|
Baronjutter posted:Can someone tell me what I should think regarding electoral reform before I fill this out? Basically STV is the best choice, everything else would provoke massive territorial or anti-party arguments that will never end or get anywhere. Maybe I'm super naive but I wrote in the comments that the change should be one that receives a decent measure of approval from MPs outside the current governing party to avoid the possibility or the perception that the ruling party picked a specific voting format for political gain -- although our great principled LPC would never do that 
Heavy neutrino fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Oct 8, 2016 |
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 17:17 |
|
|
Ikantski please do not use your children for political messaging
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:I feel like over the past few years the sjw echo chamber on university campuses/tumblr has become deafening. It's kind of snuck up on me and it's literally incomprehensible. Yeah. Sometimes this focus on the management of people's emotions can be warranted, sometimes it's really silly like in this case, and sometimes it actually stifles intellectualism by casting legitimate, substantial disagreement as microaggresion or "triggering" behavior. I graduated only a couple years ago and it's also snuck up on me -- at first I thought it was just a lovely caricature by the right-wing, but it's real.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Hahahaha is this from the supplemental report written by LPC MPs? "Oh poo poo the committee didn't recommend IRV, let's not be hasty or reckless here and god forbid we do any complex math."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Can we stop making GBS threads on the natives for long enough to notice that the Liberals are not so subtly trying to sabotage their own electoral reform process now that it seems to be targeting proportional representation? Wait did I say PR, actually I meant "a complex mathematical equation"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Uuuuuum this isn't real right? This can't be real
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
you guys should correctly interpret this almost anti-intellectual poo poo as an open declaration of war against proportional representation, because the gallagher index literally exists to calculate the level of PR in a given democratic system. the liberals are just poo poo and anyone who got rolled into the LPC by pretty boy's rhetoric is a total loving moron
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
This is a pretty amazing political fumble, though. They went all-in on promising that 2015 would be the last election under FPTP, set up the process as they promised they would (all-partisan and not dominated by the LPC), and then found themselves totally flat-footed when the committee actually did its job independently and honestly recommended a more democratic system that would seriously undermine the LPC's power in 2019. Now they're doing back-breaking mental gymnastics trying to figure out how to sabotage their own process set up to fulfill one of their own promises. Didn't the Liberals use to be better at this corrupt backdoor politicking thing?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Maybe if they confuse enough people with vague rear end questions they'll get results disparate enough to claim there isn't broad support for reform.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:It's pretty smart by the Liberals actually. Each category is broad enough that it includes multiple potential points of electoral reform. For example, Innovators might be pro-PR but also pro-evoting or pro-lowering the voting age or pro-quotas for minority candidates. So the Liberals can easily interpret the percentage of Innovators that they get as a mandate for quotas or evoting while completely ignoring the high demand for some kind of proportionality, especially since the questions were all vague enough that there's no outright data their opponents can point to saying "90% of respondents said yes when we asked "do you want proportional representation?"" Actually I think they're going the opposite way. They're bringing up the words "broad consensus" often enough that I'm guessing they're working as hard as they can to fail to find any broad consensus.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
I don't have time to read the thread anymore but I'm sure today's news has been discussed at length so all I'll add is ~gently caress the liberals~
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Before I leave let me just drop this genius bomb, courtesy of me from the pastHeavy neutrino posted:Actually I think they're going the opposite way. They're bringing up the words "broad consensus" often enough that I'm guessing they're working as hard as they can to fail to find any broad consensus. CBC posted:"There has been tremendous work by the House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform, outreach by Members of Parliament by all parties, and engagement of 360,000 individuals in Canada through mydemocracy.ca," Trudeau writes in his letter to Gould.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Woops Edit for when they inevitably scrub it: the Liberals forgot to remove their campaign pledge to change FPTP before announcing they were dropping it. Heavy neutrino fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Feb 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
quote:What should affected account holders do now? What a sentence.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Great to see that we don't even need the TPP to force us to indemnify investors from the costs of climate policy; we'll just do it of our own accord.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 17:17 |
|
|
THC posted:they only need quebec and ontario to vote for them Good news! It looks like Quebec is turning hella conservative. Bad news! It looks like Quebec is turning hella conservative.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2018 18:47
|
|