myata

There're aren't many cool things around that were easy to do. Like inventing a car (before it, a bike) wasn't an easy business; neither were airplanes; radio; etc; it's easy to make a bunch of children, but not easy at all to bring them all all up as successful individuals. So if in the federal politics, we're only in the business of doing "easy", better be ready for a good measure of mediocre, wasteful and plain dumb useless. And don't complain, because that is our choice. In other words, a vote in one "certain region" of the country is worth more than somewhere else? Are we all democratically aware of the fact and agree that we want it that way?

Well, then, we have nothing to complain about, and nobody to blame. The system with only two "feeders" at the trough is inherently slow to react, and only in the utmost need and any idea that anything can be done about it without addressing the core problem is either an illusion, or a distraction. As I mentioned earlier, the simpliest and the most efficient strategy to bring the change is to demonstrate that this model is out of touch with reality.

I guess it depends on priorities. "Governability" or choice? Everybody choses what's closer to their heart.

Thanks, but it's not like I've anything to do with discovering this problem, it's been known for decades. It's that nobody seems to be paying any attention; noticing that it even exists... ask e.g. Mr Ignatieff. Because it was some other twisted and convoluted way to distill votes into representation? How could a PR be unfair? A vote for a party is a certain percent of representation in the House. Every vote counts. You find this "unfair", please explain why, and how the system where many many vote wouldn't count at all, should be any fairer?

The system they themselves created awhile back giving them a sort of (distinct) advantage? And now they can't really do anything about, only innocentry raise hands in a geniune (but likeable) disbelief: "Really?! Well... it's just too bad... guess that's the way I (we) are...". And it certainly didn't look like anybody was particulartly keen on the projects, not enough anyways to actively support and promote it (e.g. by explaining to the public all details). But you may have a point. We maybe in the race against time with aging population, and ever increasing apathy, so the change may never come indeed before we all go to sleep.

Nice dream. Yet, in all important matters (like actually passing legislation), you'd have to follow your party's whip, or risk being kicked out of the caucus in a flash. The rest, constituency work, etc, can be done by a "list" MP just as well as a "riding" one. That's how the system works. You, me, everybody must realize that the world has changed, it is now governed by partisan politics fair and square and there is no going back. The only thing that can be done, is to make the government represent better, i.e. closer the views of the population, than in an old, antiqated system that only knows two "real" parties, i.e. those that have any realistic chance to govern, because it was so x hundred years ago. Working within the system won't accomplish much of a real action (certainly everybody will love to do more studies, panels and discussions, reports, consultations, investigations, evalutions and so on, as they are bringing daily bread without necesserily any practical result, that could be actually seen and experienced), because the two key players, the only ones which can actually promote and bring the change, are also the ones that would be least interested in it, as it would remove their unfair advantage with respect to smaller and more recent players. No, the real practical way that can accomplish change, and actually has done so, in the same New Zealand, is to stop participating - not in the political process, mind you, but only in this inherently unfair election practice, until it's fixed. We either grow up and get both real choice, and the responsibility for exercising it, or keep pretending that we have it, while in fact being led by the nose by the omnipresent elite that at this time as much as looks, sounds and smells the same (name one important difference between "Harper" and "Iggy" at this time).

Right, right,... democratic Conservative-Liberal panel has unanimously decided that with near 10% of popular vote, they weren't yet worthy, deserving of having one representative in the House.

As a matter of fact, why don't we genuinly and honestly consider Jerry's community idea and start by preventing party hierarchy from imposing their will on our elected "representatives"? I.e. allowing "representatives" to be what they pretend to be, ie. our representatives, i.e express the will of the costituency (when they vote on any issue in the House) and not that of the party's hierarchy? Anybody interested? "Harper"?? "Iggy"?? Why not??? Could it be because you want it both ways? You want us to think that we're electing representatives (ours), while the moment they walk into the House they become "representatives" (yours)? I.e. not really different in any way from those scary scary "party bureacreats" elected by the party lists, as virtually everybody else in the world has already figured out by now, but not us, not yet. With handshakes and lawn appearances we're duped into thinking that representatives we elect in the House will be more than pawns of partisan politics.

Maybe depending on the point of view, and yet the total and absolute deficit of ideas has been characteristic of most parties here (excluding maybe Greens who tried to experiment but were very quickly and predictably reduced into obscurity), including and especially those that actually have the potential, ability to do something, and yet nothing has happened here (on the federal level) in a long long time so I don't really see how it's any of the NDP's fault? I mean folks! You got the system that's rigged so that only you ("Iggy") and your arch nemesis ("Harper") can ever theoretically, or practically govern, and now it (the lack of ideas) is somehow the fault of NDP? Be hankful that NDP just exists, giving this duopoly an appearance of a resemblance of a proximity to "democracy", what would you do without it?

Right, as though we see whole hosts, loads and volumes of "ideas", coming from the other ends. Anybody, hi-iii? We're growing old, tired, dripping sand from our pants, afraid of any miniscule step away from the bitten track, unwilling to make slightest mental effort (seeing those recycling bins filled with trash what really gets me; I mean sorting out this from that is there anything easier... looks like de-evolution has started, in earnest). No I don't think it's just NDP, it's the first signs of the old age of democracy itself.

I would say that in this solution, public does get to act (and more importantly, its the public, ie. us who get to act, rather than politicians, panels, commissions, justices, analysts and so on), although maybe outside the avenues prescribed by the system. Just too bad (for the system), if it can't be changed by any other means, here's a peaceful and democratic strategy that can bring a change - for a change (pun intended).

Apathy itself is in part caused by this frigid inflexible archaic representation system created in times when people used carts and horses for transportation. The solution is to make it clear to everybody, especially in the political elites that it is desperately in the need of a major upgrade. The most efficient way to that is to demonstrate that the old system cannot function. Levels of participation is a prime indicator of "mental state" of any political system, and if they drop to ridiculously low levels, there would be no more excuses to ignore the problem.

When your choice is limited for you, to the extent that it loses all meaning (what would be the meaning of me casting a vote for e.g. Greens, as I did in the past? Really, only a vent to let out dissatisfaction, otherwise nada = zero = 000000000000000000000. How's that a democracy? This democracy is telling you, your choces are: 1) "Harper"; 2) "Iggy"; 3) spoil the vote in any way you like). Now I'm sure "Harper" and "Iggy" MPs would be greately interested to have another discussion, review and panel, citizenship conference, yada on the subject (they'll get paid for it), but a real change? No, only something real, what's actually going on in the country, would make them move, wanna bet? And if it's us ourselves who don't want, suspicious, afraid of any real movement, then wouldn't we deserve all what we get from this system and should stop complaining and enjoy? No, citizens who really want to see the change should make their views clear and visible, in the most transparent and obvious way, i.e. stop participating in the circus.

Consumption taxes are the most stable stream of public revenue in a recession. It was reckless nearing on dumb to cut it so quickly. Harper did not keep spending in check either. Hence the deficit (and future intest on it) is probably much bigger than it could have been.

Yeah right. Really, "same" and how "similar"? Would be great questions to ask before shelling out the money. Now I understand how with "80% of funds allocated" most have yet to see a trace of it.

So, in the final analysis it's not like you (we) really "saved" anything, just borrowed it at %% (currently low, but watch it, it'd most likely take decades to repay).

Cutting GST was one of the dumbest moves possible. Nobody makes buying decisions because of 2% difference in price, it's simply negligent. People won't buy more, or less because of such miniscule difference, but it's a more stable source of public revenue than e.g. income or profit based taxes (people keep buying things even in recession while incomes and profits go down a lot). And Harper's strategists decided to cut that very source just in time for the recession! For the record, I do believe that combined GST/PST level is somewhat high in most provinces (I think most common level outside Canada being around 10-12%), but it should have been adjusted carefully over time, when we could afford it, and giving the time to adjust for the difference. Yet another example, from this government, where ideology has bettered common sense.

Indeed, this discussion helped me understand a few things, and I'm now quite certain that some form of PR is the way to go in the future. I'm not sure if writing to MPs would be the answer, I'd be much more in favour of a direct people's action, like they did in New Zealand. From now, I'm not playing this political circus anymore, and will not participate in federal elections (for starters, because that's where the outcomes of majoritary elections appear to be most grotesk) as a matter of principle, and call on anybody who shares the idea to do the same! When those MPs/MLAs/PMs etc see levels of participation in the 40% and 30%, they'll have much better incentive to do something (real) about it.

That's just too bad (for the citizens). In this life we most often get what we deserve. If we're OK with being led around the circle always by the same bunch of people for whom it's way way more safe (and pleasant) to spend country's energy in infinite debates, discussions and consultations, than actually change something for the better, that's what we deserve, ne c'est pas? Think of one major country wide public project that was successfully accomplished in this country in the last several decades? That's about the same timeframe that the European Union has been established. In all honesty, I don't understand the obsession with "representatives" in this age of undisgised party politics. What difference would a Liberal candidate A make vs Liberal candidate B? They'll both toe party line and vote as the party leadership commands. There's no difference whatsoever, zilch, nada, between party official elected via party list, and the one in a community riding. Of course, you may want to think there is, because you can see them and even maybe shake their hand at the rare moment of election and that's a part of the snare. We either have to grow up, or keep eating what we're fed, no complains, we chose it ourselves, and like it.

Gosh. Corporate sponsorships at its best. Where would one line up (for those benefits, at our expense)?

I may not understand something but weren't the money supposed to upgrade the public infrastructure?? Otherwise, without that minor caveat, why can't we simply employ half of the country upgrading politicians cottage "infrastructures", courtesy of Canada taxpayer?

There was an interesting discussion of these topics (partisan politics, proportional representation) on OnTV yesterday night, with Elizabeth May. May has very much agreed with you on the root cause of the problem (blatantly partisan politics), but could not come to a better solution than some form of PR (as in most developed nations now). For better or worse, partsan (i.e. party based) politics is the superior (technically and efficency wise) way of organising political structures, and attempting to remove it from political life would be like demanding to go back in time. PR does not solve all problems of political system, it only ensures that the structure of government more closely reflects the views of the population. She cited the example of New Zealand, where dissatisfaction with the status quo (majoritary) system eventually caused politicians to adopt a form of PR. I think we should try the same approach here, as none of the behemoths would obviously be interested in voluntarily giving up their advantages, inherent within this system. Folks! Let's realize that we are being led by the nose by the eternal "Harper" / "Iggy" duet, and boycott all federal elections, until somebody somewhere notices and does something to bring more sense to this outdated archaic system. Unless of course, for us, here, "governability" is the top of all merits.

No, that would be like getting into my nose via neighbour's ear. And it would be beyond the point. Party politics are here to stay, and we need to have a representation system where each vote cast actually and really counts.

The conclusion is that possibility of problmes is not an excuse (rather, only an excuse) for ignoring a much more serious problem going to the root of democracy in fact, the one that my democratic choice could not be meaningfully exercised in the current system. What if I don't want to be led by a nose like Pinoccio, "Iggy" / "Harper", "Harper" / "Iggy" and would want something different instead? Something that exists but perhaps isn't functioning perfectly would be lightyears (actually, infinitely) ahead of anything that does not exist because it would be too risky to even try.

Is it really necessary to put (your) thoughts in my mouth? Competing causes are fine with me, and I won't pretend to be dumb half brain to never understand nor care what they are, nor would I find any particular pride in it. Regarding what gets done and doesn't look at Europe, where a functioning community of some 25 nations has been built over a few decades. That's about as long as we're talking about having a train in Ottawa, always with the same result. The behemoths will circle around the sugarbush for ever promising and blasting each other and in the end nothing would ever be done, because as I already said, doing nothing is the safest thing that can be "done" in this duopoly situation. Yet, our biggest prize is being so "governable".