Conservative Party can run on proportional representation reform

[Queenmandy85]

38 minutes ago, myata said:

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.

What positive changes do you have in mind? Who are you going to attract into government if you are not going to pay them accordingly? If we have PR, the minority of socialists and Max Bernier / poilievre  reform types are going to skew the pragmatic direction the nation needs to take. 75 % of voters want a centre party made up of competant, pragmatic people. They do not want the Pat Kings or Judy Rebicks influencing government. (Disclaimer: Judy is a fine person with a keen intellect, but her ideas are based on ideology). 

If we have PR, we will be forced to vote for a party rather than some one we know from our neighbourhood. Then the party backroom boys appoint your MP, giving it as a reward for God knows what. Talk about accountability. My MP got his picture taken with some of the occupiers in Ottawa this winter. I felt he was giving in to extortion, so we had a productive 40 minute phone conversation over the issue. After it was over, I was satisfied and he retained my support. Would You be able to do that with an MP who is appointed by the unelected party brass who doesn't depend on your support to be re-appointed? My MP knows who I am and he knows the work his constituants do for him depends on his being accountable to us, not some unelected party aperatchik.

You keep banging on about super accountability. Would you work for a boss who doesn't trust you and has a committee of efficiency experts and bean counters constantly looking over your shoulder? How do you accomplish that without another layer of government costing millions more dollars?

[myata]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What positive changes do you have in mind?

Governments that are accountable and work to service citizens rather than sustaining themselves.

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Who are you going to attract into government if you are not going to pay them accordingly?

People genuinely looking to work for public good not make a quick buck on the public's back doing essentially, nothing (so no need to interrupt successful legal practice - hopefully)

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If we have PR

another scarecrow, easier to say: not interested. OK we already knew that.

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

75 % of voters want a centre party

No you cannot speak on behalf of the people wants aren't some hero tribune or olympic demigod.

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If we have PR, we will be forced to vote for a party rather than some one we know from our neighbourhood.

Bull, everybody votes for the party, party offices routinely parachute people having nothing to do with neighborhood and generally when it'll be enough of improbable fairly tale BS or too much, would there be such a point I wonder?

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Would You be able to do that with an MP who is appointed by the unelected party brass who doesn't depend on your support to be re-appointed?

Failure to read or follow, there are proportional systems that allow to have local representatives.

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Would you work for a boss who doesn't trust you and has a committee of efficiency experts and bean counters constantly looking over your shoulder?

Bull, governments are responsible and accountable to people at all times, if you don't like it run successful private practice, public service is not a free bottomless honeypot.

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

How do you accomplish that without another layer of government costing millions more dollars?

With transparency, independent checks and balances and total accountability. And proportional system can sure help to start in that direction. For example it would be sheer nonsense to have Chief Prosecutor directly responding to a minister whom they're supposed to keep in check and investigate if and whenever needed.

[Queenmandy85]

23 minutes ago, myata said:

there are proportional systems that allow to have local representatives.

So, you have the House of Commons made up of local representatives, another chamber made up of the PR party appointments, and then an accountability chamber charged with micro-managing everyone elses' work

 

36 minutes ago, myata said:

Bull, governments are responsible and accountable to people at all times, if you don't like it run successful private practice, public service

Does your boss micro-manage everything you don and suspect you of dishonesty? Why would you work for something like that, especially for no compensation?

 

26 minutes ago, myata said:

People genuinely looking to work for public good not make a quick buck on the public's back doing essentially, nothing (so no need to interrupt successful legal practice - hopefully)

Where are you going to find a person who will work 80 hour weeks for the public good while carrying on with their legal practice? Are you accounting for travelling from Ottawa to your day job in Invermere, BC. 

 

29 minutes ago, myata said:

With transparency, independent checks and balances and total accountability.

Who will be carrying out the independent checks and govern the transparency, and who will be watching over them?

Why do you have such a terrible view of your MP? Who did you elect, Bernie Madoff? You have no idea what an MP does, yet you feel free to slam the people who are willing to put their names forward to serve their community and their country.

43 minutes ago, myata said:

For example it would be sheer nonsense to have Chief Prosecutor directly responding to a minister whom they're supposed to keep in check and investigate if and whenever needed.

If you will recall, Minister Wilson-Raybould did not ask the Crown Prosecutor to consider a deferred prosecution. She acted completely appropriately. The Prime minister should not have even brought it up and the idea was abandoned. His part in the affair cost the grits their majority. (Accountability for you)

 

53 minutes ago, myata said:

Bull, everybody votes for the party, party offices routinely parachute people having nothing to do with neighborhood and generally when it'll be enough of improbable fairly tale BS or too much, would there be such a point I wonder?

People's voting decisions vary. Some vote the party line, others vote for the candidate. Yes, there are occasional parachuted candidates, but the voters in the riding have the option of voting for a different candidate. At least the voters in that riding have the opportunity of getting to know the outsider before voting. In PR, the MP is imposed by the party after the election so you never get to talk to them.. The thing is, the party lable does not mean much. It is the character of the individuals that make for good government.

[Queenmandy85]

Myata, my friend, it's fathers' day and the Blue Jays just beat the Yankees in a nail biter. Politics is just politics. Have a great evening everyone. ?

[myata]

20 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So, you have the House of Commons made up of local representatives,

No, it's 21st century, remember? The process isn't a problem, solutions exist. But why change anything if all is working perfectly as is? For me.

21 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Why would you work for something like that, especially for no compensation?

I would work if it has a meaning for me, hopefully with a modest, not necessarily outrageously f#$% obscene compensation (unless it's my private business, sure) and I'll have no problem opening and discussing my methods and results with the public and any other professionals. That only adds value to my work and helps me get better at it. How can it be wrong?

 

25 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Where are you going to find a person who will work 80 hour weeks

The century is 21st, knock-knock.

 

25 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Why do you have such a terrible view of your MP?

OK this can be important. I work with competent professionals and hopefully am myself. None of us has any problems presenting and discussing our work and results with other professionals and the public. That continuing adage of yours of "not trusting" is worrying me indeed. Why should I be trusting anyone with my purse, including our public one, blindly without any effective accountability? Why do you want to expect such blind trust? Is it the ingrained entitlement or you're not confident opening your results to others? Why else?

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, myata said:

OK this can be important. I work with competent professionals and hopefully am myself. None of us has any problems presenting and discussing our work and results with other professionals and the public. That continuing adage of yours of "not trusting" is worrying me indeed. Why should I be trusting anyone with my purse, including our public one, blindly without any effective accountability? Why do you want to expect such blind trust? Is it the ingrained entitlement or you're not confident opening your results to others? Why else?

We have the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and a vigorous opposition. But, as I said, it is only politics. Your ideas are every bit as good as mine. 

Take care.

[myata]

49 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

and a vigorous opposition.

A vigorous circus period you must have meant. Good luck.

[Yzermandius19]

20 hours ago, myata said:

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.

Canada is not the Netherlands

Canadians will not vote for most of their parties

PR is not some big gamechanger that heavily influences how an electorate votes

they will vote for the same parties they would under FPTP

a few extra seats for the smaller parties is a nothingburger

that won't fix anything

the left will have even more power than they have now

it will be worse

Edited June 20, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[myata]

34 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Canadians will not vote for most of their parties

Funny, same argument as QM. You're proving a point today by allowing a glimpse into the future that you already know. OK got it. So we don't need democracy, election systems parties, candidates-employees-representatives none of that. All we need is you guys, the Enlightened ones who see all and far ahead and know all before it even thought of. We will be safe with you. You know.

[Queenmandy85]

Just on a practical note, if the CPC runs on bringing in PR, the result will be the same. You need all party agreement and not all parties will agree, so the grits will say the CPC broke its promise. What is that they say about the definition of insanity?

[myata]

20 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

You need all party agreement and not all parties will agree

Where's that notion coming from, what enshrined Olympus? A democracy is by the people and for the people not for the parties. A party runs on a clear platform of change. People give it majority mandate - it has people's will can go ahead and implement it. Minority one, can find like-minded allies to a majority mandate and implement it. You're only looking for reasons to not do anything. Can't just say, nope not interested.

[myata]

For the record:

Liberals: can't be trusted. No.

Conservatives: in the take, unlikely but OK let's leave it open: we will see.

NDP: unlikely to attain a majority or reasonable majority coalition: No.

BQ: Quebec only, No (but can be in the majority coalition, if interested)

PPC: unknown. Would like to hear it.

That's all the current parties with substantial popular vote. And as many chances for a real change.

[Queenmandy85]

To change the electoral system, you need to have some consensus among the Members. If it were just the government putting it through, they could design anything that gives them a certainty of re-election.  For that kind of change, you really need to have buy-in from all members.

What about having run off elections in those ridings where no candidate wins a majority? The top two candidates face off against each other two weeks after the main election. It is simple and assures every member has a mandate.

Edited June 20, 2022 by Queenmandy85

[Queenmandy85]

We must not underestimate the importance of having a majority government. When governments need to respond to a major crisis, the confidence of the House is vital to ensure decisive action. Climate change, the war in Europe and the on going pandemic are examples. The only reason the government has been able to respond to the pandemic is the total lack of money in the NDP's coffers has allowed the government to operate as though it has a majority, but the NDP still have the power to stifle the government's ability to deal with the deficit.

Edited June 20, 2022 by Queenmandy85

[myata]

28 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We must not underestimate the importance of having a majority government.

Are you looking for reasons not to change anything. Why change it if it worked so well - for us? All of these questions can be addressed it's 21st century not 17th.

But maybe we take this yeah sure it worked in the times of Noah and will work some more attitude - till it doesn't. And that moment may not even be far away: health care, Covid, climate with decades of dithering, not a single problem addressed to solution, can we still solve problems or only throw money and forget? You understand that we can get to the point where our governments can do nothing but talk and spend our money simply because they didn't have to and forgot how to?

Edited June 20, 2022 by myata

[-TSS-]

Countries like Norway and Denmark never have a majority-government. They haven't done badly though.

Perhaps we overestimate the importance of having a majority-government. Perhaps we overestimate the importance of having any government. Just ask the Belgians who can have government-negotiations lasting for a year after any election while in the meantime the country is governed by a caretaker-administration. 

[Yzermandius19]

9 hours ago, myata said:

Funny, same argument as QM. You're proving a point today by allowing a glimpse into the future that you already know. OK got it. So we don't need democracy, election systems parties, candidates-employees-representatives none of that. All we need is you guys, the Enlightened ones who see all and far ahead and know all before it even thought of. We will be safe with you. You know.

if Canadians listened to me more often

they'd be a lot better off

they aren't going to though

but they can't say I didn't warn them

[myata]

1 hour ago, -TSS- said:

Perhaps we overestimate the importance of having a majority-government.

This is very hard to explain and make acceptable and comfortable to people who never created their government system consciously. Any change even relatively minor can be seen as a threat to the status quo that worked, anyhow.

[myata]

And so, we are down to CPC for this needed and timely change. Add PPC in the mix, not a bad idea. Have an electoral coalition too, let them win some seats. For the vote, maybe BQ would come onboard. Greens less sure but they only have two.

Wouldn't be fun watching SNC-Libs and new NDP squirm and whine against the change they themselves pledged for? Yes we could see it, tomorrow unforgettable. C'mon make it happen what do you have to lose?

[Yzermandius19]

1 hour ago, myata said:

what do you have to lose?

more elections

PR plays to the advantage of the lefty parties

the CPC is the last party who would scrap FPTP

the NDP is the only party who would do it

the most right leaning parties in Canada aren't going to be forming many coalitions with only 40% of the popular vote

the only way they could, is to move even further to the left than they have already, to get a lefty party to join their coalition

you want make Canada lean even harder to left, then PR is the way to go

Edited June 21, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[myata]

9 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the most right leaning parties in Canada aren't going to be forming many coalitions with only 40% of the popular vote

That's why you have to learn to cooperate, not dictate. After going on 200 years of unrestricted government dictate, a tall order. What will help us? No clue. But certainly, 100% not a new smiley face on the sticker.

[Yzermandius19]

1 hour ago, myata said:

That's why you have to learn to cooperate, not dictate. After going on 200 years of unrestricted government dictate, a tall order. What will help us? No clue. But certainly, 100% not a new smiley face on the sticker.

pandering to communists will fix Canada?

that's pretty delusional

that's the biggest reason the Canadian status quo sucks

and you want to double down on that, while pretending to be anti-status quo?

that's useful idiot shit, right thurr

you overrate cooperation

particularly with those who are totally unreasonable and won't cooperate with anyone who is reasonable 

no matter how much you cave to them, they won't cave to you

the cooperation will be a one way street and it ain't the direction you want it to go

the amount of naive wishful thinking that serves as the justification for your position is off the charts

the road to hell is paved with good intentions

 

you want to design a system based on Canadians being what you want them to be

instead of designing a system based on who Canadians actually are

and that is doomed to failure

unrealistic idealism is a helluva drug

Edited June 21, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[myata]

31 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

pandering to communists will fix Canada?

Cooperation is now communist? Certainly reaching new depths or revelation.

You are touching on something essential here though. The only social concepts this country seems to understand easily and naturally are 1) the colonial: wise elites ruling lowly and voiceless peasants wisely (and however they like, with no limits or controls) and 2) pioneer: I got to this place it's mine now nobody and nothing is a limit to me and to $ell with anything that would tell me otherwise.

And if not one then has to be the other. Both worked when there were a few hundred thousand of use spread sparsely on the planet but good luck with the billions running on the natural limits. The numbers changed but not the intelligence.

[Yzermandius19]

50 minutes ago, myata said:

Cooperation is now communist?

cooperation is not communist

the people you want to cooperate with are though

and that will take the form of you caving to their demands and them not giving you squat

that's just a shitty plan

and it will just make Canada even worse than it already is

Edited June 21, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[myata]

28 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

and it will just make Canada even worse than it already is

That is a dubious statement. Inability to change and adapt can be as bad as it gets.