Machjo

I think you totally misunderstood STV. It's based on candidates in nearby ridings. for example, an STV ballot might lump 3 or 4 or 5 or how many ridings together, whereby the populaiton of that region selects so many among the candidates of that region in order of preference. That's why it's called STV. So it's not a pure form of proportional representation, but at least it allows for independent candidates to participate, and if you don't like any of the options in your riding, you can still vote for the neighbouring riding's. So it essentially sist somewhere between FPTP and PR,while still allowing independents to participate. STV would give you no say in choosing candidates across the ocuntry and parties have little to no power over it since you are still voting for persons, not parties. In that sense, it's similar to FPTP. It's essentially a kind of hybrid between FPTP and STV. So I really don't know what you're talking about when you say thousands of miles away? Unless you're confusing it with the list system? Again, I have no clue what you're talkin aobut because STV as no 'list'. Again, I think you're confusing STV with the list system.

That depends. If the idea is that the MP is supposed to represent the wishes of his riding, then FPTP is more accurate than a system allowing people from elsewhere to select the local candidate (though granted having party names on the ballot also violates this principle as it makes people vote for parties rather than the best candidate, and on that front one could argue that as long as party names appear on the ballot and thus misleading people into believing that they're voting party when in fact they're voting candidate, that PR would be more honest by making them actually vote for party). If we remove party names from ballots, then FPTP is the best system. If however push comes to shove and we must have PR, then certainly the rights of independents must be protected, in which case NP STV would be the next best option in that while it's not the most accurate representation of the wishes of the local population, at least independents can participate on an equal footing, unlike a list-system for example where independents' rights are simply wiped off the map.

Personally, I prefer NP FPTP (i.e. the current system minus party names on the ballots) as that is the best way to represent the local riding. That said, if it ever came down to a choice of PR systems and FPTP were no longer an option, then I'd be pushing for NP STV as a way of at least ensuring the democratic rights of independents, as a second-best option if you will.

Clearly people think it is an issue and that's why I'd put it out. Some people are pushing for PR, and what concerns me is that parties end up having even more power than they do now, thus strangling us by the balls even more than they do now. I do not want democracy hijacked by political parties, and so if ever push came to shove and the PR crowd were, winning, then I'd hope it's an NP PR position and not something like a list system that would essentially shut independents out from the democratic process completely. For me, it's crucial for democracy that it not be hijacked by political parties.

I'd lived in Shanghai for a short time, and have visited Hong Kong. And I can tell you that they manage their population quite well. honestly, I'd love for most Canadian cities to fire all of their city planners and hire some from Hong Kong and other such places who actually know what they're doing and who know how to maximize the use of space.

With all the talk about non-partisan democracy vs proportional representation, would it not be possible for both sides to get what they want? For instance, not all forms of PR are party-based; STV (single-transferable ballot) is still based on the candidate and not the party. Why could we not remove party names from the ballots on the one hand, but introduce an STV ballot on the other. This would provide a form of PR that woudl still not penalize independent candidates unfairly. This way, the non-partisan crowd and the PR crowd could get what they want (i.e. a non-partisan PR ballot). Any thought on this as a solution?

That's why I'd said it would essentially bring us back full circle, likely with a return of the Reform Party, but seeing that we always learn from the past, maybe with some kind of agreement that Reform and the PCP would each run in their own regions. Indeed coalition building would always be a constant merry go round. Obviously this thread is more for hypothetical fun since in reality the only real solution is to remove political parties form the map, or at least weaken them considerably.

So give parties even more power? I agree that change is necessary, but in the exact opposite direction, by removing power from parties and towards non-partisan democracy. In other words, remove party names from ballots and remove all legal recognition of political parties altogether.

The initial right-coalition was just broad enough to counter a split left between the Liberals and NDP. It would in no way be broad enough to counter a Liberal-NDP coalition. At that stage, the right would have no choice but to broaden its base even further, and whether the right likes it or not, that would likely mean bringing back a red Tory party of sorts. It would almost bring us full circle I guess.

Double post.

Now of course if Alberta ever decided to establish some kind of Alberta Party, then that would likely make it even more essential for national parties to form coalitions seeing that they'd already be knocked out of Queebc and Alberta for the most part, and increasingly they might even find themselves having to work together with either the Block of the AP after the election. And that would likely cause a domino effect with more regional and provincial parties rising up.

Short-term perhaps, but let's learn from history. When the right was split, they eventually recognized that the only way to fight the Liberals was to unite. Certainly if the Liberals and NDP unite, they might win a few elections, but there is no doubt that after a few elections, the right would react with a coalition of its own to counter it, most likely by having red Tories of the CPC, blue greens, and the Progressive Canadian Party coalescing to counter the new left coalition in some parts of Canada, and perhaps a rise in a regional party in more right-leaning parts of Canada. Over the long term, it is inconceivable that a coalition-building endeavor on the left would not be met with a counter-offensive on the right. You seem to be suggesting that somehow the right would just sit back and take the blows. Initially perhaps, but it would only be a matter of time before they finally reacted.

I'd be curious to know what would happen if a race for coalitions began in Canada.Bear in mind though that this thread is more just for fun and brainstorming possible future hypothetical scenarios and how you think such a war would transform the Canadian political landscape. I could see the Liberals and NDP possibly plugging their noses and forming a coalition of sorts... maybe... perhaps... if they're desperate. Or the NDP agreeing not to run in Quebec Federal elections anymore. More likely, though still with a bit of nose-pinching on the NDP's part. The Green Party would likely collapse, with the red greens likely joining with the NDP, and blue greens possibly looking to rebuild the old Progressive Conservative Party by possibly joining with the Progressive Canadian Party and then trying to attract some conservative liberals and red Tories to it. And assuming the CPC is not willing to go down without a fight, it would likely shift left to try to attract blue members of the Green Party to itself and possibly squeeze out the Progressive Canadian Party in a desperate bid to counter the left coalition. Any kind of coalition war would likely completely transform the Canadian political landscape except for the Bloc sticking around. And seeing that the Green Party comprises both red greens and blue greens, that party would have the most to lose in such a war as it would simply be ripped at the seems right down the middle. Another possible reaction I could see would be for Alberta possibly not tolerating such compromises and so adopting a similar strategy to Quebec's by forming a regional party, and of course more Canadians might start turning to independent candidates. With both the right and the left forming big-tent-coalitions, It's also reasonable to suppose that party discipline would crumble considerably, with ever more MP's voting their own conscience and so candidates' character would become ever more important at the polling booth compared to the policies of the coalition in question. And that might not be a bad idea. Your thoughts? How do you think the political landscape would be transformed in the event of a coalition building war between the parties?

It would also seem that the Qur'an disapproves of how they deal with non-Muslims: Let there be no compulsion in Religion. (The Qur'an (Rodwell tr), Sura 2 - The Cow) And are you saying that you believe that a person ought to be considered guilty of a crime by association?

So what are you proposing: that because countries that associate themselves with Islam choose to corrupt the religion, that Western countries ought to stoop to their level?

An interesting video on how a family copes with the conversion of their teenaged daughter to Islam:

Forget Westernized Muslims. What about Western Muslims, those who adopt Islam as adults? Do they suddenly become less Western? I like this video: as it reveals some of the experiences and fears and emotions of a recent devotee of Islam as she learns to adapt to a new reality in a world that is somewhat hostile to her new-found faith: Why should she feel apprehensive about wearing a veil? That does reveal something about her, in her lack of strength to just do what she thinks is right, and she admits to that quite openly. But it also reveals something about us since her result from how she perceives others to view Islam, and that of course will be shaped by her observations of others' reactions to Islam.

It's interesting that she mentions she's afraid of wearing the veil out of fear of others' reactions.

Just a correction: some Muslims are very white: She'd have no issue at an airport now, would she?

Sounds like Kristallnacht all over again. God forbid. Or some of them might even adopt Islam. I can hear the stomping of boots already.

To me personally it means nothing since I believe in freedom of religion. However, I put this up out of curiosity to see how some of those who are irate at the building of a mosque near Ground Zero would see this. Well, let's start with this: Why should he feel that it's somehow a slap in the face? All you have to do is Google it to see many seem irate at this for some reason, when all it is is freedom of religion.

They can do what they want, but I'll still always vote candidate and not party, so such games really won't affect me much.

Seeing that another thread in this forum has members expressing concern over an Islamic Centre being built near Ground Zero, i'd be curious as to what those same members or others think of family members of victims of 9/11 adopting Islam. Here's a video on the subject: It's interesting to note how one of the ladies referring to her family having had a hard time accepting her adoption of Islam. I can only imagine how much more difficult it must be with so many bigots thinking that it's wrong to build a mosque around Ground Zero;they must be raving mad at relatives of victims of 9/11 exercising their freedom of religion.

Yup. We should simply ban all Muslims from approaching anywhere within 2 miles of Ground Zero, and for those Muslims who'd lost relatives on 9/11, we could build an alternative shrine for them, in a camp with walls around it (for their own protection of course), along with a requirement to wear an armband with a crescent moon and star (for their own security of course), along with work camps and other facilities (because Arbeit macht Frei after all) Interestingly enough, while bigots of all stripes scream bloody murder over the community centre, some relatives of 9/11 victims even adopted Islam after 9/11: To each their own I guess.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the relatives of the following are funding this mosque: And who are we to dictate how they are to spend their money and, more importantly, how they are to honour and commemorate the lives of the loved ones they'd lost in 911? Just as other victims of 911, they also have an equal right to be remembered without bigotry.