FPTP is extreme danger in uncertain and volatile times

[myata]

And who's being perplexed here, I wonder? And what's the confusion?

An election (no quotes, winks, whistles etc) means:

- a free choice among all presented candidates

- the result based on the number of votes given freely to each one.

You knew that, right? Can you show it? So what's the expression about?

 

Edited December 28, 2023 by myata

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, myata said:

And who's being perplexed here,

 

You apparently

Quote

I wonder? And what's the confusion?

Still you from the looks of things.

Quote

 

An election (no quotes, winks, whistles etc) means:

- a free choice among all presented candidates

- the result based on the number of votes given freely to each one.

 

That's what we have now. We elect our riding mp, they go on to represent us in the parliament.

You're an 1diot.

Quote

You knew that, right? Can you show it? So what's the expression about?

Because we can!!! What?

You can't even articulate your own thoughts and you're going to tackle electoral reform, an issue that's been kicked around by some of the finest minds for over a century. 

Sigh.

[myata]

See they think that they can stare you down, or if need be, shout you down, from figuring out trivial, Grade 2 plus or minus, facts. That makes some in the picture, crooks (political ones, at least) and the others, sleepy and complacent dumbos, the pueblo. Think you can figure it from here, not calculus.

Edited December 28, 2023 by myata

[myata]

They have at least 50% + 1 votes                        an L

in a choice free from strong influence:            a big, fat L

where every vote was counted and contributed to the result: an L

Whoa! A triple L in one short paragraph. Could you beat it? Know anyone?

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, myata said:

See they think that they can stare you down,

No, they think you're an 1diot who can't even express his thoughts without sounding like a druggie or cartoon character.

[Queenmandy85]

If you, Myata, could explain to me how PR would work in a Canadian Federal election. In 2021, we had 338 elections to elect Members of the House of Commons. Taking one of those elections, as an example, Vancouver-Kingsway, how would you apply PR?

Don Davies received 52.3% of the votes cast.

Virginia Bremner received 27.4% of the votes cast.

Carson Binda received 13.6% of the votes cast.

Farrakh Chishtie received 3.9% of the votes cast.

How do you portion that result among the candidates in that election? Can it be done while not destablizing the government? Do propose some form of Tim allocation where Mr. Davies would be the MP for half of the sitting days in a session, and Ms. Bremner would sit for a quarter of the days, Mr. Binda would sit for 13% of the days and poor Mr. Chishtie would fly all the way to Ottawa to sit for a couple of days? The problem is, a session does not have a pre-determined number of sitting days. The other problem is each of these people have different views and the Ministry depends on having the support of a majority of MP's. With all of the rotation of different MP's with different views, there is know way for a government to maintain the confidence of the House. PR means government by Musical Chairs. The executive depends on the advice of Parliament. That advice must be coherent or you have anarchy.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, myata said:

They have at least 50% + 1 votes                        an L

in a choice free from strong influence:            a big, fat L

where every vote was counted and contributed to the result: an L

Whoa! A triple L in one short paragraph. Could you beat it? Know anyone?

I'm sorry - i can't understand what you're saying.  I lost my lone ranger secret decoder ring when i was a kid. 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If you, Myata, could explain to me how PR would work in a Canadian Federal election. In 2021, we had 338 elections to elect Members of the House of Commons. Taking one of those elections, as an example, Vancouver-Kingsway, how would you apply PR?

Don Davies received 52.3% of the votes cast.

Virginia Bremner received 27.4% of the votes cast.

Carson Binda received 13.6% of the votes cast.

Farrakh Chishtie received 3.9% of the votes cast.

How do you portion that result among the candidates in that election? Can it be done while not destablizing the government? Do propose some form of Tim allocation where Mr. Davies would be the MP for half of the sitting days in a session, and Ms. Bremner would sit for a quarter of the days, Mr. Binda would sit for 13% of the days and poor Mr. Chishtie would fly all the way to Ottawa to sit for a couple of days? The problem is, a session does not have a pre-determined number of sitting days. The other problem is each of these people have different views and the Ministry depends on having the support of a majority of MP's. With all of the rotation of different MP's with different views, there is know way for a government to maintain the confidence of the House. PR means government by Musical Chairs. The executive depends on the advice of Parliament. That advice must be coherent or you have anarchy.

By and large the various forms of PR simply DON'T work on a riding by riding basis.   You either have to give up the riding system or run a hybrid FPTP/ PR  model when you elect a local rep but ALSO a number of MP's are assigned by the party.

The only model that still really allows for a riding based system is instant run off, which isn't really PR.

[Queenmandy85]

Just for fun, I looked at what the difference would be if an election had been held on Christmas Eve between one run under FPTP and one under PR. Based on the Dec. 24 poll numbers by 338Canada:

Party.               FPTP seats             PR seats          Seat change

CPC                  191                         133                          minus 62

Liberal               83                           94                          plus 11

NDP                  34                            65                         plus 31

Bloc                  28                            25                         minus 3

Green                2                             18                          plus 16

PPC                   0                              3                           plus 3

 

I fudged the PR numbers up by 2 or 3 seats to make it come out to a total of 338 but the change is about the same.

It shows that under PR, the CPC would never win a majority and likely would remain in opposition for a long time unless they go all Red Tory. The Liberals go back to being the Natural Governing Party but never have a majority.

The thing about PR is it causes parties to fracture. There is already a bit of a civil war in the NDP and the CPC continues to suffer from tensions between reformers and PC's. Without the possibility of forming a government on its own, it would be tempting for the red tories to split and be part of a centrist coalition.

As much as I do not avidly support democracy, I love politics. Next to skiing, it is the best sport ever, and Canadians are really good at it. I love the dynamic energy of the campaign office.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Queenmandy85
Spelling and punctuation

[myata]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Just for fun, I looked at what the difference

It may be some ridiculous fun but nothing even close to the reality. The numbers you calculated are based on people knowing firmly and certainly that only one of the two default corporations (these are NOT democratic parliamentary parties, very obviously) can rule. You cannot have a rigged stage and pretend to have an honest show. Doesn't work this way.

Decide the winner by the number of votes they get, all votes. Open it to all parties. And in two or three elections you will know the real numbers: who's worth what in a real democratic election, not some pathetic imitation show. Those monsters may not even be on the list because they are only held together by the urge to rule, there's no other reason for them to stay together.

[blackbird]

It should be obvious in a PR system, Canada would be stuck with a Liberal-NDP coalition permanently.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Just for fun, I looked at what the difference would be if an election had been held on Christmas Eve between one run under FPTP and one under PR. Based on the Dec. 24 poll numbers by 338Canada:

Party.               FPTP seats             PR seats          Seat change

CPC                  191                         133                          minus 62

Liberal               83                           94                          plus 11

NDP                  34                            65                         plus 31

Bloc                  28                            25                         minus 3

Green                2                             18                          plus 16

PPC                   0                              3                           plus 3

 

I fudged the PR numbers up by 2 or 3 seats to make it come out to a total of 338 but the change is about the same.

It shows that under PR, the CPC would never win a majority and likely would remain in opposition for a long time unless they go all Red Tory. The Liberals go back to being the Natural Governing Party but never have a majority.

The thing about PR is it causes parties to fracture. There is already a bit of a civil war in the NDP and the CPC continues to suffer from tensions between reformers and PC's. Without the possibility of forming a government on its own, it would be tempting for the red tories to split and be part of a centrist coalition.

As much as I do not avidly support democracy, I love politics. Next to skiing, it is the best sport ever, and Canadians are really good at it. I love the dynamic energy of the campaign office.

 

No, it doesn't show that. It shows that the cpc and libs would flip back and forth being the party in power and that both sides would have to make deals with the more extreme groups  - the ndp on the libs side and the bloc adn ppc on the conservative's side.

And no, there's been no civil war in the ndp. Nor does the CPC tend to have any unusal tensions.

And no - you wouldn't see a centrist coalition. What you would see is more power to the fringe parties and more polarization.

I hope you ski better than you politic.

I don't think ANYBODY anywhere want's a pure PR system - it would be a complete disaster and would basically eliminate democracy. No party would be accountable, no individual would be accountable.  You wouldn't have a local rep any more, there really wouldn't be party conventions and you'd see a dozen small splinter parties start up each with their own seperate special interest because the game would no longer be about gaining enough support from the people to win an election.  It would be everything wrong with what we have now x4.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

It should be obvious in a PR system, Canada would be stuck with a Liberal-NDP coalition permanently.

Well the numbers he just put up show that the cpc would be gov't, the ndp and libs woudln't have enough between them.  And i think you'd see that push the bloc into the cpc's hands nicely.

But in any case it would be a mess. Nobody would truly be in charge, nobody would be accountable and basically you'd have re-created the old 'class' system where you've got the elites that run the show and the people who do what they're told. You woudln't even have a local mp any more to yell at

[Queenmandy85]

24 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I hope you ski better than you politic.

So do I.🤣

[Legato]

You would have to start this years political party conventions two years ago.

[myata]

The status quo is set so firmly in the elites brains they can't even imagine a possibility of change. If the rigid frames of FPTP were to be removed, "the Lib" and "Cons" will disappear, fragment! You wouldn't even see them because they are about nothing, there's little or nothing common that defines them, but the greed for the power.

They made this system for themselves so that it would hold them together and they change places and rule. Forever, silly. Rejoice!

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, myata said:

The status quo is set so firmly in the elites brains they can't even imagine a possibility of change. If the rigid frames of FPTP were to be removed, "the Lib" and "Cons" will disappear, fragment! You wouldn't even see them because they are about nothing, there's little or nothing common that defines them, but the greed for the power.

They made this system for themselves so that it would hold them together and they change places and rule. Forever, silly. Rejoice!

When you've mastered grade 3 english we can start you on politics.

Virtually all of what you said is wrong.  And liberal and conservative parties have fractured and rebuilt as something new many times in canada.

You have to be the special kind of stupid to say "if we break everything it'll run better".

Propose a system that's ACTUALLY better, not just a watered down version of the old feudal system, and we can talk. Because we can!!! What?!? FRAGMENT!!!  Booogity booogity boogity fweh!

[Queenmandy85]

7 hours ago, myata said:

The status quo is set so firmly in the elites brains they can't even imagine a possibility of change. If the rigid frames of FPTP were to be removed, "the Lib" and "Cons" will disappear, fragment! You wouldn't even see them because they are about nothing, there's little or nothing common that defines them, but the greed for the power.

They made this system for themselves so that it would hold them together and they change places and rule. Forever, silly. Rejoice!

You have admitted in the past that you refuse to participate in politics and likely have never met a politician, yet you pretend to know their personal motivations. As Ms. Hebert and Mr. Coyne agreed last night on at issue, most MP's are honest people motivated by public service. Ms. Raj did point out Mr. Poilievre's and Prime Minister Trudeau's strained familiarity with the truth but as an exception rather than the rule. They did talk about spin, which is a human response to any challenge. Before we cast disbusions on a politician, we must ask ourselves if we are any different. There is not a single human being who does not lie on occasion. If you ask a Prime Minister if there is going to be a recession, they have to say no. If they don't say no, it will cause a recession. It is not in the public interest for a member of the government to use the "R" word.

The fact is, these people are a reflection of the electorate. The power of elites is not as evident as you seem to believe. Political donations are severely curtailed. None of our political leaders are elite. The wealthiest of them is the Prime Minister, but he lands well short of being an "elite." Even our Governor General is not a member of some elite. Our politicians are far more concerned with the power exerted by the voters than the whims of Lord Black. 

There are people who could be called an elite on whom, politicians will call for advice, but they are people who are knowledgable. If you were Prime Minister dealing with a complex issue, would you consult with a person who knows what they are talking about or someone like me?

 

Edited December 29, 2023 by Queenmandy85

[myata]

5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

As blah ....

Blah does not change the reality! It's only words. Especially from the glossy lips of those who serve the status quo in all kind of ways and postures. I can't care a h@ck about personal qualities of public aristocrats as long as the elections do not exist and the whole pantomime is little more than a thin veil over an arrangement between the two default management corporations to rule forever. Look, the servants who feed off the dripping pot like the kitchen..honestly! it has to mean something, right?!

You don't get it, no? They can say we will rule because that's how we made it and we can and that would be fine with me if the folks like it that way. But no. They want to say, you elected us. They are saying they have "majorities", and "landslides" and democratic legitimacy, just like the real stuff. Look they believe it too, just may be! Not only that is wrong, factually, it is also an offense: to the truth, and the intelligence, mine at least. And I do not take it lightly. But maybe you wouldn't know the difference anymore. Or care to.

[Queenmandy85]

On 12/24/2023 at 3:46 AM, myata said:

You don't have to play.

That is a good plan for you. Stick with the plan.

Happy New Year. All the best in 2024, Myata. 🎈🎉🤠

[herbie]

7 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The status quo is set so firmly in the elites brains

Wrong!

It's the simple minded that finds anything else 'just too complicated' to figure out. And the others that prefer my way or the highway over consensus and compromise.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

Wrong!

It's the simple minded that finds anything else 'just too complicated' to figure out. And the others that prefer my way or the highway over consensus and compromise.

Well when you can figure out how english works come back and we can look at more complex issues.

[myata]

There's nothing "complicated" about every vote counts, and the one with the most (in a true and fair count) wins. Just try to make it any more simple and you end up with some weirdo stuff like look I won because I mixed this pot and it shows something!

"Complexity" of everything else but the absolute and eternal perfection itself recorded from the heavenly voices on the Day one of great democracy is just another beaver tale they need to peddle to preserve the status quo where they get to rule with no checks or questions (and that is a fact, by the way). And these things work best with those of a simpler mind, of course. Humans are programmable.

[CdnFox]

26 minutes ago, myata said:

There's nothing "complicated" about every vote counts,

Sure there is.  What you're talking about is a pure democracy.  Pure democracy is tyranny of the majority,  If two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner - that's democracy.

But this is a constitutional representational democracy.  So  we balance the democratic model with certain checks and balances and freedoms and rights.  Our current system is a result of that and helps protect against the tyranny of the majority.

So what you're really saying is there's nothing complicated about tyranny.  I suppose not - but that's a bad reason to choose it.

[myata]

Just general phrases in a total, stark contrast to the reality of unchecked; unaccountable and unquestionable rule. That's "representative democracy" for you, hear!

Wrong of course. There's no words that can make an ostrich into a seagull and voodoo dance to a pretty music is not a democracy and has very little to do with representation. Keep peddling your colored picture book, but in this age and century it should not fool anybody. With a grain of intelligence.