Powershift posted:

A bible thumping, home-schooled, anti-abortion, anti-sex ed nutcase in a conservative stronghold that has never voted for anything other than PC, not a good example.

James Baud posted:

The NDP vote is inefficiently concentrated on the island and a few high density urban ridings so they'll lose again because environment vs jobs kills them elsewhere. Also the entire slate of MLAs have been invisible other than Eby. I honestly don't know how they've been so terrible. Sure, the legislature never sits, but you don't need it.

quote:

Good article. I have no time for the regressive left silliness that whines about 'microaggressions' but Summers is right in reminding us that there are people who want to roll back equal rights for various groups and someone those people support is about to move into the White House.

quote:

"With the way the federal NDP campaign rolled out last year, from around halfway through the campaign, there were a lot of positions that I didn't feel particularly comfortable with," he said.

"I'm not particularly interested in spending my weekend talking with the party as they decide which of the positions they are going to take going into the future because I don't have any real confidence that they will be kept to."

In particular, Cardy said he was frustrated by Mulcair's decision to come out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal during the campaign even though he hadn't read the text. The provincial leader said losing free trade agreements would hurt New Brunswick industries.

Cardy also said he was "very disheartened" by the NDP's position on the war in Syria.

"The NDP federally took a position saying that we would disengage completely from all military action in the Middle East, something I thought was both not responsible and not something that the party agreed to, which is my core concern," he said.

Jimbozig posted:

Do we really expect a provincial legislature to make law regarding microaggressions? What would such a law look like?

Jimbozig posted:

Do we really expect a provincial legislature to make law regarding microaggressions? What would such a law look like?

quote:

The opposition parties hold the majority at the electoral reform table and, in any event, no government is bound to implement the prescription of a committee. If such an obligation existed, Canada’s new law on medically assisted suicide would be a lot less restrictive. But if Trudeau is presented with an opposition consensus as to the way forward on the voting system he will, at a minimum, have to come up with the kind of coherent response that has been sorely lacking to date.

This week, democratic reform minister Maryam Monsef reported, on the basis of her own consultations, that there was no consensus within the public as to a preferred voting system. The representations made to the committee on the other hand have tended to favour a more proportional system. Consensus, in this instance, is very much in the opportunistic eye of the beholder. But more on that later in this column.

The odds of a majority committee report increased this week when the NDP signalled that it could support the Conservative call for any new voting system to be put to a national referendum. If there is solid majority within the electorate to be found for anything pertaining to electoral reform, it revolves around the notion that a change should be approved through a national plebiscite.

THC posted:

The logic I think is that the liberals are clearly gunning for AV (a bad system worse than FPTP even) so we're going to push for a referendum to ensure its failure.

quote:

Unsexy, Very Important

ByJOSH MARSHALLPublishedNOVEMBER 19, 2016, 1:05 PM EDT
3807Views
I'm a huge supporter of infrastructure spending - both for the multiple economic benefits of large-scale infrastructure projects and the more mundane reason that the things you build are good to have: roads, modern rail systems, airports, bridges that don't collapse, modern energy infrastructure. The list is almost endless. This makes a lot of people excited about Donald Trump's push for infrastructure spending. But put on the brakes and don't get excited. As I mentioned a few days ago, Trump isn't proposing major spending on infrastructure projects. He's proposing 'public private partnerships', which as we explained here are in most cases efficient ways to sell off public goods to private corporations.

But it's actually even worse than that.

There are two really good short articles out today which begin to explain what's happening. There won't be any infrastructure spending. There will be a mix of tax giveaways and and corporate welfare to incentivize private sector infrastructure spending. And there is good reason to think that most of those giveaways will simply be pocketed for spending that was already happening. In other words, big giveaways, more budget busting without even getting the benefit of new stuff or spurring demand.

Start with Ron Klain's article here in The Washington Post and Paul Krugman's in The New York Times here. This is a mix of privatization and tax giveaways which in all likelihood will not even lead to building much of any new stuff.

Powershift posted:

Mulcair will never leave, so the NDP is going to be irrelevant for the foreseeable future.

Supercar Gautier posted:

I'm torn on ranked balloting. I do think it's important for the ballot to reflect the complexity of voter preferences (most voters feel varying degrees of approval for the parties, not just "my party or bust"), and a transferable vote would also make people more confident in giving their top vote to a long-shot outsider party.

But there is the issue that the most centrist party tends to benefit-- the Liberals would scoop up a ton of 2nd-choice votes from both NDP and CPC voters. I'm not sure what the answer is to that, but it needs to be addressed before implementing a ranked system.

Helsing posted:

Speaking of Liberals, notice how this American liberal critique of Donald Trump's economic platform is one find+replace away from being a critique of Justin Trudeau.

Wistful of Dollars posted:

I agree, we should have kept Harper.

sitchensis posted:

I've done some research on this.

Unsurprisingly, in jurisdictions with significant "buy-in" of wind energy, community owned and co-op ownership models are the most prevalent. They are also encouraged by the relevant authorities.

In Ontario, most wind energy projects are undertaken by large corporate entities looking to get some sweet feed-in-tariffs. Not only was wind-energy insanely profitable (they had obscenely high rates that were guaranteed for decades by the gov't), it was also ridiculously easy to put just about anywhere because Ontario removed the ability for local communities to decide where these projects would go. In effect, these small rural areas had no planning authority over the siting of wind farm projects. This, as you can imagine, was a pretty big pill to swallow.

So yeah, Ontario could have done things much, much better and tbh the outrage of many rural people over wind farms is kind of justified when you look at just how lovely of a system was set up.

Helsing posted:

Fallen Hamprince posted:

There's an alberta liberal party?

Supercar Gautier posted:

I'm torn on ranked balloting. I do think it's important for the ballot to reflect the complexity of voter preferences (most voters feel varying degrees of approval for the parties, not just "my party or bust"), and a transferable vote would also make people more confident in giving their top vote to a long-shot outsider party.

But there is the issue that the most centrist party tends to benefit-- the Liberals would scoop up a ton of 2nd-choice votes from both NDP and CPC voters. I'm not sure what the answer is to that, but it needs to be addressed before implementing a ranked system.

Lobok posted:

Liberals have governed for about 70% of the last century. Ranked balloting probably wouldn't keep them in power any more than FPTP but it could help with giving the rest of the parties representation that more closely aligns with how people actually voted.

Pinterest Mom posted:

If you rerun the 2015 election, based on actual results and with self-reported second choices from polls and a ranked ballot:

Drunk Canuck posted:

Gives Elizabeth May too much power IMO

Don't know if I can stomach that scenario.

Pinterest Mom posted:

If you rerun the 2015 election, based on actual results and with self-reported second choices from polls and a ranked ballot:

Pinterest Mom posted:

If you rerun the 2015 election, based on actual results and with self-reported second choices from polls and a ranked ballot:

Jordan7hm posted:

Or if you think people would vote differently if the system was different.

Which they would.

Drunk Canuck posted:

Gives Elizabeth May too much power IMO

Don't know if I can stomach that scenario.

Arcsquad12 posted:

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens...ppens-1.3853530

Heeheehee. What a dumbass.

Arcsquad12 posted:

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens...ppens-1.3853530

Heeheehee. What a dumbass.

Jordan7hm posted:

Or if you think people would vote differently if the system was different.

Which they would.

Arcsquad12 posted:

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens...ppens-1.3853530

Heeheehee. What a dumbass.