|
flakeloaf posted:I lost all faith in the senate doing what they were created for when they passed numerous illegal bills that were rammed through the lower house by a party that seized control of parliament with less than 40% of the popular vote. Like you, Harper also had no faith in the senate and tried to reform it but that was ruled illegal by a panel of appointed officials. I guess I should have said that I'm glad we have both the senate and the supreme court to stop wacky Liberal and Conservative legislation. I'm a soft conservative, it's no good for me when the CPC gets crazy and causes most of the population to swing way left.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
Naw the cpc needs to go full Golden Dawn if they want a chance
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Like you, Harper also had no faith in the senate and tried to reform it but that was ruled illegal by a panel of appointed officials. I guess I should have said that I'm glad we have both the senate and the supreme court to stop wacky Liberal and Conservative legislation. I'm a soft conservative, it's no good for me when the CPC gets crazy and causes most of the population to swing way left. Dang those unelected activist judges always getting in the way of things like changing the constitution without the consent of the provinces. quote:The view that the consultative election proposals would amend the Constitution of Canada is supported by the language of Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982 . The words employed in Part V are guides to identifying the aspects of our system of government that form part of the protected content of the Constitution. Section 42(1) (b) provides that the general amending procedure (s. 38(1) ) applies to constitutional amendments in relation to “the method of selecting Senators”. This broad wording includes more than the formal appointment of Senators by the Governor General and covers the implementation of consultative elections. By employing this language, the framers of the Constitution Act, 1982 extended the constitutional protection provided by the general amending procedure to the entire process by which Senators are “selected”. Consequently, the implementation of consultative elections falls within the scope of s. 42(1) (b) and is subject to the general amending procedure, without the provincial right to “opt out”. It cannot be achieved under the unilateral federal amending procedure. Even a small-l liberal like me has to admit that any government is capable of doing all kinds of wacky poo poo without a sensible check on their power, even the ones led by guys with nice hair. The SCC and the senate are supposed to be responsible for that sort of thing. I'd feel much better if we had two functioning sets of brakes instead of just one. flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Dec 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:The explicitly campaigned to do something about it, not on an alternative system. A lot of people who want a proportional system believed the LPC was promising one, and they had candidates winking about it. Other people who don't want a proportional system believed the LPC wasn't promising one, and the LPC had an answer for them too ("JT has always said he prefers ranked ballots"). They don't have a real mandate for either of those options. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of not holding a referendum on this. I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of holding a referendum because the status quo, which is bad, nonetheless enjoys a huge advantage. That's kind of why I'd like to see actual cooperation across party lines. We have a bad system, please improve it. A referendum where fptp isn't on the ballot would be a great alternative to not having one / having one that's doomed to fail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
The LPC campaigned to make every vote count which is an important distinction being ignored by Pinterest Mom.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:The LPC campaigned to make every vote count which is an important distinction being ignored by Pinterest Mom. Did they explicitly say that? Because ranked ballots do not even attempt to make every vote count (and Trudeau's recent statements make it pretty explicit that ranked ballots are the only reform on offer).
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:The LPC campaigned to make every vote count which is an important distinction being ignored by Pinterest Mom. This is the wording of the platform commitment. If you'd like to explain the distinction I'm ignoring, I'm all ears. quote:We will make every vote count.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
A vote for the party that comes in second place in a riding does not count any more under a ranked ballot than it does under FPTP. They'll still elect zero members of parliament and get tossed in the same recycling bin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
You guys seem to be forgetting that the Liberals promised to make the Senate less partisan through a non-partisan committee that will advise the PM on appointments. So there's really no way to predict how the new senators will vote!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
They also campaigned on approaching it through a "non-partisan" approach, which I assume would mean at the very least some amount of debate in Parliament (something the Conservatives wouldn't be familiar with of course). The Conservatives also know the failed history of referendums on electoral reform in Canada due to the ill-informed public, and are just hoping for a chance to spread misinformation and FUD. Not to mention how the word 'referendum' itself is a dirty word in Canada. If a referendum has option for "status quo" then it would surely fail through no fault of the Liberals. The NDP also campaigned on electoral reform, but they've been suspiciously MIA since the election. I do wonder what precedent is set for future governments to change the rules to suit themselves if it's as 'easy' as an act of Parliament; the Conservatives did it with the "fair" elections act, and if you're cynical then you can argue the Liberals are doing it too with PR.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:A vote for the party that comes in second place in a riding does not count any more under a ranked ballot than it does under FPTP. They'll still elect zero members of parliament and get tossed in the same recycling bin. All votes are counted even under FPTP. But ignoring that pedantry, let's not forget that there are proportional ranked ballot systems (STV) and non-proportional ones (IRV). Precambrian Video Games fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Dec 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Hell, you could "make every vote count" by giving the second and third place runners-up a ribbon with the number of votes they got inscribed on it. The voters who voted for the first place party got their votes to count by electing an MP. The voters who voted for the losers got their votes to count by getting their chosen candidate a snazzy ribbon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Hahahaha I can't wait for the liberal supporter tears when Trudeau pt 2 back tracks out of this
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
eXXon posted:All votes are counted even under FPTP. But ignore that amount of pedantry, let's not forget that there are proportional ranked ballot systems (STV) and non-proportional ones (IRV). Yeah, I'm using "ranked ballot" as short hand for IRV since there is a zero percent chance of the Liberals introducing any sort of proportional system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
brucio posted:A referendum ballot with choices without FPTP would be fine with me. If we're going to have a referendum then the status quo should be an option, but it should not be presented as a "Do we change to X system Yes/No" type question. Voters should be asked to choose from several options, FPTP included, with descriptions of the system next to each choice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
If we're going to have multiple parties in our FPTP elections, which often yields odd outcomes, we should do the same with our referenda.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Yep, this is going to end well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:If we're going to have a referendum then the status quo should be an option, but it should not be presented as a "Do we change to X system Yes/No" type question. Voters should be asked to choose from several options, FPTP included, with descriptions of the system next to each choice. It would be ironic to have a FPTP referendum like that with multiple options but only one vote each. Now let's say there's a fair, non-rigged referendum with multiple options - FPTP, IRV, STV and MMP at the least, which covers a reasonable spectrum of two proportional systems, two non-proportional, and two varieties of ranked ballots. You can vote for as many options as you want. What if none of them have majority support? What if *all* of them get over 50% approval? Would you choose the most popular option? Honestly, the only vaguely objective measure of the suitability of an electoral system is proportionality. I don't know how one could possibly argue that proportionality is not fair.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Some people genuinely rather have "stability" than fairness. "What if the communist party gets a seat?!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
The public is not equipped to choose between electoral methods. They elect representatives who consult with experts and then debate to choose the best method. Referendums are dumb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Some people genuinely rather have "stability" than fairness. "What if the communist party gets a seat?!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmn9asN-8AE
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Giving women the vote was a much more dramatic change to our electoral system and that didn't require a referendum.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
I'm sure the Liberals are consulting with the foremost experts as they devise a new electoral process, one that is sure to produce Liberal majorities for generations to come.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:The public is not equipped to choose between electoral methods. They elect representatives who consult with experts and then debate to choose the best method. Referendums are dumb. Hahahaha
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Hahahaha It's absolutely true and you know it, the general public is completely pants on head retarded and will vote against their best interests.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
I hate to be cynical but I have no doubt that, in the case of a referendum, at the very least 80% of the people who show up at the polls will be unable to correctly describe the functioning of any one alternative to FPTP. Canvassing and knock door-ing warped me. I can't be optimistic anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
I would hate a referendum, but would like to see Tom Mulcair yell "WHATS YOUR NUMBER MR. TRUDEAU" over and over again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:The public is not equipped to choose between electoral methods. They elect representatives who consult with experts and then debate to choose the best method. Referendums are dumb. If this is true, then arguably they are not equipped to choose representatives in many cases either, which is why "fairness" is not the one holy measure of an electoral system. Accurately representing the wishes of the entire population is a bad idea because most of the population is really loving stupid, so a system that permits only representatives which are fairly palatable to a large number of people is a feature, not a bug. STV is my preferred reform, but I doubt we'll ever get that because the average person can't understand how it functions, and a bunch of whiny nuts would rather MMP so we can experience the unbridled joy of having Christian Heritage, Green, and Communist members of parliament, just to gently caress things up a little bit extra.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
.
James Baud fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Aug 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
MMP works very well in New Zealand, I wouldn't have a problem if it was the option here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
I can tell who's still butthurt about the Broadway skytrain 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:How dare the elected government legislate something they campaigned on? Jordan7hm posted:They did very explicitly campaign on it, which is just about the only justification I can think of for not having this go to a referendum. Do you not see the irony here? The Liberals are arguing that first past the post elections don't legitimately represent the popular will, but at the same time they're arguing that winning only 39% of the seats in an election entitles them to unilaterally transform the electoral system without any further consultation of the electorate. It's a bit suspicious to both campaign against the system as illegitimate and yet to claim that the system gave you a mandate for sweeping change. PT6A posted:If this is true, then arguably they are not equipped to choose representatives in many cases either, which is why "fairness" is not the one holy measure of an electoral system. Accurately representing the wishes of the entire population is a bad idea because most of the population is really loving stupid, so a system that permits only representatives which are fairly palatable to a large number of people is a feature, not a bug. This is the kind of garbage opinion that people adopt because it tickles their ego. Anyone with eyes to see should be able to recognize that it would be just about impossible for the electorate to be any dumber than the people who are currently in charge. If you look around this country and think "thank God the media and political class are insulated from popular pressure" then I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Do you not see the irony here? The Liberals are arguing that first past the post elections don't legitimately represent the popular will, but at the same time they're arguing that winning only 39% of the seats in an election entitles them to unilaterally transform the electoral system without any further consultation of the electorate. The solution to that puzzle would then be to institute whatever new system is supposed to be superior, and immediately call an election.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Most Canadians can't describe how FPTP works or even how our legislative system works. But I think any government should be able to change the system to one that is already in use in another country and which experts universally agree that is better than the one currently in use. Implementing a novel system (made in Canada or some bullshit) is a problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Do you not see the irony here? The Liberals are arguing that first past the post elections don't legitimately represent the popular will, but at the same time they're arguing that winning only 39% of the seats in an election entitles them to unilaterally transform the electoral system without any further consultation of the electorate. To be fair, if you add up the NDP votes as being presumably in support of electoral reform, you can perceive a significant majority as opposed to 39%. That said, the NDP had a specific option in mind (and, secondarily, an explicit commitment to proportional representation), so all bets are off if the Liberals propose IRV.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Direct democracy on every single issue otherwise there's no proof popular will supports it. Get rid of these elitist civil servants and "experts" too and put their jobs down to a referendum every time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
This seems like a lot more trouble than it's worth for the Liberals. They do well under FPTP anyway, and since it's clear that nobody in this thread will be happy with any result, they may as well just call a referendum on PR and let it fail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
I say we abandon the cities and force everyone into woods and into collectivist farms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:I say we abandon the cities and force everyone into woods and into collectivist farms. lee adama over here, oh
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
flakeloaf posted:The solution to that puzzle would then be to institute whatever new system is supposed to be superior, and immediately call an election. I think part of the solution would be to, at the very least, have actually run on a concrete proposal for how you're going to change the electoral system. Changing the system yourself and then calling an election is dubious for many reasons: first of all, if your opponents are claiming that you just rigged the system, and then you win, then how legitimate will that victory appear in the eyes of the people who didn't want the system in the first place? Second of all, if the opposition party wins then what do they do, reform the electoral system again and then immediately call another election? Personally I'd be able to reconcile myself with the Liberals unilaterally imposing a mixed member proportional system unilaterally for what are basically realpolitik reasons, but let's not pretend there's nothing sketchy about using the outcome of a broken system to claim the democratic mandate to reform that very same system. Heavy neutrino posted:To be fair, if you add up the NDP votes as being presumably in support of electoral reform, you can perceive a significant majority as opposed to 39%. That said, the NDP had a specific option in mind (and, secondarily, an explicit commitment to proportional representation), so all bets are off if the Liberals propose IRV. Yeah but the problem is that the Liberals will almost certainly try to get an IRV ballot. Jack of Hearts posted:This seems like a lot more trouble than it's worth for the Liberals. They do well under FPTP anyway, and since it's clear that nobody in this thread will be happy with any result, they may as well just call a referendum on PR and let it fail. I think the magnitude of the Liberal's recent victory has distracted us from how generally shaky Trudeau II's leadership and judgement have actually been since he became Liberal leader. Remember that he threw away a very solid lead and only clawed it back late in the race by engaging in some very, ahem, ambitious promises and some rather abrupt pivots on policy and rhetoric. Back in March of 2015 he was still running as a fiscal conservative. It's really a testament to how badly misjudged the NDP's balanced budget announcement turned out to be that Trudeau II was able to position himself on the NDP's left flank. To win Trudeau made a lot of promises and announcements that he clearly had no actual concrete plans to implement. Now he's going to have to improvise a great deal and hope for the best. Electoral reform in particular is going to be dangerous because any possible outcome is going to piss someone off. Whether they succeed or fail in implementing a new system there's going to be a lot of angry voters who will hate Trudeau's guts for this. It may be that the safest option for Trudeau is to emulate the Ontario Liberals in 2007: make a proposal and then quietly do everything in your power to ensure it fails, but even that option will presumably alienate some of Trudeau's support. Cultural Imperial posted:I say we abandon the cities and force everyone into woods and into collectivist farms. Jokes on you, they're gonna be weed farms  
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 21:06
|
|