I agree. It's a simple matter of not allowing people to do whatever they can to amass money and power. Easy-peasy.
Pierre Poilievre
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
How about just giving back the provincial autonomy that Groper keeps usurping? As for your "less than one person one vote" jibe, the extreme leftards up here are pushing hard for 1 person, multiple votes.
Pretty sure I just got into an argument with someone over the idea rural areas deserved more votes than urban ones...
Clearly, the most obvious way to give more seats to rural areas with less population would be to give those living their more than equal weight of votes.
But sorry for hurting your feels anyhow. You can always apply for compensation.
Pretty sure you got into the "weighted" vote argument. Which isn't the same nonsense the leftards are pushing.
Ohhh man did you miss the mark on that one, I wasn't talking about weighted votes, I'm talking about leftards wanting EVERYONE to pick 4-5 vote selections in order of preference. There's one federal Conservative party and 3 left-wing parties. (Plus the BQ but they don't really matter to anyone outside of Quebec). Let's use an example without the BQ. At election time you'd vote for all party candidates but in order of preference. So let's say you voted for the Conservative candidate. If something happened that forced the candidate to withdraw after the election, they would be replaced by the 2nd most voted for candidate in that riding. That means the Conservatives would lose a seat while a left-wing would automatically gain that seat.
Ah, democracy as redefined by the extreme leftards.
I wasn't addressing your butthurt-of-the-moment. But rave on. Maybe you'll feel better.
Oh, my mistake. I just assumed since you quoted my post and responded directly to it... Silly me.
I know the concept of a conversation going on with people dropping in and out is hard for you, but if you'll take a peek at Post 110, you'll see that I was conversing with Ron when you stuck your oar in.
"the extreme leftards up here are pushing hard for 1 person, multiple votes."
That's what you said.
And here's what Tax said:
"We could easily level the playing field by giving large rural ridings extra votes based on either sq. Km. Or number of communities represented."
Which amounts to multiple votes for 1 person.
Unless you're saying that Tax is an "extreme leftard" I've only really ever heard stuff like this from the Right, and only from the West of Canada. Despite living in just as rural an area as some in the West.
EDITORIAL: Stay in your lane, do your own job — Toronto Sun
The annual meeting of the country’s provincial premiers flew under the radar this week, making few headlines. The premiers most frequently requested that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stick to his federal lane and let them get on with their jobs. Trudeau has been making incursions into...
The premiers most frequently requested that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stick to his federal lane and let them get on with their jobs.
Among those items is the Pharmacare plan insisted upon by New Democratic Leader Jagmeet Singh, to ensure his party’s support for the Liberal minority government. Most provinces already have drug programs for seniors and low-income residents. Trudeau has also announced a dental plan and a school lunch program. Health care is a provincial responsibility, as is education. Lunch programs are in place across the country.
Then there’s housing. As the premiers were talking in Halifax, Trudeau, alongside Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow, announced a $30-billion plan to fund housing — by his rules. And the money won’t arrive for another two years.
The provinces were noticeably bypassed.
Meanwhile, at their East Coast lobster fest, the premiers begged the federal government to live up to its responsibility to allocate 2% of Gross Domestic Product toward defence funding as part of Canada’s commitment to NATO.
There are many options. Start with the triple E senate. Make the feds stay with things in their own jurisdiction. Most areas are clearly defined, just no way to enforce compliance. Perhaps change our electoral system so the PM is elected independent of the majority party, rather than the party leader automatically becoming PM.
That would be me. I stand behind my plan for the simple reason that we have no effective representation. You just don't know what a real large rural riding is.
Wrong. It does not mean multiple votes for one person. MPs are still elected the same way. And I specified LARGE rural ridings. Not your little suburban areas. Think Yukon and NWT and the large ridings in the western provinces. I never came up with a specific number, but think along the lines of more than 2 hr drive from one end of the riding to the other end, or more than 10 communities represented. Perhaps smaller when the only access is by boat or air. I would support the same provincially, because the problem is the same. There is effectively no representation outside large urban centers.
I think the riding size is 75K per riding. If you want smaller ridings, you would make it lets say 35K per riding. This would virtually double the number of sitting MPs from all regions. Yes they will be more responsive when dealing with local constituents but now a days this is such a small part of their job. Do we really need twice as many freeloaders sucking the government tit?
If you are trying to say ridings in different areas should be treated differently, no. We already have Quebec for that. We don't need more whiners.
If you are trying to say ridings in different areas should be treated differently, no. We already have Quebec for that. We don't need more whiners.
Which I linked back to. And I agree, there isn't effective representation. It has nothing to do with "large rural areas" vs "urban areas". It has everything to do with rural areas voting one way and urban voting another based on lifestyles, preferences and lack of the other parties being able to prove that they can do just as well as the standard/usual party elected (urban usually goes Liberal, so Cons proving they can be just as good representational wise to urban people, for example. And Liberals showing rural areas that they're not just for the "rich urbanites".)
And yet, that's what you said.
""We could easily level the playing field by giving large rural ridings extra votes based on either sq. Km. (extra votes would mean more votes per person in that area) Or number of communities represented (again, extra votes per person based on population per community which would further break down into who exactly gets to have the extra votes?).""
Then what would be the difference/change?
"Little suburban areas".
Yeah... pretty sure there aren't any of those around here. We have urban areas, and rural areas.
I actually was when considering your post and the area you're talking about. Even looked into it if you look at the original reply/breakdown.
Oh now see, now you're really clarifying which you hadn't done yet.
But still "more votes" would mean people getting more than one vote.
But there is representation. Each area is represented equally, it's just that the people VOTE differently from urban to rural areas.
The actual issue isn't the areas themselves, it's who the people vote for, why they vote that way, and the other side not doing a good enough job to tell people why they should be voted for. And it's also dependent on whether it's federal or provincial politics.
Federally, my riding always ends up voting Liberal regardless, because French people = Liberal in NB.
Provincially this same riding is divided smaller (of course) and suddenly while the French area votes Liberal almost always, sometimes the more English part of it now gets more of a say and we've gone Liberal, Con AND Green (currently, and she's actually been the best MLA we've had for decades).
Exactly.
Although I'd put in that even the smaller ridings wouldn't mean greater chances for people's voices/votes to matter. It'd still, as you said, just make more MP's but not necessarily fix the actual problems of people mattering.
