Proportional Representation

[myata]

1 hour ago, Contrarian said:

I am a knight of the status quo here haha

Nope. Nothing original here. When you lived a few generations in far backwater environments with no incentives to change and adapt, you would see even a minor (then: microscopic) change as a dangerous and unnecessary undertaking A FEAT. And huge scary entirely unnecessary risk. You did nothing and it took you all the way here, right? Easy. And the rest, after reaching that state is trivial: a change is a disaster; disasters to be avoided; ergo any change is anathema. Q.E.D.

[myata]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Because politics are fun.

This is highly relative.

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

It is our national sport.

And again, so easy to oversee the obvious difference: in a sport, one plays (and pays) voluntarily. In politics we have no choice. Can I not have that great employee-representative, and have my taxes reduced accordingly, I don't mind and wouldn't complain, honest! See?

You like sports where have no control over you bets, all is decided just sign here? Astounding.

[Queenmandy85]

37 minutes ago, myata said:

This is highly relative.

And again, so easy to oversee the obvious difference: in a sport, one plays (and pays) voluntarily. In politics we have no choice. Can I not have that great employee-representative, and have my taxes reduced accordingly, I don't mind and wouldn't complain, honest! See?

You like sports where have no control over you bets, all is decided just sign here? Astounding.

Politics is a participation sport. That gives us some control, just like in football. The harder and smarter you play, the better the chance you have of winning. First, you nominate a potential captain of your team. You sell memberships and knock on doors, get people out to meetings and work hard to get the captain nominated. Then, you canvass the riding. You determine where the support for the captain is. ie., you identify the vote. Finally, the team assembles for the championship. (election day) and you contact every supporter  and get them to the polls to cast their vote. You use your bingo sheets to keep track of who has voted. If a supporter has not voted, you find out why and overcome all obstacles -rides to the polls, child care, even cook their supper if that is an issue. Election day is the greatest (non-ski related) rush there is. 

Like the Stanley Cup, the outcome of the game doen't make a great differnence in the long run. It is all in the contest. Whether Pierre Poilievre or Justin Trudeau is Prime Minister will not have much effect on the major decisions the government must make. The professional staff in the Public Service, the people who have been advising political leaders and the executive for years, lay out the options for cabinet to consider, detailing the pros and cons of each option. The politician who presumes to know more than the guys who know what they are doing, is bound to screw things up. The politician who listens carefully is likely to make better choices. Most people who make it to the top, like the PM or Mr. Poilievre, are smart enough to listen to the experts (you know...the guys who know what they are doing.)

I know there are some pin-heads out there who whine about the "tyranny of experts." People who don't know how to do something should not try to tell people who do know, that they are doing it all wrong.

And you are NOT going to have your taxes reduced as long as you have to pay for services.

Edited January 29 by Queenmandy85

[Contrarian]

18 hours ago, myata said:

You did nothing and it took you all the way here, right? Easy. And the rest, after reaching that state is trivial: a change is a disaster; disasters to be avoided; 

I STUDIED AND WORKED/WORK you bum, take it as a joke, what do you mean I did nothing and took me here? What are you smoking? You think the West rolls down a red carpet for new immigrants that come here? 

No, what happens is some people achieve success by not listening to agitators like you, complainers that have nothing positive to add.

If only they gave you the power, you would make society better, this is what one professor told Ted Kaczynski in a mockery. Ted Kaczynski, if you know who he is, started shouting at the professor that going back to primitive times was the key to peace in the world. So basically he had the key and everyone else was blind.  😄

You are the one blind in your ideas is my opinion, not society, society is moving forward, with changes. I told you, there is a new law passed that even Permanent Residents can serve in the military now, so that is a change.

You are never going to take control, there will be no "Destroy and Rebuild", because the status quo will oppose any anarchism via law enforcement if it starts metamorphosing into street action. It is entertainment though, your screams in the wind. 

Edited January 30 by Contrarian

[myata]

7 hours ago, Contrarian said:

I STUDIED AND WORKED/WORK you bum,

You are not getting it.

7 hours ago, Contrarian said:

You are never going to take control

No you're definitely just not getting it.

7 hours ago, Contrarian said:

via law enforcement if it starts metamorphosing into street action

You'll be surprised to observe (and then, who knows) what state of order entrenched authoritarian systems can descend into in no time at all (in historical terms). Not me saying it, only facts of history.

I've no interest in having anything to do with your forces. Roll happily wherever it takes you, all the way (that's pretty much given, in such cases) with my sincere wishes of luck. I'll just stand by and watch... when I have a free minute and nothing more fun to do.

Edited January 30 by myata

[myata]

9 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

And you are NOT going to have your taxes reduced as long as you have to pay for services.

I like this interpretation! Just like that carbon charge service", right? And looks like it's becoming a smash in the management of public matters (in certain democracies"). Old people could still recall the sad old times when they chose what services they needed (and what they were willing to pay for them - or not) but that was so long ago and not quite right. Look really, if every peasant would begin to choose their own service, where would be the place for the wise, better people, you know? No, definitely wrong.

So welcome, brave new services (and don't be surprise where they will take you)!

[Contrarian]

3 hours ago, myata said:

 I'll just stand by and watch...

Of course you will, is easier to sit on the sidelines and run your mouth. 

Is hard sport to be part of society, some give up it seems and try to reason it with propositions that always lead to chaos. "Destroy and rebuild". Brilliant.

[myata]

1 hour ago, Contrarian said:

Is hard sport to be part of

Not every sport you want to be a part of.. the conclusion is natural, though it goes with the practice of critical questioning of the reality. Not all things you can change. But do you have to be a part of the things you disagree with, on principle?

[Contrarian]

37 minutes ago, myata said:

Not every sport you want to be a part of.. the conclusion is natural, though it goes with the practice of critical questioning of the reality. Not all things you can change. But do you have to be a part of the things you disagree with, on principle?

Yes, you can do that and just be someone that curses at the game daily but then the question becomes, what do you leave behind? Isn't that the role of a human, to take care of himself and achieve his potential then help through taxes or direct involvement in society, donations, etc? 

How are you going to impact society towards a positive direction if you don't agree with society in the first place and are unwilling to reach your potential? 

Edited January 30 by Contrarian

[myata]

2 hours ago, Contrarian said:

Is hard sport to be part of society

First this. Isn't it interesting (amusing too) that when it's about their business, salaries and many compensations they don't need any of you as part of their "society" in any role we'll sort it out here thank you though. It's only when you're needed to prop their pretty democratic (tuk-tuk) idyll you're suddenly called to be a part of (toy elections, happy sleigh ride interactions with your employee-representatives and other such silly useless stuff). Funny how some of us couldn't see though this blatantly simple game. No judging though everybody has their issues.

14 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Isn't that the role of a human, to take care of himself

Some human?

[Contrarian]

24 minutes ago, myata said:

First this. Isn't it interesting (amusing too) that when it's about their business, salaries and many compensations they don't need any of you as part of their "society" in any role we'll sort it out here thank you though. It's only when you're needed to prop their pretty democratic (tuk-tuk) idyll you're suddenly called to be a part of (toy elections, happy sleigh ride interactions with your employee-representatives and other such silly useless stuff). Funny how some of us couldn't see though this blatantly simple game. No judging though everybody has their issues.

Some human?

You are wrong and you are talking like a Marxist is my rant. 

There are 2 ways to give back to "society:"     
(in my Bias, remember you are talking to someone that read Ayn Rand early on)

1. With results. Meaning you focus on yourself, achieve and give back (taxes, donations and other things)

2. With running your mouth. You will find followers, yes, as many people turn to complaining when the game is too hard. 

Which of the above would get more done for society?

Edited January 30 by Contrarian

[myata]

1 minute ago, Contrarian said:

Which of the above would get more done for society?

Of the happy entitled bunch? They are doing quite fine there, as far as can be seen. Such a relief, can head on my way now. "Horse off the cart" as they say in some places.

.. next time they want to give me automatic annual rise, can be reached here. Keeping channels open.

[Michael Hardner]

29 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

 There are 2 ways to give back to "society:"     
(in my Bias, remember you are talking to someone that read Ayn Rand early on)

I think your advice is given to somebody that you would assume would never be an inner party member.  Even Winston Smith had a job to do, but if you were talking to someone in the top echelons there would be deeper advice to give - right ?

Like - "maximize" medium term gains for all, not short term; maintain a balance of unity and competition in your population; forge nations out of manageable and strong definitions - but not traditional ones.

One reason I get bored and put people on ignore is that they simultaneously act like a peasant mob while trying to criticize power structures, and even complex policy.  It's not hard for these folks to step up but they need to spend some time learning first.  We all have learning to do.

[Michael Hardner]

"Oh the rich and powerful how they hate us, how they look down their noses"

No - they're like you.  They think that they're doing their best in the natural order of things.  That was the situation just before the French Revolution.... and after too...

[Contrarian]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's not hard for these folks to step up but they need to spend some time learning first.  We all have learning to do.

I agree, when you read some of the statements, there is IQ there and so much potential, the direction aimed however is towards non-productivity, towards a dream that will get one nowhere. 

If that energy would be focused on a product or a service, the things that @myata would achieve with his mind. 

Yet, he chooses to be ungovernable: 

Edited January 30 by Contrarian

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Contrarian said:

1. I agree, when you read some of the statements, there is IQ there and so much potential, the direction aimed however is towards non-productivity, towards a dream that will get one nowhere. 

2. If that energy would be focused on a product or a service, the things that @myata would achieve with his mind. 

Yet, he chooses to be ungovernable: 

1.  Canada has a lot of hard workers, good thinkers and capacity for compromise... lots of good traits in a connected world.
2. Well, or even to focus on the positive aspects of life.  I mean, who knows, but in any case believing in scary stories doesn't help anyone.  I'd rather sit in church and be lectured about hell.

[myata]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

We all have learning to do.

Great thoughts Michael! Would learning to limit yourself (if there's no effective limits otherwise, as it happens in some great democracies) come into the picture somehow too?

Look: here's a lever. You press it, and out a little opening comes a glob of dough. Press twice, two globs. Four times, four come out and so on, you've got the picture. A question: when (and that's an assumption, not a definitive statement) would you stop working it? Even more importantly: why?

[suds]

Give me a benevolent dictator if you have to, but one who cherishes individual liberty, equal opportunity, and a market economy. I'm tired of all these so called 'elites' always rigging the system for themselves. I'm tired of these so called 'socialists' (the ones who want the collective to run the means of production) with all their 'good intentions' if ever put into practice would not end well. We have a system of government that has served us fairly decently over the past 150 years. Maybe only a few tweaks are required but surely no major overhaul.

An old chinese proverb...  if it ain't broke, don't f**k with it.

[OftenWrong]

On 1/29/2023 at 11:40 AM, myata said:

Wow wow all great words! And you would measure it how? By the great people's resumes .. or the results in reality?

Resumes? Nay.

By their pedigree, my good fellow.  

[myata]

Right. "If it wasn't broken"... to think of it, pharaohs had a great system some millennia back. Wise and caring... mostly. Czars, mandarins, sounds familiar too... close to home, somehow.

[WestCanMan]

On 1/21/2023 at 10:49 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

In another post, someone brought up electoral reform. The federal NDP are always trying to push Proportional Representation. However, they never explain how it would function. When the writs are dropped, people are nominated to run. Most of the candidates belong to the main political parties and in the current system, the candidate with the most votes wins. First past the post.

In PR, how would you decide the election by proprtion of the vote? 

Right now the system is struggling because electoral ridings are so different in size.

I did some math a few elections ago and found that, on avg, votes in the maritimes were worth about 1.6 Alberta votes.

That was based on the fact that Alberta ridings had so many more people in them. Even after Alberta had new ridings added they were still casting 'discounted' votes.

If the difference was something like 1.1 - 1 that would be liveable, but it's not.

If they don't want to be constantly shifting boundaries and adding ridings, maybe they should just make ridings worth 1.1 votes or .8 votes, based on the ratio of their population/100,000.

It's just not fair that a riding with 74,000 people carries as much weight as one with 120,000. 

[myata]

15 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

It's just not fair that a riding with 74,000 people carries as much weight as one with 120,000. 

Tweaking with a broken, in principle, system will not fix it. The problem with FPTP in general is not even funnies of "representation". It's that it suppresses the choice. The other side of stimulating exactly two monstrous power holding corporations is that it cannot reflect the complexities of a modern society; understand them; and manage them effectively and efficiently. And without any effective independent checks and controls over governments, stagnation is the only possible outcome. In the modern democratic world if my count is correct, only two such left. Both are remote, insignificant and rapidly losing significance backwaters of the democratic world.

The system needs fresh air, urgently. The system needs to have meaningful, full and uncontrolled choice of citizens.

Edited January 31 by myata

[TreeBeard]

On 1/21/2023 at 10:49 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

In another post, someone brought up electoral reform. The federal NDP are always trying to push Proportional Representation. However, they never explain how it would function. When the writs are dropped, people are nominated to run. Most of the candidates belong to the main political parties and in the current system, the candidate with the most votes wins. First past the post.

In PR, how would you decide the election by proprtion of the vote? The CPC candidate gets 40% of the vote, the NDP candidate gets 35%, the Liberal 25% for a total of 100% of the votes cast. How do you translate that into a proportion of membership in Parliament? Does the CPC candidate sit in Parliament 40% of the sitting days, the NDP 35% of the sitting days and the grit 25%? What happens if all the Liberals end up sitting in Parliament on the same sitting days? They have all the power. How does the Prime Minister maintain confidence of the House if on some sitting days, she doesn't have a majority of the House supporting the Ministry? I can see revolving door ministries. 

Your questions about who sits in the House on a particular day can be easily handled by parliamentary procedures.  
 

There are plenty of countries that do a proportional system and work just fine.  
 

What is wrong with having Parliament reflect the way the population voted?  
 

In the case of the last election:

CON - 34%  115 seats

LIB - 33%  112 seats

NDP - 16%  54 seats

BQ - 8%   27 seats

GR - 7%  24 seats

MAX the nut - 2% 7 seats

(1 extra seat due to rounding error)

 

Edited to add:

I understand why the 2 main parties want to maintain the status quo;  40% of the electorate gives them 100% of the power.  

Edited January 31 by TreeBeard

[Queenmandy85]

But when we vote, we are voting for a Member of Parliament, not a political party. Political parties are vehicles for electoral success. But they also carry the myth of ideology. Ideology is a concept that all problems can be solved by a single over riding theory. "If we only cut taxes and government spending..." or "if we only empower government to own and manage industry...: or "if we have...etc." we will solve the problems of unemployment, crime, healthcare and climate change. 

That is a myth. Each problem has its own solution. Government's first priority is to save the lives of as many citizens as possible. Its next priority is to do what it can to balance security of the person with personal freedoms. People will trade a lot of freedom for safety and security.  Next comes the economy. None of these issues can be solved by an ideological theory. 

When we vote, we are electing a neighbour to sit for our riding in Ottawa, not some bagman from Toronto for a political party, to sit for the constituants of Ducktooth-North, Saskatchewan.

PR leads to minority governments. The more parties we have, the less room a government has for making decisions. PR leads to more political parties and it is the extremist splinter parties that end up trading support to get their shoes under the cabinet table. You only have to look at Israel's situation right now. But whether it is Israel or Germany, it can take weeks or months to get a government in place. We cannot afford that kind of instability with the challeges we face now.

[myata]

3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

I understand why the 2 main parties want to maintain the status quo;  40% of the electorate gives them 100% of the power.

At the expense of accomplished inability to reflect and represent the complexity of interests and needs in a modern society.