Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 In our system of government, head of state is a powerless, pointless drone. Head of government is effectively a dictator. Not quite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) Canada is a democracy. So, there goes that theory. Representative democracy and there's lots of debate about how representative it is. To just say, "we're a democracy" overlooks the problems and simplifies what kind of democracy we are so much that it's meaningless to the discussion. Edited September 20, 2015 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Not quite. Pretty much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Yes but the point is the same that exposure translates into votes. Are you really suggesting that Elizabeth May doesn't have exposure? Surely you're kidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Representative democracy and there's lots of debate about how representative it is. Sure, lets have that debate. It doesn't change that it's a ) a form of democracy, and b ), not really up for debate that it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 In our system of government, head of state is a powerless, pointless drone. Head of government is effectively a dictator.Nope. The system is fine in the UK and Australia where the PMs are regularly disposed by elected members. We have a problem in Canada because party constitutions override the spirit of the Westminster system. Fix that problem and we would see a huge improvement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Nope. The system is fine in the UK and Australia where the PMs are regularly disposed by elected members. I think the UK has a pretty good balance. Australia has probably gone too far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 In our system of government, head of state is a powerless, pointless drone. Head of government is effectively a dictator. This isn't even remotely close to true. If our head of government was a dictator who acted undemocratically, he or she would be deposed by the governor general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Sure, lets have that debate. It doesn't change that it's a ) a form of democracy, and b ), not really up for debate that it is. You're engaging with language instead of the ideas presented to you. Nobody cares that you can be a pedant. The idea that the poster was getting across is that the government is not representative of the votes and therefore should not be called a democracy. More than half the ballots go to losing candidates. When more than 50% of your people have no representation in your legislative body, that's a problem. When the composition of the house looks almost nothing like the composition of the vote, that's a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 I couldn't quote cc's response on my iPhone. May does not have the same quality of exposure as the 3 other leaders if she can't debate them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Consider, were the Greens to have a representative number of seats according to their popular vote, Elizabeth May would have 19 other members in the House of Commons with her at 6% of the vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Are you really suggesting that Elizabeth May doesn't have exposure? Surely you're kidding. Not equal exposure by any means. What little comparative exposure she has she's had to fight for from authortarians constantly trying to sideline her from a fair political dialogue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Consider, were the Greens to have a representative number of seats according to their popular vote, Elizabeth May would have 19 other members in the House of Commons with her at 6% of the vote. Not sure if this is for me or not. I just want to see her on the debate stage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 You're engaging with language instead of the ideas presented to you. Nobody cares that you can be a pedant. The idea that the poster was getting across is that the government is not representative of the votes and therefore should not be called a democracy. More than half the ballots go to losing candidates. When more than 50% of your people have no representation in your legislative body, that's a problem. When the composition of the house looks almost nothing like the composition of the vote, that's a problem. Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 I couldn't quote cc's response on my iPhone. May does not have the same quality of exposure as the 3 other leaders if she can't debate them. But she did debate them in the first debate. In the second debate, she got the same exposure in the papers the next day for tweeting about the debates. Considering preliminary numbers suggested that only 60,000 people actually saw the second debate, she got just as much exposure getting her name in the paper for her tweeted responses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 But she did debate them in the first debate. In the second debate, she got the same exposure in the papers the next day for tweeting about the debates. Considering preliminary numbers suggested that only 60,000 people actually saw the second debate, she got just as much exposure getting her name in the paper for her tweeted responses. So why shut her out now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 So why shut her out now? Because her chance of becoming prime minister or even official opposition on election day is virtually 0%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 That's the argument, but it's far from sure that the Greens can prove that. Easy to prove from the article: ""The Aurea Foundation, with assets of almost $16 million, reported no political activities in its most-recent filing with the CRA last year. It helped fund a group of largely conservative think-tanks, including the Fraser Institute, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and the Montreal Economic Institute."" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) Because her chance of becoming prime minister or even official opposition on election day is virtually 0%. You can't base things on induction and she's building a party. She's gone from 0 to two or 3 MPs in a few years, and she's likely going to expand quite possibly with another MP coming from my riding this election. Anyway we shouldn't have to fight for a chance for fair and equal competition. It should be fair and equal the chance to begin with if it's really a democracy. Edited September 21, 2015 by G Huxley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 Easy to prove from the article: ""The Aurea Foundation, with assets of almost $16 million, reported no political activities in its most-recent filing with the CRA last year. It helped fund a group of largely conservative think-tanks, including the Fraser Institute, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and the Montreal Economic Institute."" Yet they invited the NDP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 You can't base things on induction and she's building a party. It's statistical inference, not induction. If the polling methodology is sound, she's nowhere even remote close to winning any ridings but her own. I believe Bruce Hyer will also pick up his riding though. So on election day, they will probably end up with 2 seats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) Irrelevant to your argument about fringe parties getting representation. Sweden has a threshold so some fringe parties do not get representation even if that threshold is lower than what it is in Canada. It's a different kind of threshold entirely as we are talking about two different systems of representation so we are discussing apples and and oranges. The percentage of the oranges may be much much lower than the apples, but they are still two entirely different fruits. My point is that what is considered 'fringe' in Canada is considered mainstream in Sweden, because they have a more democratic system, not that it's perfect. Edited September 21, 2015 by G Huxley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) Yet they invited the NDP. Of course because it's part of their strategy. Divide and conquer between the liberals and the NDP. They have to debate against someone at least or it's not a debate and even the pretense of democracy however falsely represenative of actual democracy would be gone. Not that it stopped David Cameron or Harper from emulating him. Edited September 21, 2015 by G Huxley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) You can't base democratic elections on statistical inference. The only important statistic in terms of results is what the statistic from the votes are on election day. It's statistical inference, not induction. If the polling methodology is sound, she's nowhere even remote close to winning any ridings but her own. I believe Bruce Hyer will also pick up his riding though. So on election day, they will probably end up with 2 seats. Doubleing their elected MPs in an election is pretty good. Edited September 21, 2015 by G Huxley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) And yet the invited the bloc to the french debates......who while may win more seats than the greens, don't want to rule the federal government but want their own government....I think miss May brings a lot to these debates, one of the few that is fully versed in all the details of most subjects.....and does not rely on those standards long winded answers that have nothing to do with with the question....Just wish she was a *conservative.... Edited September 21, 2015 by Charles Anthony spelling *con Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.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.