Proportional Representation Discussion

[marcus]

6 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Yeah, I'm sure the NDP and Greens will form a coalition with the Conservatives, and I'm sure the PPC would form a coalition with the left leaning parties, that's totally going to happen. It's all up in the air, there is no telling who the loser parties prefer, or who their voters prefer, no indication whatsoever. Definitely can't make any assumptions about that.
/sarcasm

Listen to yourself, you can't honestly believe the nonsense you peddle. There is no chance any party outside the big 2 wins, even under proportional representation, either the Liberals or Conservatives have won the popular vote in every Canadian Federal Election with zero exceptions, and no third party has even come close to changing that. There is only one exception where the Liberals or Conservatives didn't both finish in the top two of the popular vote in 1993, and that was with a split Conservative party.

So what you're saying is that under the current system, there is more of a chance for a minority group to have power and control over the majority and that's why you're not a fan of having each vote count as one. Gotcha.

6 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Only one Conservative popular vote majority since the NDP came along, in 1984, when the Quebec popular vote went majority Conservative for one of the only two times in Canadian federal election history, both under Mulroney and never before or since. The Conservatives haven't won in Quebec since, and almost always lost in Quebec before that.

So you were wrong. Take it like a champ, instead of the above.

Here are my thoughts:

The voting system and the dynamics we have now is dysfunctional. There is way too much power in Ontario/Quebec. I don't know why anyone defends it. We don't know what kind of dynamics will be created if PR comes into play. What we have now are stale, non-functioning bs parties who try to pander. How are the Cons different than the Libs? They're not. Real thoughts and innovative ideas are dead because of our system. I'm okay with seeing more 'extreme' parties like the Greens and PPC. 

If we want to live in a true democracy, then Proportional Representation is necessary. Each vote must have the same power. However, we would need to limit the power the federal government has. People in each province should have more say in what is best for them, in their province, and how they like to function. For example: The federal government should not be in the business of forcing things like carbon tax or creating 'national' housing policies. At the same time, the feds should not have the power to force any province to run pipelines through it. The feds should stick to making foreign policy decisions, protecting our borders, make sure the highways/railways function, with broadband internet reaching all corners, regulate our immigration policies, and to regulate our currency. 

If Alberta wants to squeeze every last drop of their shit oil, that's their business. But if they want to run the oil through B.C., then B.C. must agree to it. If they can't come to terms, then Alberta can start looking at negotiating with the territories up North or the States down south to get their pipelines. If that doesn't work, then you either find other ways of transporting or accept that it's bad business.

 

[Yzermandius19]

All votes do have the same power, the power to help decide who wins their own riding. What you want is for Quebec and Ontario to have more power and rural Canada to have less, what you want is for urban party cronies to represent rural ridings, that's what PR does, gives more power to votes in the big cities in Ontario and Quebec at the expense of the rest of Canada, giving more power to votes in big cities and less power to votes everywhere else. You want the votes of people living in a very small portion of Canada's geography even more power than they already have over the rest.

You refuse to admit when you are wrong and project on everyone else, talk about not taking it like a champ. One outlier since the NDP came along doesn't mean that PR wouldn't f*ck over Conservatives and empower far left wing parties that will only side with the Liberals and make it that much harder for the Conservatives to ever get another majority. You want to hide behind it only being a hypothetical to pretend anything is possible, when it's really obvious to determine how it would effect the political balance of power. True Democracy is not desirable, PR can suck a bag of dicks.

Edited October 28, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 10/27/2019 at 10:34 AM, Rue said:

...then ridings would  not pick their own MP's....been there done that with you experts on reform...you are never happy until someone you vote for has the most seats....since your boy Trudeau won enjoy...you know why he won... 

Actually, in the multi-seat STV system of PR, voters decide which candidates from a particular party they want to vote for, so they have far more say who represents them than under FPTP. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 1/5/2015 at 9:38 PM, -TSS- said:

Canada is known for its electorate being, what the editors call fickle, which means that there are not that many bastions or strongholds for one party in any particular area.

In the UK under the FPTP-system if you are a Tory-voter living in Northern-England or a Labour voter living in SE_england you can just as well not bother to turn up at the election because your vote is going to be wasted. About 50% of overall votes in the UK-elections are wasted votes.

I think this is a fundamental flaw in the FPTP-system. Everyone's vote should be of equal value all across the country. Another argument against the FPTP-system is that its main argument is that it always returns a government with a majority.

Alberta is a stronghold for the Conservatives. Under FPTP,  there’s almost no point voting there if you have any other preferences. That’s one of the worst aspects of FPTP - exaggerating regional differences that already threaten to break up the country.
 

Quote

Except that it doesn't. You've had two elections in Canada where the election didn't return one party with a majority and the lates UK election was another example.

Moreover, even when the system produces a single-party majority it is often grotesquely undemocratic like in the UK-elections of 2005 when the Labour-party received 35% of the votes but received 55% of the seats. Call it what you want but it is not democracy.

Do I totally detest FPTP? Mostly yes but if there is one argument to be made in favour of FPTP it is as follows: FPTP according to its critics always returns white middle-agted men as MP's and excludes minorities. Well, I really do support a system where white middle-aged men are the decision-makers instead of some barely out of their nappies hippies.

But in all seriousness, the FPTP is a relic and it should go.

By my count, four of the last six federal governments in Canada have been minority governments.
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_governments_in_Canada

It’s becoming our new normal as many mainly left-of-centre voters choose something other than the Liberals. We’ve had a traditional hostility to coalitions here that’s beginning to look a little silly. 
 

 

Edited October 28, 2019 by SpankyMcFarland

[ReeferMadness]

On 1/4/2015 at 2:26 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Changing it for a specific goal, and by changing some specific part of the system in an understandable way might be a change we could get behind.

Maybe national unity is a goal we could get behind.

FPTP accentuates and exacerbates regionalism by rewarding regional parties over national parties.  The NDP got over twice as many votes as the BQ but the BQ got more seats.  FPTP belies the diversity of opinion in this country by painting large swaths of the country the same color.  It's anti-democratic and it rewards petty regionalism.  The provinces already have too much power and the Senate is an archaic institution which cements provincial influence as it sat 100+ years ago.  We need at least one institution in this country that truly reflects national concerns or we are destined to not be one country.

Proportional representation outperforms FPTP on a wide variety of measures including voter turnout, voter satisfaction, minority representation and women's representation. 

If you voted Liberal this election, your vote was worth roughly 10x a Green Party vote.  That's inexcusable from a democratic point of view.  If you're a supporter of one of the big two parties and you want to keep FPTP, that's not a big surprise.  FPTP is a form of systemic discrimination.  Throughout history, members of privileged majorities have always been  adept at rationalizing why discriminating against minorities is good for everyone.  This is just one more case.

[Queenmandy85]

In an election, you are voting for your Member of Parliament. You are not voting for a Prime Minister. Parties already have too much power. PR only creates more small parties trying to cash in on the system and it removes all remaining local control. You end up with some tiny "Dairy Enforcement Party," with only 3 members, controlling the government. Watch Borgen.

Canadians place too much emphasis on party. A political party's primary function is to win elections. Policy is way down the list of priorities because there are few options for courses of action available for governments. The claim of ideology is a joke. Roy Romanow was the most conservative Premier Saskatchewan has had in decades. He inherited a massive deficit from my guy, Grant Devine, and paid it down. So much for ideology. Trudeau made some clangers but he got NAFTA renewed and he'd building Kenny's pipeline. Sheer may have lost the election but he stopped Bernier from winning the leadership and totally destroying the CPC.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Queenmandy85

[Dougie93]

21 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Canadians place too much emphasis on party.

Because they are wholly Ameircanized lacking any grounding in their own historical narrative.

On the whole, Canadians vote as if it is a presidential election, not as Westminster Parliamentarians.

Canada is not a country, it's just an American protectorate with a French ethnonationalist state parasite attached.

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

Because they are wholly Ameircanized lacking any grounding in their own historical narrative.

On the whole, Canadians vote as if it is a presidential election, not as Westminster Parliamentarians.

Canada is not a country, it's just an American protectorate with a French ethnonationalist state parasite attached.

Why say that?  What does Canada lack that makes it not a country?  What better circumstance exists in other countries?   I don’t know what you’re pushing for other than small government or Republicanism.   Yet the Republicans spend like drunken sailors on the military and borrow money to pay for tax cuts.   It’s just a different kind of sham in the US.  

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Why say that?  What does Canada lack that makes it not a country?  What better circumstance exists in other countries?   I don’t know what you’re pushing for other than small government or Republicanism.   Yet the Republicans spend like drunken sailors on the military and borrow money to pay for tax cuts.   It’s just a different kind of sham in the US.  

Canada was never a country, Britain was always the country, Canada was simply an agreement to defend against the Americans.

Canada is as defunct as the British Empire,  Canadians are simply Americans without speech, self defense, nor property rights.

There was a void created by the erasure of Britain, it has been filled by Americanization, by default.

Canadians fabricate reasons why they are not Americans, but it's nonsense, there was never a Canadian culture to fill the space now occupied by Americanism.

I'm not pushing anything, let Canadians harbor their delusions, since it is a land of do nothings, it makes no difference to me.

As to your Whatabootism tu quoque fallacy,  obvious red herring canard.

Although the global Hegemon is capable of borrowing exponentially more than Canada, so the comparison with Canada is also a fallacy.

No doubt Ottawa would borrow more if they thought they could away with it.

Japan's debt to GDP is 236%, America could exceed that, Canada however could not, it's not the same deal for a moribund economy like Canada.

It's a question of how much your debt is valued, America and Japan are in one league, Canada is in another.

I'm not saying Canada is in the same league with Argentina, Canada is sort of in the middle

In the 90s Canada exceeded 60% and that was a crisis, so use that as a rough guide. 

I would say that Canada right now is at two thirds of its maximum debt load, America is nowhere near that.

Suffice to say, you have no cause to be so smug, Canada is much closer to its red lines than America is.

Mind you, smug is a Canadian pathology, so I understand that you can't help yourself, it's a defense mechanism.

Regardless, your red herring does not alter the fact that Canadians are no longer Westminster Parliamentarians but rather vote as de facto Americans.

It's rather a witches brew wherein Canadians treat the PM as if he President, while the PM acts as if he King,

Edited October 29, 2019 by Dougie93

[Zeitgeist]

Fight other battles.  You’re stuck with Canada.  It’s got many problems yet remains one of the freest, best places in which to live and work.  What you criticize is highly valued by many.  I’m glad Canada invests so much in her people and does so without drowning in debt.  It could go the other way and almost has.  Stop trying to compare the power of a country one tenth the size of the US with a superpower.  Canada doesn’t control the major canals or dominate the western world, nor does it try to.  That doesn’t in any way diminish the value of Canada, so stop beating up on her.  It’s boring.  Focus on improving it instead of seeking to destabilize it, because you don’t want to see where that leads.  

The Transmountain will get built and Alberta will continue to make money off her dirty oil.  Quebec will continue to demonstrate exceptionalism, including troublesome policies like Bill 21, but Canada will persist because the society is healthy and there’s a lot to like about the country.  Love it or leave it.  

Edited October 29, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[Yzermandius19]

14 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Fight other battles.  You’re stuck with Canada.  It’s got many problems yet remains one of the freest, best places in which to live and work.  What you criticize is highly valued by many.  I’m glad Canada invests so much in her people and does so without drowning in debt.  It could go the other way and almost has.  Stop trying to compare the power of a country one tenth the size of the US with a superpower.  Canada doesn’t control the major canals or dominate the western world, nor does it try to.  That doesn’t in any way diminish the value of Canada, so stop beating up on her.  It’s boring.  Focus on improving it instead of seeking to destabilize it, because you don’t want to see where that leads.  

The Transmountain will get built and Alberta will continue to make money off her dirty oil.  Quebec will continue to demonstrate exceptionalism, including troublesome policies like Bill 21, but Canada will persist because the society is healthy and there’s a lot to like about the country.  Love it or leave it.  

We are seeking to improve it. Dissolving the shotgun marriage is improvement. Confederation will destabilize regardless of our position on the issue, or yours, we simply seek the best outcome in light of that inevitability, while you misguidedly believe Humpty Dumpty can and should be put back together again. Constantly pretending Canada is better than it is, and lashing out at any criticism of it, that's what is boring.

There is no requirement to love Confederation and/or all Canadians, or move to another country. Your suggestion is rejected as the totalitarian nonsense that it is.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Zeitgeist]

Confederation was underway before your Civil War shotgun marriage theory could be applicable.  The Brits played an important role then but not anymore.  We take care of our own business and the Brits take care of theirs.  Stop thinking the US is so supreme either.  That country needs allies too, especially as China rises.  We do what we can.  Necessity will dictate future public policy.  The important thing is that the people are determining their fate.  Most Canadians prefer their own system, otherwise they’d change it.  You don’t like the fact that Canada is a separate country and want it to be a protectorate.   Carving it up creates more problems because we are stronger together.  

Edited October 29, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[Yzermandius19]

36 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Confederation was underway before your Civil War shotgun marriage theory could be applicable.  The Brits played an important role then but not anymore.  We take care of our own business and the Brits take care of theirs.  Stop thinking the US is so supreme either.  That country needs allies too, especially as China rises.  We do what we can.  Necessity will dictate future public policy.  The important thing is that the people are determining their fate.  Most Canadians prefer their own system, otherwise they’d change.  You don’t like the fact that Canada is a separate country and want it to be a protectorate.   Carving it up creates more problems because we are stronger together.  

America isn't perfect, but it is better than all it's competitors and has far more allies than China which basically has none. Most Canadians will come around once they realize what a failure Confederation is when the free money party ends. Canada is a fake country. Carving it up solves most of it's problems, we are weaker when forced together and imposing interests on places that don't share the same interests. Being separate countries will bring The Canada's together more than Confederation ever could, Confederation gets in the way and divides Canadians against each other. Canada is a de facto protectorate, denying reality will not make Canada a real country.

If we are all stronger together, than by that logic one world government would make us the strongest, yet that would just set everyone at each other's throats even more than Confederation does, because people have different interests. Confederation serves no purpose, other than Keeping America Out, Keeping Quebec In and Keeping The Indians Down, it is an anchor around the neck of The Canada's.

Let America In, Let Quebec Leave, and Let The Indians Up, I say. Confederation is nothing but Iron Curtain against freedom and liberty, a boondoggle that makes everything worse and prevents Canada from stepping it's game up. Everything of value in Canada is in spite of Confederation, not because of it.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

.  Stop thinking the US is so supreme either.  That country needs allies too, especially as China rises. 

Sure, but Canada is a total free rider, Canada contributes jack shit, stop thinking Canada is a "middle power", because it's not.

Canada is not an ally, Canada is a dependent, you can lie to yourself about it being otherwise, but you can't fool me,

In terms of China,  Canada is trying to play both sides of the fence, so eff you, Canada, you're not to be trusted.

Knee jerk anti American socialist terrorist hugging pro Chinese frenemy. Don't think America hasn't noticed.

America first. Canada is a rogue state wandered into no man's land.

You're either wit us or agin us, Canada, you're making a big mistake thinking you can have a foot in both camps.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Dougie93

[Cannucklehead]

I love how people always just assume that any american enemy is automatically our enemy as well.  Did Canada join bay of pigs?  Vietnam?  America is as independent as we are.  We may share NORAD and other treaties, but there is no mutual aggression pact.

[Yzermandius19]

37 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

I love how people always just assume that any american enemy is automatically our enemy as well.  Did Canada join bay of pigs?  Vietnam?  America is as independent as we are.  We may share NORAD and other treaties, but there is no mutual aggression pact.

No one is assuming that.

[Zeitgeist]

8 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

America isn't perfect, but it is better than all it's competitors and has far more allies than China which basically has none. Most Canadians will come around once they realize what a failure Confederation is when the free money party ends. Canada is a fake country. Carving it up solves most of it's problems, we are weaker when forced together and imposing interests on places that don't share the same interests. Being separate countries will bring The Canada's together more than Confederation ever could, Confederation gets in the way and divides Canadians against each other. Canada is a de facto protectorate, denying reality will not make Canada a real country.

If we are all stronger together, than by that logic one world government would make us the strongest, yet that would just set everyone at each other's throats even more than Confederation does, because people have different interests. Confederation serves no purpose, other than Keeping America Out, Keeping Quebec In and Keeping The Indians Down, it is an anchor around the neck of The Canada's.

Let America In, Let Quebec Leave, and Let The Indians Up, I say. Confederation is nothing but Iron Curtain against freedom and liberty, a boondoggle that makes everything worse and prevents Canada from stepping it's game up. Everything of value in Canada is in spite of Confederation, not because of it.

Wow you’re really buying into Dougie’s lies.  Canada has a healthier, more cohesive society than the US.  We have the better model.  The US wins on warm climate and began with the freer democracy.  It’s riding on that legacy.   Canada is the freer country now.  We’ve made greater efforts with the Indigenous and Quebec than the US would.   

Edited October 29, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[Yzermandius19]

8 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Wow you’re really buying into Dougie’s lies.  Canada has a healthier, more cohesive society than the US.  We have the better model.  The US wins on warm climate and began with the freer democracy.  It’s riding on that legacy.   Canada is the freer country now.  We’ve made greater efforts with the Indigenous and Quebec than the US would.   

No, Canada has a more sickly, fragmented society than the US. Canada has the worse model. America is riding on legacy, the present and the future. America has always been the freer country, and that isn't going to change any time soon.

Keeping Quebec In is not a worthwhile aim, and neither is Keeping The Indians Down, nor is Keeping The Americans Out. Confederation serves no useful purpose, Fake Country. Dougie speaks the truth, you speak wishful thinking.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Cannucklehead]

20 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

No, Canada has a more sickly, fragmented society than the US. Canada has the worse model. America is riding on legacy, the present and the future. America has always been the freer country, and that isn't going to change any time soon.

Keeping Quebec In is not a worthwhile aim, and neither is Keeping The Indians Down, nor is Keeping The Americans Out. Confederation serves no useful purpose, Fake Country. Dougie speaks the truth, you speak wishful thinking.

How's the patriot act freeing things up for americans?  

Edited October 29, 2019 by Cannucklehead

[Yzermandius19]

2 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

How's the patriot act freeing things up for americans?  

Not great, Bob. America not being perfect is not an argument for Canada being better. Canada has the same issue, total police state, with keystone cops like RCMP. Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Dougie93]

5 hours ago, Cannucklehead said:

I love how people always just assume that any american enemy is automatically our enemy as well.  Did Canada join bay of pigs?  Vietnam?  America is as independent as we are.  We may share NORAD and other treaties, but there is no mutual aggression pact.

Who cares?  Canada has no military capability left anyways,  America doesn't need your help, America doesn't want your help, America is moving on without you.

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Cannucklehead said:

How's the patriot act freeing things up for americans?  

What protections do you think you have in Canada? You don't even know, because there is no oversight in Canada whatsoever.

 

[Yzermandius19]

That's how you know these America Haters are so vacuous, they point out what they think are the biggest flaws in America that make it not as good as some other country, and then that country they like more actually has a bigger flaw in that exact area they tried to cherry pick to make America look bad.

It's hilarious.

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

That's how you know these America Haters are so vacuous, they point out what they think are the biggest flaws in America that make it not as good as some other country, and then that country they like more actually has a bigger flaw in that exact area they tried to cherry pick to make America look bad.

It's hilarious.

With 'allies' like these, who needs enemies?

[Cannucklehead]

Which allows the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records.  Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.

 

That's ok you enjoy your police state.  I'll enjoy my liberty.