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

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6206
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #960 on: November 25, 2020, 09:03:25 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.

OMG thank you!!  Finally someone who is honest!!!
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 #961 on: November 25, 2020, 09:15:01 pm »
It's as dangerous as allowing Canadians in Alberta to have a referendum on capitol punishment for all of Canada, or allowing Americans to have a country wide referendum on the right to pack concealed heat.

If Albertans wanted a federal referenda on oil or capital punishment or abortion etc. it very likely wouldn't go their way, given that typically 60-70% of Canadians vote for leftwing parties in this country. 

In fact, if 51% of the votes got about 51% of the seats and 51% of the power, leftwing parties in Canada would always be in control of government.  Not sure what you're worried about.

Quote
Given opportunities the rabid, frothing at the mouth right, just like our two (or three)  resident spammers, will destroy the world.

Again, thank you for being honest.  Yes, why give people you disagree with any say or power, even if your views would likely still win out?  When it comes down to it it's about maintaining power and control.  At least you'll admit to your tyranny.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4800
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #962 on: November 25, 2020, 11:24:57 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 leveled 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!

39% of those who voted is good enough for a majority government in your book. I think my standards are a lot higher.

so you keep saying! Let the waldo put some actual numbers forward to gain a true sense of your bluster... from the 3rd B.C. referendum undertaken in 2018. Perhaps you can advise why you haven't said diddlyWordOne about this 3rd referendum held, hey!

in any case, that 3rd referendum also failed biglySo - PR proponents getting only 38% of the total votes. Geezaz, and you're still flogging this after 3 referendum attempts to realize a change to PR being shot down?  ;D

let's get to your (falsely) touted "high" standards. The waldo's crack research team hasn't been able to provide me with the actual 2018 registered voter number, so I'll substitute 2017's number @3.25 million registered voters. The 2018 referendum realized ~1.378 million votes; accordingly, a 60% threshold would have been met if ~825K voters would have chosen PR... which is about 25% of the total number of registered voters. YesSirEeeBob, your claimed standards needed to change B.C's electoral system is "high"... 25% HIGH! Oh my member wilber, oh my!   (Note: if you can find the actual 2018 number of registered voters please contact my crack research team to update your claimed high standards - thanks in advance).

Offline Montgomery

  • The Box
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 724
  • Location: vancouver Island
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #963 on: November 26, 2020, 11:11:38 am »
OMG thank you!!  Finally someone who is honest!!!

Well Gorgeous, you like something I said but there were at least three different thoughts contained in my message, so nobody could understand which of them I said that pleased you.

Or was it all of them?
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said. ~M.T.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6206
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #964 on: November 26, 2020, 12:16:11 pm »
Well Gorgeous, you like something I said but there were at least three different thoughts contained in my message, so nobody could understand which of them I said that pleased you.

Or was it all of them?

When you said this:

Quote
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.

So your priority isn't democracy, it's "progressive and liberal progress".  Again, thank you for being honest.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline Montgomery

  • The Box
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 724
  • Location: vancouver Island
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #965 on: November 26, 2020, 12:39:42 pm »
When you said this:

So your priority isn't democracy, it's "progressive and liberal progress".  Again, thank you for being honest.

You may want to be careful on how you use words such as 'progressive' and 'liberal progress'.

If you meant Liberal capitalized then that opens another issue.

Otherwise you're just saying that I support 'democracy'.

PR and/or FPTP are neither pro-democratic or anti-democratic. You should know better and if you don't then you should learn at Dictionary.com.

I'm always open to a decent and rational discussion on the pros and cons of both.

And so to begin, my comment was that I suspect that PR would cause gridlock in government. If you applly yourself you might be able to come up with some specific example that supports your preference for PR. It's not going to be accepted as just a 'given'.

If I'm going to get into a debate with you I'll be basing my argument on the taxation question you're so fond of questioning.

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said. ~M.T.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6206
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #966 on: November 26, 2020, 08:04:56 pm »
PR and/or FPTP are neither pro-democratic or anti-democratic. You should know better and if you don't then you should learn at Dictionary.com.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

"Definition of democracy

1a : government by the people especially : rule of the majority"


Having 51% of voters electing MP's that hold 100% of the power is more democratic than 39% of the voters electing MP's that hold 100% of the power as we have in our current system.

Quote
And so to begin, my comment was that I suspect that PR would cause gridlock in government. If you applly yourself you might be able to come up with some specific example that supports your preference for PR. It's not going to be accepted as just a 'given'.

If I'm going to get into a debate with you I'll be basing my argument on the taxation question you're so fond of questioning.

I'd rather a bit more gridlock if the majority have a say than unfettered power of the minority.  I tend to prefer minority governments in Canada because there's more consensus and other parties to put a check on the ruling party's power, despite causing more gridlock.  Right now the minority Liberals tend to team up with the NDP to get bills passed, which means the MP's of ~49% of voters are represented in these two law-making parties, instead of only 39.5% of voters represented in the previous Liberal majority government.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2020, 08:06:35 pm by Gorgeous Graham »
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 wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7415
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #967 on: November 26, 2020, 08:12:19 pm »
They're afeared of more democracy. Of more votes actually counting. Of people voting for a party that actually represents what they think rather than having to vote for the least worst because they think anything else will be wasting their vote
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4800
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #968 on: November 27, 2020, 12:06:11 am »
They're afeared of more democracy. Of more votes actually counting. Of people voting for a party that actually represents what they think rather than having to vote for the least worst because they think anything else will be wasting their vote

ya, ya, you're such a proponent of, as you say, "more democracy"!  ;D

says the guy, you, who is quite content to accept a most unrepresentative 25% of the B.C. electorate being in a position to change the fundamental electoral system of the province of British Columbia. Says the guy, you, who repeatedly falsely touted the B.C. Systems Assembly group as a most democratic unbiased and independent source. Says the guy, you, who clearly has shown you have little actual understanding of the variants of PR while you feverishly push it under the guise of "more democracy" and the single word, 'proportional'!
Informative Informative x 1 View List

Offline Montgomery

  • The Box
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 724
  • Location: vancouver Island
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #969 on: November 27, 2020, 11:50:12 am »
If Albertans wanted a federal referenda on oil or capital punishment or abortion etc. it very likely wouldn't go their way, given that typically 60-70% of Canadians vote for leftwing parties in this country.

I'm not suggesting that Canadians overall would accept any of the three you're suggesting. Supposing that you're suggesting a ban on abortion or some sort of change to more acceptance of fossil fuels. I'm suggesting that it's likely that Alberta would  alone 

Quote
In fact, if 51% of the votes got about 51% of the seats and 51% of the power, leftwing parties in Canada would always be in control of government.  Not sure what you're worried about.

I don't think you're using the term 'leftwing' correctly. The NDP being the furthest left of the leftist parties, isn't really leftwing, is it?

Quote
Again, thank you for being honest.  Yes, why give people you disagree with any say or power, even if your views would likely still win out?  When it comes down to it it's about maintaining power and control.  At least you'll admit to your tyranny.

I haven't suggested that we depart from democracy, even though I'm cautious of allowing any referendums for deciding important questions such as our method of voting.

It's hard to imagine a situation in which both major parties will see it in their best interests to change.

And I still feel that the biggest drawback against PR would be gridlock. Can you try to invent an issue in which we could imagine how a PR system would work to find a solution to a major disagreement between the left and the right? If you or somebody could do that, we could possibly move this debate on to some sort of resolution.

The best I can offer would be going back to healthcare, as a two-tier system could be found acceptable. But maybe you could formulate something concerning taxation?

Whatever it could be, wouldn't that be progress here on this thread!
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said. ~M.T.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4800
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #970 on: November 27, 2020, 12:39:53 pm »
member squiggy, thanks for your informative tag! Now fuckOffAndDie!
Informative Informative x 1 View List

Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7415
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #971 on: November 27, 2020, 12:46:59 pm »
ya, ya, you're such a proponent of, as you say, "more democracy"!  ;D

says the guy, you, who is quite content to accept a most unrepresentative 25% of the B.C. electorate being in a position to change the fundamental electoral system of the province of British Columbia. Says the guy, you, who repeatedly falsely touted the B.C. Systems Assembly group as a most democratic unbiased and independent source. Says the guy, you, who clearly has shown you have little actual understanding of the variants of PR while you feverishly push it under the guise of "more democracy" and the single word, 'proportional'!

I was not content to accept it at all. The last referendum was a farce, we could have wound up with a system that was the first choice of less than 20% of those who voted. It killed me to do it but I had to choose FPTP over that dogs breakfast. In the first two referendums when the choice was clear, I voted for STV.

The citizens assembly was picked at random from anyone who wanted to apply.
"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 #972 on: November 27, 2020, 01:00:36 pm »
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

"Definition of democracy

1a : government by the people especially : rule of the majority"


Having 51% of voters electing MP's that hold 100% of the power is more democratic than 39% of the voters electing MP's that hold 100% of the power as we have in our current system.

Yes, I would agree with that. But democracy isn't perfect and so it becomes a question on how we do the best to apply the principles.
And fwiw, democracy has proven to not work any better than other systems in a modern world where doing the right thing for the masses is of the most importance. But that's getting a bit ahead of the discussion here.

Quote
I'd rather a bit more gridlock if the majority have a say than unfettered power of the minority.

Your preference would need to be put to some test and that's the reason why I've asked you to invent some scenario in which the test could be imagined.
 Keep in mind how democracy has failed in the US too!

 
Quote
I tend to prefer minority governments in Canada because there's more consensus and other parties to put a check on the ruling party's power, despite causing more gridlock.  Right now the minority Liberals tend to team up with the NDP to get bills passed, which means the MP's of ~49% of voters are represented in these two law-making parties, instead of only 39.5% of voters represented in the previous Liberal majority government.

I like it too right now with the NDP or some other party's MP's being needed by the Liberals, but then that's suitable to my personal politics while it's not suitable to others. And yet I still have to question the political priorities of the NDP at times. It 'does' though accomplish some of the goals of PR without having to go all the way there.

If a situation should develop within a PR system in which one party's priorities are close to the opposite of the other major party that is supported by a large per centage of the people, the gridlock could be created in a way that it's not created with the NDP supporting the Liberals.

And so once again I suggest that we try to create a scenario in which the PR system could be imagined to be tested. I'll suggest healthcare for lack of something more suitable as a bone of contention. Can you take that further by introducing something specific on which the two major parties would cooperate to make PR work.

I'm not particulary stuck with that topic, but you've failed to recommend anything else, even though I said I would be agreeable to discuss your personal issue of taxation.
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said. ~M.T.

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3457
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #973 on: November 29, 2020, 01:21:07 pm »
Breathless media reporting this week notwithstanding, Canada is in the first 5 deliveries for Pfizer and in the first batch deliveries for Moderna.

Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7415
Re: Government Day-to-Day
« Reply #974 on: November 29, 2020, 02:55:34 pm »
Breathless media reporting this week notwithstanding, Canada is in the first 5 deliveries for Pfizer and in the first batch deliveries for Moderna.
Interesting that the information came from the Moderna CEO, not the government. What he actually said was we are not that far behind other countries.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC