sharkman Posted December 9, 2005 Report Posted December 9, 2005 I wonder: would some form of proportional represntation reduc eor eliminate teh need for strategic voting? It seems to me that, as a practice, strategic voting is entirely a byproduct of the first-past-the-post system. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In B.C. we had a referendum on some form of proportional representation during the last provincal election. It didn't pass, but it was close. Personally, I would prefer a system where you vote for the pm, not some local mp. Quote
Black Dog Posted December 9, 2005 Report Posted December 9, 2005 It probably would eliminate that need, but really isn't strategic voting just a tad on the hypocritical side. Why? Mind you, Layton's starting to bribe seniors now, hes announced a big package for them, and hes promised not to raise taxes. guess Jacko smells the writing on the wall. Uh...it's a campaign. All politicians make promises during campaigns. By the same token, then, Harper's GST reductions, small business tax cut and day care stipend are "bribes" too. In B.C. we had a referendum on some form of proportional representation during the last provincal election. It didn't pass, but it was close. Personally, I would prefer a system where you vote for the pm, not some local mp. The biggest problem with PR is its complexity. People tend not to support changes they don't understand. They are, apparently, much happier marking one X and then bitching about a system that gives one partyy near absolute power. Quote
normanchateau Posted December 9, 2005 Report Posted December 9, 2005 All politicians make promises during campaigns. By the same token, then, Harper's GST reductions, small business tax cut and day care stipend are "bribes" too. Heresy! Don't you know that when the Liberals or NDP promise to spend billions these are referred to as bribes? However, when Harper promises to shovel billions off the back of the truck (10 billion alone for child care I believe), this must be referred to as vision, clever ideas, or simply "the campaign platform." It's easy to forget this when one is morally inferior as most Liberal and NDP supporters appear to be. Quote
tml12 Posted December 9, 2005 Report Posted December 9, 2005 I love the NDP! They are a great party with lots of good ideas! But they need to change their additude, or they will never win! I am sick of seeing this party being defeated over and over again and something needs to change! The NDP has the "it would be nice if we wone" attitude, the other partys, even the greens, have the "we can win, and will win" attitude. for example, the NDP canditate in Saint John, New brunswick, Terry Albright, is not even going to start to campaign until next year! What the hell!? I also think the NDP could of wine the 2004 bi-election in labrador if NDP caucus members visited the riding! 1 of the 2 provincial ridings there is help by a NDP, and they probably could of wone it if they tried. i would like to hear your opinions on this <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why the NDP should not win: 1) They call for no new army funding. :angry: 2) They call for socialist economic policy. 3) They have no interest in preserving any morality in our society. I am not saying the NDP should go find its Tony Blair as the economist said, I am simply saying we have a party of the right (Conservative), centre (Liberal), and far left (NDP). When they become more centre-left, I will consider giving them my vote. Quote "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." -Alexander Hamilton
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.