By the same token 54% of the voters in May's riding voted for someone besides her.
Petition for voting system reform
- Thread starter juzt4me
- Start date
By the same token 54% of the voters in May's riding voted for someone besides her.
Party leaders are chosen by the party and I find nothing wrong with that, if you want to have
a say in who the leader is join the party and vote. I like first past the post, some say oh if we
had another system the Greens would get more seats, I have trouble with the one they have
now, but that is a personal feeling I admit.
As for all this representation and airing of views it will take forever to get anything done even
worse than now. We have conservatives, liberals, social democrats and a voice in the corner
called the greens, What more can you want?
The Conservatives are about money, New Democrats are about the social issues of the day
the liberals we are not sure why they are there but they have always been there so its best we
keep some, and the greens will ensure we all have some comic relief. Ms May thinks she is
going to have politicians become more civil, well I don't think so its a foreign concept. Personally
I like the old jousting and banter it the Canadian way.
a say in who the leader is join the party and vote. I like first past the post, some say oh if we
had another system the Greens would get more seats, I have trouble with the one they have
now, but that is a personal feeling I admit.
As for all this representation and airing of views it will take forever to get anything done even
worse than now. We have conservatives, liberals, social democrats and a voice in the corner
called the greens, What more can you want?
The Conservatives are about money, New Democrats are about the social issues of the day
the liberals we are not sure why they are there but they have always been there so its best we
keep some, and the greens will ensure we all have some comic relief. Ms May thinks she is
going to have politicians become more civil, well I don't think so its a foreign concept. Personally
I like the old jousting and banter it the Canadian way.
No it wouldn't. Look at any nation that has proportional representation, coalition isn't a dirty word in those countries, it becomes a necessity. That, is a far cry better than unchecked majorities.
So you would be OK with a majority govt that got say 25-30% of the vote? Even if it was a party you didn't support?
You're such a Hypocrite, had the Liberals or NDP won a majority with the same numbers you wouldn't have said jack ****! :roll:
You're being obtuse about the point being made here. At least 60% don't want Harper and the Cons as their leaders.
If that's not clear enough math for you I wonder what is.
The current status quo is a fine cauldron for brewing cynicism and mediocre politics.
Given the fact that the Senate is not even elected, it could at the very least be a proportional representation of the national vote. If let's say the Senate was established according to proportional rep, we'd get an interesting situation where the Senate would have a majority of non-Conservatives and the Cons would need to listen to the population closely to pass or change any new laws with success.
This is just an idea. There are many ways our system could be improved but yes, that would require a little intellectual effort and involvement from both politicians and the population. Not an easy task in this land it seems.
Last edited:
You're the one who is being obtuse. How do you know 60% didn't want Harper or the Cons? Not only are you obtuse but you are very persumptuous. I don't pretend to know what the 60% want.................all I know for sure (and so do you) is that 60% didn't pick them as first choice. :smile:
Does it mean they DIDN'T want him or simply they preferred someone else? Big difference!
Yup, but the kicker, those 60% didn't want just one other person/party to represent them. That 60% was split between 4 other party's. The party that received the largest support WAS the cons.
I'm surprised that THIS needs to be explained to you.
Yeah, go comb through the thread the sore losers started about the Harper majority, where I explained that as well.
That has nothing to do with the content of this thread, which is the idea that each vote deserves representation, which the first post the post system does not yield.
You only get one choice, and the choices are mutually exclusive. If someone preferred a different party, then that means they didn't want Harper and the Conservative platform....if they did they would have voted for it.
You're such a Hypocrite, had the Liberals or NDP won a majority with the same numbers you wouldn't have said jack ****! :roll:
Our resident psychic goes into the OPs past and comes back with this wonderful revelation.
Thank you so much you, oh wise sire.
For my part, I supported proportional representation back in '98, when we had a much different government. My stance hasn't changed for the reasons below..
Yes, but despite having the largest voter support, their vote for legislation can still be outweighed by the collective voting of the other 4 parties. Or they would take the time to revise their agenda to one that can be negotiated between all parties.
Which is very democratic.
With our current system, you'll have less compromise which wastes time and allows issues that should have been dealt with a long time ago to continue to linger.
Let's look at the gun registry as a perfect example.
This term - gun registry will be removed.
Next term - gun registry will be reinstated.
Following term - removed.
Etc.. etc..
With proportional rep., our more moderate government would be realized and they would reach some consensus on perhaps a laissez-faire registry. Or as me and Colpy compromised - guns for drugs.
Last edited:
Our resident psychic goes into the OPs past and comes back with this wonderful revelation.
Thank you so much you, oh wise sire.
For my part, I supported proportional representation back in '98, when we had a much different government. My stance hasn't changed for the reasons below..
Yes, but despite having the largest voter support, their vote for legislation can still be outweighed by the collective voting of the other 4 parties. Or they would take the time to revise their agenda to one that can be negotiated between all parties.
Which is very democratic.
With our current system, you'll have less compromise which wastes time and allows issues that should have been dealt with a long time ago to continue to linger.
Let's look at the gun registry as a perfect example.
This term - gun registry will be removed.
Next term - gun registry will be reinstated.
Following term - removed.
Etc.. etc..
With proportional rep., our more moderate government would be realized and they would reach some consensus on perhaps a laissez-faire registry. Or as me and Colpy compromised - guns for drugs.
Yeah.
I'm a conservative, and I think the system needs reform.
The preferential ballot is the answer..........
Compromise wastes time. Majority government is efficient.
BTW, once the Conservatives kill the gun registry, it will be a long, very cold day in a frozen hell before any other party seeks to re-introduce it. It has been fifteen YEARS since the legislation first hit Parliament, and the fight was is as fresh and as intense today as it ever was, last night I listened to John Manley on Cross Country Check-Up describe it as one of the factors in the collapse of Liberal Party support.........
No other issue has been as hotly debated and fought over for so long....not abortion, not gay marriage, not capital punishment. Political parties like to avoid controversy.
AND any new move to re-introduce the registry will require it start from scratch....another 2 billion???? Try pulling THAT on the taxpayers........
We're a stubborn bunch, we know we have a right to arms, and we refuse to be coerced.
Thus we win.