jdobbin Posted June 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 There was no implication of perfection, as can be deduced from "and for worse". Only the commonsense that in a truly democratic system, my democratic choice shoud matter, as it very obviosly does not under the current system. One ignores rational, thinking and freedom at the peril of (eventual) madness and paralysis. Your choice always does matter. But I still haven't seen a system that would make everyone's choice matter in governing. We do not have the freedom to elect NDP or Greens or any other new party into government, period. It's simply not in the cards, out of question, completely and finally, and it is dictated by this majoritary representation system, where a party with 45% would get nearly all, while one with 20% - barely anything. A party cannot jump from 10% popularity to 30 or 40% overnight, and the system is rigged in such way that any new party will be reduced to obscurity from Day 1. Get it folks, finally: this system is made so that only two could ever, theoretically, govern: 1) "Iggy"; 2) "Harper". That is the nature and true spirit of our democracy. Like a two year old, we get to chose between an apple, and banana, banana, and apple, that's all there's. I'm open to hearing about a system where all parties participate in government and isn't a mess of competing causes. I know some people think coalition governments are a superior system but I can't think of a system of government out there that isn't messy. In fact, some of the ideas proposed by people here are often even more unfair or make the system ungovernable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 Rest assured that if the NDP or the Greens ever get 45% of the vote they will form a government. There is simply not enough support for either paof those two parties to form a government for the moment at least. And once that happened (if it happened), their interest in electoral reform would go out the window. Witness: Manitoba. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 And once that happened (if it happened), their interest in electoral reform would go out the window. Witness: Manitoba. Governments are not held accountable under this system so they can promise anything and deliver nothing without consequence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 Governments are not held accountable under this system so they can promise anything and deliver nothing without consequence. This is misleading the Manitoba NDP NEVER promised election reform. They have been the party of power the majority of the time from 1970 on word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 This is misleading the Manitoba NDP NEVER promised election reform. They have been the party of power the majority of the time from 1970 on word. I never said they did. My comment was merely to illustrate that lack of accountability inherent within the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 This is misleading the Manitoba NDP NEVER promised election reform. They have been the party of power the majority of the time from 1970 on word. Never said that they advocated for it. I'm saying they have no interest in it since they would not benefit from it unlike their federal brethren. And you can bet the federal NDP would have no interest in it either if they were in power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 Never said that they advocated for it. I'm saying they have no interest in it since they would not benefit from it unlike their federal brethren. And you can bet the federal NDP would have no interest in it either if they were in power. I have no interest in it. It causes you to have a billion parties and nothing ever gets done. The system we have is fine with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 I have no interest in it. It causes you to have a billion parties and nothing ever gets done. The system we have is fine with me. So you are opposed to the federal NDP's support of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 So you are opposed to the federal NDP's support of it. Yeppers I think it is dumb idea. I don't have to toe the party line to be in the party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) I'm open to hearing about a system where all parties participate in government and isn't a mess of competing causes. Is it really necessary to put (your) thoughts in my mouth? Competing causes are fine with me, and I won't pretend to be dumb half brain to never understand nor care what they are, nor would I find any particular pride in it. I know some people think coalition governments are a superior system but I can't think of a system of government out there that isn't messy. In fact, some of the ideas proposed by people here are often even more unfair or make the system ungovernable. Regarding what gets done and doesn't look at Europe, where a functioning community of some 25 nations has been built over a few decades. That's about as long as we're talking about having a train in Ottawa, always with the same result. The behemoths will circle around the sugarbush for ever promising and blasting each other and in the end nothing would ever be done, because as I already said, doing nothing is the safest thing that can be "done" in this duopoly situation. Yet, our biggest prize is being so "governable". Edited June 22, 2009 by myata Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 Is it really necessary to put (your) thoughts in my mouth? Competing causes are fine with me, and I won't pretend to be dumb half brain to never understand nor care what they are, nor would I find any particular pride in it. Not exactly sure what your conclusion is here. Regarding what gets done and doesn't look at Europe, where a functioning community of some 25 nations has been built over a few decades. Don't know how successful that functioning is. It seems to create just as much dissatisfaction as we have seen in other systems. That's about as long as we're talking about having a train in Ottawa, always with the same result. The behemoths will circle around the sugarbush for ever promising and blasting each other and in the end nothing would ever be done, because as I already said, doing nothing is the safest thing that can be "done" in this duopoly situation. Yet, our biggest prize is being so "governable". Our system has difficulty with minority governments. Having said that, there have been some that have worked fairly well. At the moment, we have all the parties taking polarized positions. That includes the NDP and BQ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 Our system has difficulty with minority governments. Having said that, there have been some that have worked fairly well. At the moment, we have all the parties taking polarized positions. Yet it seems the Liberals are quite willing to go along with this minority, that they so strongly and publicly disagree with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovik Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 I am saying that Layton will have a hard time voting for anything that Harper proposes even if it Harper talks to Layton and introduces legislation with the exact wording Layton wants. I think Layton would find his own party attacks him as they want to vote no to everything the government does even if it puts their party in the toilet.I've often said that Harper would rather fight than govern. Layton would rather oppose than govern. Layton does want meaningful compromise from the Tories. He will reject them even if they offer up the entire NDP platform. I disagree. If the Tories came around and agreed with the NDP on much of their platform, the NDP would definately go for it. I like to know your rationale that the NDP would vote against everything, even things they support. In fact, i believe it would be the Liberals who would vote against anything that might paint the NDP in a good light Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 Not exactly sure what your conclusion is here. The conclusion is that possibility of problmes is not an excuse (rather, only an excuse) for ignoring a much more serious problem going to the root of democracy in fact, the one that my democratic choice could not be meaningfully exercised in the current system. What if I don't want to be led by a nose like Pinoccio, "Iggy" / "Harper", "Harper" / "Iggy" and would want something different instead? Don't know how successful that functioning is. It seems to create just as much dissatisfaction as we have seen in other systems. Something that exists but perhaps isn't functioning perfectly would be lightyears (actually, infinitely) ahead of anything that does not exist because it would be too risky to even try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 Then support independent candidates! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 No, that would be like getting into my nose via neighbour's ear. And it would be beyond the point. Party politics are here to stay, and we need to have a representation system where each vote cast actually and really counts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 No, that would be like getting into my nose via neighbour's ear. And it would be beyond the point. Party politics are here to stay, and we need to have a representation system where each vote cast actually and really counts. Okay then, be happy with what you have. Keep those partisan dollars flowing from the tax paying citizen who now has to fund those elections based upon popular support. You do realize that the previous election dictates how much money each party gets from the government right? That is a subtle yet important point because money is the life blood of politics. Partisan governments have now decided to keep the party alive at the expense of the citizen. That is what your real beef should be, the reforms that reformed things in favour of the politicians instead of the citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 I disagree. If the Tories came around and agreed with the NDP on much of their platform, the NDP would definately go for it. Well, since Layton all precluded any cooperation today, I doubt it. I like to know your rationale that the NDP would vote against everything, even things they support. In fact, i believe it would be the Liberals who would vote against anything that might paint the NDP in a good light I guess I have to go with the NDP voting record and his statement today about not expecting to work with the Tories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 I guess I have to go with the NDP voting record and his statement today about not expecting to work with the Tories. Yep the Tories have never come to the NDP to work with them but they should vote for something so the Liberals don't look so weak. We all know your stance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 What if I don't want to be led by a nose like Pinoccio, "Iggy" / "Harper", "Harper" / "Iggy" and would want something different instead? Then I suggest you vote for someone else. I certainly do in many elections and don't rail that the system isn't working. It is. Something that exists but perhaps isn't functioning perfectly would be lightyears (actually, infinitely) ahead of anything that does not exist because it would be too risky to even try. What you would like to try sounds like Constitutional change. We know from experience what happens when that process begins. It is lightyears worse that what we have now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Yep the Tories have never come to the NDP to work with them but they should vote for something so the Liberals don't look so weak. We all know your stance. We all know your stance as well. The NDP won't support the Tories even if they offer him everything he wants. Layton wants an election and eventually he will get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Yet it seems the Liberals are quite willing to go along with this minority, that they so strongly and publicly disagree with. Think the Liberals went with the majority who don't want an election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Think the Liberals went with the majority who don't want an election. I am going to reply to this so when an election is called it is saved. I promise you when Iggy triggers an election the majority wont want it will you disagree with him then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 I am going to reply to this so when an election is called it is saved. I promise you when Iggy triggers an election the majority wont want it will you disagree with him then? I'll remind you that Layton and Duceppe voted for an election too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 I'll remind you that Layton and Duceppe voted for an election too. Yep we are ready to tell Harper to compromise or get out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.