Machjo

AA has a black and white view of the world. Since the terrorists of 9/11 called themselves Muslim, therefore all Muslims are terrorists and deserve to be silenced. That's her take, simple as that.

No, I'm not. Let them families speak for themselves: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/11/september_11th_families_for_peaceful_tomorrows Have they said that non-Muslims cannot build a church or synagogue or even secular monument to the victims of 9/11? I must have missed that. can you provide a link? And how exactly did these Muslims show a lack of empathy? They chose to build a mosque near Ground Zero to show their solidarity against terrorism. And that's somehow offensive? Again, when did they ever oppose the building of any kind of non-Muslim monument near the 9/11 site. It sounds to me like you're intent on muffling them. Why do you make it an either/or scenario? Just look at the map of the area around Ground Zero. It's not like that mosque is monopolizing the area. In fact, seeing that's it's two blocks away from Ground Zero, instead of complaining about it, why couldn't some Christian group build a church and YMCA right between the mosque and Ground Zero? And I bet the Muslim group would not make a peep about that.

That's why I'd said 'most'. The vast majority of churches, mosques, etc. across North America were less affected by 9/11 than that congregation, and so that congregation, along of course with those Christian congregations that have lost loved ones on 9/11, have much more of a legitimate claim to build near ground zero than many of the the 'offended' who were much less affected. And I doubt very much that many of the families of the victims of 9/11 are part of this crusade. In fact the families of the 9/11 victims have organized a group called Peaceful Tormorrows to counter the war in Iraq and also worked together with an Iraqi organization (which I would guess mostly comprises Muslims) representing the families of victims of the Iraq War, called La Onf. If they were so opposed to Is;am, why would they be working with Muslims in Iraq? Just something to think about. People hurt by this have gone beyond petty bigotry, in honour of their families. So, do you oppose the freedom of this congregation to build a mosque where a church could just as easily be legally built? Are you offended at the fact that that congregation wants to build a mosque there to show that Islam has come out victorious against terrorism done in its name, claiming the lives of some of tis adherents? Are you offended at the fact that some family members of the victims of 9/11 are likely among the financial contributors to the building of that mosque? Are you offended at the acknowledgement that some innocent Muslims died on 9/11 too? Sorry, I don't expect you to answer these questions, so feel free to skate around them with some rhetorical diatribe. That's not the kind of mosque they wanted built. This mosque welcomes Americans; that's not what they wanted.

Of course. Yet somehow I doubt those Canadians who'd lost loved ones on 9/11 would be offended at other victims of 9/11 wanting to build a mosque near where their loved ones had died too. Why would any family member of the victims of 9/11 want to pit themselves against other family members of the victims of 9/11 out of prejudice. I'm sure they have more respect and sensitivity than that. My guess is the ones opposing this are just Islamophobes choosing to ignore the Muslim victims of 9/11, including fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, aunts, uncles, cousins and friends, for their own political ends.

Did he lose any family members to 9/11? Some of the members of the congregation of that mosque did. So it would seem that they have more say in this than he does. He's incapable of making a distinction between Islam and terrorism.

And by the way, have you ever travelled to central Quebec. I can tell you that most people there are genuinely not functional in the English language. I suppose you'll say they're pretending too, that somehow their brains are wired differently that that of other humans so as to allow them to suck up a second language like a sponge? Remember, English is a Germanic language, and French a romance language, grammatically quite different, thus making them more difficult to learn between them.

You're painting with a wide brush here. Never mind a brush; it's a frigging mop. Couldn't you find anything wider?

And I'll add to my last post that I find it highly offensive that Canadians not even living in the US are dictating to a congregation that had lost members to 9/11. As such, that mosque has more right to be built there than most churches, seeing that some of the money donated to the building of that mosque likely came from family members of Muslim victims of 9/11. Who are we to tell them what to do with their money? Some of them might even view this as an appropriate memorial to their loved ones to show how Islam stands victorious against terrorism committed in its name. And yet we who have been comparatively unaffected by 9/11 are now going to dictate to them?

Here's what I currently have as a signature on another forum: Who are we to deny the building of a mosque anywhere where a church can also be legally built, especially considering that the mosque in question itself lost members of its congregation on 9/11? Are we to say that a congregation that has lost members to 9/11 may not build a mosque where a Mcdonald's could otherwise be legally built? And besides, it's not just a mosque, but a 13-story Islamic centre based on a similar model to the YMCA, with the mosque comprising but one floor of the centre; and it will be open to all. Since when does freedom of religion stop at our own church? IMO, once a person adopts the ideology of the enemy, he becomes the enemy. The congregation of that mosque has repeatedly denied any involvement in 9/11. And again, they themselves suffered the loss of loved ones on that fateful day. As such, they have more of a moral say than most of us here, including myself, in whether to build a mosque near ground zero. This is just pure Islamophobia.

A public vote on each and every bill? Next to impossible.

As I looked into it, Plurality-at-Large voting is an attractive system too in some respects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality-at-large_voting). It's essentially identical to FPTP except that the ridings are larger and include multiple members. For example if let's say in a typical FPFP riding you'd have five candidates to choose from, you get to check off one candidate, and one candidate wins to represent your riding, in plurality-at-large voting, you'd have maybe 10 candidates to choose from, you get to check off 2 candidates and 2 candidates will represent your riding. Plurality-at-Large has the disadvantage of creating landslide majorities, though it does havethe advantage of giving voters more choices among candidates. One way to counterbalance landslide majorities could be to remove party names from ballots so as to reduce the unfair advantage a candidate might have owing to brand recognition, though granted that will likely provide a small benefit at most and landslide victories would likely continue. Then again, landslide victories are not all that bad. for example, a minority government can always blame its minority status for not getting things done, and so it keeps getting elected election after election with nothing ever getting done because we keep having minority governments. With constant majority governments, that excuse is removed and so the government in power has an interest in doing a good job otherwise come next election it will likely be replaced with another party in majority position. This way, with minority status no longer as an excuse, a government had better do a good job if it doesn't want to be decimated come the following election.

Sorry, I just realized that I'd confused SNTV with LV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_voting). Though similar, they do have their differences. Under SNTV, you can vote for only one candidate, though it's still a multi-member constituency, functioning like a FPTP system otherwise. LV is like SNTV except that you can check off more than one candidate, though the number would be specified. For example, it might specify that you just check of X number of your favourite candidates from the list, and Y candidates will win, though nothing prevents the values of Y and X to be identical. LV is the one I had in mind, and it would seem to be an easy-to-understand system (you just check off your favourite candidates from the ones offered on the ballot, similar to FPTP except that you check off more than one). You're still voting for the candidate and not party, so independents can still participate easily enough. And it allows candidates to run against members of their own party too, thus making it less partisan.

By the way, political parties can easily manipulate the SNTV system to make it more proportional. For example, a party that usually doesn't win as many votes can choose to run fewer candidates in the riding so as to avoid vote splitting and thus increase the candidate's chance of success. Another advantage with SNTV is that since the riding is a multi-member constituency, candidates are not running against only members of other parties, but sometimes of their own too. So for example, in a three-member riding let's say, a red Tory might check off the more progressive of the CPC candidates in his riding, the most conservative of the Liberal Party candidates, and then a more conservative member of the Green Party for example. Under a party list, you have no control over whether the party will choose mostly among the right wing of the party, the left wing of the party, or the centre, etc. It totally neglects variations within the party itself.

If you make it a party-list system though, then you depersonalize it and remove it from the grassroots in that to run as a candidate you must then first join a political party and work your way up its ranks, not to mention that then the public no longer gets to vote for a candidate but rather only for a party, with the party then choosing the candidate. For instance, we currently have one independent MP in the House right now (sorry, now two with Guergis added to the list, but we'll ignore her for now since she was elected under a party banner). Under a list system, his democratic freedom to run would be removed from him, and his constituents would have the democratic freedom to vote for him removed from them too. The only way to protect that democratic right would be by having people vote for the candidate, and that would mean SNTV, STV, or some other such candidate-based system. If we must go PR, then I'd lean towards SNTV owing to its ease of understanding for the average voter combined with its not shutting out independents from the democratic process.

To ensure an equal chance for independents though, any kind of PR system would have to be candidate-based and not a party-list though, such as SNTV or some other such system. There is also STV as an option, though it could prove more complicated a system and thus more prone to error. SNTV, though somewhat proportional, is a very easy system to understand for the average person.

Independents can and do run on occasion, and no party chooses them.

Then SNTV would allow for both, as it could provide for Pr for those who do vote party while still allowing us to vote for canddiates.

This I think is where Single non-transferable voting could come in. Because you're selecting more than one candidate on your ballot, you could for example select your favourite candidate and not worry about strategic voting since you'd have more than one selection on your ballot anyway. But party names have to go so as to encourage people to do a little more research on their candidates.

I vote candidate and will be damned if I ever have to vote for a party. That would be the end of democracy and the freedom of independents to run for office. Essentially, you're asking for parties to hijack the democratic system.

Wait a minute. Have you read up on Single Non-transferable vote? To add too many candidates to the ballot would be self-defeating for any party. Why would any party be so suicidal? Also, a person who can't take the time to learn his candidate's party affiliation has not earned the right to vote in my opinion. You don't just check off the prettiest party logo. If you can't even be bothered to take a little time out of your day to even bother finding out the party affiliation of your candidates, then clearly you don't care enough about democracy.

Again, if you remove the party name from the ballot, FPTP is not a bad system. It's only when you have party names on the ballot that it causes problems since you're voting candidate while getting the false impression of voting party. Call it false advertising. Remove party names from the ballots, and FPTP is essentially fixed. But again, if one insists on some form of PR system, then let's go Single non-transferable vote, again without party names on ballots. But if we insist on having party names on ballots, then let's be honest about it at least, remove candidate names from the ballots and just have party names on there, and go to a list system. Though honestly that would be my last choice, but it would still be preferable to false advertising.

Actually as I think more on this, I'd rank Single non-transferable vote as probably the best and FPTP as second-best, again as long as party names are removed.

FPTP is outdated only if you think along party lines. Remove the party names from the ballots, and FPTP would be fine. But again, if ever we were pushed towards some kind of PR system, then I'd insist that it be based on candidates and not parties. I'd suggested STV in the OP as a second-best alternative to FPTP. After having done a little research, I think I'd now place it at third best, and Single non-transferable vote as second-best: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Non-Transferable_Vote

Actually, ifwe had to go to some form of PR system, then perhaps this would be even better than STV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Non-Transferable_Vote Again, as long as party names re removed from the ballot so as to encourage people to vote for the best candidate and not the one with the prettiest party logo.

It's explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote It's not the most accurate PR system, and achieves results between FPTP and PR, but its strong point is that it makes no use of party lists and you still vote explicitly for candidates, thus not taking away the democratic rights of independents. STV is still more complicated that FPTP. Again, overall I prefer NP FPTP but if I must choose between PR systems, then I'd o for NP STV as at least it still doesn't give political parties draconian powers like the list system does which essentially removes a person's freeomd of association by forcing him to join a party if he wants to run. You're confusing STV with a list system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-list_proportional_representation There are multiple systems in place.