Machjo

Well, if we think in terms of party votes, then yes the conservative Party has excessive representation. If we think in terms of votes for candidates, then no no individual candidate has excessive representation in his riding as he legitimately won the plurality vote. Where the problem lies is in the Conservative Party promoting itself as a party and then encouraging people to vote party on a candidate-based ballot, which of course skews the numbers completely as we can now see. But then again, all parties are guilty of this.

If you want incrementalism, then just remove party names from the current ballot. A small step, but a symbolically important one none the less.

But when you talk of preferantial ballot, what kind of preferential ballot are you talking about? If you mean one with candidate names only and no party, then there is the problem of cohesion in Parliament. Without parties pulling MPs together, the last thing we'd want would be a preferential voting system that increases the chance of a greater distance between Mps' views, thus making it difficult to get anything done in Parliament. In that case, parties are necessary, but then having party names on a preferential ballot is about as dishonest as on an FPTP ballot since in both cases you're technically voting for a candidate and not a party. So in the end, preferential ballots are a compromise in mediocrity either way. If party names must stay, then let's be honest and go party list.

As for being on the same page, I'll agree, but only to a certain degree. Again, I do agree that most importantly, we need honesty on the ballot. If we're going to keep FPTP, then party names must be removed. If we're going to keep party names on the ballot, then we need to remove candidate names and make it a list system. Either way, it should be honest, fair, and transparent as to what exactly you're voting for. We can't be voting for candidates and parties simultaneously. Looking at it that way, yes I'm anti-party, but more importantly I want an honest ballot. Now if we do remove party names (which is the direction I'd want to go in), then we'd need to compensate for the lack of cohesiveness this would create in parliament, and so plurality at large would be the way to go as it tends to promote landslide majorities (which is not particularly meaningful in the absence of parties, but it would still at least encourage candidates with similar views, thus compensating for the lack of cohesion removing parties would cause). In a sense, we can say that STV is an attempt at a compromise between systems, and so in the end it represents neither the candidate nor the party particularly accurately. Looking at it that way, it would be preferable to make a clear decision. If we go non-partisan, we go all the way and adopt plurality at large. And if we go partisan, then likewise we go all the way and adopt a party list. No confusing compromises letting us wonder what we are really voting for. Again, FPTP per se is not a bad system if we hand out honest ballots.

But again, I will give Bortron this: To have party names on a FPTP ballot is dishonest and misleading to say the least. And as terrible as a party list would be, it would still be preferable to what we have now in that at least it would be honest about what we're voting for. Either we're voting for a candidate, or we're voting for a party. If we insist on voting for a party yet support FPTP, then we're essentially manipulating the system unfairly, since FPTP is fair only in a non-partisan system.

That's where I think an open ballot can help. If there is someone in the community who is well respected but would normally not run in an election, people could still vote for that person, and so that way would be voting for someone they know rather than a commercialized brand name.

I don't think that'show it works in the German system. They have a combined FPTP and party list if I'm not mistaken. Are you sure you're not confusing it with the Australian system, Single Transferable Ballot? But then this brings us to a few other issues: 1. Would there still be party names on the ballots? If so, then we might as well be honest about it and go to a pure party list. 2. If we remove party names from the ballot, then we need to compensate for the lack of unity in Parliament that the removal of the party system would produce (sure parties are divisive between themselves, but do provide unity within the party at least). One way of doing that would be to go to a plurality-at-large voting system, thus increasing the likelihood that the candidates chosen will share similar ideas so as to promote cohesiveness in a non-partisan system. Clearly you would not want to remove parties from the system and then on top of all of that promote fringe candidates via a more PR system thus eliminating any possible chance of establishing unity in Parliament.

Ever hear of floor-crossing? Also, if you talk to a candidate, you will find that not all candidates are as loyal to their parties, and some are wiling to express views that contradict the party on occasion. Now as it turns out, most winers are very loyal to their parties. But if you talk to less likely candidates, there is a whole spectrum of loyalties. Also, if you expect the candidate to be loyal to the party, then we might as well be honest about it if we are in fact voting for party and not candidate and go to the list system. My problem is that you can't have it both ways. On that front, he is right.

You can't vote for candidate and party simultaneously. Just to take some examples: If I have a ballot with candidate names and party names on it, then let's say I vote for John Doe of the Canadian Party, and I chose to vote for him not for his sake, but because I like his party, what happens if he crosses the floor? Suddenly, my vote has just been ripped from me. Inversely, If I chose him for his own sake, but we have a party list system, and the party decides it doesn't want him anymore, but still keeps my vote, again, my representation has just been ripped from me. The only way you could make it so that we can vote for party and candidate simultaneousness would be to make it the law that a candidate must remain a member of this or that party and must vote along with his caucus. To do so however would infringe on the MP's own freedom of association. We'd need a constitutional amendment to do this. I think it's obvious enough that a candidate and a party are two distinct and separate entities. As such, you can only be voting for one or the other at any given time. In Germany, they have a mixed system, whereby you vote for a party list and a candidate, each separately. Yet even under that system, you're forced to vote for a party and so further entrench partisan politics. And again, to be fair to yo, I will concede that a party list would still be preferable to a first past the post system with party names on the ballot to deceive the voter. At least a party list is honest about what you're voting for.

If 3 candidates run, and one gets 40% of the vote, and the other two each get 30% of the vote, why should the one who won the plurality not get the seat over those who lost the plurality? I think it's obvious enough that the one who got 40% has more popular support than the one who got 30%, no? Again, if you ignore the party system, then the idea of transferring votes from one person to another is nonsensical. Even if a candidate gets only 2% of the popular vote, if he wins a plurality, then he still has more popular support than any other candidate and so deserves the position.

You have a good point here. If three candidates run, and one gets 40% of the vote, and the other two each get 30% of the vote, I'd rather the one who won a real plurality get the seat rather than one who got a false majority. The same would apply if 99 candidates ran, one got 2% of the popular vote, and the others each got 1%, it would only be fair that the one who got 2% of the popular vote should get the seat based on a real plurality, rather than any of the others based on a a false majority. By the way, I'm even in favour of an open ballot, which would be the ultimate plurality system since then anyone can vote for anyone else in his riding, thus making it a real system of the people. I will grant him this though: It would be preferable to have an honest party list to a deceitful FPTP ballot with party names on it giving the false impression that one is voting party when he's really voting candidate. We can't have it both ways, and a decision must be made. As long as party names remain on the ballot, then certainly a party list would be more honest at least.

That's nonsensical. If you're making us vote for a party, you're making the system more, not less, partisan by its very definition.

Easily! Proportional Representation is based on one basic assumption: that we all vote for a party and not a candidate. If I don't vote for a party, but a candidate rather, then how can I redistribute my vote for that candidate among other candidates? Then it becomes senseless. In that case a better solution is simply to remove any legal or formal recognition given to political parties so that technically each candidate is running as an independent candidate, thus making the whole notion of proportionality meaningless. And the fact that those who do not want to entrench the party system even further than it is already generally oppose PR too as they want to go in the complete opposite direction of non-partisan democracy, and clearly PR would be going in the opposite direction to that. Or some who vote candidate now would simply not know how to vote anymore. You're 'non-partisan', yet want to further entrench a partisan system? :angry: Now I will grant you this: To have a candidate-based voting system as we do now, but with political party names appearing on the ballot, we can legitimately argue that the voting system is misleading by giving a false impression that the voter is voting for a party when he's really voting for a candidate technically. On that front, yes I'd agree that a PR voting system would be more fair than the false advertisement we now have on our ballots. I'd say we should first try to remove party names from the ballots; and only falling that should we consider PR. One solution I could see would be having a referendum asking the following: Would you rather the government remove party names from ballots and adopt a plurality-at-large voting system, or Would you rather the government remove candidate's names and adopt a party-list system? This way, we'd be making it clear that we expect an honest system devoid of misleading information that makes it unclear as to whether a voter is voting for a party or a candidate. Personally, I'd vote for the first of the two options on such a referendum, but will still acknowledge that the second option on such a referendum would still be more fair than what we have now.

Correction. Canada spells the Canadian way. For instance, the British causative suffix -ise and its derivatives (e.g. civilise, civilisation, etc.) are considered misspellings in Canada, as 'programme' would be. Canadian spelling follows its own rules interdependent from British or American norms. Now my personal spelling style is British, but that does not change the fact that when at work, I put my own spelling habits aside and spell the Canadian way. If I worked for the US government, I can guarantee that even if I'm a Canadian, that at work I'd spell according to the US government's spelling standard. Each organization has its own standards, and its members are expected to abide by those standards.

But going back to the OP, you'd think the Canadian forces would be consistent at the very least. When I was in the military, they expected our rucksacks to be packed identically after all. According to this page, it's 'centre': http://www.forces.ca/html/index.aspx?m=0〈=en&sid=162&sm1=4&sm2=0&tab=1&subTab=1 You'd think that at the very least they'd be consistent, especially when they emphasize so much consistency on practically every other front.

But English spelling truly is logical, isn't it?

Bear in mind though that owing to English using roots so inconsistently, many words are misleading. For instance, the word 'hopefully' is usually misused even by native English-speakers. For example, If I say 'Hopefully, I'll go to work tomorrow', according to correct English, it means 'I'll go to work tomorrow in a hopeful manner, or with a hopeful demeanor or attitude'. When most people say 'Hopefully, I'll go to work tomorrow', what they really mean is 'I hope to to go to work tomorrow'. Essentially, what makes English particularly difficult for non-native speakers is the way native speakers massacre the language. As a result, they often do not use words as per the correct definition. We also find ourselves with false friends, words borrowed from other languages but redefined. For example, the English word 'raisin' comes from the French word for 'grape', yet in English it means more specifically 'dried grape', which could thus be deceiving for a French-speaker learning English. For such reasons, while knowing other languages can certainly help to learn English, it's very dangerous in English to assume. Then we come across English words of Latin roots that are also used in other European languages and previously used in the same way in English but changed a few generations ago or being used differently in different countries. A good example is 'billion'. In most European countries, its equivalent would mean a million million. In the US it has meant a thousand million for a long, long time. In the UK, it used to mean a million million officially, but now officially means a thousand million, with some Britons rejecting that new definition and sticking to defining it as a million million, resulting in both definitions being included in the dictionary. How confusing can a language be when we can't even agree on numbering conventions? And don't even get me started on the multiple definitions of 'corn', 'elevator', etc. all of which can sometimes be confusing when you're translating technical documents concerning fields you're not always familiar with. You find yourself having to go back and ask the client if by this or that word, he means this or that meaning. It can get frustrating for both sides, especially when the client had never even thought of all the different meanings of common words and just took them for granted. Believe it or not, that's where a lot of the costs of translating documents from English come from. It's all the back and forth trying to figure out the exact meaning. It's no secret among translators and interpretors that English is a grammatically vague language comparatively speaking. And that makes translation and interpretation that much more difficult.

First off there is no word 'see' in there. And secondly, the 'g' in 'logical' could just as easily be pronounced as 'g' in 'lo'. And the 'c' in logical is just an unnecessary complication when you can just use 'k'. So no, 'logical' is not necessarily spelt logically.

Bonam, I agree many other languages are difficult too. But to say English is easy because French and German are difficult is a non sequitur. yes, French and German are just as difficult as English, but that does not make any of them easy. But I'm glad you agree that some languages are much easier to learn than English. Bahasa Indonesia, Turkish, and especially Esperanto come to mind.

This could be of interest to the topic too: http://www.hltmag.co.uk/sep05/mart05.htm And again it confirms the poor rate of success even among educated Thai.

Another book worth reading (and this one's in English) is English-Only Europe: Challenging Language Policy, by Robert Phillipson. I don't agree with everything in the book, but it does bring up many worthwile points, one being the difficulty inherent in learning English. He brings up a similar point in a previous book of his titled Linguistic Imperialism, dealing mainly with English-language education policy in many former British colonies, whereby many children, by the time they reach high school, still have a low level of English, and yet are expected to learn science in English. The result is that while many do learn English well, they may fall behind in the sciences since they can't follow everything the teacher is teaching. If English were easy, certainly research would not be presenting such sad findings. Again, like I said, for you and me to say that English is easy is like a karate instructor saying karate is easy.Unless it's backed by statistics, the claim is senseless.

By the way, I've personally met people in my travels abroad who'd studied English for well over a decade and I still had no choice but to switch to their language.

The statistics I have are in a few books I have, one from Elizabetta Formaggio (Interkompreniĝi,sed Kiel?), and another quoted from a book by Ulrich Matthias (La Nova Latino por la Eklezio kaj Ekumenismo). In the one from Matthias, one study went about making 3 common statements in English, and asking to translate the meaning correctly into their mother-tongue. That was a study spread across Western Europe. Only about 5 to 7% translated correctly, depending on the country.

Just to take a few examples: http://www.frivolity.com/teatime/Songs_and_Poems/english_is_tough_stuff.html http://the_english_dept.tripod.com/eng.html And among other illogicalities: Noun, adjective, adverb correlations: There is no obvious relationship between the words monkey and simian. The adverb form is chaotic. You could say 'in a monkey-like manner' or 'in a simian manner'. But in many cases there really is no specific adverb. Numbers. There is no obvious relationship between the words ten and one on the one hand, and eleven on the other. Verb conjugation. What obvious relationship is there between be, am, are, is, were, etc. from the spelling and pronunciation of these words? Antonyms. What obvious relationship is there in spelling or roots between 'hot' and 'cold'? Gender distinction. What similarities can you find between 'father' and 'mother'? OK, they end in -er. but what about boy and girl? Believe it or not, in some languages, the relationship between all of these kinds of words would be very transparent. In fact, in many cases you could guess them once you'd learnt a large enough word stock, as the meaning of words would always be obvious based on the roots and affixes.

English is my second language and by no means my last. I know it, but at the same time, when we're talking about social policy, it would be foolhardy of me to say English is 'easy' to learn when statistics show that in fact most fail to learn it well. You and I may have had more chances to learn languages, so for us to say English is easy would be like a black-belt karateka who'd been training for years to say karate is easy. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but to know for sure, you wouldn't ask a black-belt karateka. Instead, you'd look at statistics showing the success rate in karate for the average person. And from the statistics I've seen concerning English, the prognosis isn't good. According to some European statistics, only about 5 to 7%, depending on the country, really learn English well. Hardly a standing ovation. Now as for the Canadian Forces Recruiting 'center', we'd expect that it's targeting Canadian citizens and so people who know either English or French well, and so would have no need to dumb it down.