canadian government held in contemp

zarocat

Kel Varnsen wrote:

And who do you think they are going to put in those seats. It is not going to be actual politicians who are accountable to the people

That's absolutely correct. I like to call these people INDUSTRIAL DOOR MATS

lukin2006

Kel Varnsen wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

it wasn't well explained nor was it discussed much leading up to the election ... having said that - i'm not convinced ontarians are engaged enough as a whole to care ...

I don't think the Liberals and PC's are interested in it all that much, that might likely cost them support.

I read the description of that kind of representation and it sounded like a bad idea to me. I mean sure some of the seats would go to small parties based on the percentage of total votes they get. But at the same time if there is a pool of seats that are based on voting percentage, most of them are going to go to the major parties. And who do you think they are going to put in those seats. It is not going to be actual politicians who are accountable to the people, it is going to be the hackiest party hacks that ever hacked. And with those people at least some of them are going to get to keep their seats for ever. I would prefer less appointed politicians not more. And in federal politics we already have a senate full of appointed politicians, which is basically a nice retirement package for anyone who has been super loyal to the ruling party for a long enough time.

I will admit that I'm not totally informed on this issue, however, I do think before we change our elected system it would have to be done with a referendum. A referendum was held in Ontario on this very issue and it was voted down. I am sure that most people did not understand the system, because it was not as well explained as you seem to have done.

We need so many changes to our political system. One of the things I would loved changed is that politicians are elected to run the mundane aspects of government, but all major issue's like tax increase, implementing HST, environmental issue, trade agreements etc. go to referendum, I think people are tired of only having a say every 4 years and in between they do as they please. I also think this might get voter turnout up and get people more engaged.

polaris_x

the mixed member proportional representation system was essentially endorsed by every single non-major party except for maybe one as well as Fair Vote Canada, Canadian Federation of Students and other entities

the system needs to change ... the greens got like almost 7% of the popular vote with no seats ...

Kel Varnsen

polaris_x wrote:

the mixed member proportional representation system was essentially endorsed by every single non-major party except for maybe one as well as Fair Vote Canada, Canadian Federation of Students and other entities

the system needs to change ... the greens got like almost 7% of the popular vote with no seats ...

The last election the liberals got 26% of the vote and the conservatives got almost 38% of the vote. With proportional representation they would have been allowed to appoint house of commons members into seats based on those percentages. So sure the green party might get 1 or 2 of those seats, but the liberals would get 4 times as many seats and the conservatives would get 5 times as many. And they could appoint, the most party loyal cronies into those seats. I would prefer the system where I elect a representative for my riding who has the represent the people of my riding, rather than a system where the party gets to appoint people who answer to the party leader.

lukin2006

How is proportional representation going to solve our current problems? we need to become more democratic, not less. People need more of a say in how our country goes forward, not less. The MP's are supposed to work for us, we all no that stopped long ago, they work for the party. We need more referendum's and towing the party line should be outlawed.

Take the potential federal election, there has already been talk that if Harper wins a minority the other 3 parties might form a coalition government which under our current system is allowed, but we all know that's not what the voters want. I would be open to a referendum on that issue, and the political parties would have to live with the results, or at the very least the 3 parties that plan on forming this coalition need to state their intent before the election.

The bottom line is we don't need an election, the budget was decent, many economist were happy with the budget, did Layton get everything he wanted? of course not, did he expect to? He took the bait.

I suppose it's still possible to avoid an election, that could come if Quebec reaches an agreement with Harper over the HST money in Quebec.

polaris_x

i'm not sure where you get 5 times the seats? ... right now the conservatives have like 46% of the seats on only 36% of the vote ... if anything they would have less seats ...

proportional representation would allow minority voices to be heard in government whereas now they aren't ...

i find it interesting that people want to blame the ndp for this election ... the fact of the matter is that Harper hasn't worked with the other parties at all and he's shown an absolute disdain for democracy ... i'm not sure about the liberals but the last thing the ndp want is another election ... but you can't continue to do what the conservatives are doing and let them get away with it ...

the conservatives WANT an election - that is why they presented this bullshit vague budget ...

Kel Varnsen

polaris_x wrote:

i'm not sure where you get 5 times the seats? ... right now the conservatives have like 46% of the seats on only 36% of the vote ... if anything they would have less seats ...

proportional representation would allow minority voices to be heard in government whereas now they aren't ...

You can correct me if I am wrong but here is my understanding of proportional representation. There is a pool of seats that are just seats at large given based on the percentage of popular vote. If the pool of seats was 100 then based on the last federal election the Green Party would get seven seats. The liberals got 26% of the vote so they would get 26 seats. 26/7= 3.7 approximately 4 times the seats. The conservatives got 38% of the vote for 38 seats. 38/7= 5.4 so the conservatives would get 5 times as many seats from that pool as the green party. And like I said all of those seats would be appointed rather than directly elected and would go to total party loyalists. So if you want to talk about the minority getting a voice in government, sure a party like the green party might get one or two token seats, but at the same time the big parties would get a bunch more seats in comparison and those members of parliment would only answer to their party leader, not the voters.

And I imagine too that to accomodate this the ridings would be made bigger (since there would be less actually elected members), so my MP would represent more people, and as a voter I would have even less of a voice.

polaris_x

Kel Varnsen wrote:

You can correct me if I am wrong but here is my understanding of proportional representation. There is a pool of seats that are just seats at large given based on the percentage of popular vote. If the pool of seats was 100 then based on the last federal election the Green Party would get seven seats. The liberals got 26% of the vote so they would get 26 seats. 26/7= 3.7 approximately 4 times the seats. The conservatives got 38% of the vote for 38 seats. 38/7= 5.4 so the conservatives would get 5 times as many seats from that pool as the green party. And like I said all of those seats would be appointed rather than directly elected and would go to total party loyalists. So if you want to talk about the minority getting a voice in government, sure a party like the green party might get one or two token seats, but at the same time the big parties would get a bunch more seats in comparison and those members of parliment would only answer to their party leader, not the voters.

And I imagine too that to accomodate this the ridings would be made bigger (since there would be less actually elected members), so my MP would represent more people, and as a voter I would have even less of a voice.

oh ... you are talking about the multiple of seats over the smaller parties (ie green) ... in that case - you might as well say 30 times because right now, every party has an infinite times seats over the greens ...

at the end of the day - sure, you may lose some local representation but let's face it ... candidates are often parachuted in anyways and for the most part all vote along party lines ... so, i'm not seeing much of a variance except that we don't have overstated power (see conservatives and bloc) and under-representation of other voices ...

goto fairvote.ca for more info

at the end of the day ... most democracies use this system and its worked ... i think norway has been operating as a coalition of minorities for decades now ...

polaris_x

from the green party on why they don't support the budget:

Today, MPs will debate Jim Flaherty's 2011 budget--a budget that reflects the lack of imagination, vision, or plan of the Conservative government.

Here’s what we liked
• $400 million to extend the ecoENERGY Home Retrofit program for one year.
• $300 million to benefit low-income seniors.
• $300 a year in Family Caregiver Tax Credits for family members looking after sick or disabled relatives.
• Forgiving a portion of education loans for doctors and nurses if they work in rural and remote communities.

Here’s what outright scared us

• The budget doesn’t even mention the $29.3 billion (Parliamentary Budget Office estimate) the Harper government plans to spend on 65 fighter jets.
• Also unaccounted for is the estimated $9 billion for building new prisons that the Harper government is committed to--despite the fact that crime rates are falling!
That’s $40 billion of spending (as much as transfers to all the provinces or total support for seniors) that’s missing from this budget. That’s not financially responsible.

And here’s what made us roll our eyes

• $400 million to support the nuclear industry but nothing to support alternative energy.
• $1 billion in subsidies to oil and gas companies that already made a profit of over $8 billion in 2010.
• $10 million for the Grey Cup and Calgary Stampede versus $2.5 million for the Great Lakes (which supply drinking water to 8.5 million Canadians) shows pretty clearly how much the current government values clean water.
“Canada faces a triple deficit. We have an economic deficit, an ecological deficit, and a social deficit,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. “While there are a number of small, but welcome, changes in this year’s budget, overall, the government has missed the chance to address these growing deficits. The government is still in denial about the structural deficit. A government serious about eliminating the economic deficit would not continue to cut corporate tax rates.”

bytterman

Kel Varnsen wrote:

You can correct me if I am wrong but here is my understanding of proportional representation. There is a pool of seats that are just seats at large given based on the percentage of popular vote. If the pool of seats was 100 then based on the last federal election the Green Party would get seven seats. The liberals got 26% of the vote so they would get 26 seats. 26/7= 3.7 approximately 4 times the seats. The conservatives got 38% of the vote for 38 seats. 38/7= 5.4 so the conservatives would get 5 times as many seats from that pool as the green party. And like I said all of those seats would be appointed rather than directly elected and would go to total party loyalists. So if you want to talk about the minority getting a voice in government, sure a party like the green party might get one or two token seats, but at the same time the big parties would get a bunch more seats in comparison and those members of parliment would only answer to their party leader, not the voters.

And I imagine too that to accomodate this the ridings would be made bigger (since there would be less actually elected members), so my MP would represent more people, and as a voter I would have even less of a voice.

That's one system, pretty much as used in New Zealand and Germany, possibly others. In NZ it's called MMP (mixed-member proportional), and I recall some talk of them either changing it or dumping it altogether. The Aussies and others use a single transferable vote (SVT) system, which I completely fail to understand even after the help of wiki. This was what the BC referendum was about, and at the time I think that its proponents put the loss down to it being poorly explained. Not sure about SVT, but I also despise MMP because of the party hack thing, and as someone pointed out here with already have a chamber full of friends/cronies/fiends in Ottawa. Federally the Greens and NDP would probably love it, and I suspect the same of the Bloc, but I can't see the other two being too interested, the Tories in particular. And I assume that changing from our present system would require a constitutional amendment, which is very difficult to get. Regardless, I'm not entirely convinced that it would change anything; Canadians are a pretty centrist bunch, and the centre is covered pretty well. We need fresh leadership more than a different electoral system, imo.

lukin2006

Poll: Conservatives have 19-point lead

http://news.nationalpost.com/photo_gall ... oint-lead/

bytterman

lukin2006 wrote:

Poll: Conservatives have 19-point lead

http://news.nationalpost.com/photo_gall ... oint-lead/

From the breakdown numbers at the bottom of that article it looks as though few people think that this election is necessary. Will be interesting to see how all the leaders spin those numbers.

polaris_x

lukin2006 wrote:

Poll: Conservatives have 19-point lead

http://news.nationalpost.com/photo_gall ... oint-lead/

the conservatives have done a masterful job on the PR front ... they've made it seem like the opposition parties want this election when in fact, Harper is desperate for an election ...

bytterman

polaris_x wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Poll: Conservatives have 19-point lead

http://news.nationalpost.com/photo_gall ... oint-lead/

the conservatives have done a masterful job on the PR front ... they've made it seem like the opposition parties want this election when in fact, Harper is desperate for an election ...

Agreed. And for Harper it's at least partly because of this...

Poll shows increasing voter skepticism about Harper government
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/poll-shows-increasing-voter-skepticism-about-harper-government/article1955978/

polaris_x

bytterman wrote:

Agreed. And for Harper it's at least partly because of this...

Poll shows increasing voter skepticism about Harper government
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/poll-shows-increasing-voter-skepticism-about-harper-government/article1955978/

unless something crazy happens (Harper caught with kiddie porn) - the Conservatives will get their majority based on our current voting system ... they have shown that they are best at campaigning without substance nor platform ... they will be on every social networking site and their ads will be negative but effective ...

elections are fought these days using dirty dirty tactics ... and the left suck at it ...

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Poll: Conservatives have 19-point lead

http://news.nationalpost.com/photo_gall ... oint-lead/

the conservatives have done a masterful job on the PR front ... they've made it seem like the opposition parties want this election when in fact, Harper is desperate for an election ...

Agree! For the most part all leaders in Canada try to manipulate the election when they are polling high. The fixed election date federally is a joke, it only works when there is a majority.

bytterman

lukin2006 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Poll: Conservatives have 19-point lead

http://news.nationalpost.com/photo_gall ... oint-lead/

the conservatives have done a masterful job on the PR front ... they've made it seem like the opposition parties want this election when in fact, Harper is desperate for an election ...

Agree! For the most part all leaders in Canada try to manipulate the election when they are polling high. The fixed election date federally is a joke, it only works when there is a majority.

Wasn't the fixed date brought in because Chretien kept having elections 12 or 18 months 'early', despite big majorities and a fractured right? The Liberals can only make inroads by focussing on the conduct of the Harper govt, less so on policies I think. Harper will retaliate in kind, the campaign will turn into a mud-slinging fest devoid of any policy/issue discussion, and the electorate will tune right out.

lukin2006

bytterman wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

the conservatives have done a masterful job on the PR front ... they've made it seem like the opposition parties want this election when in fact, Harper is desperate for an election ...

Agree! For the most part all leaders in Canada try to manipulate the election when they are polling high. The fixed election date federally is a joke, it only works when there is a majority.

Wasn't the fixed date brought in because Chretien kept having elections 12 or 18 months 'early', despite big majorities and a fractured right? The Liberals can only make inroads by focussing on the conduct of the Harper govt, less so on policies I think. Harper will retaliate in kind, the campaign will turn into a mud-slinging fest devoid of any policy/issue discussion, and the electorate will tune right out.

I'm not sure if Chretien was calling the election early, but he did call them when he was polling well. But it kind of looks like Harper in comfortably in majority territory, so he might just have to avoid any mistakes.

I really think the longer Iggy refuses to rule coalition government out the worse it will get for him.

polaris_x

i was ok with the fixed election date ... but that was one of a plethora of broken promises by Harper ...

bytterman

lukin2006 wrote:

I'm not sure if Chretien was calling the election early, but he did call them when he was polling well. But it kind of looks like Harper in comfortably in majority territory, so he might just have to avoid any mistakes.

I really think the longer Iggy refuses to rule coalition government out the worse it will get for him.

Sorry I wrote that poorly, I was only meaning that he was working the election date to suit his polling numbers, as was his privilege at the time. I'd be really interested to see how the electorate would respond to an up-front, pre-election 'this is the option we're presenting' Lib/NDP coalition. And just as interesting would be to see how long it lasted if they did indeed form a government. I'd be lying if I said I was keen on the idea, but depending on what they said (and more importantly did) budget-wise I'm open to a new way of running the place.

polaris_x wrote:

i was ok with the fixed election date ... but that was one of a plethora of broken promises by Harper ...

Not sure how this can be considered a broken promise, because in a minority situation he can, and has, lost the confidence of the House at any time. Now I agree that sometime he does it intentionally...