Canapathy

One citizen = one vote would be great if we actually counted them all. Even if every single riding had the identical population winner take all systems only count the votes cast for the winning candidate....which again leads to incredible distortion.

I agree that voting and representative democracy are not going away.But my single ballot changes absolutley nothing in the current system, or the system you propose. In every election that I have voted, the same candidate would have won whether I had voted or not. Under your proposed scheme, that's still true. One single ballot changes nothing. Canapathy, maybe your problem is with continuous as opposed to discrete variables. An election is a discrete variable - a candidate wins or loses. Well, as a single voter among thousands or even hundreds, my single ballot will not change this discrete choice. Your proposed voting scheme doesn't change that fact. As a buyer in amarket however, my purchase of a kilo of coffee has a small effect on the continuous price of coffee. IOW, devise a voting scheme where a single, individual vote actually makes a small but perceptible difference. Any scheme based on majority rule or choice of a representative will never achieve that. If we're talking ballots, an individual is better to stay at home and watch TV. A single ballot will not be decisive, and if it's not decisive, it's a waste of time. It changes nothing. This is the inexorable problem of any theory attempting to explain group behaviour based on individual behaviour. I agree that under any winner take all system like ours that my ballot is almost always meaningless. However, that's not really the case in most PR systems. Our current first past the post system ignores province or country wide support and only rewards concentrated local party support. A single vote in our current system, especially if cast for a non-favourite, really is a waste of time. However, the proposed MMP system for Ontario gives us two votes. One for the local rep which is identical to our current system. The second vote however is used to gauge the province wide support of a party. That allows the ballot of every voter to actually be counted and totalled up. The number of MPs in the house are then adjusted based on province wide support. Thus, each vote does make a little difference..

I thought the boys in blue were supposed to be the fiscally responsible choice. Income tax increases, the evaporation of 25B in private savings, in attempt to achieve majority numbers they tabled the most bloated budget in Canadian history and then follow that up with a summer of multi-year big spending promises...WTF? Our dollar is high and going higher, interest rates are rising, our surplus is gone, the last budget increased spending 2 to 3 times that of inflation and our largest trading partner is just treading water economically. Is this really the time to go on a spending spree? Think there is any room left for income tax decreases, the capital gains promise or the next 1% drop in GST (not that it makes sense but it was promised)? Methinks not. Anyone else pissed off that the Harper party has made the Liberals look like the only fiscally conservative choice?

No it doesn't. It suggests that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen. The link between that and GW is specious at best and does nothing whatsoever to explain much more extreme fluctuations in temperature in the past, before and since the entrance of man onto the world stage. One thing we can be reasonably sure of is that the industrial revolution has nothing to do with the current GW on other planets. Are you saying that you believe that:1) Rising CO2 levels are not a cause of global warming? or 2) The rise in CO2 levels is natural? or 3) Both?

1) Under the proposed MMP system you have two votes. One for you local rep and a second for the governing party. This gives you greater choice as a voter. For example let's say the local candidate you believe is the hardest working, best spoken, most intelligent and dedicated to your community is a member of a party whose platform you despise. Under MMP you can still vote for that local MP locally while choosing a more palatable party platform with your second vote. That second vote is what is used to determine the percentage of seats won by each party.2) I find it odd that people would prefer a system that does not reflect the way people actually vote because it would prevent a small party from winning one or two seats. A party with so few seats has no real impact in parliament anyway. Plus to gain any representation at all party still has to receive a sizable chunk of votes. Right now our system distorts the results so badly we have parties winning majority governments (and 100% of the power) after receiving only 40% of the vote. Is it fair to reward the big 2 parties with unearned seats while ignoring almost half the votes cast?

Representative democracy and voting are not going away so why would we keep a system that does not even come close to accurately reflecting the votes cast? If we are going to use representative democracy why wouldn't we choose a system that best represents the way people vote and our sparsely populated regionally diverse country/province? IMO that system is MMP. Maybe. Being more of a centrist myself I really don't care how a voting system affects the NDP, or any party for that matter. In my opinion an electoral system should deliver the parliament that Ontarians/Canadians vote for and currently, that's not the case. I don't think MMP is perfect but I think it is far superior to the winner take all system we have now, plus I believe that the balance between local representation and PR that MMP delivers makes it the best match for Ontario and the country as a whole.

An entry from the Progressive Right blog titled MMP: Only Kick at the Can suggests that we will only have one shot at implementing a proportional voting system in Ontario. The author states that: and that: I tend to agree. Both the Ontario PC and Liberal parties do not want any form of proportional representation. It may be more democratic, represent far more people, waste far fewer votes and help increase voter turnout but they don't care. The boys in blue and red love the way our first past the post system greatly distorts the will of the people and makes false majorites a possibility....and really who would turn down a shot at undeserved power? I think the only way we have a shot at a second referendum, if this one fails, is if (like in BC) a clear majority of voters supports the new system only to be denied by the laughable 60% threshold. So if say 58% of the people vote in favour of real democracy but are denied, politicians will give it another shot as it will be too popular to ignore. Any thoughts?

None of which suggests manmade causation. The fact that atmospheric carbon levels have risen 35% since humans started burning fossil fuels around 150 years ago, but were relatively stable for the previousl several thousand years does at least suggest a manmade cause.

1. Newer models still fall within the (maybe too generous) error bars of the old hockey stick graph.2. If the flawed hockey stick model still bothers you then disregard it, there are dozens of other reconstructions that support the same conclusion. Source: National Climate Data Center

The article on the hockey stick graph does not say that the original was wrong. It says that newer models are better but that new data still falls within the error bars on the orginal graph. This article also seems very objective to me as it points out that scientists are very aware of the uncertainties in climate modeling. By not objective do you really mean it disagrees with your viewpoint?

I'm glad to hear that a majority support this notion. The idea that one religion should receive public funding for its school system is ludicrous. What’s even worse is that John Tory would like to extend public funding to any religious school that applies for it. In my opinion the correct and fair solution is one strong publicly funded school board and partial tax breaks for those that use a private institution, be it religious, secular, whatever. The part I’m unsure about is how much of the education portion of our property taxes should be refunded. For no concrete reasons I feel that 60% to 75% is fair. All Canadians should help fund public education as it is in our best interest to have the best educated population possible. However, for those that choose to place their kids somewhere else I have no problem giving a portion of their money back to help pay for tuition. I think this solution ensure the best possible education for the most people and it is completely fair and equal for all groups, religious or otherwise. Maybe now that poll data shows that Ontarians want one public system a politician will have the cahones to upset the cart and do what’s right.

Here is a great article that tackles 26 of the most common climate change myths. There are a lot of people currently making a lot of money that are willing to fight tooth and nail for the status quo. Misinformation always seems to be the weapon of choice for both sides of any debate, especially with one with so much at stake. I find that most people choose a side first then choose to believe the (mis)information that supports their choice and discredits the opposing one. Very few minds are actually open and very few people seem to be willing to change their stance in the face of new information. The link above contains a brief article and 26 links to stories designed to shed light on climate change myths. I recommend book marking it and referring back to it from time to time.