The election prospects

[Queenmandy85]

I’m stuck. The choice is between the socialist NDP, the Grits or the socialist credit CPC. As a Conservative, I have no party in the race. I have a good hard working MP, but he is committed to gutting CBC television. His leader is full of glib sound bites but no substance and refuses any actual engagement with the party rank and file.

I don’t know who to vote for.

[WestCanMan]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It's often been brought up with regards to the ndp - its clear the supporters of the ndp aren't in it to win it, they want to be a disruptive voice even back when there weren't minority govts as much.

Ditto for the Greens. I don't even know what they really do. 

In the last election the environment was theoretically the top issue and they still couldn't get 3 MPs. 

I'd describe the Greens as a bunch of low-IQ Karens with a hobby who are in way over their heads. 

The fact that Elizabeth May is their leader again tells you everything that you'll ever need to know about them: 

You could ffwd to the 9:00 mark for a brief glimpse of who she is, or even watch the whole sad thing. Ohhhh noooo Canada....

[Queenmandy85]

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.

[Aristides]

17 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

If you already see it that way, it only gets worse with PR.  As it stands, the big urban areas are under-represented on a per-capita basis, by a lot.  

I don't think you can go straight PR because you still need regional representation. STV would be one option. The devil would be in the details. I think we can do better than FPTP.

[Michael Hardner]

20 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I’m stuck. The choice is between the socialist NDP, the Grits or the socialist credit CPC. As a Conservative, I have no party in the race. I have a good hard working MP, but he is committed to gutting CBC television. His leader is full of glib sound bites but no substance and refuses any actual engagement with the party rank and file.

I don’t know who to vote for.

 Spoken with thoughtful pragmatism.

[myata]

21 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I’m stuck.

It doesn't even matter. Just look.

[myata]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Are the 3rd and 4th parties really political parties

No they are not. They have barely a purely theoretical chance of forming a government but in practice it never happened to the best of my knowledge. I.e., picture book decorative "parties".

The whole idea is senseless closing on absurd. If parties are in essence equal until the voters decide, one has no logical reasons to not count their objective results - which is, the votes given to them. So, none of what we have here are parliamentary parties in the objective true sense; only some electoral show; mumbo-jumbo-bum look, you won!

Edited August 16, 2023 by myata

[WestCanMan]

3 minutes ago, myata said:

No they are not. They have barely a purely theoretical chance of forming a government but in practice it never happened to the best of my knowledge. I.e., picture book decorative "parties".

So by your own admission we have a 3rd and 4th party that aren't real options, right? 

Quote

 No, in a democracy to don't have to go to the blue "party" convention or the red one just because there are no other meaningful choices. You can pick the one that you like, interested in, that supports your interests and causes and can represent you. For real, not only in the pretty picture book.

How many more parties do we need before we find one that represents you? Do you think a 5th one or a 6th one will magically hit the spot?

 

I'd personally like it if the current parties could find common ground a bit more. Say things like "The CHIPS Act was a good idea" instead of always pretending that the other party's ideas are all pure shit. As an example, the US border "issue" will never be solved because it's just so juicy for both parties to attack each other on, and TBH, I think it's a good cop/bad cop issue which gives them a constant supply of what basically amounts to 'slaves'. 

It's not the fact that there are only two main parties that's messed up, our ultra-biased media is a democracy-killer and political division and amped-up hateful rhetoric is also a killer. 

[myata]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

So by your own admission we have a 3rd and 4th party that aren't real options, right? 

Depending on what is considered "an option". You sure can pick the 3rd, 15th or 37th "party" on the list. Will it change anything in the reality? Your guess.

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, myata said:

Depending on what is considered "an option". You sure can pick the 3rd, 15th or 37th "party" on the list. Will it change anything in the reality? Your guess.

I don't really understand what your whole point is.

First you say that 2 parties isn't really democracy, then you go on to say that the 3rd thru 37th parties won't really change anything. 

Have you given up on democracy? Is one party rule the way to go? 

Our MSM seems to think so, so I can't blame you if you do...

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I’m stuck. The choice is between the socialist NDP, the Grits or the socialist credit CPC. As a Conservative, I have no party in the race. I have a good hard working MP, but he is committed to gutting CBC television. His leader is full of glib sound bites but no substance and refuses any actual engagement with the party rank and file.

I don’t know who to vote for.

After 8 years of liberal /NDP rule, gaff after gaff, lie after lie, scandal after scandal, policies that are hurtful to Canadians, to the Nation, to our global reputation, and the many things in this country are BROKEN....and you are stuck ?

Sounds like you and Michael have a huge but very solvable problem...Vote Liberal...See how easy that was, No way is pp getting my vote you say, and the CBC how dare he.... personally i think you picked the wrong hill to die on, but it is your vote...your not ready for things to change i get it... but the rest of us are, step aside and let us get to work...

many want a minority government to be in charge, it is what is best for the country....BS ....only there is no fake NDP party to team up with for the 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....

All that proves is that you have not had enough of Justin and his merry gang of liars and thieves....

PP is not the guy i wanted in power either, but i can tell you, there is NO F-ing way i want another 4 more years of liberal, or their NDP friends...between them they are responsible for Canada's current state...Things could not possible get any worse within this nation...

 

 

[Moonbox]

4 hours ago, Aristides said:

I don't think you can go straight PR because you still need regional representation. STV would be one option. The devil would be in the details. I think we can do better than FPTP.

Maybe.  The current system is better for strong mandates and stability.  It's maybe not as good for other things.  STV has its own problems as well.  

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, 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.

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.

[myata]

13 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

First you say that 2 parties isn't really democracy, then you go on to say that the 3rd thru 37th parties won't really change anything. 

"Democracy" is only a word. Anyone can say or write it, Putin and Xi included, Un too if only he bothered. Word in itself doesn't mean and worth much; it's only a collection of soundwaves or pixels. What is behind the word? How is the democracy implemented in reality? These answers make all the difference.

If we had many real, parliamentary parties competing fairly where voters decide who wins, we would have to measure their performance by objective, comparable criteria. We could not throw away votes arbitrarily just because that was done in the times of Adam. That makes no sense today.

No: we don't have real multi-party democracy here.

Some countries decided to keep the system of representatives. There aren't many among modern first world democracies, but there are a few mixed systems. No, we don't have that; we have "employees" by their own admission and on paper.

So we don't have either parliamentary or representative democracy. What we have here is imitation democracy, with two default political governance corporations which are guaranteed to swap places at the helm for perpetuity. It suits them well and they have no interest in any essential change.

I don't know how many times I heard the stupid phrase (whose?) "parties face accountability at the time of election". How many times did I wonder, is anyone awake here to translate it into common English?

"We have an appearance of accountability for a few weeks every five years. In all other times, we have free rein and open season. No you can't do anything about it, so better just enjoy cute beaver tales"

Q.E.D.

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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.

Wow wow wow, some beautiful discoveries here... so what's preventing the Cons to pledge to implement PR now, with NDP and Greens on board should be a no-brainer. I'll even vote for that. Something feels tight.. the perpetual thong to the trough maybe?

[Michael Hardner]

14 hours ago, Aristides said:

I don't think you can go straight PR because you still need regional representation. STV would be one option. The devil would be in the details. I think we can do better than FPTP.

If we're worried about democracy, the way we divide up the seats is not our major problem.

Our major problem is that the complexity and nuances of big government can't be supported by the public sphere we have today. 

[myata]

10 hours ago, Army Guy said:

PP is not the guy i wanted in power either, but i can tell you, there is NO F-ing way i want another 4 more years of liberal, or their NDP friends

The perpetual Canadian conundrum.. abandon hope ye who enters here. It only takes one act of intelligence and will to fix it but nah.. why? It worked at the time of Adam, see.

Edited August 17, 2023 by myata

[myata]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

If we're worried about democracy, the way we divide up the seats is not our major problem.

Are you totally lost Michael? Can you see the word there, what does it mean? Who gets to decide what it means for H.-sake?

This is as fine illustration as one can find of the perpetual "Canadian and democracy" parable. Oh get it, so its like another word for the good (Colonial) government, right?

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, myata said:

Are you totally lost Michael? Can you see the word there, what does it mean? Who gets to decide what it means for H.-sake?

This is as fine illustration as one can find of the perpetual "Canadian and democracy" parable. Oh get it, so its like another word for the good (Colonial) government, right?

Democracy needs a public in order to function.  As to who decides, the paradox is that decision itself is political but also not exactly partisan.

We adopted our system and changing it may be the most difficult thing.  PR in some form is on the table, but if we're having the conversation, let's talk about more than seat allocation.

Does that sound lost?

[myata]

30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

We adopted our system

That happened? Happen to recall those "us"? I forgot.

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

PR in some form is on the table, but if we're having the conversation, let's talk about more than seat allocation.

But of course we can talk about issues like fair representation of people's views and interests; of real modern parliamentary multi-party political system; of responsibility and accountability as daily routine rather than purely abstract notion; none of that is about just bean allocation.

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, myata said:

1. That happened? Happen to recall those "us"? I forgot.

2. But of course we can talk about issues like fair representation of people's views and interests; of real modern parliamentary multi-party political system; of responsibility and accountability as daily routine rather than purely abstract notion; none of that is about just bean allocation.

1. I doubt that you were around: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Canadian_Parliament

2. I agree with it, just saying that I think people are overly focused on seat allocation.  Large issues have become too complex to handle, and there are some aberrations happening.

For example, moral and social issues becoming foremost in people's thoughts when it comes to politics.  That was never the way.  Another example would be trade deals, where the details are not allowed to be discussed in public.

I believe proportional representation would lead to far fewer conservative governments, so entrenching some constitutional rights like freedom of religion by other means would be necessary. 

 

[myata]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I believe proportional representation would lead to far fewer conservative governments,

This is an interesting one. In the century up to now, I counted 21 Liberal governments versus eight or nine Conservative. Does this count like many Conservative governments, to be overly concerned? Then what is it, the concern based on?

- factual statistics that PR results in fewer conservative governments

- just repeating that someone said somewhere some time

- a thinly disguised excuse for avoiding necessary change

Edited August 17, 2023 by myata

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, myata said:

"Democracy" is only a word.

For those with intelligence, words have meaning.  I'm not surprised you need that explained to you .

Yes - we have a multiparty democracy here.  There are multiple parties. You can vote for them. That's pretty much the definition.

Any ordinary person can help pick the leader of any party, they can participate in the policy making of that party, they can donate exactly the same amount as a 'rich' person to that party because of the caps, and even if they're not eligible to vote they can volunteer during an election and help their candidate and party win.

Further - MANY times new parties have been created and done well. Which shows that unlike the US there's no barrier to a new party starting up if there's people who are interested in different options.

Maybe you best leave this kind of conversation to the adults.  Or read a book first.

[myata]

26 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yes - we have a multiparty democracy here.  There are multiple parties. You can vote for them.

No no no, can "vote" doesn't cut it silly (but how else? this is only an objective assessment please don't take personally). A functional multi-party system means: real; and accurate representation of diverse interests in the society and nothing less. Don't see the difference yet? So please leave this style of (clueless) lecturing for your political kindergarten.

In Russia they "can vote"; and in China, Vietnam etc they do. Do you need the full list of "can vote" places? Is it the same as modern, functional, dynamic first world democracies?

In the kindergarten, they know.

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, myata said:

"Democracy" is only a word. Anyone can say or write it,

Geez, maybe the MSM, the FBI/RCMP and free speech on social media are important. 

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, myata said:

No no no, can "vote" doesn't cut it silly

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

As to the rest of your childish blather....

Obviously i'm not explaining this in a way you can understand, so i've put some of your previous posts into an AI and asked it to translate for me. perhaps this will be more clear:

Because we can!! What? Humbold dinosaurs flee ever westward!  Roust! Roust! (preeeble!) Who knows?!?

There. That should be more clear to you.

You have absolutely zero idea of what politics are or what you're saying.  Say hi to that infinite number of monkeys banging out crap in your brain.