-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Canadian PoliGAF - 42nd Parliament: Sunny Ways in Trudeaupia
- Thread starter matthewwhatever
- Start date
- Status
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Yep. I care about electoral reform, but I also care about carbon tax/environment, marijuana legalization, taxes, healthcare, refugees, euthanasia, etc. I could really go on forever. I still think the Liberals are doing a decent job.
gutter_trash
Banned
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I mean, I'm at the point where I think the NDP should die so we could just formalize the de-facto two party system. But I guess that also means that I have no real reason to vote anymore either, since it's a choice between the lesser of two evils rather.
Sure, this is "Bernie bro" thinking, but unless Canada manages to find a bilingual facist who can somehow appeal to Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta at the same time, I think I'm fine.
We've been around this merry-go-round a few times now.
If you want Canada to be in the mess the US is in in a few decades, have at your two party utopia.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
The purpose of a multi-party isn't solely to have more than two parties to take a chance at ruling. The main benefit of multi-party systems is that you get to critique and see the effects of a law from a diverse set of perspectives and paradigms, rather than creating a false dilemma of just two sides.
A perfect example is the issue of electoral reform itself. If you had just the two parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, electoral reform would have never been brought up. It's the NDP and the Greens, whom, despite never forming government, keep it in the spotlight and allow us to see this issue from multiple perspectives. That's also why AV is actively harmful: it will basically institutionalize the two party system that exists down south.
PumpkinSpice
Banned
Electoral reform would never have been necessary and never have been an issue if the NDP didn't exist in the first place.
Just saw this. Spiceys days are numbered.
The fusion Prime Minister between Joe Clark and Pierre Trudeau that visited the United States of Mexicanada yesterday.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Are you telling me you're okay when a party gets only 40% but gets 100% of the power? Are you okay with what happened with Donald Trump and the electoral college? Because it's essentially the same thing taken to its logical conclusion. It always has and always will be a problem, whether the NDP exists or not.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
Nah, parliamentary democracies can work fine with three or more parties. All that matters is that the third (or fourth or fifth) party can win a plurality despite a united right.
It wouldn't make ideological sense for a centre-left party that wants to get rid of the FPTP system that disproportionately favours their competitors to merge with more of a centrist party that will not make any changes. It also makes no sense if you're a fan of options. That's not what they still win dozens of seats for.
With the way the system is set up with constituencies, and how the electorate tends to vote, there's nothing to discuss, regardless of a change in voting system. Things will flucuate, but it's not a true two-party system and it doesn't ever need to be. If it causes issues every now and then, well there was a chance to get rid of FPTP, but it didn't happen because it benefits one of the two largest parties. Not a third party's fault.
Absolutely false
Electoral reform would be even more necessary. A two party system would be disastrous for this country.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
No, more choice is good. Without it, there'd be two parties, a centrist and a centre-right party, and we've seen that doesn't work too well. Choice is good and as we saw with the change in official opposition in 2011, it keeps parties honest.
That's a really backward way to fix the issue
PumpkinSpice
Banned
Does the national NDP even have a purpose other than being a protest party?
Except for that one election where they threw away their collective spine in a failed attempt to get in office.
Having two parties in a system designed for two parties makes a lot more sense. And no that doesn't mean we revert to American hyper partisanship.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
This is all so beside the point. Who cares what the NDP did or said? It has no bearing on the merits of this or other electoral systems.
Can you explain how that makes sense? Because it's not at all intuitive.
There are more than two ways of looking at an issue, and I see no reason why a parliament shouldn't represent that.
I don't think it's an accident of history either that the most successful democracies (including our own) are all multi-party democracies.
I don't want to vote for Justin Trudeau
I don't want to vote for Kevin O'Leary
what do I do?
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
That's just not plausible, at all.
More options are good, period. The third party is coming off their 2nd highest seat total ever (44), it's not like that can't win seats with FPTP, it's just harder.
The thing is, why would the centre-left want to unite with the centre? A centre that just went back on voting reform because it would hurt them to boot. Forget it.
You don't vote and let O'Leary win because benghazi/emails/economic anxieties and then complain the other guy wins.
Er We are a Westminster system, electoral reform would have eventually been an issue with or without the NDP's existence, but that's besides the point- why shouldn't they exist? If they never existed in the first place, there is a good chance we would have never gotten free health care for example, though are being vague as to what point they wouldn't exist- from their inception? Foray into national politics? 2011 because you hate the idea of them being the official opposition?
And you are acting like their are only 2 ways to frame an issue, how would that make any sense? I know the American politics has basically made it seem like that is true, but surely you realize the world isn't so black and white. While you could argue that MP's are loyal to their voters first and foremost and thus can break from the party's standard, that is not true in practical life as seen by Harper who tried to contain some of his more liberal MP's like Chong, and Trudeau seems to run a pretty tight ship himself.
In other news, there will be a debate today with Ian Binnie and Andrew Coyne and the University of Toronto on the issue so that will be interesting.
gutter_trash
Banned
we all know that you are going to vote for Martine Ouellet,
you can spare us the charade
you're wrong!
I didn't vote Bloc last election, and I did like Gilles Duceppe
I voted Green
I don't know anything about green, I just wanted to vote and hated all 3 candidates
Dragging the Liberal Party to the left of the center during several minority governments and helped bring us various social reforms, most notably universal healthcare. They have been more helpful than people give them credit for and it would be dangerous if they were to disappear. A two-party system is terrible and so is a system that will eventually lead to it.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1344145
Thoughts on taking DREAMers as refugees? We couldn't take 750,000 but we could definitely talk a lot more than usual given how quickly they would assimilate. Most would probably want to stay in the US if it was up to them, so I don't think we'd see a huge flood all at once.
It might help with our whole demographics thing.
Thoughts on taking DREAMers as refugees? We couldn't take 750,000 but we could definitely talk a lot more than usual given how quickly they would assimilate. Most would probably want to stay in the US if it was up to them, so I don't think we'd see a huge flood all at once.
It might help with our whole demographics thing.
matthewwhatever
Member
The one thing the Trump White House has had go right for them, and they immediately step all over it.
I'd be cautiously in favour of it. We definitely need to increase our population, and if the government really wants to grow to 100 million people in 80 years, that'd be one way to do it.
Of course, there'd be infrastructure and capacity concerns, and the places that we'd need them to settle in -- Atlantic Canada, northern Ontario, parts of the West -- are the places they'd probably be least interested in going to. But on the whole, it's not something I'd be instinctively opposed to.
gutter_trash
Banned
My dad met Duceppe, he said Gilles was a total asshole
He also met Jack Layton too,
He said he was a super nice guy
killer rin
Member
I'd be in favour of it. I'm of the opinion that our population is way to low and spread out to really allow many efficiencies. Besides 750,000 people who are well educated and are already used to living in a developed country with all of its nuances would be able to fit in almost immediately.
The main issue would just be finding them housing, preferably in Atlantic Canada and Northern Ontario. From there it would just be finding some way to convince Conservatives it's in their best interests.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
I feel like we should make immigration laws for people coming from the US looser in general. Especially with Trump in office, there are a lot of educated workers with high incomes who want to move out but can't be bothered because of the bureaucracy.
Well, we kinda need to build a lot more infrastructure and housing anyway. Now we'd have more workers to help us build it all. And if we have to borrow a bunch of money to pay for it all, that's fine. If most of these people end up sticking around in the long term they'll be working and paying taxes for about the next 40 years, plenty long enough to pay off a bunch of 30 year bonds, especially with interest rates still so low.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
Population concentrates in warm areas of the Earth. Newfoundland's climate is not the equivalent of that latitude across the Atlantic, I can assure you, and only in Europe (including European Russia) and Manchuria in China is population density quite high relatively close to the poles. 100 million this century seems silly, global warming or no global warming.
Not sure of the source, but here's a rough estimate of population density worldwide as well:
In terms of Canada's relative population centres, all but Edmonton (53 degrees north) is south of London, and all major population centres (note, that includes London but obviously doesn't include Edmonton) on Earth are south of Moscow (55 degrees north)...except, Moscow.
Not sure of the source, but here's a rough estimate of population density worldwide as well:
In terms of Canada's relative population centres, all but Edmonton (53 degrees north) is south of London, and all major population centres (note, that includes London but obviously doesn't include Edmonton) on Earth are south of Moscow (55 degrees north)...except, Moscow.
If this is the most head-shaking thing to come out of the White House in the last couple days re: Trudeau's visit then we are doing pretty well!
Infinite Stars
Member
I'd be happy if they made the immigration process easier for those in the states, though my dad would never shut up about it. They are collectively being assaulted by the government, and it's not like they're "traditional" refugees, for lack of a better term. They're half economic, half political immigrants, and I don't that being this hard sell to anyone not in the conservative party.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
Good relations with your neighbours are important, don't make it about politics. If they view it as a slight, they'll take offence. Furthermore, if there's no reciprocity, it just looks strange and desperate.
You may think it wouldn't be a hard sell, but I don't think there's any desire to change the present system at all. Both nations are comfortable.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
The population only needs to grow 1.28% every year for us to be at 100 million people by 2100.
And no, the status quo doesn't seem to be an option in North America.
You expect a country with a negative birthrate the entire century to increase its population by almost threefold over the course of that century? You do realise that the percentage increase per year in Canada is less than that as well, right? Additionally, the rate of world population growth is naturally declining (it was unsustainable).
What do you mean by status quo? Why not? Places like Canada and Australia have always had low populations. I don't think it'll be 100 million, and if it is...they'll all be clustered right near the border (minus Alberta to an extent) in urban centres.
You're also ignoring the ever-present threat of pandemics. People aren't like stocks.
Well we've more than tripled over the past 83 years. It's definitely possible. And by status quo I mostly meant the political situation that you say both nations are too comfortable to change.
Infinite Stars
Member
If I had to try and sell it to Trump, I'd argue that you're getting rid of "Dah Illegals" regardless, and since he has such a hate boner for Mexico offering them refuge in Canada deprives Mexico of a valuable worker base.
I mean, the ideal situation is the Dreamers getting to stay in the USA, but if that's not an option underneath Trump/ICE's current policies, I think it is something Canada should try to aid in.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
That tripling included the baby boom (positive birth rates are long a thing in the past).
Yes, that high growth-scenario is mostly on course, but the rate is still slightly lower annually that the figure you're using (which btw, is a consistently positive growth, and any famine or pandemic will tell you that human populations don't behave like that).
We can only support so many human beings on Earth, there is a limit if we don't find other worlds...and even if there weren't a limit, the rate of growth is declining. You're also ignoring economic factors.
You're expecting 83 more years of exponential growth just because it's always been like this in Canada?
Yes, famine seems unlikely in Canada, but food for thought:
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I don't mind protest parties if the main parties aren't representing the needs of a specific constituency. But no one is clamouring for the Bloc to come back to "check the Liberals", so I don't know why the NDP needs to be around if the party doesn't even know if it wants to be a leftist socialist party or a centrist labour party. Since all that NDP support in Ontario and Quebec essentially went back to the Liberals anyway, it's clear that the voters don't really mind if there was just a simple default left-of-center choice that they can vote for.
I suppose it's like how we're stuck with a Senate that absolutely no one wants but we put up with because it's too hard to do anything about it.
Given that my vote probably won't matter in the next election, since my only option is Liberal or no one, I just see myself as essentially disenfranchised even if I'm obviously not. It's hard to get excited to participate in democracy when you know you could eat your ballot and have the same effect as if you had voted for your chosen party.
This assumes we're not in a two party system already, of course.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
I suppose it's like how we're stuck with a Senate that absolutely no one wants but we put up with because it's too hard to do anything about it.
If it was more regionally distributed I wouldn't mind. It's a safety feature of sorts that unicameral governments don't have.
It's like the House of Lords in the UK, only with no religious, hereditary, (or until quite recently) judiciary members.
Not everyone's cup of tea that it's not elected, but that's life.
The House of Lords can be overridden though, whereas the Senate can't, right?
Considering in the last 30 years one of the "two parties" has gone to third place I think it's pretty safe to say that we are generally moving away from being a 2 party system and have been for a long time (since the 1950s). Your tendency to look at the present moment's sample as if it's the eternal truth was just as true when you felt that Harper would win majorities forever before the last election as it is now when the NDP have fallen to their second best election performance ever, meaning according to you that they're dead and will never be relevant ever again.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Yeah, I would say Australia got it right, although I'm sure having a Senate that can serve as actual opposition to the House and can cause gridlock would be a nightmare to some people here. lol
I mean, I was worried about the NDP after Layton's big election and was hoping for a merger back then, so ¯\_(ツ
_/¯. Having the NDP be irrelevant in Ontario and Quebec serves the same purpose I suppose.Reminder: This guy wants to bring Canada back to using the gold standard. And he's 2nd in the polls (so far).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked