Canadian PoliGAF - 42nd Parliament: Sunny Ways in Trudeaupia

Status
Not open for further replies.
Silexx said:
So it turns out that the 25,000 refugees by year's end no longer became feasible. Canada will now only admit 10,000 Syrian refugees by the end of the year. The total 25,000 will arrive by the end of February.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/canada-to-resettle-10000-syrian-refugees-by-year-end-not-25000
Click to expand...
Sounds like a reasonable plan.

I really don't get why they doubled down on the whole "by the end of the year" thing when nobody was really pushing them on that and it was probably unachievable. But whatever, the numbers matter more than the date they get here.
 
Lexxus said:
They are pretty much at refugees news. I love the responses on those articles lol
Click to expand...

My favourite part of the comments are that in the span of a few weeks they have gone from faux outrage over the refugees in general to faux outrage over bringing in refugees while we still have homeless people, as if we can't tackle multiple things at once.
 
Pedrito said:
CUjL1QwXAAAZqvS.jpg:small
Click to expand...
omg... that cannot be real O_O
 
gutter_trash said:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-preferential-ballot-1.3332566



estimate-of-electoral-reform-impact.png


I personally support Preferential Ballot system
Click to expand...

It would support Liberals in some election cycles. It would also make it easier for Conservatives to get huge majorities when people tire of a Liberal government (which always happens with any administration. Fatigue always sets in) or for regional parties to rise up and wildly distort political discourse out of proportion of their actual support.
All the problems of FPTP remain in AV/IRV style preferential systems.
 
Preferential would be better than what we have, but I'd much prefer a proportional system. You know, so we get an actual representation of public interest.
 
ItIsOkBro said:
Who wants bigots and climate change deniers to be represented
Click to expand...

Anyone who supports a democracy. Their votes and opinions hold just as much weight politically as yours do, that's how the system is intended. You aren't suggesting basing the ability to vote on popular opinion are you?

EDIT:
Ironically, you are being bigoted with that statement.
 
Alexlf said:
Anyone who supports a democracy. Their votes and opinions hold just as much weight politically as yours do, that's how the system is intended. You aren't suggesting basing the ability to vote on popular opinion are you?

EDIT:
Ironically, you are being bigoted with that statement.
Click to expand...
did you just call ItIsOkBro a bigot because he dislikes a ''politcal party'?

you cannot be serious
 
Thinking about it maybe (in a selfish sense) in 10 years or so we might start seeing some Syrian restaurants start opening up akin to Lebanese and Vietnamese restaurants


Increasing Canada's food diversity
 
Boogie said:
Well, no shit you do.
Click to expand...

If the LPC switched all their policies to Harper's, and the CPC switched all their policies to what Trudeau campaigned on, he would still support the Liberals. He's in it because he thinks it's a game, not because he actually is educated about policy or cares about democracy, etc. I mean, he even said a few pages ago that he would be okay with the Liberals rigging elections to stay in power.
 
TheGreatPotato said:
If the LPC switched all their policies to Harper's, and the CPC switched all their policies to what Trudeau campaigned on, he would still support the Liberals. He's in it because he thinks it's a game, not because he actually is educated about policy or cares about democracy, etc. I mean, he even said a few pages ago that he would be okay with the Liberals rigging elections to stay in power.
Click to expand...

anigif_optimized-15129-1446569865-1.gif
Click to expand...
:)
 
Alexlf said:
Preferential would be better than what we have, but I'd much prefer a proportional system. You know, so we get an actual representation of public interest.
Click to expand...

It would be worse. At best it might not change much at all, but the end result would be a move even further towards bipolar two party government, removing many voices from the process while telling them that hey, at least they took part in the compromise.

It's a sham and no one should accept it as a viable alternative to FPTP.
 
mo60 said:
I seriously don't want any party to get over 200 seats in the Parliament after an election.
Click to expand...

I think it's safe to say that the vote would have turned out somewhat differently if people knew that it was a Preferential ballot instead of a FPTP ballot. I suspect that a lot of people would have felt more comfortable keeping their vote with the NDP in that case - so the Liberals would not have actually gotten more than 200 seats.
 
mo60 said:
I seriously don't want any party to get over 200 seats in the Parliament after an election.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't. Parties would factor in the voting methodology in their political landscape and plan accordingly. The net result of implementation of preferential voting in canada would be more more liberal viewpoints being adopted by all political parties.
 
Azih said:
It would support Liberals in some election cycles. It would also make it easier for Conservatives to get huge majorities when people tire of a Liberal government (which always happens with any administration. Fatigue always sets in) or for regional parties to rise up and wildly distort political discourse out of proportion of their actual support.
All the problems of FPTP remain in AV/IRV style preferential systems.
Click to expand...


This pretty much my problem with proportional, I mean I like the idea, but here in Canada, them prairies and rural Ontario are conservative strongholds. These are people who will ALWAYS vote conservative and never anything but. I feel like the red Tories have already jumped ship anyways, so the people who voted the Tories last time are the "core" voters anyways, Which is scary to think about in itself... that the conservatives, despite their blunders won 30% of Parliament... sheesh.
 
Azzanadra said:
This pretty much my problem with proportional, I mean I like the idea, but here in Canada, them prairies and rural Ontario are conservative strongholds. These are people who will ALWAYS vote conservative and never anything but. I feel like the red Tories have already jumped ship anyways, so the people who voted the Tories last time are the "core" voters anyways, Which is scary to think about in itself... that the conservatives, despite their blunders won 30% of Parliament... sheesh.
Click to expand...

Well the point of a democratic system is that people get to be represented by who they vote for. The thing with non proportional systems is that the conservatives in opposition just need to take advantage of the times when people are fed up with the current government (which always happens) to get the 8 or 9 % extra above their base to turn 39% of the vote into full power to do whatever they want for four years (we just got done with that).

In Proportional if the conservatives gets 39% of the vote, that's about the proportion of seats they get. So isn't that better than what we have right now and AV/IRV Preferential where that can turn into full majority power?
 
maharg said:
It would be worse. At best it might not change much at all, but the end result would be a move even further towards bipolar two party government, removing many voices from the process while telling them that hey, at least they took part in the compromise.

It's a sham and no one should accept it as a viable alternative to FPTP.
Click to expand...

A sham? I don't think so. Maybe though. If 76% of people are placing the Liberals as their second or first choice(as per the article) then they'd have a right to that level of representation. I imagine a large number of voters might change the way they vote under ranked as well. Provided you have the option to leave off candidates, I think it's fine.

EDIT: Nevermind, I understand the article now. I'd really like to see the exact results of what they are saying, because without knowing the actual statistics/voting choices that poll is meaningless. How many people picked the liberals as there second choice? Is that because of the recent push against the conservative government, or how does it reflect past elections? I'd really like to see more.

gutter_trash said:
did you just call ItIsOkBro a bigot because he dislikes a ''politcal party'?

you cannot be serious
Click to expand...

Absolutely not, it had nothing to with his dislike of a political party. It was his statements about climate change deniers and and bigots having ideally less of a right to representation then others.
 
Alexlf said:
Absolutely not, it had nothing to with his dislike of a political party. It was his statements about climate change deniers and and bigots having ideally less of a right to representation then others.
Click to expand...

What is this nonsense? Bigots absolutely have less right to representation than others. Climate change deniers, anti-vaccers, flat earthers, too. In no way is our society lessened by not giving uninformed idiots equal representation. That whole "Be tolerant of my intolerance" thing some conservatives have going is complete and utter garbage. Don't like equal rights for all people, or think that we should ignore reality so some people don't have their toxic world views challenged? Suck it up. It was wrong of the Conservatives to try and play on racist fears to win a few votes, and the fact they didn't lose all that many votes from 2011 is appalling.
 
Alexlf said:
Absolutely not, it had nothing to with his dislike of a political party. It was his statements about climate change deniers and and bigots having ideally less of a right to representation then others.
Click to expand...

well, he is technically correct though, the wrong party should not have life easier through proportional representation, that is why I support Preferential so that the Conservatives will never ever return to power.
 
gutter_trash said:
well, he is technically correct though, the wrong party should not have life easier through proportional representation, that is why I support Preferential so that the Conservatives will never ever return to power.
Click to expand...

That's... not what will happen. The Conservatives will become the only other party that has a chance of forming government (AV/IRV over represents at least one big party in any election) and so when people tire of the Liberals they will vote the Conservatives in.

The only way to break through and support any party other than the two party state would be a regional party (such as the BQ, or Reform) that would be over-represented because concentration of votes matters way more than the number of votes.

So. You know. EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW. Just with even more distorted results routinely like that chart shows.

On the other hand with proportional representation. Since parties are forced to cooperate to create a stable coalition government (as the likelihood of a majority is very small as fake majorities go away) unless the Conservatives turn back into a PC style party their regressive policies will continue to be rejected by the other party's and they won't get to be a part of a coalition.
 
matthewwhatever said:
What is this nonsense? Bigots absolutely have less right to representation than others. Climate change deniers, anti-vaccers, flat earthers, too. In no way is our society lessened by not giving uninformed idiots equal representation. That whole "Be tolerant of my intolerance" thing some conservatives have going is complete and utter garbage. Don't like equal rights for all people, or think that we should ignore reality so some people don't have their toxic world views challenged? Suck it up. It was wrong of the Conservatives to try and play on racist fears to win a few votes, and the fact they didn't lose all that many votes from 2011 is appalling.
Click to expand...

Haha, nonsense? I think your conflating what I said with my moral beliefs. I personally believe that we should absolutely use the government as a tool to improve society even at the cost of several civil liberties, including silencing people who are a large enough detriment to it's overall progress. The perceived goals of society vary from person to person. In this case however we are not talking about society nor humanity, but a political system called "democracy". To categorize people entirely by tags such as "bigot" and "climate change denier" as if it somehow makes them not a human or as though it completely describes their existence is ridiculous. The idea behind democracy (ideally) is that the public filters out the less popular and harmful parts of their ideals but lets them contribute what is more publicly supported. Thus removing representation from anyone under democracy goes a long way to undermining it purpose, (not that it isn't largely already.)

Though really, if you look up the definition of "bigot" it's "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions"(thanks google). So yes, being anti-racist etc. is bigoted. It can be good to be bigoted in certain cases, but I just found it funny for him to claim he wanted to ban bigots while being one himself.


gutter_trash said:
well, he is technically correct though, the wrong party should not have life easier through proportional representation, that is why I support Preferential so that the Conservatives will never ever return to power.
Click to expand...

This post however rubs me the wrong way.

The conservatives are the "wrong" party? You might want to add some qualifiers there because the way you have it now makes it sound like you have some knowledge of universal truths that no-one else holds.
 
Even proportional representation (from my understanding) requires a base level of support (3%?) before you get the benefit, so we all can agree that certain views don't really deserve a seat at the table. It's just a matter of where we draw that line.
 
Simon Belmont said:
Even proportional representation (from my understanding) requires a base level of support (3%?) before you get the benefit, so we all can agree that certain views don't really deserve a seat at the table. It's just a matter of where we draw that line.
Click to expand...

Yup, 4% and 5% is the usual threshold in MMP places. It can be set higher or lower in any Canadian version but around that is a good balance.
 
Even at 5% the Bloc and the greens would be out, assuming voting trends didn't wildly change with a new voting system. I'm not even going to begin to guess how wild an assumption that is.
 
Simon Belmont said:
Even at 5% the Bloc and the greens would be out, assuming voting trends didn't wildly change with a new voting system. I'm not even going to begin to guess how wild an assumption that is.
Click to expand...
is the 5% Coast-to-Coast? does it take Provincial and Territorty bounderies into considerartion?

I seriously doubt that Proportional Representation in a Federation would be even Coast-to-Coast, knowing how pissy some Provinces are (especially the two special needs Provinces *cough* Alberta *cough* Quebec) that Proportional Representation in Canada will be Provincial territory bound
 
gutter_trash said:
is the 5% Coast-to-Coast? does it take Provincial and Territorty bounderies into considerartion?

I seriously doubt that Proportional Representation in a Federation would be even Coast-to-Coast, knowing how pissy some Provinces are (especially the two special needs Provinces *cough* Alberta *cough* Quebec) that Proportional Representation in Canada will be Provincial territory bound
Click to expand...

It could be either. It all depends on the design. Even at the Provincial level though small parties are small for a reason.

Here's the academic research I'm citing:

http://campaign2015.fairvote.ca/wp-...ew-of-Evidence-updated-version-2015-03-17.pdf

Lot of good stuff there but the most relevant bit on this question is:

There was only a marginal increase in the number of parties in Parliament.
Click to expand...
 
Popstar said:
Azih, what do you think of Dion's P3?
Click to expand...

It's not bad. It's not as proportional as MMP (based on how MMP is usually designed). So of course I prefer MMP but Dion did a pretty great job of coming up with a pretty proportional system. Dude is smart and his heart is in the right place.

Edit: My personal ranking would probably go

MMP >>P3=STV >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FPTP > AV/IRV/Perferential.
 
gutter_trash said:
is the 5% Coast-to-Coast? does it take Provincial and Territorty bounderies into considerartion?

I seriously doubt that Proportional Representation in a Federation would be even Coast-to-Coast, knowing how pissy some Provinces are (especially the two special needs Provinces *cough* Alberta *cough* Quebec) that Proportional Representation in Canada will be Provincial territory bound
Click to expand...

Seats are allocated to provinces and that's a hard rule of the constitution, but that's pretty much irrelevant to whether or not you can make a nationally representative system. If the province's seats are elected proportionally then the overall seats will be almost completely proportional. There'd be a bit of skew for the maritimes and territories, but it would still be vastly less skew than that which produced the Bloc and Reform parties.

Provinces have absolutely zero say in how their MPs are elected, though. That is entirely federal legislation and under the direct jurisdiction of Parliament itself (that parliament chooses its own method of election is basically ancient constitutional privilege).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia Season 17 | Abbott Teaser | Returns July 9
20
564
bitbydeath replied
It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia - Season 18 coming in September
21
2K
Synless replied
Effective ways to start investing money
48
3K
devilNprada replied
Long Way Home — Official Trailer | Apple TV+
2
340
AJUMP23 replied
  • Locked
Tate brothers free and on their way to Freedomland
2
50
2K
RJMacready73 replied
Top Bottom