ReeferMadness

Translation. Page wouldn't kiss Harper's ass and be his fig leaf. Harper campaigned on accountability but his actual performance shows that he is more of a control freak than any of his predecessors.

That's your opinion. How about some actual facts about the mandate of the PBO Sees like a pretty broad mandate to me. Harper was all about accountability and transparency when he was in opposition - what happened.

You get screwed buying your own benefits. The rates are higher and the insurance companies find loopholes to avoid paying. Group plans are much more efficient.

Well, why didn't you say so? I'm sure that King Stephen will make them provinces just as soon as you tell him that.

Every time somebody repeats this nonsense, it just pisses me off all over again. Post WWII, maybe you can point out one time that having an over-militarized neighbor was an asset. Because I can point to lots of pointless wars we got dragged into, the cold war where the entire world was held hostage by the US and the USSR, the political pressure to support the US arms industry (anyone remember the Arrow?). We're a terrorism target in part because we took part in the idiotic invasion of Afghanistan (where the west is getting its collective ass kicked, by the way). Anyone who seriously believes that living next to an aggressive, heavily armed neighbor makes you safer needs lessons in history and critical thinking skills.

No, the U.S. starts stupid wars and then twists the arms of its allies so that your illegal actions get the fig leaf of an international consensus.

Parties working in their own interest colluding to undermine the goals of the system sounds like corruption to me. Corruption has become so commonplace people don't even recognize it anymore.

There is nothing theoretical except your extreme example. The math is proven, the systems have proven themselves elsewhere.

Yes. In addition, people vote directly for the party, rather that just for the candidate. This gives the party more legitimacy when it comes to enacting rules that siphon power away from representatives to the party.

If parties are going to be that corrupt, then we might as well give up now. No system is going to fix that.

Sounds like you don't exactly love your MP. Under STV, you would have multiple MP's and the chances of getting at least one you like increase greatly. As far as local representation goes: If your MP's party is not in power, then your local representation is worth squat. If your MP's party is in power, then your local representation could be in the form of pork-barreling (e.g Tony Clement).

Theoretical math? Could you point to some of that theoretical math for me? I've seen how STV is calculated and it requires mathematical operations like addition and division. Are they theoretical??

It's only a problem if you think it's a problem. Tell me the last time you say your MP in person. And did it really need to be in person or would a phone call have sufficed? The issue with MMP is that it gives the party more power and the parties have too much already. Having said that, I would still prefer MMP (or any proportional system) to FPTP.

I agree that there are issues with parties that transcend voting systems. However, I will say that STV will encourage loyalty to the constituency over loyalty to the party. The reason is as follows: Under FPTP, if you are running in a "safe seat", you owe your loyalty to the party because the party is getting you elected. It doesn't matter how good the candidate is, an NDP candidate isn't getting elected in central Alberta. Under STV, however, if you have a 7 seat district, now each party will probably field 7 candidates and some of them won't be elected. Candidates will have to battle to get re-elected every election. They are competing, not just with other parties but against other members of their own party.

Palin was (and is) a laughingstock. Klein was a George Bush clone - although he was not too bright and really quite out of touch, he still managed to project that folksy image of being like the guy next door. Frankly, I think that Clark has more substance than either (maybe both put together).

I'm probably the last person in BC to say something in defence of Clark. I'm not a huge fan but I think that what's going on now is the political equivalent of "piling on" in football. I think that Clark tried to be a pragmatist and carve out some of the centre. She made some moves when she first became premier (such as raising minimum wage) that were probably intended to counter the party image as being too business-friendly and out of touch with common people. The completely dishonest way that Campbell brought in the HST was unacceptable but once it was done, it would have been better to keep it. The NDP were opportunistic in their opposition. I like that Clark tried to do the right thing and save it when it probably would have been more politically expedient for her to hang it on Campbell and walk away.

Who cares?? I communicate with my MP mainly by email. It doesn't matter where he is. I'd rather have a representative 1000 miles away who will represent my views in parliament than someone down the street who will just represent the party line to me. Honestly, what have we to lose?? Under the current system, MP's are nobodies who job it is to parrot the party speaking notes. The real power is held by some unelected hanger-on in the PMO.

Yes, assuming that you live in a place like Stepford. Or are a member of the borg. If, on the other hand you live in a riding where there are diverse views, you might come to the conclusion that local representative is just another word for tribalism; and constituencies can be built on things more substantial than geography. Well, if only you were around all the time to explain to us people too dumb to understand democracy. Of course. Democracy means forcing change on people whether they want it or not.

Perhaps you're not paying close attention. STV is a system where multiple individuals from the same party vie for the same seat. Party power is watered down while proportionality is maintained. Under FPTP, the candidate's first loyalty is to the party, not the voters. Most seats are "safe" seats, meaning the MP is effectively determined when the candidate of the winning party is chosen. Albertans may think they're voting for the representatives but unless they are members of the Conservative party, they effectively have no control over their representative. And even if they are members, the party leader has a veto over their choice. Whatever your definition of democracy, it's hard to make FPTP fit the bill.

STV is pure genius. You have the advantage of voting for real people (not parties) and the advantage of it producing proportional results. Since you will have multiple representatives (up to 7, depending on the riding), the chances of you having at least one you like are much better. People couldn't be bothered to learn about it which was why it lost in the referendum.

I guess that depends on your point of view. When I cast a vote knowing that most votes don't count towards a successful candidate, I feel like it's wasted.

That depends on how you ask the question. If you ask people if it's fair that 30% of the votes should get you 30% of the seats, most would agree. If you start describing in great detail how a PR system works, they'll start to find fault with it and get cold feet. Only a portion of the population could tell you the problems with FPTP

This is not true. Most people vote along party lines. Many don't even know who their local representatives are. Building constituencies based exclusively on geography makes perfect sense - assuming that you live in the 1700's. Very few MP's care who most of their constituents are. They have much more to fear from their leaders and the party's unelected hangers-on than from the electorate. Most people vote along party lines and if you represent the right party, you win!! Democracy implies no such thing. Democracy is, in fact rule by the people. Since self-rule is commonly thought to be unfeasible, representative democracy (where someone else theoretically represents you) is in place. I have uncommon political views and as such, my views are often entirely unrepresented. There is nothing inherently wrong with that - not all views can be represented. However, when you have a system where most of the people find themselves represented only in theory (that is, their local representative is opposed to most of their views), democracy becomes dysfunctional.

Yes, they sure do. Too bad they don't kill the people who deserve it.

Nice link (page unavailable). "the" problem? There's only one and you know what it is? How fortunate for all of us. Please enlighten us.