Black Dog

I can't prove with certainty that the Universe doesn't reside on the back of a giant invisible tortoise either. But such a concept is just as ridiculous as God. Again: you can't prove a negative. I can "claim" to be King George III, but barring any evidence to support my claim, I'd probably get locked in the nuthouse. As for "improbability": improbability does not preclude soemthing from happening. And what's more improbable: the existence of an anthropomorphic, ominscient, ominipotent entity that created all life and all matter in the universe, or that life came about through a series of observable natural processes?

How does one prove a negative? Given the lack of evidence pointing to the existence of a benign Supreme Being, its entirely reasonable to conclude that there's no such thing. And we may not "know" for certain how things began, but we can utilize the ever-expanding body of scientific knowledge to formulate plausable theories based on available evidence. It's no coninidence that, as man's knowlegde of the universe's workings has increased, belief in God, or at least in the traditional theistic origins of the universe, has declined.

There's zero evidence to indicate the existence of God. Just because a belief system is well-structured and neatly packaged does not make it "rational" if it is based on an assumption usnsupported by any real evidence. Moreover such a belief system is fundamentally flawed in that it replaces doubt (ie. "we don't know") with faith, which is applied in a haphazard, ad hoc fashion: if we can't explain it, it is the work of an invisible superhero in the sky. Nobody of any repute denies evolution as the mechanism by which life developed on Earth. And to me it's distressing that, in the 21st Century, people still cling to outmoded superstistions and sky-god fairy tales. Nonsense. All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

Documentary: A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration. Lesee, nothing in their about being unbiased or impartial. Indeed, Moore is the last person who'd claim to be either. He's a provoceteur who wears his bias on his sleeve. Nothing underhanded about it. If anything Moore is a counterbalance to the right-wing blowhards that have come to dominate the so-called "liberal" media establishment: the Coulters O'reillys, Liombaughs, Millers, Hannitys et al who have been spreading their own lies and vicious ad hominems for years unchecked. It seems to me the thing that drives right-wingers absolutely ape about Moore is the fact he propagandizes, strtches the truth and is shameless in his methods. In other words, when right-wingers look at Moore, they see their own distorted reflection. And it's a sight most simply cannot bear.

Are they a threat if "we" don't have it? Even if ABM goes ahead, its effectiveness is still in question. Such a system is impractical beyond belief, as well as being diporportionatley expensive (that is: the cost far exceeds the threat its supopssed to guard against). ABM is the new Maginot line. If some countery really has it in mind to turn a major U.S. city into a glass parking lot, they'll find a way, and they'll do so in a manner which ensures their own nation doesn't get wiped out in response.

Whoops. I was actually looking at the whole Prairies. In Alberta, 40 per cent of Albertans went liberal, ND or Green. Not half, but close. That said, though, across western Canada, Liberal, NDP and Green voters (2,046,218)still outnumbered Conservative supporters (1,771,652).

Here's an idea: stop marginalizing yourselves by voting for the Cons or other no-hope parties. Half of all Albertans voted for parties other than the ReformAlCons. You don't speak for them.

From another thread... Glad you asked. In order to garner enough support for votes, the government would have to include concessions to the supporting parties in every bill. (This would also happen if the government had to get PEI's support to get every bill through the senate, by the way. ) It would slow down the process of governing, and add costs as well. Yes, there's a certain amount of negotiation and compromise that goes on under PR. Yes, that could mean include governments adding costs to maintain support. Yes, PR can slow the process down. These, however are not necessarily bad things. After all, if speed and efficiency were what we wanted from government, we'd just dispense with the whole messy business of democracy and apoint a dictator or supreme monarch. However, democracy is messy. True democracy requires maximum representation and PR is by far the best way to ensure it. Here's an interesting US-oriented article that includes a good run down of the German system. The Case for PR

There's nothing in PR that would lend itself to the underrepresentation of any political viewpoint. It certainly could not be less representative than the current setup. As 8 years of Liberal government have shown, majority government's don't lend themselves to fiscal responsibility, simply because there's no checks on what the party in power can do. So, how would PR increase waste?

As I said elsewhere, PR simply ensures that parties get seats based on their percentage of the vote. If the Conservatives are unable, under a fair and representative system, to garner enough support to be a factor, that's not the system's fault, but the party's.

Well,as I pointe dout elsewhere, PR does lead to increased voter participation. As for the latter half of your statement: wasn't your earlier argyument that PR would be the death knell of conservativism as a force in electoral politics? Why change the tune now? Again, there's definitely room for gradual reform to a mixed system. However, that's not my preference. To find a solution you must first identify the problems and then determine what course of action would be best sutited to recitfying the problems. So if we have a system that's unrepresentative, then naturally we should look at systems that are more representative. It just so happens that PR systems fit the bill.

Any proof these "warheads" were manufactured since 1991?

Regionalization of political parties is grossly exaggerated by FPTP. For instance, based on the recent election results, one would assume that Western Canada completely embraced the Cons. However, more western Canadians voted for parties other than the Cons, yet receive no representation. PR would more accurately reflect voters' choices. The system has also created governments that are prone to corruption, thanks to the near-absolute power majority government's hold, as well as increasing voter cynicism and fueling conspets such as western alienation. I never said PR is a panacea: but it's a step in the right direction towards a more responsive, democratic and representive goovernment. Are people so afraid of change (of any kind) that they'd stick with a broken system?

First: your link be broken. Second:piffle. This recent election was a glitch, an anomoly, a blip on the radar of a system that is inherently unfair, unrepresentative and undemocratic. It's a glitch that will probably be corrected once the minority government falls, at which point we'll be back to "majority" governments that represent a small portion iof the population, yet weild 100 per cent of the power. Fixing the Senate is pointless tinkering: like putting washer fluid in a car that dropped its transmission ten miles down the road. The whole system needs to be put up on blocks and given an overhaul. EDITED TO ADD: I just checked out the Simpson article. It is, as I expected, hogwash. He admits PR is a better system for representing voters than FPTP, yet balks at the prospect of minority governments withouty citing a single, solitary example of the "European governments that try to reduce bloated bureaucracies or excessively rich programs" but can't. That sentence alone, of course, betrays Simpson's bias (as if the earlier line about "sacrifice, cutting back, saving today for spending tomorrow, taking on sacred cows or powerful interest groups" weren't a big enough clue.) Simpson knows FPTP is undemocratic. But its useful for pushing agendas through (especially those of the rich and powerful he favours) so that's okay in his book. Democracy is too messy for Simpson. Under it, too much is left to the Great Unwashed Masses. Better to have a "strong" (read: Liberal) government than risk a sudden outbreak of democracy.

Then maybe you need to get out of the nursing home a bit more. Young people are no more or less ignorant than older folks. Age and experience doesn't necessarily bring wisdom, but can entrench attitudes and prejudices. Life experience does not automatically lead to critical thinking. The many young people who are active in the political process bring energy and idealism that is lacking in a world where, as one gets older, one becomes less concerned with making the world better as one does with making a buck (regardless of the cost to anyone else). Young people are, however, cynical. They have few llussions about who the political process in this country serves- not the people, but the establishment. They see rising costs and vigourous cutbacks shovelled onto them for fewer and poorer services (education is prime example). No wonder they don't care.

Can you elaborate? The BQ, by the simple fact of being a Qubec only party, would be limited in the number of seats they could obtain. That said, electoral reform should be about removing artifical barriers, not putting up new ones.

There's a lot of ND's let down by the results. The ND got ganked royally, by the horrible electoral system (15 per cent of the vote gets 6 per cent of the seats? WTF?), by the Green's (who split the social democrat vote) and by Martin's hatchet job on the Cons, which drove many swing voters to the Liberals. But, unlike, say the Cons, we like to focus on the positives (increased share of the vote, increased visibility) instead of whining about separation.

There are many systems that can be used. All require multi-seat districts - more than one representative per district. Here are a few examples. Party List System - All parties provide lists of candidates which are displayed on the ballot. The voter votes for a party rather than an individual candidate. Some party list systems allow the voter to also give his preferences as to individual candidates, but those candidates must be in the same party that he is voting for. The seats up for grabs are then allotted to the different parties according to the percentage of the vote they received. It is a very straight forward system and ensures proportional representation. Mixed Member Systems - This system is used in Germany and Italy. First representatives are elected in single member majority elections. The rest of the seats are then given to at-large members in a proportion which offsets the nonproportionality of the single member elections. Preference Voting (also known as Single Transferable Vote) - This is a system that is presently in use in Australia and Ireland. Its unique value is that it provides a means of ensuring proportional representation while still allowing people to vote for individual candidates. The voter lists his preferences by placing a number beside the name of each candidate. "1" represents his first preference, "2" his second, etc. All first preferences are tallied. Anyone reaching the "quota" is elected to a seat. The quota is determined by the number of seats open and the number of ballots cast. Depending on the system used, in a three member district the quota would be between 25% and 33% of the total vote. If no one reaches a quota on the first count the candidate receiving the fewest first preference votes is eliminated. His ballots are then allotted to their second preferences. Anyone reaching the quota is then elected. If the seats have not all been filled then the last place candidate is eliminated and his ballots are assigned to the next preference. The process continues until all seats have been filled. This system is presently being used in Cambridge MA to elect the city council and school committee. Cumulative Voting - In this voting system everyone is allowed the same number of votes as there are seats to be filled. Three votes in three member districts, five in five member districts, etc. The voter may distribute his votes in any way he sees fit. He may cast fractional votes or he may cast all his votes for a single candidate. In this way minorities can bunch their votes together behind one or two candidates while majorities are forced to spread their votes thin over many candidates. The top vote getters are elected to the available seats Limited Voting - In this system voters are allowed no more than half the votes as there are seats to be filled. In five member districts voters would get two votes, in seven member districts no more than three. Minorities would then bunch their votes behind a limited number of candidates and thus ensure their election while majorities would be forced to spread their votes thin to ensure majority representation. The top vote getters are elected. This system has also been used in Voting Rights cases to ensure minority representation. A version of it is used in Japan. Why? Thing is, we have many, amny working examples of PR. We have a system here that we know doesn't work. To me, it's not a gamble, but an idea who's time has come. When it comes to enhancing democracy, we shouldn't be afraid of taking risks, especially since the status quo is so awful. If the "conservative viewpoint" is not popular enough to survive without being propped up by a bogus electoral system, what good is it? If that distribution of power is not a reflection of Canadians' actual views, it's decidedly not how it should be (not to mention you forgot about the BQ). The Liberals, the Cons, the ND's, whoever: no one has a God-given right to a prescence in the House or on the political landscape: they must earn it with popular support. Popular support is best represented by a system of proportional representation.

My last thought on separation: we have the Clarity Act. 50 per cent plus one is all it takes. If y'all want out, just give'r.

This a complete logical abortion. PR is used in (to name a few) Argentina, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Czech Republic, Denmark,Germany, Iceland, Indonesia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Peru, Slovenia, and South Africa. Are you trying to tell me that none of these countries differ in "socio-political makeup and political topology"? Just becaus esomething is different doesn't mean it won't work. How about the fact that countries with PR or a version thereof have very high voter turnouts? I think the burden of proof here is on you to show how PR would increase political apathy and alienation. and Clinging to a bad system because you're ideologically or phiosophically opposed to the party or parties that the people would support is not an argument against PR. Nor is arguing that such a system would be unfair (as though Conservatives-in this instance-have a god-given right to representation without ademocratic mandate), when nothing is further from the truth. Simple fact is: the party with the largest percentage of the vote would have the largest number of seats. If the Cons want to be that party, or have the balance of power, they just have to work harder to win over more voters. I don't really care. I just can't figure out your thinking: If a theoretical NDP/Liberal coalition accurately reflects the mood and will of the electorate, why is that a bad thing?

Because its not impractical, but a demonstratably viable system. Hardly. PR has been discussed at the provincial level in Quebec and elsewhere. That said, there's many ways we can adopt PR. We just need to find a method that works for us. The status quo, however, is unacceptable. Make up your mind. I thought you said the ND's would be running the show. You certainly haven't shown how PR would be more or equally undemocratic than FPP. The result is: election results that fail to reflect the true feelings of the people, vast swaths of the population finding themselves completely without representation, grossly exaggerated regional differnces, rampant cynicism and dissillusionment and wasted votes. Hmm...I can see why you'd support such a great set up. prove it. You're the one who obliquely accussed me of partisan leanings in my support for PR, so I think it's only fair you disclose your political leanings, as I have no doubt they influence your views on the subject.

*bangs head against desk* You asked (several times): "Why would North korea build nukes (the unspoken portion being"...if they don't intend to use them?") The answer is: as a deterrent. ABM or nor ABM: its irrelevant to the question. Which brings me back again to the idea that, just because North Korea (or anyone else) has nukes, that doesn't mean they'll use them. With nukes, the threat of them is usually sufficient. But then yeah, maybe DPRK will sell of some ICBM's to Osama. I can see them being humped around the Pakistan mountains on the backs of mules right now...

Impracticality is a pretty good reason to rule out a particular method of governance. As for your second comment: The system, by its very nature, produces countless bad results. And as for people losing trust, well, this was the worst attended election in canadian history. People can't get much more cynical than they are. A bid to bring in a form of PR would be a sign of good faith that show sthe government cares about democracy and making people's votes count for something. Wrong.They would have only as much influence as the process of negotiation and compromise would allow. At all times, the government must keep the will of the people foremost in mind. I'm starting to realize you don't know what you're talking about. Grossly exaggerated levels of support for any given party is not practical. It's anti-democratic and backwards. I'll leave it to you to explain your constant bleating about the party with 20 per cent of the vote holding 100 per cent of the power. I'm wiling to do what it takes to fix the system. Desperate tiems call for desperate soultions. But, as your next comment shows, you seem to be a Liberal supporter, which eexplains your support of an undemocratic system geared towards keeping the Grits in power. Which bits are the grits responsible for? And were as corrupt when they got there as the liberals ever were. The PC's were also too centerist for the new Cons' base. I would hope that, with firewalls etc., that the feds would cut all funding for Alberta. This place would be a third-world banana republic in no time. Why don't you just piss off to the States and have done with it? We don't need you crapping on our carpet. "I know it's true. I saw it on TV!" No context to the first "anecdote" and no proof of the second. All hogwash.

And for some 40 years isn't far enough! Back! Back! They say, into the Stone Age where life was nasty, brutish and short and only the strongest beasts survived. Jack Layton boosted the ND's support from 8.5 per cent in 2000 to 15.69 per cent and holds the balance of power in the minority government. Not a bad place to be (sure beats the view from across the floor).

Argh. Look up "deterrent" since you don't seem to understand what it means. Don't be fatuous. The threat posed by DPRK's nukes is negligible at best. There is teh distant possibility that the korean regime could sel their nukes off to parties unknown (such as terrorist orgs), but again, such a scenario would not be deterred by a missile sheild. We already went over this. Government budgets are zero-sum. Money for the missile shield (which, I can't stress enough, doesn't even work) is money NOT going to homeland security, health care, education etc etc etc.