TimG Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 You're reaching with that answer... the party in power hasn't shifted radically at all.I agree it is bad for Alberta to have the same party in power. But the choice at the last election was right wing or more right wing so the fact that right wing governments get elected is a reflection of the democratic will of the people in Alberta. Quote
g_bambino Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 You don't have a trademark on the meaning of the word democracy. There is no such thing a 'true' democracy for states. Thank you. It is all he has. Evidently... no you don't understand democracy that's apparent...governments fall because of a lack of consensus/confidence that's what they're supposed to happen in a democracy, just as governments do in FPTP systems when they don't have a majority and refuse to seek a consensus of the majority(or in our present situation a phoney majority)...a crisis in any democratic country should trigger the government to fall when there is a loss of consensus... I only don't understand democracy if you alone get to determine what democracy is..... You don't. Nobody mentioned the fall of governments until you did; another straw man. I've pointed out to you a number of times the difficulty there is in Greece with forming a government. Quote
g_bambino Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) In that case...Alberta's no longer a democracy. Then perhaps what he should've said was: To be a democracy, there must be a regular oppportunity to change governments. [ed.: punct.] Edited May 17, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
wyly Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 Maybe if we could vote in the actual ministers instead of voting for parties, then that would help. Then I could vote for a minister of defense who campaigned on buying the planes, but a minister of justice with a rational policy on drugs. I've considered the same, in an ideal system each party could put their best candidates for each position and we could vote for them individually, so the Minister of Defense must have the educational credentials and experience to qualify him for that position, the Minister of Finance should have a finance background, Justice a lawyer, Health an MD...not sure how practical that idea is however, it could work in a PR system but not in a FPTP system... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
TimG Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 not sure how practical that idea is however, it could work in a PR system but not in a FPTP system...Not practical at all since the budgets for departments are set by the finance ministry. Quote
g_bambino Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 Maybe if we could vote in the actual ministers instead of voting for parties, then that would help. That would make them no longer responsible to the House of Commons. We'd be stuck with Cabinet as constituted until the next election. Not an improvement, in my opinion. Quote
wyly Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 I only don't understand democracy if you alone get to determine what democracy is..... You don't. yup I do, and no you don't...the further you move from direct democracy the less democratic you become...democracy requires consensus/compromise which results in unity (of at least an honest majority)... Nobody mentioned the fall of governments until you did; another straw man. I've pointed out to you a number of times the difficulty there is in Greece with forming a government.and I've pointed out they had fewer governments than Canada in the last 10 years so apparently they have less problems reaching a workable consensus and forming government than we do... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 That would make them no longer responsible to the House of Commons. We'd be stuck with Cabinet as constituted until the next election. Not an improvement, in my opinion. it could be done within a PR system, each party would name it's candidates even alternates for each position and could vote for each accordingly...messy, not sure if it is practical... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 Not practical at all since the budgets for departments are set by the finance ministry. probably not I struggle with coming up with a process that would work...the best I can can come up with is all MP's have a minimum educational standard to sit in parliament...treat Parliament like any other job that requires applicants have proper training to do the job... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
TimG Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) yup I do, and no you don't...the further you move from direct democracy the less democratic you become...Nothing but your opinion. The original "democracy" only allowed land owning men to vote. That is hardly democratic as far as we are concerned but it worked at the time. Democracy is a philosophy of governance - it is NOT a specific system. The nature of the system is up to the people being governed and you can only talk of pros and cons of each system and there is no 'ideal' democracy that we need to strive for. We need a system that produces good governance and produces results which are accepted by the voters (i.e. they obey the laws passed by the elected government). Edited May 17, 2012 by TimG Quote
wyly Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 Then perhaps what he should've said was: To be a democracy, there must be a regular oppportunity to change governments. [ed.: punct.] I don't require a change of government to be a legitimate democracy, I require proper/fair representation...if the largest percentage of the population votes conservative for a hundred years I'd be okay as long as I had a vote that counted and someone who represented my viewpoint...in Alberta there is one left of center rep which in no way comes no where close to representing the number of center and left of center voters in the province so about 1.4million people have no voice that represents them... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 Nothing but your opinion. The original "democracy" only allowed land owning men to vote. That is hardly democratic as far as we are concerned but it worked at the time. Democracy is a philosophy of governance - it is NOT a specific system. The nature of the system is up to the people being governed and you can only talk of pros and cons of each system and there is no 'ideal' democracy that we need to strive for. We need a system that produces good governance and produces results which are accepted by the voters (i.e. they obey the laws passed by the elected government). no that's a ethnocentric bias, greece didn't invent democracy... democracy is far older than state governments it's part of primitive hunter gather society...it's way cooler to relate to sophisticated greek culture than half naked savages... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
TimG Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 democracy is far older than state governments it's part of primitive hunter gather societyWe are talking about how to govern *states*. How people governed themselves when they lived in small groups is rather immaterial because the problems that we are concerned about are not an issue in small groups. Quote
g_bambino Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) yup I do, and no you don't... Ooooooooookaay..... I don't require a change of government to be a legitimate democracy, I require proper/fair representation... If that's the kind of democracy you want to be, good for you. [ed.: +] Edited May 17, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
Smallc Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 the best I can can come up with is all MP's have a minimum educational standard to sit in parliament Then go find some better ideas, because if I've ever seen an example of elitism, that's it. Quote
g_bambino Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 it could be done within a PR system, each party would name it's candidates even alternates for each position and could vote for each accordingly...messy, not sure if it is practical... Of course it could be done. That doesn't in any way mean it would be a good idea. Quote
wyly Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 Then go find some better ideas, because if I've ever seen an example of elitism, that's it. is it elitism to require your surgeon to have the required medical education? is it elitism for an electrician wiring your home to be a qualified electrician? is it elitism to require a bus driver have a drivers license? is it elitism to require a pilot pass all their flight tests and qualifications? is it elitism for shareholders to demand Corporate CEO to have the proper financial background? I'll guess the answer is no for all of those...but yet somehow it's okay for someone who may have no practical relevant educational and no administrative experience to run a country of 33 million ... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) Of course it could be done. That doesn't in any way mean it would be a good idea. ya like it would be so much better putting someone into a position they have no qualification for... Edited May 17, 2012 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Smallc Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) I'll guess the answer is no for all of those...but yet somehow it's okay for someone who may have no practical relevant educational and no administrative experience to run a country of 33 million ... Your comparisons are irrelevant. The government has hand advisors, experts in their respective fields from which to draw on sector or portfolio specific knowledge. If your idea of a democracy is one where all people do not have the opportunity to participate equally, then it isn't much of a democracy at all. People from all walks of life must have the opportunity to take part. I have very little formal education beyond high school (some university, and a college certificate), yet, I don't think most people on this forum would say that I was uninformed. It isn't as simple when it comes to governance and democracy as it is when it comes to credentials in medicine. Edited May 17, 2012 by Smallc Quote
wyly Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 We are talking about how to govern *states*. How people governed themselves when they lived in small groups is rather immaterial because the problems that we are concerned about are not an issue in small groups. concerns like food, shelter, safety, social well being of the group, oh ya we're so different...democracy was lost with "states", individuals gave up freedoms to an ruling elite in exchange for food, shelter, safety and social well being, the greeks only reclaimed part of what was lost... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Smallc Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 democracy was lost with "states", individuals gave up freedoms to an ruling elite An what you're proposing would do away with what you claim we have, how? Quote
g_bambino Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 ya like it would be so much better putting someone into a position they have no qualification for... Like I said anything about qualifications. Quote
wyly Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 Your comparisons are irrelevant. na they're relevant they're just inconvenient for your argument... The government has hand advisors, experts in their respective fields from which to draw on sector or portfolio specific knowledge. as our current government demonstrates it pays no attention to experts unless they are their experts, they're driven by ideology not relevant expertise...If your idea of a democracy is one where all people do not have the opportunity to participate equally, then it isn't much of a democracy at all. People from all walks of life must have the opportunity to take part. everyone would have equal opportunity to qualify...hey maybe I should become a commercial pilot I wanna participate!!!I have very little formal education beyond high school (some university, and a college certificate), yet, I don't think most people on this forum would say that I was uninformed. It isn't as simple when it comes to governance and democracy as it is when it comes to credentials in medicine.oh ya running a country of millions is sooo much simpler than medicine....history is littered with 100's of millions of dead because of failed leaderships, leaders who had zero qualifications to run their states.... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Smallc Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 na they're relevant they're just inconvenient for your argument... No, they're irrelevant....unless you think that absolute monarchy is a good idea. We don't have professional legislators. There is no such thing. Most of the people in high cabinet positions though, have a background to allow them to be there. as our current government demonstrates it pays no attention to experts unless they are their experts, they're driven by ideology not relevant expertise... Except that isn't true. Every government pays attention to experts, and makes decisions (as they should) based on a variety of factors after that. everyone would have equal opportunity to qualify...hey maybe I should become a commercial pilot I wanna participate!!! That, again, is an irrelevant comparison. oh ya running a country of millions is sooo much simpler than medicine....history is littered with 100's of millions of dead because of failed leaderships, leaders who had zero qualifications to run their states.... Not from our system of government, it isn't. Quote
g_bambino Posted May 18, 2012 Report Posted May 18, 2012 democracy was lost with "states", individuals gave up freedoms to an ruling elite in exchange for food, shelter, safety and social well being... That's pretty much all human societies. 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.