myata

How far could the "efficiency" and "stability" argument stretch? A dictatorship can be a model of efficiency and stability (of government). Do we need just enough choice and freedom to make our system not a dictatorship? Or do we need all the freedom there is on principle and because we have right to make sovereign conscious choices without artificial restriction or limitaion? Well, I for one officially quit playing the "porridge or potato" game, the two year old equivalent of variety of political choices. Either I have the full, uncensored and unrestricted choice as is a right of any mature individual; or, if I can't have it, I'll have no further interest in playing into a spectacle that has no meaning to me.

No because you never proved that it is. There're many factors at play in country politics, of which electoral system is only one. I never said it was, please read carefully. It doesn't mean that it could not be used in conjunction with PR though. Responsive, etc at a cost skewing (grossly, in our system) representation of society's political choices? Wouldn't it be exactly what was said then, that you can have one (choice and freedom) or the other (responsive, etc) but not both (at the same time)? If you can't trust your choices to be sound, they'd need to be adjusted for you. What you call it ("responsive, stable", blah) isn't important, what matters is that the cost of responsiveness and stability is limitation of choices. Perhaps to the extent that it'd ultimately loose all meaning, as a system of democratic representation. I'm afraid it's one or the other, you either make your choices and decisions and live with it, even when it means that you'll have to make more decisions, i.e have more elections, read more about your parties, etc, or you pass control of your life to somebody else. In our case we handed it (control) firmly and solidly, to two partocracies, with only a visibility remaining that we could still make any real difference in this country. No, just takes time to take it in, please don't give up.

I do not believe that problems in Israel are caused necesarily by their electoral system. Large part of population is ambivalent toward continuation of their government's policies, otherwise they would not elect these parties favouring aggressive policies with combined majority representation. And of course truly marginal parties can be eliminated via representation threshold - better still, combined with some sort of redistributing their votes to other parties via alternative vote. In any case it would cut off only counted %% points of representation as opposed to something like a third in our system (and even that is a low mark because it's a big question whether 35% of voters would keep voting Liberal if they had other choices leading to meaningful representation). All in all, it all comes back to the same old and basic question: do you believe yourself being capable of making the best choice for you, and have full confidence in it whatever it may be? Or do you need somebody else, on the outside, to dictate, massage, and adjust your choice for stablity, because you can't really be trusted, etc, yada for any other worthy reason? What you do is what you get. P.S Most democracies in the world have matured enough to realise that democracy can only be as good as people's committment to it. We're still on the way there.

"Perfect" system is impossible, yet each system responds to the choices imposed by the society. We value stability over choices, and ultimately, diversity and freedom of representation. This results in (mostly) stable majority governments that very rarely represent majority of voters. As three hundred years back, we have exactly two meaningful choices: for or against the ruling government, everything else is a throwaway. Proportional system of course puts people choices first, and makes stability (forming and reforming coalition) a result and consequence of it. So this has nothing to do with the perfection of the system and everything - with society's choices, its confidence, self esteem. Do we want a system that would create artificial stability by limiting our choices? Or can we just express our will, fully and without restriction, and make our system respond to the decisions we made in a transparent, flexible and efficient manner, by building and rebuilding majority coalitions based on the current makeup of society's political views? The choice is ours and it's the same choices we make in our regular lives, you can have stability, predictability and boredom, or freedom, choices, and yes once in a while wild ride, but very rarely, both.

Majoritary system makes it nigh impossible though. Smaller parties and factions are severely punished for the benefit of the ruling two. Diversity of representations comes, well, with meaningful representation, otherwise we still end up with two ruling behemoths interested in their corporate agendas and interests much more than what it does for the country.

I think that Harper has demonstrated very aptly that possibility of coalitions is as much - and probably much more than, a constitutional limit as 1) understanding and acceptance of this model of governance by the public; and 2) willingness of parties to accept compromises for the sake of stable government and achieving common agenda. In this country we have very little of either, so you're quite correct in saying that possibility of coalitions becomes more a matter of constitutional theory, than of practical governance. Is it good for the country? Let's see, we've had over decade of Liberal rule that was about little more than, well, "we rule", then five or so years of Harper addressing non existent or meaningless agendas (as that ephemerial accountability that nobody seem to really want). That brings us to about two decades in which no real acts no results have been achieved, federally, keeping everybody happy nonetheless. I already explained that it's a very natural outcome in the system where meaningful choice is limited to exactly two options, the parties that are fully controlled by their partocracies and for whom the most rewarding strategy is to sit it out and wait for the major screwup by their counterpart, which would invariably come, sooner or later. We are going to see that slow dance play out before our eyes over and again until we find will to change the system, or until our democracy finally degenerates into a meaningless spectacle as happened any number of times before us in history.

Of course it doesn't. Only that those of us who have turned 90 and lived through two major wars could have had it. Democracy is that thing, you use it, or you lose it.

"Since Confederation there has only been one federal coalition government in Canada’s history: the Union Government of World War I, which lasted from 1917-1920. This was a coalition between the Conservative Party, led by Robert Borden, and Liberals and independents." [http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/547281]

They change it in secret behind the closed door so that: - the aspiration of their socially conservative wing are satisfied; - it wouldn't create a broad resonanse and discussion in the society; - while making an inderect implication that something isn't right with that fundamental freedom; - and creating a precedent for gradual repatriation of these policies back home, if opportunity arises;

We here can't have it (coalitions; as well as referendums on federal electoral system) for several reasons (probably not limited to): - We have not yet come to view ourselves as fully politically independent and sovereign nation capable of creating our own political system. Any changes to the system are therefore considered as an affront to our glorious past, unnecessary trouble and risk. - Large part of population is disinterested and apathetic to politics, will not understand, nor see the need for such developments (and therefore can be easily manipulated into rejecting them) - There's still significant amount of inertia support for the leading political duo parties none of which is serious interested in a meaningful democratic reform. We'll have to wait awhile till support for the behemotial duo fragments and trickle away to such extent that it would force them to support a change.

But you missed the point, though: one doesn't need your "safeguards" anymore than you need somebody's unasked for safeguards when buying your beer (hopefully!). Very simple truth of the matter is that it's individual's private choice and therefore falls (far) outside of your sphere of competence (said very mildly). And as is common understanding in civilised societies, in these matters it is polite and appropriate to withhold one's advise unless (or until) it's requested.

Yep just heard it hot off the news. It would have been sad if it weren't so hilarious.

To each their own and some will find interest in a dump of soil while others in the galaxies far far away. There's inherent danger though in walking up with back aimed firmly at the direction of progress. Only works with smooth, straight uneventful and shall we say even for the sake of argument, somewhat boring paths.

Nice point. I have here a vivid image of a deeply emotional worship inspiring and soul piercing lecture every time you reach out for a six pack of beer. That's about as serious as these unasked for cermons sound to me.

And the futility of voting for (one of the) governing parties, which will take your vote for granted and will go on being run by its partocracies with little regard to what you'd wish them to do. Looks like we're doomed either way ((((

+1. A Petition to Jilles, to run canditates in the ROC?

This would be #4, and still counting. Not to worry, we'll take as long as one needs: - if all inconveniences are "cosmetic", then should the public stop funding all non fatal "inconveniences"? - if somebody thinks of this particular inconvenience as being less "inconvenient" than some others, should they provide some substantiated, rational argument to that extent? Or just their saying so should suffice? - if their saying so should suffice, would that signify that every single one of us should be coming up with our own lists of "incoveniences" that we deem unworthy of public funding? Just because we say so? - if every one of us starts to limit publicly funded treatment of other's inconveniences, how long would it be before we hit #1, ie. are left without any publicly funded treatements for "inconvenient" i.e. non fatal conditions? The logical conclusion that can be derived from this brief deliberation is this: we can have public health insurance based on reason, facts and rational argumentation. Or we can have irresponsible and unsubstatntiate mouthblabbering and no public insurance (for non fatal conditions). Please take your pick.

Well, without subscribing to that, it would be a logically consistent position. Some here though want treatment of their "inconveniences" paid for by the public, while dismissing inconveniences of others as "cosmetic". Not to mention those who indeed feel, and insist that some individuals should live out parts of their lives only to satisfy their ideological and/or moral beliefs.

The leap (of logic, imagination, and/or rational argumentation) here is of course that some folks want to appropriate the privilege to judge which "inconvenience" should be considered "elective", and which, "medical reason". Any "inconvenience" to them and their like should be unquestionnably regarded as "medically necessary", while any one they do not believe or judge to be real inconvenience, "elective". Why? Just because (they know it; they say so). If any "inconvenience" should be considered elective or even cosmetic, then bye socially funded hip replacement, treatment of chronic conditions, transplants for non fatal conditions, Alzheimer, and many other conditions that aren't deemed fatal and therefore should be treated as only "inconveniences", albeit in many cases, big ones. And if there are "inconveniences" and "inconveniences" when we'll need something better than a word of an undoubtely very informed poster to make the call which "inconveniences" should deserve social funding, and which, not. Of course we're still awaiting specific and serious argumentation on the specific matter of abortions. Perhaps the poster could come up with a clear set of criteria, principles or rules that could give us a guidance in that choice?

No, Taleban, they are the bad guys! Catholic priest or local CPC representative on the other hand, can be fully trusted with that burdensome but highly benevolent duty (when they aren't busy with their "small" government of course)

Let's try again: Just like a score of health issues caused by "elective" choice of poor life style / failure to stay healthy and fit?

Just like atherosclerosis, etc resulting from unhealthy lifestyle?

With all Harper government's recent foot shooting atticks: - prorogation; - detainee issue; - Guerges affair; - abortion issue I can't stop wondering if perhaps a bigger plan could be in the works? E.g. Harper attracts all the negative attention to himself, then resigns and CPC comes up with a new shiny, better and friendlier leadear (like ???). And get themselves reelected to majority. Not an unlikely possibility given Liberals dismal showing even when their chief opponent appears to be giving them all the cards.

But I didn't need to "figure out" anything! It's Harper's government itself that made this announcement, reversing long standing policy that was also consistent with Canada's own laws. Just like earlier, on death penalty. Just like earlier, on Kyoto. How have you failed to figure it out, is of course a different story.

No, your point is valid of course. The any government that respects their own country as well as other country abroad, will follow its principles exercised on its own soil. And when it wouldn't it would be kept in check, i.e. made to do so by working opposition (in a working democracy). So what we see here is a double failure, by the ideology driven conservative government, to which all what was said still applies, and by inefficient opposition that was unable to make it follow our own laws and standards.