FPTP is extreme danger in uncertain and volatile times

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

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.

LOL -no but a reasonable guess

Quote

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

I've never met you but i talk about you all the time   And we'd both agree you have limited sovereignty over me.  I hope.

Doing a quick couple of searches i can see the problem, there was such a flurry of stories when she died that it's hard to get anything at all from much before that, never mind 14 years or so. And it wasn't much of a story at the time.  Harper: "while we treasure our connection and history with the monarchy, it has no real power in canada and we govern ourselves".  Queen: :Staaaaaaaaaaaare...."

[eyeball]

On 1/2/2024 at 6:03 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

...as Michael Valpe said, the Prime Minister doesn't own the power, the power is merely lent to him.

Isn't that essentially the case with whoever is wearing the Crown? The Crown is a magical construct that these days that merely represents the transfer of power from one government to the next, which is fine but how is it germane in any way shape or form to the extreme dangers of FPTP?  Is it because of something evidenced in all the other constitutional monarchies that consigned FPTP to the dustbin of history or just something peculiar to Canada and Canadians?

[Queenmandy85]

It is not germaine. I was responding to CanFox's statement. Thread drift. On that point, the King of Canada has the same powers as the Presidents of Germany and Israel and several others. It is an important aspect of checks and balances to divide authority and power. The Head of State has all the authority and the head of government has the political power. The Head of State should always be above politics.

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

the King of Canada has the same powers as the Presidents of Germany and Israel and several others. It is an important aspect of checks and balances to divide authority and power. The Head of State has all the authority and the head of government has the political power.

If the head of state wields all this power, shouldn’t they be chosen by the people they govern?   How is a birthright to rule a good thing?   What if Canadians don’t like Chucky and want a new head of state?

 

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The Head of State should always be above politics.

Why is that?

[myata]

Talks of Canadian talking heads about complexities of democratic politics are absurdly amusing. It's a cute game for them sure, they feed off it after all so makes all the sense.

In the reality though, politics do not exist here. Two default political mega-corporations take turns ruling without any, factual zero effective checks. A majority or de facto PM can do virtually anything (just as we just observed) and there will be nothing to stop them. Including a criminal act quite possibly - "we just can't be sure if They can allow it themselves", the quote.

They like to create funny little dances and rituals, take that personal, lapdog "ethics commissioner" so cute costs a fortune and some to the taxpayer but how else, and enjoy the show. And will chat it this way and that forever as if it mattered anything, one broken cent. OK, everyone needs to feed their little ones, do understand.

Never the real thing, no. That could be dangerous. Change is dangerous, here.

Edited January 10, 2024 by myata

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, myata said:

 It's a cute game for them sure, they feed off it after all so makes all the sense.

Which is more than we can say for your English skills.

[myata]

Which is all one can observe, objectively, on the relevance of his arguments to the topic. None. Clean and pure, absolute zero other than bored to death ad hominem.

Not much can be added here. Point closed.

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, myata said:

Which is all one can observe, objectively, on the relevance of his arguments to the topic. None. Clean and pure, absolute zero other than bored to death ad hominem.

 

Can't even be enough of a man to say who you're talking about. Pathetic.

Given what you said i ASSUME it's talking about yourself. IT would certainly fit.

[myata]

That's an ignore. There's no argument of any sense and the point is closed, period. On that level of intelligence and honesty he can talk to Vivek or other prolific liar buds.

[CdnFox]

28 minutes ago, myata said:

That's an ignore. There's no argument of any sense and the point is closed, period. On that level of intelligence and honesty he can talk to Vivek or other prolific liar buds.

Still too much of a coward eh    I get it.  I intimidate a lot of people who aren't very bright. I get why you can't even mention my name - i might appear before you like voldemort as far as you know or something   LOLOL

You go put your head in the sand where it's safe little guy

[Queenmandy85]

4 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

If the head of state wields all this power, shouldn’t they be chosen by the people they govern?   How is a birthright to rule a good thing?   What if Canadians don’t like Chucky and want a new head of state?

 

Why is that?

You misunderstand what I said. The Head of State has most of the authority, the head of government has the political power. Usually, as in Canada and the UK, the Head of State has no authority over taxation and spending. He is also bound by the laws and the constitution. The power lies with the authority over the purse. I am not sure, but I suspect the same is true in Germany and Israel. King Charles actually has more authority than the POTUS. He has the authority to declare war. The President of the United States does not. In other words, the King can declare war on Belgium in his right of Canada. But he cannot conduct the war unless Parliament grants the money to pay for it. The Head of State acts by conventions. He appoints the Prime Minister and the Governor General, but convention governs whom he appoints, ie., the leader of the party with the most seats in the House of Commons. 

On the other hand, the PM has not official authority but his standing in Parliament and the existing conventions gives him the power. The position of Prime Minister is unofficial and is hardly mentioned in the constitution. He acts in the name of the crown, but only as long as he has the confidence of the House and the crown. The crown is there to apply the breaks on a would-be dictator, just like the President of Germany.

Edited January 10, 2024 by Queenmandy85

[TreeBeard]

52 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

You misunderstand what I said. The Head of State has most of the authority, the head of government has the political power. Usually, as in Canada and the UK, the Head of State has no authority over taxation and spending. He is also bound by the laws and the constitution. The power lies with the authority over the purse. I am not sure, but I suspect the same is true in Germany and Israel. King Charles actually has more authority than the POTUS. He has the authority to declare war. The President of the United States does not. In other words, the King can declare war on Belgium in his right of Canada. But he cannot conduct the war unless Parliament grants the money to pay for it. The Head of State acts by conventions. He appoints the Prime Minister and the Governor General, but convention governs whom he appoints, ie., the leader of the party with the most seats in the House of Commons. 

On the other hand, the PM has not official authority but his standing in Parliament and the existing conventions gives him the power. The position of Prime Minister is unofficial and is hardly mentioned in the constitution. He acts in the name of the crown, but only as long as he has the confidence of the House and the crown. The crown is there to apply the breaks on a would-be dictator, just like the President of Germany.

All a non-answer to my question.  Why should ruling be a birthright?  What if the governed people want a different head of state?  Shouldn’t they be allowed to choose on democratically?

What happens if the crown is the would-be dictator?

[Queenmandy85]

4 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

All a non-answer to my question.  Why should ruling be a birthright?  What if the governed people want a different head of state?  Shouldn’t they be allowed to choose on democratically?

What happens if the crown is the would-be dictator?

The historic record of elected politicians compared to constitutional monarchs shows monarchs are the better selection process. Canada has been a monarchy for 400 years and only two have been duds out of 13. The combined reign of George IV and Edward VIII was 11 years out of 400. The advantage of a constitutional monarch is they are trained for the role from birth. The fact is when you look at elected Presidents, you have a lot of mediocre politicians, some really bad ones and not that many who have the gravitas of a King.  Putin, Trump and Waldheim are some of the worst recent examples. Each one was democratically elected by people who knew who they were electing. Voters do not make informed choices.

The King of Canada cannot become a dictator. He is bound by the constitution and convention. His role is to lend his authority so long as the politician with the power has the confidence of Parliament. The King does not control the money so he has no ability to abuse his authority.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

.Canada has been a monarchy for 400 years

umm......  canada came into existence in  1867. Now - i know  math isn't your best subject but surely even you can see that's no 400 years.  and for most of it's time it's been a paper monarchy only - not in the real world.

[eyeball]

12 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The advantage of a constitutional monarch is they are trained for the role from birth...

Voters do not make informed choices....

Voters are taught to believe their vote means something and that people even died for their right to vote and they should really think of it as a duty.

Monarchs however are apparently told we're really not a democracy at all.  You seem to have an insiders perspective that corroborates that.

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Voters are taught to believe their vote means something and that people even died for their right to vote and they should really think of it as a duty.

Monarchs however are apparently told we're really not a democracy at all.  You seem to have an insiders perspective that corroborates that.

Our vote does mean something. We elect our Members of Parliament. Parliament and the Crown have a symbiotic relationship. The fact that neither can work without the other is the key to the democratic part of the system. For Canada, there are other advantages. It symbolizes our French and British heritage. It separates us from the Americans. It costs us nothing. 

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

It costs us nothing.

I guess that's why its worthless.

[BeaverFever]

Im not in favour of any system where government is a coalition of a half dozen parties, most of which will be fringe parties playing kingmaker. 
 

The reasonable alternative to FPTP is ranked ballot basically an automatic runoff count but conservatives would never go for it because LPC and NDP would almost always be the top 2 choices for the majority of Canadians 

[Legato]

On 1/10/2024 at 12:23 PM, TreeBeard said:

If the head of state wields all this power, shouldn’t they be chosen by the people they govern?   How is a birthright to rule a good thing?   What if Canadians don’t like Chucky and want a new head of state?

 

Why is that?

Look up the interregnum.

[Legato]

10 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Im not in favour of any system where government is a coalition of a half dozen parties, most of which will be fringe parties playing kingmaker. 
 

The reasonable alternative to FPTP is ranked ballot basically an automatic runoff count but conservatives would never go for it because LPC and NDP would almost always be the top 2 choices those who live in Toronto.

Fixed.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Im not in favour of any system where government is a coalition of a half dozen parties, most of which will be fringe parties playing kingmaker. 
 

The reasonable alternative to FPTP is ranked ballot basically an automatic runoff count but conservatives would never go for it because LPC and NDP would almost always be the top 2 choices for the majority of Canadians 

That isn't reasonable in the slightest.  But i can understand why a liberal supporter would want it   Btw - the ndp absolutely shot it down as a 'no go' early on as well, Remember this is what justin wanted. 

It's a dishonest system in a party based electoral model. it would be fine if eveyrone was an independent and there were no parties.

Like i said, not shocked you like it but it would guarantee liberal majorities most of the time and the ndp and cpc woudl have no voice

[BeaverFever]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That isn't reasonable in the slightest.  But i can understand why a liberal supporter would want it   Btw - the ndp absolutely shot it down as a 'no go' early on as well, Remember this is what justin wanted. 

It's a dishonest system in a party based electoral model. it would be fine if eveyrone was an independent and there were no parties.

Like i said, not shocked you like it but it would guarantee liberal majorities most of the time and the ndp and cpc woudl have no voice

What is so dishonest about it and why would I guarantee liberal majorities? 

13 hours ago, Legato said:

Fixed.

No not Toronto. Populated urban area’s other than Alberta, sure. 

[Legato]

29 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

What is so dishonest about it and why would I guarantee liberal majorities? 

No not Toronto. Populated urban area’s other than Alberta, sure. 

Toronto has been a Liberal wasteland for years.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

What is so dishonest about it and why would I guarantee liberal majorities? 

 

Sigh - is there any point in explaining this? Will you actually listen or are you just going to fall back on ignoring the obvious truth and defending your beloved liberals again?

I tell you what - if you GENUINELY feel you're not smart enough to figure it out then i'll explain it. If you're just wasting my time as usual being an ignorant child then spare me - everyone already thinks you're a bit of  a tool, no need to confirm,

Now - do you want me to explain it or can you work it out?

[blackbird]

On 1/11/2024 at 11:03 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

Our vote does mean something.

I think you are giving it much more credit than it deserves.  The Liberals were elected with the most votes, not by a majority of Canadians and they had Trudeau as their leader.  He has brought in all kinds of laws which nobody voted for.  He gave the impression that was going to be a great people's leader.  Then after he was elected he became a dictator and brought in all kinds of things the people never voted for.