Conservative Party can run on proportional representation reform

[Yzermandius19]

7 minutes ago, myata said:

Sorry, that's just nonsense. Coalitions are a regular, daily part of politics in proportional systems. It's nearly impossible to get a single party majority and to be successful one has to be able to negotiate, find common grounds and acceptable policies. And this is nearly exactly the opposite of "if not me then you" of FPTP.

Dunno where that professing tone comes from but it isn't working here. You need logical arguments based on facts and reality. Just professing wouldn't do it.

The Nazi's formed a coalition too

so what?

you tout coalitions like it's inherently a good thing

or results in less partisanship 

it doesn't

PR sucks

 

you say the only way to see if it works as you claim it will

is to try it

but it's been tried on numerous occasions

never once worked out the way you think it will

and the sample size ain't small

 

this time it will work

is the same argument the Commies use

whenever someone points out how it failed everytime

it's a shitty argument for communism and shitty argument for PR

Edited June 18, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[myata]

14 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

PR sucks

You have strong emotions, absence of logical arguments and the fallacy of association. No system is perfect; moreover, every one will fail where citizens decide to become complacent and not care. Rome has proven it two thousand years back, no need to repeat again. And Germany of 1930s sure. And many more examples, current and future. Yet, a complex contemporary society cannot be effectively represented in a system designed for 17th century. It, the society will loose and already losing.

Edited June 18, 2022 by myata

[Yzermandius19]

9 minutes ago, myata said:

You have strong emotions, absence of logical arguments and the fallacy of association. No system is perfect; moreover, every one will fail where citizens decide to become complacent and not care. Rome has proven it two thousand years back, no need to repeat again. And Germany of 1930s sure. And many more examples, current and future. Yet, a complex contemporary society cannot be effectively represented in a system designed for 17th century. It, the society will loose and already losing.

come up with a better system

not one that is worse than the 17th century system

you sound like a Marxist criticizing capitalism while actively promoting a worse system

and claiming it isn't worse because you can't do worse than the status quo

so just try it

Edited June 18, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, myata said:

It's called: eyes.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. 

You continue to demonstrate you don't know what you are talking about.

At least Taxme is entertaining.

[Yzermandius19]

7 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

There are none so blind as those who will not see. 

You continue to demonstrate you don't know what you are talking about.

At least Taxme is entertaining.

to be fair

myata is very often not blind

but on this one

he's as blind about PR fixing Canada's poor governance 

as eyeball is about in-camera lobbying fixing Canada's poor governance

at least in myata's case the solution doesn't infringe on free speech though

but they both fall into the trap of assuming those changes are like waving a magic wand and all Canada's issues will be resolved

when they will actually just make the situation worse

Edited June 18, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, myata said:

Sorry, that's just nonsense. Coalitions are a regular, daily part of politics in proportional systems. It's nearly impossible to get a single party majority and to be successful one has to be able to negotiate, find common grounds and acceptable policies. And this is nearly exactly the opposite of "if not me then you" of FPTP.

Dunno where that professing tone comes from but it isn't working here. You need logical arguments based on facts and reality. Just professing wouldn't do it.

Coalition governments give an inordinant amount of power to ideologically driven splinter parties. In BC, you had Weaver and his caucus of three running the government of BC. 

 

Edited June 18, 2022 by Queenmandy85

[Queenmandy85]

6 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

to be fair

myata is very often not blind

That is possible. It is just that much of what he writes is incomprehensible to me. I still don't have any idea what he wants. I know there is a concern that MP's are somehow victims of human trafficking and are some kind of slaves belonging to unknown people. I don't know. My reading comprehention is a bit deficient.

[myata]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Coalition governments give an inordinant amount of power to ideologically driven splinter parties

OK that's telling. And who are you to brand ideas, and groups that promote them, and getting the support of the voters, citizens same as you are - or maybe not, a lower less important kind? as "splinter", "fringe" and generally undesired and wrong? "We don't need them", as spoken by us? Is it some kind of democratic (knock-knock) demi-deity on some political Olympus mount? Sure. Decades and centuries of entitlement to rule, with no questions or accountability (as demonstrated once again, just days ago) will do that. Easily.

Edited June 18, 2022 by myata

[myata]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

but they both fall into the trap of assuming those changes are like waving a magic wand and all Canada's issues will be resolved

when they will actually just make the situation worse

I'm afraid you're talking from a platform of all-knowledge and that can distort both understanding of problems and ways (practical and feasible) how to approach them. We seem to agree that the status quo is defunct and ineffective, going forward. That attempting to stretch it into the future would exacerbate existing problems and accelerate emergence of new ones, not in the least via inability to detect them early and find effective ways to address them. Now, if we want to avoid this scenario, we need to find ways of changing, improving the status quo.

Again we seem to agree that the role of the public is paramount; a society in a deep democratic slumber cannot be helped. It's only a lottery when bad things would begin to happen, not if.

And then, there's a difference of opinions on how to proceed with change. And that's where the problem seem to lie. If both of us are firmly entrenched in our desired outcomes (as opposed to practical and functional solutions to the problem we agreed exists and is essential), then nothing will happen. This is obvious from the start and the discussion can be ended in two posts: I like this and would accept nothing else; and the other, others almost identical to it. Done.

And now, if we were looking to get past that point, we would need to a) not rule out anything outright; b) define mutually agreed criteria of how we would judge solutions and c) go ahead and consider all possible solutions fairly and objectively, based on agreed criteria and principles. In the end, if we have more than zero, that would be a huge step forward (but not the end yet). So the question is, are we moving past the position 3 or will be stuck there for the observable perspective. In that latter case, obviously, there would be no solutions to essential problem.

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 6/15/2022 at 5:33 AM, Yzermandius19 said:

coalitions don't work well

and when the coalitions will just be between parties that are virtually identical

that is even more the case

the problem isn't the system

it's the electorate

Coalitions work well all over the world. It’s a matter of getting used to them. 

[Yzermandius19]

56 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Coalitions work well all over the world. It’s a matter of getting used to them. 

they really don't work well at all

FPTP works far better

the grass is not greener on the other side

Edited June 18, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Nationalist]

The problem here is not that coalitions don't work...it's that there's only 1 viable conservative party in Canada. 

[myata]

12 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

FPTP works far better

The system does not allow open fair competition to the detriment of the society. The barriers to entry in the political process are ridiculous, they benefit only the status quo pseudo parties, in fact default governing corporations. They protect the system that works for them and them only at all cost. Imagine dinosaurs that could control their environment, to an extent? You would get Jurassic park. Canada is a Jurassic park of the 21st century politics.

With open political competition, the best for the country will be selected, just like in the nature. We can do and have better: it's not inevitability, but a choice.

[myata]

And for the criteria of selection of viable options I propose these: a) a tested solution that works, not something entirely new b) no record of fundamental or major problems like "soviets"; and c) practical possibility of implementation in Canada.

Judging by these, proportional system is a clear possibility. It works around the world and it's possible to implement technically. In fact in Canada there's been at least two previous attempts, can be argued how genuine, but the fact remains: it is possible conceptually and technically.

"True representative" FPTP (no whipping representative vote) passes first two criteria but has a problem with the last one: how do we ensure true independent vote? If it's only on the paper as many of our things here, party-corporations would quickly find less obvious backdoor channels of influence (they are experts at that, as illustrated by the SNC affair) and we're back to where started (and the public would get yet another experience of a useless paper-only "reform"). But in our reality there's nothing, not a single office or institution that's entirely independent, including judicial, justice, media, even civil society is skewed by the habit of feeding on government grants. So it wouldn't be an easy task with no clear solutions.

Proportional system with simultaneous removal of prohibitive entry barriers could change political reality starting tomorrow. Make it rich, colorful, representative of the reality of the country. If we choose not to do it, it's no given, not impossibility or some existential danger but only a choice, rooted in exclusive benefits for some and complacency and fear of change of the others.

[Yzermandius19]

1 hour ago, myata said:

The system does not allow open fair competition to the detriment of the society. The barriers to entry in the political process are ridiculous, they benefit only the status quo pseudo parties, in fact default governing corporations. They protect the system that works for them and them only at all cost. Imagine dinosaurs that could control their environment, to an extent? You would get Jurassic park. Canada is a Jurassic park of the 21st century politics.

With open political competition, the best for the country will be selected, just like in the nature. We can do and have better: it's not inevitability, but a choice.

the most popular is selected in both FPTP and PR

best ain't got nothing to do it

both allow fair and open competition

look at any nation with PR

all the parties suck there too

Edited June 19, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[myata]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the most popular is selected in both FPTP and PR

Words have different meanings and "popular" does not mean "best" or even "any good". If the choice is limited to meh porridge and bad porridge your best possible is meh. The more choice and selection is restricted, the less opportunity is for open competition, the less chance that the best is selected. Stagnation and decline becomes the default direction of evolution.

"both allow fair and open competition"

Restricting the choice, by any means or hooks is not open and not free, a fact confirmed by enormous barriers and limited choice. Scratching something on a piece of paper is not equivalent to democratic choice. FPTP has two fundamental problems: limiting the choice to an absolute minimum; and engendering partisanship where getting to and keeping the power is the main goal, not service to the society. Corporations evolve for generations under this one guiding goal. No, can't be good.

Fair is in the eyes of the beholder, not going to argue some consider Putin's dictatorship as democratic and fair.

Edited June 19, 2022 by myata

[Queenmandy85]

18 hours ago, myata said:

OK that's telling. And who are you to brand ideas, and groups that promote them, and getting the support of the voters, citizens same as you are - or maybe not, a lower less important kind? as "splinter", "fringe" and generally undesired and wrong?

I didn't coin the term splinter parties. It has always been used in reference to small parties based on ideology rather than good government, such as the CCF-NDP and Social Credit. The major parties are based on pragmatism. The Progressive Conservatives gave us NAFTA and the Liberals defended it against the Trump administration. The NDP represent an ideology voters reject at the federal level and the SoCreds represent funny money. As the nephew of a BC SoCred cabinet minister said, you can't even make Social Credit look good on paper. 

If you want to see a preview of what PR would look like, look at the Liberal NDP agreement only on steroids. We have the NDP dragging the grits further to the left than the grits want to go.

[Yzermandius19]

40 minutes ago, myata said:

FPTP has two fundamental problems: limiting the choice to an absolute minimum; and engendering partisanship where getting to and keeping the power is the main goal, not service to the society.

FPTP does neither of those things

you can't even name one fundamental problem with the system

and have no better alternative 

yet are so supportive of changing it

come back when you can actually point out issues in the system AND have a superior alternative

your argument is trash

[myata]

18 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If you want to see a preview of what PR would look like,

I don't want scares and previews. I'm not interested in at best mediocre status quo forever. I want a system where a) I have a choice and b) it is represented objectively and correctly. This is how I understand democracy not pretty fairy tales on paper. And I won't settle for anything less, whatever fairy tales or scares, etc.

Edited June 19, 2022 by myata

[Queenmandy85]

51 minutes ago, myata said:

FPTP has two fundamental problems: limiting the choice to an absolute minimum; and engendering partisanship where getting to and keeping the power is the main goal, not service to the society

Getting and keeping power is the goal of every political party. Nobody is going to invest their time and treasure into losing.

4 minutes ago, myata said:

I don't want scares and previews. I'm not interested in at best mediocre status quo forever. I want a system where a) I have a choice and b) it is represented objectively and correctly. This is how I understand democracy not pretty fairy tales on paper. And I won't settle for anything less, whatever fairy tales or scares, etc.

By your own admission, you want a system to to what you want, but you want someone else to do the heavy lifting. Well, my friend, that is an abdication of your duty. You are all talk, mostly greek to me, but whining doesn't get it done. With you backing PR, we are guaranteed FPTP is safe from any reform. Sorry to be so blunt, but that is the way it is.

[myata]

12 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

FPTP does neither of those things

you can't even name one fundamental problem with the system

Well it's glaring right in your face but you fail to see it, and / or admit it. How many parties have been in power, ever? How many are the default party-corporations? Who is the system working for, and designed to work for, obviously?

At this level discussion doesn't have much point. We are each entitled to our own private version of the reality. Of course it doesn't guarantee competent, effective and efficient governments. And if our private realities detach and deviate from the real one, more and further, quite the opposite.

[myata]

24 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

With you backing PR, we are guaranteed FPTP is safe from any reform.

You think it my problem? It was only a courtesy. Nobody is safe from the future and entropy. And the dinosaurs, least of all.

 

24 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

is an abdication of your duty

What "duty", eat stale and tired porridge time after time because that's how things were from the times of Noah? No thanks, you can have it all to yourself.

Edited June 19, 2022 by myata

[Yzermandius19]

7 minutes ago, myata said:

Well it's glaring right in your face but you fail to see it, and / or admit it. How many parties have been in power, ever? How many are the default party-corporations? Who is the system working for, and designed to work for, obviously?

that would be the case under PR as well

the Liberals and Conservatives would be forming all the coalitions

in fact the Liberals would win even more often than they do now

the "alternatives" wouldn't win shit

you assume this is only happening because of FPTP

but you're wrong

Edited June 19, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[myata]

44 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

that would be the case under PR as well

the Liberals and Conservatives would be forming all the coalitions

This is just wrong. You've got to look at the reality, not private version of it in your mind. Here's the latest elections in Netherlands (PR). There are 8 parties with popular vote of 5% and above, the highest just over 20%. Six more (for the total of 14) have more than one seat. In Canada you have the default duo, splinter NDP and Quebec not to count worthless Greens, for the appearance. 

In the Netherlands with 5% of popular vote (PPC) you would be among the top tier of parties, with some 20 seats (proportionally to Canada parliament). You would enter coalitions, participate in debates, determine policies maybe have a minister in the government this is how people will get to know you, understand your policies and in the next election you can be one of the leaders. Nothing like that exists in Canada of course. Your name is on a sheet of paper among a bunch of freaks and the day after the elections you're gone from public view. The field is deliberately cleared of any meaningful competition, including formally with "official status" to make it even more obvious. Feel free to call this "free choice" certainly little to do with the notion in common interpretation.

Edited June 19, 2022 by myata

[myata]

54 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Getting and keeping power is the goal of every political party. Nobody is going to invest their time and treasure into losing.

Thanks for confirming. Indeed after couple of centuries of unaccountable rule easy to forget that political power is not the goal in itself but a mean to create positive change in the society. This is how it was supposed to work long ago, but yeah easy to forget with x5+ times median salaries no questions asked no responsibility expected.