jacee Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 Changing our electoral system to "shake things up" isn't a very compelling argument. I was referring to having national discussions of electoral reform including PR to remind them who their bosses are. . Quote
Moonbox Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 I was referring to having national discussions of electoral reform including PR to remind them who their bosses are. . Oh they know. They just also know that most of their 'bosses' are too uninterested and/or ignorant to have that discussion, let alone a reasonable one. 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
overthere Posted January 7, 2015 Report Posted January 7, 2015 PR will help imo, How exactly will PR cause MPs to better represent their constituents? Do you actually think that if the popular vote results in -say- the election of the first 40 MPs on a preferential Party list that those 40 are selected by their party because they support their constituents over the party? I don't think so. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
jbg Posted January 8, 2015 Report Posted January 8, 2015 I was referring to having national discussions of electoral reform including PR to remind them who their bosses are. . Many bang the drums for PR when the Conservatives govern. During the Trudeau and Chretien eras, not so much. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 8, 2015 Report Posted January 8, 2015 Many bang the drums for PR when the Conservatives govern. During the Trudeau and Chretien eras, not so much. Yes....an interesting observation. The "natural ruling party" is still roaming in the desert. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted January 8, 2015 Report Posted January 8, 2015 Because they care far more about getting elected and re-elected than what they want to do once in power. And the bulk of the votes are in centre. So, we can dispense of the labels 'liberal', 'democrat', 'conservative'. These idiots are not representative of Canada if they wear a label towing a party line. Does this show that the government is not effective? By them creating a ruse of left-right while being center is deceiving to all Canadians. Can't trust anything out of their mouths, no matter what side they talk out of. Quote
jacee Posted January 8, 2015 Report Posted January 8, 2015 Argus is right that " the bulk of the votes are in centre." Most Canadians are middle of the road. So it seems to me that having few political parties create divisions that are arbitrary and irrelevant and what Canadians want is effective government that attempts to unite us instead of divide us. . Quote
overthere Posted January 8, 2015 Report Posted January 8, 2015 Does this show that the government is not effective? By them creating a ruse of left-right while being center is deceiving to all Canadians. No, it shows that the media and the preconceived bias of people is effective in pigeonholing everybody. It makes it easier it hate somebody when you can scream fascists or commie at them when their views do not align perfectly with yours. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Argus Posted January 9, 2015 Report Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) That about says it all about PR. In Italy they're Pizza Parliaments. In Israel, falafel parliaments. Israel would not have anything like as many fantastically stupid laws and policies if they did not have prop rep. Prop rep allows tiny minorities to have influence wildly over their numbers when parties are desperately trying to cobble together coalition governments. Edited January 9, 2015 by Argus 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
Bob Macadoo Posted January 9, 2015 Report Posted January 9, 2015 Yes....an interesting observation. The "natural ruling party" is still roaming in the desert. You mean like a referendum on PR in ON with Liberals in gov't. Thanks for the Yankee informed opinion. Quote
Moonbox Posted January 9, 2015 Report Posted January 9, 2015 You mean like a referendum on PR in ON with Liberals in gov't. Thanks for the Yankee informed opinion. The referendum that failed miserably, right? 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
jacee Posted January 9, 2015 Report Posted January 9, 2015 The referendum that failed miserably, right? The referendum that was sabotaged by the Libs. . Quote
Big Guy Posted January 9, 2015 Report Posted January 9, 2015 My difficulty with PR is the potential for problems if other structures were not changed. The multinational nature of the Canadian population suggests the possibility of ethnic, religious or regionally based parties. This combination could play havoc with attempting to form a government which represents the majority of Canadians. At the moment, power is centered in Parliament and in the PMO under this current government. If we were to look at PR then I suggest that we include other checks and balances similar to that of the American system. I would like to see a stronger elected senate which would guarantee regional representation and a Prime Minister directly elected by the people who would represent all of Canada, or at least the majority of Canadians. In lieu of those changes, I would stay with our current flawed system. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Smallc Posted January 9, 2015 Report Posted January 9, 2015 The referendum that was sabotaged by the Libs. . Yes, if you don't like the outcome, discredit it. Quote
Bob Macadoo Posted January 9, 2015 Report Posted January 9, 2015 Yes, if you don't like the outcome, discredit it. The point was it was tabled during "left years". I am not gung-ho to change FPTP to gang up on Conservatives. Not my bag, just pointing out our knowledgable "visitor" is mistaken.....again. Quote
jacee Posted January 9, 2015 Report Posted January 9, 2015 My difficulty with PR is the potential for problems if other structures were not changed. The multinational nature of the Canadian population suggests the possibility of ethnic, religious or regionally based parties. This combination could play havoc with attempting to form a government which represents the majority of Canadians. At the moment, power is centered in Parliament and in the PMO under this current government. If we were to look at PR then I suggest that we include other checks and balances similar to that of the American system. I would like to see a stronger elected senate which would guarantee regional representation and a Prime Minister directly elected by the people who would represent all of Canada, or at least the majority of Canadians. In lieu of those changes, I would stay with our current flawed system. I think we can put it all up for grabs, brainstorm issues and possibilities. . PM directly elected ... like a Mayor? Not sure. She'd have to work with everybody to move things forward, a really good leader. . Quote
Smallc Posted January 9, 2015 Report Posted January 9, 2015 I don't see how that could possibly work in a parliamentary democracy. Quote
jacee Posted January 10, 2015 Report Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) I don't see how that could possibly work in a parliamentary democracy.Looks excluded by definition:http://www.google.ca/search?client=ms-android-bell-ca&source=android-home&site=webhp&source=hp&ei=WG6wVO-lJJGtyQSAgILwDw&q=parliamentary+democracy&oq=parliamentary+&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.1.2.0l5.3652.13756.0.16261.15.15.0.13.13.0.545.4867.2-7j5j1j2.15.0.msedr...0...1c.1.60.mobile-gws-hp..0.15.1354.3.LRisfv83exs parliamentary democracy, democratic form of government in which the party (or a coalition of parties) with the greatest representation in the parliament (legislature) forms the government, its leader becoming prime minister or chancellor. But I'll leave it to BG to comment on how he sees direct election of the PM working. . Edited January 10, 2015 by jacee Quote
cybercoma Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 I think we can put it all up for grabs, brainstorm issues and possibilities. . PM directly elected ... like a Mayor? Not sure. She'd have to work with everybody to move things forward, a really good leader. . The PM isn't the Head of State. If we're going to directly elect anyone it would be the Governor General, who would then become a President instead. Canada, however, is not a Republic. We're a Constitutional Monarchy. Quote
PrimeNumber Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 We're a Constitutional Monarchy. I think that's our problem right there. Let's write our own Declaration of Independence from the Queen and a write a new constitution come on guys it'll be fun! In said Constitution the Governor General would be elected, four 4 year terms and handle matters of international importance. The PM's party would be elected by PR or FPTP for 4 years and handle matters of domestic importance and we can do away with the Senate while were at it. The Federal Constitutional Parliamentary Republic of Canada. Quote “Be like water making its way through cracks. Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find your way around or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves. Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle. You put it into a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.”― Bruce Lee
On Guard for Thee Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 Which is why Liberals like the idea of PR. The NDP likes it too, because they'd have the balance of power. Minority governments are governments constantly in election mode, always afraid of making tough decisions, always eager to curry favour with the public at whatever it costs to do so. And this differs from Harper's conservative approach how? Quote
-TSS- Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 New Zealand moved away from FPTP 20 years ago and adopted PR-system and it entered an era of coalition-politics. Many people have not been satisfied with the change but there was a referendum a couple of years ago whether to move back to the FPTP but the people wanted to stay with the PR. Their problem, as I see it, that they have a mixed system whereby there are still single-member constituencies and then there are list-MP's to ensure the proportionality of the outcome of the election. Needless to say that such a system creates two-tier MP's with different levels of idea of having received a mandate. Quote
Boges Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) Their problem, as I see it, that they have a mixed system whereby there are still single-member constituencies and then there are list-MP's to ensure the proportionality of the outcome of the election. Needless to say that such a system creates two-tier MP's with different levels of idea of having received a mandate. That's the system that was soundly defeated in a 2007 Ontario plebiscite. Giving party hacks a seat when they answer to absolutely no constituents just seems wrong to some. Edited January 12, 2015 by Boges Quote
jacee Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 That's the system that was soundly defeated in a 2007 Ontario plebiscite. Giving party hacks a seat when they answer to absolutely no constituents just seems wrong to some. I agree. They must be accountable to constituents, not the party. However, with no education campaign, over 30% of the vote is still fairly significant. . Quote
Boges Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 I agree. They must be accountable to constituents, not the party. However, with no education campaign, over 30% of the vote is still fairly significant. . Who's job should it have been to "educate" people? The province or groups that wanted whichever side to win. I can't really remember how that campaign went. All I really remember was faith based school funding is racist, that's all. 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.