-1=e^ipi

I didn't. Mulcair made no failings. He's leading the traditionally 3rd placed party and people wanted to get rid of Harper so strategically voted liberal. That's it.

Key word here is ensures. So even if a voter's preferred political party gets zero representation, somehow they are ensured to be represented by other parties since other parties overlap with other parties? That doesn't make sense. Okay, who am I represented by? And before you go 'but you spoiled your ballot so you aren't a voter and I'm intolerant of differing view points on voting like cybercoma' let's say hypothetically I voted for the libertarian party. Who represents my interests? Name 1 MP. Because somehow I don't feel represented by any of them.

Me. In that case, why not just get rid of democracy and have a dictator? Because it is possible for the dictator to address the concerns of the people? The green party is barely represented, NDP/Bloc are under represented, Libertarian/Communist/etc. have no representation.

large segments of the Canadian population are either not fairly represented or not represented at all.

Slavery in the US functioned exactly how it was designed prior to the US civil war. Does that mean slavery should have never been abolished?

Except it is broke.

I think you are misunderstanding the paper. Those graphs are not of global temperature, but of local temperature. And they are mostly used in the beginning as a discussion about how temperature affects productivity. The primary result of the paper is the estimation of productivity as a function of local temperature using empirical data (and this estimate is quadratic and doesn't have this sudden drop off). They then go on to predict changes in global output due to climate change using RCP 8.5. I don't agree with RCP 8.5, but that doesn't affect the validity of the estimate of how temperature affects productivity. Yes, that is true. Though I think not taking into account that adaptation takes time is of a bigger concern.

My primary criticism of the paper is that it is looking at partial equilibrium effects rather than full equilibrium effects. It looks at annual variation in output by country and compares that to temperature variation. However, obviously it takes time to adapt to climate change. So the results probably overestimate the magnitude of the impacts of climate change, but not the direction. A cross-sectional approach is probably better.

I have a better suggestion for a 'check and balance'. It's called proportional representation.

New study out on global warming impacts: http://www.nature.com/articles/nature15725.epdf?referrer_access_token=eDLT91mmHhpJa7qfX-yrJdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M9qnfWTywcc-SwmqGd2vK8XXcG_rpXmqhktyHqNDHHQB042l4oAIKPtdqUD_2xZxzW69Gv1Mq5NCF9s7sNPKXqjoXQgAnwxVOfsG0ndJjdKs3BO-F0GDCDzHr98uoOyezxzIzFOPdTEqv7BTcktq8v-9gaDjl3JW7QfW1Wy5GBsw%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.cbc.ca I'll have to look through it later. From what I understand, it suggests GDP per capita is optimized around an average annual temperature of 13 C. Canada, Russia, Northern Europe and Mongolia would benefit from global warming. Edit: Richard Tol is not a big fan of this paper.

You say that, yet Trump and Sanders could win their respective leadership races even though they aren't moderate. Heck, Harper won and he wasn't the most moderate. Tony Abbot also won the Australian Liberal Party leadership and he is no moderate either. In FPTP systems, you have less competition between parties and the most vocal in a major party can get their preferred Candidate chosen. Often this means the extremists within 'big tent' parties.

It doesn't have to cooperate during elections. Just during the formation of coalitions if it wants to govern.

The main parties only have this behaviour because of the first past the post system, which has encouraged a winner take all mentality. See here is how you don't have to cave into the demands of a minor extremist party. Threaten the minor extremist party that if they don't agree with you, you will go to another minor extremist party with completely different policy demands. Like threaten the communists you will go to the christian heritage, or visa versa. Or, you could try to form coalitions with other centrist major parties. They get representation proportional to vote share. The only reason you think this is more influence is because you are stuck in the mentality that mainstream party behaviour will be the same under a proportional system.

Would you rather Islamists have representation in parliament and feel like they have a peaceful democratic path to their goals, or would you rather that they feel alienated by the system and resort to violence to achieve their objective? Democratic Islamists like Mohamed Morsi are far preferable to violent Islamists like ISIS.

So let's say parties can choose to make their lists a function of the distribution of support for the election. Let's say hypothetically, the conservative party strongly desires regional support and proportionally the conservatives get enough support for 100 seats in parliament. What the conservatives could do is nominate a conservative candidate for each riding and say to Elections Canada: 'we want the 100 candidates with the highest support by their riding to be chosen as the 100 seats in parliament'. That would be an example of a dynamic list, the conservative list would be a function of how their popular support is regionally distributed. I never suggested that I think all representation should be locally based. No, the complete opposite. It makes coalitions easier. Much like how competition reduces the price of goods and services. If there are a lot of parties then there are a lot more potential coalitions, and parties have to compete if they want to be party of the governing coalition. If you are a party and you need a coalition partner, if one potential partner is being unreasonable you can tell them 'look, if you don't be more reasonable and moderate your position, I'll go to another potential partner and make an agreement with them instead'.

And here I thought the purpose of a representative democracy was to 'represent' the electorate. In that case, why not just do away with the house of commons? You don't need seats. Just directly elect a prime minister every 4 years (using a run-off voting system) and then have the prime minister be essentially the dictator for 4 years. If the house of commons isn't suppose to represent the diversity of our country then it is unnecessary. How does it give extremists 'too much influence'? The balance of power will be held by the centrist/moderate parties.

Why would it be a waste of seats to try to represent a larger share of the electorate?

You could have a closed dynamic list to take into account regional support. It doesn't have to be a static list. What is wrong with extremists getting representation in parliament? It's not like they will be able to get anything passed without making coalitions. If 0.3%+ of the people are best represented by a Sharia Law party, then they should get representation in parliament. How can you have too many parties? Why is giving people more choice a bad thing?

And you can also join a political party and try to change how they chose their lists. How is that significantly different. Tim can you ask me the following questions? 1. If the libertarian party obtains over 0.3% of the popular vote, should the libertarian party get representation in parliament to represent that 0.3%+ of voters? 2. If the libertarian party does get a single seat in parliament, who would best represent them? The leader of the party or a person in the party that happens to live in the riding with the highest % of libertarian support?

In the case of Mauril Belanger, how do voters have a say over him being chosen every year as the liberal candidate of Ottawa-Vanier? It's a safe liberal riding and people vote for Belanger because he's liberal, that's the primary reason. Yet he has the worst attendance record in parliament (supposedly). Sure there is a way. It's called don't vote for a party if you don't like the people at the top of the list.

If the Communists, Libertarians or other minor parties get 0.3%+ of the vote do they have representation in an STV system? No. If voters want local representation, can't they just vote for a local party under a proportional system? Also, allowing for dynamic lists as opposed to static lists would help alleviate this issue.

Why is that desireable to preserve? Some people want to vote regionally, but others want to vote nationally. Why should the regional people prevent the national people from having proper representation? Here's an idea, how about 1 region with fixed geographic constituency: Canada.

I can't control who is nominated as the candidates for my riding, the parties control that. So my choices are already restricted by the parties internal choices.