Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Canadian Politics] Takin' out the trash to replace it with... whoops.

1454648505160

Posts

  • Descendant XDescendant X Hank Facepunch Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Unilaterally changing the voting system remains a dangerous idea. You want buy in from either other political parties or the public via referendum. Or something else equivalent to that.

    And that’s why they have a vote in either the legislature or Parliament. But the Liberals should have chosen what system they wanted and put it to a vote regardless of buy-in from the other parties, because the Cons were always going to disagree regardless and the NPD may have voted for it for the fact that it was a change away from FPTP.

    Something used to be here. It's gone now.
    CanadianWolverine
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    The federal Liberals should have run a referendum between STV and MMR, since they couldn't agree with the NDP. Or just used the NDP's preferred system.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Unilaterally changing the voting system remains a dangerous idea. You want buy in from either other political parties or the public via referendum. Or something else equivalent to that.

    And that’s why they have a vote in either the legislature or Parliament. But the Liberals should have chosen what system they wanted and put it to a vote regardless of buy-in from the other parties, because the Cons were always going to disagree regardless and the NPD may have voted for it for the fact that it was a change away from FPTP.

    The NDP had their chance to support it and they decided to do the usual and just quarrel with the Liberals instead.

    The Liberals unilaterally enacting electoral change based on a mandate provided by the very system that the electoral change is saying is unrepresentative is goddamn terrible.

    You are talking about an election they won with just under 40% of the vote.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • Descendant XDescendant X Hank Facepunch Registered User regular
    And? They write a bill about electoral reform, put the bill up for vote in Parliament, run the vote unwhipped so MPs can vote any way they like, and accept the outcome.

    Something used to be here. It's gone now.
    CanadianWolverine
  • SteelhawkSteelhawk Registered User regular
    edited April 25
    moniker wrote: »
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    I really wish that our governments would stop doing referenda about stuff like the voting system and provincial sales taxes, at least in BC. The electorate is not to be trusted with these important decisions and are way too easy to manipulate.

    Bill van der Zalm managed to fuck up HST in BC for Christ’s sake.

    I'm not saying you are wrong, I don't want this to be a whole thing. But this, right there? In bold? This is what they mean when they say that the "Far Left" is arrogant and sanctimonious.

    Is the electorate not to be trusted then on questions of video lottery terminals in NB? Or the building of a fixed link (which led to the awesome Confederation Bridge) in PEI? Or perhaps, most importantly, sovereignty in Quebec?

    Wait, why should building a bridge require a referendum rather than just having the Premiere(s) tell DOT to issue bonds and build a bridge?

    The referendum/plebicite was on whether or not the islanders wanted a fixed link to the mainland in the first place. Turns out they did, so a few years later there is a magnificent bridge between NB and PEI.
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    I really wish that our governments would stop doing referenda about stuff like the voting system and provincial sales taxes, at least in BC. The electorate is not to be trusted with these important decisions and are way too easy to manipulate.

    Bill van der Zalm managed to fuck up HST in BC for Christ’s sake.

    I'm not saying you are wrong, I don't want this to be a whole thing. But this, right there? In bold? This is what they mean when they say that the "Far Left" is arrogant and sanctimonious.

    Is the electorate not to be trusted then on questions of video lottery terminals in NB? Or the building of a fixed link (which led to the awesome Confederation Bridge) in PEI? Or perhaps, most importantly, sovereignty in Quebec?

    Dude, I am arrogant and sanctimonious. :biggrin:

    But seriously, I do believe that there are important decisions that the electorate should not be allowed to get within spitting distance of. In general, I believe those things are generally related to how government is run and taxes, because the electorate is going to rush to shoot itself in the foot every time.

    Your examples are good issues for referendums. Amusingly enough, while I agree with a referendum for Quebec sovereignty, I disagree with the Brexit referendum.

    Its great that you can admit it! :)

    More seriously, I think that rampant sanctimony from the Left is just as dangerous and lacking in empathy towards others as is the callousness often shown by the Right.

    But I also agree that some issues should not be brought to a referendum. But if they are, then the questioners better be sure that the voters fully understand the issue and the ramifications of their choice.

    Steelhawk on
  • AridholAridhol Registered User regular
    I, personally, don't have any objection to a majority government implementing a change to voting systems.

    AegisDescendant XCanadianWolverine
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    I, personally, don't have any objection to a majority government implementing a change to voting systems.

    So next time the Cons win a majority, you wouldn't object to them changing the voting system to favour their party more?

  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    I, personally, don't have any objection to a majority government implementing a change to voting systems.

    Do you have an objection to every majority government implementing a change to voting systems?

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
    shrykeSteelhawkGnome-InterruptusTubularLuggage
  • NosfNosf Registered User regular
    Even politicians vote for stupid, shortsighted options to keep themselves in a job. People do it because they figure it doesn't affect them. London, ON just lost out on a few hundred million worth of transit $ because people who don't ride the bus or understand why there's a need for public transit elected shitty politicians who nixed the most important parts of the transit plan. Whatever, I have a car and fuck the poor amirite?

    We had busniess owners stirring up shit because it was going to impact local business along affected routes. You know what? If those businesses along the main drag go under because of the construction? When construction is complete someone else will move in. It happens everytime. It's harsh to say, but that's life. People look out for themselves rather than the bigger, longer term picture and you can't often rely on voters to make a sensible choice. You can run to the people everytime a hard decision comes along and by hard, I mean sensible but unpopular.

    AridholGnome-Interruptus
  • finnithfinnith TorontoRegistered User regular
    Unwhipped or not, Canadian politicians typically vote along party lines. I would doubt the impartiality of a vote in the Commons and I'm sure the Opposition would cry bloody murder if a political party w/ a majority tried to unilaterally change the voting system.

    Bnet: CavilatRest#1874
    Steam: CavilatRest
    shryke
  • AridholAridhol Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    I, personally, don't have any objection to a majority government implementing a change to voting systems.

    So next time the Cons win a majority, you wouldn't object to them changing the voting system to favour their party more?

    I object to the cons winning a majority but no I don't object to an elected government making laws, even ones that affect election practices.

    Descendant XCanadianWolverine
  • AridholAridhol Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    I, personally, don't have any objection to a majority government implementing a change to voting systems.

    Do you have an objection to every majority government implementing a change to voting systems?

    See my reply to Shryke.

    I would fight hard to never have a psycho right win conservative government again in this country but no, I do not object to an elected government making laws, even sweeping ones that affect the election practices of the country/province.

    Descendant XCanadianWolverine
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    I guess you theoretically might run into Section 3 Charter issues by unilaterally changing the electoral system (if not issues, then guaranteed you'd run into immediate Section 3 challenges by opposition parties) if the Courts interpret the lack of a referenda as disenfranchising your right to vote and participate meaningfully in the election process. If the Courts did find a Section 3 infringement, you'd definitely lose the Section 1 challenge since skipping the referenda entirely would likely not be considered proportionate. Though there's probably still the argument available that a vote in the House of Commons by one's legislators and the previous election vote to elect said party that changed the electoral system are sufficient.

    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    Saw this earlier today. It felt like a really good summary of my last two months. Oh God the election looms ...

    ShadowenshrykeCaedwyrGnome-InterruptusFencingsaxAridholSteelhawkDescendant XCaulk Bite 6ForarApogeedjmitchellaKetBraRchanenRear Admiral Chocomysticjuicer
  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    edited April 26
    I came across something interesting regarding the problem of getting people to adopt a new systemic change to the status quo:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_justification

    I will sum it up thusly for those who don't read it and in the context of this political subject, based off this theory I don't think the majority of people will realize the benefits of Proportional Representation and a Ranked Ballot until they think it is inevitable.

    To that end, I think a political party that campaigns on electoral reform and wins enough seats under FPTP for council, boards, legislature or parliament to form the governing body if they intend to be true to their campaign promises should table a change to the electoral system and people will afterwards rationalize how they will accept the new status quo.

    Then ask them if they want to go back to FPTP and see what kind of response you get. I very much doubt it will be the same as the results of the previous referendums, given how we have observed PR systems play out in other countries.

    For example, how many rational actors want to go back to weed being illegal now that it is legal?

    CanadianWolverine on
    steam_sig.png
    Daimar
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    The PBO has released its Fiscal & Distribution Analysis (pdf link) of the Federal Carbon Tax yesterday.

    It finds that unless you are in the highest quintile of income (and in Manitoba's case, even if you are in the highest), your Climate Action Initiative Rebate will exceed the increase in household energy expenses due to the Carbon Tax. This will continue to be the case 5 years out. Even under the alternative scenario they considered, the only thing that changes is that for Ontario & New Brunswick, the Rebate will only exceed the increase in cost for the first 3 quintiles instead of the first 4.

    So basically, Schedule 14 is working as designed. Arguably better, since taxpayers* are gaining money under the Federal Carbon Pricing system.

    * Unless you're in the highest income bracket.

    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
    ArcticLancerShadowenGnome-InterruptusCaulk Bite 6ApogeeAim
  • finnithfinnith TorontoRegistered User regular
    https://globalnews.ca/news/5204965/liberals-conservatives-ipsos-poll-snc-lavalin/

    As expected, and said here, polls indicate that the gap between the Cons (36%)/Libs (32%) is tightening. Libs lead in BC, are getting destroyed in AB, dead heat at 34% in ON, and trailing significant in Atlantic Canada (article says this might be due to incumbent party dissatisfaction & the Green Party splitting voting intentions).

    Bnet: CavilatRest#1874
    Steam: CavilatRest
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited April 27
    Richy wrote: »

    These kinds of people, gleefully and openly sewing discord in our political system, and circumventing the rules for the obvious benefit of one party, it makes me shakingly angry.
    There must be something that can be done. I feel like donating to and volunteering for left wing parties isn't enough at this point (though I'll sure as hell be doing that). I'm just at a loss for what can be done to stop this sort of thing.
    Edit: Like, when these groups and the CPC enthusiastically talk about stirring up divisiveness, and how they're going to make this upcoming campaign especially nasty, I keep hoping that a chunk of the general public would go, "Hey, how about you don't do that". Though I'm not optimistic.

    TubularLuggage on
    AridholRichyCanadianWolverine
  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    This article gives them too much credit. I just spent less than two minutes looking at the Canada Proud facebook page and found multiple totally fraudulent meme-stories. I don't understand how there's nothing to curb literally fabricating stories on a mass scale like this, especially when it's not hiding the political motivations behind the actions. How is there no accountability for this shit?

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning Registered User regular
    Somewhat related, this is terrifying.

    ArcticLancerCaulk Bite 6
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Shadowen wrote: »
    Somewhat related, this is terrifying.

    I couldn't even read it through. Conservatives are disgusting and repulsive human beings.

    sig.gif
    shrykeEl SkidShadowenRear Admiral ChocoCaulk Bite 6TubularLuggage
  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    That's not entirely fair. These are extremeists who support the side that has more overlap of their values. One of the most fascinating things in that article was seeing repeated dismay from them that there were no candidates they felt were far enough on the right.. Which, like, I think that's some mind-bending perspective when we look at the absolutely horrible bullshit that is the CPC / PPC.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited April 28
    That's not entirely fair. These are extremeists who support the side that has more overlap of their values. One of the most fascinating things in that article was seeing repeated dismay from them that there were no candidates they felt were far enough on the right.. Which, like, I think that's some mind-bending perspective when we look at the absolutely horrible bullshit that is the CPC / PPC.

    Andrew Scheer not only refuses to disavow these people, but publicly speaks in their rallies and praises them. He's openly courting them and welcoming them into his party.

    I'm comfortable with calling Conservatives revolting for associating with these extremists.

    Richy on
    sig.gif
    mrondeaushrykeShadowenRear Admiral ChocoCaulk Bite 6TubularLuggage
  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    If by "conservatives" you meant the CPC, sure. But in general conversation if you said "conservatives" I would be thinking about a lot more people than just the political parties. It's worth being clear with these things. :/

  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    If by "conservatives" you meant the CPC, sure. But in general conversation if you said "conservatives" I would be thinking about a lot more people than just the political parties. It's worth being clear with these things. :/
    Those other people also associate and are ok with those extremists. They have the same views on racism, sexism and the general need for oppression. That's why they are conservatives in the first place.

    Caulk Bite 6
  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    edited April 28
    I'm not comfortable taking a mirrored viewpoint of "conservatives" to their own (general) view of Muslims. :|

    ArcticLancer on
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    I'm not comfortable taking a mirrored viewpoint of "conservatives" to their own (general) view of Muslims. :|
    I don't see much point pretending they are not advocating for what they advocate. The entire movement is dedicated to opposing equality and to ensuring the rich get richer.
    Like, that's the whole point. That's what they do.

    Also, a political movement is not comparable to a religion. For starter, religions tend to be divided in term of ideology and (political) goals, even internally.

    Caulk Bite 6
  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »

    These kinds of people, gleefully and openly sewing discord in our political system, and circumventing the rules for the obvious benefit of one party, it makes me shakingly angry.
    There must be something that can be done. I feel like donating to and volunteering for left wing parties isn't enough at this point (though I'll sure as hell be doing that). I'm just at a loss for what can be done to stop this sort of thing.
    Edit: Like, when these groups and the CPC enthusiastically talk about stirring up divisiveness, and how they're going to make this upcoming campaign especially nasty, I keep hoping that a chunk of the general public would go, "Hey, how about you don't do that". Though I'm not optimistic.

    We could be that chunk of the public.

    Kinda already is that chunk of the public to some degree, places online like reddit's r/onguardforthee sprung up as a direct response to how r/canada had been taken over in the moderator team by r/metacanada an openly Ontario Proud racist and fascist alt-right kinda place that was then allowed to spread an oversized presence of hate into what was at the time considered "official" canada subreddit.

    But lets say someone starts up a direct fuck off to Canada Proud, maybe calls it Canada Compasionate or Canada Cares or something hopeful, who knows, maybe it already exists and just needs some donations or maybe we just have to make it ourselves. We can definitely "Hey, how about you don't do that", we don't have to lose optimism.

    steam_sig.png
    TubularLuggage
  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    If by "conservatives" you meant the CPC, sure. But in general conversation if you said "conservatives" I would be thinking about a lot more people than just the political parties. It's worth being clear with these things. :/
    Those other people also associate and are ok with those extremists. They have the same views on racism, sexism and the general need for oppression. That's why they are conservatives in the first place.

    Which has a lot to do why I no longer call myself a conservative. When this place is compassionate towards a fellow Canadian stuck in the headspace of modern conservative propaganda, it helps other Canadians like myself pull off the blinders.

    Probably the biggest lie they are telling themselves these days are "Liberal Tears", they see others being repulsed as a weakness that signals they are winning rather than as an indication that they have taken a shameful position that would have them ostracized as social pariahs. They think they are just like ... insulting an opposing hockey team's player so they make a mistake while trying to score a goal, not realizing they are supporting not playing the game at all when they throw shit on the ice and deface the stadium or worse.

    I used to think conservatives would be among those who would fight back against nazis, not join them. I used to think they wanted a stronger democracy, but they allow bullshit that holds them in contempt of parliament and worse with chants of "lock them up" and missives that sound an awful lot like they are building up to supporting dictators. I thought King Harper was bad enough, bit by bit, their own bullshit has to come back to bite them in the ass if we are willing to show others that we are not crying while they are lying.

    steam_sig.png
    mrondeauArcticLancerGnome-InterruptusTubularLuggage
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    I'm not comfortable taking a mirrored viewpoint of "conservatives" to their own (general) view of Muslims. :|
    I don't see much point pretending they are not advocating for what they advocate. The entire movement is dedicated to opposing equality and to ensuring the rich get richer.
    Like, that's the whole point. That's what they do.

    Also, a political movement is not comparable to a religion. For starter, religions tend to be divided in term of ideology and (political) goals, even internally.

    You just need to look around the western world at what's going on with right-wing political parties to see that what's going on in any one country, including this one, is not a coincidence. There is a real correlation here driven by the political beliefs in question and the people they attract.

    mrondeaumonikerFencingsaxCaulk Bite 6TubularLuggage
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Which reminds me that Frank Graves, where we got that poll from like 10 pages back on the big divide in how tolerant people are of non-white immigration, had more interesting stuff from his research:

    Basically what you expect. Conservative voters thing there's too much of this "equality" talk going on.
    Though interestingly this is also a result:





    This one is more interesting. As far as I understand it, the bar graphs are current answers, the numbers on the right are from 25 years ago. You can see where the massive drop in what we are about manifests.



    This doesn't have as much to back it up but, if true, is certainly interesting:

    ArcticLancer
  • ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning Registered User regular
    If by "conservatives" you meant the CPC, sure. But in general conversation if you said "conservatives" I would be thinking about a lot more people than just the political parties. It's worth being clear with these things. :/

    That's why he used the capital C.

  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    Shadowen wrote: »
    If by "conservatives" you meant the CPC, sure. But in general conversation if you said "conservatives" I would be thinking about a lot more people than just the political parties. It's worth being clear with these things. :/

    That's why he used the capital C.

    It was the beginning of a sentence, so it was ambiguous.

  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    @shryke Sweet, thanks for that. I was actually thinking about following that up this afternoon and then forgot by the time I returned home.
    There's some further interesting reading in this article, though a particular graph really stands out:
    20190415_slide2.png
    Shown is that while the national average hasn't shifted with regard to non-white immigrants, over the last 4 years there's been a STEEP divergence between liberal and conservative responses.

    TubularLuggage
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited April 29
    I will say, while I will continue to push progressive politics in my local circles, I'll also back efforts pushed by others, including others here. Smaller movements can count. They add up. While it may seem insignificant at first, I honestly start to wonder if those of us here could have at least some impact. I mean, we may as well try,

    TubularLuggage on
    Phoenix-D
  • The Cow KingThe Cow King Walls of Jakiro Registered User regular
    Its easier for the conservatives to message because our nation was founded to extract and consume the resources so its kind of tied in to our identity (and the wests in general). Everyone wants to keep rampant consumerism up which has the side effect of exploting other nations resources for our gain. Aka money and the economy are the ultimate priority sadly.

    Anyways people realize this is kinda bullshit and unsustainable and that corporations are ripping them off and firing people because they only made 2% profit instead of 3% but the liberals dont really offer solutions? They act is if everything can be fixed with a market based solution and never really communicate beyond "its been thought of and figured out" trust us. Instead of communicating their wants they yell at leftists.

    The cons just take the easy message of "money in your pockets and the economy!" Given the massiveve amounts of debt the canadian public has this is a easy sell. They dont talk about human rights cause the mystical western nation has them by default. The cons lie but never about money which almost everyone is forced the obsess over so its a easiet sell. And even if they make things worse in the long run thats harder to figure out.

    Speaking of the debt/housing price bubble has there been any news on that front? Aside from house being triple their actual worth. If it ever does pop itll be cool to buy a house, not so cool buying it off someone who will lost their entire retirement though and I imagine the banks and too bigs to fail will make money and end up owning more real estate then they do now. Like 08! O
    Gotta love the complete lack of wage growth making the debt problem worse then it was 10 years ago. Much progress.

    icGJy2C.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    That does not seem to really match anything we know about what the various parties are messaging or what is going on with our political system.

    Richymrondeau
  • The Cow KingThe Cow King Walls of Jakiro Registered User regular
    The easiest way for the alt right to get the etnho state of unregulated captilists state they desire is to coop democracy and economic freedom as terms they believe in and convince they rest of the conservatives that its the way forwards. Which they are currently in the progress of doing!

    icGJy2C.png
  • finnithfinnith TorontoRegistered User regular
Sign In or Register to comment.