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.
No dude. Your entire argument literally contradicts itself.
- You are mad at the current system because it doesn't provide good representation and allows parties with minority levels of support to win majorities, sometimes large ones, in parliament and just in general allows political power via seat counts that are not representative of the actual votes cast by the electorate
- So your solution is to demand that a government that won just under 40% of votes to unilaterally change that system
- Based on the idea that they have a mandate based on winning a majority under the system you want to change because it allows parties to win a disproportionate number of seats compared to their actual support
The huge gaping hole in your idea here is really obvious.
shryke on
+4
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
No dude. Your entire argument literally contradicts itself.
- You are mad at the current system because it doesn't provide good representation and allows parties with minority levels of support to win majorities, sometimes large ones, in parliament and just in general allows political power via seat counts that are not representative of the actual votes cast by the electorate
- So your solution is to demand that a government that won just under 40% of votes to unilaterally change that system
- Based on the idea that they have a mandate based on winning a majority under the system you want to change because it allows parties to win a disproportionate number of seats compared to their actual support
The huge gaping hole in your idea here is really obvious.
I want the system changed. I voted for change. The party I voted for and campaigned for said change decided it was not worth the risk in a move of terrible political cowardice because the options on the table were not favorable to their election chances.
Why elect governments at all? What's the point of having a majority if it's not to effect change?
The conservatives changed campaign financing laws that benefit them immensely by allowing more corporate donations and screwing over any minor parties/independents by eliminating per vote subsidies and they did fuck all to consult other parties about it.
I don't want hyperpolarization 'merica style and any sort of other systems would have done huge steps to prevent that. I don't want Prime Minister Kenney or Ford and anything that prevents that is a good thing.
What's your solution? Hope Trudeau grows a spine THIS election? I'm truly at a loss here because you are pushing replacing FPTP without taking into account that literally no one is pushing for it anymore.
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.
Lobster rolls and no FPTP?
Go on...
Also, the only right wing party on the ballot are the pretty moderate PEI PCs.
TubularLuggage on
0
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
It's bold to elect we all move to PEI only days after the climate study. PEI, or New Atlantis? ;P
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.
Lobster rolls and no FPTP?
Go on...
Treif...
0
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
So, with legalization around the corner, now is a good time to remind everyone that it’s not all sunshine and rainbows, and it’s not likely to be such a a while yet.
If you have or know of an unofficial source (or better yet an official one that stores customer data in country, like a friend of mine does), use those until you can safely and legally pay with actual cash. Which is, at least in Ontario, expected sometime in mid 2019 or so.
So, with legalization around the corner, now is a good time to remind everyone that it’s not all sunshine and rainbows, and it’s not likely to be such a a while yet.
If you have or know of an unofficial source (or better yet an official one that stores customer data in country, like a friend of mine does), use those until you can safely and legally pay with actual cash. Which is, at least in Ontario, expected sometime in mid 2019 or so.
US Customs can already deny entry or ban you for little to no reason, afaik.
Unless they actually implement policy saying that all recreational users must be denied entry, I’m not sure what has changed.
And if they are asking about your recreational habits and doing a credit card search, it sounds like they are 3/4 of the way to denying entry even if they find nothing.
Currently visiting my ol' stompin' grounds in Toronto and I can't even tell that legalization is just around the corner. My town in the BC Bible Belt is practically having a pot party while I could barely even find a hint of MJ love in freakin' Kensington Market! I guess they don't call it Toronto the Good for nothing.
Speaking of Toronto, my friends here are telling me about all the extreme right-wing crazies who are crawling out of the woodwork to run for Council. In their ward there's a scared-of-crime, pro-gun, anti-secular Ford ally as one of the major candidates. Reminds me of the election when Rob Ford ran and half the counselor candidates' platforms in my riding read like a screed from the folks in my hometown asking for bus fare near the Greyhound station because they'd been outside in the desert for too long and their brains were kinda fried. I guess if the newly bloated ridings are doing one good thing, it'll be to likely give the extremists less chance of being elected...
Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
0
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
Currently visiting my ol' stompin' grounds in Toronto and I can't even tell that legalization is just around the corner. My town in the BC Bible Belt is practically having a pot party while I could barely even find a hint of MJ love in freakin' Kensington Market! I guess they don't call it Toronto the Good for nothing.
More like Toronto the capital city of the province whose cops are still doing marijuana busts in the last week before legalization.
Really? I was at the Argos game last night and people were smoking a joint walking through Liberty Village towards the GO train pass through to get to BMO Field.
Its not like the city is a hotbed of pot smokers.... but its not as if people are not getting more brazen in recent years.
Really? I was at the Argos game last night and people were smoking a joint walking through Liberty Village smoking a joint towards the GO train pass through to get to BMO Field.
Its not like the city is a hotbed of pot smokers.... but its not as if people are not getting more brazen in recent years.
People were wandering around smoking up before legalization was on the table too. It didn't seem like it was a huge deal.
The americans I went to school with commented on it being way more relaxed then back home for them.
+4
Options
Sir FabulousMalevolent Squid GodRegistered Userregular
Really? I was at the Argos game last night and people were smoking a joint walking through Liberty Village towards the GO train pass through to get to BMO Field.
Its not like the city is a hotbed of pot smokers.... but its not as if people are not getting more brazen in recent years.
Hey I was at the Ticats game last night too! Can confirm people were openly toking up.
They thoroughly checked my bag and made me throw out an almost empty bottle of iced tea though.
I think they go after vendors more because of NIMBYism. Like that time the Liberals wanted to sell pot out of an LCBO store within HALF A KILOMETER of an elementary school and people freaked the fuck out.
Of course now the PCs want businesses to be able to sell pot wherever the fuck they want, and crickets crickets crickets.
This would be my shocked face, if I weren't already laughing from the fact that the Catholic Bishops stated the following:
As for the Catholic bishops, they haven’t changed their minds either.
“We thought we’d be at peace for a while, though we expected this discussion would resurface if the CAQ was elected,” said Germain Tremblay, the lay assistant to the secretary general of the Assemblée des évêques du Québec, and the organization’s spokesperson.
“Our position hasn’t changed. The crucifix for us is not just a heritage object — it’s a sacred religious object that should be in churches or residences for people of the Catholic faith. It’s a symbol of hope in the resurrection and to remind the faithful that there is life after death.”
Tremblay said it was Maurice Duplessis who placed the crucifix in the National Assembly to show the complicity between the church and the state. (Duplessis was very much against secularism.)
“Now in 2018, if Mr. Legault is waiting for the support of the Catholic church he will be disappointed… Politicians put the crucifix there, it’s up to politicians to decide what to do with it,” Tremblay said. “I think we have better things to discuss.”
It's rather obvious to everyone that the CAQ and PQ don't care in the slightness about laicity. It's all about the shock boomers experienced when they realized that culture is not reduced to language.
Turn out that French speaking immigrants are mostly going to come from North Africa, and some of them are not non-practising Catholics.
This should be impossible, since they speak French and everyone speaking the same language obviously have the same culture, but it's happening and they want that to stop happening.
It's kind of weird to see the church calling them on this.
I think the cross being a religious symbol is kinda important for them.
It's like if the government was shitting on LGBT, but excluding bisexuality because bi-erasure and hey they don't count when in hetero relationships, as a bisexual I'd be "hey fuck you we are totally LGBT."
The Catholic Church is very firmly of the opinion that nonpracticing Catholicism is bad, that Quebeckers should be back in church, and that Catholic symbols are obviously Catholic.
Meanwhile, the boomers are ok with Catholic symbols and traditions being everywhere, as long as they don't have to go to church.
I think that as far as the average thought process of the average bozo on the street is, there's next to no difference between culture and religion, or at least one hell of a blurred line. I mean there is when you get down to the fine print of things, but for most people, their religion is their culture, and vice versa.
So I understand where he's coming from when he says it's a "cultural" symbol... to him. But he's dead wrong by saying "So that's why it should remain up". Because it's a defacto religious symbol to the world.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
In the technical sense that religion is a part of culture, yes it is a cultural symbol. In the legal sense, get that shit out of government buildings.
The Catholic Church is very firmly of the opinion that nonpracticing Catholicism is bad, that Quebeckers should be back in church, and that Catholic symbols are obviously Catholic.
Meanwhile, the boomers are ok with Catholic symbols and traditions being everywhere, as long as they don't have to go to church.
To be fair, not wanting to go to church is like the heart and soul of Catholicism.
The Catholic Church is very firmly of the opinion that nonpracticing Catholicism is bad, that Quebeckers should be back in church, and that Catholic symbols are obviously Catholic.
Meanwhile, the boomers are ok with Catholic symbols and traditions being everywhere, as long as they don't have to go to church.
To be fair, not wanting to go to church is like the heart and soul of Catholicism.
Fairly certain that's a rather heretical position. At the very least, you are supposed to go once in a while.
Provincial NDP distances itself from Eve Adams campaign after "Andrea Horvath" endorsement
Ontario's official opposition says Hamilton city council candidate Eve Adams has created confusion by sending out an orange-tinted election mail out with an endorsement from an "Andrea Horvath" — not Andrea Horwath, the leader of the NDP.
Residents started posting online about the mail out on Friday. In a section titled "What our neighbours say" is a quote from "Andrea Horvath" that reads "Eve is the best choice for Ward 8."
What happened you may ask?
Adams maiden name is Horvath, apparently she think someone might care what her family member thinks of her political ability
Obviously, this is a cost cutting measure. Cones storage is expensive!
We use the same technique around here, but it's not as efficient since the municipality trained its employees to start roadworks whenever they see a cone. This might have been a mistake, in retrospect.
Posts
No dude. Your entire argument literally contradicts itself.
- You are mad at the current system because it doesn't provide good representation and allows parties with minority levels of support to win majorities, sometimes large ones, in parliament and just in general allows political power via seat counts that are not representative of the actual votes cast by the electorate
- So your solution is to demand that a government that won just under 40% of votes to unilaterally change that system
- Based on the idea that they have a mandate based on winning a majority under the system you want to change because it allows parties to win a disproportionate number of seats compared to their actual support
The huge gaping hole in your idea here is really obvious.
Lobster rolls and no FPTP?
Go on...
I want the system changed. I voted for change. The party I voted for and campaigned for said change decided it was not worth the risk in a move of terrible political cowardice because the options on the table were not favorable to their election chances.
Why elect governments at all? What's the point of having a majority if it's not to effect change?
The conservatives changed campaign financing laws that benefit them immensely by allowing more corporate donations and screwing over any minor parties/independents by eliminating per vote subsidies and they did fuck all to consult other parties about it.
I don't want hyperpolarization 'merica style and any sort of other systems would have done huge steps to prevent that. I don't want Prime Minister Kenney or Ford and anything that prevents that is a good thing.
What's your solution? Hope Trudeau grows a spine THIS election? I'm truly at a loss here because you are pushing replacing FPTP without taking into account that literally no one is pushing for it anymore.
Also, the only right wing party on the ballot are the pretty moderate PEI PCs.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
Basically, we're all going to move to the tallest building in Charlottetown.
It's three stories, yeah?
I mean, that would just be ridiculo ...
https://www.emporis.com/buildings/1250442/holman-grand-hotel-charlottetown-canada Okay, it might get a bit crowded.
Treif...
If you have or know of an unofficial source (or better yet an official one that stores customer data in country, like a friend of mine does), use those until you can safely and legally pay with actual cash. Which is, at least in Ontario, expected sometime in mid 2019 or so.
https://www.mtlblog.com/news/us-border-officials-can-now-check-canadians-credit-card-history-and-ban-you-for-legal-marijuana-purchases
US Customs can already deny entry or ban you for little to no reason, afaik.
Unless they actually implement policy saying that all recreational users must be denied entry, I’m not sure what has changed.
And if they are asking about your recreational habits and doing a credit card search, it sounds like they are 3/4 of the way to denying entry even if they find nothing.
MWO: Adamski
Speaking of Toronto, my friends here are telling me about all the extreme right-wing crazies who are crawling out of the woodwork to run for Council. In their ward there's a scared-of-crime, pro-gun, anti-secular Ford ally as one of the major candidates. Reminds me of the election when Rob Ford ran and half the counselor candidates' platforms in my riding read like a screed from the folks in my hometown asking for bus fare near the Greyhound station because they'd been outside in the desert for too long and their brains were kinda fried. I guess if the newly bloated ridings are doing one good thing, it'll be to likely give the extremists less chance of being elected...
More like Toronto the capital city of the province whose cops are still doing marijuana busts in the last week before legalization.
Its not like the city is a hotbed of pot smokers.... but its not as if people are not getting more brazen in recent years.
People were wandering around smoking up before legalization was on the table too. It didn't seem like it was a huge deal.
The americans I went to school with commented on it being way more relaxed then back home for them.
Hey I was at the Ticats game last night too! Can confirm people were openly toking up.
They thoroughly checked my bag and made me throw out an almost empty bottle of iced tea though.
Switch Friend Code: SW-1406-1275-7906
Of course now the PCs want businesses to be able to sell pot wherever the fuck they want, and crickets crickets crickets.
Speaking of!
Incoming Quebec premier states crucifix in legislature a cultural symbol, not a religious one
This would be my shocked face, if I weren't already laughing from the fact that the Catholic Bishops stated the following:
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Turn out that French speaking immigrants are mostly going to come from North Africa, and some of them are not non-practising Catholics.
This should be impossible, since they speak French and everyone speaking the same language obviously have the same culture, but it's happening and they want that to stop happening.
I think the cross being a religious symbol is kinda important for them.
It's like if the government was shitting on LGBT, but excluding bisexuality because bi-erasure and hey they don't count when in hetero relationships, as a bisexual I'd be "hey fuck you we are totally LGBT."
Meanwhile, the boomers are ok with Catholic symbols and traditions being everywhere, as long as they don't have to go to church.
I mean, it's sort of an existential question for the Church.
So I understand where he's coming from when he says it's a "cultural" symbol... to him. But he's dead wrong by saying "So that's why it should remain up". Because it's a defacto religious symbol to the world.
To be fair, not wanting to go to church is like the heart and soul of Catholicism.
What happened you may ask?
Adams maiden name is Horvath, apparently she think someone might care what her family member thinks of her political ability
https://www.reddit.com/r/ContagiousLaughter/comments/9o6lhr/the_safest_street_in_the_world/
I actually drove past that over the weekend! There was definitely a moment of, "Wait, how is that still ...".
They have a sale on Cones?
We use the same technique around here, but it's not as efficient since the municipality trained its employees to start roadworks whenever they see a cone. This might have been a mistake, in retrospect.
WoW
Dear Satan.....