-1=e^ipi

Nunavut has less than 30,000 people and is relatively culturally homogenous. With a country like Canada, obtaining a 'consensus' is impossible.

It won't solve anything because people can still see the candidates for each party by looking at lawn signs. It only provides people with less information. This is silly. With prorep you will have more parties so can find an option that better represents your views. Heck, you could even have a party of 1 independent MP and the MP could try to get votes from across the entire county to be elected. How is reducing peoples options so they can only vote for someone in their riding democratic? What if I want to vote for an MP all the way in Halifax because I think this MP better represents my views? As it is, if I want to vote for say the Freedom party, and there is no candidate in my riding, I can't vote for the party that I want to vote for. I don't.

Just because a man decides to walk away doesn't mean they are doing it to avoid parental responsibility. They might be leaving an abusive relationship. Maybe the two parties decide to get divorced, etc. Do you really think men 'avoiding parental responsibility' are the reason custody rates are so skewed (you would need like over 50% of the male population in cases of separation to be avoiding parental responsibility), especially when some of these men then try to get custody in the children? If they were avoiding parental responsibility, why would they want parental custody? It makes no sense. And we know how that turns out. Custody rates suggest otherwise.

It should be based on who would give the best life for the kids in the future, not on the past. And again this concept of 'primary caregiver' is sexist similar how the 'literacy tests' to vote were racist against blacks in the South. Why is working to provide income to support your kids not considered caregiving, but having maternity leave and breastfeeding (2 things men can't do) count towards caregiving? In many cases both parents are providing care so there should be no 'primary caregiver'.

I.e. because the mother gets maternity leave and can breastfeed, she should get custody by default even when the children are much older. Yes, why actually base custody on who would be best for the child or give joint custody so the children can have 2 parents? *sarcasm*

Because the whole point of having a parliament is to try to represent the country is it not? With the FPTP system, groups of people that are thinly spread out across the country get no representation. The green party got no seats for years despite 5% of the popular vote. In the UK, UKIP got 0.15% of the seats with 12.6% of the vote. You get parties with 38% of the popular vote winning majority governments. The system encourages strategic voting and for people to only vote for on of the top 2 or 3 parties to make their vote count. As a result, the number of viable political parties in a FPTP system is very small, where as proportional representation systems give people far more choice about who they want to vote for.

No, it goes to the female the vast majority of our time because our justice system is sexist and due to the belief that having the female take care of the kids rather than the male is 'natural'.

Yet the man doesn't have the option of taking care of the baby if she leaves. Custody almost always goes to the female. How. Please try to justify this statement.

You are fine with a system where large minorities have no representation in parliament?

1. The women is just as capable of leaving as the man. 2. Both men and women are responsible for taking steps to avoid pregnancy. You act like women have no agency (which btw is supporting a traditionalist gender role). 3. Women have options to opt out of unwanted parental responsibility such as abortion and abandonment. http://www.canadiancrc.com/child_abandonment.aspx This statement is a form of trying to impose traditionalist gender roles. Don't worry. I wont.

Yes I realize our society has a ridiculous double standard where consent to sex = consent to parenthood for males but not females. Thank you for pointing out the obvious. With respect to the 'solution' I was half joking. Although the family system is one of the reasons there is a large inequality of outcome; because it creates inequality of opportunity. You have some people born in a family with not only 2 loving parents, but grandparents around that pay 2k for them to go on rugby trips to New Zealand and then there are other people born into far less fortunate circumstances.

Maybe they never consented to being a parent? Anyway, the ultimate solution is to construct an artificial uterus and sterilize everyone.

The chances of your vote mattering anyway are basically 0, especially if you don't live in a swing riding. Also if the mainstream parties are as repulsive as they are, why vote for them? Voting for the least bad option only makes sense up to a certain point.

In my eyes, your entire family is probably wealthy if that is the case.

Wow, some families are wealthy. 2k for a grandson's New Zealand ruby tour?

Or maybe eliminate genders, make everyone gender neutral, and create machines to produce offspring instead.

You would need the first past the post system to be replaced for any reasonable chance of that happening.

So even more population collapse than we are experiencing now? There aren't enough people willing to adopt kids as it is...

Cybercoma, do you not see how having low income people out breed the rest of the population is problematic? Not just to creating larger income inequality in a generation but in terms of the long run implications for the species? From Idiocracy:

The circumstances that lead to someone's wages being garnished can be very complex. You generalize this group as d-bags that don't deserve sympathy. I'm not misrepresenting what your write.

You implied that all people classified as 'dead-beat dads' are inherently 'd-bags' and went on to say that they deserve no sympathy. You also propagated the traditionalist gender concept of 100% of agency being on males with your claim of 'not keeping it in their pants' when there are two parties that consent to sex, not 1. Not to mention men have no reproductive rights in our society, such as the right to opt out of parenthood if one did not consent to parenthood. Right now consent to sex = consent to parenthood for males in western society.

I guess I should elaborate, since extremism doesn't imply bad policy. The Libertarian polices advocate no government intervention even when it makes sense (externalizes, public goods, etc.). The Freedom Party had a relatively specific platform during the Ontario election, did you just check out their national website? They advocate abolishing the LCBO for example. Their leader, Paul McKeever, appeared on Sun News occasionally before Sun News died and explained his party's positions on a large variety of positions. Maybe try using youtube to see some old clips?

Libertarian party are a bunch of extremists. The Freedom Party of Canada/Ontario is far more reasonable.

Please tell this to the feminists that are convinced that men were oppressing women since the dawn of time.

Because you are a man and men have inherently less value in our society; so as a result you are supposed to work yourself to an early grave to support everyone around you for the sin of being born male. That's just the way of our society. Yes. Men don't matter. Congrats for propagating traditionalist gender roles and the idea that men aren't allowed to complain about things or have feelings. I bet you feel super manly about yourself now from protecting the innocent women from the evil men online who want to have feelings.