FPTP is extreme danger in uncertain and volatile times

[Queenmandy85]

16 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.

  " 23 hours ago,  Queenmandy85 said: 

The status quo is set so firmly in the elites brains"

I did not say this. Myata did. It was in a quote of his post that somehow got attributed to me. 

Edited December 30, 2023 by Queenmandy85

[Queenmandy85]

7 hours ago, myata said:

There's nothing "complicated" about every vote counts, and the one with the most (in a true and fair count) wins.

That is precisely how FPTP works. The candidate with the most votes in a riding wins.

[myata]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The candidate with the most votes in a riding wins.

Yes, OK. Sure. Wait a sec though: does the "party" with the most votes win? Yes or no? A natural slew of a hand and look, it's about "parties" now, and the "candidates" just turned into "employees" by a magical wave of a wand. Wait was it a show, or still "democracy"?

Look this is not funny. I wouldn't laugh here, seriously. You know how the CPC, Chinese Communist Party works, they have democracy there too, apparently. It's a great party who cares that only one, and free elections of course, and then by some magical dance it always happen to win. Just another mystery.

Now, in this democracy there isn't only one "party" but two. That sure makes it free right? Hold here though: if the folks going to the voting stations know for sure, 100% that only one of the two can win, and so a vote for anything else is pretty much a throw away (with a couple of very minor exceptions) is it still called "free" - in the normal world? Look you're "free" to book any one of our hundred of colors here but you can only get one, or the other; that makes your choice "free" or what? "Booking" and "getting", is it the same thing, in this great world of political magic? What, another trick? That's for the "fair" and "election".

But wait there's more! Suppose one gets a "majority" (no not really the same thing but we like to call it that, a local dialect if you like). Then they do pretty much what they like  until they screw up in any number of ways and still they would firmly believe in doing the right thing yes because they can do pretty much anything they like, now you're begging to get it, nice work! So they keep screwing up no checks, no balances and very few limits (especially that part always worked great for us here, imagine?) until next to everybody in the country beings to ha.. no, that's not what we say here, "turn their electoral preferences", here you go, much better! And by the way, where do you think would those preferences turn, in which unknown direction? Can you guess, in let's say three? Let's spell it together now: "l-a-n-d-s-l-i-d-e" did you like that? So in the sum:

No elections: proven

No majorities; no landslides: nothing real, just funny words

No checks, balances next to zero accountability (please don't count the joker period)

Could the PM have received illegal gifts? "We investigated but couldn't be sure whether they have the prerogative to give themselves anything they like"

Yeah, and what about the CPC, by the way? How would it compare?

 

 

Remember CPC?

[Queenmandy85]

4 hours ago, myata said:

does the "party" with the most votes win? Yes or no?

We do not vote for "parties." We vote for a person to become our Member of Parliament. If we were voting for a party, we would never have independents sitting in Parliament. (Jodi Wilson-Reybould) Political parties are a handy vehicle for organizing caucuses but they carry a danger of imposing "ideology" on issues. Ideology is an anathema to good government and the enemy of pragmatism. You seem to want a return to the "rotten boroughs" where wealthy doners could buy a seat in parliament. We must do all we can to prevent our Members of Parliament from becoming more beholden to a party than the electorate. The PR system really lends itsself to giving power to the elites and the wealthy.

[Queenmandy85]

4 hours ago, myata said:

But wait there's more! Suppose one gets a "majority" (no not really the same thing but we like to call it that, a local dialect if you like). Then they do pretty much what they like 

What does a majority mean? A Ministry has a majority when it has the confidence of the House. That is, a majority of Members of Parliament support the legislation presented by the ministry. The Ministry must also have the confidence of the executive. If the Cabinet as a whole, or an individual Cabinet Minister loses that confidence, they must resign. That is a pretty good check on the government. I'm not sure, but I presume you support the idea of stable government where there is some predictability but with the proviso that confidence can be withdrawn if the House or the executive are displeased by the government's actions.

Unlike the American system, your MP is responsible to all citizens. (Lord North.) For example, during the flag debate,  my local MP had a different view than mine, but there were many MP's including the Leader of the opposition, who represented my view with vigour. Have you never had an MP in Parliament who did not represent your views? If nobody did, it can only be because either, you did not ask, or your views are so without merit that they are not worth presenting. Since you are clearly an intelligent person, I would say it is because you did not ask any MP's that have similar views to you. If you do not ask, how can anyone know what you want?

[Legato]

23 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.

How long you been eating fortune cookies?

[herbie]

Oh yes let's blame conspiracies of the mysterious elites..(IOW anyone who graduated High School)

Vote for a billionaire to save you from them...

[Nefarious Banana]

Ever been assessed by a psychiatrist herbie?  Your grasp of reality is humorous . . . in a sad sort of way.

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Ever been assessed by a psychiatrist herbie?  Your grasp of reality is humorous . . . in a sad sort of way.

At his level of intelligence i believe the correct medical professional term is actually "vet".

[myata]

We will continue where left. So, in this system one has to always choose between someone they are sick of; and the other they are terribly bored with. Bad or the worse. One or the other. No other options.

Where is this called "free"? In what book?

So one has to choose between the bad and the worse always, and no exceptions possible. You said it yourself on countless occasions. You smirked and laughed. Is it that funny, really?

In you regular, normal life do you live by the same rule? Eat food that is only second worst? Take a job that is only somewhat better than the worst one? Drive a car that is the better one of the bad?

What if you do, or will? What if this is not about peculiarities of great democracies, but that you taught yourself (with help) and got used to accepting one of the worst as the only possibility? For you?

Public healthcare in a permanent state of existential crisis.

Vietnam is building a high-speed train link.

In 2024 there's no standard service to file taxes in Canada.

The only female federal leader considered a weird aberration: a common staple in modern democratic politics.

One should be careful or repeating mantras of greatness mindlessly, never considering the reality. No, a functional democracy in this century does have to be like this, and is not like this. You can have a choice. Your leaders have to earn the right to govern in a fair and open political competition, not take it as a free ticket.

You just convinced yourself to accept the worst and second rate. This is only a choice: your choice; not a necessity; and neither, a standard. Don't lie at least, to yourself.

 

[CdnFox]

30 minutes ago, myata said:

We will continue where left

 

Shouldn't we continue where right?

.

Quote

So, in this system one has to always choose between someone they are sick of; and the other they are terribly bored with. Bad or the worse. One or the other. No other options.

Wow  - wrong so many times and in your first sentence.  Impressive

Couldn't be further from the truth. You can organize a new party.  That has happened many times.  Bernier did.  Harper did.  Manning did.  may did.  The bloc did. Others did too including the ndp which is still fairly new on the scene.

so you're not stuck in the slightest . In fact - we ROUTINELY create new parties.  Don't like the libs - vote cpc. Don't like the cpc, vote PPC.   Not to your linking? Try ghe greens. Allergic to donuts and can't vote green? Go with the NDP.  Or start something new - we've had alliance and reform and a bunch of others in the past.

I mean - you couldn't even get past your first sentence without being so wrong it hurts to look at.

Sigh. Stick with tinkertoys till you're older kid.

[myata]

One does not have to pick among the worst. The sane world does not operate by this rule. It's a choice, not a given, nor a standard. Alternatives exist and they are very well possible.

"We tried to investigate if the PM received illegal gifts, but we can't be sure if They may have the prerogative to allow themselves anything".

This is real. This is nonsense. It does not happen in real democracies, where no one is above the law. You do not have to accept sheer and obvious nonsense. Training yourself to accept nonsense as normal is a choice.

Your choices will define your world. They are already defining it.

Edited December 31, 2023 by myata

[Queenmandy85]

Myata, on Christmas Eve, you pointed out that we have the choice not to play. Why do you torture yourself by critisizing a system you chose to know nothing about? Maybe you should chose not to play and take on a different sport if politics is not to your liking. The Blue Jays are going to be starting spring training in 8 weeks.

You keep talking about democracy but we are not ,nor have we ever been, nor should we ever be a democracy. While we have democratic elements in our system such as the power of the voter to elect a Member of Parliament, we are not a democracy. Your MP has the right to advise the executive and the power to control spending and taxation. That latter power gives the citizen power over the executive branch, but we do not elect the executive. You have Members of Parliament to speak for you. If they don't, then that is entirely on you. You hired them. If you hired a dud, that is your fault for not supporting someone else who has your particular interests in mind. Don't blame others (the rest of us) for your lack of participation and due diligence. Don't blame the so-called elites, or politicians or CanFox because you lost the election. You connot win in any sport if you don't play. Politics is a participation sport. If you didn't campaign, you have no right to complain.

[eyeball]

20 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We must do all we can...

We can draft citizens for representation duty. The same way we draft citizens for jury duty.

Political parties would be more like social clubs but still quite adequate vehicles for advancing ideas. All other things being equal, whoever has the biggest most influential social club will likely see that being reflected amongst the people randomly chosen to sit in Parliament.

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, myata said:

One does not have to pick among the worst. The sane world does not operate by this rule. It's a choice, not a given, nor a standard. Alternatives exist and they are very well possible.

I doubt anyone knows what you're even talking about you illiterate dolt.

Quote

"We tried to investigate if the PM received illegal gifts, but we can't be sure if They may have the prerogative to allow themselves anything".

No, we did investiate and he DID receive illegal gifts, what they weren't sure about is whether he could give himself permission to break the law.   But - we KNEW he had broken the law, that was not in dispute. And yet people chose to vote for him. They had many choices - including abstaining in protest.  But they chose to vote for him.

That is not a problem with our system, it's a problem with our voters and changing the system does not change the voters.

As to the rest of your blather, have you tried drinking to excess? I think you'd make more sense like that.

[Queenmandy85]

38 minutes ago, eyeball said:

We can draft citizens for representation duty. The same way we draft citizens for jury duty.

Political parties would be more like social clubs but still quite adequate vehicles for advancing ideas. All other things being equal, whoever has the biggest most influential social club will likely see that being reflected amongst the people randomly chosen to sit in Parliament.

Isn't that pretty much how we get our MP's. Only instead of drafting them, we vote for them. It is one thing to sit on a jury for a few days or weeks. It is another thing to have to up stakes and live in Ottawa for 3-5 years. The person must be willing to leave their families and their  job during their prime earning years. While you will get some draftees with a degree of competence like CanFox and even a gifted MP like Michael Gardner, a lot of them are goning to be people like me. Are you sure you want that? 😎

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Are you sure you want that? 

I'll try virtually anything over what we have. Like you said, we must do all we can.

[Queenmandy85]

13 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'll try virtually anything over what we have. Like you said, we must do all we can.

Be careful what you wish for. There was a time when I was destined to be your Prime Minister. The only thing that prevented me from achieving that goal was not enough votes. Canadians should bow down and give a prayer of thanks.

We have a very good system now. The people who occupy the benches in Parliament across all parties, are mostly excellent people and they serve us well. They are a reflection of us, the voters, with all our virtues and our flaws. Life in Canada is far better than it was in my youth. One of my best friends in the mid-1950's had a grand mother who was an internationally renowned chemist. Her son, my friend's dad, did work on the Manhatten project. Yet, if they visited Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver or any number of places, there were restaurants, clubs and golf courses they were not allowed to enter because they were jewish and in the 1950's, many establishments in Canada were restricted. 

In the mid 1970's, the Faculty Association executive met to discuss expelling a student because he was gay. The only member of the executive who opposed expulsion was Professor Peter Millard, President of the Faculty association. Professor Millard said that if the student was forced to leave the University, so would he, "because I'm gay."  Shocked silence ensued. The expulsion was dropped and Millard was recognized as a hero.

We read many posts about how we are living in a dictatorship. The reason we can read so many of these posts is because we are not living in a dictatorship.

Current interest rates and inflation are half of what was normal in the late 1970's. Yes, we have much more to do, but we need to pause for a moment and relfect on how wonderful life in Canada is. It doesn't matter what the party in power is, they do a pretty good job working towards making life even better. When Mr. Poilievre wins the 2025 election, he will say it is all the liberals fault, but he will continue to do what the liberals have done because that course of action has been proven over the decades to be the best practice. He may have a tenuous relationship with the truth but he is not stupid. Neither is Prime Minister Trudeau.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'll try virtually anything over what we have. Like you said, we must do all we can.

then you're an !diot and should be ignored.  Would you try slavery? Would you like to go back to a feudal system with serfs perhaps? How about a true oligarchy?

The system we have is excellent. The problem is the voters. People like you .  If you'd actually punish politicians like the liberals instead of voting for them when we learn they're corrupt we wouldn't have these problems.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We read many posts about how we are living in a dictatorship. The reason we can read so many of these posts is because we are not living in a dictatorship.

So you're implying or associating dictatorship with anything that isn't FPTP?  This from a would be PM who says Canada isn't a democracy. 🙄

[myata]

No: you don't have to choose among the worst. It's a choice, not a given, and a rarest, unique aberration in the democratic world. This obligation does not exist in the reality, only instilled in your brain by ages old brainwashing: "it's been perfect from Day one. No you don't want any change, change is bad; it never works; anathema!".

Is it how you live your life? Does it work for you? Why do you think it could work for the country?

And the results keep coming: "we just aren't sure if they can give themselves anything they like". Keep laughing.

Right, the people are to blame for the flaws of the system that is failing so grotesquely it no longer cares to hide it. But it's "excellent" and "perfect" you have to believe it. It's just you.

Edited January 1 by myata

[Queenmandy85]

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

So you're implying or associating dictatorship with anything that isn't FPTP?  This from a would be PM who says Canada isn't a democracy. 🙄

I did not imply anything that isn't FPTP is a dictatorship. I can not see how you would make that association. My comment on dictatorship was an aside. I'm sorry for causing confusion.

There are other forms of government besides democracy and dictatorship. There are republics, military juntas, and monarchies, both absolute and constitutional. Most of the nations with the highest quality of life are constitutional monarchies. Denmark, the Netherlands, Japan, New Zealand, Sweden, Belgium, Norway, Australia and Canada are constitutional monarchies. It has nothing to do with the electoral system. 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

There are other forms of government besides democracy and dictatorship. There are republics, military juntas, and monarchies, both absolute and constitutional. Most of the nations with the highest quality of life are constitutional monarchies. Denmark, the Netherlands, Japan, New Zealand, Sweden, Belgium, Norway, Australia and Canada are constitutional monarchies. 

Every country you just listed uses some form of proportional representation.  The main reason Canada doesn't appear to is that we're a former colony of Britain - perhaps colonists are expected to be as submissive as the colonized.

Those who still use First Past the Post tend to have it as a result of being former British colonies.

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-many-countries-around-the-world-use-proportional-representation/

Quote

It has nothing to do with the electoral system.

And our electoral system has nothing to do with democracy. You said it yourself although I'm betting this is a sentiment you kept to yourself when you were trying to fulfil your destiny to be PM.

[Queenmandy85]

19 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The main reason Canada doesn't appear to is that we're a former colony of Britain

That is something to b proud of. 

 

19 minutes ago, eyeball said:

And our electoral system has nothing to do with democracy. You said it yourself although I'm betting this is a sentiment you kept to yourself when you were trying to fulfil your destiny to be PM.

Of course I didn't keep it a secret. Why do you think I'm not Prime Minister today? (apart from all the other obvious reasons. 😉 )

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That is something to b proud of.

We're clearly from different planets.