British-origin democratic duopoly system is in universal decline and will degrade and decay out of existence

[eyeball]

Either one hell of a lot more votes or cameras, microphones process guardians and witnesses.

20 hours ago, herbie said:

You have internal ethical committees and a Free Press to ensure they will be come election day. And party leaders to boot them out of caucus in between.

Meh...

[eyeball]

The deep mistrust people have for governments, politicians and their parties are fuelling a growing dangerous storm of mis and disinformation.

Voting once every 4-5 years is completely useless at doing anything about it. If it was effective at dispelling it we would have seen it making a dent by now. Instead it's only getting worse.

The public's business needs to be public and not buried under a mountain of excuses about confidentiality, privacy and some stupid need for politicians and lobbyists to have frank discussions - presumably to prevent the public from jumping 20 feet in the air should someone misplace a pronoun or utter a scientific fact.

 

[herbie]

And the bulk of complaints about lack of govt transparency stems from the misguided belief of individuals who think their personal opinion is more valuable than it is.

You nominate a candidate who you think can express and enact the values you hold and they're supposed to act on your behalf. Which almost all of the do.
The complaints stem from that you aren't going to get all that you want all of the time, or that the party that did win does not represent the majority of you values.
The basis of parliamentary democracy is that a group of individuals will make better decisions more often than a single individual and a majority of individuals gets to choose that group.

And to repeat a previous claim, if you seriously think the govt can engage in serious hidden conspiracies, you know nothing about govt. You hear of scandals and backroom deals simply because of the press and those elected members and their staff.
I agree steps can be taken like STV reform to make majority elections more real, etc. But YOU don't get to choose a Gripen over an F35 - that's supposed to be done by a group with more knowledge. You should and will hear of bribes and collusion on decisions like that.
So I object to throwing the word transparency about without defining exactly what the user means by it.

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, herbie said:

So I object to throwing the word transparency about without defining exactly what the user means by it.

It's very clear, the absence of cloudiness. Trust me I know the difference, I own two hot tubs.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Coalitions will help keep the system going for a while. We’ve just got to get over our fear of them. They’re the only way a government will have the backing a majority of voters, after a fashion, these days. Of course it would mean immediately rowing back on some of these election promises which is no bad thing. 

[myata]

On 12/15/2024 at 8:17 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

Coalitions will help keep the system going for a while. We’ve just got to get over our fear of them.

These would be most bizarre, frankenstein versions of normal parliamentary coalitions because they do not represent the society correctly and accurately. No "majority" party even super-wow-"landslide" won the majority of the popular vote. Ever. How's that, for basic sanity?

[eyeball]

9 hours ago, myata said:

These would be most bizarre, frankenstein versions of normal parliamentary coalitions because they do not represent the society correctly and accurately. No "majority" party even super-wow-"landslide" won the majority of the popular vote. Ever. How's that, for basic sanity?

Sure they do, they reflect the fact voters haven't produced a majority and clear winner and it just is what it is.

A run off vote to force a majority would be an artificial pseudo majority. That's not to say this couldn't work but it would likely be more due to luck and circumstances than anything.

[myata]

28 minutes ago, eyeball said:

A run off vote to force a majority would be an artificial pseudo majority.

No no! No need to fix craziness with even crazier things. It's simple really: just count the votes. Every vote counts. What could be wrong with that?

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, myata said:

No no! No need to fix craziness with even crazier things. It's simple really: just count the votes. Every vote counts. What could be wrong with that?

Nothing at all except it rarely ever works out that way in our FPTP system. Like I said it is what it is meaning we have little choice but to roll with it.

In my own case I much prefer a minority government with limited powers that require co-operation to a so called majority with more power than is reflected by voters wishes. I'd say the reason why we don't elect clear majorities is because enough voters don't want them. It's pretty simple.

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

13 hours ago, myata said:

These would be most bizarre, frankenstein versions of normal parliamentary coalitions because they do not represent the society correctly and accurately. No "majority" party even super-wow-"landslide" won the majority of the popular vote. Ever. How's that, for basic sanity?

The PCs won a majority of the popular vote in 1984 and it was a common enough occurrence before 1958. 

[myata]

8 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The PCs won a majority of the popular vote in 1984

And today, what year is it? Doesn't this only confirm the point that the system that assumes that there will be only two political entities, forever (they are not parliamentary parties in the true sense because in the modern world the definition has to include a fair and accurate representation of the support in the society) is grossly outdated and inadequate to represent complex configuration of modern societies? It was made in the 17th century based on the social and political realities of back then. It was centuries ago, literally. Is it naive, dumb or plain insane to pretend and claim that one doesn't need to adapt and change, ever?

Edited December 29, 2024 by myata

[SpankyMcFarland]

30 minutes ago, myata said:

And today, what year is it? Doesn't this only confirm the point that the system that assumes that there will be only two political entities, forever (they are not parliamentary parties in the true sense because in the modern world the definition has to include a fair and accurate representation of the support in the society) is grossly outdated and inadequate to represent complex configuration of modern societies? It was made in the 17th century based on the social and political realities of back then. It was centuries ago, literally. Is it naive, dumb or plain insane to pretend and claim that one doesn't need to adapt and change, ever?

To my mind, it confirms that the biggest single party can no longer hope to win anything like a majority of the votes cast and frequently not even the seats won either. When Trudeau sought to change our voting system he was met with a wall of apathy and quickly gave up. The truth is we are stuck with FPTP whether we like it or not. Within this archaic system, one way to increase the support a government has is to form coalitions. It’s a better way to go than minority government, more credible and stable. 

[myata]

5 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

When Trudeau sought to change our voting system he was met with a wall of apathy and quickly gave up.

That was the excuse he gave, but can we just take his word for it and dismiss the issue to the far shelf? No. Not a chance. He had the mandate and the opportunity. And he decided: willingly and deliberately, to not do it. That is the fact. Do we need any further adornments to it?

[Michael Hardner]

Move the bureaucracy and the operations of government services away from the parliamentary circus. 

People on the left hate it when you say  government should be like a business, but it should be... Be... Unlike Bell Canada and Rogers.... Accountable and responsive.

 

 

[myata]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

away from the parliamentary circus

And why would we need the circus then? Do we really need a circus, to administer democracy effectively, productively and efficiently?

[Michael Hardner]

57 minutes ago, myata said:

And why would we need the circus then? Do we really need a circus, to administer democracy effectively, productively and efficiently?

I would say that you MIGHT not yet a central arena for talking about the big ideas in politics.  You might not.

But there are still countries, and there are still big things that can't be dealt with on a smaller level, like:

-Global geo-politics
-Global security and our alliances 
-Global environmental challenges
-Global economy

At some point, the robots made of recycled material and powered by clean nukes will deliver sustainable and delicious soy-shakes to all of us as we laugh and play our lyres by the crystal clean waters.

Until such a time as that can be delivered (certainly by Mr. Musk before 2050 though) we have to slowly transition to the utopian land...

[myata]

No I mean, circuses was a thing in the 17-18th centuries so why now? Do we really believe that it's the top of the evolution and no further positive change is needed or possible? And paradoxically or ironically? why would they want to be doing that... rather than just dumping the whole useless lot somewhere where it wouldn't cause much further bother? Musk or H.G. Wells? Wanna make bets?

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, myata said:

No I mean, circuses was a thing in the 17-18th centuries so why now? Do we really believe that it's the top of the evolution and no further positive change is needed or possible? And paradoxically or ironically? why would they want to be doing that... rather than just dumping the whole useless lot somewhere where it wouldn't cause much further bother? Musk or H.G. Wells? Wanna make bets?

The circus aspects can be reformed. 

I'm talking at a deeper level . How they can be useful, even if reformed

[myata]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

can be reformed

"Can be" is a big if, the question. Evolution comes by with a question, wait maybe we can reform.. let's see, have a discussion. Will it work? Did it, for the dinosaurs?

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, myata said:

"Can be" is a big if, the question. Evolution comes by with a question, wait maybe we can reform.. let's see, have a discussion. Will it work? Did it, for the dinosaurs?

We're better than the dinosaurs, verily.

[myata]

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

We're better than the dinosaurs, verily

Wait and we know it how, by what criterium? Dinosaurs existed for close to 200 million (sic) years. The modern, conscious period of humanity counts a few tens of thousand so far. Shall we wait, perhaps just a little while longer for the objective score?

[Michael Hardner]

15 hours ago, myata said:

Wait and we know it how, by what criterium? Dinosaurs existed for close to 200 million (sic) years. The modern, conscious period of humanity counts a few tens of thousand so far. Shall we wait, perhaps just a little while longer for the objective score?

I root for team Human. Every Time 

[myata]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I root for team Human

And I root for objectivity, the fact. Is it human who beats the fact. Or the reality that always, invariably and without any chances will catch up. Let's see.

[Michael Hardner]

30 minutes ago, myata said:

And I root for objectivity, the fact. Is it human who beats the fact. Or the reality that always, invariably and without any chances will catch up. Let's see.

The idea that humans are better/worse than dinosaurs is an opinion, which is at best only based on facts.

[myata]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

only based on facts.

Let's remove the opinion part. When humans, in civilized form can prove that they could last even 1 million years (against the dinosaurs' 200) it can be taken as the beginning of the objective measure. Agree?