Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Michael Hardner

Proportional Representation Discussion

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

Which allows the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records.  Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.

 

That's ok you enjoy your police state.  I'll enjoy my liberty.  

You live in a police state. You don't have the liberty you think you do.

Like I said, vacuous and hilarious.

With enemies like this, who need allies? Allies wouldn't help my cause better than these enemies, that's how counter-productive they are. They are like moles, and they don't even realize it, which makes them the best moles, a mole who knew he was a mole couldn't do the job this well.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those opposing the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; the permission given to law enforcement to search a home or business without the owner's or the occupant's consent or knowledge.

 

If that's not a police state then I dont know what is.  They can search your house anytime they want?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America can search and seize in Canada too, if you think Ottawa is protecting you from Washington, that's a whole 'nother level of delusion

it's actually easier to search & seize with impunity in Canada.

All the protections are weaker in Canada, and  RCMP, CSIS & CSE all report to Washington by default.

Canadian MP's don't even have any oversight authority at all, Canada is an utterly opaque Black Box run from the PMO.

We're talking about a government which had its own citizens kidnapped and rendered to Egypt and Syria to be tortured, at the behest of the CIA

But hey. maybe Jagmeet gonna give you a discount on your cell phone bill, so it's all good Canader, go back to sleep little fellas

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Because they are wholly Ameircanized lacking any grounding in their own historical narrative.

On the whole, Canadians vote as if it is a presidential election, not as Westminster Parliamentarians.

Canada is not a country, it's just an American protectorate with a French ethnonationalist state parasite attached.

Party politics matters a great deal in the UK too. People tend to vote for parties rather than MPs. 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SpankyMcFarland said:

Party politics matters a great deal in the UK too. 

British MP's are not cronies like Canadian MP's, the British buck the party all the time, the Tories are bucking Boris right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

British MP's are not cronies like Canadian MP's, the British buck the party all the time, the Tories are bucking Boris right now.

They are, really. Many of those defiant Tory MPs have been booted from the party. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's only two MP's in Canada which held to their Parliamentary oath's in this government, and one of them was voted out for it.

Canada is a crony culture, Canadians are cronies by nature, culture is destiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

They are, really. Many of those defiant Tory MPs have been booted from the party. 

In Canada, all policy comes fully formed out of the PMO, the MP's are just a focus group of barking seals, Gerry Butz runs Canada and no other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

In Canada, all policy comes fully formed out of the PMO, the MP's are just a focus group of barking seals, Gerry Butz runs Canada and no other.

Same in Britain. The talk is already about Corbyn vs BoJo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Who brought Maggie Thatcher down over the Poll Tax?   Was it Labour?  Nope.  It was a Tory palace coup.

Modern British election campaigns are focused on the leaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Modern British election campaigns are focused on the leaders.

The American Information Age Revolution is inexorable, the world is being Americanized by default, the British shall fall in the face of Manifest Destiny too.

They even love NFL football now.

Red Kingdom.  Missouruh Pride.

Shoots lasers from its eyes.  Invented curly fries.

 

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

You live in a police state. You don't have the liberty you think you do.

Like I said, vacuous and hilarious.

With enemies like this, who need allies? Allies wouldn't help my cause better than these enemies, that's how counter-productive they are. They are like moles, and they don't even realize it, which makes them the best moles, a mole who knew he was a mole couldn't do the job this well.

There have to be good reasons in Canada for accessing personal information.  With regard to liberty and “police state,” in which country would you rather be pulled over by police?

Not liking certain things about a country doesn’t equate to hating the country.  I really like Canada and the US and dislike aspects of both countries.   I don’t want to see either country fail.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PR encourages the splintering of the smaller parties like the NDP and the Greens and encourages extremist parties like the Marxist Leninists and Social Credit. All you need is a few thousand votes from the crazies across the country and you get a seat. As I said, watch Borgen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand some of the arguments people have for FPTP but perhaps it is because I am European where PR and coalition-governments are the norm I find it strange how people in a country like Canada seem to have some sort of an allergy towards the idea of coalition-governments.

Yes, PR means coalition-governments which means horse-trading like if you let us do x we will let you do y etc but do you think that is worse than having a system where 35% of the votes translates into the majority of the seats as happened in the British election in 2005. I expect the forthcoming British election to produce an even more outrageous result concerning the share iof the votes and the amount of seats for each party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2019 at 4:55 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

PR encourages the splintering of the smaller parties like the NDP and the Greens and encourages extremist parties like the Marxist Leninists and Social Credit. All you need is a few thousand votes from the crazies across the country and you get a seat.

One seat out of hundreds....this just sounds like pure unreasoning baseless fear.  If our society ever became so tightly wound-up that it hinged on....Rick of the Universe to save the day....

I'd be in to be honest, Rick actually made a lot of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, -TSS- said:

I can understand some of the arguments people have for FPTP but perhaps it is because I am European where PR and coalition-governments are the norm I find it strange how people in a country like Canada seem to have some sort of an allergy towards the idea of coalition-governments.

Yes, PR means coalition-governments which means horse-trading like if you let us do x we will let you do y etc but do you think that is worse than having a system where 35% of the votes translates into the majority of the seats as happened in the British election in 2005. I expect the forthcoming British election to produce an even more outrageous result concerning the share iof the votes and the amount of seats for each party.

Coalition governments don't get anything done, they fall apart quickly, and result is useless elections, that's why. It works better in Finland, but even there, you'd be better off with FPTP, you put too much faith in negotiation, and too much faith in democracy.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2019 at 10:25 PM, -TSS- said:

I can understand some of the arguments people have for FPTP but perhaps it is because I am European where PR and coalition-governments are the norm I find it strange how people in a country like Canada seem to have some sort of an allergy towards the idea of coalition-governments.

Yes, PR means coalition-governments which means horse-trading like if you let us do x we will let you do y etc but do you think that is worse than having a system where 35% of the votes translates into the majority of the seats as happened in the British election in 2005. I expect the forthcoming British election to produce an even more outrageous result concerning the share iof the votes and the amount of seats for each party.

Britain resembles Canada in having multiple national parties but also has many regional parties, making FPTP chaotic in its effects. The one clear trend in both countries is that regional parties can end up with far more seats per vote than small national parties: e.g. UKIP versus SNP, DUP or SF; BQ versus NDP or Greens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

In how many ridings did the winner receive less than 50% of the votes? Can't this be corrected by having a two-phase election in which in those ridings where nobody gets over 50% there would be a run-off between the two top candidates?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2019 at 9:25 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

PR encourages the splintering of the smaller parties like the NDP and the Greens and encourages extremist parties like the Marxist Leninists and Social Credit. All you need is a few thousand votes from the crazies across the country and you get a seat. As I said, watch Borgen.

I’d rather see the NDP and Greens get seats than the BQ. The outcome of PR depends on its form. If we went for STV multi-seat ridings, then only the top five, say, would be selected and they could all be from one or two parties. I can’t see any riding in Canada where a ‘Marxist-Leninist’ would make that cut. 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I’d rather see the NDP and Greens get seats than the BQ. The outcome of PR depends on its form. If we went for STV multi-seat ridings, then only the top five, say, would be selected and they could all be from one or two parties. I can’t see any riding in Canada where a ‘Marxist-Leninist’ would make that cut. 

A run off election in those ridings where the leading candidate did not receive a majority would be a lot simpler and would get the parties out of the mix. While parties are neccessary, they are fixated on ideology and not the quality of the candidates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

A run off election in those ridings where the leading candidate did not receive a majority would be a lot simpler and would get the parties out of the mix. While parties are neccessary, they are fixated on ideology and not the quality of the candidates. 

Firstly, a run-off would not improve representation of national parties in areas of the country where they are relatively unpopular. For example, based on their share of the popular vote, the Liberals should be getting at least four seats in Alberta. Secondly, in the STV system, voters have a chance to choose between candidates from the same party, thus preventing parties from foisting complete loonies on the public. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Firstly, a run-off would not improve representation of national parties in areas of the country where they are relatively unpopular. For example, based on their share of the popular vote, the Liberals should be getting at least four seats in Alberta. Secondly, in the STV system, voters have a chance to choose between candidates from the same party, thus preventing parties from foisting complete loonies on the public. 

The party is not as important as the candidate running to represent your community. I always look to Bert Herridge. He went to the Liberal nominating meeting and told them he could win the riding for them. They thanked him and said no thanks. He went across the street and told the CCF he could win the riding for them and they welcomed him with open arms and he turned the riding into an NDP-CCF safe seat for decades. Then he voted for his constituants rather than the party line and David Lewis fired him. The riding went Tory in the next election. The lesson, it is all about the candidate, not the party. It is time to downgrade the parties and the leaders. 

 

Edited by Queenmandy85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...