SpankyMcFarland Posted May 24, 2016 Report Share Posted May 24, 2016 (edited) Based on what metric? Norwegian complain about their government as much as we do. In any case, Norway is a suffocating homogeneous state with insanely high taxes. It is an example of an out of control government - not a well run one.The health metrics are in Norway's favour but that's not a fair comparison. They have run their nation's finances better than we have.What countries do you think are better run? This is all a tad off-topic. Edited May 24, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 24, 2016 Report Share Posted May 24, 2016 Yes - new thread would be great... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted May 25, 2016 Report Share Posted May 25, 2016 Ranked ballots seem like a reasonable compromise but, in practice, will favor the centrist party and may result in permanent government by one party which is worse than FPTP. Of course if the system changes voting patterns with change and it is impossible to know how ranked ballots would actually work. What is wrong with a centrist party governing a nation? Centrist means that it is somewhere between the far left and the far right - which is where most Canadians are. So if a party wants to govern then they will have to support policies which are acceptable to the center - the majority. Why is the FPTP system which favors a non-representative government better than electing a government which is centrist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 25, 2016 Report Share Posted May 25, 2016 What is wrong with a centrist party governing a nation?Politicians are like diapers. They need to be periodically changed for the same reason. A healthy democracy requires that power change hands. No party should be in power all of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoke Posted May 25, 2016 Report Share Posted May 25, 2016 What is wrong with a centrist party governing a nation? Centrist means that it is somewhere between the far left and the far right - which is where most Canadians are. So if a party wants to govern then they will have to support policies which are acceptable to the center - the majority. Why is the FPTP system which favors a non-representative government better than electing a government which is centrist? I would say that we have always been governed mostly from the center. I can't believe we managed to do that under the current system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted May 25, 2016 Report Share Posted May 25, 2016 If it ain't broke don't fix it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2016 If it ain't broke don't fix it. Yes, that could be the chosen mantra of conservatives, just as "Hey, look! Shiny!" would be the chosen mantra of progressives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted May 25, 2016 Report Share Posted May 25, 2016 Trudeau wants to be known for something big like his old man. Unfortunately when a trudeau goes big ,we all get screwed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted May 25, 2016 Report Share Posted May 25, 2016 Politicians are like diapers. They need to be periodically changed for the same reason. A healthy democracy requires that power change hands. No party should be in power all of the time. I would say that we have always been governed mostly from the center. I can't believe we managed to do that under the current system. Parties change or "adjust" policies all the time. Nothing keeps the NDP or the Conservatives from developing policies considered "center oriented". If you promise the electorate what they want then the majority will elect you. Is that not the basic tenet of our democracy? Remember, the Chretien/Martin government was not defeated on policy, it was that the Liberals were considered crooked and in office too long. If Harper had governed more to the center over the last few years then he would still be PM to-day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 FPTO-system works when the combined vote of the two largest parties is over 90%. When below that it becomes capricious. In Britain there have been elections where the largest party has received 35% of the votes and that has translated into 55% of the seats. That is hardly representative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 Looks like the Liberal government has listened to criticis and will be changing the make up of the committee reviewing electoral reform: "The NDP motion would bring the votes on the committee to five Liberals, three Conservatives and two for the NDP. The Bloc and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May would each get one vote. This composition means the government will need the support of at least one opposition member for any motion to pass." I this a sign of weakness, or good government or accommodation or ...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 I this a sign of weakness, or good government or accommodation or ...? Weakness, apparently. From what journalists have been saying on the political panel shows they've been hearing from the senate that no change to voting has a hope of being approved unless there is strong opposition buy-in or a referendum. And they're hearing this from Liberal and independent senators, not just Tories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 Looks like the Liberal government has listened to criticis and will be changing the make up of the committee reviewing electoral reform: "The NDP motion would bring the votes on the committee to five Liberals, three Conservatives and two for the NDP. The Bloc and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May would each get one vote. This composition means the government will need the support of at least one opposition member for any motion to pass." I this a sign of weakness, or good government or accommodation or ...? "Listened" is one possibility, but the least likely. And it may well be none of these: "weakness, or good government or accommodation" Electoral reform- the wonderful kind that gets Liberals elected easily to another majority in 2019- is their #1 legislative priority. That won't change. Lets face it, the 'consultation' blarney on reform is a sham, one they are obliged to mount because this is 2016 and He promised. Ranked ballots were and are the only choice of the Liberals, but they were really not prepared for the vociferous and widespread opposition to them ramming this through, which they could do quite easily. They really want to avoid having a referendum, the kind of participation and input and consultation that 70% of Canadians say they would like to see. So, how can that be acheived now? This latest change in the committee has two contending possibilities to enable ranked ballots. The first is that they are stalling, perhaps for a short term, perhaps until 2019. The Liberals would much rather fight an election again on FPTP than have a referendum on ranked ballots. The committee can blither and blather on indefinitely. If by some miracle they do reach an end to, it can aways be shuffled off or a new committee formed to delay. It is what Trudeau does with pipelines and weed, why not his own re election campaign? The second possibility is more intriguing. Chantal Hebert mentioned this one a few weeks ago. What if the Liberals got another party behind them on ranked ballots. Implementing them (ranked ballots) does not legally need a referendum, it does not need Constituional change. But it is now apparent it does need wider support, it needs to be seen as having a social licence and somebody anybody that will support them. And who might that be? Well, it might be the NDP. The NDP are in trouble and the forecast is grim. They have slipped in seats, slid in the polls, don't have a leader and their last convention left them fractured and weak and vulnerable..... And.... ranked ballots don't hurt them all that badly. Has a deal been made between Liberal and NDP. What does the NDP want that the Liberals can give them? Will the LiIberals act on ranked ballots sans referendum if they can stand with the NDP in the Commons and claim: social licence? We shall see..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 Gerald Butts, one of those in the shadows behind Trudeau, has a reputation of successfully establishing a position, declaring for more and then "compromising" back to what he wanted. He did it in Ontario with Dalton and it looks like he is doing it now on the federal level. This "compromising" juggle of the make up of the original committee and the government "backs off" a whipped vote" on assisted suicide. The Liberals get exactly what they wanted but look like statesmen. Hook, line and sinker! And Trudeau is still more popular than any PM in recent history. Look for more Liberal "compromises" (getting exactly what they planned for ) and the Liberal popularity staying high. Ain't politics wonderful!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 I this a sign of weakness, or good government or accommodation or ...? surely it's not a backroom deelio with the NDP. Say it ain't so... say the CPC hasn't been out-flanked! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 Not going to happen this term, this will be punted to the future. Probably the same for weed laws and even assisted dying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
square Posted August 14, 2016 Report Share Posted August 14, 2016 Not going to happen this term, this will be punted to the future. Probably the same for weed laws and even assisted dying. I agree that voting reform won't happen this term. Though legal marijuana will happen in the first term, it will be bad politically for them if we don't have legal weed in 2019. Assisted suicide is legal in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted August 21, 2016 Report Share Posted August 21, 2016 Weakness, apparently. So, making the committee reflective of the way Canadians voted is called weakness? I have another word for it. I call it democracy. Given how little of it we saw under the regressive Harper regime, I suppose it's understandable people aren't clear on the concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.