Author Topic: Government Day-to-Day  (Read 13163 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Montgomery

  • The Box
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 724
  • Location: vancouver Island
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #855 on: November 22, 2020, 03:26:23 pm »
Put it on your back burner wilbur and bring it up again when your Cons form government.

I can assure you that none of Trudeau's supporters are the least bit interested in sharing power with the Cons or any other backward thinking fascist regime's ideology.

Or in other words wilbur, STFU for a while unless you have some proposals for a Con agenda.

Good job! Do you think it's going to help? LOL
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said. ~M.T.

Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7415
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #856 on: November 22, 2020, 03:28:37 pm »
Good job! Do you think it's going to help? LOL

Quoting yourself now.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC
Funny Funny x 1 View List

Offline Montgomery

  • The Box
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 724
  • Location: vancouver Island
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #857 on: November 22, 2020, 03:33:25 pm »
Quoting yourself now.

It's my mistake; it was meant to quote waldo. But I don't regret it when it causes some pleasure for you at least. Regardless, you need to get over your bad feelings and come to the conclusion that you're going to have to spend more time thinking before you allow your gums to start flapping.
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said. ~M.T.
Dumb Dumb x 2 View List

Offline eyeball

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 830
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #858 on: November 22, 2020, 03:34:22 pm »
New Zealand switched to PR through a referendum. Clearly they have a higher opinion of their ability to rule themselves than Canadians.
Their politicians apparently also had a higher regard for their constituents than our's have towards us.

Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7415
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #859 on: November 22, 2020, 03:35:29 pm »
It's my mistake; it was meant to quote waldo. But I don't regret it when it causes some pleasure for you at least. Regardless, you need to get over your bad feelings and come to the conclusion that you're going to have to spend more time thinking before you allow your gums to start flapping.

Meh. Keep the insults coming Monty, they say a lot more about you than they do me.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7415
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #860 on: November 22, 2020, 03:38:42 pm »
Their politicians apparently also had a higher regard for their constituents than our's have towards us.

Apparently. Real leaders can still survive nicely with PR. Witness Merkel in Germany and Ardern in NZ who managed a majority in its recent election.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2020, 03:43:51 pm by wilber »
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4799
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #861 on: November 22, 2020, 03:55:08 pm »
member wilber, since you're holding up Australia as the model for Canadians to follow:
=> Australia uses Alternative Vote (AV) for its House... Single Transferable Vote (STV) for its Senate. Accordingly, still following parts of the Westminster model, the Australian Prime Minister is selected by the controlling House party chosen by AV. Alternative Voting, sometimes referred to as 'ranked balloting' was said to be the preferred Liberal Party of Canada choice over FPTP.
=> member wilber, given this bonehead play of yours, do a bit of research and come back and advise why Australia still uses AV for its House... and STV for its 'sober second thought' Senate - yes?

as for the second emphasis I put forward... that you completely ignored... there's a past thread here where I provided key examples where your favoured PR has limitations/problems; again, as in failing coalitions and fringe party control. Don't make me search for it!  ;D

Apparently. Real leaders can still survive nicely with PR. Witness Merkel in Germany and Ardern in NZ who managed a majority in their recent election.

c'mon member wilber - you ignoring your bigTimeFail concerning Australia won't make it go away!

and now you do it again with Germany & New Zealand... where both countries use a form of PR - Mixed Member Proportional (MMP). The forms of PR are many - you so over simplify with your lack of specificity/detail. Since you continue to reference countries without providing any detail, the waldo asks if you'll do some research and come back and advise on the Germany/New Zealand % splits of local versus regional party members elected... and whether the local members elected are no different than how we elect all members here in Canada (i.e., winner takes all). Facts/details matter member wilber!
Informative Informative x 1 View List

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6206
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #862 on: November 22, 2020, 04:06:09 pm »
To be clear, the Liberals wanted STV, and could have pushed it through on their own. The Conservatives weren't in favour of a change, and the NDP wanted MMP. With no agreement and no movement, a change to STV, which I would have liked, would have been seen as totally disingenuous and self serving.

The Liberals preference, the ranked ballot system, was their preference because studies of past elections showed it favoured them the most.  The FPTP status quo also greatly favours the Liberals.  Making an election promise, then supporting a new system that most benefits you, then abandoning your promise when nobody else wants it in order to keep a system that most benefits you is what is "totally disingenuous and self serving.  The excuses from Trudeau et al that you're parroting are just smoke and mirrors.  That you also support the ranked ballot system that most benefited the Liberals is not surprising.  That Waldo goes all Waldo to smear PR is also not surprising.

The other parties, to be fair, wanted systems that most benefited themselves also.  So the lesson here is that Parliament is filled with selfish arseholes who care more about their own power than what is best for democracy and the country.  As far as I'm concerned, a bunch of TYRANTS only kept in check by our laws and constitution.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2020, 04:07:59 pm by Gorgeous Graham »
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4799
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #863 on: November 22, 2020, 04:29:35 pm »
That Waldo goes all Waldo to smear PR is also not surprising.

poor lil' Gorgeous! Quit making shyte up! Correcting member wilber's failures isn't, as you say, "going all waldo"! Providing facts/details isn't, as you say, "going all waldo"!

like I said, there are many forms of PR - and those variations matter. But instead of qualifying the variants, you low-information types choose to simply blather on with broad, sweeping proportional nothingness.

and the perpetual whine is so telling!  ;D If you can't accept the offered rationale for not proceeding with electoral reform - that no clear-cut alternative choice came forward after all the review & discussion held - then keep on whining!

Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7415
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #864 on: November 22, 2020, 04:37:09 pm »
c'mon member wilber - you ignoring your bigTimeFail concerning Australia won't make it go away!

and now you do it again with Germany & New Zealand... where both countries use a form of PR - Mixed Member Proportional (MMP). The forms of PR are many - you so over simplify with your lack of specificity/detail. Since you continue to reference countries without providing any detail, the waldo asks if you'll do some research and come back and advise on the Germany/New Zealand % splits of local versus regional party members elected... and whether the local members elected are no different than how we elect all members here in Canada (i.e., winner takes all). Facts/details matter member wilber!


That's rich coming from someone who writes off all forms of PR by saying it will be dominated by fringe groups.

In 2004,  BC formed a Citizens Assembly to look at all forms of PR and come up with one form for a referendum. The assembly consisted of of 161 members, one woman and one man randomly selected from each of the 79 existing electoral districts, two first Nations members and a chair. The system was to be selected by the people, not partisan political parties. This is why Trudeau's excuses are bullshit. He wants control, period.

After a year the assembly finally decided on STV as the best system.

The bar set for passing was a 60% majority in a minimum of 60% or 48 of the 79 provinces electoral districts. STV received  57.7% of the vote and a majority in 77 of 79 districts. There was a clear vote for change but the government set the bar too high, otherwise BC would have had PR in 2005.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2020, 04:42:44 pm by wilber »
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6206
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #865 on: November 22, 2020, 04:57:41 pm »
poor lil' Gorgeous! Quit making shyte up! Correcting member wilber's failures isn't, as you say, "going all waldo"! Providing facts/details isn't, as you say, "going all waldo"!

like I said, there are many forms of PR - and those variations matter. But instead of qualifying the variants, you low-information types choose to simply blather on with broad, sweeping proportional nothingness.

and the perpetual whine is so telling!  ;D If you can't accept the offered rationale for not proceeding with electoral reform - that no clear-cut alternative choice came forward after all the review & discussion held - then keep on whining!

The smoke and mirrors routine isn't fooling anybody.  You only care about what benefits the Liberals.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.
Agree Agree x 2 View List

Offline eyeball

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 830
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #866 on: November 22, 2020, 07:21:18 pm »
you so over simplify with your lack of specificity/detail.
Why do you muddy the kool aid, to make it taste better?  Its still kool aid.
Winner Winner x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4799
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #867 on: November 23, 2020, 12:38:09 am »
c'mon member wilber - you ignoring your bigTimeFail concerning Australia won't make it go away!

and now you do it again with Germany & New Zealand... where both countries use a form of PR - Mixed Member Proportional (MMP). The forms of PR are many - you so over simplify with your lack of specificity/detail. Since you continue to reference countries without providing any detail, the waldo asks if you'll do some research and come back and advise on the Germany/New Zealand % splits of local versus regional party members elected... and whether the local members elected are no different than how we elect all members here in Canada (i.e., winner takes all). Facts/details matter member wilber!
That's rich coming from someone who writes off all forms of PR by saying it will be dominated by fringe groups.

I did no such thing. Most certainly I noted there have been significant problems associated with PR; e.g., failed coalitions & fringe party control. Of course you were quite dismissive of said criticism.

bottom line: you PR proponents make broad, sweeping claims without regard to the many variants of PR that exist... like all you're looking for is that magical/mystical word (to you), 'proportional'!  ;D

In 2004,  BC formed a Citizens Assembly to look at all forms of PR and come up with one form for a referendum. The assembly consisted of of 161 members, one woman and one man randomly selected from each of the 79 existing electoral districts, two first Nations members and a chair. The system was to be selected by the people, not partisan political parties. This is why Trudeau's excuses are bullshit. He wants control, period.

After a year the assembly finally decided on STV as the best system.

The bar set for passing was a 60% majority in a minimum of 60% or 48 of the 79 provinces electoral districts. STV received  57.7% of the vote and a majority in 77 of 79 districts. There was a clear vote for change but the government set the bar too high, otherwise BC would have had PR in 2005.

ya ya, you made me look! Notwithstanding both referendums failed to realize your PR nirvana, there no shortage of criticism for the process followed. How ironic that you PR proponents had no objection to a fraction of B.C. voters choosing a new electoral system... one that was short on specifics and that few understood.

but wait, it gets even better! It's like you PR proponents were in search of something you pretty much already had in past elections; specifically as I read: "in the 2017 B.C. election, just over 86% of the B.C. legislature seats were representative of the votes cast. Furthermore, when applying that same 2017 standard of measure to the 1996, 2005, 2009, and 2013 B.C. elections, the average proportionality level exceeded 89%". Like I said, in search of a solution to a "problem" that doesn't exist in B.C.!
Informative Informative x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4799
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #868 on: November 23, 2020, 12:49:53 am »
poor lil' Gorgeous! Quit making shyte up! Correcting member wilber's failures isn't, as you say, "going all waldo"! Providing facts/details isn't, as you say, "going all waldo"!

like I said, there are many forms of PR - and those variations matter. But instead of qualifying the variants, you low-information types choose to simply blather on with broad, sweeping proportional nothingness.

and the perpetual whine is so telling!  ;D If you can't accept the offered rationale for not proceeding with electoral reform - that no clear-cut alternative choice came forward after all the review & discussion held - then keep on whining!


The smoke and mirrors routine isn't fooling anybody.  You only care about what benefits the Liberals.

no, there's nothing hidden, no smoke & mirrors in terms of the public undertakings that showed there was no clear definitive alternative. If you'd like to challenge that, please do; again, result findings are in the public domain. Of course, it means you'd actually have to go above and beyond your typical drive-by, gutter-sniping!

other than the punyGreens and the malcontentGoingNowhereNDP, what party is clamoring for a change to FPTP, hey! Certainly not your favoured CPC - amirite?

Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7415
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #869 on: November 23, 2020, 11:35:05 am »
I did no such thing. Most certainly I noted there have been significant problems associated with PR; e.g., failed coalitions & fringe party control. Of course you were quite dismissive of said criticism.

bottom line: you PR proponents make broad, sweeping claims without regard to the many variants of PR that exist... like all you're looking for is that magical/mystical word (to you), 'proportional'!  ;D



For every example of countries that have had issues with a proportional system, you can find several others where it has been a success. We have a system where parties form majority governments that not only got less than 40% of the vote, they got less votes than a party that finds itself in opposition.

Quote
ya ya, you made me look! Notwithstanding both referendums failed to realize your PR nirvana, there no shortage of criticism for the process followed. How ironic that you PR proponents had no objection to a fraction of B.C. voters choosing a new electoral system... one that was short on specifics and that few understood.

The choice was clear with the first referendum and if it had been run under the same rules as the last one it would have passed comfortably. The last referendum was a joke, I knew it wouldn't pass as soon as I read the ballot. It was so amateurish it was like it was designed to fail and I'm not sure it wasn't.


Quote
but wait, it gets even better! It's like you PR proponents were in search of something you pretty much already had in past elections; specifically as I read: "in the 2017 B.C. election, just over 86% of the B.C. legislature seats were representative of the votes cast. Furthermore, when applying that same 2017 standard of measure to the 1996, 2005, 2009, and 2013 B.C. elections, the average proportionality level exceeded 89%". Like I said, in search of a solution to a "problem" that doesn't exist in B.C.!



I don't know where you got those numbers but why wouldn't you be happy with 100%? But then for a guy who is happy with 39% majorities, that shouldn't be surprising.

"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC