Argus Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) It's almost like he thought to himself, insofar as he's capable of thinking, being a generally shallow guy, "Hmm, how can I make government less responsive, less capable, slower, and more confused, while increasing the dumb decisions and overspending?" First, let's bring in a pizza parliament, end the history of stable one-party government and bring in perpetual minority government. That's always a great way for continuing election campaigns and massive overspending as parties vie for public support for the short term parliament. It has the added benefit that since no government has the security of a long term mandate no hard decision will be taken. And since too many people who know nothing about politics and care less aren't voting, let's pass a law making these people vote! We don't care how uneducated their vote is so long as they cast one. We particularly want to force the lower classes who pay no taxes to get out and vote for whichever party promises them more goodies. Oh, and let's mandate gender equality. It doesn't really matter if a woman is capable, remember, so long as there are ovaries in the minister's chair, as well as those of deputy ministers, chairmen, directors and the like. And, sayyyy, let's give the Chinese and Russian governments a say too! Let's have on-line voting! It's not like anyone will be able to hack our super secure systems, after all! The problem with idealistic pap like this is that if you actually implement it, particularly ending FPTP, it's awfully hard to go back no matter how badly things turn out. It's even hard to put a dollar figure on having so any incompetents in positions of authority, who are there based on their gender or skin colour instead of their competence. But you know it'll be huge. BTW, notice there's nothing there about any ideas for improving people's lives ,for doing something about the economy, health care or anything else? It's all ideological crap. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/trudeau-announcing-plan-to-kill-first-past-the-post-by-the-next-election Edited June 16, 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
Remiel Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 Cry me a river. I am sick to death of having no representation at all because neither the party in power nor my MP gives a shit about what I want. FPTP had its day. When it is gone you can moan endlessly over yesteryear, as that is pretty much what conservatives do best. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 FPTP results in so many wasted votes that many people simply dont bother, hence the ever declining voter turnout. Its also an easy system to gerrymander. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 The problem with idealistic pap like this is that if you actually implement it, particularly ending FPTP, it's awfully hard to go back no matter how badly things turn out. You are right about this. The older, wiser leftists and NDP supporters I know are against this idea. Declining voting levels are a phenomenon, but is it a problem ? And to perpetually change the infrastructure of how parliament works based on a guess that this will fix things ? Foolish. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Remiel Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 Perpetually? In twenty years they could easily change it back to the current system if no one likes how it works out. Because you can change your mind in a democracy. Quote
Smallc Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 Perpetually? In twenty years they could easily change it back to the current system if no one likes how it works out. Because you can change your mind in a democracy. Of course they can't change it back. When every fringe party suddenly has a disproportionately large say in the operations of the nation...they aren't going to want to give that up, and so it will be difficult if not impossible to change. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 When every fringe party suddenly has a disproportionately large say in the operations of the nation...they aren't going to want to give that up, and so it will be difficult if not impossible to change. Agreed. It's ironic that the problem with majority governments it that they have too much power, enough to make majority governments impossible. Personally, I like the idea of a government with a lot of power. If there is enough of a groundswell for a big decision, a party can run on that and make the decision happen. The Free Trade Agreement seems like an example to me. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Keepitsimple Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 What an empty, dangerous vessel Trudeau is. Firstly, there wasn't much whining when the Liberals were in power with 35-40% of the vote. Secondly, Canada is right at the very top of countries that people want to live in - and always amongst the top countries in virtually every "livability" index - so obviously - our governments are doing many, many things right and we all have much to be thankful for. Thirdly, the PR systems and their inevitable introduction of single-issue, regional and fringe parties - often create "alliances" where nothing gets done - or the smaller parties influence policies that huge swaths of the population do not want. Fourthly, we may finally be on the cusp of moving towards a two-party system and do much to resolve this non-problem. And lastly - be very careful what you wish for..... Quote Back to Basics
Argus Posted June 16, 2015 Author Report Posted June 16, 2015 Cry me a river. I am sick to death of having no representation at all because neither the party in power nor my MP gives a shit about what I want. FPTP had its day. When it is gone you can moan endlessly over yesteryear, as that is pretty much what conservatives do best. No representation at all? The opposition represents your views. The media represents your views. The government knows about your views, and if sufficient people hold them you can be sure they take them into account. I'm interested in capable government, not in you being satisfied that somewhere in parliament is somebody who shares your views. You don't think the anti-abortionst folks have the same complaint? 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 June 16, 2015 Author Report Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) FPTP results in so many wasted votes that many people simply dont bother, hence the ever declining voter turnout. Its also an easy system to gerrymander. No, it actually isn't, since the people who decide on the borders are independent. As for people not bothering, I submit that if people can't be bothered then we're better off without them voting. Edited June 16, 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
PIK Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) We have the best country in the world and the left wants to make sure that ends. We do not need unstable governments. And we do not need the fringe people having any say in what goes on. This country and all countries need leadership and guts to say no to the people ,when the people get stupid and greedy. The only reason for this and electronic voting is the liberals now know this is WHAT THEY NEED to win. All we need is a bunch of young stoners deciding on who leads the country , just because of one thing, weed. Edited June 16, 2015 by PIK Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Argus Posted June 16, 2015 Author Report Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) What an empty, dangerous vessel Trudeau is. Firstly, there wasn't much whining when the Liberals were in power with 35-40% of the vote. Notley got 40% of the vote in Alberta, and all we heard from the left were crowing and cheers. The Ontario Liberals got 38% of the popular vote and we get more cheering. It's only a huge issue when a conservative party gets elected, it seems. Secondly, Canada is right at the very top of countries that people want to live in - and always amongst the top countries in virtually every "livability" index - so obviously - our governments are doing many, many things right and we all have much to be thankful for. Yes, for all the denunciations of majority government it provides stability, and generally gets needed work done. And there is always, even in a majority, a brake on government, because they still need to get re-elected and can't afford to really infuriate the electorate. Thirdly, the PR systems and their inevitable introduction of single-issue, regional and fringe parties - often create "alliances" where nothing gets done - or the smaller parties influence policies that huge swaths of the population do not want. You can expect the BQ to make a big comeback. There'll be a pro-abortion party on the right, and the Greens will get a lot more members in parliament. It'll be a pizza parliament with each party elbowing the other for popular support, and since popular support is so important they'll be taking whatever positions they think will grant it to them. Can't afford to tick people off, after all, when the next election is almost always only a year or less away. Edited June 16, 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
On Guard for Thee Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 No, it actually isn't, since the people who decide on the borders are independent. As for people not bothering, I submit that if people can't be bothered then we're better off without them voting. Actually it is. Constituencies can be rigged to favor a particular party over another. And to say not giving people a reason to think their votes count somehow makes us better off is just silly. Quote
Smallc Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 Actually it is. Constituencies can be rigged to favor a particular party over another. Not in Canada. Quote
Argus Posted June 16, 2015 Author Report Posted June 16, 2015 Actually it is. Constituencies can be rigged to favor a particular party over another. And to say not giving people a reason to think their votes count somehow makes us better off is just silly. Why do you need to change the whole system to give people who couldn't be bothered to vote a better reason to vote if you're going to make voting mandatory anyway? And please explain how you can rig constituencies. I'm interested in new knowledge. 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
Big Guy Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 Majority governments are an aberration of democracy. The only reason that we are subjected to them periodically is because power and money is focussed in only a few areas in our society. I have always believed in minority governments where a government is forced to be accountable for how it proposes to do or change things. If proportion representation is the vehicle then I am all for it. I have to admit that I never saw that coming from any major Canadian political party. This could be the winner that the Liberals have been looking for. 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.
On Guard for Thee Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 Not in Canada. Elections Canada does a pretty good job, but it does happen at the civic level. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 I have always believed in minority governments where a government is forced to be accountable for how it proposes to do or change things. This could be the winner that the Liberals have been looking for. Perpetual minority governments though ? And do understand that we WILL have perpetual minority governments, with all of the backroom dealing, constant elections, and noise that comes with that. I expect that Canadians will tire of that pretty soon, and we will be left with a two party system. This could be the winner ? I hope not. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
On Guard for Thee Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 Why do you need to change the whole system to give people who couldn't be bothered to vote a better reason to vote if you're going to make voting mandatory anyway? And please explain how you can rig constituencies. I'm interested in new knowledge. I don't particularly agree with the mandatory voting idea. people who do understand proportional representation know there is less likelihood of their vote being wasted, so they tend to vote more. Quelle surprise. Quote
overthere Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 If you;d like a real chuckle, read Trudeaus promises to restore home mail delivery, and the section on when he'll allow his MPs to have 'free votes' in Parliament. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
overthere Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 Elections Canada does a pretty good job, but it does happen at the civic level. It does not happen here, there are no parties at the civic level. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Big Guy Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 I wonder what the reaction to this change in election procedure would be on this board if the Harper government proposed it? I do not see this as a threat directed at any particular party. For those who are truly interested in politics, I suggest that you read and enjoy, "The Best Laid Plans" by Terry Fallis 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.
On Guard for Thee Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 It does not happen here, there are no parties at the civic level. Sure, Pat Binns tried it in PEI back in 06. Didnt work very well though. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 I wonder what the reaction to this change in election procedure would be on this board if the Harper government proposed it? I do not see this as a threat directed at any particular party. For those who are truly interested in politics, I suggest that you read and enjoy, "The Best Laid Plans" by Terry Fallis Shock would be the most likely reaction. Doubtful you would ever see a sitting PM (especially one with a majority from under 40% of popular vote) opt to get rid of the system that got the there. Quote
Smallc Posted June 16, 2015 Report Posted June 16, 2015 Sure, Pat Binns tried it in PEI back in 06. Didnt work very well though. So, to try to prove your point about what doesn't happen federally, you're bringing up other levels of government. How do you propose to balance the interests of urban and rural areas under this system? Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.