myata Posted October 4, 2008 Report Posted October 4, 2008 (edited) Well, folks, it looks like it'll be awhile before the hard truth finally dawns on our politicians. Like the proverbial little kids in a sandbox, they'll roll, spin and jostle, laughing and well, kidding, oblivious to the world around them. And that's OK, it's their game after all. The hard truth btw is that splitting progressive vote 2/3/4 ways is like presenting Right Hon Mr Harper with his daydreamt and nightwetdreamt of majority on a golden plate with a silver edge. That's the truth. So what does one do in this difficult situation? Hold the nose and ... etc? Here's a better option though: we take it into our own hands. Forget Dion/Layton/May. I don't vote for Dion/Layton/etc. I vote for me. For my understanding and vision of the future of this country. Layton/etc are just agents, vehicles to make it happen. The idea is simple and it is to vote for the progressive candidate that has the best shot to take the riding. At this time and with this stack, I don't really care which of the three/four parties it'll be as long as they're going to do what we want them to do. And that's the deal of the day - because do what we want them to do they will - this time around. Because this time around, the deal is - you're elected there not because you're Liberal / NDP / Green / etc. No. You're elected to make change happen. So as soon as progressive majority in the Parliament is a reality, with or without formal coalition, it'll vote in a new, fairer way to elect our representatives. So that crushing majority with 30% of popular vote could nicely and firmly become a thing of the past. It won't be the full PR right away (and I'm not even sure that full unrestricted PR is necessarily a good thing), but the change must begin. And soon. Otherwise, we're bound to watch the neverending duet of Liberal / Conservative love-hate pair forevermore. So, if you agree, spread the word around. The deal is simple and it's an agreement of people, not politicians. That's what"ll keep it simple and make it work. There's still time, though maybe not awsome lot of it. Edited October 4, 2008 by myata Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
blueblood Posted October 4, 2008 Report Posted October 4, 2008 I will be voting for progress. I will be voting for my CPC Candidate. Even though he will get more votes than all the other parties combined. Quote "Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary "Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
Slim MacSquinty Posted October 4, 2008 Report Posted October 4, 2008 myata, so what you're really saying is your vote is not worth anything and you find nothing of value in the Green, Liberal or NDP platforms. Well isn't that intersting. Quote
myata Posted October 4, 2008 Author Report Posted October 4, 2008 Not at all. What I'm saying is that all of the above, plus, in some (many) aspects of their policies, BQ, all represent different parts, grades of the same progressive electorate of the country. To continue jostle for small gain here and there, while the opposition is united under one banner, is no less then a suicide. Maybe not in the principle of things, but most certainly under this present majoritary system. Split vote = huge advantage to the opposition. Not to notice this simple fact is to be blind. And because this time around we do not have cosy Bay street boys to push the politicians in the right direction, the task mush be done by us. Ourselves. We need to elect as many progressive representatives to form a majority, then make them work together for the good of the country. Regardless of their particular tone or hue. And the first item on the agenda would be to reform the electoral system for more fair representation of population. Realistically, no single party majority government will be interested in even introducing the idea. A coalition of progressive parties, elected specificially for that purpose, could, and very well. Of course, shadows and scarecrows put up here and there, could scare us and make us go for the status quo. And that's OK. What we do is what we get. This is addressed to those who are interested in, and not afraid of the positive change. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Argus Posted October 4, 2008 Report Posted October 4, 2008 Not at all. What I'm saying is that all of the above, plus, in some (many) aspects of their policies, BQ, all represent different parts, grades of the same progressive electorate of the country. Hmm, well based on the platforms of the "progressive" parties, the answer to our shaky financial systems and the looming economic slowdown is - much higher taxes on all industries! Punish the corporate sector! Eat the rich! That'll teach em! Fortunately, the biggest chunk of the "progressive" vote is made up of airheads who don't even know where their local polling station is and who couldn't be bothered voting anyway. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
myata Posted October 4, 2008 Author Report Posted October 4, 2008 Which of the platforms did you mean in particular, Argus? It's very easy (but so telling of conservative's shall we say, for the mildest of the words, oversimplified strategies) to make these useless general statements, accompanied by a big scary "vote for me or else....". Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Argus Posted October 4, 2008 Report Posted October 4, 2008 Which of the platforms did you mean in particular, Argus? It's very easy (but so telling of conservative's shall we say, for the mildest of the words, oversimplified strategies) to make these useless general statements, accompanied by a big scary "vote for me or else....". The Liberal platform: Make it more expensive for companies to do business, to transport goods, to operate heavy machinery, to mine or drill for oil, and, especially, to expand by producing more. The NDP platform: punish business for making money, because we hate profit orientated enterprises. Hike business taxes as high as possible, introduce tons of new regulations to reign in those evil business type people and stop them from abusing the poor working man. The Green platform: See the Liberal platform. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
independent Posted October 4, 2008 Report Posted October 4, 2008 The Liberal platform: Make it more expensive for companies to do business, to transport goods, to operate heavy machinery, to mine or drill for oil, and, especially, to expand by producing more.The NDP platform: punish business for making money, because we hate profit orientated enterprises. Hike business taxes as high as possible, introduce tons of new regulations to reign in those evil business type people and stop them from abusing the poor working man. The Green platform: See the Liberal platform. You forgot to mention the conservative platform. You are a Tory. Sell us on their platform. You sound like an opposition party that is the position to be negative. What good can we possiblily get from the Tories. Anybody can make negatives comments. You have to look at things as a whole. How the positives and the negatives balance out. Quote
Argus Posted October 4, 2008 Report Posted October 4, 2008 You forgot to mention the conservative platform. You are a Tory. Sell us on their platform. You sound like an opposition party that is the position to be negative. What good can we possiblily get from the Tories. Anybody can make negatives comments. You have to look at things as a whole. How the positives and the negatives balance out. The thing is there isn't a whole lot we can do. The situation was not made in Canada and will not be solved here. The best we can hope for is to do what we can to ease problems for the business/finance sectors. And that seems to be what Harper is doing. There is no grand PLAN because the issue is too diverse, and much of it is unassailable. As for Dion, excuse me for not having respect for a would-be prime minister who announces, with great fanfare, that he has a PLAN, an economic PLAN to cope with the issues facing Canada. And that PLAN - is to hold a meeting and ask everyone what he should do. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
myata Posted October 4, 2008 Author Report Posted October 4, 2008 Indeed, asking people for their opinions (and respecting them) - a big no-no! Isn't the guy at top supposed to tell each and every line his minions ever say? Maybe even what they think? Shouldn't his recordings be played at all public meetings, to simplify the matters once and for all? But here's the deal. The change has to come. And in the current situation it will not come through a win of one party. Because parties that have chance of winning a majority won't be interested. The change has to come through a coalition of progressive representatives for change. Vote for progress - and it may happen. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
capricorn Posted October 4, 2008 Report Posted October 4, 2008 As for Dion, excuse me for not having respect for a would-be prime minister who announces, with great fanfare, that he has a PLAN, an economic PLAN to cope with the issues facing Canada. And that PLAN - is to hold a meeting and ask everyone what he should do. Proof that this plan was hatched on the fly to impress the uninformed is that there is no mention of it in the Liberal platform previously issued to the media and the public. Dion claims his team is replete with the finest brains poised to manage the economy. But it sure seems like the Liberal stars didn't have a clue about what was transpiring in the economy until sources external to the party pointed them in that direction. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Slim MacSquinty Posted October 4, 2008 Report Posted October 4, 2008 (edited) Actually there is a plan, it is to stay the course, our banks will not fail like the US banks, ALL our high leverage mortgages are insured ALL just so you know. Despite the bleeding of manufacturing jobs (which so far is not a catastrophe) we are still making jobs in this country. There is little doubt that the US downturn will effect us, but playing chicken little will only erode confidence in the economy, that is why Harper said what he said about Dion cheering for a recession. The rest of the economic plan goes something like this, try and stay out of the pocket of the average citizen as much as possible so they can make their own economic decisions and make business taxes competitive with other jurisdictions so as not to chase business away. Provide incentives for research and development related to the manufacturing sector to try to get more technical/ scientific jobs to replace the cheap labour component. Provide tax incentives for amateur sports and art/ cultural activities. Provide incentives for apprentices to finsh their aprenticeships. Provide support for farmers. and plenty more, almost every day the Cons have announced a plank to their platform. On the other hand the NDP are just spouting the same old mantra that's proven not to work, ask Bob Rae. The Liberals are trying a hail mary pass, that they really haven't figured out fully. Edited October 4, 2008 by Slim MacSquinty Quote
WIP Posted October 5, 2008 Report Posted October 5, 2008 Well, folks, it looks like it'll be awhile before the hard truth finally dawns on our politicians. Like the proverbial little kids in a sandbox, they'll roll, spin and jostle, laughing and well, kidding, oblivious to the world around them. And that's OK, it's their game after all.The hard truth btw is that splitting progressive vote 2/3/4 ways is like presenting Right Hon Mr Harper with his daydreamt and nightwetdreamt of majority on a golden plate with a silver edge. That's the truth. So what does one do in this difficult situation? Hold the nose and ... etc? Here's a better option though: we take it into our own hands. Forget Dion/Layton/May. I don't vote for Dion/Layton/etc. I vote for me. For my understanding and vision of the future of this country. Layton/etc are just agents, vehicles to make it happen. The idea is simple and it is to vote for the progressive candidate that has the best shot to take the riding. At this time and with this stack, I don't really care which of the three/four parties it'll be as long as they're going to do what we want them to do. And that's the deal of the day - because do what we want them to do they will - this time around. Because this time around, the deal is - you're elected there not because you're Liberal / NDP / Green / etc. No. You're elected to make change happen. Interesting! But first you have to recognize that these parties have different ideas on what "progressive" means! For instance, if you consider environmental policy the most important issue, you're not going to be happy about the way the NDP has sold out in an ambitious attempt to become the Official Opposition. The NDP's environmental policy plan isn't any better than the Conservatives, and gives priority to advancing socialist economics and pleasing the union bosses who effectively control this undemocratic party! I've mentioned previously, that because of the FPTP voting system, every non-NDP vote in my riding is a wasted vote; so I'll waste my vote on the Green Party, and hope that Harper fails in his bid for a majority government, and Jack Layton also fails to make the NDP the Official Opposition! So as soon as progressive majority in the Parliament is a reality, with or without formal coalition, it'll vote in a new, fairer way to elect our representatives. So that crushing majority with 30% of popular vote could nicely and firmly become a thing of the past. It won't be the full PR right away (and I'm not even sure that full unrestricted PR is necessarily a good thing), but the change must begin. And soon. Otherwise, we're bound to watch the neverending duet of Liberal / Conservative love-hate pair forevermore. This seems to be a little pollyanish! The NDP in Ontario didn't try to help with the referendum to get 25% of the seats set aside in a proportional system, so I don't see them helping the cause in the federal parliament! Getting even a partial proportional system will depend on getting enough people to understand the advantages enough to make it an issue and force the hand of the party leaders. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
myata Posted October 5, 2008 Author Report Posted October 5, 2008 Two general points first: 1. A simple fact of majoritary system is that it tends to limit the choice. Unite and survive, or split and suffer. Until this is changed, alternative vote, protest vote, etc achieves only one thing: sthrengthens the position of the part of electorate that is more united. 2. There's (much) more common between the positions of "progressive" parties, than them and Concervatives. All want to see real and promt action on the environment. All support social programs. Interesting! But first you have to recognize that these parties have different ideas on what "progressive" means! For instance, if you consider environmental policy the most important issue, you're not going to be happy about the way the NDP has sold out in an ambitious attempt to become the Official Opposition. The NDP's environmental policy plan isn't any better than the Conservatives, and gives priority to advancing socialist economics and pleasing the union bosses who effectively control this undemocratic party! The politicians in the progress coalition will have to come to an agreement on particular issues. If necessary, with a prompt from their electorate. I've mentioned previously, that because of the FPTP voting system, every non-NDP vote in my riding is a wasted vote; so I'll waste my vote on the Green Party, and hope that Harper fails in his bid for a majority government, and Jack Layton also fails to make the NDP the Official Opposition! So, the real choice in your riding (remember majoritary?) is between NDP and who? correct, CPC. So, by taking your vote from NDP candidate, you're helping Concervatives. In the majoritary system, no matter how many parties are in the play, the only meaningful choice is between the top two contenders. The rest does not matter one grain. This seems to be a little pollyanish! The NDP in Ontario didn't try to help with the referendum to get 25% of the seats set aside in a proportional system, so I don't see them helping the cause in the federal parliament! Getting even a partial proportional system will depend on getting enough people to understand the advantages enough to make it an issue and force the hand of the party leaders. Smaller parties, that routinely take disproportionately smaller number of seats than their share of the popular vote, would naturally be on board (NDP, Greens). Bigger jaggernauts (Liberals, BQ in Quebec) would need to be convinced by the progressive electorate: vote for change, or we'll abandon you. The bottom line is: in the majoritary system, popular vote does not matter. Choice does not matter. If we want more choice, the system has to be changed. And the only way it can be changes is through a broad coalition of representatives for progress. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Slim MacSquinty Posted October 5, 2008 Report Posted October 5, 2008 You can rationalize it anyway you want, but what you end up with is a disfunctional parliment. Italy and several other nations were handcuffed throught the 90's by just such a system. In Canada where we have huge geography, regional differences and a unique postion between the US and the rest of the world, it would be a catastrophe. What would end up happening in your scenario would be a worse tax and spend government than either the NDP or the Liberals alone, because each would hold every bill hostage for their own pet projects. So to get important things done we would have to scatter money in each parties direction to gain support. Disaster. Quote
Argus Posted October 5, 2008 Report Posted October 5, 2008 Indeed, asking people for their opinions (and respecting them) - a big no-no! Isn't the guy at top supposed to tell each and every line his minions ever say? In fact, from what I understand, Dion is notorious for not respecting and not even listening to other people's opinions. But here's the deal. The change has to come. And in the current situation it will not come through a win of one party. Because parties that have chance of winning a majority won't be interested. The change has to come through a coalition of progressive representatives for change. Vote for progress - and it may happen. When your coalition isn't made up of economic illiterates who see the federal budget as nothing more than a big toy they can play with to carry out their various social experiments you might have a point. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
myata Posted October 5, 2008 Author Report Posted October 5, 2008 In fact, from what I understand, Dion is notorious for not respecting and not even listening to other people's opinions. Really? Any support for this statement? Or did you perchance confuse with conservative candidates who routinely refuse to make public statements or appear on the media, and strong possibility exists (as discussed on CBC Ottawa morning a few days back) that only selected Conservatives are allowed to speak freely to voice their own opinions. When your coalition isn't made up of economic illiterates who see the federal budget as nothing more than a big toy they can play with to carry out their various social experiments you might have a point. That may very well be your opinion, but the reality, fact, is that majoritary system is not compatible, in principle, with the variety of electoral choice. Binary (i.e one or the other) choice on one side (Rep/Dem; Labour/Tory; LPC/CPC); or system reform, that guarantees broader choice, on the other. Unfortunately, no other options are viable or possible. Progressive vote split 2/3/4 ways = blank ticket for the conservatives. System reform can only be brought about by a broad coalition for democratic progress. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
WIP Posted October 6, 2008 Report Posted October 6, 2008 Two general points first:1. A simple fact of majoritary system is that it tends to limit the choice. Unite and survive, or split and suffer. Until this is changed, alternative vote, protest vote, etc achieves only one thing: sthrengthens the position of the part of electorate that is more united. Somehow, most regions in Canada have managed to avoid the two party duopoly that formed in the U.S..... actually, the Democrats and Republicans have managed to cooperate on one issue -- jerry-rigging the system to freeze out third parties; so the only option for new political movements is to dislodge the status quo and take over one of the two existing parties -- a pretty daunting challenge if and when it is possible. 2. There's (much) more common between the positions of "progressive" parties, than them and Concervatives. All want to see real and promt action on the environment. All support social programs. Except that they support two different strategies entirely! The Liberals latched on to the carbon tax plan that the Green Party has championed, and shifting the tax burden from income to taxing pollution uses the principles of market economics to encourage the reduction of carbon emissions. The cap and trade system that the NDP and the Conservatives want, is a system of rationing that makes the government the broker in a scheme of buying and selling pollution permits and invites all sorts of abuses and corruption. Every time I hear about these schemes, I can't help thinking of Al Gore, excusing his own, very high, carbon footprint with the excuse that he is buying carbon offsets! I'd rather have a system where the cost of pollution is added to the sticker price, than to have these complicated trade systems that would be an open door to corruption and abuses, and end up doing nothing to reduce carbon emissions. The politicians in the progress coalition will have to come to an agreement on particular issues. If necessary, with a prompt from their electorate.So, the real choice in your riding (remember majoritary?) is between NDP and who? correct, CPC. So, by taking your vote from NDP candidate, you're helping Concervatives. In the majoritary system, no matter how many parties are in the play, the only meaningful choice is between the top two contenders. The rest does not matter one grain. No, I live in Hamilton Centre, which is a guaranteed NDP seat, so everyone who doesn't want their version of "progressive" is free to vote Green, Liberal or CPC, and it will make no difference in the final result. The bottom line is: in the majoritary system, popular vote does not matter. Choice does not matter. If we want more choice, the system has to be changed. And the only way it can be changes is through a broad coalition of representatives for progress. It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing deal. The proposed proportional system in Ontario was only going to set aside a quarter of the seats in the provincial parliament -- that would still be enough to prevent most majority governments that give a temporary dictatorship to the winner, and people who support smaller parties, like the Greens, wouldn't feel compelled to vote Liberal as a better-than-nothing option. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
Brunopolis Posted October 6, 2008 Report Posted October 6, 2008 Watch out folks! Voting for anybody but the conservatives equals a slippery slope to communism. Nevermind that Canada is one of the most capitalistic countries in the entire world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Econ...rical_Rankings) Canada has been shifting right for many many years and something needs to be done soon. Education costs are sky rocketing, infrastructure is being ignored, and health care is degrading. Ive just moved from Canada to Uruguay to live here and I see some beautiful things that make me ashamed when I look at Canada. Free actually decent education, proportional representation with mandatory votes(I have never seen a country with people so interested in politics), and higher accessibility to technology( first country to actually implement the OLPC project). Quote
myata Posted October 6, 2008 Author Report Posted October 6, 2008 Free actually decent education, proportional representation with mandatory votes(I have never seen a country with people so interested in politics), and higher accessibility to technology( first country to actually implement the OLPC project). You said it well, man. Proportional representation makes a big difference. You can vote for a variety of choices and your vote would actually count. Not so in the majoritary system. All votes outside of the ruling duopoly are lost. OK, in Canada and UK there're minor exceptions to the rule, allowing for an "alternative" outlet (LibDem, NDP) and/or regional parties (Scottish, BQ). But it hardly changes anything in principle. Only one of the two can realistically form a government. So, if we want more choice, we have to find a way to add some form of proportionality into our system (I did not say full 100% proportionality, and it's probably unrealistic to expect from scratch. But some form of proportionality). And for that, there're only two options: 1) wait for a majority Liberal government which would also support some form of proportional system; or wait for a majority NDP government; whatever comes first. OR 2) elect a broad progressive coalition with a special mandate (on top of meaningful agenda, and responsible government, that goes without saying) to reform the electoral system. Short of the two, we can cast our votes in any number of alternative or protestive ways, without making slightest difference in the power landscape of this country. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
myata Posted October 7, 2008 Author Report Posted October 7, 2008 (edited) Environment is another worthy cause to have all progressive parties unite in one approach: Scientists urge Canadians to vote for environment Edited October 7, 2008 by myata Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
myata Posted October 9, 2008 Author Report Posted October 9, 2008 Three "E": Economy, Environment, Electoral reform - the real agenda for all progressive leaning parties to come to a common (more or less) position, at make a real move forward. Something this country will benefit from now, and for many years to come. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
myata Posted October 12, 2008 Author Report Posted October 12, 2008 Repost from another thread as it's more fitting this topic Dion is not a strong charismatic leader to unite progressive vote, and Liberals can only dream of a majority at this point in their history. However, rather than see it as a problem, I'd like to welcome this state of affairs as an opportunity for a broad democratic change in the country. A Liberal majority government, if and when it's elected, will follow its own agenda, and may not be all that inclined to consider the views of the other parties representing progressive electorate. Electing a coalition where each party is in minority, would be more beneficial for the dialog and sharing of ideas. Of which two agendas are really crucial at this point of time: - one is reconciling the economy and the environment. Not as a dogma, and not only for environment's own sake (important as it is for our posterity), but most importantly, for future well being of this country. The oil bonanza won't last forever (may not even last that long), and when all is over, everybody else had worked hard to adjust their economies, lifestyles, etc to the realities of carbon tight future, while we were busy reaping benefits (and spending them) guess who would be hardest hit. Don't guess though, just look at those old fisheries towns, coal mining towns, forestry towns, etc with 30% of population on employment assistance. Except Ontario and Quebec can't go on employment assistance, that would be a catastrophe, and probably would spell the end of the country as we know it. The time to start the change (not to force it, nor rush it - but to start, for serious and in earnest) is now, and Harper won't do it because he doesn't believe the problem exists, and he loaths to do anything he doesn't believe in. - two is the electoral reform: to make elections more democratic; to add meaning to the choice; there must be a change in our electoral system that will allow some form of representation for the "lost vote". This is almost impossible, near suicidal task for any majority government. It can only be accomplished by a broad democratic coalition for progress. So, we can vote for progress, which isn't synonimous with voting for Dion, or the Liberals, and make change happen. Supporting Harper would take us away from at least the second goal, even if eventually leading to another Liberal majority. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Jerry J. Fortin Posted October 12, 2008 Report Posted October 12, 2008 Vote for progress? No party is advocating eliminating income taxes. No party is advocating a functional health care system. No party is advocating a filling the holes in the justice system. No party is advocating fixed election dates, electoral recall, and elected senate seats, as in reform government. Just what sort of progress are folks talking about. Those clowns in government look like a daycare centre gone wild when I watch Question Period, so I hold now hope for their suddenly deciding to do anything right. Quote
myata Posted October 12, 2008 Author Report Posted October 12, 2008 Expecting all good things to happen at once would be - so to say, impractical and unrealistic. There must be a way to start, somewhere. I think of the two previously mentioned agendas as maybe the most important ones in our time. One is laying foundations for the future prosperity of the country; the other ensures long term viability of its democracy. It's unlikely that either can be successfully implemented by any one party, whether in majority government or not. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.