eyeball Posted November 16, 2012 Report Posted November 16, 2012 Why must it cheer me? He's continuing a process which began with Trudeau, who famously derided MPs as nobodies, 100 feet off Parliament Hill. No, I"m not happy about it, but I'm not a huge fan of Harper anyway. He only shines in comparison to the idiots in the NDP and Liberals. But but but the libruls? Now that's blase. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
wyly Posted November 16, 2012 Report Posted November 16, 2012 The point of federalism is to ensure that regions remain affiliated but mostly self-determining. This is why we have provinces and territories and this is why we have ridings. Without ridings, regional interests are nowhere near as relevant. The riding system ensures that member districts of the federation have a noticeable voice. who is suggesting removing ridings? territories? provinces? Representation by population transfers that power away from electoral districts and instead it centralizes it instead, which is contrary to how federation is supposed to work. If you really need examples of how this would work I can give it to you, but hopefully not. I don't want to write another three paragraphs. it does nothing of the sort, choosing representatives by PR need not alter the federation in any way but make our democracy more inclusive... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Keepitsimple Posted November 16, 2012 Report Posted November 16, 2012 Well - finally, the details from the "trust" survey are in.......and the media have self-confirmed why their trust rating is so low. The ratings for the Trust survey for the Prime Minister were collected on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is "no trust" and 7 is "trust him a lot. If you add up 1 through 4 - it comes to more than 50% of the respondents who don't have a problem with trust. Play with the figures all you like....but the quoted 16% in the media is baloney. http://www.environicsinstitute.org/uploads/institute-projects/environics%20-%20americasbarometer%20canada%202012%20-%20banner%20tables%20-%20june%205-2012.pdf Quote Back to Basics
Fletch 27 Posted November 16, 2012 Report Posted November 16, 2012 And THAT is why the Canadian media/CBC is a complete and utter sham..... No wonder our socialist media ranks only 6 percent in trust Quote
eyeball Posted November 16, 2012 Report Posted November 16, 2012 (edited) How is anyone supposed to know what the results mean when it doesn't even define what answers 2,3,4,5 and 6 in the list are? "A lot" to "Not at all" leaves a lot of room for the imagination does it not? I guess the safest course of action is to just mistrust absolutely everything anyone says including anyone who thinks they have a handle on interpreting this. Edited November 16, 2012 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Fletch 27 Posted November 16, 2012 Report Posted November 16, 2012 Seems pretty easy to read to me! Eyeball,,,, its an "on a scale of 1 to 10 with one being x and 10 being y"..... Just like your doctor asks you.... It's rather simple.... Even kids understand those questions from their doctor. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water here...... Simply because you disagree with the results.... The were a few "disagrees" in the poll.... Not many but........ They were the minority, the left (12 percent of canadians) Quote
eyeball Posted November 16, 2012 Report Posted November 16, 2012 The range between 1 - 10 is equal to that between x and y? How do you get that? Using your formula shouldn't 1 = A and 10 = J? In any case and according to Environics the level of trust for Harper is the 16% they summarized from the top two boxes vs 34% mistrust summarized from the bottom two boxes. Everything in between could mean just about anything. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Moonbox Posted November 16, 2012 Report Posted November 16, 2012 who is suggesting removing ridings? territories? provinces? Nobody said anything even implying removing territories or provinces wyly. As for removing ridings, moving towards a PR system would suggest either removing ridings or at the very least reduce their importance in the House. Either way the strength of the federal system deteriorates in favour of a more central government with more central priorities. For a country as large and diverse as Canada, I'd say that's a bad idea. it does nothing of the sort, choosing representatives by PR need not alter the federation in any way but make our democracy more inclusive... Our democracy is already inclusive. Everyone has a vote. Making sure that there's proportional representation of preferred parties, however, does a couple things. First, it waters down the importance of regional and municipal concerns, and second, it leads to a fractious parliament/house that as often as not decides things by committee. It works for some places, like Norway or Denmark, where geography and demographics are about as homogenous as they can be. In other places, however, it breeds dysfunction and paralysis, particularly in times of crisis. You need only look to Greece or Italy for simple examples, and these are places WITHOUT Canada's geographic and demographic diversity. Also, the fact that Canada, can support 3 major parties and (up until 2011) run 3 consecutive minorities, shows us that our system is hardly the dictatorship people like to proclaim it as. It's already unstable enough, and opening the legislature to whatever focused interest group wants to run and can organize itself would lead not only to political instability, but make it even harder for the government to make the hard and unpopular decisions that often need to be me made. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Fletch 27 Posted November 16, 2012 Report Posted November 16, 2012 Okay, I will slow in the down for you.. "x" (as a variable) could be "no pain" and "y" being "extreme pain" when related to a doctors inquiry. It's a "scale"... Looks to me more like 55-60 percent trust harper to some extent. Quote
Fletch 27 Posted November 16, 2012 Report Posted November 16, 2012 Moonbox, I'm from Denmark and can assure you PR does not work there. Is a massive bone of contention between the average Joe and the in-employed... It does not work Quote
Moonbox Posted November 16, 2012 Report Posted November 16, 2012 How is anyone supposed to know what the results mean when it doesn't even define what answers 2,3,4,5 and 6 in the list are? "A lot" to "Not at all" leaves a lot of room for the imagination does it not? Anyone with even a lick of common sense would be able to view this for the VERY simple survey that it is. On a scale of 1-7, you usually get a range of scaling yes/agree values, a range of scaling no/disagree values, and then a neutral number. Just to be clear eyeball, are you suggesting that they may have designed this survey to mean that numbers 1-6 signify varying degrees of "do not trust" and then 7 signifies "trusts very much" or something silly like that? Come on dude... Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Moonbox Posted November 16, 2012 Report Posted November 16, 2012 Moonbox, I'm from Denmark and can assure you PR does not work there. Is a massive bone of contention between the average Joe and the in-employed... It does not work I'm judging more based on the fact that Denmark seems to be a successful state that has proportional representation. I make no claim as to whether PR makes it better or worse, simply that it doesn't appear to be a den of fools like other PR countries are like PIIGS. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
eyeball Posted November 16, 2012 Report Posted November 16, 2012 (edited) Anyone with even a lick of common sense would be able to view this for the VERY simple survey that it is. On a scale of 1-7, you usually get a range of scaling yes/agree values, a range of scaling no/disagree values, and then a neutral number. Just to be clear eyeball, are you suggesting that they may have designed this survey to mean that numbers 1-6 signify varying degrees of "do not trust" and then 7 signifies "trusts very much" or something silly like that? Come on dude... No, I've actually been testing your common sense. I'm suggesting your interpretation of the poll's results can be ignored since the people who conducted the poll did that already and concluded, as the media reported after all, that only 16% of Canadians trust Harper which as far as leaders go is a level apparently amongst the lowest of the low in all the America's. Were you implying that this poll is actually something Harper could be proud of and that a bigger percentage of Canadians than voted for him, 50% you said, actually trust him? In your dreams maybe. Edited November 16, 2012 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Moonbox Posted November 16, 2012 Report Posted November 16, 2012 I'm saying that you've once again failed to actually think about what's being discussed. The link in the OP said only 16% of Canadians place "a LOT of trust" in Stephen Harper. That doesn't mean that 84% of Canadians don't trust him. This is what the media is trying to present to us, and it's hilarious (and unsurprising) that you swallowed it up. If the question is given a scale of 1-7 indicating various levels of trust in the Prime Minister, you have to assume that people voted all over the place showing varying degrees of trust or distrust. You can't just pull out the numbers at the very end of the spectrum and say, "Only 16% of people trust him". Use your freaking head. If the Globe and Mail did an exit poll of people leaving a movie theatre, and they asked viewers to rate the movie 1-5 (5 being excellent), if only 25% of people said the movie was excellent, would that mean that 75% didn't like it!?! In your funny little world...maybe. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
eyeball Posted November 17, 2012 Report Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) I'm saying that you've once again failed to actually think about what's being discussed. The link in the OP said only 16% of Canadians place "a LOT of trust" in Stephen Harper. That doesn't mean that 84% of Canadians don't trust him. This is what the media is trying to present to us, and it's hilarious (and unsurprising) that you swallowed it up. Actually it was the pollster who presented that finding. The media simply reported what the pollster said. I guess it's just a coincidence that my own experience with Harper's veracity resonates with people at the opposite end of the trust spectrum. In any case, the finding that Harper is amongst the lowest of the low out of 26 other countries makes it easier to accept that Harper has and is a problem. If the question is given a scale of 1-7 indicating various levels of trust in the Prime Minister, you have to assume that people voted all over the place showing varying degrees of trust or distrust. You can't just pull out the numbers at the very end of the spectrum and say, "Only 16% of people trust him". Then why did the pollster do that at the top of the spectrum? Use your freaking head. If the Globe and Mail did an exit poll of people leaving a movie theatre, and they asked viewers to rate the movie 1-5 (5 being excellent), if only 25% of people said the movie was excellent, would that mean that 75% didn't like it!?! In your funny little world...maybe. In the absence of any further fleshing out by the G&M I'd say it would simply mean 75% didn't think it was excellent. Edited November 17, 2012 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Keepitsimple Posted November 17, 2012 Report Posted November 17, 2012 Didn't think there'd be THAT much confusion over the rating 1 to 7 - although it would have been nice of Environics to provide their view - and not just pre-release the top two. So here - on 1-7, guess what's in the middle - that's right - 4. If 1 is don't trust at all and 7 is trust a lot...that could mean "neither trust - or mis-trust". In reality though most Canadians, when presented with a range of numbers for a multitude of questions - would pick a number somewhere in the middle. So....there's a lot of Canadians who don't really have any problem with trusting Harper. It was a stupid idea to just use the top two and bottom two - knowing the reality of choosing middle numbers and the fact that partisans who don't have "their man" in power will reflexively choose a very low score. Quote Back to Basics
eyeball Posted November 17, 2012 Report Posted November 17, 2012 Where does the assertion that Canadians will chose a result in the middle when presented with a range of them originate and how is it that this assertion leads to the seemingly reflexive assumption that whatever it means it's more positive than negative? If you can't conclude anything concrete about the result in the middle it should be ignored which yields 36% trust, a somewhat coincidental number, vs 45% mistrust. Of course there's also the pollster stating their findings reveal Canadian's feelings of trust towards their leader are amongst the lowest amongst 26 other countries in the general neighbourhood. Perhaps it would help if we had the results of surveys from other countries so we could see where the answers fell in the range of options presented there. Are people in other countries less unequivocal about their trust due to cultural or ideological differences? There must be more to why Environics is presenting this conclusion than meets our eye here. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Moonbox Posted November 17, 2012 Report Posted November 17, 2012 Actually it was the pollster who presented that finding. The media simply reported what the pollster said. I guess it's just a coincidence that my own experience with Harper's veracity resonates with people at the opposite end of the trust spectrum. Did you read the survey or the results? I'm guessing no. What the pollster said was that Harper had the lowest percentage of people who trust him "a lot". Considering that his comparison is the USA, which has zealous black or white politics, and crap holes like Mexico and South America, I'd question what that's worth. It's also interesting how little interest your showing in the rest of the results. You didn't read the survey, but you love the vapid conclusion that was presented. In any case, the finding that Harper is amongst the lowest of the low out of 26 other countries makes it easier to accept that Harper has and is a problem. His rating was higher than Canada's political parties. What does that tell you? Think eyeball. Think. Perhaps Canadians, in general, are getting very cynical about their politicians? Then why did the pollster do that at the top of the spectrum? Because it was a stand-out fact that was easily compared to the rest of the Americas. Harper had the lowest percentage of people that 'trusted him a lot'. Compared to the rest of the Americas, this is a bit concerning, right? Compared to Canada's political parties, however, Harper looks pretty good, because only 10% place a lot of trust in them. What does that tell you?? In the absence of any further fleshing out by the G&M I'd say it would simply mean 75% didn't think it was excellent. Very good! Use that same logic with this! Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Argus Posted November 17, 2012 Report Posted November 17, 2012 But but but the libruls? Now that's blase. No, that's evaluating the available options for leaders and deciding that Harper far outstrips the alternatives. In other words, judgement. You should see if you can get hold of some somewhere. 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, 2012 Report Posted November 17, 2012 The range between 1 - 10 is equal to that between x and y? How do you get that? Using your formula shouldn't 1 = A and 10 = J? In any case and according to Environics the level of trust for Harper is the 16% they summarized from the top two boxes vs 34% mistrust summarized from the bottom two boxes. Everything in between could mean just about anything. All this poll reveals is the degree of partisanship in Canada. There was a time, back during the early Trudeau years, when politics weren't quite so partisan. Same as the US. You might vote for a liberal but you still respected the conservative, and vice versa. Now politics has degenerated to the point where one side portrays the other as the next thing to evil, so of course, if your side loses, you have no trust in the 'evil' winner. 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
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.