Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

If ridings in Nova Scotia chose FPTP as their means of electing their representatives who am I to argue?

If your neighbours are torturing their children, who are you the argue? It's their house, they should be able to do what they want! *sarcasm*

Your argument is of a very similar logical form. Just because another group of people want to do something (ex. Saudis killing apostates), doesn't make it justified.

  • Replies 226
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Whatever electoral system we end up with must be universal to all regions.

For STV, AV, MMP and FPTP, who you can vote for depends on which region you live in. Thus all of these systems have non-universality.

I think if someone from Vancouver Island wants to vote for the Bloc Quebecois, they should be allowed to.

Posted

If your neighbours are torturing their children, who are you the argue? It's their house, they should be able to do what they want! *sarcasm*

Your argument is of a very similar logical form. Just because another group of people want to do something (ex. Saudis killing apostates), doesn't make it justified.

Very similar and the same are two completely different things given the vast difference in examples you've used in comparison to each other.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted

Why wouldn't you support that? What is the purpose of an arbitrary threshold?

There's a bunch of problems and it isn't just the threshold.

1. The only way I know of to implement something like this would be to have one huge party list (or you would need to add a *ton* of MP's. And nobody is going to rank 338 candidates so it would have to be a closed list. Nobody would support this.

2. If you only need, say 50,000 votes all across Canada, it would be too easy to elect extremists or joke candidates. I'm sure I could get that many people to vote for an "Elvis lives" party. Particularly if you combined this with online voting.

3. We would wind up with way too many parties.

Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists.

- Noam Chomsky

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

- Upton Sinclair

Posted

And nobody is going to rank 338 candidates so it would have to be a closed list.

You could have a closed dynamic list to take into account regional support. It doesn't have to be a static list.

2. If you only need, say 50,000 votes all across Canada, it would be too easy to elect extremists or joke candidates. I'm sure I could get that many people to vote for an "Elvis lives" party.

What is wrong with extremists getting representation in parliament? It's not like they will be able to get anything passed without making coalitions.

If 0.3%+ of the people are best represented by a Sharia Law party, then they should get representation in parliament.

3. We would wind up with way too many parties.

How can you have too many parties? Why is giving people more choice a bad thing?

Posted

What is wrong with extremists getting representation in parliament? It's not like they will be able to get anything passed without making coalitions.

If 0.3%+ of the people are best represented by a Sharia Law party, then they should get representation in parliament.

How can you have too many parties? Why is giving people more choice a bad thing?

Your examples are silly, wasting votes is one thing but wasting seats would be even worse.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted

If we consumed less, and held the same expectations as our parents did about lifestyle and work-life situations, we would be just as well off as they were.

But we want it all. They had no cell phone, we need the $700 iphone, new every few years, with $100/month plan. Oh, and don't forget one for each family member. They had 3 channels, we need 500 and netflix. They had no internet, we desperately need 100mbps to our home, the library is so far away!. They bought whatever was at superstore on sale, we need special organic, cage-free, fair trade etc at three times the cost. They drank the office brew, we need Starbucks every day (or 3). They had lino, we need granite and tile and soft-close and backsplashes and brick exterior and heated garages. They had a place to get to work from, we need the 'right' neighborhood. They drove the old buick, we need a new diesel jetta or a prius......with upgrades.....and on payments of course. Oh and a Vespa. They went to work when needed, we need 'me' time. They bought education they could use, we buy education to help 'find ourselves'.

Pure unadulterated horse crap.

-k

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ノ(° -°ノ)

Posted

You could have a closed dynamic list to take into account regional support. It doesn't have to be a static list.

How's that supposed to work? If I run under the "I like to watch TV in my underwear" party and I get 50,000 votes spread across the country, who am I providing local representation to?

What is wrong with extremists getting representation in parliament? It's not like they will be able to get anything passed without making coalitions.

If 0.3%+ of the people are best represented by a Sharia Law party, then they should get representation in parliament.

How can you have too many parties? Why is giving people more choice a bad thing?

Too many parties will make coalition building harder, especially if you have extremists getting elected.

This isn't going to fly.

Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists.

- Noam Chomsky

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

- Upton Sinclair

Posted

Why would it be a waste of seats to try to represent a larger share of the electorate?

It wouldn't, what would be a waste is giving one to parties like the Gay Nazis for Allah or the United Sasquatch Front.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted

It wouldn't, what would be a waste is giving one to parties like the Gay Nazis for Allah or the United Sasquatch Front.

you have something against sasquatches?

Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists.

- Noam Chomsky

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

- Upton Sinclair

Posted

How's that supposed to work? If I run under the "I like to watch TV in my underwear" party and I get 50,000 votes spread across the country, who am I providing local representation to?

So let's say parties can choose to make their lists a function of the distribution of support for the election. Let's say hypothetically, the conservative party strongly desires regional support and proportionally the conservatives get enough support for 100 seats in parliament. What the conservatives could do is nominate a conservative candidate for each riding and say to Elections Canada: 'we want the 100 candidates with the highest support by their riding to be chosen as the 100 seats in parliament'. That would be an example of a dynamic list, the conservative list would be a function of how their popular support is regionally distributed.

If I run under the "I like to watch TV in my underwear" party and I get 50,000 votes spread across the country, who am I providing local representation to?

I never suggested that I think all representation should be locally based.

Too many parties will make coalition building harder, especially if you have extremists getting elected.

No, the complete opposite. It makes coalitions easier. Much like how competition reduces the price of goods and services.

If there are a lot of parties then there are a lot more potential coalitions, and parties have to compete if they want to be party of the governing coalition. If you are a party and you need a coalition partner, if one potential partner is being unreasonable you can tell them 'look, if you don't be more reasonable and moderate your position, I'll go to another potential partner and make an agreement with them instead'.

Posted (edited)

It wouldn't, what would be a waste is giving one to parties like the Gay Nazis for Allah or the United Sasquatch Front.

Would you rather Islamists have representation in parliament and feel like they have a peaceful democratic path to their goals, or would you rather that they feel alienated by the system and resort to violence to achieve their objective?

Democratic Islamists like Mohamed Morsi are far preferable to violent Islamists like ISIS.

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Posted

I'll take your word for it.

I'd rather Islamists pursue their interests through Parliament like everyone else in a STV system with more practical thresholds than you're suggesting.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted

Laughter form the world. It seems international headlines is all about the pretty boy with the nice hair getting elected. Now you will find out how respected harper was in the world. Especially when trudeau goes to summits and says nothing. Sitting there with a sign directing people to his advisors for answers.

Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.

Posted

Laughter form the world. It seems international headlines is all about the pretty boy with the nice hair getting elected.

It seems you haven't read most of the world press.

Posted

That's the whole point. Why "focus" on ANY group? Investigate fraud where it occurs, regardless of affiliation or ideology or whatever.

There is no evidence they are doing anything else.

It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy

Posted

I will keep on open mind as i have seen good Liberal government

In what country?

It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy

Posted

That means he only needs 12 out of 50 . I'm sure he can find them.

If 27% are women but you have stated that for political reasons you will appoint 50% that means that in all likelihood you are going to have to select women for positions who are much less qualified than available men.

And where do you get the idea the cabinet size will be 24? It could as easily be 40.

It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy

Posted

It suggests one of the Liberals' first challenges will be in excising the Tory partisans from the civil service. The war on the charities may have come from the top, but the fact was that there were clearly no lack of CRA auditors happy to turn themselves into partisan tools.

Sure would be good if you had some of that uhm... what was it called again... evidence, yeah, evidence, that charities were targeted for political reasons or that anyone within the public service was biased.

It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy

Posted

And where do you get the idea the cabinet size will be 24? It could as easily be 40.

He has promised that the cabinet will be much smaller and repeated that promise yesterday. 25 (including him) was the number bandied around during the campaign.

Posted

If 27% are women but you have stated that for political reasons you will appoint 50% that means that in all likelihood you are going to have to select women for positions who are much less qualified than available men.

And where do you get the idea the cabinet size will be 24? It could as easily be 40.

Trudeau said he wanted a smaller cabinet.

Posted (edited)

Sure would be good if you had some of that uhm... what was it called again... evidence

You keep filleting Trudeau without any evidence what so ever - pot, meet kettle.

Edited by Smallc
Posted

I suppose i could work less hard and be less productive and get a 1.5% tax cut, and still lose thousands.

Once Trudeau puts his tax increase in place the top tax rate in New Brunswick is going to be almost 60%. I bet a lot of people there are going to be working less to make sure they don't cross that line. What's the point of putting in extra hours if the government takes almost everything you make?

Sixty percent for income tax plus municipal taxes, plus HST plus gas taxes. I bet that puts you near a 70% tax rate.

Canadian taxes are already almost the highest in the world, and this will just push them higher. If I'm reading this chart right, Canada's taxes are far higher than most European countries already, and most of those countries have better social services than we do. They don't pay their public servants the enormously high salaries we pay ours, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy

Posted

There is the problem, isn't it? You say "cut welfare", but if "welfare" was already sufficient NOW, then there would be no need for charities. Why would we need food banks?

Because if you can get something for nothing a lot of people will go for it even if they don't need it. A lot of middle class people shop at the Salvation Army even though they don't need to because they get such bargains. I'm willing to bet if you follow the average food bank person home you'll find they have a couple of TVs, cell phones, cable, internet, video games, computer, maybe even a car.

It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...