ReeferMadness

It's instructive to contrast how law enforcement agencies are handling this vs how they handled Tamir Rice. - Black kid on playground with toy gun minding own business - immediately race in and shoot him. - White men occupying federal site with real guns calling for armed insurrection - sit back and wait them out Bring back Scott Walker - we really need that wall.

Yes, with ideas and that made them dangerous. Fortunately, this group has nothing but guns.

I haven't watched it so I'm not reading the thread. Is it good?

Worshipers at the altar of the religion of capitalism have done far more to impose their will on my life than any followers of Islam ever have or will.

k So now you've clearly demonstrated you're not paying attention so I'll invite you to join Argus and cry in your beer. Have fun with that.

Honestly, I don't get where the Libs are going with this. It's going to be interesting no matter what happens. I don't think they will use their majority to push through alternative vote - all the other parties would line up against them and it would look bad. If they go with a truly proportional system, they will have to share power with the NDP. Look for them to try to get NDP/Greens to support watered down, semi-proportional system like Stephane Dion's proposed P3 system.

Whoa. You think they should keep FPTP WITHOUT A REFERENDUM? How could you think that? You don't seem to understand that we have a system of representative democracy where we elect representatives to make decisions on our behalf. You were perfectly happy to have Harper push through stuff without even adequate debate. It's a blatant double standard for you to insist that there needs to be a referendum. And yet they're going to do it anyway. Hey, here's an idea. Why don't you sue them? That's how a lot of Harper's unconstitutional nonsense was stopped. Ohhhh, wait. This is perfectly constitutional. heh heh heh

Lookit - you can be as angry and bitter about this as you like but if you can't acknowledge the nuances of what's going on, I'll leave you to cry in your beer with Argus. I've already said that if they push through a system that is expected to benefit them at the expense of the other parties (alternative vote), it would be a mistake and will probably be undone. No other party will support alternative vote. If, however, they do a proper job of consulting and come up with a consensus that includes parties that have attracted the support of over 50% of the population, that's already way more than Harper and his cronies did when they pushed through the 'Fair Elections Act'. If they do it right, they will bring in electoral system experts to help them design something good for Canada. If they do it in a transparent fashion (and not bury it in an Omnibus bill like Harper would have), then they have the right to implement it. To their credit, the BC Liberals did it right when they formed the citizens assembly and brought in experts to teach them about voting systems. Then they gave it to a population that didn't have any background to vote it down. You might as well ask the voters to vote on the design of the Site C dam.

I don't know what a 'weighted ballot' scheme is. Perhaps you should educate yourself on voting systems. Trudeau has been reported to favor alternative vote which is not a proportional system and not supported by Fair Vote Canada, the other parties or by most people who want electoral reform. Big Guy seems to like it - you can argue with him if you care to fight over it. Personally, I don't support alternative vote and I believe that it would be a huge mistake for the Liberals to use their majority to ram it through. And if they do, I think they will be attacked by all sides and regret it. However, if they do the right thing, engage honestly and implement a form of proportional representation, the Conservatives (and their supporters) will find themselves lonely voices in the wilderness. Their are already lots of people tweeting at the likes of Rona Ambrose and Jason Kenny about how they used their majority to push through changes that were designed to benefit them.

If they campaign on it and get elected with it as part of their platform, why not? You Conservative supporters seem to be an issue understanding this thing called representative democracy. Not surprising, really, considering what you've seen and supported. Time will tell. If they use their majority and ram in alternative vote over the protests of everyone else, it probably won't last more than one election.

Ever read the bible? Hide under your bed. They're coming for you. But you can defend yourself with a crucifix and by eating garlic. And they can't come into your house unless you invite them... Oh, wait. That's for vampires. BE VERY AFRAID.

And how often do you and other Christian extremists engage in these bizarre cat swinging rituals? We need a hot line to report this type of behavior.

Just make sure you take accountability for extreme Christians....

Politicians use referenda when they're not committed enough in something to invest political capital. The referendum on transit vs a 10 lane (!!) bridge represent excellent examples of that. And don't forget Site C.

Unlike Harper Trudeau is offering all party involvement in the decision. If Trudeau implements Alternative Vote unilaterally, it will be seen as illegitimate. However, if all parties but the Conservatives agree to a PR implementation, they will represent over 2/3 of the voters

now now. We don't have anything against 'moderate' Christians.

Do you do your own freelance fear mongering or do you get live feeds from Republican candidate campaigns?

So you like the idea of forcing people to vote for crappy alternatives they don't like just to prevent the election of a really bad alternative they completely hate.

I voted for Kodos.

I suspect he meant the movie. Tons of money has been made from the scam so it would seem a lot of thought has gone into it.

Fact: Polls run after the 2009 BC-STV vote showed that most voters didn't understand the basics of STV. Fact: A voting system can be changed without referendum and could be changed back by the next government. Fact: Many government decisions lock us in for decades, some even centuries. The Gordon Campbell government signed a 999 year lease. But hey. Don't let the facts get in the way of your deeply held views.

Voters choose people who best reflect their own views and values and expect them to make decisions. Most voters don't have the time or energy to understand complex issues in depth. For the BC-STV vote, the government gave each side a half million dollars to campaign (and put out educational material). The result was a gong show. The no side sewed confusion about STV and after the vote, polls showed that people lacked a basic understanding of the system. There is nothing magical about the voting system. Politicians make decisions that are much bigger and harder to reverse all the time. We're being locked into trade deals that last essentially forever and can't be reversed for decades. Christy Clark has committed to Site C. It will permanently remove some of the best farmland in BC, affect electricity rates from now to the time of my great great grandkids and alter the map of BC. If we're going to vote on something, there are more important things out there.

Yeah. And then if we could just get those last two parties to merge into one, we wouldn't need to bother with elections either!

Politicians use a variety of means to solicit input all the time - and only rarely does it involve referendums. Sorry if that's difficult for you to wrap your head around.

Your reaction to the death of a 12 year old boy is truly disgusting, BC. Even for you. The kid was not a 'perp'.