The election prospects

[myata]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Right. You'd never see voting in a democracy.  got it.

How old are you by the way, mentally speaking? The moon is round, soccer ball is round so moon has to be a soccer ball, right?

I may be wrong about the kindergarten; they already know the difference on average.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

of what (imitation) politics are

Fixed for ya. Sure, have a vague idea. Just look at the logical prowess above. What problems could it not tackle?

 

[CdnFox]

Just now, myata said:

How old are you by the way, mentally speaking?

 

About 5 decades older than you it would seem.

Quote

The moon is round, soccer ball is round so moon has to be a soccer ball, right?

Sure.  A rolling stone gathers no moss after all and snakes within the flowers do creep i suppose.

 

Quote

I may be wrong about the kindergarten; they already know the difference on average.

Uhhhhh ..  yeah. Right,

 

Quote

Fixed for ya.

So now you're faking quotes from people? Pretending to quote them and then writing whatever you feel like?

Yeah - that sounds about right for you. You're pretty much fake from end to end. 

[Queenmandy85]

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

that is not accurate.

It IS true that all they promised was "an end to FPTP".  This will be the last election with FPTP they claimed

However- they had a majority. They didn't need ANY support from any other party. At all.  Further, they had a mandate. They had everything they needed to proceed.

What really happened is that they discovered people wanted PR - and not instant run off.  Instant run off is what the libs wanted to do - because instant run off would basically guarantee the libs would always win every election.

Think about it - instant run off is where you pick your first and then second choice and so on.   Well everyone who's conservative will put liberal as their second choice (or nothing which means they're out of the game after the first round) and everyone who's an ndp supporter would do the same.

So unless one of the other parties gets 50 percent or more in the first 'ballot' the liberals would always win.

The public didnt' want that, the other parties both said PR is better - and they were concerned about a public backlash and that eventually it would switch to PR which RADICALLY does not favor the libs.

So they canned it.  That's what happened - they were hoping to bring in a cheat system and the public didn't want it.

Whether they had a majority or not, no government can ram through a major change in the voting system without all party support. 
By run off election, I meant have a second vote two weeks later in those ridings where no candidate received a majority.

Nobody has explained how PR would work in the Canadian system. Most elections in Canadian ridings have about three or four candidates. How do you proportion them out?

[myata]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sure.  A rolling stone gathers no moss after

Always wondered why politicians look so intelligent...

13 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Nobody has explained how PR would work in the Canadian system.

Just like it works in the great majority of advanced modern democracies. Voter can choose any party of those that are taking part in the election. The one that got most votes gets to form a government; if they fail to form a coalition, the next one gets a turn and so one.

The bottom line is, if the parties are equal, the only way to know the winner is to count all votes. Otherwise, it cannot be a multiparty representative democracy.

[Queenmandy85]

19 hours ago, Army Guy said:conservatives, so they need a majority just to fix things, and if your not going to be a part of the solution where things can be fixed or atleast have some first aid applied... then yes it is time to step aside...vote Liberal....

 

 

 

The problem is PP says he will “fix things” without any substantive viable plan on how he is going to do that. He will cut the carbon tax but what is he going to do to cut emissions? What will he do differently to reduce inflation? He says he will cut spending but Defence, transfers to provinces to deal with underfunded education and healthcare, Veteran’s Affairs, the transition off fossil fuels to nuclear power, and the restructuring of transportation infrastructure are all urgently needing more funding. I have repeatedly asked him for answers and all I get in response is crickets. I am a Conservative not a Socred. But if the socialist credit CPC could give me a reason to support them, I would. But I don’t vote for vague slogans. So far, I don’t see any difference between Mr. Trudeau and Mr Poilievre. All flash and no bang.

 

[eyeball]

On 8/16/2023 at 3:17 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

With regard to the PR debate, the actual promise the grits made in2015, was for electoral reform, not PR. The parties met for months to try and come up with an agreement but in the end, they could not find a consensus. In order to change the system, you must have support from all parties. It was clear in the end that was not going to happen.

Who cares what they think? It's our electoral system not theirs.

[Queenmandy85]

45 minutes ago, myata said:

Always wondered why politicians look so intelligent...

Just like it works in the great majority of advanced modern democracies. Voter can choose any party of those that are taking part in the election. The one that got most votes gets to form a government; if they fail to form a coalition, the next one gets a turn and so one.

The bottom line is, if the parties are equal, the only way to know the winner is to count all votes. Otherwise, it cannot be a multiparty representative democracy.

I’m not sure you understand how Canadian elections work. When the Governor General calls an election, it is not just one writ. There are 338 writs dropped. Each writ is a separate election. The candidate that gets the most votes gets to take a seat in Parliament. 

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Who cares what they think? It's our electoral system not theirs.

I’m not sure what you mean. How do we change the system without Parliament?

Edited August 17, 2023 by Queenmandy85

[myata]

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It's our electoral system not theirs.

They forgot. Like why would they want to remember that? What would be the incentive?

[myata]

4 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I’m not sure you understand how Canadian elections work. When

Yeah it's been that way at the times of Adam how can it be changed? Nah, impossible.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Whether they had a majority or not, no government can ram through a major change in the voting system without all party support. 

They absolutely can - that was crystal clear.  There is NOTHING to prevent it, and he had a mandate.

 

Let me say that again - there was NO requirement to even consult with other parties.  At all.

His problem was what the public said.  And they said they wanted a version of pr. And that is death to the libs.

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Nobody has explained how PR would work in the Canadian system. Most elections in Canadian ridings have about three or four candidates. How do you proportion them out?

A number of models have been proposed and with detail, usually a hybrid solution is given.  but you touch on the core probem - PR means you lose the ability to choose who represents you.  It turns  it into a pure "party' vote rather than a local representative model.

So the usual thing is we still have the fptp system- and THEN we have an EXTRA 100 seats or so that are divvied up among the parties based on popular vote.  That still gives SOME local represnetation but also allows for the parties to have more say based on the actual vote.  Of all of the proposed systems to replace FPTP it's probably the least odius and most simple to understand.  Then you just have to argue about how many seats will be directly elected and how many would be done proportionally.

What the libs wanted was instant run off basicaly - or sometimes called single transferable vote.  That keeps them in power forever.

 

So it was 100 percent about the public feedback - justin realized he was NOT going to get away with STV or a variant of that, and backed out. 

[CdnFox]

51 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The problem is PP says he will “fix things” without any substantive viable plan on how he is going to do that. He will cut the carbon tax but what is he going to do to cut emissions? What will he do differently to reduce inflation? He says he will cut spending but Defence, transfers to provinces to deal with underfunded education and healthcare, Veteran’s Affairs, the transition off fossil fuels to nuclear power, and the restructuring of transportation infrastructure are all urgently needing more funding. I have repeatedly asked him for answers and all I get in response is crickets. I am a Conservative not a Socred. But if the socialist credit CPC could give me a reason to support them, I would. But I don’t vote for vague slogans. So far, I don’t see any difference between Mr. Trudeau and Mr Poilievre. All flash and no bang.

 

Well first off if he does nothing at all then he's matched the libs. 

But second off you're not going to hear his plan's details at all until just about election time. Obviously. He would have to be stupid as hell to give ANY specifics this far out.  You don't do that.

But he's tipped his hand at some ideas he's considering. His comments suggest he wants to invest in tech research for carbon reducing technology, such as nuclear power systems and making them cheaper and easier and safer for example. And battery tech. 

He's also noted giving tax incentives to encourage people to move in the right direction for improving power use.

Those aren't bad ideas - it depends on the details.   But one thing is true - the ONLY thing Canada could possibly do that ACTUALLY made a difference is to help develop tech that allowed other countries to reduce emissions.  We simply don't emit enough on our own to matter.  We should still reduce emissions for lots of reasons but that will never affect climate change directly - developing anti-carbon tech will.  And that's the truth.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I’m not sure what you mean. How do we change the system without Parliament?

It'll never be changed with it.

[Queenmandy85]

33 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It'll never be changed with it.

Then it won’t change. How many times has BC had a referendum on this issue and the voters turned it down?

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Well first off if he does nothing at all then he's matched the libs. 

But second off you're not going to hear his plan's details at all until just about election time. Obviously. He would have to be stupid as hell to give ANY specifics this far out.  You don't do that.

But he's tipped his hand at some ideas he's considering. His comments suggest he wants to invest in tech research for carbon reducing technology, such as nuclear power systems and making them cheaper and easier and safer for example. And battery tech. 

He's also noted giving tax incentives to encourage people to move in the right direction for improving power use.

Those aren't bad ideas - it depends on the details.   But one thing is true - the ONLY thing Canada could possibly do that ACTUALLY made a difference is to help develop tech that allowed other countries to reduce emissions.  We simply don't emit enough on our own to matter.  We should still reduce emissions for lots of reasons but that will never affect climate change directly - developing anti-carbon tech will.  And that's the truth.

If Mr. Poilievre commits to building nuclear power plants in Canada as well as partnering with any nation wanting to build nuclear power plants, I would have no hesitation about voting for him.

[eyeball]

17 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Then it won’t change. How many times has BC had a referendum on this issue and the voters turned it down?

Yup, it's an exercise in futility alright, just like voting in general.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If Mr. Poilievre commits to building nuclear power plants in Canada as well as partnering with any nation wanting to build nuclear power plants, I would have no hesitation about voting for him.

Well i think all he can do is support that, it would be up to the provinces in the end (bc for example has a law forbidding nuclear power stations), But i think he will come out in strong support of that industry and making it happen.  Of course - who knows what may change in 2 years. If there's a nuclear catastrphe between now and then public support might falter, whereas if there's a renewed interest he'll commit more resources.

[myata]

11 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Then it won’t change. How many times has BC had a referendum on this issue

In a normal democracy, people elect active and competent citizens to understand issues and problems and propose solutions. Visions, objectives and ideas are realized by the citizens and democratic system working in tandem; citizens formulate questions and ideas; then they use democratic system to implement them in the reality.

In Canada, it's almost exactly the opposite, 180 degrees. People are interested mostly in survival, and the ultimate priority of the political system is to preserve and propagate itself. Even if change is formulated, it has no chance of making it through the system with all kinds of talking heads preaching no, no it was made perfectly for the eternity at the time of Adam and what would GG, LGG, KGB say. One plus two makes the obvious outcome: change is not possible. It'll take no less than an unlikeliest of the miracles to see something changed here because a bunch of zeros cannot make one, mathematical impossibility.

[myata]

We can do something about it though. We, the citizens, and it isn't even hard: stop playing the mindless roulette!

They won't do anything themselves: the status quo suits them perfectly; they wouldn't even want to notice. So just quit, don't buy the ticket. When participation drops below 30% they are bound to notice, at the high trough. First they may try to blame you for "passivity" and force you to play; then you pay the fine and still don't play. Yes democracy has a price: citizen's attention; involvement; and if and when necessary, the action; only you didn't know or forgot.

Many, many in the world are paying it in a different coin.

Edited August 18, 2023 by myata

[myata]

In a democracy, I, a citizen have the right for a real choice; and to have my choice represented fairly. And I will settle for nothing less.

Because I am a citizen. Not a mindless child.

Just say it. Try.

Edited August 18, 2023 by myata

[Guest]

1 minute ago, myata said:

In a democracy, I, a citizen have the right for a real choice; and to have my choice represented fairly. And I will settle for nothing less.

Just say it. Try.

In a democracy of three, someone's going to be peeved...

[myata]

7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

In a democracy of three,

Democracy is only a word. What it means or does not you decide, citizen; or someone will do it for you. Happily and even with ever after (for them of course).

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, myata said:

Democracy is only a word. What it means or does not you decide, citizen; or someone will do it for you. Happily and even with ever after (for them of course).

No, that's not true.  If that was true there would be no potholes.

[Queenmandy85]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well i think all he can do is support that, it would be up to the provinces in the end (bc for example has a law forbidding nuclear power stations), But i think he will come out in strong support of that industry and making it happen.  Of course - who knows what may change in 2 years. If there's a nuclear catastrphe between now and then public support might falter, whereas if there's a renewed interest he'll commit more resources.

There comes a point when government must take measures to protect the people including future generations. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, myata said:

Democracy is only a word.

No it isn't - it's a Horse! You decide! What? Because we can!!!!

[myata]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

If that was true there would be no potholes.

In their mansions? What potholes?