FPTP is extreme danger in uncertain and volatile times

[blackbird]

10 hours ago, myata said:

This is a no: there are PR systems where citizens can decide who their individual representative will be (if their party wins). Ignorance is not the answer.

And yes: Central committees, often run behind the curtain by unelected shadow figures, routinely parachute candidates over the local constituents choice, in FPTP.

Ignorance is not the answer.

Perhaps you don't really understand how the Proportional System (PR) works.

Each political party chooses its own candidates.

The votes for a party are added up from all ridings and that determines how many candidates can be chosen by the party to be MPs.  The electorate do not elect the MPs that are chosen this way.  The party decides who their MP will be.

So a certain number of MPs are chosen by the parties, not the electorate in each riding.

The only indirect voice a citizen would have is if he is a member of a particular party, he might be able to participate in choosing a candidate for that party, but that is not the electorate making the choice.

The whole system is a convoluted process and means the end of simple basic elections or the end of democracy.

The theory is if a fringe party gets 5% of the votes nationally, then they can appoint 5% of the MPs.  That is just a basic idea how the PR system works.  Fringe parties might not elect any MP in the FPTP system because they only have 5% of the vote across the country and would lose in any particular riding under the FPTP system, but they are allowed to still appoint 5% of the MPs in the Parliament.  That's how it works in a very rudimentary way.  So none of their MPs are actually chosen by any particular riding.  The MPs chosen by the party are unaccountable to any particular riding and only accountable to the party that chose them.

Edited December 16, 2023 by blackbird

[Queenmandy85]

9 hours ago, myata said:

Did you forgot what (democratic) governments are supposed to be for, and who they (supposed to) work for?

Did you forget what Monarchies are supposed to be for and who they are supposed to work for? 

[Queenmandy85]

PR systems support the power of political parties. How do you elect an independent MP under PR. While political parties are a necessary evil, we have already given them too much power. 

If a party parachutes a candidate into your riding, against the wishes of the voters, in the FPTP system, you can nominate some one more preferable and elect them. You can't do that in a PR system where a group of bagmen in Toronto or Ottawa put a big contributor from Montreal in as your MP in Lethbridge. In PR, parties could end up selling seats.

PR also puts tiny extemist splinter parties into a position of holding the balance of power as we see in Israel. You will get a transphobic party with 3 seats holding the government hostage. Or even the Canadian version of the Taliban, insisting on Sharia Law. We had a taste of that in BC where three Greens ended up owning the Provincial government.

PR makes majority government very difficult, yet we need majority government more than ever.

[myata]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Did you forget what Monarchies

There was never any formal obligation on absolute monarchs to care about anybody or anything else but themselves. That much we know. Now, in a democracy it's supposed to be different, that was the whole point.

[myata]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If a party parachutes a candidate into your riding, against the wishes of the voters, in the FPTP system, you can nominate some one more preferable and elect them. You can't do that in a PR system where a group of bagmen in Toronto or Ottawa put a big contributor from Montreal in as your MP in Lethbridge. In PR, parties could end up selling seats

Look you're bringing up beaten up points that have been answered multiple times already. No, nominating an alternative to power duopoly is not a fair option where most of the population knows from the milk or DNA that only one or the other can rule. Please stop being ridiculous, repeating ridiculously naive beaver tales.

To be a parliamentary party in the true sense you have to compete honestly and openly, on the same fair ground with all other competitors and win the highest number of votes not some fancy bumbo jumbo context. For a long time you manage to pretend that bumbo jumbo is a form of democracy too, but no these days, when it takes a reach of a finger to find out any fact it cannot stand any longer. Either you have the majority of votes, in an open and fair election; or you don't have a democratic government. One and only, is always true.

[myata]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Perhaps you don't really understand how the Proportional System (PR) works.

F@ck, we had a Dutch citizen explaining us how in a Dutch election citizens can appoint individual representatives in a proportional election (yes, there's a procedure) but look here comes the Supreme Wisdom and of course it knows better, always ready to explain and correct the wrongs of your ways.

What can you do with those, what can you oh f@ck..

Edited December 16, 2023 by myata

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, myata said:

or you don't have a democratic government.

Why is democracy so important to you?

 

1 hour ago, myata said:

To be a parliamentary party in the true sense

Why are political parties so important to you?

[myata]

36 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Why are political parties so important to you?

Because real parliamentary parties formulate their positions and objectives: what are the problems in the society? and how they would go about improving the reality for the citizens. It is important to me because I need from the government real positive change, effectiveness and efficiency, not useless words, blackhole-level expenses and an expectation of blind worship. I can't care less about any and all great words together if they wouldn't produce clear and visible positive result.

40 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Why is democracy so important to you?

Because it's a simple dilemma: either citizens check and control the governments, or the government will come to believe that citizens exist only to be ruled by them. I just happen to like the former better.

 

[blackbird]

Why give up the established system of one person one vote and may the one with the most votes in a riding win for some complex undemocratic system that gives elite party brass the power to determine who wins. The best way to lose your democratic rights is to start fiddling with the system and make it so complicated that nobody knows what is going on. 

[myata]

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

for some complex undemocratic system

It's the simplest system ever: the players who gained highest support from the citizens, one citizen one vote, every vote counts, get to rule. Not bumbo dance context. And the reason why you fail to grasp it seems to be quite clear too: you've been brainwashed, for example by endless repetition of, why being shy here, a lie. You are not the first one, and yes it, an endless repetition of lies generally works on the human herd. You do not have "representatives" here: a lie. Their loyalty is not to you but to their Central Committee; they call themselves "employees", formally and officially, go see it. People nominate their representatives, a lie. The government has a majority, another lie, and keep counting.

Edited December 17, 2023 by myata

[CdnFox]

This has been studied to death - and every time the public sees it and really understands it - it gets defeated.

FPTP is, for all it's flaws, the best method we have available.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, myata said:

It's the simplest system ever: the players who gained highest support from the citizens, one citizen one vote, every vote counts, get to rule. Not bumbo dance context. And the reason why you fail to grasp it seems to be quite clear too: you've been brainwashed, for example by endless repetition of, why being shy here, a lie. You are not the first one, and yes it, an endless repetition of lies generally works on the human herd. You do not have "representatives" here: a lie. Their loyalty is not to you but to their Central Committee; they call themselves "employees", formally and officially, go see it. People nominate their representatives, a lie. The government has a majority, another lie, and keep counting.

You can't even speak in decent english and people are supposed to take you seriously as to what the best electoral system is?  What? Because we can!

Any proportional model is in fact complex - the only way its simple is if you leave the candidates up to the party and people just vote for the party.

It's actually a reduction in democracy and accountability.

 

[myata]

The public elected Trudeau on the promise of election reform, with a "landslide". He reneged on it. So yes, public wanted it; the elites, did not. This is a fact, words are not.

There's nothing "complex" about the proportional system: the party with the highest count of all votes, wins. Soccer is "too complex" by the same stretch? Basketball? Complex is the bumbo dance whereby mediocre performers squeeze and massage votes into fake "majorities" to rule without any checks and controls by the society.

This only speaks for the success of pumping misconceptions and barely covered lies onto the public's mind. And yes, we know that it works. Nazi knew that already.

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, myata said:

The public elected Trudeau on the promise of election reform, with a "landslide". He reneged on it.

Nope.  A small percentage did and that's why THEY voted for him.  If liberal voters actually cared he'd have been gone next election.  He did it to try to snatch up some of the ndp vote.

I honestly think far more people voted for legalizing dope. 

And after he got elected when he started running polls he discovered that NOBODY wanted the kind of 'proportional rep' that he wanted to put in because it would not have been fair.

Proportional representation is a failed policy. It might work in very small and homogeneous countries, but in canada it would be both grossly unfair and also ineffective. It would almost certainly lead to the break up of Canada

[eyeball]

23 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It would almost certainly lead to the break up of Canada

That's probably the best argument I've heard for PR.

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, myata said:

The public elected Trudeau on the promise of election reform, with a "landslide". He reneged on it.

He promised "election reform," not proportional representation. Only the NDP wanted PR and refused to consider other ideas. Without all party support, the issue was deadlocked and could not proceed. It was killed by the NDP.

 

1 hour ago, myata said:

the party with the highest count of all votes, wins.

Political parties, as I have pointed out, are a necessary evil. It is more important to have MP's free to exercise their own judgement. Parties have too much power already and you want to give them more. Political Parties promote ideology, the silly notion that some all-encompassing theory will solve every problem. That is the weakness of socialism and absolute free market systems. Parties are needed to add some organization, but not to tell MP's how to do their jobs. MP's need to have the power to hold the Ministry to account. If you really want to reform the system, leave the position of Prime Minister vacant. Apply a more literal version of the constitution.

You vote for an MP whose main purpose is to advise the executive on what the citizens want and to provide or with hold money to the executive. That is the lever to persuade the executive to follow the wishes of the people. By eliminating the position of PM, you remove the ambition that distracts some MP's from their purpose. You desire more checks and balances, that is how you do it. Your Members of Parliament have the power to bring down a rogue Ministry but it is the power of the political parties that hamstring them and PR would put them in chains. They will owe everything to the Party rather than their constituants.

Edited December 17, 2023 by Queenmandy85

[Queenmandy85]

Prime Minister Trudeau was elected because he wasn't Stephen Harper. Pierre Poilievre will be elected because he isn't Justin Trudeau. In Canada, we don't elect governments, we defeat them.

[eyeball]

14 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

In Canada, we don't elect governments, we defeat them.

And that's probably the best argument I've heard for breaking up Canada.

Then we'd have our own Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans.

[CdnFox]

52 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

He promised "election reform," not proportional representation. Only the NDP wanted PR and refused to consider other ideas. Without all party support, the issue was deadlocked and could not proceed. It was killed by the NDP.

 

That's not actually accurate. 

What he promised was "This will be the last election run under FPTP".

However - it was't just the NDP that wanted to see a proportional model. The cpc also said if there was going to be a change it would have to be porportional. And polls were taken and the public vastly preferred proportional.

Trudeau wanted instant run off. That's where you pick your parties in order and then the lowest one falls off and then the next lowest etcetera till you get a winner.

He figured all the ndp voters would put liberals as their second, and the CPC would put liberals as their second - and the Libs would pretty much win every single election moving forward.  Which is exactly how it would have gone.

The liberals were the ones who killed it 100 percent - when they couldn't get the cheat version they wanted they went back to FPTP because they know they're more likely to hold power more often under that model.  The ndp and all the others were the reasonable ones.

[Queenmandy85]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

And that's probably the best argument I've heard for breaking up Canada.

Then we'd have our own Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans.

How would that work. Do you think PP will give you that?

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Do you think PP will give you that

Not even close. I highly doubt PP has anymore use for ending FPTP than Trudeau and for the same reason, it would be as difficult to rig things in his favour if he needed all the parties to support it.

But say he could, is there any reason to believe a majority of right wing voters would pass on the opportunity Trudeau hoped would be the case for Liberals - an outcome that made it easy for Conservatives to be Canada's forever party?

What would you do?

 

 

Edited December 18, 2023 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Not even close. I highly doubt PP has anymore use for ending FPTP than Trudeau and for the same reason, it would be as difficult to rig things in his favour if he needed all the parties to support it.

Well considering that only 2 gov'ts in all of the 21'st century were majorities i doubt that's the big concern Harper did fine with minorities, and  there's ways to manage it.

The problem with it is that depending on the model it's impossible to hold people to account, it promotes the hell out of grandstanding, and it reduces representation at the riding or province level.  Unless you start making it complicated.

There is a reason it's failed in every province who's considered it after people had a good look, inluding twice in bc where it got a crap tonne of positive publicity.

[August1991]

On 12/16/2023 at 12:00 PM, myata said:

F@ck, we had a Dutch citizen explaining us how in a Dutch election citizens can appoint individual representatives in a proportional election (yes, there's a procedure) but look here comes the Supreme Wisdom and of course it knows better, always ready to explain and correct the wrongs of your ways.

What can you do with those, what can you oh f@ck..

I was surprised to learn recently that Holland was in fact a county of the Netherlands.

You people in the Netherlands are both Catholic and Protestant. And like the Swiss, you had a republic before the Americans.

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is incorrect.

 

Edited December 18, 2023 by August1991

[August1991]

This "by the people, for the people... "

Already done.

=====

And Laurier's, cross religion... 

Already done.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, August1991 said:

I was surprised to learn recently that Holland was in fact a county of the Netherlands

 

????  dude.  Where did you think it was?