ReeferMadness
-
Posts
3,953 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by ReeferMadness
-
I wonder why that is. He's so magnanimous.
-
Danny Williams calls Harper's tactics borderline racist. Thank you, Danny Williams. That needs to be repeated. There are some who are so blinded by their desire for another boutique tax cut that they can see nothing.
-
Agreed and agreed.
-
I was asked by a Harper supporter (can't remember who) in another thread what has Harper done that is so evil? Clearly, he has done enough harm that it deserved its own thread. I thought disgrace is a better word than evil.
-
Not according to a guy who was actually there.
-
You just called Trudeau arrogant. Maybe he's learning from you.
-
I think he actually means "pray". Given the prevalence of evangelicals in the CPC, maybe they will call on God to smite the devils Trudeau and Mulcair.
-
Which sounds exactly like our current MP's - especially Conservatives. STV improves proportionality but IRV doesn't. In fact, IRV can produce less proportional results than FPTP.
-
They are not similar. Israel uses a closed party list system and Germany uses MMP.
-
Unless you have some actual evidence to back up that statement, I'll just assume it's random claptrap.
-
Anti-proportional rep types always point to Italy and Israel as examples (never Germany or Sweden) of what will happen under PR. I've never heard of any successful public vote to return to FPTP. However, STV was used provincially in Alberta and Manitoba for decades. Shamefully, the parties in power just decided on their own to go back to FPTP.
-
I'm going from memory but I did some reading when STV was proposed in BC and recall that the math generally works better when there are odd numbers of representatives and proportionality gets better as the magnitude increases. However, you quickly run into diminishing returns. I recall 7 being proposed as an optimum point of tradeoff between district size and proportionality.
-
You're funny.
-
The main problem with FPTP is lack of proportionality (and all of its attendant issues). MMP addresses it by assigning the regional MP's in such a way as to correct the imbalance. Others have complained about it creating 'two tiered' representation (1 type of MP directly elected and 1 indirectly elected). I prefer STV myself but MMP would still be vastly better than FPTP. If you really want MP's to be more autonomous, then you'll need to change more than the voting system. You need to change the political culture and perhaps even legislate how parties behave. Parties have a tendency to centralize power because it's easier to control the message that way.
-
The NDP and the new international trade agreement
ReeferMadness replied to Argus's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
Wow, it's truly a miracle. Everybody wins. Praise the Lord. It's a miracle. -
So if you care about proportionality, that leaves you with STV. Why are you against any party-list component? I thought in the Ontario proposal, the party-list component was much smaller than the FPTP component.
-
Exactly. Party list is not the same as MMP. MMP is a hybrid of FPTP and party list.
-
Has anyone ever suggested a party-list system for Canada? They're typically used in small countries with homogeneous populations.
-
Yeah. Isn't it funny that people who support the Conservatives arguing the mandatory census is an infringement (the same government that forces women to uncover their faces for a ceremony) are now in support of mandatory voting?
-
You seem offended that I'm attributing the Conservatives current focus on race-baiting, dog whistle politics to Crosby. Maybe you think someone in Canada deserves the credit. Do you work for the Conservative Party?
-
This is why Harper is talking about niqabs and "barbaric cultural practises" instead of the economy. As per Lynton Crosby's instructions.
-
Yeah, I do. You don't like the findings of the study so you're attacking me for presenting it. And the way you're doing that is by inventing things I've said and attributing them to me.
-
ad hominem attack. Either point out where I've said that or modify your post. And you're wrong. It doesn't just say less well educated, it says less intelligent.
-
So, for some reason, there are only a few select years presented and nothing after 2012. What happened between 2006 and 2012 that might affect incomes? A stock market crash. And who hurts most from a stock market crash? The people who own all the stocks. There isn't sufficient information here to determine what happened or why. Let me know when Stats Can reports the numbers for the last 3 years since the markets have taken off again. So, tell me. Did you look at the PBO report or did you just read the propaganda and triumphantly report it back?
-
I'm not aware of any statistical correlation between intelligence and wealth. Just lack of intelligence and conservative politics.