming clearer and clearer with each day and act... would that make them now "staunch supporters, etc" of provocation, aggression, gross misuse of military power amounting to state perpetrated terror.. and so on?

Not by looking at those exemplified political systems.

Well, noting the comment about scandinavian countries which actually did leave important marks in the history, 3/5 of these examples are scarcely populated colonies that only have started (if indeed) creating sovereign political systems of their own. The other two are of course very special cases (UK being the origin of that political system, USA - long time colony of it) I already commented that stability of our system comes at the cost of severe limitation of meaningful political choices. Guess it comes down to what matters to the populace most: choice and political freedom or stability. Can't have both at the same time. We can't pretend that giving zero representation to a party having support of 10% of voters is a fair principle. It's the tradeoff we're getting for stability. Stability that among other things means less choice, less responsibility, less ideas and less change. Putting aside the unasked for though still very honourable privilege to speak on behalf of the "Left of today", but I did comment multiple times that domination of political process by any party is counter productive to democracy and progress.

Yes listening only to one side always leads one to an objective informed opinion. Just look where it got us so far. On a different note, imagine a US vessel were to be boarded by obviously hostile foreign military in the international waters, what an idyll of peaceful democracy it would be.

And the legality of occupation... And the legality of building settlements in the occupied territories, like there's no tomorrow. Sounds no, walks, quacks and acts like a pattern.