Trudeau's design for perpetual lousy government

[On Guard for Thee]

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?

Well it could be that elections Canada should accelerate its review of electoral boundaries to start with. But again, an adjustment to the winner take all system would result in less wasted votes and should increase voter turnout, and hopefully balance out outcomes like we currently have with the Harper majority situation.

[PIK]

We have the best system going. Majority governments are needed up here. You just have to wait your turn. And if your boy wins ,then you have the floor for four yrs ,and the rest of us will put up with it. The difference is you wont see the hate and the constant whining from the right, We will abide our time and let them hang themselves and move back in.

[Remiel]

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?

MPs that are not members of the Government are first are foremost responsible to their own constituents. The Government is responsible to all Canadians. So if neither my MP nor the Government can be influenced by me, there is no one else with a primary duty to me.

As for capable governments, what makes a government capable is exactly what representing views is about!

Edited June 16, 2015 by Remiel

[Mighty AC]

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.

Harper promised the same thing once..so what's the problem? Does JT seem too trustworthy for you?

Cue another thread dedicated to ignorant misconceptions of how a proportional electoral system would work...the details of which do not yet exist as they would be decided by an all party committee.

[overthere]

Harper promised the same thing once..so what's the problem? Does JT seem too trustworthy for you?

Cue another thread dedicated to ignorant misconceptions of how a proportional electoral system would work...the details of which do not yet exist as they would be decided by an all party committee.

Is there any reason to think that propprep would work any differently here than elsewhere. If so, tell us.

One thing FPTP has going for it is relative simplicity. The result of an election is pretty easy to understand much of the time.

[Argus]

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.

Like most of the promises Mulcair has made, Trudeau has neither costed out nor come up with how he intends paying for renewed home mail delivery.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Argus

[poochy]

This is just an effort to steal some votes away from the NDP, here we have a country with a high standard of living and very stable government, of course the far left, read NDP, likes proportional rep, they see it as a way of gaining power, the liberals never had a problem with the current system when they were winning with similar numbers as the conservatives. O but now that the conservatives are in power, we need change, it's all so pathetic.

Also, mandatory voting? Im really not even against the idea, but is that even constitutional? Anyway, can you imagine the cries of fascism etc, if the conservatives were trying to completely change the system to one that favored them while forcing people to vote? BUt when the liberals do it, those same people will say, 'o, but its good for us, don't you see?, they are doing it for our own good!'

[cybercoma]

We have the best country in the world and the left wants to make sure that ends.

Can we expect more nuanced political analysis like this from you leading up to the election?

[On Guard for Thee]

This is just an effort to steal some votes away from the NDP, here we have a country with a high standard of living and very stable government, of course the far left, read NDP, likes proportional rep, they see it as a way of gaining power, the liberals never had a problem with the current system when they were winning with similar numbers as the conservatives. O but now that the conservatives are in power, we need change, it's all so pathetic.

Also, mandatory voting? Im really not even against the idea, but is that even constitutional? Anyway, can you imagine the cries of fascism etc, if the conservatives were trying to completely change the system to one that favored them while forcing people to vote? BUt when the liberals do it, those same people will say, 'o, but its good for us, don't you see?, they are doing it for our own good!'

And if you today spoke out against mandatory voting in Australia, you would be called undemocratic.

[Boges]

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.

So where's your evidence of Gerrymandering in Canada? Which ridings have been rigged to favour the CPC?

[Keepitsimple]

I'll be curious to see how well Trudeau defends these "policies" - that's if his handlers let him speak of course. That's the measurement of a good leader. I'm getting the strong impression that a good portion of the media see a potential "champion" in Thomas Mulcair......and since it looks very likely that Trudeau will not win in Quebec, he'll have no chance to be PM - leaving Mulcare as the only option for the anti-Harper crowd. So you may very well see the media forcing hardball questions at Trudeau - which to date he has been totally inept at fielding. They'll throw him under the bus and go all-in with Mulcare. Should be fun to watch.

[Smallc]

I'll be curious to see how well Trudeau defends these "policies" - that's if his handlers let him speak of course. That's the measurement of a good leader. I'm getting the strong impression that a good portion of the media see a potential "champion" in Thomas Mulcair.

I can't wait until he wins and everyone finds out he's a closet conservative. I always suspected as much.

[overthere]

I'll be curious to see how well Trudeau defends these "policies" - that's if his handlers let him speak of course. That's the measurement of a good leader. I'm getting the strong impression that a good portion of the media see a potential "champion" in Thomas Mulcair......and since it looks very likely that Trudeau will not win in Quebec, he'll have no chance to be PM - leaving Mulcare as the only option for the anti-Harper crowd. So you may very well see the media forcing hardball questions at Trudeau - which to date he has been totally inept at fielding. They'll throw him under the bus and go all-in with Mulcare. Should be fun to watch.

Agree, but the media refocus is already happening.

The first overt sign I've seen of this was Michael Enright(CBC radio fixture and unapologetic Harper hater) in his interview with Mulcair. Fawning, suckup questions throughout. It would have been embarrassing had it not been so very predictable.

You're right about the media shift, they resent that Harper has alternately ignored and manipulated them for a decade. They can see that JT is a hollow shell , and guess who gains?

Speaking of laff riots, anybody watch The National last night? A big story was expense scandal at the Mint. The plucky reporter was claiming it was just the first of many expense exposes to come on CBC TV aimed at Crown agencies and departments to reveal waste.

I asked my TV screen several times, but the reporter and Mansbridge could apparently not hear me. My question of course was 'when we could expect an investigative report on waste at the CBC itself?'.

[Argus]

And if you today spoke out against mandatory voting in Australia, you would be called undemocratic.

Maybe by idiots.

[Argus]

I can't wait until he wins and everyone finds out he's a closet conservative. I always suspected as much.

I seriously doubt it. His political and ideological beliefs, such as they are, seem closer to the NDP.

[On Guard for Thee]

Maybe by idiots.

So now you are calling Aussies idiots. Or would it just be the aboriginal ones...

[Remiel]

If FPTP is so simple, why is it vast swaths of the voting population seem to operate under the completely false presumption that we elect Governments and Prime Ministers? The fear-mongering about coalitions in 2008 was nothing if not the exploitation of ignorance of how this "simple" system works. To my mind proportional representation would also be superior insofar as it makes it much harder to foster ignorance of how the system works. If coalitions are almost a given under the system, then their legitimacy will be obvious to most everyone.

[Argus]

So now you are calling Aussies idiots. Or would it just be the aboriginal ones...

Anyone who thinks speaking out against mandatory voting is undemocratic is a self-identified idiot.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

If FPTP is so simple, why is it vast swaths of the voting population seem to operate under the completely false presumption that we elect Governments and Prime Ministers?

Vast swaths of the voting population think Elvis is alive and aliens destroyed the world trade center.

If coalitions are almost a given under the system, then their legitimacy will be obvious to most everyone.

And their ineffectiveness and instability.

[On Guard for Thee]

Anyone who thinks speaking out against mandatory voting is undemocratic is a self-identified idiot.

So that makes the majority of Australians self identified idiots. Just wanted to be clear on your thoughts.

[Michael Hardner]

To my mind proportional representation would also be superior insofar as it makes it much harder to foster ignorance of how the system works.

If coalitions are almost a given under the system, then their legitimacy will be obvious to most everyone.

1. These systems are complicated, which is one reason that they have failed to catch on.

2. Constant coalitions, and more politics is not going to be pleasant to anyone. Toronto City Council is an example of what happens when you create a 24/7 political circus where every decision is dragged out and debated by politicians at all levels.

Democracy is an idea, the implementation of it can be more/less democratic it's true but FPTP is democratic by definition. You pick the candidate and it's winner-take-all. The more/less democratic question is a question of degree, and unless you're advocating for direct democracy then any option you propose will not be completely democratic.

[Smallc]

I seriously doubt it. His political and ideological beliefs, such as they are, seem closer to the NDP.

He tried to join the Harper government first, according to Tory insiders.

[poochy]

And if you today spoke out against mandatory voting in Australia, you would be called undemocratic.

Do you ever have a point to make? Are we living in Australia now?

[On Guard for Thee]

Do you ever have a point to make? Are we living in Australia now?

I dont know about you, but I am living in Canada.

[Smallc]

I dont know about you, but I am living in Canada.

Well then, you must have read the Charter that you cite so often. Forced voting would almost certainly be unconstitutional.