Wynne Open to allowing Non-Citizens to vote

[guyser]

No Michael, I feel it is YOU who doesn't get it!

Go ahead and lecture the "hinterlands" about what you feel is the true state of affairs. They will not believe you!

. It doesn't matter if you have an iron clad argument. You are not going to change their minds by lecturing them.

I'm too old and fat to go tilting at windmills.

So in essence, the 'hinterland' folk wish to believe in falsehoods , that being they are paying for TO versus the other way around? Probably true, stupid, but no real surprise,

Sad really. The rest of the province should be rather thankful TO is here to help with their infrastructure

As for voting, I really have never seen an argument against all those of legal voting age allowed to do so.

Hell, some guy living in Hearst can vote in the TO elections, as long as he owns land here. Might as well open to all those who are affected daily.

[Michael Hardner]

The attitude of the populace outside of Toronto is a fact of life and something with which any politicians or government in Queens Park must deal. It doesn't matter if you have an iron clad argument. You are not going to change their minds by lecturing them.

So you're saying people outside of Toronto live in denial, or ... don't accept facts. I guess you're right, then, we won't change their minds, or maybe even yours.

You said: "This is not a concern unless they bleed more tax money from the rest of us. I would support Toronto becoming independent and no longer financially tied to our provincial or federal governments."

Keep on repeating the error that the countryside bails out the city, then, as I can't change the mind who people who prefer to hold on to incorrect information...

[Michael Hardner]

So in essence, the 'hinterland' folk wish to believe in falsehoods , that being they are paying for TO versus the other way around? Probably true, stupid, but no real surprise,

Sad really. The rest of the province should be rather thankful TO is here to help with their infrastructure

As for voting, I really have never seen an argument against all those of legal voting age allowed to do so.

Hell, some guy living in Hearst can vote in the TO elections, as long as he owns land here. Might as well open to all those who are affected daily.

Our posts crossed !

[Wild Bill]

So you're saying people outside of Toronto live in denial, or ... don't accept facts. I guess you're right, then, we won't change their minds, or maybe even yours.

You said: "This is not a concern unless they bleed more tax money from the rest of us. I would support Toronto becoming independent and no longer financially tied to our provincial or federal governments."

Keep on repeating the error that the countryside bails out the city, then, as I can't change the mind who people who prefer to hold on to incorrect information...

Michael, politics deals with pubic perception. If someone can't handle that concept, they would be useless as a campaign manager in an election.

People rarely deal with truth. If they did, advertising agencies would starve!

Also, the idea of Toronto being the breadwinner for the province is a matter of opinion, not necessarily fact. People will not accept it simply because YOU say it!

If that were not so, all the pages posted here at MLW would never have been written.

Consider, a man in Owen Sound is reading his morning paper. He notes an article that says in Toronto pieces of the Gardiner Expressway are falling onto cars passing below. The next day, he reads that money for maintenance was budgeted 10 years earlier, but has mysteriously disappeared.

This actually is true, by the way!

The next day, he reads that Toronto Council is demanding that McWinty give them more money. What impression would you expect them to have?

Now, you might be quite correct that economics says that supporting Toronto is in the best interest of the rest of the province but our Owen Sound reader is not likely to believe it.

I have travelled all through Ontario and visited many, many of the small towns. I've talked with the people in them and chat with many here on the Net most every day. I believe MY perception of THEIR perceptions to be true. Not universal for every such citizen but certainly a large and significant number.

Few people think deeply on such topics. Look at many of the threads here on MLW! Many of the arguments made about climate change, a useful new plane for our military or how cost-effective is wind and solar power seem about as deep as religion - not scientific at all!

That is just human nature and while the baseline may vary a bit in essence it is never going to change. That is why we need experts and why we so desperately need better political leadership!

I would think the mess McGuinty made of our electrical system and its cost to the citizen would speak for itself.

PLease note I am NOT saying you are wrong about some of these things! I am saying that there are wide spread popular perceptions and to blythely toss a lecture at people is not the way to change them.

Unless I miss my guess, you never would have had much faith in Mike Harris' reasoning yet because of public perceptions he won two of the largest majorities in Ontario's history!

It was perceptions that not only swept Rob Ford into the mayor's office of Toronto but even after all the recent scandal has not only kept his public approval rating as high as before but actually increased it a few points!

In politics, perception beats reality, or rather yours and my perceptions of reality every time, six ways from Sunday!

You and Guyser2 might say that I am saying that hinterland people are believing a lie. That may or may not be true. I am simply saying that it doesn't matter if it is true or not. What matters is if the perception is actually there.

I am saying that it is and that any politician must deal with it. You think the "rural divide" that has LIberals solid in Toronto and sparse everywhere else is imaginary? That there is no reason for such a thing to happen?

It is because of different political perceptions between Toronto voters and those in the rest of the province. Over the past few decades the divide has grown to where the promises of a campaign for one area cannot win many votes in the other.

[Michael Hardner]

You and Guyser2 might say that I am saying that hinterland people are believing a lie. That may or may not be true. I am simply saying that it doesn't matter if it is true or not. What matters is if the perception is actually there.

If this is true, then we're arguing perception vs facts. With certain things - like budgets, and cash flow for example - facts are easier to attain.

The principle at question here is - when is it ok for us to shrug our shoulders and say "oh well, that's politics" ? Alternately, when do we stand up and say it's time to educate people ?

Show me a favour of goodwill, and give me an example of something your side believes in that isn't true, that people need to wake up to see.

Otherwise, we might as well just shrug our shoulders for everything that comes up on here and say "oh well, people believe it so...".

[Wild Bill]

If this is true, then we're arguing perception vs facts. With certain things - like budgets, and cash flow for example - facts are easier to attain.

The principle at question here is - when is it ok for us to shrug our shoulders and say "oh well, that's politics" ? Alternately, when do we stand up and say it's time to educate people ?

Show me a favour of goodwill, and give me an example of something your side believes in that isn't true, that people need to wake up to see.

Otherwise, we might as well just shrug our shoulders for everything that comes up on here and say "oh well, people believe it so...".

My side? It doesn't work that way, Michael. There are no sides, just human nature.

There is a valid argument for Toronto having a wastrel-run council. The city's financial problems and policies have been featured in the MSM for decades. They are the reason for Rob Ford's decisive victory in their last mayoralty election and the reason why despite the scandals, true or false, his popularity is actually a bit higher than when he took power.

"Stand up and educate people"? Oh, if only that's all it would take! Unfortunately, that is a very academic viewpoint. The problem is that although few academics ever seem to realize it, theirs is a very minority view. Politically, no one can possibly hope to be elected solely from the academic vote.

The world is what it is. Trying to be a rock against the waves only gets you worn down. Much better to be a surfboard!

Politicians understand this instinctively. They not only cater to public perception but they also are skilled in creating it. If not themselves then certainly their aides and handlers.

Idealism can be a great motivator but in politics, it tends to be a loser approach. Unless it can be turned into widespread public perception. Richard Nixon was brought down by public perception, even though his crimes were not all that serious. Bill Clinton 'crimes were much more blatant yet he survived what should have been a slam dunk impeachment.

Again, because of a large enough public perception!

You are entitled to your opinion Michael but I am as well. I have reasoning and evidence to support my POV and what's more, I am FAR from alone in holding it! You certainly are free to disagree but please, don't shoot the messenger!

Edited July 8, 2013 by Wild Bill

[Michael Hardner]

You are entitled to your opinion Michael but I am as well. I have reasoning and evidence to support my POV and what's more, I am FAR from alone in holding it! You certainly are free to disagree but please, don't shoot the messenger!

You really like to jump from 'perceptions' to 'facts' in your argument. You have reasoning and evidence to support WHICH point of view ? The one that people are driven by perceptions ? I can't argue that. But you have shrugged your shoulders here and said, effectively, if people BELIEVE Toronto is wasting Canada's money then the reality doesn't matter so much.

I agree with you on that part. However, this is a place where we discuss the impact of facts on politics more than the other way around. What would be the implications if we shrugged our shoulders when discussing such things during our discussions here ? It seems to me that principles would die on the vine in some cases.

[Wild Bill]

I agree with you on that part. However, this is a place where we discuss the impact of facts on politics more than the other way around. What would be the implications if we shrugged our shoulders when discussing such things during our discussions here ? It seems to me that principles would die on the vine in some cases.

"discuss the impact of facts"? How does that make any sense at all? This is a discussion and debate board. Who decides what are facts??!!

If a "fact" is in dispute, how do we arbitrate the issue?

I did not say that reality "doesn't matter so much". I said that perception in politics is everything. That is quite different. If something is a fact yet the public at large has a different perception, one would think that it should be easier for someone to modify that public perception. Having reality on your side in an argument is like having high cards in your hand. Certainly, it would be harder to sell the public on a load of "horse puckey".

Yet "horse puckey" wins all the time! Why? Because of the average baseline of the intelligence of the common citizen. If you are more poorly educated in critical thinking and have a less effective stock of common knowledge then you are more easily fooled.

Hence the success of politicians like Chretien's Liberals and "Lyin' Brian".

I'm not sure what you mean by your response, Michael. Are you saying that MLW is a place for only academic discussion on what are defined by "someone" (Me? YOU?)? to be facts?

I would appreciate Greg's thoughts on this matter. Is this what the founders of MLW intended? Discussion of pre-defined "facts" in an academic atmosphere, ignoring what is happening in the real world?

Somehow, I don't think so but I am willing to be shown. Logic is just a mental exercise useful in pursuing truth. It is not truth in itself, since you can prove anything simply by restricting the argument to only those "facts" and evidence that support your premise.

There once were logical arguments by learned academics with what they considered "facts" that Man would never walk on the Moon.

One actual event in reality completely blew their academic arguments away.

I have no problem with the championing of principles. I do it with some myself. I just take exception when someone arbitrarily insists that principles are facts, or rather THEIR principles are facts and someone else's are NOT, simply by THEIR definition!

If someone believes something to be a fact they should have no fear of offering it up to debate, rather than expecting everyone to honour their assumption.

That expectation is not reason, that is religion.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Wild Bill

[Wild Bill]

double

Edited July 8, 2013 by Wild Bill

[Michael Hardner]

"discuss the impact of facts"? How does that make any sense at all? This is a discussion and debate board. Who decides what are facts??!!

If a "fact" is in dispute, how do we arbitrate the issue?

Do you seriously have a trouble discerning what is a fact and what is opinion ?

If facts are in dispute, then they can be discussed. Yes, facts are disputed on here constantly.

I did not say that reality "doesn't matter so much". I said that perception in politics is everything. That is quite different. If something is a fact yet the public at large has a different perception, one would think that it should be easier for someone to modify that public perception. Having reality on your side in an argument is like having high cards in your hand. Certainly, it would be harder to sell the public on a load of "horse puckey".

Yet "horse puckey" wins all the time! Why? Because of the average baseline of the intelligence of the common citizen. If you are more poorly educated in critical thinking and have a less effective stock of common knowledge then you are more easily fooled.

I'm sorry you have such disdain for the intelligence of the average citizen. I'm trying to discern what kind of critical thinking YOU have, though, and what YOUR position is on things.

For example, YOU said: "I would support Toronto becoming independent and no longer financially tied to our provincial or federal governments."

I have a GTA population that is roughly 20% of Canada's population.

http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/pdf/2011-census-backgrounder.pdf

https://metropolisiq.com/demographic

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/index-eng.cfm

You then took us into a diversion into perception vs reality. But you clearly said that this is your position. It implies that Toronto actually drains money from the senior levels of government. This link says that Toronto contributes $4B more, as of the turn of the last century:

http://www.toronto.ca/mel_lastman/programs/new_deal.htm

I'm not sure what you mean by your response, Michael. Are you saying that MLW is a place for only academic discussion on what are defined by "someone" (Me? YOU?)? to be facts?

Not at all. But I would like for you to take a stand on something rather than posting a position, then limply trying to hide behind the "POV" of others. Or you could admit that you have reconsidered your position, and that your assertion was ill-considered.

I would appreciate Greg's thoughts on this matter. Is this what the founders of MLW intended? Discussion of pre-defined "facts" in an academic atmosphere, ignoring what is happening in the real world?

Not at all.

I have no problem with the championing of principles. I do it with some myself. I just take exception when someone arbitrarily insists that principles are facts, or rather THEIR principles are facts and someone else's are NOT, simply by THEIR definition!

Let's see - you have disdain for uneducated people, yet you cling to an uneducated and unprincipled opinion ? Unless I'm incorrect, it's time for you to actually change your mind or admit a contradiction here.

If someone believes something to be a fact they should have no fear of offering it up to debate, rather than expecting everyone to honour their assumption.

Exactly. So do it.

[Wild Bill]

Do you seriously have a trouble discerning what is a fact and what is opinion ?

I'm sorry you have such disdain for the intelligence of the average citizen. I'm trying to discern what kind of critical thinking YOU have, though, and what YOUR position is on things.

Let's see - you have disdain for uneducated people, yet you cling to an uneducated and unprincipled opinion ? Unless I'm incorrect, it's time for you to actually change your mind or admit a contradiction here.

"what is a fact and what is opinion"? I can't help but smile. That is exactly the question I considered asking of you.

As for disdain for uneducated people, that is not a fact! That is YOUR opinion of MY opinion!

Can YOU not tell the difference?

First off, we must define what is meant by "educated". The word can be used in more than one context. I was referring to education of life experience.

Many academics are highly educated. At least, by some definitions of the term. However, I've usually found the education to be a mile deep and an inch wide. They are very well educated but in very narrow fields.

Anyway, I'm sensing some personal antagonism from you, Michael. Since due to your position I can't put you on my ignore list and also due to your position there is little point in complaining I am left with just asking if we can politely ignore each other.

My participation after a long absence is more of a personal experience. If I am going to suffer antagonism, no matter from what poster, I may just leave again.

Not as some kind of statement. I am just another poster, after all. MLW can get along perfectly fine without members like me. It's just that I have sensed a whiff of "rubble" creeping in this past year or two and that spoils my enjoyment of being here.

If you think I am totally baseless in my POV about feeling some personal antagonism, I would be perfectly content with the results of a poll of other readers.

Again, let's agree to disagree and try to be polite.

[Michael Hardner]

"what is a fact and what is opinion"? I can't help but smile. That is exactly the question I considered asking of you.

How about the fact that the GTA contains 18% of the population of Canada ? Do you see that as a fact or not ?

As for disdain for uneducated people, that is not a fact! That is YOUR opinion of MY opinion!

Yes it is my opinion of your opinion. Am I wrong ? Here's your statement, so you can tell me if I'm wrong or not:

"Yet "horse puckey" wins all the time! Why? Because of the average baseline of the intelligence of the common citizen. If you are more poorly educated in critical thinking and have a less effective stock of common knowledge then you are more easily fooled."

Anyway, I'm sensing some personal antagonism from you, Michael. Since due to your position I can't put you on my ignore list and also due to your position there is little point in complaining I am left with just asking if we can politely ignore each other.

As I suspected, you are trying to extract yourself from the discussion rather than state a position and defend it. So be it.

Again, let's agree to disagree and try to be polite.

Our whole democratic system depends on people discussing facts, and coming to a compromise. Yet certain people refuse to do that. Or they bend their principles to fit their own egos.

I will always be polite, however I will also challenge those who will state (in my view) contradictory points, and then try to avoid the discussion. In my opinion, our biggest problem is people who either refuse to live by principles, or to adjust their point of view when their principles collide.

Yes, that is not a fact, but an opinion.

[guyser]

WB, are you willing to concede the point that TO pays for the province and not the other way around, considering this is a fact as shown, and that Mr Owen Sound should wake up and get on top of facts instead of showing ignorance?

The Hate Toronto mindset (opinion) out there is fine, but the I dont wanna pay for anything TO (fact) is certainly not.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Guyser2

[Michael Hardner]

Not that it matters, but one of the most irritating arguments out there is that we are effectively in a state of factual anarchy. That the populace is stupid, or that facts don't matter, or that whatever you can fool people with is the most important thing.

[Michael Hardner]

Just to show goodwill, I offer the following issues for consideration. These are issues which I concede are not considered by my political comrades to any degree of depth because there is no political capital to due so:

- Reform of social spending programs

- Reform of healthcare

- Review of economic impacts of environmental policies across the board

- The benefits of global trade

- Responsibilities of Canada towards its allies in terms of global defense commitments

- Privacy vs Security - does the 'trade off' exist

These are often third-rail issues for left-of-centre people to discuss, but I discuss them and have modified my position over the years. At first I did so reluctantly, and eventually I did so proudly.

Don't doubt that the politicians in power play all of these issues both ways: the public-facing side of them, and the reality of them. If we on MLW only parrot the public-facing side of how the parties spin these things, then we might as well just run political banner ads on here.

[Wild Bill]

WB, are you willing to concede the point that TO pays for the province and not the other way around, considering this is a fact as shown, and that Mr Owen Sound should wake up and get on top of facts instead of showing ignorance?

The Hate Toronto mindset (opinion) out there is fine, but the I dont wanna pay for anything TO (fact) is certainly not.

Oh, I am not at all sure about how much Toronto pays for the province. Especially when you consider that much of the business in Toronto consists of head offices and not buildings engaged in production. However, that is merely my own opinion and thus irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I would never presume to think my own personal opinion is both gospel and that important.

However, as to what Mr. Owen Sound should do I very definitely think he should do whatever the hell HE wants to do!

That's freedom! People have the right to believe any cockamamie thing they like! They should never be forced, only persuaded.

Without the right to be ignorant there can be no true democracy, only elitism.

The point is moot, anyway. Mr. Owen Sound is not going to change his mind just because some one scolds him!

Once again, I am simply saying that perceptions are real, particularly in politics. You cannot simply dismiss them with a lecture or a scolding. You have to deal with them if you wish to command popular support. I would agree that being truthful is a more positive approach in dealing with perceptions but not that you can simply feel righteous in your own POV and dismiss that of others.

[Michael Hardner]

Without the right to be ignorant there can be no true democracy, only elitism.

Well said.

I would hope that we can persuade people on here as well.

[Wild Bill]

Our whole democratic system depends on people discussing facts, and coming to a compromise. Yet certain people refuse to do that. Or they bend their principles to fit their own egos.

I will always be polite, however I will also challenge those who will state (in my view) contradictory points, and then try to avoid the discussion. In my opinion, our biggest problem is people who either refuse to live by principles, or to adjust their point of view when their principles collide.

Yes, that is not a fact, but an opinion.

Michael, I do not care to debate with you. Frankly, I find you antagonistic and lacking in courtesy. I am sorry to be so blunt but you leave me no choice.

I have already suggested we simply avoid each other. If you can't or won't do that then there is no problem. I will simply leave. I may or may not check back in another year to see if things have changed.

MLW will survive just fine without me. I have no wish to be the spark of conflict, but neither will I submit to being the butt of it.

[guyser]

Oh, I am not at all sure about how much Toronto pays for the province. However, that is merely my own opinion and thus irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I would never presume to think my own personal opinion is both gospel and that important.

Your opinion as it were, has been countered by facts.

You may not be sure, but the facts are ,and you refuse to rebutt them, instead clinging to an opinion.

This isnt a chococlate vs vanilla ice cream debate.

I suppose then you and Mr Owen Sound are the same?

[Wild Bill]

Your opinion as it were, has been countered by facts.

You may not be sure, but the facts are ,and you refuse to rebutt them, instead clinging to an opinion.

This isnt a chococlate vs vanilla ice cream debate.

I suppose then you and Mr Owen Sound are the same?

Again Guyser2, who cares?

My point was that Mr. Owen Sound holds a popular perception. The opposing view seemed to be that Toronto deserves money and that the rest of the province should just accept it because it is true!.

I am trying to point out that there is a widespread feeling that Toronto just wastes money while expecting the taxpayers in the rest of the province to help bail them out. Not that this is true but that this is widely believed.

Policians, if they are to be successful, have to deal with such perceptions. They will not go away just because you lecture or scold those people outside of Toronto.

The only way you can fight such perceptions is with success stories. I already suggested publicly citing examples where Toronto HAS been fiscally responsible! If this is done repeatedly it would do much to change the perception.

Beating me up to agree with you is pointless. Here! I totally accept your argument! You are absolutely right and I am absolutely wrong!

Now, what are you going to do with the several million Mr. Owen Sounds out there?

If you are working on a political campaign, you don't have the luxury to take an academic viewpoint.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not replying to the most recent posts, per se, but to the OP.

I think we've established that there is such a thing as "popular opinion" which is not the same as "fact". As such, we realize that the people of the province have an opinion about Toronto. So be it. The people of Toronto also have an opinion, and the differences therein further validate the idea that there is a gulf between Toronto and the hinterlands.

Let Toronto define its own citizens on its own, then, especially if the province continues to believe the fallacy that it supports us.

[dre]

If they are going to be subject to municiple decisions and pay municiple taxes, then they should be allowed to vote, as long as they can show residency.

[Michael Hardner]

If they are going to be subject to municiple decisions and pay municiple taxes, then they should be allowed to vote, as long as they can show residency.

Any ill-considered opinions by outsiders as to who pays the freight in Canada only sway my opinion further in favour of allowing residents to vote. For now, though, I am in favour of landed immigrants and refugee applicants voting only. I don't think are yet at the point of city-states, where anybody inside the walls should be considered a full citizen. Not yet.

[dre]

Any ill-considered opinions by outsiders as to who pays the freight in Canada only sway my opinion further in favour of allowing residents to vote. For now, though, I am in favour of landed immigrants and refugee applicants voting only. I don't think are yet at the point of city-states, where anybody inside the walls should be considered a full citizen. Not yet.

I guess for me it comes down to participation and responsibility. If you live and work in the city, use services, pay taxes, and are subject to its laws, I cant see any valid reason for you to not be allowed to vote regardless of what your legal status may be.