Disagree politely, don't break the edict, don't be a sneaky douchebag and try and provoke people. If the fact that this thread had to be locked while the American political threads were mostly behaving themselves doesn't shame you all you're probably not really Canadian
"Canada's lawmakers do not have a duty to consult with Indigenous people before introducing legislation that might affect constitutionally protected Indigenous and treaty rights, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday."
I get the argument for expediency and that courts/other entities should not interfere with the legislative process but it just seems like we'll continue to put the burden on indigenous groups to fight every shit law/decision that happens at great cost (time & money).
"Canada's lawmakers do not have a duty to consult with Indigenous people before introducing legislation that might affect constitutionally protected Indigenous and treaty rights, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday."
I get the argument for expediency and that courts/other entities should not interfere with the legislative process but it just seems like we'll continue to put the burden on indigenous groups to fight every shit law/decision that happens at great cost (time & money).
I am not sure how I feel about that, do the courts have to consult with public when making changes to what will effect us constitutionally? Even if they don’t I still think perhaps it would be a good idea to do so in this case as this is one group that always get the shaft.
From a quick read, this seems like a reasonable decision. Governments, be they federal, provincial, municipal or even first national, don't have to consult those affected before introducing legislation.
It would indeed paralyze everything, since legislation can, potentially, affect the rights and responsibility of everyone in Canada, and a blanket "must consult" obligation that would be effective cannot really have nuance.
That's why everyone is expected to go through the courts in that situation, which can deal with that nuance.
This is not to say that consultations should not occur as needed, it's just that the level of government in question get to decide who is affected, and who should be consulted.
From a quick read, this seems like a reasonable decision. Governments, be they federal, provincial, municipal or even first national, don't have to consult those affected before introducing legislation.
It would indeed paralyze everything, since legislation can, potentially, affect the rights and responsibility of everyone in Canada, and a blanket "must consult" obligation that would be effective cannot really have nuance.
That's why everyone is expected to go through the courts in that situation, which can deal with that nuance.
This is not to say that consultations should not occur as needed, it's just that the level of government in question get to decide who is affected, and who should be consulted.
That's how I interpreted it as well. Governments should consult interested parties before passing laws, but they do not have a duty to consult everyone before passing laws.
+5
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Yea, there was no way the Court was going to read this kind of judicial review into the legislative process to this degree. And that's before getting into the giant loopholes that would be created (ie- government legislation would require consultation, but private member's bills would not).
Eh, I was more surprised with the increased frequency of posts with which that conversation that got the thread locked happened, I went to work to with a quiet thread and returned to over 100 posts and a lock from the tag team of Bogart and Geth.
Its not that the discussion of how hardliners can change the direction on the rudder of a very big Party's ship isn't an important discussion, its just that I guess we're going to have to address the Speaker of the House a bit to have that discussion.
Personally, given my own voting past on Vancouver Island, I think we're going to have to get rid of FPTP and go PR so a place like here is better represented in its ridings which I found highlighted in a reddit post of all places:
In the 2017 election, the BC Liberals took 20 of 24 seats in the Interior and northern B.C. The result raised concerns that the region would not have a real voice in the NDP government.
Vancouver Island + Greater Victoria has 14 ridings. As time goes by it's leaning more NDP: (NDP-Lib-Grn)
So yeah, most of the Island has not had an active voice in favour of our interests for a number of Liberal terms. Clark even said as much when she came through looking for votes last year, saying that isn't it a shame there hasn't been anyone in the governing party advocating for the region.
PR, as applied to this latest election, would have possibly seen 3-2-2 in the north island, and 3-2-2 in Greater Vic.
All this to say, PR gives everyone in BC a much better chance to get actual representation at the intersection of their region, and the party forming government, and thus having a voice, however imperfect.
This means accepting that some of our fellow Canadians are going to be hosers about it, forming ultra-this-or-that parties, that the rest of us can protest if a government coalition is foolish enough to include that party in the coalition. Otherwise, its accepting that FPTP means the ultras get to be a part of the rudder of a bigger party (which is just a coalition formed before an election rather than after really) within FPTP and I am not cool with that.
I've said it before but you need a party to WIN the election using FPTP then decide to change it.
I don't see that happening. We can look at the current liberals as a prime example of that.
Disco11 on
PSN: Canadian_llama
+3
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
I dunno. I feel like if the NDP had won last go around it would have absolutely been in their best interest to reform. The Lib and PCP are the only ones that actually benefit from the current system, and we're not such a 2-horse country that it's impossible to elect someone else.
It seemed a lot like something Trudeau wanted but couldn't get his party on board with. He had enough personal power to force them to make a committee but not to force the changes through. When the committee couldn't agree (likely by design from part members of all parties), he was forced to walk away from it or lose significant influence within the party.
I've said it before but you need a party to WIN the election using FPTP then decide to change it.
I don't see that happening. We can look at the current liberals as a prime example of that.
Eh, I don't buy that. I think if the other parties had actually signed on to a specific plan, or even if just the NDP had, they'd have done it.
But no one wanted to agree on what the new system should look like so the Liberals just walked away from it.
I really don't see how that has anything to do with it. We elected a Majority government that ran on changing FPTP as a core part of their platform and they chose not to change it....
Why do you think someone else would do differently?
I think it is inarguably more representative as you end up with the winner being the person who best represents a wide range of desires, rather than a vocal but potentially extreme minority, but I will agree it is not necessarily more proportional. That just demonstrates that representation is not necessarily tied to proportionality.
I've said it before but you need a party to WIN the election using FPTP then decide to change it.
I don't see that happening. We can look at the current liberals as a prime example of that.
Eh, I don't buy that. I think if the other parties had actually signed on to a specific plan, or even if just the NDP had, they'd have done it.
But no one wanted to agree on what the new system should look like so the Liberals just walked away from it.
I really don't see how that has anything to do with it. We elected a Majority government that ran on changing FPTP as a core part of their platform and they chose not to change it....
Why do you think someone else would do differently?
They chose not to change it because none of the parties could agree on what it should look like post change. With most seemingly jockeying for whatever system most benefited themselves.
Before the commission even really began there were cries of the Liberals "stacking the deck" and the like because they had a majority on the committee based on their electoral performance, and so it was changed. And that complaint was, you know, exactly the kind of thing that would also apply to the even more important action of actually changing the voting system.
The liberals were totally willing to change the system but they weren't willing to do it unilaterally.
I think it is inarguably more representative as you end up with the winner being the person who best represents a wide range of desires, rather than a vocal but potentially extreme minority, but I will agree it is not necessarily more proportional. That just demonstrates that representation is not necessarily tied to proportionality.
Per riding IRV is only more representative if you don't care which party gets to pass laws. My MNA is from the PLQ, which is completely irrelevant given that the CAQ is going to be writing the laws.
Yeah the electoral reform stuff kind of requires buy-in from more than just the party in power if you legitimately don't want it to be perceived as an antidemocratic power group
I think it is inarguably more representative as you end up with the winner being the person who best represents a wide range of desires, rather than a vocal but potentially extreme minority, but I will agree it is not necessarily more proportional. That just demonstrates that representation is not necessarily tied to proportionality.
Per riding IRV is only more representative if you don't care which party gets to pass laws. My MNA is from the PLQ, which is completely irrelevant given that the CAQ is going to be writing the laws.
No, it's still more representative period since it removes the spoiler effect. It is not, perhaps, as representative as one might like but it's still more so then the current system. Also better.
I think it is inarguably more representative as you end up with the winner being the person who best represents a wide range of desires, rather than a vocal but potentially extreme minority, but I will agree it is not necessarily more proportional. That just demonstrates that representation is not necessarily tied to proportionality.
Per riding IRV is only more representative if you don't care which party gets to pass laws. My MNA is from the PLQ, which is completely irrelevant given that the CAQ is going to be writing the laws.
No, it's still more representative period since it removes the spoiler effect. It is not, perhaps, as representative as one might like but it's still more so then the current system. Also better.
At this point, Thunderdoming the candidates would be better than FPTP, so it's not a great feat.
IRV simply does the strategic voting people should be doing anyway. Granted, this remove uncertainty from the voting.
I think it is inarguably more representative as you end up with the winner being the person who best represents a wide range of desires, rather than a vocal but potentially extreme minority, but I will agree it is not necessarily more proportional. That just demonstrates that representation is not necessarily tied to proportionality.
Per riding IRV is only more representative if you don't care which party gets to pass laws. My MNA is from the PLQ, which is completely irrelevant given that the CAQ is going to be writing the laws.
No, it's still more representative period since it removes the spoiler effect. It is not, perhaps, as representative as one might like but it's still more so then the current system. Also better.
At this point, Thunderdoming the candidates would be better than FPTP, so it's not a great feat.
IRV simply does the strategic voting people should be doing anyway. Granted, this remove uncertainty from the voting.
IRV does a lot simply by removing the spoiler effect. That's HUGE for representation.
I've said it before but you need a party to WIN the election using FPTP then decide to change it.
I don't see that happening. We can look at the current liberals as a prime example of that.
Eh, I don't buy that. I think if the other parties had actually signed on to a specific plan, or even if just the NDP had, they'd have done it.
But no one wanted to agree on what the new system should look like so the Liberals just walked away from it.
I really don't see how that has anything to do with it. We elected a Majority government that ran on changing FPTP as a core part of their platform and they chose not to change it....
Why do you think someone else would do differently?
They chose not to change it because none of the parties could agree on what it should look like post change. With most seemingly jockeying for whatever system most benefited themselves.
Before the commission even really began there were cries of the Liberals "stacking the deck" and the like because they had a majority on the committee based on their electoral performance, and so it was changed. And that complaint was, you know, exactly the kind of thing that would also apply to the even more important action of actually changing the voting system.
The liberals were totally willing to change the system but they weren't willing to do it unilaterally.
We voted in majority government.... If they wanted to be changed they could and should have since they ran on that platform. We have votes in the house of commons for this exact reason.
By this logic, it will never change since you will never get the other parties to agree on a system.
I agree with Shryke that the Libs were willing to do it but balked at doing it with their majority power outright.
I think this was a stupid ass decision but here we are.
It would be nice if there was ongoing talks amongst the parties, even if just the NDP and Libs on what system to choose to be more representative of the country. Flipping back to a conservative government who earned 39% of the vote isn't something that should happen.
How can we get a right leaning party to moderate if they can achieve power with a small, active, base?
I wouldn't change my behaviour if it was working...
While I really wanted electoral reform and was very disappointed that we didn't get it, I also think Trudeau made the right call if the parties couldn't reach any sort of agreement. The last thing you want to do is set a precedent that the voting system is going to be drastically changed every time a different party takes power.
Meanwhile a Conservative majority government would have rammed in whatever the fuck they wanted under the guise of "a majority means we have a mandate".
I've said it before but you need a party to WIN the election using FPTP then decide to change it.
I don't see that happening. We can look at the current liberals as a prime example of that.
Eh, I don't buy that. I think if the other parties had actually signed on to a specific plan, or even if just the NDP had, they'd have done it.
But no one wanted to agree on what the new system should look like so the Liberals just walked away from it.
I really don't see how that has anything to do with it. We elected a Majority government that ran on changing FPTP as a core part of their platform and they chose not to change it....
Why do you think someone else would do differently?
They chose not to change it because none of the parties could agree on what it should look like post change. With most seemingly jockeying for whatever system most benefited themselves.
Before the commission even really began there were cries of the Liberals "stacking the deck" and the like because they had a majority on the committee based on their electoral performance, and so it was changed. And that complaint was, you know, exactly the kind of thing that would also apply to the even more important action of actually changing the voting system.
The liberals were totally willing to change the system but they weren't willing to do it unilaterally.
We voted in majority government.... If they wanted to be changed they could and should have since they ran on that platform. We have votes in the house of commons for this exact reason.
By this logic, it will never change since you will never get the other parties to agree on a system.
Just getting a majority doesn't mean you get to change the way elections are held unilaterally. That's literally a fascist takeover move. Zero exaggeration here. Get a majority and then enshrine yourself permanent majority rule is page 1 of the modern fascist takeover. We should be staying the hell away from that shit.
Forbearance is a big part of a stable democracy. Just cause you can doesn't mean you should.
I've said it before but you need a party to WIN the election using FPTP then decide to change it.
I don't see that happening. We can look at the current liberals as a prime example of that.
Eh, I don't buy that. I think if the other parties had actually signed on to a specific plan, or even if just the NDP had, they'd have done it.
But no one wanted to agree on what the new system should look like so the Liberals just walked away from it.
I really don't see how that has anything to do with it. We elected a Majority government that ran on changing FPTP as a core part of their platform and they chose not to change it....
Why do you think someone else would do differently?
They chose not to change it because none of the parties could agree on what it should look like post change. With most seemingly jockeying for whatever system most benefited themselves.
Before the commission even really began there were cries of the Liberals "stacking the deck" and the like because they had a majority on the committee based on their electoral performance, and so it was changed. And that complaint was, you know, exactly the kind of thing that would also apply to the even more important action of actually changing the voting system.
The liberals were totally willing to change the system but they weren't willing to do it unilaterally.
We voted in majority government.... If they wanted to be changed they could and should have since they ran on that platform. We have votes in the house of commons for this exact reason.
By this logic, it will never change since you will never get the other parties to agree on a system.
Just getting a majority doesn't mean you get to change the way elections are held unilaterally. That's literally a fascist takeover move. Zero exaggeration here. Get a majority and then enshrine yourself permanent majority rule is page 1 of the modern fascist takeover. We should be staying the hell away from that shit.
Forbearance is a big part of a stable democracy. Just cause you can doesn't mean you should.
Why does that only seem to apply to the left or center?
Things will literally never change so why bother even talking about election reform then? This was literally our best chance and it was squandered because the liberals could not get the other parties to agree on the reform that benefited them the most. If they went with the NDP's proposal we could have made it work.
Pretty sure most people in here weren't too happy about Harper unilaterally changing the election financing laws, which is minor compared to changing how people vote.
If you want that sort of thing to stick you need more buy-in. I don't think the Liberals went about it in the best possible way this time around, but I don't think that going full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes would have been a wise move.
I've said it before but you need a party to WIN the election using FPTP then decide to change it.
I don't see that happening. We can look at the current liberals as a prime example of that.
Eh, I don't buy that. I think if the other parties had actually signed on to a specific plan, or even if just the NDP had, they'd have done it.
But no one wanted to agree on what the new system should look like so the Liberals just walked away from it.
I really don't see how that has anything to do with it. We elected a Majority government that ran on changing FPTP as a core part of their platform and they chose not to change it....
Why do you think someone else would do differently?
They chose not to change it because none of the parties could agree on what it should look like post change. With most seemingly jockeying for whatever system most benefited themselves.
Before the commission even really began there were cries of the Liberals "stacking the deck" and the like because they had a majority on the committee based on their electoral performance, and so it was changed. And that complaint was, you know, exactly the kind of thing that would also apply to the even more important action of actually changing the voting system.
The liberals were totally willing to change the system but they weren't willing to do it unilaterally.
We voted in majority government.... If they wanted to be changed they could and should have since they ran on that platform. We have votes in the house of commons for this exact reason.
By this logic, it will never change since you will never get the other parties to agree on a system.
Just getting a majority doesn't mean you get to change the way elections are held unilaterally. That's literally a fascist takeover move. Zero exaggeration here. Get a majority and then enshrine yourself permanent majority rule is page 1 of the modern fascist takeover. We should be staying the hell away from that shit.
Forbearance is a big part of a stable democracy. Just cause you can doesn't mean you should.
Why does that only seem to apply to the left or center?
Things will literally never change so why bother even talking about election reform then? This was literally our best chance and it was squandered because the liberals could not get the other parties to agree on the reform that benefited them the most. If they went with the NDP's proposal we could have made it work.
And so it goes....
Because the conservatives are pieces of shit who don't really believe in democracy?
The Liberals and the NDP needed to get their heads in the fucking game and find a compromise solution they could both back. But as usual they are too interested in fighting one another.
Can we not do the super broad generalizations again?
When the shoe stops fitting, sure.
It ain't like the Harper years were that long ago or like they aren't trying the same playbook again here, which is literally what started the whole conversation.
They lost to Trudeau but they didn't actually change their policies or strategies at all.
I've said it before but you need a party to WIN the election using FPTP then decide to change it.
I don't see that happening. We can look at the current liberals as a prime example of that.
Eh, I don't buy that. I think if the other parties had actually signed on to a specific plan, or even if just the NDP had, they'd have done it.
But no one wanted to agree on what the new system should look like so the Liberals just walked away from it.
I really don't see how that has anything to do with it. We elected a Majority government that ran on changing FPTP as a core part of their platform and they chose not to change it....
Why do you think someone else would do differently?
They chose not to change it because none of the parties could agree on what it should look like post change. With most seemingly jockeying for whatever system most benefited themselves.
Before the commission even really began there were cries of the Liberals "stacking the deck" and the like because they had a majority on the committee based on their electoral performance, and so it was changed. And that complaint was, you know, exactly the kind of thing that would also apply to the even more important action of actually changing the voting system.
The liberals were totally willing to change the system but they weren't willing to do it unilaterally.
We voted in majority government.... If they wanted to be changed they could and should have since they ran on that platform. We have votes in the house of commons for this exact reason.
By this logic, it will never change since you will never get the other parties to agree on a system.
Just getting a majority doesn't mean you get to change the way elections are held unilaterally. That's literally a fascist takeover move. Zero exaggeration here. Get a majority and then enshrine yourself permanent majority rule is page 1 of the modern fascist takeover. We should be staying the hell away from that shit.
Forbearance is a big part of a stable democracy. Just cause you can doesn't mean you should.
Why does that only seem to apply to the left or center?
Things will literally never change so why bother even talking about election reform then? This was literally our best chance and it was squandered because the liberals could not get the other parties to agree on the reform that benefited them the most. If they went with the NDP's proposal we could have made it work.
And so it goes....
Because the conservatives are pieces of shit who don't really believe in democracy?
The Liberals and the NDP needed to get their heads in the fucking game and find a compromise solution they could both back. But as usual they are too interested in fighting one another.
So that leaves us screwed and possibly in a USA style position after the next election.
Super happy those principles are working for us..... Forgive me if I am disappointed that the party I elected in large part to get rid of FPTP decided that compromise was not worth the possible loss of votes.
@shryke the reality is someone is going to have to make some tough choices and have some political will to ever get that changed and the Liberals have proven by their actions that they are not the party to do so. This is not hyperbole they literally chose to do nothing.
I've said it before but you need a party to WIN the election using FPTP then decide to change it.
I don't see that happening. We can look at the current liberals as a prime example of that.
Eh, I don't buy that. I think if the other parties had actually signed on to a specific plan, or even if just the NDP had, they'd have done it.
But no one wanted to agree on what the new system should look like so the Liberals just walked away from it.
I really don't see how that has anything to do with it. We elected a Majority government that ran on changing FPTP as a core part of their platform and they chose not to change it....
Why do you think someone else would do differently?
They chose not to change it because none of the parties could agree on what it should look like post change. With most seemingly jockeying for whatever system most benefited themselves.
Before the commission even really began there were cries of the Liberals "stacking the deck" and the like because they had a majority on the committee based on their electoral performance, and so it was changed. And that complaint was, you know, exactly the kind of thing that would also apply to the even more important action of actually changing the voting system.
The liberals were totally willing to change the system but they weren't willing to do it unilaterally.
We voted in majority government.... If they wanted to be changed they could and should have since they ran on that platform. We have votes in the house of commons for this exact reason.
By this logic, it will never change since you will never get the other parties to agree on a system.
Just getting a majority doesn't mean you get to change the way elections are held unilaterally. That's literally a fascist takeover move. Zero exaggeration here. Get a majority and then enshrine yourself permanent majority rule is page 1 of the modern fascist takeover. We should be staying the hell away from that shit.
Forbearance is a big part of a stable democracy. Just cause you can doesn't mean you should.
Why does that only seem to apply to the left or center?
Things will literally never change so why bother even talking about election reform then? This was literally our best chance and it was squandered because the liberals could not get the other parties to agree on the reform that benefited them the most. If they went with the NDP's proposal we could have made it work.
And so it goes....
Because the conservatives are pieces of shit who don't really believe in democracy?
The Liberals and the NDP needed to get their heads in the fucking game and find a compromise solution they could both back. But as usual they are too interested in fighting one another.
So that leaves us screwed and possibly in a USA style position after the next election.
Super happy those principles are working for us..... Forgive me if I am disappointed that the party I elected in large part to get rid of FPTP decided that compromise was not worth the possible loss of votes.
shryke the reality is someone is going to have to make some tough choices and have some political will to ever get that changed and the Liberals have proven by their actions that they are not the party to do so. This is not hyperbole they literally chose to do nothing.
The principles of not unilaterally changing the rules of democracy? Yeah, that seems pretty solid.
Maybe you should be asking the left and centre to get stop their stupid bickering and actually try and improve the system rather then some anti-democratic bullshit.
I agree with Shryke on this, if you think an coalition government brought out the coup screams from conservatives just imagine changing the voting system without rigging it in their favour.
I've said it before but you need a party to WIN the election using FPTP then decide to change it.
I don't see that happening. We can look at the current liberals as a prime example of that.
Eh, I don't buy that. I think if the other parties had actually signed on to a specific plan, or even if just the NDP had, they'd have done it.
But no one wanted to agree on what the new system should look like so the Liberals just walked away from it.
I really don't see how that has anything to do with it. We elected a Majority government that ran on changing FPTP as a core part of their platform and they chose not to change it....
Why do you think someone else would do differently?
They chose not to change it because none of the parties could agree on what it should look like post change. With most seemingly jockeying for whatever system most benefited themselves.
Before the commission even really began there were cries of the Liberals "stacking the deck" and the like because they had a majority on the committee based on their electoral performance, and so it was changed. And that complaint was, you know, exactly the kind of thing that would also apply to the even more important action of actually changing the voting system.
The liberals were totally willing to change the system but they weren't willing to do it unilaterally.
We voted in majority government.... If they wanted to be changed they could and should have since they ran on that platform. We have votes in the house of commons for this exact reason.
By this logic, it will never change since you will never get the other parties to agree on a system.
Just getting a majority doesn't mean you get to change the way elections are held unilaterally. That's literally a fascist takeover move. Zero exaggeration here. Get a majority and then enshrine yourself permanent majority rule is page 1 of the modern fascist takeover. We should be staying the hell away from that shit.
Forbearance is a big part of a stable democracy. Just cause you can doesn't mean you should.
Why does that only seem to apply to the left or center?
Things will literally never change so why bother even talking about election reform then? This was literally our best chance and it was squandered because the liberals could not get the other parties to agree on the reform that benefited them the most. If they went with the NDP's proposal we could have made it work.
And so it goes....
Because the conservatives are pieces of shit who don't really believe in democracy?
The Liberals and the NDP needed to get their heads in the fucking game and find a compromise solution they could both back. But as usual they are too interested in fighting one another.
So that leaves us screwed and possibly in a USA style position after the next election.
Super happy those principles are working for us..... Forgive me if I am disappointed that the party I elected in large part to get rid of FPTP decided that compromise was not worth the possible loss of votes.
shryke the reality is someone is going to have to make some tough choices and have some political will to ever get that changed and the Liberals have proven by their actions that they are not the party to do so. This is not hyperbole they literally chose to do nothing.
The principles of not unilaterally changing the rules of democracy? Yeah, that seems pretty solid.
Maybe you should be asking the left and centre to get stop their stupid bickering and actually try and improve the system rather then some anti-democratic bullshit.
The liberals RAN on eliminating FPTP.... How exactly would it be undemocratic to do it? If this was a surprise they pulled out of their hat I would get your point but they got votes from many people (including myself) for that exact reason.
If nothing else, we can all move to PEI after their election next year. In addition to their regular election, they'll simultaneously be holding a referendum on switching to a Mixed Member Proportional system. It seems like there's at least a chance of it passing too.
Posts
Geth, close the thread.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Disagree politely, don't break the edict, don't be a sneaky douchebag and try and provoke people. If the fact that this thread had to be locked while the American political threads were mostly behaving themselves doesn't shame you all you're probably not really Canadian
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-indigenous-rights-consultation-parliament-1.4858321
"Canada's lawmakers do not have a duty to consult with Indigenous people before introducing legislation that might affect constitutionally protected Indigenous and treaty rights, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday."
I get the argument for expediency and that courts/other entities should not interfere with the legislative process but it just seems like we'll continue to put the burden on indigenous groups to fight every shit law/decision that happens at great cost (time & money).
I am not sure how I feel about that, do the courts have to consult with public when making changes to what will effect us constitutionally? Even if they don’t I still think perhaps it would be a good idea to do so in this case as this is one group that always get the shaft.
We can do better.
Yea we fight about ketchup chips, Hawaiian pizza and regional terms for hoodies.
It would indeed paralyze everything, since legislation can, potentially, affect the rights and responsibility of everyone in Canada, and a blanket "must consult" obligation that would be effective cannot really have nuance.
That's why everyone is expected to go through the courts in that situation, which can deal with that nuance.
This is not to say that consultations should not occur as needed, it's just that the level of government in question get to decide who is affected, and who should be consulted.
That's how I interpreted it as well. Governments should consult interested parties before passing laws, but they do not have a duty to consult everyone before passing laws.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
I think you meant bunnyhugs.
Its not that the discussion of how hardliners can change the direction on the rudder of a very big Party's ship isn't an important discussion, its just that I guess we're going to have to address the Speaker of the House a bit to have that discussion.
Personally, given my own voting past on Vancouver Island, I think we're going to have to get rid of FPTP and go PR so a place like here is better represented in its ridings which I found highlighted in a reddit post of all places:
This means accepting that some of our fellow Canadians are going to be hosers about it, forming ultra-this-or-that parties, that the rest of us can protest if a government coalition is foolish enough to include that party in the coalition. Otherwise, its accepting that FPTP means the ultras get to be a part of the rudder of a bigger party (which is just a coalition formed before an election rather than after really) within FPTP and I am not cool with that.
I don't see that happening. We can look at the current liberals as a prime example of that.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
Eh, I don't buy that. I think if the other parties had actually signed on to a specific plan, or even if just the NDP had, they'd have done it.
But no one wanted to agree on what the new system should look like so the Liberals just walked away from it.
I really don't see how that has anything to do with it. We elected a Majority government that ran on changing FPTP as a core part of their platform and they chose not to change it....
Why do you think someone else would do differently?
They chose not to change it because none of the parties could agree on what it should look like post change. With most seemingly jockeying for whatever system most benefited themselves.
Before the commission even really began there were cries of the Liberals "stacking the deck" and the like because they had a majority on the committee based on their electoral performance, and so it was changed. And that complaint was, you know, exactly the kind of thing that would also apply to the even more important action of actually changing the voting system.
The liberals were totally willing to change the system but they weren't willing to do it unilaterally.
No, it's still more representative period since it removes the spoiler effect. It is not, perhaps, as representative as one might like but it's still more so then the current system. Also better.
IRV simply does the strategic voting people should be doing anyway. Granted, this remove uncertainty from the voting.
IRV does a lot simply by removing the spoiler effect. That's HUGE for representation.
We voted in majority government.... If they wanted to be changed they could and should have since they ran on that platform. We have votes in the house of commons for this exact reason.
By this logic, it will never change since you will never get the other parties to agree on a system.
I think this was a stupid ass decision but here we are.
It would be nice if there was ongoing talks amongst the parties, even if just the NDP and Libs on what system to choose to be more representative of the country. Flipping back to a conservative government who earned 39% of the vote isn't something that should happen.
How can we get a right leaning party to moderate if they can achieve power with a small, active, base?
I wouldn't change my behaviour if it was working...
Just getting a majority doesn't mean you get to change the way elections are held unilaterally. That's literally a fascist takeover move. Zero exaggeration here. Get a majority and then enshrine yourself permanent majority rule is page 1 of the modern fascist takeover. We should be staying the hell away from that shit.
Forbearance is a big part of a stable democracy. Just cause you can doesn't mean you should.
Why does that only seem to apply to the left or center?
Things will literally never change so why bother even talking about election reform then? This was literally our best chance and it was squandered because the liberals could not get the other parties to agree on the reform that benefited them the most. If they went with the NDP's proposal we could have made it work.
And so it goes....
If you want that sort of thing to stick you need more buy-in. I don't think the Liberals went about it in the best possible way this time around, but I don't think that going full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes would have been a wise move.
Because the conservatives are pieces of shit who don't really believe in democracy?
The Liberals and the NDP needed to get their heads in the fucking game and find a compromise solution they could both back. But as usual they are too interested in fighting one another.
When the shoe stops fitting, sure.
It ain't like the Harper years were that long ago or like they aren't trying the same playbook again here, which is literally what started the whole conversation.
They lost to Trudeau but they didn't actually change their policies or strategies at all.
So that leaves us screwed and possibly in a USA style position after the next election.
Super happy those principles are working for us..... Forgive me if I am disappointed that the party I elected in large part to get rid of FPTP decided that compromise was not worth the possible loss of votes.
@shryke the reality is someone is going to have to make some tough choices and have some political will to ever get that changed and the Liberals have proven by their actions that they are not the party to do so. This is not hyperbole they literally chose to do nothing.
The principles of not unilaterally changing the rules of democracy? Yeah, that seems pretty solid.
Maybe you should be asking the left and centre to get stop their stupid bickering and actually try and improve the system rather then some anti-democratic bullshit.
The liberals RAN on eliminating FPTP.... How exactly would it be undemocratic to do it? If this was a surprise they pulled out of their hat I would get your point but they got votes from many people (including myself) for that exact reason.
Your argument does not hold water.
https://globalnews.ca/news/2057052/trudeau-to-unveil-plan-to-restore-democracy/