Smallc Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 BULL SHITE!..my local rep does not care about my opinion she does not represent my view of canada she will never accept my view ever... Well, you're never going to get a formula that gives every person the representative they want. Our system is designed to create stable, responsible government. I'll take that over fringe voter pipe dreams. Quote
eyeball Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 Except that it isn't a flaw. Our system is about picking representatives and forming stable governments from that. That's not what PR is about. No, PR is about evolving forms of democracy that change with the times. A rigid system that refuses to do so is even more fragile and unstable. It will eventually, break. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Michael Hardner Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 supporters of political parties that benefit from the flawed system never see value in it...similar to how Ghadaffi's supporters see no value in improving their political system to allow an opposition... Hmmm... my distaste for it has nothing to do with my political affiliations. One thing that puts me off, and I suspect puts others off too, is the scale of the hyperbole that's trotted out to support it. Ghaddafi, really. NDP and Green both want PR that accounts for one in five to one in four Canadians...naturally the two leading parties want nothing to do with a electoral system that more accurately reflects their support because they both benefit in the flaws of the current setup... I think the concerns about representation could be better met if the fringe parties did a better job of being popular. If there's concern about NO representation for some parties, such as the Greens, then some amendments could be made to the current system. However, there are other fringe parties (right wing ones for example) that can equally take advantage of any rule changes. Really, though, the hyperbole around this is silly and hypocritical. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
eyeball Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 And a set of stable coalition parties, like we see in Germany, is different in what way? I don't know, I'd have to see a stable coalition of Canadian parties to compare them. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Smallc Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 No, PR is about evolving forms of democracy that change with the times. A rigid system that refuses to do so is even more fragile and unstable. It will eventually, break. Citation needed. Quote
Shady Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 Ghaddafi, really. Exactly. They actually do a huge disservice to their cause with that type of extreme and radical behavior. Quote
ToadBrother Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 I think the concerns about representation could be better met if the fringe parties did a better job of being popular. If there's concern about NO representation for some parties, such as the Greens, then some amendments could be made to the current system. However, there are other fringe parties (right wing ones for example) that can equally take advantage of any rule changes. It's certainly my chief concern. As you say, it's one thing to have a few "second tier" parties like the Greens getting a few seats, but I look at Israel and I can't help but think that the desire for democracy can go too far and you end up with a system that turns everything on its head, and you end up with the lunatics running the asylum. A few seats for the Greens, I can buy it, but granting them the keys to the kingdom to punch far above their weight and effectively deprive the majority of their will in favor of fringe interests, that's counterproductive to my mind. Really, though, the hyperbole around this is silly and hypocritical. It's election time. Everyone actually begins believing their own BS. Quote
eyeball Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 Well, you're never going to get a formula that gives every person the representative they want. Our system is designed to create stable, responsible government. I'll take that over fringe voter pipe dreams. Our system is based on the idea that the public that votes in it is too unstable and irresponsible to be trusted to count. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
ToadBrother Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 Citation needed. No kidding. FPTP has been, in one form or another in use in our system of government for several hundred years. If you only count things after the various reform bills, it still comes out as better than 170 or 180 years, far longer than any major PR electoral system I'm aware of. Our electoral and governmental systems have produced some of the longest periods of uninterrupted constitutional rule in the history of the world Quote
ToadBrother Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 Our system is based on the idea that the public that votes in it is too unstable and irresponsible to be trusted to count. No, it's based on the idea that the first person to get a plurality gets to go to Ottawa. Quote
Bryan Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 Don't exclude yourself from that. A day or two ago you basically dismissed Parliamentary supremacy as a silly, justifiably ignorable anachronism. I do exclude myself from that, emphatically so. My discussion on that matter was specifically about taking the current reality of the make-up of our political landscape more seriously. Quote
ToadBrother Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 (edited) I do exclude myself from that, emphatically so. My discussion on that matter was specifically about taking the current reality of the make-up of our political landscape more seriously. So, because you don't like the current constitution of Parliament, you feel our constitution can be dispensed with by the Government? In it's way, I find it much much worse than some twit going "Harper is like Gaddafi!", because that guy is just being fist-thumping silly, whereas you seem generally to be a more controlled and intelligent person, and yet you basically feel that the key check on the power of the executive in our system is dispensable at the whim of the government, based largely, I would guess on the fact that you don't like the political affiliations of the majority of Parliamentarians. The other guys, they're just being absurd. You're being serious. You should know enough to know that partisan wrangling comes and goes, but our basic constitutional framework, that was bought with blood. Edited April 10, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote
eyeball Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 Citation needed. Why? It's an opinion, supported by the fact that no democracy has lasted more than a couple of centuries. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
ToadBrother Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 Why? It's an opinion, supported by the fact that no democracy has lasted more than a couple of centuries. Representative democracy has only been around for less than 250 years. I'm not sure what you're point is. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 Why? It's an opinion, supported by the fact that no democracy has lasted more than a couple of centuries. ...you forgot to add "and counting". I'd rather keep our system in place as it is, since we have produced a pretty good result with what we have. Also, the "problem" that PR seems to be solving is to stop people from stating these hyperboles about 'no democracy' and so on. Maybe they really think that PR will result in their party winning somehow. That would be delusional, IMO. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
eyeball Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 (edited) Representative democracy has only been around for less than 250 years. I'm not sure what you're point is. It's been evolving for that long you mean. It started by representing only a few rich powerful men then slowly over time included a few poor men and odd group of non land-owning peasants and finally woman and people of certain races. That's how evolution works but there's always the odd bottleneck. Our democracy is in one right now. Edited April 10, 2011 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Smallc Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 Why? It's an opinion, supported by the fact that no democracy has lasted more than a couple of centuries. Our democracy has lasted far longer, actually. Quote
eyeball Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 ...you forgot to add "and counting". The bigger they are the harder they fall. I'd rather keep our system in place as it is, since we have produced a pretty good result with what we have. Also, the "problem" that PR seems to be solving is to stop people from stating these hyperboles about 'no democracy' and so on. I thought it was to encourage them to become more involved with it. Maybe they really think that PR will result in their party winning somehow. That would be delusional, IMO. That's right. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 Our democracy has lasted far longer, actually. As born in it's present form and unchanged ever since? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Michael Hardner Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 I thought it was to encourage them to become more involved with it. . They're involved when they vote, when they volunteer. Getting involved doesn't mean only 'my candidate wins'. Furthermore, involvement is only as good as those getting involved. I don't think the process is necessarily better when more people vote. It is better when more people who care about issues, and inform themselves vote. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
ToadBrother Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 It's been evolving for that long you mean. It started by representing only a few rich powerful men then slowly over time included a few poor men and odd group of non land-owning peasants and finally woman and people of certain races. If you put it like that, it's been around since Tudor times, even longer. That's how evolution works but there's always the odd bottleneck. Our democracy is in one right now. It seems to be functioning quite well, producing stable governments, maintaining a prosperous economic system even as other nations, even other democracies, find themselves in appalling circumstances. Part of my reason for wanting to maintain the minority status quo is precisely because I think the partial paralysis and partisan wrangling has prevented our government from doing something foolish and expensive. Right now, I wouldn't change a thing about our system. Quote
eyeball Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 They're involved when they vote, when they volunteer. Getting involved doesn't mean only 'my candidate wins'. Furthermore, involvement is only as good as those getting involved. I don't think the process is necessarily better when more people vote. It is better when more people who care about issues, and inform themselves vote. What are you saying Michael, that with PR or if Canada was more democratic that more people would be deterred from getting involved? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Scotty Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 It's been evolving for that long you mean. It started by representing only a few rich powerful men then slowly over time included a few poor men and odd group of non land-owning peasants and finally woman and people of certain races. That's how evolution works but there's always the odd bottleneck. Our democracy is in one right now. Yes, but democracy is not an end, but a means to an end. Who's to say that restricting voters to a few thousand land owners wouldn't actually produce a higher quality of government than what we now have? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Michael Hardner Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 What are you saying Michael, that with PR or if Canada was more democratic that more people would be deterred from getting involved? I'm speaking to the general motivation of 'getting people to vote'. By itself, it's not a good motivation IMO. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
eyeball Posted April 10, 2011 Report Posted April 10, 2011 If you put it like that, it's been around since Tudor times, even longer. It seems to be functioning quite well, producing stable governments, maintaining a prosperous economic system even as other nations, even other democracies, find themselves in appalling circumstances. Part of my reason for wanting to maintain the minority status quo is precisely because I think the partial paralysis and partisan wrangling has prevented our government from doing something foolish and expensive. Right now, I wouldn't change a thing about our system. I agree that the partial paralysis has been a boon. I guess I'm just afraid that once lost, the opportunity to maintain or get back to this state of grace will be lost for a long time. Oh well, enjoy the calm while we can I guess. I'll have to regard it as just a happy fluke knowing full well that no vote I've ever cast has contributed anything to it. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
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.