Jump to content
A Note on Topic Titles – Be Clear & Descriptive!

-1=e^ipi

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,786

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Everything posted by -1=e^ipi

  1. -1=e^ipi
    What is wrong about that? Why shouldn't people that are not regionally concentrated in a single area get representation?
  2. -1=e^ipi
    And parties can't Gerrymander by tweaking the threshold? What are these thresholds based on? Thresholds are dumb.
  3. -1=e^ipi
    Under a list system, if you don't like how they party makes a list, don't vote for them. How hard is that. And honestly, if you had dynamic lists as opposed to static lists then you could also have the requirement of 10% support from a riding while still having lists. I.e. you would define dynamic lists as some sort of function that maps the distribution of support after an election to a list. Maybe parties could simply write their function as a computer program and submit it to elections Canada before the election. You mean like Mauril Belanger? A monkey in a suit could win any of these safe ridings, which means you can have perpetual politicians in safe ridings. On the other hand, very qualified individuals that don't live in ridings that suit their parties do not get elected. How does that result in a better parliament?
  4. -1=e^ipi
    Maybe we should have a proportional system where if 0.3%+ of voters decline their ballots then we start having empty seats in parliament to represent the people that choose to decline their ballots.
  5. -1=e^ipi
    My only problem with declining your ballot is that you can't decline your ballot anonymously. They should just put an option for none of the above.
  6. -1=e^ipi
    For STV, AV, MMP and FPTP, who you can vote for depends on which region you live in. Thus all of these systems have non-universality. I think if someone from Vancouver Island wants to vote for the Bloc Quebecois, they should be allowed to.
  7. -1=e^ipi
    If your neighbours are torturing their children, who are you the argue? It's their house, they should be able to do what they want! *sarcasm* Your argument is of a very similar logical form. Just because another group of people want to do something (ex. Saudis killing apostates), doesn't make it justified.
  8. -1=e^ipi
    Why wouldn't you support that? What is the purpose of an arbitrary threshold?
  9. -1=e^ipi
    And there are ways of testing this speculation by looking at growth in green party support in swing ridings relative to safe ridings. Edit: Just looking at the results in the Ottawa region, green party support is highest in the Ottawa-Vanier riding, which is the safest riding in Ottawa, but not the most left-leaning. So I think that is an indication of strategic voting.
  10. -1=e^ipi
    Or... strategic voting. I think strategic voting is a better explanation for why green party support is lower.
  11. -1=e^ipi
    There should be no such barrier. That's not the position I advocate. I advocate proportional representation (with rounding error obviously). Given the number of seats we have, any party that has more than 0.3% of the popular vote should have seats in parliament.
  12. -1=e^ipi
    Like people looking at individual candidates? That's primarily an issue because we have so few major parties. In the long run, proportional representation will result in our 3 major parties splitting into smaller parties, which will allow people to vote for a candidate that more accurately represents their views; so these other factors won't matter so much. Order of preference isn't that big of a deal for proportional representation because that's what parties forming coalitions are for. The the voters of party A generally like party B as the second best choice, then most likely party A will try to form a coalition with party B.
  13. -1=e^ipi
    But you don't get proportional support. I think the purpose of a representative democracy should be to try to represent the diversity of political views in the country. How does a party like the greens not getting proportional representation result in a system that achieves the goals of proportional representation?
  14. -1=e^ipi
    But in the 2011 election, the green party increased their seat count from 0 to 1. That's infinity times more! Forget the PCs. Clearly, this makes Elisabeth May the most amazing Canadian party leader ever! *sarcasm*
  15. -1=e^ipi
    What you wrote started with 'because' so I was interpreting what you wrote after 'because' to be a justification for the status quo based on the context of the conversation. So either you are performing circular reasoning, or you don't understand what justification is. Saying that the way things are are the way things are does not justify the way things are. Many things that last for centuries eventually die out.
  16. -1=e^ipi
    So are you instead saying that you want to increase the number of seats by 75%? You realize that will mean we would have nearly 600 seats, right? That's higher costs of government and we can't fit that many people in the house of commons.
  17. -1=e^ipi
    PEI is already grossly overrepresented and you want them to have even more representation? That is insane.
  18. -1=e^ipi
    That's not true. Rejected ballots are kept track of. Staying home would be 1 less rejected ballot. For none of the above.
  19. -1=e^ipi
    But I did vote...
  20. -1=e^ipi
    Maybe I should also point out the following. Let's say Martha Hall Findlay and Marc Garneau were running against each other. Martha Hall Findlay would benefit from sexism today since she is a women and there are many voters that think along the lines of 'we need a women, it's time for a change to a women'. On the other hand, Marc Garneau benefits from being an astronaut, and the reason why our first astronaut was male is very much due to sexism. So Martha Hall Findlay would benefit from sexism of today (which in large part is due to trying to correct past sexism), where as Marc Garneau benefits from sexism of the past.
  21. -1=e^ipi
    A vote for the green party, libertarian party, communist party, etc. won't get them elected so won't count for anything. A vote in a safe riding won't count for anything. A vote for not one of the top two candidates in swing riding won't count for anything. So what? Better than endorsing the idiotic options available to me.
  22. -1=e^ipi
    I suspect this to not be true. More likely middle aged voters that were infatuated with his father decades ago and like the name Trudeau.
  23. -1=e^ipi
    You realize your premise here is essentially your conclusion? This is circular reasoning.
  24. -1=e^ipi
    He is a moron. George W. Bush is also a moron and he was elected President. Fortunately for both Trudeau and Bush, Daddy already had the job before them, so they got name recognition.
  25. -1=e^ipi
    So. How does what happened hundreds of years ago and/or was decided by some ancient unelected monarchy justify things today?
×
×
  • Create New...