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

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7415
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #945 on: November 25, 2020, 01:06:12 pm »
Canada is #1 and it doesn't, as well the majority of the world's countries don't.

I'm not opposed to PR. I'm just opposed to it as long as we have a well functioning democracy but would be for it if there was a threat from the right to destroy our system.

#1 or #2 to Switzerland depending on the list Switzerland has PR and direct democracy through referendums. Works even in a country with four official languages.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Montgomery

  • The Box
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 724
  • Location: vancouver Island
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #946 on: November 25, 2020, 01:13:20 pm »
#1 or #2 to Switzerland depending on the list Switzerland has PR and direct democracy through referendums. Works even in a country with four official languages.

I'll consider it if Trudeau is defeated.
But I'm like the admin here in that I'm not fully convinced it's a better way and that's mostly because I have had no need to consider it. It seems to me that it would just encourage gridlock working against progressive and liberal progress.

Is there anything in a Conservative, Green, NDP agenda that could make our government better? I know of nothing from any of them.
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 #947 on: November 25, 2020, 01:53:10 pm »
I'll consider it if Trudeau is defeated.
But I'm like the admin here in that I'm not fully convinced it's a better way and that's mostly because I have had no need to consider it. It seems to me that it would just encourage gridlock working against progressive and liberal progress.

Is there anything in a Conservative, Green, NDP agenda that could make our government better? I know of nothing from any of them.

That's the thing, like the average politician, none of you can think past the next election. In fact, a centre left coalition would be more likely than one on the right. In the present political climate, any form of PR would be more likely to prevent a Conservative government.

« Last Edit: November 25, 2020, 01:55:26 pm by wilber »
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Montgomery

  • The Box
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 724
  • Location: vancouver Island
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #948 on: November 25, 2020, 02:00:55 pm »
That's the thing, like the average politician, none of you can think past the next election. In fact, a centre left coalition would be more likely than one on the right. In the present political climate, any form of PR would be more likely to prevent a Conservative government.

It's not going to happen in the foreseeable future. There's no sense in belabouring the point any further with you.
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said. ~M.T.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7415
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #949 on: November 25, 2020, 02:11:08 pm »
It's not going to happen in the foreseeable future. There's no sense in belabouring the point any further with you.

It won't happen at all if we are going to rely on politicians to come up with an alternate.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline the_squid

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4149
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #950 on: November 25, 2020, 04:01:44 pm »
It won't happen at all if we are going to rely on politicians to come up with an alternate.

Not true...  depends which politician.

Trudeau was a hopeful candidate to bring about change, but he was all talk.  I almost voted for him because of that promise...   Sure glad I didn’t.

Conservatives are hopeless on electoral reform.
Agree Agree x 2 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4799
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #951 on: November 25, 2020, 05:12:15 pm »
c'mon... as previously posted, this is too good to have youse guys simply ignore it!  ;D

Quote from: current leader of the CPC, O'Tool
Electoral Reform Could Come At The Cost Of Our National Unity --- Will Canada's Parliament see more regional or secessionist parties under proportional representation? Will we see more single-issue parties based on social or cultural issues? Will a move to PR virtually guarantee that the Bloc Québécois never fades away like single-issue parties of the past? Under a PR electoral system the answer is "likely yes" to all of these questions.
Agree Agree x 1 Informative Informative x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4799
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #952 on: November 25, 2020, 05:20:02 pm »
equally, just too good to allow it to be lost/ignored. Member wilber, about your oft mentioned 'independent unbiased' source... the B.C. Citizens Assembly  ;D

Quote
Criticisms regarding its design and operation: Random selection of members was meant to make the body representative of the public at large, but citizens were not obliged to participate, as they are in legal juries. Instead, they were free to decline, so it is likely that many of the members who accepted were more active and civic-minded than the population at large. Participating in the Assembly might also have been more appealing to reformists than to those who were satisfied with the status quo. The selection process insured equal representation by geography, gender, and age group, but not ethnicity, aboriginal status, or socio-economic status. If the selection criteria granted equal representation to men and women, why should it not also ensure that also the voices of disadvantaged groups or of citizens of specific ethnic origin be represented? Finally, it remains unclear whether members felt they were representing their personal views, their districts, what emerged from the hearings, or the province at large. Would the Assembly have made different decisions with different selection mechanisms and notions of representation?

In terms of equality of the deliberations, inevitably, some members spoke more than others, with interventions from men outnumbering those of women or minorities. Although the chair encouraged first-time speakers to engage, more formal inclusion rules could have levelled the playing field for all participants.

Other critics suspect that the process of deliberation was consciously or unconsciously steered by staff. Members composed neither the structure of the Assembly’s deliberations, its timing, nor its agenda. Staff decisions regarding these factors, as well as the educational materials and the selection of experts who spoke to Assembly members, may have biased their deliberations. Additionally, members had no choice over the priorities of reform, but were restricted by their mandate to focus solely on the electoral law, neglecting other important elements, such as electoral districts, or campaign finance.

The deliberation phase was particularly complicated because the Assembly mandate required that the different options that had been explored in previous phases had to be narrowed down and eventually coalesce into one proposal. The process of selecting the desirable characteristics of a model, for example, was hastened and issues such as women representation received less attention than some wished. The group ended up selecting the three characteristics that were at the top of the lecturer’s list of desirable features of electoral models. Similarly, it was unclear whether the Assembly had the authority to modify the number of electoral districts and the number of parliamentary seats, which would have been required to adopt the MMP system. The Assembly chair clarified that the number of seats could not be altered, which might have prompted members to select the STV system because it required less change. It appears that more time was devoted to illustrating the STV system, while the technical details of applying the MMP model to British Columbia were left unexplored. The tension between exploring options and reaching consensus around a model emerged during the deliberation phase, and it remains unclear whether members would have favored the MMP system had they had more time to work through its complexities.

and you were willing to accept a 60% 'in favour' voting outcome from the recommendation coming forward from this most questionable group/source... not 60% of the full electorate... just a measly 60% of those actually choosing to vote in the referendum(s)! And even then, your favoured side couldn't gitErDone!
Informative Informative x 1 View List

Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7415
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #953 on: November 25, 2020, 05:44:34 pm »
equally, just too good to allow it to be lost/ignored. Member wilber, about your oft mentioned 'independent unbiased' source... the B.C. Citizens Assembly  ;D

and you were willing to accept a 60% 'in favour' voting outcome from the recommendation coming forward from this most questionable group/source... not 60% of the full electorate... just a measly 60% of those actually choosing to vote in the referendum(s)! And even then, your favoured side couldn't gitErDone!


39% of those who voted is good enough for a majority government in your book. I think my standards are a lot higher.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6206
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #954 on: November 25, 2020, 08:30:03 pm »
We all watched the citizens of the UK jump off a cliff. We almost watched the citizens of Quebec do the same thing.

What cliff?  Is London burning?  Divorces are messy, and cost some money, and lawyers have to figure things out, but despite that people go through them because they think it's best for them in the longterm.  Quebec and Britain can do whatever they want, regardless of what you or I think or want, whatever they choose they themselves will have to deal with the consequences. That's the whole point.  It doesn't matter what you or I think, people have the right to self-determination, and you wish to deny them that.  This is tyranny.

You're against referendums, and yet you're against the electoral college and support a popular vote referendum to determine the POTUS instead of people voting for representatives (the electoral college) who then vote for the POTUS.   I agree with you.  The electoral college was purposefully designed to deny "the people" direct control over determining the POTUS in case they voted in a way the elites didn't want.  Same reason why women and blacks and non-landowners originally were denied the vote:  people with power want to keep control.

The only thing consistent in your views on democratic systems is that you support the systems that ensure the policies you support win out most of the time.

Quote
We elect representatives to make difficult decisions that we (well, you anyway) don't always understand.

This is an elitist position.  Canadians aren't stupid.  MP's are just people too.  Trudeau has a teaching degree, Harper had an economics degree, neither Trump nor Biden are geniuses, nor AOC or Ted Cruz or most politicians.  Anything our PM or MP's can understand most Canadians can understand, just give them the info.  The vast majority of politicians don't go through and read every line of every bill, they get the Coles Notes, and in Canada's case most MP's are told and whipped to vote a certain way by leadership anyways or else denied or demoted from Cabinet positions, committee positions, travel, Question Period time, or removed from caucus etc.

Quote
Also, it was a bad move that cost the UK in more ways than it could ever gain.

You or I can think whatever we want about it but it's not our call.  There's non-British politicians in Brussels completely unaccountable to British citizens determining policy that significantly affects Brits, and Brits have every right not to want that, or want that, it's their call.  Most of the politicians in Brussels don't like Brexit either but again it's not their call.  Everyone is in a moral panic because they can't control Brits as they wish, which is the whole point.

Quote
Please, tell me more about me. I voted for the Harper Conservatives in 2008 because I thought that the Liberals were a bad choice. I supported...

Maybe things were different in the past i dunno.  About the last 4-5 years or about however long this forum has been up I don't remember you saying hardly a negative thing about the Trudeau Liberals or their policy, and virtually all of your opinions seem to magically align with theirs, and making every excuse for them along the way.  If you wave the banner that's fine, but what annoys me is that you keep this facade pretending to be something else.

Quote
That I tend to lean very centrist (making me often a Liberal) and I have had more direct exposure to government and it's internal workings than you.

You have no knowledge of my work history to presume this.
 
Quote
Which is precisely why we have protections and rights that the public don't get a vote on. Tyranny of the majority is no better than what you accuse me of.

Yes a Charter/Bill of Rights protects things like minority rights, and that's good, it protects us from politicians too.  If we have tyranny of a minority as we do now vs tyranny of a majority, I choose the majority.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6206
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #955 on: November 25, 2020, 08:34:36 pm »
People generally get into government because they feel that they have something to offer. Sometimes they’re wrong.

The people themselves are often not properly educated on the nuance of something to make a good choice...hence our current terrible provincial governments and Brexit. Sometimes the best way to serve the people is by telling them they’re wrong - hence the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Democracy by referenda is tyranny with a different name.

This is the same elitist, paternalistic thinking the federal Liberals have always for as long as i've been alive.  You've definitely found the right party.  I don't need someone else telling me what's good for me, nor do Canadians.  Voters are adults they don't need the gov to be their mommy and daddy.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6206
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #956 on: November 25, 2020, 08:36:07 pm »
Referenda are a terrible idea.  Constant propositions by special interest groups and corporate money.

This year Uber and Lyft got a proposition passed that exempts their drivers from labour laws.   wow...  democracy at work there?   These companies funded this campaign to the tune of $90 million. 

That’s not democracy...  it’s a gross perversion of it in the form of a corporatocracy.

You just described the current system.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6206
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #957 on: November 25, 2020, 08:42:02 pm »
Imagine the referenda demanding increased spending and lower taxes. Imagine the referenda demanding acting on climate change and cheap, plentiful gasoline. it's not workable.

A system of total referendums isn't practical.  I think their should be a lot more referendums on key policy decisions and direction though.  I think people should get to decide on the general direction of different issues, maybe elect something like the cabinet, and then have cabinet broker have to make things workable as a more cohesive whole.  The current system you have like 4 choices, and every issue comes inside a basket of your one party choice based on ideology.  There's no room for anyone or any government that is ie: to the left on environment but to the right on defense.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6206
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #958 on: November 25, 2020, 08:43:19 pm »
Prop 22 shows how easily direct democracy can be subverted by those with a shitload of money and absolutely no scruples about lying to people.

But the current system doesn't work like this?  Cut out the corrupt middle men.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6206
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #959 on: November 25, 2020, 08:58:34 pm »
Because we have a functioning, stable democracy.

LOL.  Our politicians are captured and corrupted by non-democratic influences including corporate and foreign interests, and the MP's that don't play the game stay on the backbench with hardly any power.   Lots of MP's run hoping they can change things and make a difference and then quit after realizing they can't without selling their souls.  Former MP's have written books and articles about it.

1 person 1 vote is non-existent in our system, different MP's have different power based on whether they're party leader, in cabinet/shadow cabinet, backbench etc.  It's a total top-down power hierarchy.

I've personally seen so much political corruption by banks and housing developers.  It's so sad, the little guy is running on a treadmill while feeding their pockets.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.