FPTP is extreme danger in uncertain and volatile times

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

We're clearly from different planets.

You haven't even offered a single practical way pr would be better or any of the problems we experience now would go away. 

It's not a problem of different planets, i'ts a problem of living in reality or a dream world.

PR makes nothing better - it just reduces accountability and makes our gov't even more about fighting each other for poits and less about serving the nation.

[eyeball]

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You haven't even offered a single practical way pr would be better or any of the problems we experience now would go away. 

Not much point to that when the misplaced concreteness of FPTP is in the way.  This thread is about the apparent extreme safety of FPTP.

Presumably the constitutional monarchies that make up our peers are in extreme danger. Is there any sign of their impending doom?  

 

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Not much point to that when the misplaced concreteness of FPTP is in the way.  This thread is about the apparent extreme safety of FPTP.

C'mon. You don't need me to tell you why that's a poor argument.

You can hardly expect anyone to even question FPTP if all you can bring to the table argument wise is "we'll i'm just sick of how we do it now'.  That's not a good reason to change an electoral system.

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

We're clearly from different planets.

I am a Conservative. What can I say? 👍🦕

[eyeball]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That's not a good reason to change an electoral system.

I'm looking for good reasons to keep FPTP, $10 says our aforementioned peers dismissed them all. I wonder why?

[eyeball]

Just now, Queenmandy85 said:

I am a Conservative. What can I say? 👍🦕

Not according to half the conservatives here. You're practically a commie like me. 🐑🐑🐑 

[Queenmandy85]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

I'm looking for good reasons to keep FPTP, $10 says our aforementioned peers dismissed them all. I wonder why?

It improves the chances for majority government. I'll send you the address where to send the $10. A cheque is acceptable.

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

It improves the chances for majority government. I'll send you the address where to send the $10. A cheque is acceptable.

In the meantime could you post why our peers were unconcerned with improving this chance?

How come their monarchs heads didn't explode?

Edited January 1, 2024 by eyeball

[Queenmandy85]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Not according to half the conservatives here. You're practically a commie like me. 🐑🐑🐑 

The prime directive of Conservatism is loyalty to the Crown. Thousands of American Conservatives fought for the King in the American revolution. Gangs of thugs called the "sons of liberty", the same kind of radical criminals as the "antifa" movement roamed the colonies, burning and robbing Conservative Americans homes and Churches. Tens of thousands of Americans were driven into exile for the crime of being a tory.

I don't think there are very many conservatives here. We have some republicans. Republicans are the antithesis of Conservative. The last true conservative we had in Canada is Prime Minister Diefenbaker who fought hard to preserve our heritage.

I do not oppose other traditions from non-British sources. I embrace them. Canada is blessed with a blended heritage. I just believe it would be unfair to exclude my heritage.

What can I say I'm a 🦕. 😉

[Queenmandy85]

17 minutes ago, eyeball said:

In the meantime could you post why our peers were unconcerned with improving this chance?

How come their monarchs heads didn't explode?

You should watch the Danish TV series Borgen.

It shows how governing depends on forming coalitions. It must drive Queen Margrethe crazy. 

As to your question about Monarchs and the electoral system, the manner of elections is a political question. The King of Canada, by convention, is fobidden to involve himself in politics. I don't like that, but it is not my call. 

[eyeball]

27 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The King of Canada, by convention, is fobidden to involve himself in politics. I don't like that, but it is not my call. 

Ironically, I wish our Monarch could give our Parliamentarians the smack upside their heads they well deserve from time to time - such as when it involves a betrayal of the public's trust.  Like a contempt of court charge but with a stiff fine or something.

I think in a PR system, where the difference in a coalitions existence can hang on a single seat, the pressure to not betray the public's trust would be a lot greater than the apparent nonchalance Parliamentarians enjoy under FPTP.

Edited January 1, 2024 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'm looking for good reasons to keep FPTP, $10 says our aforementioned peers dismissed them all. I wonder why?

Well the first good reason is there isn't a better system

But more specific reasons were given previously - to recap quickly fptp tends to force a broader range of policies to be included into a cohesive plan whereas other models tend to result in a group of disperate ideas that are unconnected and not a coherent plan to be pushed forward and focuses on showboating rather than achieving long term results. It strongly tends towards minority gov'ts which means less accountability over all and disjointed visions for the future.

Look at what we've got going on right now with our minority gov't.  The ndp is ALREADY trying to say ' dont' blame us for the liberals errors' and desperately trying to say they'd never form a coalition again - so they're trying to get off the hook for proping up the gov't.  So they don't care that the gov't is completely trashing the economy and housing and inflation, they get to dodge all that despite the fact they were the ones who made it possible.

the whole 'dental care/pharmacare' thing is a bloody mess and not doing anything effective because it's a 'compromise solution' forced on parties to stay in power or be relevant and it's not part of a coherent design,

the governing liberals don't have to listen to anyone else thanks to the ndp propping them up any way - so THEY don't feel accountable for their crappy policy.

it's a disaster.  This is some of the worst governance we've ever seen in Canada. Now imagine if that coalition was made up of 4 different parties all trying to stand out and make sure THEY look great to THEIR voters without caring about the overall effectiveness in Canada.

 

If you want to improve representation in Canada and make sure people's voices are heard there are far better ways to do that, but in order to be effective a gov't has to be answerable to the people and for THAT to happen it has to have the authority to exercise it's vision and deliver on it's mandate and that means you generally want majority gov'ts.

 

[eyeball]

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

it's a disaster.

Is there any corroborating evidence of this from the aforementioned peers? Who are still constitutional monarchies I might add.

Surely our Mommy and Daddy won't lose their heads either.

 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The prime directive of Conservatism is loyalty to the Crown.

Loyalty is a given that is taken by the Crown. Is there anything to suggest this still isn't the case in the countries you listed that are apparently in extreme danger?

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Not according to half the conservatives here. You're practically a commie like me. 🐑🐑🐑 

I think you mean 100 percent of the conservatives here

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The prime directive of Conservatism is loyalty to the Crown.

It is not.  Not even a little bit.  In fact the opposite is true. Conservatives are far more likely to question. It was Harper who told the queen straigt up  she had no ACTUAL power in canada any more and was a figure head.  She didn't care for that but couldn't argue.  It is ANTI-conservative to believe that loyalty to the crown is ANY kind of directive, never mind prime

But that IS the kind of thing a left winger would claim about the right. 

Kinda proves the point. NOT a right wing person OR a conservative but like most on the left these days they prefer to lie about it rather than admit their own affiliation.

Right Justins boy?  

[Queenmandy85]

Harper was republican if he said that, not conservative. There is a vast difference. It is not a left-right question. 

However, it doesn't matter because the Crown in Canada is so locked in to the Constitution regardless of what happens to the Crown in any other nation, it will remain in Canada forever.

Perhaps Mr. Harper was having a senior's moment when he forgot that without the Queen's signature, he would not be Prime Minister. The same goes for Mr. Poilievre. When he wins the election, he still requires the King to appoint him. Of course, the King is a loyal Canadian and loyal to the conventions of the Constitution, but, as Michael Valpe said, the Prime Minister doesn't own the power, the power is merely lent to him.

Edited January 2, 2024 by Queenmandy85

[August1991]

17 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

You should watch the Danish TV series Borgen.

It shows how governing depends on forming coalitions. It must drive Queen Margrethe crazy. 

As to your question about Monarchs and the electoral system, the manner of elections is a political question. The King of Canada, by convention, is fobidden to involve himself in politics. I don't like that, but it is not my call. 

I did watch the series. Not bad.

====

Fun thread to flip through.

Hey kids,

You think that your vote in an election changes something. It does not. Trust me, it does not.

But when you buy something, your purchase changes something. Trust me, it does.

===

Democracy? Two criteria:

1. We all put black/white balls in a large bowl. Someone draws a ball and if it's black, the black guy is president.

2. The power of the State is passed without death, between people who hate each other. (My preferred definition. John Adams did it first. Donald Trump also, BTW.)

Edited January 2, 2024 by August1991

[CdnFox]

13 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Harper was republican if he said that, not conservative.

Harper was absoltuely conservative - and most conservatives agreed with him.

BTW - this is canada.  We don't have republicans.  I realize it can get confusing but you've got your map upside down again.

13 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

However, it doesn't matter because the Crown in Canada is so locked in to the Constitution regardless

Nope - turns out she's locked out.  And she knows it. She has whatever influence we let her have and that's it.  Sorry - he has, still getting over loosing lizzie i guess.

The king is irrelevant. Even less so than Elizabeth - everyone loved and respected her even if they weren't huge on the monarchy except for some die hard commie types.  I don't think half of the people could name the king off the top of their heads right now.  (it came up at a party over xmas and half the room thought it was henry   Mind you - with their history if you can't remember you've got a 50 50 chance going with that )

So nope - not locked in, nobody cares, people who argue like you do are the same kind of fools who argue that the magna carta means we should be allowed unfettered access to firearms or are those 'free man on the land' types.

13 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

the Prime Minister doesn't own the power

Of course not. The governer general does.  BUt - contrary to popular belief we own the governer general. You might think the king does - that's not reality.  we do.

Sorry - i get that you think you're onto something here based on legal technicality but nope - that would be done away with in 2 seconds if we decided it was necessary.  THe link to the monarchy is 100 percent vestigial.  We can cut it out at any time.

[Queenmandy85]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

THe link to the monarchy is 100 percent vestigial.  We can cut it out at any time.

Just how do you propose we do that? It is at the heart of the Constitution, double locked. Also, why would we? We have a Head of State, trained from birth for the role, and costs us nothing. What would you replace the Crown with? A politician like Trump, Biden or Putin? We tried that after the Civil War. After fifteen years, we begged to have the King back. They have served us since Cerdic splashed ashore.Out of the last 45 monarchs, we had 8 who were lacking. I can't think of 8 Presidents of the US who were any good.

[Queenmandy85]

On 1/1/2024 at 5:54 PM, CdnFox said:

It was Harper who told the queen straigt up  she had no ACTUAL power in canada any more and was a figure head.  She didn't care for that but couldn't argue.

This claim is news to me.Could you provide some context as to when and why he said that. I'm sure such an event would have been reported. 

 

Edited January 3, 2024 by Queenmandy85

[CdnFox]

26 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Just how do you propose we do that?

We already did.  When was the last time the monarch did something in canada wtihout us telling them specifically to do so? When have we EVER acknowledged their authority in any manner that had an impact on our lives since ww1?  We've already told them straight out we're not listening.

Sorry - it's already happened, they're quite aware of it and if we need to we'll just open the constitution and cut it out. But the reality is we just ignore it and there's not a damn thing they can do about it.

You're about 100 years  too late to be making that argument.  You can call the king and tell him i said so if you like.

 

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

This claim is news to me.Could you provide some context as to when and why he said that. I'm sure such an event would have been reported. 

 

Look it up yourself.   Honestly i'm yet again getting tired of every lefty on this board demanding cites and then when i provide it the subject just gets changed.  If you can't educate yourself then you're not fit for the discussion.

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Look it up yourself.   Honestly i'm yet again getting tired of every lefty on this board demanding cites and then when i provide it the subject just gets changed.  If you can't educate yourself then you're not fit for the discussion.

I would never accuse you of making it up but your claim is unsupported. 

[Queenmandy85]

Sorry for the thread drift. Leaving the Constitution aside, I agree with much of CanFox’ comments on FPTP.

[Queenmandy85]

On 1/1/2024 at 5:54 PM, CdnFox said:

It was Harper who told the queen straigt up  she had no ACTUAL power in canada any more and was a figure head. 

I have searched for any reference that would support your claim but there is none. I can come up with two possible explainations for your error.

A. He was referring to Self-proclaimed "Queen of Canada" Romana Didulo — known for her QAnon beliefs.

B. He was referring to me. Since I've never met Mr. Harper, that is unlikely.

Cheers