ReeferMadness Posted January 6, 2016 Report Posted January 6, 2016 Wait a minute.......I thought you just said most don't understand "voting system reform". Based on pass votes in Ontario and BC, it would seem most in those Provinces don't favor "voting system reform"......or as you suggested, they were easily hoodwinked. So maybe you can wrap your head around the difference between the concept and the detailed design. People voted for concept of an improved voting system. Experience has shown that most of them won't expend the effort to learn enough about the details to competently vote on the details of design. Kind of like asking voters to vote on whether or not to build a new bridge but not to expect them to become experts and vote on the particular design. Quote 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
Derek 2.0 Posted January 6, 2016 Author Report Posted January 6, 2016 Even if those allegations were proven true, it's not even spit in the bucket next to the fraud perpetrated by your heroes. smh How do we/you know that? It could be the tip of the iceberg. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted January 6, 2016 Report Posted January 6, 2016 How do we/you know that? It could be the tip of the iceberg. It could be the work of extraterrestrials. Good luck with that. Quote 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
Smallc Posted January 6, 2016 Report Posted January 6, 2016 It could be the tip of the iceberg. Or, the allegations could be completely false. Given the number of people working each poll, that seems far more likely. Quote
Smallc Posted January 6, 2016 Report Posted January 6, 2016 It could be the work of extraterrestrials. Good luck with that. I was actually thinking it could be the work of a blind unicorn. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 6, 2016 Author Report Posted January 6, 2016 People voted for concept of an improved voting system. Experience has shown that most of them won't expend the effort to learn enough about the details to competently vote on the details of design. So the people voted for a new system that they couldn't understand, and we can't have a referendum due to the confusion that would entail.......Experience has shown, when given the option, these same people voted against "voting reform". Quote
Smallc Posted January 6, 2016 Report Posted January 6, 2016 So the people voted for a new system that they couldn't understand, and we can't have a referendum due to the confusion that would entail.......Experience has shown, when given the option, these same people voted against "voting reform". Mostly because they don't understand the concept. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 6, 2016 Author Report Posted January 6, 2016 It could be the work of extraterrestrials. Good luck with that. Sure, but none the less, the NDP's concerns should be investigated. Quote
Smallc Posted January 6, 2016 Report Posted January 6, 2016 Sure, but none the less, the NDP's concerns should be investigated. Will, Hillary Clinton is apparently looking into such things. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted January 6, 2016 Report Posted January 6, 2016 Sure, but none the less, the NDP's concerns should be investigated. And there'll be plenty of time to get the vapors about the results when the investigation is complete. Quote 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
ReeferMadness Posted January 6, 2016 Report Posted January 6, 2016 So the people voted for a new system that they couldn't understand, and we can't have a referendum due to the confusion that would entail.......Experience has shown, when given the option, these same people voted against "voting reform". These same people buy microwave items and ipods and LED TV's and smartphones. And the vast majority of them couldn't give a cogent explanation how ANY of it works. They could look it up on wikipedia but they don't. There's a difference between what you need to know to use something vs what you need to know if you want to understand how it works. The companies that make these devices might have focus groups on usability but none of them would ever be dumb enough to ask their customers their opinion on the technical design a smartphone. Experience has shown that the people who voted against the voting reform didn't understand what the were voting on - which makes the referendum meaningless. Unless of course, you're an unscrupulous political insider with a vested interest in the status quo. Quote 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
Argus Posted January 6, 2016 Report Posted January 6, 2016 Why do something unnecessary? It's not a requirement and we generally don't do referendums in Canada. We don't generally change the way we elect MPs either. In fact, this is the first time in almost 150 years. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 6, 2016 Report Posted January 6, 2016 Would it not be better for expert panels and public consultation to do the work? The uneducated masses have already had their say. The overwhelming majority of the vote went to parties in favour of electoral reform. I think the reason you and the others here say that is because you know damned well the 'uneducated masses' won't approve your effort to enshrine your party as the permanent government. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted January 6, 2016 Report Posted January 6, 2016 I think the reason you and the others here say that is because you know damned well the 'uneducated masses' won't approve your effort to enshrine your party as the permanent government. I prefer STV if we change, which would do nothing of the sort. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted January 6, 2016 Report Posted January 6, 2016 So the people voted for a new system that they couldn't understand, and we can't have a referendum due to the confusion that would entail.......Experience has shown, when given the option, these same people voted against "voting reform".The majority of voters in BC voted for voting reform. It didn't happen because it required 60% to pass, but fell short by 2%...still a majority however, and I expect it would easily pass today. Although I do agree with comments here that a lot of people may not be conversant with mechanics of the various options. But to borrow the bridge analogy, most people could agree that crumbling concrete on bridge stanchions would signal the need for a new bridge, but wouldn't know where to begin it. Quote
eyeball Posted January 6, 2016 Report Posted January 6, 2016 I see, so why have elections at all then? I mean the majority of Canadians clearly don't understand the complex issues encompassing the running of a first world nation.....why trouble them with it? There is a lot to be said for a more technocratic approach to how we given ourselves. That said, how would you feel about a referendum on purchasing new war planes and a referendum every time Ottawa decides to bomb some other country with them? I thought so. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Derek 2.0 Posted January 6, 2016 Author Report Posted January 6, 2016 Experience has shown that the people who voted against the voting reform didn't understand what the were voting on - which makes the referendum meaningless. Unless of course, you're an unscrupulous political insider with a vested interest in the status quo. How do you know this? Have you considered said people weren't interested in changing how we vote? Quote
overthere Posted January 6, 2016 Report Posted January 6, 2016 Mostly because they don't understand the concept. Link? Cite? Maybe they felt that FPTP has served us pretty well for 150 years, in spite of its warts. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
overthere Posted January 6, 2016 Report Posted January 6, 2016 I think Trudeau would easily win a referendum if the bar is 50%+1. He should have another question on it, "abolishing the Senate". It would kill two birds with one stone, because whatever he does to hammer ranked ballots down our throats(and all his other legislation) will have to face the Senate too. It will be a constant fight for him and emperors/Royals do not care for that nonsense. Constitutional change is perhaps never been more achievable than now. Wynne is a sock puppet, and Couillard can be bought off. I've been wondering how Trudeau will get around the Senate to implement ranked ballots/elimate the final obstacle to a Liberal dynasty....... and he may well go for the gusto. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Smallc Posted January 6, 2016 Report Posted January 6, 2016 Link? Cite? Maybe they felt that FPTP has served us pretty well for 150 years, in spite of its warts. I would agree with you that it has served us well and I'm not necessarily in a hurry to change it. If we do change it, I prefer STV, followed by AV. As to people not understanding the system...I know enough people to know that to be true. Quote
overthere Posted January 6, 2016 Report Posted January 6, 2016 The reality is that the Liberals campaigned on voting system reform, most of the parties (representing almost 70% of the voters) are on board, and they have the mandate to do it. The NDP are in favour of electoral reform but you can bet your soul that does not include what the Liberals are about to bring. The NDP favour proprep because it gets them seats. Ranked ballots threatens their existence as a party. So no, the Liberals do not have a mandate to do what they please with our collective future, and to pretend they enjoy 70% support is a lie. They have 39.47% support. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Derek 2.0 Posted January 6, 2016 Author Report Posted January 6, 2016 There is a lot to be said for a more technocratic approach to how we given ourselves. I can see a difference between governance choices made by the Government versus how we elect Governments though. People claimed that the Harper Government was illegitimate because it only had ~39% of the vote, but Trudeau's Government is at the same level of support, does that make his Government illegitimate? It would seem for fairness sake that a referendum is the only way forward in deciding how we elect governments. That said, how would you feel about a referendum on purchasing new war planes and a referendum every time Ottawa decides to bomb some other country with them? I thought so Again those things are individual policies, like tax rates or other spending policies etc, and though I might disagree with certain policies I'm of the realization that they are the ebb and flow of politics. Changing how we elect governments (more so throw out the current one) is different. Jack Layton's NDP, over a decade ago, proposed a referendum on voting reform. I don't see why it isn't valid to have one today, well being cynical enough to know that the Liberals (like any other party) wouldn't put forth a "reform" that would put them at an electoral disadvantage. Quote
eyeball Posted January 6, 2016 Report Posted January 6, 2016 People claimed that the Harper Government was illegitimate because it only had ~39% of the vote, but Trudeau's Government is at the same level of support, does that make his Government illegitimate?As far as I'm concerned it does. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Derek 2.0 Posted January 6, 2016 Author Report Posted January 6, 2016 As far as I'm concerned it does. So you would expect the current "illegitimate" Government to bring about "fair changes" on how we elect future Governments? Furthermore, if it was proven, that the Liberals were involved in election/voter fraud during our last election, you'd be good to go with the same bunch having carte blanche on how we "elect" future Governments? Quote
Big Guy Posted January 6, 2016 Report Posted January 6, 2016 (edited) Link? Cite? Maybe they felt that FPTP has served us pretty well for 150 years, in spite of its warts. I believe that we have used the FPTP system because it was almost impossible to facilitate another system. I believe (hope) that the Liberals install a ranked ballot system. It is far more representative and easy to implement. I suggest that this system was not used in the past because we did not have computers to tally votes. In the old days, if we tried to use that system is would have been done thus: People vote indicating their priority of choice (ie. There are 6 candidates The voter indicates his/her first choice, second choice, third choice ... sixth choice). All the ballots are counted and placed into piles for each candidate. The number of votes in the biggest pile are counted. If that represents half (50.1%) then that person is the successful candidate. If it is less than 50% then the ballots in the smallest pile are looked at. The person with least number of votes is considered to have lost. That individuals ballots are looked at, the SECOND choices are now valid and placed on the remaining piles. This process continues until one candidate receives over 50% of the ballots - he/she is declared the winner. To do this by hand would be a nightmare but by computer would take no time. BTW - All Canadian political parties basically use this method to elect their leadership. If it is good enough to choose their leaders why can we not use the same method choose our leader? Edited January 6, 2016 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
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.