Trudeau and Singh's teams quietly planning electoral reform legislation

[suds]

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Aside from giving us precise details, which every government in the known universe keeps to themselves, what is it about the changes being discussed that are so threatening...in precise detail?

'Threatening' isn't the right word. Governments as a rule don't arbitrarily try to change election legislation unless it helps them.  Just be skeptical is all until we find out more about it.

[Queenmandy85]

These talks won't become legislation without including the CPC. Besides the fact the CPC will be the government in the near future, unilaterally changing the rules around elections in not how we do things in Canada. There will be public discussions and committee examination. 

Note to CanFox: CPC is back up to 199 seats, the Bloc jumped 6 seats and the Liberals tumbled down to 73 seats. So rejoice, be happy. Your dreams are about to come true. 🥰

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

These talks won't become legislation without including the CPC. Besides the fact the CPC will be the government in the near future, unilaterally changing the rules around elections in not how we do things in Canada. There will be public discussions and committee examination. 

Note to CanFox: CPC is back up to 199 seats, the Bloc jumped 6 seats and the Liberals tumbled down to 73 seats. So rejoice, be happy. Your dreams are about to come true. 🥰

Yes - they can.  They can agree to vote on it and ram it through no matter what the cpc says

[CdnFox]

42 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Please be careful with  personal attacks. You throw that term around a lot. It may come back to bite you and we don't want to see that. That kind of language doesn't belong in civil discourse. Rather, counter what you disagree with in a respectful manner. It doesn't matter if you are right since almost nobody reads or cares what you or I post, but be respectful.

Today, on this forum, we had the pleasure of exchanges with Blackbird, who posted something he believed to be accurate, but on reflection, he realised he made a mistake. and posted his retraction and apology and he did it with grace. More of us, particularly me, can learn from his example.

Dude -  people can be wrong. But if you intentionally are dishonest knowingly then you deserve to be called on it and a lot of people here do exactly that.   You for example know perfectly well there's no such thing as the federal social credit party. So you deliberately behave in a deceptive and dishonest fashion when you say that.

I  have a problem with a liar complaining about having their lies pointed out. The most simple solution is not to lie.

As to eyeball - with him there's little doubt.  We've been down this road before.

Just be honest.

[herbie]

Your arguing with someone who originally posted hoping to create outrage simply because the Liberals are discussing it. Someone who simply wishes to argue for the sake of arguing and every time called on a point dismisses the poster as a liar.

Now if the Holy Tories were discussing it, you wouldn't even know as they can't reveal any actual policy or plans other than "Trudeau Bad"

Every change mentioned improves the voting system, benefits no party over another and would've been advised by any nonpartisan group with democratic ideals. Other than the fact Liberals are talking about it, there is no issue with it.

 

[eyeball]

43 minutes ago, suds said:

'Threatening' isn't the right word. Governments as a rule don't arbitrarily try to change election legislation unless it helps them.  Just be skeptical is all until we find out more about it.

Sure, that's why I suggested the Liberals could be using the issue to trigger an outraged reaction from chuds who share and would like to inject an American right-wing style of suspicions and mistrust around voting into Canadian politics.

Good on Poilievre to have not risen to the bait like the OP has.

[eyeball]

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They can agree to vote on it and ram it through no matter what the cpc says

Why hasn't Poilievre raised the alarm?  It's been two whole days now and there hasn't a peep about this act of dictatorship.

[Legato]

10 minutes ago, herbie said:

Your arguing with someone who originally posted hoping to create outrage simply because the Liberals are discussing it. Someone who simply wishes to argue for the sake of arguing and every time called on a point dismisses the poster as a liar.

Now if the Holy Tories were discussing it, you wouldn't even know as they can't reveal any actual policy or plans other than "Trudeau Bad"

Every change mentioned improves the voting system, benefits no party over another and would've been advised by any nonpartisan group with democratic ideals. Other than the fact Liberals are talking about it, there is no issue with it.

 

All well and good. However we all know the Trudeau Liberal don't do anything that always has level of underhandedness to it.

Quiet meetings behind closed doors with Jagmeet Singh will always promote a level of skepticism

[eyeball]

16 minutes ago, Legato said:

Quiet meetings behind closed doors with Jagmeet Singh will always promote a level of skepticism

As it should with any politicians who cut deals behind closed doors.

But what should we do if what's being discussed is actually good for voters?  If you're suggesting these three things will hurt us, how?

Allowing an "expanded" three-day voting period during general elections;

Allowing voters to cast their ballots at any polling place within their riding; and

Improving the mail-in ballot process with both accessibility and maintaining integrity in mind.

It bears mentioning that these were always part of the agreement the NDP made with the Liberals to maintain a minority government. It's never been a secret.

Like dental and pharma care the NDP are actually the only ones getting anything done in Ottawa on Canadians behalf.

Edited January 29 by eyeball

[Legato]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

As it should, but just them?

And what should we do if what's being discussed is actually good for voters?  If you're suggesting these three things will hurt us, how?

Allowing an "expanded" three-day voting period during general elections;

Allowing voters to cast their ballots at any polling place within their riding; and

Improving the mail-in ballot process with both accessibility and maintaining integrity in mind.

 

That is just what was "leaked" No one yet knows of any possible other shenanigans concocted behind closed doors.

Going of Trudeaus many ethics breaches and such, put me in the skeptic column.

[CdnFox]

17 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Why hasn't Poilievre raised the alarm?  It's been two whole days now and there hasn't a peep about this act of dictatorship.

You mean over the weekend? (sigh)

I would guess his first bit of business will be to communicate with them to see if it's even true for sure.  it probably is but who can say.

Then he'll probably make a comment or two but he has to be careful - they can turn around and say 'whaaaaat, noooooo" pretty quick, I would guess he'd either wait till they annoucne it and can't deny it or till more details become available - we'll see.

Of course - maybe he's just like you and thinks it's fine for gov'ts to hide things from the public.  Probably not tho.

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, suds said:

Changing electoral legislation by a sitting government that applies to the next election is in my view undemocratic in principle. It's time to be skeptical regardless of who's doing it. If it's anything more than a few minor changes to make voting easier then make it an election issue with precise details.

 

I agree with this. Any proposed major changes should only be brought in after the next election, if they are re elected.

[blackbird]

38 minutes ago, eyeball said:

As it should with any politicians who cut deals behind closed doors.

But what should we do if what's being discussed is actually good for voters?  If you're suggesting these three things will hurt us, how?

Allowing an "expanded" three-day voting period during general elections;

Allowing voters to cast their ballots at any polling place within their riding; and

Improving the mail-in ballot process with both accessibility and maintaining integrity in mind.

It bears mentioning that these were always part of the agreement the NDP made with the Liberals to maintain a minority government. It's never been a secret.

Like dental and pharma care the NDP are actually the only ones getting anything done in Ottawa on Canadians behalf.

Do you think just making it easy for people who do not normally vote or know anything about politics will favour the Liberals and NDP who promise the world and don't believe in restraint spending?

[Boges]

If they were trying change the FPTP system in a minority government then that would be an outrage. 

The proposals in the OP are quite common sense and only prove to expand access to voting.

Why would PP oppose this? 

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

I agree with this. Any proposed major changes should only be brought in after the next election, if they are re elected.

Even if a majority of Canada's Parliamentarians agree to it? Why does it  matter that it be a partisan majority?

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Do you think just making it easy for people who do not normally vote or know anything about politics will favour the Liberals and NDP who promise the world and don't believe in restraint spending?

No I don't. Why, do you?

[blackbird]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No I don't. Why, do you?

Yes, I do because many people do not pay attention to politics.  So when politicians like Trudeau and Singh promises goodies as was the case many times, the least politically knowledgeable people are easier to con.  This is why they want everyone they can possibly get to vote.  The Democrats in the U.S. use that strategy and allow mail-in voting which apparently gets more votes for Democrats.  People that don't normally vote or pay attention to politics will generally vote for the party that makes the most Socialist promises.

[Boges]

24 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Do you think just making it easy for people who do not normally vote or know anything about politics will favour the Liberals and NDP who promise the world and don't believe in restraint spending?

 

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No I don't. Why, do you?

It's the racist dog whistle that Liberals bring in voters. As if immigrants are automatically Liberal. 

Just now, blackbird said:

Yes, I do because many people do not pay attention to politics.  So when politicians like Trudeau and Singh promises goodies as was the case many times, the least politically knowledgeable people are easier to con.  This is why they want everyone they can possibly get to vote.  The Democrats in the U.S. use that strategy and allow mail-in voting which apparently gets more votes for Democrats.  People that don't normally vote or pay attention to politics will generally vote for the party that makes the most Socialist promises.

Where-as Conservatives want voter apathy and a low turn-out. Because they know they're in the minority. 

[blackbird]

34 minutes ago, Boges said:

 

It's the racist dog whistle that Liberals bring in voters. As if immigrants are automatically Liberal. 

Where-as Conservatives want voter apathy and a low turn-out. Because they know they're in the minority. 

Tragically, ignorance among many voters leads to disastrous governments.  The idea that numbers of voters means you get a better government is simply not true.  There is no evidence for that.

It was apparently found that half of Canadians are Socialist minded.  That is a ticking time bomb.  Socialism is a proven failure in the world for a number of reasons.  It doesn't take a high education to understand many people love government to promise everything to them.  Somebody has to pay for it all.  Socialism promises lots of goodies, a kind of welfare state.  That is what the NDP is all about.   But they don't tell you that it is the taxpayers that must pay for everything.  They rob people to spread the wealth around.  They end up destroying free enterprise and freedom in general is threatened by Socialism.

Edited January 29 by blackbird

[suds]

58 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Even if a majority of Canada's Parliamentarians agree to it? Why does it  matter that it be a partisan majority?

In U.S. elections for Senators and Representatives, the times, place, and manner of such elections are prescribed by each State Legislature. So why is that I wonder? Why isn't it Congress which sets these rules?  I believe the idea is that it would avoid the possibility of the same Party controlling House, Senate, and the Executive from going rogue. So the Constitution allows each State Legislature to make the rules for electing their own Congressmen. And if worse comes to worse and one or two State Legislatures do go rogue, it's not really going to hurt anything that much at the national level. I'm not sure if we could do the same thing with our Provinces but it wouldn't hurt. It's not really a good idea giving majority governments too much say with how our elections are conducted.

[Queenmandy85]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You for example know perfectly well there's no such thing as the federal social credit party.

Yes there is. They call it the CPC.  You and I will respectively disagree on this issue. I live in hope to hear Mr. Poilievre show he is a Tory. I remain open to be convinced.

[Queenmandy85]

5 minutes ago, suds said:

It's not really a good idea giving majority governments too much say with how our elections are conducted.

There is no indication that the Government would break with a century of convention and try to change the system unilaterally. The reason the discussions broke down when the Liberals had a majority is because there was no consensus by all parties. 

We tend to forget that regardless of who is in government, we have had pretty good governments over the last few centuries. I expect the coming Poilievre Ministry will carry on the tradition of Peace, Order and Good Government. 

[herbie]

2 hours ago, Legato said:

Quiet meetings behind closed doors with Jagmeet Singh will always promote a level of skepticism

Or anticipation. More likely something positive & good is about to happen. Things the drooling wolves that call themselves conservatives these day will hate.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, suds said:

It's not really a good idea giving majority governments too much say with how our elections are conducted.

I don't see any problem at all with it under a minority government where a majority of the people's representatives say go for it.  I can't think of a better time or way to give good ideas and changes like this the credibility they deserve.

1 hour ago, suds said:

In U.S. elections...

Who cares when things are such an un-mitgated mess down there?  The only reason I can see is to infect our's with the same sort of doubt, paranoia and mistrust that leads to less democracy and more autocracy.

[suds]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I don't see any problem at all with it under a minority government where a majority of the people's representatives say go for it.  I can't think of a better time or way to give good ideas and changes like this the credibility they deserve.

I can think of a better way, have a referendum or whatever, but let the people have the final say on something so vitally important to our country as our  elections. These politicians, they don't own this country, we do. WE THE PEOPLE!