G Huxley Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 Every seat has a meaning. Each represents their riding. Why are you such an anti-democratic authoritarian? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada_First Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 Every seat has a meaning. Each represents their riding. Why are you such an anti-democratic authoritarian?I'm just realistic. I think the majority should rule. As it is now the minorities rule the majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 The only way to change that is proportional representation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 The only way to change that is proportional representation. I'm not opposed to that, but it certainly doesn't come without its dangers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada_First Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 The only way to change that is proportional representation.No. Then we have government that will not get anything done and allow unchecked immigration like they have in Europe. Destroying Canada. No thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) "I'm not opposed to that, but it certainly doesn't come without its dangers."What dangers?"No. Then we have government that will not get anything done" Of course the government will get things done. Forming coalitions doesn't stop things from getting done. "and allow unchecked immigration like they have in Europe. Destroying Canada." Have you noticed that Harper just let in 10,000 refugees? Edited September 21, 2015 by G Huxley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 I'm not opposed to that, but it certainly doesn't come without its dangers. The danger that we will have a government that actually represents the will of the people, not the 2% (the swing voters) that actually determine the election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada_First Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 The danger that we will have a government that actually represents the will of the people, not the 2% (the swing voters) that actually determine the election.Just because the hammer and sickle hasn't replaced the maple leaf doesnt mean our system is broken. 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 democratic elections on statistical inference. The only important statistic in terms of results is what the statistic from the votes are on election day. You can certainly make a prediction that's a hell of a lot better than random chance through inferential statistics. It's also not "induction" as you say, but deductive reasoning. You're moving goalposts here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 And yet the invited the bloc to the french debates... And the Bloc at one point in time was the official opposition in Ottawa, holding nearly every seat in Quebec. The BQ have a history that I'm sure the Green Party would like to ignore when they argue that May should be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 Which is absolutely ludicrous, since representative democracy with first past the post is a recognized system used by some of the most successful democracies on the planet. Language is important. So what? The argument as a representative system, it's not very representative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) It has over 400000 views on Youtube. Tells you nothing. You don't know how many people watched it all the way through vs how many started the video and stopped it shortly thereafter. You don't know how many of those views are people re-watching it over and over, perhaps findings quotes or writing articles. Some of them might be campaign staffers doing work with the footage. View count is meaningless. On the night of the debate, only 60k had watched it. And when you consider there are about 25 million voters in this country, 400k is laughable without even considering that the actual number of people who've watched it is much lower. Edited September 21, 2015 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 For christ's sake. It's about hearing from all political parties on a debate. It's not scary at all. It's not practical. There are dozens of parties running in the election, as well as independents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 I want to hear what she has to say in every single debate. Why should I be denied that? Because what you want doesn't matter. Her chances of being prime minister are virtually nil. You say it doesn't matter because you wish it didn't, but it does. I want to hear what she has to say too because frankly she's the best party leader and probably the best person to be prime minister. Hell, she's the best parliamentarian in the House. That doesn't mean a damn thing when her party is polling around 5%. In some countries with PR, that's just barely enough to get any seats at all. The Greens' share of the vote across the country is half the population of the Vancouver census metropolitan area. It's 1/3 of the Montreal CMA. It's less than 1/4 the Toronto CMA. That's her party's entire support and that's giving her party more credit than the voters gave them last election. I'm considering that Greens at 5% of the vote, when really they got 3.91% of the vote last time around. In some PR democracies, she couldn't even get a seat with that few people voting for her party. I know you really wish the Green Party was a player, but it's not. It's still a fringe party that gets very few votes. The party leader is not invited to the debates because they are quite simply not a factor in the election at all. Not even close. And the fact of the matter is the organizers of these debates have to draw the line somewhere. The vast majority of people (over 90%) are voting for the parties represented by the three leaders who are going to be at the debate. And that's why the line is drawn there. Elizabeth May being there takes time away from the others when frankly the vast majority of Canadians just aren't going to vote Green, regardless of whether they disagree with her exclusion or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 I'm not opposed to that, but it certainly doesn't come without its dangers. And the irony is that a 5% benchmark would have left the Green Party without a seat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 A few observations on this topic; 1. The discussion in which Fiorina got that big boost was of ideas and processes within the same party - and that party being the current Republicans. To this point, that has not been a campaign but a reality show with Trump as host. 2. Having watched "debates" over the years I feel that any more than 2 people "debating" becomes a waste of time and resources. 3. The intent of a debate is to contrast and compare party policies not to evaluate the ability of the leaders to put on a show. If we want to continue the debate of leaders format I would suggest an evening planned for a 3 hour presentation: First 45 minutes - debate between Trudeau and Mulcair Second 45 minutes - debate between Trudeau and Harper Third 45 minutes - debate between Harper and Mulcair Last 45 minutes - discussion of most contentious issues and allow each leader a 5 minute summary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 You can certainly make a prediction that's a hell of a lot better than random chance through inferential statistics. It's also not "induction" as you say, but deductive reasoning. You're moving goalposts here. Again Democracy can't be based on statistical inference, but the actual results of the voters (demos). Statistical inference shows that fair exposure leads to more votes for parties, so to deny them that is to deny Democracy itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada_First Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 "She was in the first one. You already heard her. You got your way. She took on the big boys already. Now this woman can be quiet and let the three men take care of the real business." - Canada_First Yeah that woman had her 15 minutes, now she just needs to shut up and know her place while the men take care of business. (sarcasm) She has no chance of becoming PM. People want to hear the three men discuss the important issues not this woman. She has no bearing on anything happening. She'll be lucky to retain the 2 seats she now has. Important issues are being discussed by the three men. The woman will only get in the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada_First Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 With a horse race like this actually they are likely to have some real influence and May's influence has already made an impact at least in the sense of compelling the left to actually address the environment and she exposes the crimes of the far right in Canada.She has nothing. If popular votes doesn't turn into seats it doesn't matter nearly as much. All that matters is seats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) Just because the hammer and sickle hasn't replaced the maple leaf doesnt mean our system is broken. I'm sure somehow, in some world, that makes sense. Edited September 21, 2015 by ReeferMadness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada_First Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 I'm sure somehow, in some world, that makes sense.Sure does. Too many socialists would love to have a system of full Marxist socialism in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 Sure does. Too many socialists would love to have a system of full Marxist socialism in Canada. How many socialists what a full "Marxist" system in Canada? Please provide the number, along with citations as to how you arrived at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada_First Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 How many socialists what a full "Marxist" system in Canada? Please provide the number, along with citations as to how you arrived at it.Too many. The left wing is constantly pushing canada left ward. They call it being progressive but it's really Marxist class warfare and socialism. So that's all the NDP and most Liberal supporters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 She has nothing. If popular votes doesn't turn into seats it doesn't matter nearly as much. All that matters is seats. Right so she deserves a fair chance to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 Too many. The left wing is constantly pushing canada left ward. They call it being progressive but it's really Marxist class warfare and socialism. So that's all the NDP and most Liberal supporters. You seem unable to actually answer the question. 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.