-1=e^ipi

You realize that the lack of existence of female PMs over the past 20 years doesn't falsify what I wrote, right? Maybe you need help figuring this out, so I'll point out two things for you. Today != past 20 years. So saying that today being female gives you a higher chance of being elected says nothing about what affect being male/female had on being elected over the past 20 years. 2. there are various other reasons that could result in a candidate being elected or not being elected beyond gender. Also you want the primary reason we don't have a female prime minister today? 1 reason: Justin Trudeau is male and is last name is Trudeau. Look who got 2nd and 3rd in the liberal leadership 2013 race: Martha Hall Findlay and Joyce Murray. If Trudeau didn't run, there is a good chance that one of these two might have been elected (although Garneau might have gotten it). Personally, I think Martha Hall Findlay would have made the best PM out of all of them. But instead we get the airhead birthright PM.

Lies. Anyway, there should also be an option for declining your ballot.

Where is the 'spoiled my ballot because all the options suck' option?

Younger voters are more likely to vote NDP relative to liberal compared to the population at large. The 3 roommates in their 20's that I live with all voted NDP (to be fair my grandparents also voted NDP). I don't think your argument holds. Maybe 20+ years ago. Today it's a positive that increases your chances of being elected in most developed countries.

Why is the sex of the leader relevant?

Let's take a province such as PEI which has 4 seats (it shouldn't have as many as 4 but that's another issue). Even make the entire province into a single multi-riding district, a green party voter in such a riding is unlikely to get any representation. Given that they have ~5% public support, unless these multi-riding districts consist of 20 ridings, the green party is unlikely to get fair representation. And what about the even smaller parties? Perhaps the libertarian, communist or christian heritage parties should get a seat if they get ~0.3% of the popular support (they don't get that much support now, but a lot of the reason is because of strategic voting).

You are correct. Thank you for correcting me. I don't really see how STV is the best system. The size and distribution of STV can be changed based on the whims of politicians. This can cause parties like the green party to still not get proportional representation, is open to gerrymandering, etc.

I don't see why you would count Mulcair out. He was leading in the polls for a good while during the election, and the NDP hasn't historically booted leaders just because they lost an election.

Jason Kenney?

Here's something I haven't considered before. Human blood pH and intercellular pH is around 7.4. The intercellular pH for most vertebrate species is around 7.4. Isn't that a indication that life evolved under conditions of Ocean pH around 7.4? Does that mean ocean life is optimized with an ocean pH of 7.4? (Current pH is 8.1). Even whales, which live in the Ocean, have a blood pH of 7.4. Although most fish species have a blood pH of 7.7-8.0 but an intercellular pH of 7.4. Is this an adaptation by fish to a less acidic ocean?

7. Nice hair. All the parties have 'a climate change policy', they are just different. And Trudeau's is, talk with provinces and then figure it out? So he doesn't have anything concretely defined. Trudeau's just given this lip service. And even if he does electoral reform, he might just try to get STV, which will result in the other parties having even less representation in parliament.

Whether an MP is good or not doesn't matter very much. What matters is whether the MP is in a safe riding for their party or not. FPTP is terrible.

1. I wrote the letters SPOIL on my ballot. 2. Rejection removes voting anonymity, so I am against it. If they want anonymous rejection, they should put an option to do so on the ballot.

Mauril Belanger has the worst attendance rate in Parliament out of all the mps (from memory I think there was a report on this). But he is in a safe liberal riding, so it doesn't matter. FPTP is a joke.

I spoiled my ballot... again.

Russia?

One criticism that I've seen of quantifying the costs associated with climate change is that they generally only look at materialistic benefits, and often don't include that people value preserving the environment. However, quantifying this value and relating to a function of the amount of climate change is difficult. Fortunately there are happiness surveys, both globally (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report) and time series for some countries (http://ftp.iza.org/dp4060.pdf). Using these surveys, it is possible to estimate happiness as a function of the amount of global warming (either locally or globally) as well as other factors (such as consumption). Since happiness is positively correlated with utility, if the coefficient of relative risk aversion is known (say from looking at consumer behaviour under uncertainty) then one can infer utility as a function of global warming, consumption, and other factors.

No, it's through the accumulation of reading various climate blogs and seeing the usage. 0 is obviously Denier. 1.5 C to 4.5 C is the IPCC's range of climate sensitivity. Below 1.5 C starts to become unphysical, since the no-feedback sensitivity is about 1.15 C and obviously there are various feedbacks such as water vapour; so I think labeling below 1.5 C people as contrarian is reasonable since they are basically advocating a position outside of empirical evidence. Above 4.5 C people are so alarmist they are above the IPCC's range despite its questionable CMIP5 models, so labeling them as alarmists seems reasonable to me. The terms lukewarmer and warmist are terms I've seen thrown quite a bit to distinguish between people that agree with the IPCC's range. The lukewarmer's tend to claim lower estimates of sensitivity based on instrumental data, while the warmists tend to claim higher sensitivity due to general circulation models and paleoclimate estimates (though I would claim that the main reason these paleoclimate estimates are getting higher sensitivities is due to not taking into account certain factors, such as change in distribution of radiative forcing). The disagreement between lukewarmers and warmists is the reason the IPCC did not give a best estimate of climate sensitivity in AR5.

Probably. The problem is that most people have an emotional attachment to a political position, combined with the fact that generally their position is unsubstantiated. If you don't have an emotional attachment to a political position then there is no reason to get offended or have a dislike for such conversations because either A. you will be presented with a better position, in which case you can simply change your mind, or B. you will demonstrate that your position is better, which means your position is now strengthened from such a challenge.

I don't think I can give adequate categories because there are a large diversity of opinions as the issue is very complex and the few terms that are thrown around don't have well accepted definitions. If you must have labels, maybe start with belief on what equilibrium climate sensitivity is (long term increase in global temperature due to doubling of CO2, minus albedo feedback effects). Here are some of the labels that I have seen used: 0 C - Denier between 0 C and 1.5 C - Contrarian between 1.5 C and 3.0 C - Lukewarmer between 3.0 C and 4.5 C - Warmist more than 4.5 C - Alarmist

We are, in this thread. I was just pointing out the vagueness of your categories. Even if we ignore people like Ezra Levant, these categories are still not very helpful. You are basically lumping everyone from Christopher Monckton to David Suzuki together.

Most people that are labeled as 'skeptics' are 'believers' in that they believe in climate change. Even a hardcore contrarian like Christopher Monckton believes that equilibrium climate sensitivity is 0.5 C (i.e. he attributes some warming to greenhouse gases). And even if I take a denier who doesn't believe that greenhouse gas emissions affect global temperature, like Ezra Levant, he still categorizes as a 'climate change believer' because he believes that climate changes due to natural factors. Very few people would be classified as a non-climate change believer. Maybe some young earth creationists that don't believe in ice-ages and think that God controls climate can be categorized as a non-climate change believer. On the other hand, 'climate change skeptic' can include a very large section of the population as well. Most people are skeptical to some extent, and one could believe in all the tenants of climate change alarmism while being skeptical. As an analogy, I believe that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames, as hypothesized by Einstein back in 1905. Yet I'm skeptical of it and am open to it being wrong if new evidence comes along that points to the contrary (which did occur a few years ago at the Large Hadron Collider, but that turned out to not be a violation of relativity). So in short, the categories 'climate change skeptics' and 'climate change believers' are so vague and inclusive that they aren't very useful.

You realize that 'climate change skeptics' and 'climate change believers' aren't mutually exclusive groups, right?