Conservative Party can run on proportional representation reform

[myata]

Maybe this is taking it too far but it can be argued that any system that essentially limits the choice, by any means and methods cannot be considered a full contemporary democracy. Some choice isn't the same as free, unrestricted and open choice.

[Yzermandius19]

14 minutes ago, myata said:

Maybe this is taking it too far but it can be argued that any system that essentially limits the choice, by any means and methods cannot be considered a full contemporary democracy. Some choice isn't the same as free, unrestricted and open choice.

the electorate limits choice

not FPTP

FPTP is free, unrestricted and open

just because you don't understand why the electorate votes the way it does

doesn't mean their choices are restricted

it means they prefer different choices than you

you not being able to see why is not grounds to change the system

Edited June 24, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[myata]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the electorate limits choice

not FPTP

FPTP is free, unrestricted and open

I'll explain only once more, no need in endless repetition: the system severely limits the choice by imposing the condition of a single winner, as opposed to every vote counts. If there's an organized gang and you're naively "voting your mind" as cute and fuzzy professors and media heads invite you to, you will loose in every single district and the gang will get all of the representation, 100 : 0. So the natural result is two closely matching gangs and nothing else matters. Now, dream on that it's free and open. A two year old child choice, porridge, different porridge or go and throw tantrum. Exactly, 100% the same level of freedom and openness.

Edited June 24, 2022 by myata

[Queenmandy85]

 "...the system severely limits the choice by imposing the condition of a single winner, as opposed to every vote counts."

 

How do you have multiple winners in each riding? How many winners. How large a Parliament can we accommodate? Instead of 338 MP's you want 676 or 1014 MP's at $183,000 a piece? How would anyone be able to obtain and retain the confidence of the house in that environment? Plus, you would have to rebuild the Parliament buildings from scratch and we haven't even completed the renovations currently underway. And you want to have a team of minders watching over each one to keep them accountable. 

If everyone is a "winner", why bother with elections? 

Edited June 24, 2022 by Queenmandy85

[myata]

14 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

How do you have multiple winners in each riding?

"How" is possible. The real question is: why. Why even consider real change if it's going to hurt the owners of the system, designed and engineered to benefit them, only and exclusively? You really have to look very hard to find an environment with more resistance and fewer incentives for change. And what would it bode for the country, going forward?

Edited June 24, 2022 by myata

[Queenmandy85]

3 hours ago, myata said:

Why even consider real change if it's going to hurt the owners of the system, designed and engineered to benefit them, only and exclusively?

Who are these owners?

Edited June 24, 2022 by Queenmandy85

[ExFlyer]

On 6/14/2022 at 8:28 AM, SpankyMcFarland said:

PR is most attractive to small parties with lots of votes and few seats, and such parties have no influence in a country that has a morbid fear of both change and coalition government. 

PR is anti vote. Anti democracy. You end up with too many fringe parties and no one that can properly govern. Coalitions do not work. Look at Italy.

If my guy (gal) don't win, I don't give a rats ass who does.

Edited June 24, 2022 by ExFlyer

[-TSS-]

Has there been any statistical analysis how large a proportion of votes are so-called wasted votes?

Those are  votes for the unsuccessful candidates but also as the winning candidate needs 1+ more votse than the second best candidate therefore every vote above that 1+ is a kind of wasted vote. Or not exactly wasted but doesn't affect to the outcome of the election.

[myata]

13 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

Has there been any statistical analysis how large a proportion of votes are so-called wasted votes?

Results by riding should be available online, but I doubt someone would be compiling this statistic, not exactly productive for the status quo especially together with participation.

[myata]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Who are these owners.

The default winners, the only possible in theory and practice. Barriers, talking heads everything is skewed heavily against any new players. And then there's a place at the top for two only. That isn't going to change while the system is in place.

I invite you to look at it this way: of the two, Liberals are out as possible agents of change, reneged on their own pledge, cannot be trusted. Conservatives can bow out or ignore based on selfish considerations, they've been feeding from the same trough for ages. And that leaves us only a small number of options:

- there will be another agent of change and it will happen. That wouldn't be a good news for you as folks will remember your position as selfish and entitled.

- people wouldn't be interested in a meaningful change and accept the status quo in perpetuity. That would lead all the way to a third world condition that in the end wouldn't be good for most. First bells are already here.

See, refusing to embrace positive change leaves you no good options. You can "win" a few times in a heavily skewed system but it won't change the outcome.

[Yzermandius19]

3 hours ago, myata said:

I'll explain only once more, no need in endless repetition: the system severely limits the choice by imposing the condition of a single winner, as opposed to every vote counts. If there's an organized gang and you're naively "voting your mind" as cute and fuzzy professors and media heads invite you to, you will loose in every single district and the gang will get all of the representation, 100 : 0. So the natural result is two closely matching gangs and nothing else matters. Now, dream on that it's free and open. A two year old child choice, porridge, different porridge or go and throw tantrum. Exactly, 100% the same level of freedom and openness.

there is only a single winner of every seat under any system

that doesn't mean it's not free and open

handing out participation trophies is not any more free and open

and the idea that people won't vote Conservative or Liberal under other systems is asinine

stop projecting on the electorate

Canadians aren't going to vote the way you want them to regardless of the system in place

[myata]

57 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

and the idea that people won't vote Conservative or Liberal under other systems is asinine

That word is to claim that you can know the result before and without giving a choice. That's a claim that cannot be substantiated, supported or explained so just something out of head, without even attempt at making sense.

[myata]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Canadians aren't going to vote the way you want them

What are you talking with? This is about giving the choice to vote as they like. Of course with PR they are entirely free to keep electing Libs / Cons forever but they would also have a choice not to. But you cannot claim that until you can show it, with real unrestricted choice. No you can't you're just keep saying it as if in supreme wisdom you know all futures and it carries as much weight in total absence of factual evidence. And I can say anything too, look a fairy no a mermaid so let's have the status quo forever that kind of logic.

Edited June 24, 2022 by myata

[Queenmandy85]

49 minutes ago, myata said:

The default winners

Okay, but who are these default winners? Names?

 

50 minutes ago, myata said:

Liberals are out as possible agents of change, reneged on their own pledge

The Liberals tried to get electoral reform but the NDP blocked it. The CPC were leaning towards retaining FPTP but were still willing to compromise, as were the Grits. The NDP refused any compromise because PR would give them more power than the voters were willing to give them. No sane person wants PR. We would end up with the existing parties fragmenting into 50 or 60 political parties, some of which would make Max Bernier's PPC look almost normal. What happens when  a homophobic party with three seats holds the balance of power, or a party that wants compulsory vaccination?

1 hour ago, myata said:

there will be another agent of change and it will happen.

What change is that? You continue to be vague. I'm sorry, but I would like to know details. I still don't know what exactly you want.

[Queenmandy85]

 

5 minutes ago, myata said:

But you cannot claim that until you can show it, with real unrestricted choice.

How is your choice restricted? You can nominate any eligible voter you want to run for an existing party, a new party or as an independent. That is a choice of thousands of people. 

[myata]

54 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Okay, but who are these default winners? Names?

Stickers don't matter sorry, that was one too many to repeat.

55 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What change is that?

You are not listening, it was said many times: I want, and in a democracy, have a full right to see my vote represented in the representative body - if it was intended to represent this country not some alternate planet.

26 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

a new party or as an independent.

And again you missed everything and there's no point in repeating. No, in this system you cannot have a new party other than a useless text on a useless piece of paper but that's no voting as far as I'm concerned. Vote has to be represented accurately or it isn't represented. If you skewed the results of representation, you've lost some of democratic legitimacy. If people voted for a "wrong" party there had to be reasons for that and reasons and causes have to be noticed, understood and addressed not shoveled away under the chair in the hope that they'll figure themselves out somehow. And that's exactly why nothing is happening here, nothing new is built no issues can be addressed. We already forgot how it's done and in some generations wouldn't even think it possible.

[Queenmandy85]

I guess I'm too thick to understand your vague, incomprehensible posts. You say you want your vote represented by your MP. If you have 20,000 voters in your constituency, how are all of those votes represented? If English is your second language, perhaps you could get someone to edit your posts for clarity. Much of the time, I don't understand what you are saying and it is hard to guess.

[Yzermandius19]

4 hours ago, myata said:

That word is to claim that you can know the result before and without giving a choice. That's a claim that cannot be substantiated, supported or explained so just something out of head, without even attempt at making sense.

they are given the choice now

it is firmly substantiated

[myata]

51 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

they are given the choice now

No there's no such thing as "the choice". There's a fair and open choice where every vote is counted and reflected in representation. And there's a minimal choice A, or B or just too bad for you. The two choices are not the same, obviously. Pretending slow and word games is all what left in substantiation.

[Yzermandius19]

46 minutes ago, myata said:

No there's no such thing as "the choice". There's a fair and open choice where every vote is counted and reflected in representation. And there's a minimal choice A, or B or just too bad for you. The two choices are not the same, obviously. Pretending slow and word games is all what left in substantiation.

in PR

the choice of the ridings isn't reflected in representation

just the choice of the parties

 

every vote counts in FPTP

but not every vote determines the winner

nothing is stopping anyone from voting for anybody

 

you evoke a distinction without a difference

the choice is the same

you are the one indulging in semantics to pretend it isn't

Edited June 24, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[RedDog]

I no longer care about this party or that party.

The only solution is to get Alberta out of this cartoon.

[myata]

12 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

in PR

the choice of the ridings isn't reflected in representation

No. There are many flavors of the system and there are those where it is reflected. Untrue.

12 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

every vote counts in FPTP

If a large part of votes, easily a majority in many ridings is not represented then what is the meaning of "counts"? "Counts" , for what? In a tribal dance around the fire? Obfuscation, word play and confusion - the only arguments.

12 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

nothing is stopping anyone from voting for anybody

Plainly untrue, there are multiple and strong barriers to a free election, if it means accurate representation, rather than a procedure of leaving a mark on a piece of paper (or another form of tribal dance). Words do not have the same meaning - obfuscation and confusion.

You really have no arguments to support your position; the attachment is purely emotional. And that is a logical, argumented conclusion here.

[myata]

12 hours ago, RedDog said:

I no longer care about this party or that party.

Interesting. It just shows that the status quo does not satisfy and not working for anybody in the country except a close political group that firmly attached itself to it and over decades and generations came to believe that this is how the things will be forever here.

But on the other side, from the reality side, many and eventually virtually everybody would see it as the ultimate block to any meaningful change and look for ways out of the conundrum now. Different ways, you named one. Some will leave the country, and it will have to bring more of the third world (few others are interested), and become more of the third world itself. It, the third world already echoes clearly every time you have to connect to the government for virtually any matter (except maybe in the month before election) and the vector is one way why wouldn't it be? In the end, the finale, the direction wouldn't benefit anybody and we'll end up in something like Northern Mexico.

The nature of time is simple: if you aren't moving with it, or ahead of it, you will be the past. It's only a matter of time.

[Jack9000]

On 6/13/2022 at 11:15 PM, RedDog said:

Can they explain why NS and NB have more Senators than Alberta?

Also, why does PAYbec have more MP’s than AB and BC with a larger population?

CanaDUH needs a reset. 

Last thing Alberta needs is more MPs 

[myata]

2 hours ago, Jack9000 said:

Can they explain why NS and NB have more Senators than Alberta?

Also, why does PAYbec have more MP’s than AB and BC with a larger population?

Wise people made it so in the early days after creation and who are we, the lowly ones to question their unending (like in ever) wisdom?

Edited June 25, 2022 by myata