bush_cheney2004 Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 Name a single country on earth thats easier to run than Canada? Belize. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
j44 Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 Belize. 1. Why Belize? 2. My choices are Luxembourg and The Vatican. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 1. Why Belize? 2. My choices are Luxembourg and The Vatican. Very good choices as well. Clearly, there are many nations easier to "run" than Canada. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
-TSS- Posted March 3, 2012 Author Report Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) 1. Why Belize? 2. My choices are Luxembourg and The Vatican. The Vatican may be small but it is one hell of a snake's nest. Edited March 3, 2012 by -TSS- Quote
Newfoundlander Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 I don't see nothing changing anytime soon. Quote
TheNewTeddy Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 House First. "Add Back" 20% of the seats as PR seats. examples: Ontario. 107 ridings. 20% is 21.4 Thus, 21 Proportional Representation seats. 21+107=128 seats total. Quebec. 75 seats. 20% is 15 Thus, 15 PR seats. 75+15=90 seats total. etc Next, distribute these seats on a Parallel basis. That means if, for example, you have 50 ridings, and thus, 10 PR seats, that you say "screw the 50 ridings" and forget about em. If a party takes 40% of the vote, they get 40% of those PR seats. The ridings don't even come into play in the calculation. Only the PR seats. The threshold would be 5%. Example Ontario Ridings 73C 22N 11L PR seats 10C 6N 5L Total Ontario 83C 28N 16L Quebec Ridings 5C 59N 7L 4B PR seats 3C 8N 2L 4B Total Quebec 8C 66N 9L 8B This system should be used Federally and Provincially. Advantages: Many provincial elections result in the opposition being pound into dust. Alberta and PEI are where this happens most often, but this has happened in Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and Quebec in the past. The opposition being so small makes representation difficult at best. This system would just about guarantee that the opposition always has at least 7% of the seats in the legislature as an absolute minimum. Many federal elections result in regionalised and lob-sided results. The destruction of the PC Party in 1993, or the lack of a single Ontario MP from Reform in 1997, or the lack of a Quebec MP from the 2004 Tories, or the lack of any Liberals from Alberta in many various elections, or the lack of NDPers from Quebec until 2008, etc etc. This system would patch over those regional and lob-sided results by giving a party at least a few seats in almost every province, thus making elections truly competitive in all areas of the country. Unlike proposals for STV, the Alternative Vote, or Mixed-Member Proportional Representation, this system has been designed to keep majorities intact. I've run the numbers many times in the past and the number of elections, federal or provincial, that this system would change a majority into a minority are very small. Remember that many narrow majorities are built with many weak spots of support from across the country, thus wherever you'd lose support in the provinces you've won, you'd gain much if it back in provinces where you did poorly. Lastly, this system is very easy to understand and calculate. Unlike MMP the number of seats won is not taken into account, and thus, you can very easily figure out who is winning the proportional seats. In addition since they are separate, there is not feeling like your vote for a riding candidate does not matter. This is a tried and tested system and has been used in Japan for many years without a problem. Though uncommon, I say it works, and we must use it. === Senate Seat distribution: The 24 seat "West" region would be contracted by 2 provinces, resulting in Alberta and BC being all that is left in that region, and thus, getting 12 seats each. The benefit of this is it does not change the "Regional" balance of the Senate at all, since all you are doing is adjusting regional boundaries. Ideally you'd match this by adding Newfoundland to the Maritime region (and re-naming it the Eastern region) and shuffling the seats so each province out there has 6 seats. I will be talking as though this is done, though I actually support leaving the east as-is since it'd make this easier to pass. Selection: This one is simple http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition Members would be picked by lottery to serve 6 year terms. 6 member provinces would select a new Senator every year 12 member provinces would select 2 new Senators every year. 24 member provinces would select 4 new Senators every year. Senators would be chosen on March 1st and take their seats on April 1st. Vacancies would be filled within a month using the same method. Each province would be required to select... 3, 6, or 12 Males 3, 6, or 12 Females As well as the "groups" 1, 2, or 4 people under the age of 35 1, 2, or 4 visible minorities, including Natives. 1, 2, or 4 "special needs" people, which includes, for example, people with disabilities, handicaps, or even mental illness, but who are still able to conduct themselves. Each March 1st, 10,000 names are drawn, and they will go down the list to find those who qualify. If, for example, a Female's term is ending, the only the Females will be kept on the list of possibilities. If the person retiring from the Senate is from the under 35 group, then another person may need to be picked who is under 35. Why "may"? There's a chance that the random process will pick 2 people from a 6 Senator province who qualifies, and thus, there might not be a need to pick another. The same applies for the other 3 special qualifications. People can reject the appointment and have one week to do so, in which case the next qualified person from the list is asked to serve. This continues until someone is found willing to serve. People who are chosen and accept the appointment are prohibited from running for Federal, Provincial, or Municipal office during the 6 year term. Even if they resign half-way, they can not run for office during those 6 years. People who are chosen and accept can not be re-selected to the Federal Senate, or any Provincial Senates that pop up (and vice versa) The 6 year terms are designed to be long enough to give a person the ability to gain a mastery in their task, and thus, be very efficient at their job. At any one time, only 1/6th of the Senators would have been serving this long, and only 1/6th would be in their first year, making for a distribution that should make things work properly. Powers: The Senate would be given the power to reject a bill and/or hold it up for 180 days. If the Senate rejects the bill or attempts to hold it up for longer, the Prime Minister can call for a joint sitting of both houses where a simple Majority would win the day. Advantages and Emergency Powers, etc: Advantages are pretty clear I think and I don't need to outline it. However, this type of Senate allows us to build a Senate designed to withstand emergencies. For each 6 year cycle, all the 10,000 names picked each time would be stored. If, God forbid, there were to be a terrorist attack that kills all MP's and Senators, the list (maintained by computer in various places) would automatically find the next qualified person for each of the Senate seats. This would make the Senate virtually indestructible, and always guarantee that we have representatives regardless of what happens. Each Territory, since it chooses only 1 Senator, would be unrestricted in who that person is. PEI, if it sticks with 4 Senators, would be unrestricted in who they are as well. NS and NB if they stick with 10, would have to achieve gender equity, but use the "6 Senator" level of "group" members. In the event of a dispute over someone's status in a group (save for aging out of the 35 year old group) or even over their gender, the Senate as a whole can decide. Provincial Senates These would work the same way but the numbers would be adjusted. Large Provinces (ON, QC, BC, AB) A New Senator would be chosen every month to serve 6 year terms. (72 Senators) There would be 36 Males and Females, and 12 from each "group" Medium sized Provinces (MB, SK, NS, NB, NL) Would choose a new Senator every 2nd month (36 senators) Gender equity would therefore be at 18, and there would be 6 from each "group" Small Provinces and Territories (PE, YK, NT, NU) Would chose a new Senator every 3rd month (24 senators) Gender equity at 12, and 4 from each "group" aaaand that's about it! Quote Feel free to contact me outside the forums. Add "TheNewTeddy" to Twitter, Facebook, or Hotmail to reach me!
eyeball Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) I don't see nothing changing anytime soon. Notice we're still paying the HST in BC months and months after giving the government pretty specific orders to scrap it. It doesn't get much more graphic than that. I wonder just how low voter turnout would have to fall before anyone in authority tried to do anything about it? Besides talk about that is. Edited March 3, 2012 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
UofGPolitico Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) I written many papers in university advocating for some type of PR system in this country as I think our strong regionalism coupled with our vast geography warrants it. When most majority governments can get elected with 40% or even less, something is out of whack. PR system would also make coalitions seem much more legitimate (even though they technically are legitimate now) in the eyes of the electorate because they would become necessary. Even though I've been labeled a "tory partisan" by another user on here, I am all for this type of change which would in fact not be beneficial at all to the Conservatives. It would actually render their current party from probably ever forming a government as there is no real ideological partner present. It would force all parties to be open to negotiation. Edited March 3, 2012 by UofGPolitico Quote
Boges Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) The truth is, as much as people bitch about this system, this is the best of a bunch of shitty systems. In 2007 Ontario had an electoral reform referendum My link It was a mixed system where you had your regional representatives and you had extra seats that reflected the popular vote. The motion was defeated by a 63% majority. Not a single area in Ontario came close to supporting it. Edited March 3, 2012 by Boges Quote
Smallc Posted March 4, 2012 Report Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) Canadas system is barely functional. In the last decade we have had nothing but gigantic money wasting scandals, How do you even come to this conclusion? We've had far more than this. We've had years of prosperity and rather successful government, and no, it isn't all about oil. The system that we use has been formed over hundreds of years. It's probably the best in the world. This country is easy to govern because of the system that we have. Edited March 4, 2012 by Smallc Quote
-TSS- Posted March 4, 2012 Author Report Posted March 4, 2012 How do you even come to this conclusion? We've had far more than this. We've had years of prosperity and rather successful government, and no, it isn't all about oil. The system that we use has been formed over hundreds of years. It's probably the best in the world. This country is easy to govern because of the system that we have. Now you are really turning corners, aren't you? Canada may be the best country in the world to live in but that has little or nothing to do with its electoral system. Quote
Smallc Posted March 4, 2012 Report Posted March 4, 2012 Now you are really turning corners, aren't you? Canada may be the best country in the world to live in but that has little or nothing to do with its electoral system. And why would you assume that (and I was speaking far more broadly about Canada's system of government, not just the electoral system)? How do countries become such good places to live, if not through competent management? How does competent management come about? It certainly isn't by accident. Quote
UofGPolitico Posted March 4, 2012 Report Posted March 4, 2012 The truth is, as much as people bitch about this system, this is the best of a bunch of shitty systems. In 2007 Ontario had an electoral reform referendum My link It was a mixed system where you had your regional representatives and you had extra seats that reflected the popular vote. The motion was defeated by a 63% majority. Not a single area in Ontario came close to supporting it. I would argue that is because people were not adequately educated on what exactly the system meant and what its benefits were. That is the common slam against those systems, they are hard to understand. I supported it and was disappointed it was rejected in such a fashion. You'd think the 63% or so of Ontarians who DID NOT support a Rae government would have looked more closely at it Quote
Newfoundlander Posted March 4, 2012 Report Posted March 4, 2012 I would argue that is because people were not adequately educated on what exactly the system meant and what its benefits were. That is the common slam against those systems, they are hard to understand. I supported it and was disappointed it was rejected in such a fashion. You'd think the 63% or so of Ontarians who DID NOT support a Rae government would have looked more closely at it Most major parties aren't going to support electoral reform so they're not going to help the public get educated on the issue. Quote
dre Posted March 4, 2012 Report Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) How do you even come to this conclusion? We've had far more than this. We've had years of prosperity and rather successful government, and no, it isn't all about oil. The system that we use has been formed over hundreds of years. It's probably the best in the world. This country is easy to govern because of the system that we have. We dont have prosperity because of our government. And run some numbers. Without natural resources like timber, oil, gas etc, our economy would be completely hosed. Unemployment would be around 22%. Canadians are prosperous IN SPITE of their government, for exactly the reasons I mentioned. Not because of it. And its getting worse and worse. . Edited March 4, 2012 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted March 4, 2012 Report Posted March 4, 2012 And why would you assume that (and I was speaking far more broadly about Canada's system of government, not just the electoral system)? How do countries become such good places to live, if not through competent management? How does competent management come about? It certainly isn't by accident. Not by accident, by good fortune... and geography. Look at the difference between Canada, and a country in Europe or Asia for example. We have a mountain of natural resources, and an international border with only one country (the US) that boasts the largest consumer market in the world. Lots of countries in the world share borders with 3 or 4 different nations, some of which are openly hostile. North America is the new world. It was still pristine when the rest of the world had been more or less plundered and chalked full of people. Our creation was sponsored by an British empire, and now our economy is sponsored by the American empire. Not to mention this is an incredibly easy country to defend as well. Imagine what we could do if we DID have sound and consistant government management? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Sa'adoni Posted March 4, 2012 Report Posted March 4, 2012 #1 remove all "support" or legal recognition of political parties. If people want to party they can do it unofficially like the old days #2. Make all voting public with people registering their vote openly. #3. require people to vote or say "none" but require everyone to vote who is a citizen. #4. only let the legislators elected suggest laws, make sure every"change" to law is put to referendum. Quote
dre Posted March 4, 2012 Report Posted March 4, 2012 #1 remove all "support" or legal recognition of political parties. If people want to party they can do it unofficially like the old days #2. Make all voting public with people registering their vote openly. #3. require people to vote or say "none" but require everyone to vote who is a citizen. #4. only let the legislators elected suggest laws, make sure every"change" to law is put to referendum. Id love to get rid of political parties or make them much less powerfull. Put me down for an extra large helping of #1. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Sa'adoni Posted March 4, 2012 Report Posted March 4, 2012 Id love to get rid of political parties or make them much less powerfull. Put me down for an extra large helping of #1. Help organize the Social Party we will work to ammend the constitution to implement that. Quote
-TSS- Posted March 4, 2012 Author Report Posted March 4, 2012 How often are the ridings-boundaries redrawn to match the changes in population? Do the redrawings always go undisputed or is there a lot of complaints of unfair boundaries or even gerrymandering? Quote
Topaz Posted March 4, 2012 Report Posted March 4, 2012 One very important item that must to debated is bring voting into the 21 century with technology, but this scares most people because of the fraud that can be created and mostly likely undetected. There MUST be a high price to pay for going so I would think life in prison or kicked out of the country for life isn't high enough. Any software can be hacked and has been so how do we protect voting stations from it? We now have the robocalls now and I don't feel safe by voting by computer until its 100% fail proof. Quote
-TSS- Posted March 4, 2012 Author Report Posted March 4, 2012 There is absolutely no way of guaranteeing that your vote is secret if electronic voting is brought in. There is nothing wrong with the current system of casting a ballot. I don't think that even in Canada a lot of people live somewhere so remote that the nearest polling-station would be so far away that it is just not worth the bothering. Quote
Smallc Posted March 4, 2012 Report Posted March 4, 2012 Canadians are prosperous IN SPITE of their government, for exactly the reasons I mentioned. Not because of it. And its getting worse and worse. That's a very narrow view of things. The number of scandals in Canada has been very small in comparison to most other countries, and resources are only part of our economy. For example, Canada, in the next decade, will pass the UK in financial services. Manufacturing is still a very big industry from Ontario to Manitoba. Most provinces east of Saskatchewan actually don't have a large resource base, and yet, in a world context, they do very well. Every country has advantages and disadvantages. If Germany didn't have the European market to dump into, they'd be in trouble. If the US didn't have a massive population caused by an early boom, they'd be in trouble. If Australia didn't have the massive Chinese market, they'd be in trouble. Saying that only Canada has these advantages is far to narrow. There are few countries in the world that do well in spite of their government. Look at Saudi Arabia. Yes, they have lots of money, but would you say that their people are doing well, really, in comparison to people in this country? The freedoms that developed here were able to happen because of the governing system that we in the Commonwealth developed. Over time, the system has been moulded and shaped into one of the best in the world. Given, that's it's very difficult to accept your position on its face, because I know it's wrong. Canada, overall, has had very good government, especially for the last 20 years. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 4, 2012 Report Posted March 4, 2012 That just isn't true. You're mischaracterizing it on purpose, with ridiculous hyperbole. The real hyperbole was your response to his post. More complaints now than ever. Close to 40,000 compared to the usual 1000 or so complaints they et get every election. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 4, 2012 Report Posted March 4, 2012 One very important item that must to debated is bring voting into the 21 century with technology, but this scares most people because of the fraud that can be created and mostly likely undetected. There MUST be a high price to pay for going so I would think life in prison or kicked out of the country for life isn't high enough. Any software can be hacked and has been so how do we protect voting stations from it? We now have the robocalls now and I don't feel safe by voting by computer until its 100% fail proof. Electronic voting machines are easily tampered with, the documentary Hacking Democracy shows a lot of that. Quote
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.