grogy Posted November 17, 2011 Report Posted November 17, 2011 Which, strangely enough is pretty much exactly what we have in Harper's gang. You like saying things like that, why don't you explain? I don't remember any of these complaints when the libs were getting majorities without a 'real' majority, strange that. Quote
eyeball Posted November 17, 2011 Report Posted November 17, 2011 You like saying things like that, why don't you explain? I did, in post #4. I don't remember any of these complaints when the libs were getting majorities without a 'real' majority, strange that. You don't? That is strange. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted November 17, 2011 Report Posted November 17, 2011 I don't think justice = heavier punishment for those who smoke marijuana than those who are pedophiles The heavier punishment is for those who grow pot. I recall seeing a study last month which showed the majority of those arrested for growing pot, even those with grow ops and hundreds of plants, served no time. As for pedophiles, pedophilia is a clinically diagnosed mental illness. I don't think you can imprison people for that. On the other hand, if you download kid porn you can go to jail for ten years. So it's not like they're going lightly on those who act up. 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
Argus Posted November 17, 2011 Report Posted November 17, 2011 that's what you get with our fucked up FPTP electoral system, oppression by the wacko minority... Much better to have the kinds of multi party systems the Isrealis and Greeks and Italians have, eh? 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
Argus Posted November 17, 2011 Report Posted November 17, 2011 so a few countries using pr have issues with finances so automatically all eu countries with pr have the same problems?... What the countries with PR share is extreme difficulty in making decisions, especially making the kinds of hard choices where someone benefits and someone loses. The reason the European financial mess has gone on so long as it has is because of the extreme weakness of their political systems in confronting serious issues with resolute decisions. Instead they keep making little decisions, incremental decisions, because those are all the various legislatures can come to any agreement on. 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
Argus Posted November 17, 2011 Report Posted November 17, 2011 No, I want Conservative voters to take responsibility for the monster they've created. If it ever shows up I'll have a look-see. So far, no monster. 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
wyly Posted November 17, 2011 Report Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) Ok... and how about everybody gets to vote directly ? if that was the choice I couldn't argue against if that's the democratic will of the people...it's would work well with smaller populations but awkward in a large country....but that deflects form from my point of every vote having equal value and fair representation..The thing about this strawman is that I'm not advocating to change the system - you are. And I'm saying if you want more talking, negotiating and shoe-staring... then we have to redo the entire system to support that as well.it would change the operating procedure of the HOC in the least other than bring in sincere efforts for consensus...If I lived in Alberta, I don't think I would feel differently about things.but without living here that's a hypothetical claim you can't make...imagine a lifetime of having no representation in ottawa after 10, 20, 30 or 40, 50 yrs would you even bother to vote?.. Edited November 17, 2011 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Evening Star Posted November 17, 2011 Report Posted November 17, 2011 Well, unfortunately, while I see the appeal of minorities, they do lead to problems with decision making, quick action, and long term planning. Maybe... I'd probably say that Pearson's two minorities (especially the second) were some of the most activist and effective governments in our postwar history, especially compared to some of Chretien's majorities (past the first term, especially). Quote
blueblood Posted November 17, 2011 Report Posted November 17, 2011 Maybe... I'd probably say that Pearson's two minorities (especially the second) were some of the most activist and effective governments in our postwar history, especially compared to some of Chretien's majorities (past the first term, especially). And that's when we awoken the debt monster, he'll that thing is still kicking around 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
Evening Star Posted November 17, 2011 Report Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) And that's when we awoken the debt monster, he'll that thing is still kicking around Well, really, it really grew under PET's majorities iirc. Still, there was plenty of quick action and decision-making in that period, right? Edited November 17, 2011 by Evening Star Quote
wyly Posted November 17, 2011 Report Posted November 17, 2011 The problem with pure PR is that it become nearly impossible to move forward. There is such thing as too much debate. If the system is completely inflexible, nothing will be accomplished. A balance needs to be struck between the more appropriate representation of PR and the legislative pragmatism of FPTP. no that's not true...PR is as flexible as FPTP, it's the inflexibility of those taking part in the debate that cause stalemates not how they chosen...how representatives are chosen has no bearing on consensus, a minority whether chosen by PR or FPTP have the same issues, a true majority chosen by PR has more legitimacy than a phoney majority attained by FPTP... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Michael Hardner Posted November 17, 2011 Report Posted November 17, 2011 if that was the choice I couldn't argue against if that's the democratic will of the people...it's would work well with smaller populations but awkward in a large country....but that deflects form from my point of every vote having equal value and fair representation.. No it doesn't - in order to enact 100% fairness, you could only have direct democracy. Every other solution subjects a minority to less power in the government. it would change the operating procedure of the HOC in the least other than bring in sincere efforts for consensus... Yes, indeed so. I'd like to see some of these proposals. It might make me reconsider my non-support for PR. but without living here that's a hypothetical claim you can't make...imagine a lifetime of having no representation in ottawa after 10, 20, 30 or 40, 50 yrs would you even bother to vote?.. There's a few fallacies in that argument. We've heard the 'no representation' thing before, and it's not a true characterization of the purpose of representative democracy. You are represented by your local member whether you voted for him/her or not. Secondly, there's some idea that FPTP is somehow behind the declining voter participation, and that PR would reverse the trend. I haven't seen anything to convince me that that is the case. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Rick Posted November 17, 2011 Report Posted November 17, 2011 You are represented by your local member whether you voted for him/her or not.Not always the case though when the big party whip gets cracked and he/she are made to vote along party lines... Quote “This is all about who you represent,” Mr. Dewar (NDP) said. “We’re (NDP) talking about representing the interests of working people and everyday Canadians and they [the Conservatives] are about representing the fund managers who come in and fleece our companies and our country. Voted Maple Leaf Web's 'Most Outstanding Poster' 2011
wyly Posted November 17, 2011 Report Posted November 17, 2011 Minorities are generally less stable, and because PR leads to nearly continuous minorities, it leads to issues, including overspending. over spending?...you mean like the majorities of the trudeau liberals and the mulroney conservatives?....your logic is faulty, deficits are more likely with majority governments as there is zero control of excess spending...billions for prisons we don't need, sure...35 billion for new ships, no problem...billions more for wonder planes, hey ya!...all done with lip service to honest debate, majorities are a rubber stamp parliament, debate and consensus and second thought are ignored...and when exactly did instability of governments become democratic trait to be avoided?...it's a characteristic that's at the very heart of democracy, it ensures dialogue and consensus...those representatives who are unable to work in a democratic manner who should be avoided not the the democratic procedure...interesting how conservative prefer less democracy than those on the left... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Michael Hardner Posted November 17, 2011 Report Posted November 17, 2011 over spending?...you mean like the majorities of the trudeau liberals and the mulroney conservatives?....your logic is faulty, deficits are more likely with majority governments as there is zero control of excess spending... Hmmm... maybe a better measure would be to look at governments that made unpopular but necessary decisions ? Deficits were the norm in the Trudeau era. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
wyly Posted November 17, 2011 Report Posted November 17, 2011 We've heard the 'no representation' thing before, and it's not a true characterization of the purpose of representative democracy. You are represented by your local member whether you voted for him/her or not. well that's an idealistic view of humanity that's unrealistic...my MP will not give damn that I agree with the government elimination of the gun registration or anything else because that's all dictated by the PMO...my voice/opinion will be ignored as will that of 33%/1.4 million albertans...Secondly, there's some idea that FPTP is somehow behind the declining voter participation, and that PR would reverse the trend. I haven't seen anything to convince me that that is the case.really it's one of the most common reasons I've heard in my life for not voting, "my vote doesn't matter, so why bother"... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Smallc Posted November 17, 2011 Report Posted November 17, 2011 over spending?...you mean like the majorities of the trudeau liberals and the mulroney conservatives?. Do you know how fast spending increased in the last bring of minorities? Far faster than it has so far under this majority, and the majorities that came before. Minorities lead to difficulty in decision making. Difficulties in decision making often lead to massive, expensive concessions, and still no decisions. Quote
wyly Posted November 17, 2011 Report Posted November 17, 2011 Yeah, but little parties that just can't attract enough votes to get into power LOVE PR and referendums! It means they get a chance to stand in front of a microphone in the Commons and act like they're more important than they actually are! so democracy is a bad thing? we should avoid representing all segments that don't agree with popular opinion? silence minority opinion? In a real Italian style PR "pizza parliament" such small parties with more limited public support can force large parties to make deals with them, even though such deals subvert the will of the majority. that italian (pizza)PR system is the essence of democracy...that any government needs to compromise with others who hold a different opinion is what democracy is all about that's how it's supposed to work...if the largest party needs support from smaller parties to pass legislation then obviously they did not have a majority otherwise they would have no need for their support, it's only when they have support of smaller parties they have a true majority... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted November 17, 2011 Report Posted November 17, 2011 Do you know how fast spending increased in the last bring of minorities? Far faster than it has so far under this majority, and the majorities that came before. Minorities lead to difficulty in decision making. Difficulties in decision making often lead to massive, expensive concessions, and still no decisions. your entire line of logic for opposing PR is a red herring, examples for poor government can be made for every political system, it's not the system chosen that's at fault it's those who govern, even an absolute dictatorship can be awesome or ruinous for a country depending on the dictator... but that's it's all irrelevant, the issue is fair democratic representation not success or failure of any particular governing party... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Smallc Posted November 17, 2011 Report Posted November 17, 2011 . but that's it's all irrelevant, the issue is fair democratic representation not success or failure of any particular governing party... So a system that doesn't work as well is better because it gives more people a bigger voice (sometimes)? I disagree. BTW, it isn't really my argument that PR leads to spending and deadlock. It's been put forward by many political experts. Our system has worked well for hundreds of years, and you want to rip it up for one that is far less proven. No thanks. Quote
wyly Posted November 17, 2011 Report Posted November 17, 2011 So a system that doesn't work as well is better because it gives more people a bigger voice (sometimes)? I disagree. there's absolutely no logic in that statement...a minority government whether chosen by PR or FPTP operate exactly the same...compromise in minority governments is always dependent on those taking part not how they are chosen to take part... passing legislation is always dependent on gaining support from smaller parties through negotiation...a majority chosen by either method operate the same as well, the difference being a FPTP majority is more likely to be a phoney majority, very undemocratic BTW, it isn't really my argument that PR leads to spending and deadlock. It's been put forward by many political experts. really? USA is the very definition of political gridlock...Our system has worked well for hundreds of years, and you want to rip it up for one that is far less proven. No thanks. absolute dictatorship worked well for thousands of years do you have issues with ripping that system up for something better?... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Smallc Posted November 17, 2011 Report Posted November 17, 2011 there's absolutely no logic in that statement...a minority government whether chosen by PR or FPTP operate exactly the same...compromise in minority governments is always dependent on those taking part not how they are chosen to take part... passing legislation is always dependent on gaining support from smaller parties through negotiation And so you have to give those parties something to get their vote, and as a result, the fringe becomes the norm. It isn't at all desirable. . ..a majority chosen by either method operate the same as well, the difference being a FPTP majority is more likely to be a phoney majority, very undemocratic A FPTP isn't at all undemocratic. You just don't like it. really? USA is the very definition of political gridlock... And in many ways, they've been in an almost constant minority situation. absolute dictatorship worked well for thousands of years do you have issues with ripping that system up for something better?... That isn't even worth a response. Like I've said before, democracy isn't an end unto itself. Quote
jacee Posted November 17, 2011 Author Report Posted November 17, 2011 CHALLENGE !!! As for pedophiles, pedophilia is a clinically diagnosed mental illness. I don't think you can imprison people for that. Good grief Argus ... you don't actually believe that do you?!? If you are referring to the 'insanity' defence ... you are waaaaay wrong. That defence is reserved for those whose 'mental illness' renders them delusional ('The voices made me do it.'), psychotic, mentally handicapped, etc, to the point that they cannot distinguish right and wrong. Pedophiles are fully aware that what they are doing is wrong - Eg they groom kids carefully and avoid detection. Pedophiles don't get to claim 'insanity'. They go to jail ... and should be there a helluva LOT longer than someone growing a few pot plants. You need to rethink your understanding of 'insanity' as it applies to crime, because you are waaaaay off base here. Quote
Smallc Posted November 17, 2011 Report Posted November 17, 2011 If you are referring to the 'insanity' defence ... you are waaaaay wrong. No, you're wrong. There are significant differences in the brains of pedophiles, and it has been theorized that many can't help themselves. Quote
wyly Posted November 17, 2011 Report Posted November 17, 2011 And so you have to give those parties something to get their vote, and as a result, the fringe becomes the norm. It isn't at all desirable.the same happens within each caucus now, the looney fundy right in the CPC is the norm and wags the bigger dog, is that desirable? in a PR system the deal making is out in the open and we know who they are and where everyone stands, there is no hiding in the backbenches of the CPC...A FPTP isn't at all undemocratic. You just don't like it.neither is one party state there are a democratic procedure within the party...you advocate for a less democratic FPTP system that is closer to a one party state than a PR form of democracy...And in many ways, they've been in an almost constant minority situation. and that's not the fault of the system but the stubbornness of the people in it, therefore the fault of the electorate in choosing ideologues that refuse to negotiate in good faith to reach a consensus...once again you attempt deflect the from the issue and move the goalposts from democracy to efficiency,either deliberately disingenuous or you don't understand the concept of democracy...That isn't even worth a response. Like I've said before, democracy isn't an end unto itself. not worth a response or you have no answer when own logic is turned against you?....in the end democracy is what matters most millions have died for it, and you want to limit it... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
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.