gutter_trash
Banned
the problem is that the majority of the electorate isn't well informed, is not aware of the choices available and just don't know
the challenge is educating the electorate
-
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
the problem is that the majority of the electorate isn't well informed, is not aware of the choices available and just don't know
the challenge is educating the electorate
Yeah, I'm well aware of that.
I just personally believe that the actual shape of the political system really does require approval from people beyond politicians, given the ramifications (in practise, once instituted this sort of reform would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to rescind).
gutter_trash
Banned
the general public are morons, they don't know what they are voting for.
heck, look at Americans, they voted against their better interest
An equally valid argument is that they voted for ideas that the Liberals pushed outside of electoral reform...
You Are Viewtiful
Member
I think he's alluding to the PEI and BC referenda.
As for your first statement, I'm okay with a referendum as long as it's not sent out to die. We've had three referenda on this, and they went
Ontario - the referendum was on the same day as election day. A lot of people who didn't know what they were voting for opted for the status quo.
British Columbia - the majority voted for electoral reform, but for whatever arbitrary reason, it needed 60% to pass.
Prince Edward Island - the majority voted for electoral reform, but now politicians are making arbitrary turnout requirements after the fact.
If it has to be a referendum, it needs to have fair requirements (50%+1, no minimum turnout) a fair question, and no external influences (general election day).
Since someone brought up the NDP leadership, I thought i'd mention a name i've been hearing a lot as a potential candidate due to them having stepped down as the party's chair to consider a leadership run: Charlie Angus. From my brief research, he's a major advocate for indigenous rights and the protection of their communities as well as for progressiveness in general (Despite being a Roman Catholic and being threatened by a priest that they would no longer receive communion, he stood in support of same-sex marriage in 2005) and a former member of an alternative band. Who knows if the party will get their act together under him.
Either that or maybe Jack Layton's son, Mike Layton, will run. After this year, nothing could possibly surprise me.
Either that or maybe Jack Layton's son, Mike Layton, will run. After this year, nothing could possibly surprise me.
cryptosporidium
Member
I agree. My opinion is that only those who want to vote should vote and those who disdain politics or dont understand the ramifications of a parties policies, or singular policy shouldnt be required to.
Ehhhh, the minimum turnout is a key factor in legitimizing any referendum. I'm definitely not comfortable with changing an electoral system if people don't turn up and have their say.
I like Charlie Angus, but he's too fiery to take up the helm of the NDP.
I'm still disappointed that Nathan Cullen isn't running.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
After Boulerice's bullshit antifa shenanigans at Messe des Morts and their previous nonsense with elbowgate, I'm starting to get really alienated from the NDP. These clowns are starting to lose my vote.
I'd say "fiery" is fine, depending on how the NDP is looking to position themselves. It doesn't feel like the party wants to continue with the Orange Liberals direction that Layton and Mulcair pursued for the last decade, so if they're going more aggressively left-wing populist, a leader who can sell that would need some fire in their belly.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
The thing is, people don't care. It's such a wonky issue that doesn't effect people's day to day lives (or so they perceive it), that only a few would take the time to study it and come out to vote for it. If it were a tax issue, there would be huge lines at the ballot box. Electoral reform, no one really cares.
We could do like BC and do mail-in ballots, they tend to have higher turnout. Other than that, there's not much that can be done. An electoral reform referendum is doomed to low turnout.
I could see this potentially working in their favor should they decide to take the party in a direction than as of late like a Sanders-esque "start a revolution, change the system, try something different" angle. The main problem with the NDP is that their direction over the years has lead them to become more like the Liberal Party, largely abandoning their socialist routes to court left-leaning voters and get them to vote for their party instead of the LPC, which ends up splitting the vote instead. Perhaps a more impassioned campaign and leadership could help distinguish them from the Liberal Party and ignite that support the party once had at the beginning of the 2015 election while encouraging . The only worry that I would have for Angus is his French, which I can't seem to find anything about his fluency in the language. If he's not up to par, it could affect the party's capability in getting back those Quebec seats that Layton won in 2011.
I dont see what the problem is, he made a statement when the guy died. If some saudi king died I bet obama would be sprinting to his funeral without saying a word about human rights abuses.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
The whole thing Trudeau promised was that they'd just use their Liberal mandate to push for electoral reform. Voting Liberal WAS a referendum on the issue, like the legalization of marijuana and so on.
I assume they don't want to waste political capital on this issue since it's low priority for them, but I hope whatever they do spend it on is worth it because my apathy for Canadian democracy is at an all time high.
Oh sure, the stupid BC rules ruined it for everyone.
Also, a majority of people didn't want NAFTA or GST at some points, let alone some of the social things like gay marriage.
Quebec is gone and the NDP is basically back to irrelevant third party again. I have no idea what Mulcair's strategy was, centrist for Ontario and like sovereigntist for Quebec? In the end both provinces abandoned the party and they're at where they are at now.
yanipheonu
Member
It's pretty hard to get worked up about any of the spins against at Trudeau. At most, he's done something's that are bad looks, but any politician does that. And I mean, if you know how close Castro was to the Trudeaus it'd be strange for him to not say a good word or two,
The troubles down south certainly soften any blows here. I'll take elbowgate over trump any day.
But yeah, the reluctance at electoral reform is the genuine concern for me. We really need it.
The troubles down south certainly soften any blows here. I'll take elbowgate over trump any day.
But yeah, the reluctance at electoral reform is the genuine concern for me. We really need it.
The Liberals had 3 straight majorities when the vote was split on the right between two right-wing parties. They were downgraded to a minority and then lost 3 straight elections as soon as the two right wing parties merged to form the Conservative Party of Canada.
FPTP is a broken system. I do not support a referendum because the issue will be distorted as it always is. There is a committee. They better take the results of whatever is brought forth seriously. I am somewhat biased in that my stupid region has voted against their better interest in the last three referendums I remember (Transit Expansion, HST, Electoral Reform).
Aren't the Libs at something like 45% in the polls, including 50% in Quebec, which would mean they would sweep the province?
There's not a single sign right now pointing at a conservative government in 2019. It could happen, but I don't know why some of you are acting like it's an inevitability. Both the CPC and the NDP will be lead by relative unknowns, especially the NDP. I don't see a split of the left.
There's not a single sign right now pointing at a conservative government in 2019. It could happen, but I don't know why some of you are acting like it's an inevitability. Both the CPC and the NDP will be lead by relative unknowns, especially the NDP. I don't see a split of the left.
gutter_trash
Banned
I love Justin, but sometimes his statements are up in the sky sky with fluffy clouds.
He will learn his lesson now that the honeymoon with journalists is over.
you are right about the Saudi king. The House of Sauds are worse, more repressive and exponentially worse.
Heck, the President of France attended Assad's father's funeral in Syria
when it's a dictator who is an ally, things get glossed over just because of being an ally.
you are right in some way about Harper praising the scummy Saudi king
PumpkinSpice
Banned
Turnout is a concern, yeah.
I'm more worried about a referendum campaign turning into a circus. The Conservatives have made it pretty clear where they stand and they have the most to lose. If they turn it up to 11, say Trudeau is trying to rig elections, say that rural representation in Parliament is being robbed, etc etc you could see the ~30% base of the Conservatives show up, a handful of diehard PR single issue voters, and that's it.
Maybe if they could somehow all agree not to campaign like that but... yeah right.
It's not their current state of popularity that's at issue, it's where they'll be in the new year. Everything is coming to a head in the next few weeks. They have to make a bunch of decisions on electoral reform, pipelines and marijuana in a few weeks and it will be difficult to manage these promises without upsetting some people.
The reason why people are still see a Conservative government as a real possibility is because they only lost 200k votes in the last election. They didn't really do that badly all things considered. The Liberals got a great deal of support from new voters, NDP switchers and boosted turnout. It's an unknown as to how stable that new voter support is. What were these voters' top issues? If the Liberals continue to break promises, maybe those new voters could fade away. If they do stay home a Conservative government is a real possibility.
Someone broke into a wildrose office in Edmonton recently and stole a bunch of laptops and probably stole the wildrose membership list while they were at it to.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/a...ter+computers+stolen+from/12442158/story.html
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/a...ter+computers+stolen+from/12442158/story.html
The article says the laptops were 'password protected'. Hopefully that refers to a full disk encryption password, and not a windows password.
Somehow I doubt it refers to full disk encryption.
I think you're forgetting a little something called the Sponsorship Scandal. Martin was on course to win a crushing victory until that happened.
And certainly, merging the two parties made them stronger by eliminating vote-splitting in certain areas. It also carved off parts of the old PC voting base that, 2011 aside, the Tories never got back.
It's every bit as possible that the next Tory leader can't hold the coalition together like Harper did, and does worse than him.
A lot of strings to reply to...
The overall issue with adopting a fiery, Sanders-esque fiery approach is that Canada's electorate is very different than the US. We have a lower GINI number, less extreme poverty, and so on. Both Sanders and Trump capitalized on the 'invisibles' and disaffected -- parts of the electorate who no longer 'mattered' to either party.
Trudeau's victory was won much the same way Harper's victory was won -- by appealing to middle-class voters. The NDP can do that too; hard-left ideals and middle-class populism aren't mutually exclusive.
Like I've mentioned though, a vote for the Liberals may mean a vote for any number of issues that the Liberals campaigned on, which may or may not include electoral reform. Some may have voted for their approach to pipelines, others for the middle-class tax cut, and so on.
The mail-in ballot may be a good idea. Perhaps internet voting as well?
The next CPC leader will definitely not do well in the next election. The party has already bled off a lot of soft-right support to the Liberals.
Not only that, but there are exactly zero constituencies that would be competitive with this rhetoric, full stop. Canada's ridings and demographics are markedly different than the US...
The overall issue with adopting a fiery, Sanders-esque fiery approach is that Canada's electorate is very different than the US. We have a lower GINI number, less extreme poverty, and so on. Both Sanders and Trump capitalized on the 'invisibles' and disaffected -- parts of the electorate who no longer 'mattered' to either party.
Trudeau's victory was won much the same way Harper's victory was won -- by appealing to middle-class voters. The NDP can do that too; hard-left ideals and middle-class populism aren't mutually exclusive.
Like I've mentioned though, a vote for the Liberals may mean a vote for any number of issues that the Liberals campaigned on, which may or may not include electoral reform. Some may have voted for their approach to pipelines, others for the middle-class tax cut, and so on.
The mail-in ballot may be a good idea. Perhaps internet voting as well?
The next CPC leader will definitely not do well in the next election. The party has already bled off a lot of soft-right support to the Liberals.
Not only that, but there are exactly zero constituencies that would be competitive with this rhetoric, full stop. Canada's ridings and demographics are markedly different than the US...
gutter_trash
Banned
some people just voted to stop Harper.
not really about Trudeau's promises, some people just had enough and wanted to throw the bums out.
not really about Trudeau's promises, some people just had enough and wanted to throw the bums out.
gutter_trash
Banned
I think this pisses off Bernier more than it does Leitch,
Bernie wants the CBC to be defended
AuthenticM
Member
Taken to its fairly logical conclusion, this is basically just an argument for deciding everything with a referendum. Representative democracy is entirely based on the idea of broad sets of mandates.
Honestly, this argument for this particular issue kind of pisses me off. The status quo is deeply problematic from a franchise perspective, causing the biggest problems for minority voices and groups that simply can't compete in a referendum. This is *exactly* the sort of thing that we're supposed to convince and then defer to a deliberative body about, because if you put it down to a simple majoritarian decision, the majority-favouring status quo will always win.
People's attitudes towards this are utterly ass-backwards.
Actually, to put this as blunt as possible: If people who hold an outsize amount of power in the electoral system don't want to change to a system that gives a voice to people their power comes at the expense of, I'll fiddle on a tiny little violin for them.
I know this will be a popular idea here, but I'm not really about it. Whenever the government spends money in one place they're not spending the money somewhere else they could have spent it. And I do support the CBC, but they're doing a fine job as it is and the opportunity cost of spending this money to remove ads probably isn't worth it.
Jeez, Some CBC commenters really hate the CBC...
I don't see this as a very good idea. I'm not watching much of either the English or French side. If they could have shows on the quality level of the BBC maybe (19-2 was great though).
I get the logic that with a constant funding they could work on quality shows instead of popular shows to sell ads but the question would be if they could really deliver.
For the record though: I'm actually pro-electoral reform without the referendum, but I always entertain the counter-argument of why a referendum can be justified or why a direct-democratic approach may be necessary for certain policies.
Insofar as majority power is concerned, I'm not sure if I share the same viewpoints regarding minority power in government: oppositions have always held the government's feet to the fire, majority or minority; media and news outlets are good checks on government power; and lastly, activism, demonstration, and protests are often stronger than government policy.
To be a little off-topic, I don't feel pure PR is the panacea for democratic societies. I can point to examples such as Germany, Israel, and so forth that have had coalition governments for extremely long periods of time -- where the leading party has always been the same, with slightly different faces at the table. Democratic renewal is essential to avoid stagnation, which is why I've always supported some sort of mixed electoral system, combining both individual candidates and party lists.
The only problem with adopting the BBC model is that the CBC does not have the amount or level of editorial/creative output as their UK counterparts... (edit) It's the same reason why the PBS/NPR funding model won't work up here either.
Silent Chief
Member
The electorate understands just fine.
An MP in a rural area is not the same as an MP in a big city.
My father was mayor of a small town for over a decade and most of his time was spent harassing the MPs to get things done. Over time, his riding has gotten huge which as a result makes the MP less effective as he spends more time traveling.
So the idea of mucking with the selection of that MP just to elect more MPs from fringe parties in an effort to undermine the day to day operation of a Parliament makes little sense.
In our system, a Parliament who doesn't work means more frequent elections. Which means more campaigning and more fund raising by parties, which is the root cause of corruption.
The devil is in the details and a referendum wouldn't include any.
Silent Chief
Member
Sounds interesting, but I don't think it would work.
So what, just dead air at the end of a show until the next one starts?
You Are Viewtiful
Member
I would rather a leftist voice in the NDP instead of Liberal-lite. On the other hand, there's nothing to suggest it wouldn't turn out more like Jeremy Corbyn as opposed to... well, I can't think a successful left wing populist lol, but Bernie Sanders came to mind.
I certainly love the irony of people with hundreds/thousands of posts on CBC.ca calling for its dismantling. Where will they migrate next?
The next place on the master list. Dasvidaniya.
Nah, I think most of them are just regular miserable SOBs with a need to vent somewhere because even their wives can no longer tolerate their constant whining.
A lot of 'em, probably.
killer rin
Member
So, the first round of Automated Vehicles have taken to the road in Ontario. It's taken far too long for this to happen. Being in the Cold North, we should be one of the top contributors, especially considering the tough problems the northern climate can bring
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/automated-vehicles-1.3870605
They need to bring it to Edmonton, with its terrible roads and snow*.
* We haven't had snow stay on the ground for more than a week this year and it's already November...
I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not talking specifically about minority governments and coalitions, though I do also consider those important aspects of why PR is better.
I'm talking about minority voices *even getting to the table*. Electing representatives who have any reason to listen to them and give a shit what they say. The fact that majorities become more difficult is only a side effect of a diversification of the voices represented.
I don't really understand why I have to keep saying this, but no one is or will ever seriously propose a straight PR system for Canada. It's a non-starter. It's arguably a non-starter anywhere but jurisdictions small enough that STV and pure PR are essentially the same thing. MMP and STV are the only real options for a proportional system. When people say PR with no qualification, they are talking about one of these, and not Israel's disaster (though a big part of that is their low seat threshold as well).
matthewwhatever
Member
The outrage around Trudeau's statement is pure partisan nonsense. To your exact point: find a single Conservative who objected when Harper said this about the death of Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz.
I think Scott Reid (former Martin speechwriter) nailed it when he called it the rise of crybaby conservatism:
Scott Reid said:
Angus' French is pretty atrocious. I've heard some people say it's improved a little, but it's still bad, and certainly nowhere near good enough to help them hang on to their Quebec seats. He's well behind Julian and Ashton.
This is a selective reading of history. They also won those majorities because the NDP were basically wiped out in 1993, and didn't recover until Layton became leader a decade later. That's how it's been for most of the last 60 years - for the Liberals to win, it doesn't matter if the "right" is united or not, it matters if the NDP is siphoning votes off their left.
Which is why I actually agree with most of this:
I think Tik overstates some things -- odds are, most people won't remember what happened three years before an election -- but the Liberals need to be wary of anything that could depress voter turnout in 2019. It's a long way off now, and they look like they're in a good position, but it's impossible to say what could happen between now and then.
(Personally, I doubt that electoral reform changes many, if any, voters from the Liberal column, but you never know. I may just be projecting my own biases on to the electorate -- much like pro-reform people, who seem to think there's a massive groundswell of support for MMP that's just never manifested itself.)
I mean, I'm obviously not a conservative, but is it ok if I find both kind of gross?
It's one thing for PET to have been buddy buddy with Castro when people in the west were somewhat more ignorant of what was going on behind the communist curtains, but it's not really the same anymore. To me it's just an example of how Trudeau in some ways represents the continuation of traditional power politics, even if he is sympathetic to dictators on the other side of things than Conservatives.Buba Big Guns
Banned
Yup, supporting the Saudis and their piece of shit kings is way worse than Castro. It's not really even close actually. The CPC are being a bunch of hypocritical crybabies.
I think the conservative crybaby label is actually quite accurate given the political atmosphere worldwide. Much better than the 'outrage politics' founded in the Nixon/Reagan days...
TemplaerDude
Member
Anyone watching the press conference? I can't listen in, would love to know what the decision on the pipelines are!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked