Direct Democracy

[scott malcolm]

all aimed towards the initial goal of getting DD into the Canadian consciousness

Try to sell empowerment to the political consumer with slogans like:

Our choice is our right!

Remember to profile your voter potentiate for effective script delivery to envoke the emotional response which will deliver them to the polling booth in your favor.

 

[Paranoid Dot Calm]

Democracy is a sham. A charade. A joke.

We all love democracy because we like being lied to.
We enjoy catching our politicians in a lie and we feel better for it.
Our ballot is simply an act of forgiveness and absolution for the telling of lies.

We punish those politicians who speak the truth because they only depress us.

Calm

 

[Huron]

There's a difference between being the person telling the joke and being the butt of the joke.

 

[Paranoid Dot Calm]

Within our Canadian Law and Trade Agreements, we have given Corporations the same rights as human beings, or the same rights as Canadian citizens.

Until that is changed .... we don't have a democracy.

Calm

 

[Reverend Blair]

Have you seen the movie, "The Corporation", Calm? It has a look at that and examines the coporation as psychopath. Everybody should be required to watch it before they allowed to vote.

That is one of the reasons that the corporatists aren't too happy about either DD or PR, Calm. The legal fiction of corporations having rights would likely remain, at least at first, but the expression of those rights by buying off political parties and/or setting policy via corporate-controlled think tanks would be greatly diminished.

Imagine what would have happened when the Conservatives shot down the attempt to have Cargill and Tyson open their books or face fines for contempt of Parliament under a system where our representatives really had to face the electorate and corporations had no real political power. Think those books would have remained closed? Think the politicians who backed the corporations over the ranchers wouldn't have received a very definite message when the June election rolled around?

I have a feeling that the books would have been opened, but if they weren't there would have been some different candidates (still conservative, but not Conservative) running (and winning) in a few ridings in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

 

[scott malcolm]

Paranoia

Democracy is a sham. A charade. A joke.

I would modify that to refer to "constitutional monarchies" and "representative democratic states".

Then it is the corporate dollar that controls the vote. Earlier someone brought up the fact that the Majority were trying to make corrective measures to the imbalance of the social impacts of cigarettes vs. the tax rates.

Well in the states that the "people" voted in referendum to equalize the taxation to adequately address the social cost we saw the cigarette companies pouring money into the advertising machines to sway that outcome at a rate that could not be matched by their opponents. To no avail. It is harder to conform the vote of the population through dollars on an issue than it is to "LOBBY" one lawmaker or a group of lawmakers.

I would have you consider that if you only practice democracy when you vote then you miss the whole premise of democracy. Our representatives are hired by us to represent us. In order to do that effectively they need our input. You wouldn't hire an accountant to do your taxes and then not give him your receipts for the year. You wouldn't hire a lawyer to go and represent himself.

Why do people hire a representative to ogffice and then only check up on him every 3 to 5 years to see if he should be fired?

They tend to screw up alot in that short time if left to their own devices.

You should be calling up your representative on issues of import to you. You should be writing the papers when they do not do as you would have them do as your "representative".

I find the fault in democracy is not the politicians who are left alone by populace apathy but the populations unwillingness to give a damn or just complain about it under their breath.

That is the breeding ground for unaccountable decisions. When the population fails to participate on a ongoing basis.

The goal of Direct Democracy and the variants is to create a system of participation so that the population has a clearly defined role and path to express their will on issues rather electing personalities on their smiles and the number of babies they can kiss.

 

[scott malcolm]

Reverend

corporatists aren't too happy about either DD or PR

On the contrary corporations love PR as it enshrines the corporate party system in place and usually denies access to independents to represent the constituents rather than a vested interest party.

Having it be a referendum issue here in BC next May we see many corporations licking their lips in anticipation because soon if passed they will be able to control the balances of government at a greatly reduced cost.

As an independent I will not be able to practically run in our province. I will be forced to form a party with the sole intent of becoming the 3 swing votes necessary to run the province at which point corporate interests would obviously attempt to lavish me with riches to forward legislation beneficial to them and to try to sway me from using that influence to install DD ver. 1.2. Which is funny in itself as I would use the minority control over the swing vote to put to referendum the option of empowering the majority on an issue they already have voted on. Binding citizen initiated referendum. Your corporate parties are not rallying to that cause even though in BC we voted overwhelmingly in support of C.I.R. to the tune of 83% in favor.

On an interesting note I recently worked on a campaign to educate people on PR with the Citizens' Assembly here in BC.

http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public/news/calendar/pharris-292_0404301003-113

Many noted that it was a conflict of interest for me to work on providing the community access to education on an issue that if passed would eliminate what I consider the basic building blocks of democracy. Which is Independent voices in Election campaigns willing to say what needs to be said without fear of smearing the corporate party's good name because a profiled demographic won't like it(see Kerry: lack of condemnation of Iraq war). Independents can bring real issues to light in debate rather than rhetoric and without looking up their opinions in a policy manual. They do not tread lightly for fear of losing what is already lost.

The reason why I had to bring PR forward to my community is because we need people making good decisions based on real information whether or not the outcome of that is consistent with your position.

That is the role of a Direct Democratic advocate.

Providing quality information to the public so they can make informed decisions even if it cuts your throat.

I find the people most willing to install a PR system are the minority positions seeking an opportunity to gain swing influence over the majority. i.e. The Green Party is in favor.

I simply cannot support it even if it places my objectives within grasp. Though I will work with the models I have at my disposal and will install DD here in this province by selectively focusing dollars on the 7 ridings we will win and form a coalition based on our whims.

 

[scott malcolm]

Reverend

Though we should keep the two issues seperate. DD empowers the majority while PR is a tool best used by vested corporate party interests to empower minorities to dictate to the majority. See: Israel's Haisidic laws initiated by minority fundementalists.

On the problem of empowering rights to new user groups in DD.

As discussed before the DD system tends to be conservative in nature rather than a pendulum of interests gaining temporary power to impose that group's values onto the whole system creating reactions in the public who vote for the opposing interest at the next election.

The Swiss system was initiated in the 1800's and was started with a list of qualifications to participate in the process.

In Canada we have already established that it is an inclusive rather than exclusive politcial enviroment through our Charter of Rights.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I simply don't agree with your analysis of PR, Scott. If it was instituted the NDP would increase their presence, the Greens would have a presence and so, most likely, would the CAP. Toss in the new PCs and whatever eventually gels out of David Orchard's attempts. The greens are pretty much pro-corporate. So are the new PCs. The others aren't though. There would also be other parties formed up pretty quickly. It would change the dynamic in a hurry.

If it was instituted, constituents would start putting a lot more of the onus on their candidates instead of the parties, especially on certain issues. That would be reflected in the elections.

There would be a searching out of common ground driven by what is popular with the electorate because we would be in a constant state of minority government, only the issues would be more driven by the people because the smaller parties would have more of a say.

Corporatists do indeed fear proportional representation. That's why if you ask them about it they immediately point to Israel and Italy instead of the many democracies where it has been instituted and produced stable governments.

Now everything you say about direct democracy may be true, but we have even less of an idea of what form it would eventually take than we do with PR. There is the inescapable fact that people tend to form cliques (where do you think parties came from in the first place) to deal with. There is the fact that Switzerland, the example most used as a model for DD, is interminably slow in making major changes. There are the problems that we've seen in the US (especially California) where it became impossible to raise taxes or revenue from other sources for much needed programs because nobody wants to vote to pay more.

I'm all for discussing parliamentary reform, but we have to look at all of the options. We also have to look at the likelihood of getting those options actually instituted are.

I know you favour DD and I'm interested in learning more about it, have actually learned a lot about because of you and others. I still lean towards PR though, partly because there are many working models we can learn from and partly because it has a much better shot of being instituted some time before I take a dirt nap.

 

[scott malcolm]

still lean towards PR though, partly because there are many working models we can learn from and partly because it has a much better shot of being instituted some time before I take a dirt nap.

DD and PR are not mutually exclusive. One is an electoral system of determining how the population is represented in an assembly and the other is the population being a check and balance to that elected body.

Switzerland has a fully functioning Parliament. It's Parliament(National Council) is elected under a system of proportional representation(mixed pr). Though the population can challenge the legislation through petition and subsequently force an issue to referendum if enough of the population agree.

constituents would start putting a lot more of the onus on their candidates instead of the parties

Ummmm the PR party slate system does not even give you a chance to vote for a candidate. You vote for a party and they forward a slate of prioritized candidates. If they win ten percent of the vote and are awarded 31 seats then the top thirty one candidates on the list they forward are sent to represent them. You are not even assured that someone in western Canada would even make it to a position on the slates.

Your common ground would be Ontario's interests.

Corporatists do indeed fear proportional representation. That's why if you ask them about it they immediately point to Israel and Italy instead of the many democracies where it has been instituted and produced stable governments

When you place a government at the mercy of a minority swing vote it is easier and less expensive to conform that government to your will.

The more stable governments you are talking about is France where they had to give the office of the President dictatorial powers to balance the ineffectiveness of the elected house. Chirac can repeal and degree laws without question to counter the weak system.

That stability came at the cost of the authoritarian rule.

Here's a good site to see the basic differences.

http://www.democracy-building.info/voting-systems.html

But again the PR system has nothing to do with DD. PR determines how we send people to Ottawa and DD determines how the population, if it chooses to participate, can block poor legislation from becoming law(if we are talking about Swiss styled).

And ensures that the population has the right to move initiatives to the public without having to have the support of a major party and the back room deals that entails.

P.S. In Canada you will find that people use the Italy and Israeli scenario for a very good reason. It is basically the same parliamentary system. Comparing PR in France is not as accurate because that scenario is a Republican system rather than a Westminster Parliamentary process.

Though the Israelis too have gone and made the necessary corrective measure to ensure that there is stability in government by making the Prime Minister's job be an elected position with unique powers.

Though we can't do that here because our "Executive" branch is solely the realm of the English Monarchy.

And I'm not going to vote for shoring up that institution to be an absolute dictatorial lawmaker to counter a weak Parliament.

Maybe if we dealt with that problem.........

 

[Reverend Blair]

Ummmm the PR party slate system does not even give you a chance to vote for a candidate. You vote for a party and they forward a slate of prioritized candidates. If they win ten percent of the vote and are awarded 31 seats then the top thirty one candidates on the list they forward are sent to represent them. You are not even assured that someone in western canada would even make it to a position on the slates.

That's only one model, and it isn't likely to be the one instituted. The most likely form of PR would be one something like this, although there would be variations: Each riding would select an MP. A certain number of seats (possiblly per province/territory, possibly nationally) would be set aside for representatives elected under the PR system to reflect the popular vote. You would still have an MP for your constituency then there would be some MPs without ridings.

Your common ground would be Ontario's intersts.

We do want democracy and that is where most of the people are. Under any form of direct democracy that would still be the case.

When you place a government at the mercy of a minority swing vote it is easier and less expensive to conform htat government to your will.

There would be more than one swing vote though, forcing the corporations to attempt to buy off many MPs and greatly increasing the chance that one of them would stand up and say, "Guess who just offered me a campaign contribution/trip to Fiji/tight young girl or boy/seat on the board when I leave politics..."

The more stable governments you are talking about is France where they had to give the office of the President dictatorial powers to balance the ineffectiveness of the elected house. Chirac can repeal and degree laws without question to counter the weak sytem.

That stability came at the cost of the authoritarian rule.

Most of Europe has some form of PR. Using the worst examples without acknowledging that isn't likely to encourage people to look at parliamentary change too easily.

But again the PR system has nothing to do with DD. PR determines how we send people to Ottawa and DD determines how the population, if it chooses to participate, can block poor legislation from becomng law(if we are talking about Swiss styled).

If we're looking at a combined system they have a lot to do with each other. If we're discussing parliamentary reform then all the possibilities have to be addressed.

The reality is that we are not going to get rid of the party system, so we have to find a way to make the party system work. Taking several decades longer than other western countries to do something as basic and simple as giving women the vote is not something I think most Canadians would consider working.

I haven't written off DD, Scott. If we want parliamentary reform we'll have to come up with some sort of compromise that is both workable and has snowball's chance in hell of adopted though.

 

[scott malcolm]

it has a much better shot of being instituted some time before I take a dirt nap.

We have direct democracy working in Canada on a municipal level and provinical level.

It is so exciting that you probably never heard of it.

Rossland's Municipal Constitution provides for two distinct democratic tools: the referendum and the citizens' initiative. The referendum is used as a mechanism by which citizens are empowered to decide whether a bylaw advanced by their Council should be implemented. The citizens' initiative is used as a mechanism by which citizens are empowered to introduce a bylaw directly. Both are triggered by petition.

http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/carrel.htm

So here again we see what form DD takes when being implemented.

1) Brake referendum.
2) Citizen Initiated Referendum.

And again in the 1913 Direct Legislation Act of Alberta:

3. The Legislature, with reference to any Act, may declare that it shall not come into force until the ninetieth day after the close of the session during which the same is passed.

4. Any number of electors being not less than ten per centum in number of the total votes polled at the general provincial election then last held, may address a petition to the Lieutenant Governor in Council (provided that the said petition must be signed by a number of electors in eighty-five per centum of the electoral divisions in the province equal in number in each electoral division to at least eight per centum of the votes polled in the said electoral division at the election then last held for the purpose of electing a member of the Legislative Assembly), praying that any Act or any part of parts of the said Act, the operation of which is deferred under the provisions of section 3 hereof be referred to a vote of the electors.

5. When any such petition is presented under the provisions of section 4 hereof the operation of the Act therein referred to shall be and is hereby further deferred until a vote of the electors is taken thereon and the result of such vote finally determined as hereinafter provided.

6. Any number of electors being not less than 20 per centum in number of the total votes polled at the general provincial election then last held may present to the Legislative Assembly at any time before the expiration of the time for the presenting of petitions to the Legislative Assembly, a petition. . . praying that a proposed Act, a copy of which shall accompany the said petition, be enacted by the Legislature;

Provided that the said petition must be signed by a number of electors [as stipulated in section 4 above];

Provided however, that no such proposed Act shall be considered by the Legislative Assembly which provides for any grant or charge upon the public revenue or which is not certified to by the Attorney General as being in his opinion within the legislative jurisdiction of the Legislature of Alberta.

7. Every proposed Act presented to the Legisla­tive Assembly under the provisions of section 6 hereof and which complies with all the requirements of the said section shall unless it is enacted during the session at which it is presented without amendment or with only such amendments as shall be certified to by the Speaker as not constituting a substantial alteration therein, or as not changing the meaning intent or effect thereof, be submitted to a vote of the electors.

Only more level to go. The Federal.

The reality is that we are not going to get rid of the party system, so we have to find a way to make the party system work.

DD does not mean you don't have parties. It means that at the end of the day when the party in power makes a bad decision that the population can address it by petition to put such legislation to referendum before it is enacted. Or simply too initiate a new law. Everything else remains the same but the check and balance of public opinion is there to stop erratic privitizations or GST or Free Trade agreements inacted by politicians who know full well that the people do not want such legislation or agreements.

I haven't written off DD, Scott.

Why would someone not want a process to brake rogue legislation that goes against the wishes of the constituents or be able to suggest new laws if a large percentage of the population agreed with them?

Though British Columbia has had Direct Democracy legislation approved in the Legislature and would have been enacted into law had it received Royal Assent. Apparently our Monarch did not like it.

If we're discussing parliamentary reform

PR is electoral reform and DD is a constutitional amendment. The Westminister Parliament system would remain unchanged in either process.

Using the worst examples without acknowledging that isn't likely to encourage people to look at parliamentary change too easily.

I thought France and Israel were the good models. I think it is your job to bring forth examples of it working without having to counter an ineffective assembly with a strong executive branch. Currently there are 70 odd countries using the party slate system and only eight using a mixed system so the natural assumption is the party slate system. It's good to see that clarified on what you would like to see. I prefer the STV but only three countries use that.

STV is good and STDs are bad.

 

[Reverend Blair]

We have direct democracy working in Canada on a municipal level and provinical level.

We do not have it on a federal level though...that's the tough one to crack.

DD does not mean you don't have parties.

You've consistently argued for an end to the party system though, Scott. You have argued against PR because it entrenches the party system.

Why would someone not want a process to brake rogue legislation that goes against the wishes of the constituents or be able to suggest new laws if a large percentage of the population agreed with them?

That's why I haven't written off DD, Scott.

PR is electoral reform and DD is a constutitional amendment. The Westminister Parliament system would remain unchanged in either process.

Both (or either) have to be done in the context of overall reforms or they will fail. Those overall reforms have to address the Senate, the Governor General's role, the recall of MPs, whether to go to set election dates, the powers of the provinces and municipalities, First Nations, and a host of other issues. We will, once the ball gets rolling, only get one shot at this for a long time to come.

I thought France and Israel were the good models.

I doubt you really believe that.

I think it is your job to bring forth examples of it working without having to counter an ineffective assembly with a strong executive branch. Currently there are 70 odd countries using the party slate system and only eight using a mixed system so the natural assumption is the party slate system. It's good to see that clarified on what you would like to see. I prefer the STV but only three countries use that.

I don't think that's my job at all. I think my job is to point out that we need to develop a made in Canada system that addresses the good and bad points of the various models that we have available to us in order to form a system that works for this country. We have a lot of regional disparities that have to be addressed as part of this. While some countries have some of those issues, few (if any) have the same number and combination that we do.

The model of PR most often put forth in Canada is the one I explained previously. It's a mix of what we have now, maintaining regional representation, and the party slate system. As a stand-alone system, if it is not introduced along with other reforms, its biggest benefit would be the ability to use it to bring those further reforms in.

 

[scott malcolm]

We do not have it on a federal level though...that's the tough one to crack.

I think we will see Citizen Initiated Referendum on a Federal level before we see a PR system because of the regional diversity.

Don't get me wrong. I only reject 87% of the PR sytems out there while we have the executive branch held in reserve for future use by the Monarch.

You've consistently argued for an end to the party system though

Please quote me on that. I have consistently argued that the people be a check and balance to the likes of Stephen Harper. Are you telling me that if Stephen Harper wins a majority that you think it a bad idea to have citizens empowered to petition the government to force them to put to referndum the legislation the Conservative government just approved before it is enacted?

Direct Democracy is about checks and balances to the party system. I cannot get rid of parties even though you seem to want to make them the only option with the mixed party slate sytem.

Politicians enter politics to make positive change and they get beaten down by the political corporations who accept the donations of the corproate sponsors. Whether that political corporation is profit or union initiated.

I have never accepted the idea that we as a country would ever do the right thing as we did when we constituted the Nanuvuk territory and made parties "illegal". When we evaluated the shortcomings of democracy we deteremined that parties were the downfall.

Though everyone can give advice about everyone else's love life and never accept the same commentary about their own.

That's why I haven't written off DD, Scott.

The other instituted part is the right of people to suggest ideas about their laws and a process to bring that to fruitation. Is that too a good idea or is it bad?

Both (or either) have to be done in the context of overall reforms or they will fail..................

Exactly why would having brake legislation or CIR require any other overhaul?

The same safegaurds are already in place. The Judicaiary makes the final ruing on any law. Everyone makes it sound complex. It doesn't change our system beyond populace balance.

You argue the Queen remain as the validator of our laws and I argue that people should have the right to veto by referendum initiated by petition. Or "brake referendum" rather than "royal assent".

The model of PR most often put forth in Canada is the one I explained previously.

The only model moving forward in Cansda is BC-STV. The fairvote people are interesting but unrealistic. BC-STVt is the model for Canada as every other Province is closely watching this process and is considering it's feasibility.

If you argue for this one and I might agree. I will not give a blanket statement endorcing the other 87% of PR sysyems that might spell the death of Canada when the executive balance is held by an individual who by your reackoning won't use such power.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I think we will see Citizen Initiated Referendum on a Federal level before we see a PR system because of the regional diversity.

Don't get me wrong. I only reject 87% of the PR sytems out there while we have the executive branch held in reserve for future use by the Monarch.

You seem quite terrified of that elderly woman, Scott. I see PR as the best way of initiating other changes if the Feds refuse to institute reforms under the current system.

I doubt we'll see a CIR on a federal level anytime soon. Martin isn't interested in reforms and he's not likely to move to such a system in a harry unless reforms are taking place and there is political pressure to do so.

Please quote me on that.

Did you want me to go back to the other place or just stick with you've said here?

Are you telling me that if Stephen Harper wins a majority that you think it a bad idea to have citizens empowered to petition the government to force them to put to referndum the legislation the Conservative government just approved before it is enacted?

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that getting this in place as stand-alone piece of legislation, especially when it would likely require opening up the constitution, is not likely to happen under the current system.

Politicians enter politics to make positive change and they get beaten down by the political corporations who accept the donations of the corproate sponsors. Whether that political corporation is profit or union initiated.

Steps have already been taken federally to lessen that. Here in Manitoba it has been reduced even further. It is possible to remove corporations' political influence over the parties.

I have never accepted the idea that we as a country would ever do the right thing as we did when we constituted the Nanuvuk territory and made parties "illegal". When we evaluated the shortcomings of democracy we deteremined that parties were the downfall.

That's because we won't. The party system is ingrained in our society. Look around the world and tell me how many political systems don't have parties. One-party dictatorships even have parties...the one in power and the ones that you get disappeared for belonging to. Even on city councils where parties don't officially exist, they clearly have influence. Same in Nunavut.

The other instituted part is the right of people to suggest ideas about their laws and a process to bring that to fruitation. Is that too a good idea or is it bad?

In both cases I'll have to wait to see what the actual plans are. I am not of the opinion that a crippled government is a good government and I am not of the opinion that people are immune to massive adveising campaigns by those with the money. If referenda are to act as a check and balance of the politicians, then the opposite must also be true. I'm not seeing a lot of suggestions as to how the balance would work.

Exactly why would having brake legislation or CIR require any other overhaul?

Because we need more than a couple of reforms and aren't likely to get them if we don't do them all at once. I've never been a believer in pouring a can a of STP into an engine, instead I believe in taking apart the engine and fixing it. In the case of your brake legislation, we'll likely have to open up the top of the engine anyway. We should do a proper job while we're at it.

The only model moving forward in Cansda is BC-STV. The fairvote people are interesting but unrealistic. BC-STVt is the model for Canada as every other Province is closely watching this process and is considering it's feasibility.

Everybody is watching the process to see if change can be enacted. That's not the same as adopting the exact same system.

 

[scott malcolm]

You seem quite terrified of that elderly woman, Scott.

I think you fail to recognize that power is not ceremonial when the lack of application is merely traditional rather than constitutional.

You want PR but refuse to acknowledge the lessons of Proportional Representation. It creates a potentially ineffective Parliament under the right (or should I say wrong) conditions.

In order to have an consistently effective government with most variants of PR you need a strong executive branch to counter resulting weaknesses in the assemblies.

Here we have an executive branch that does not facilitate us empowering it. We have "first past the post" and we need our Parliament to be effective because we lack the balance of a strong Head of State.

You have not addressed this issue at all.

Did you want me to go back to the other place or just stick with you've said here?

Use any quotes you like. Remember you are to support your statement: "You've consistently argued for an end to the party system though".

I fully recognize that groups form for their own vested interests at the expense of the greater population and we can not eradicate that process. Though I will work hard to ensure that the people have a counter balance if any vested interest goes too far in paying back it's investors at the expense of the populace like we see here in BC with the company "Accenture" who was one of the largest campaign investors of the BC Liberals and subsequently received the services contract of BC Hydro at the expense of the populace. Privatizing Hydro is not in the best interests of BC no matter if you are a business or a residential consumer. It only serves the interests of Accenture and we the people have no way to brake that privatization of a pubic company to an Authur Anderson subsidiary.

The NDP did the same when they stuck the taxpayer with union health contracts that we could not afford and dictated the contracts from the Premier's office rather than negotiating a mutually acceptable contract.

What I am saying is that getting this in place as stand-alone piece of legislation, especially when it would likely require opening up the constitution, is not likely to happen under the current system.

I certainly recognize that this involves work and rather than say that it appears too hard I am hard at work. It doesn't involve the constitution at all. Though it would be nice to rework that document because then we could realistically start looking at PR systems with a strong elected Head of State who would themself be balanced by brake referendum.

It is possible to remove corporations' political influence

Impossible to eliminate wholly. You can no more stop the influence of corporations on a collection of citizens who own corporations banding together for political enterprise anymore than you can stop unions from having influence on political enterprises comprised of union employees.

Look around the world and tell me how many political systems don't have parties.

Nunavuk in Canada is one such state. Though who is arguing against the right of people to form parties or be influenced by their participants?

I argue that the people need a balance to vested interests when they determine that it is not in their interests.

I argue for "Brake Referendum" and "Citizen Initiated Referendum" and neither of those have anything to do with party systems or how people are elected to the governing assemblies.

I "do" argue against the elimination of non affiliated interests in the election process.

You seem to have fallen into the logical fallacy of "ignoratio elenchi" or "irrelevant conclusion".

If you are for people having the right to participate in the decision making process then you are against the parties having a right to participate.

If you are for independents having a right to participate in an election then you are against parties having a right to participate in an election.

 

[scott malcolm]

Because we need more than a couple of reforms and aren't likely to get them if we don't do them all at once.

I just don't buy it. Gay marriage will be enacted into an antiquated contractual agreement process without fully addressing all the shortcomings of that agreement process or implications said incorporatation will have.

I am not of the opinion that a crippled government is a good government

Demonstrate by example where the government of any DD system has been crippled by the majority of people voting to block any legisaltion they feel goes against their best interests.

It cripples the vested interests willingness to pass legislation that goes against the overwhelming majority interests.

I am not of the opinion that a crippled government is a good government

Well you are advocating PR in a system that has no counter to any resulting ineffective assembly and that would likely create a crippled government in many instances. So in my opinion you are advocating the crippling of the government.

Until such a time as you shore up the balances with a strong Head of State.

I am not of the opinion that people are immune to massive adveising campaigns by those with the money

I am sure it is cheaper to bribe a handfull of legislators under the table than it is to convince a majority above board in a clear and transparent process.

That's not the same as adopting the exact same system.

You may have your opinion on what is the best sytem for Canada but quite frankly BC-STV is the one form moving forward in Canada.

What I like about the new process.

1) To be reviewed after it has been used for three provincial elections and that citizens should be involved in the review.

2) Strengthens local representation at the expense of party infuence on MLAs. In order to stand out from other candidates, MLAs will need to clearly represent their districts.

3) BC-STV is also the only proportional system that allows an independent candidates a real chance to be elected.

4) BC-STV will end false majorities.

Ooops! I almost forgot what side of this debate I'm on.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I just don't buy it.

Well, it ain't free.

Demonstrate by example where the government of any DD system has been crippled by the majority of people voting to block any legisaltion they feel goes against their best interests.

Tax bills in California. I don't want to get into a pissing match over California finances either...the taxes were the only option presented to pay for needed services and people said no.

It cripples the vested interests willingness to pass legislation that goes against the overwhelming majority interests.

I hate to bring up California again, but that particular circus did get a lot of airplay.

Well you are advocating PR in a system that has no counter to any resulting ineffective assembly and that would likely create a crippled government in many instances. So in my opinion you are advocating the crippling of the government.

You're ignoring the fact I want wide-spread reforms, including to the Senate. Go ahead, ask me. ;-)

I am sure it is cheaper to bribe a handfull of legislators under the table than it is to convince a majority above board in a clear and transparent process.

There is nothing clear and transparent about political advertising campaigns. When it comes to advertising the corporate backers are the ones that have the edge though.

We live in a country where Labbatt's Lite was the best-selling beer for years. Watered down Blue. Do you really think that happened because people like drinking a watered-down version of a substandard beer?

You may have your opinion on what is the best sytem for Canada but quite frankly BC-STV is the one form moving forward in Canada.

No, it's the form moving forward in BC. That's important, but it isn't all of Canada.

I think you fail to recognize that power is not ceremonial when the lack of application is merely traditional rather than constitutional.

No, I recognize that we are okay for now and that freaking out always brings the worst possible results.

You want PR but refuse to acknowledge the lessons of Proportional Representation. It creates a potentially ineffective Parliament under the right (or should I say wrong) conditions.

I don't fail to recognise anything. I fail to accept that we have to adopt any specific model because no model has been developed to deal with our peculiarities. I fail to believe that we aren't capable of coming up with a workable solution. I don't fail to recognise anything though.

You have not addressed this issue at all.

1 Santa Claus Lane
North Pole
X0X 0X0

Use any quotes you like.

Okay

They do that in a representative system more effectively. As all the votes are concentrated into one individual who is subject to manipulation. In fact the party system demands a concentration of the vote to the investors of the party. A party needs capital to get elected and they seek investors who contribute to their campaigns. If the representatives do not return a benefit to the investment community then they will no longer receive funds to win future elections. Currently the representative system runs on buying votes of our representatives.

One note on my hybrid is that the representative cannot be legally held to the outcome of the ballot in Canada. If a representative wished they could cast their ballot anyway they wanted in the elected assembly. The only difference here is now it is a clear and transparent process when the representative does not abide by the will of the people and is held quantifiably accountable for his ballots. Which in essence places an additional safeguard in the democratic process. Rather than an elected official merely voting to his whim we can see how the people wish him to represent them.

As I see it there is a slim chance that the party du jour will incorporate the populace in the decision making process if they can avoid and they have.

As an independent I will not be able to practically run in our province. I will be forced to form a party with the sole intent of becoming the 3 swing votes necessary to run the province at which point corporate interests would obviously attempt to lavish me with riches to forward legislation beneficial to them and to try to sway me from using that influence to install DD ver. 1.2.

When you place a government at the mercy of a minority swing vote it is easier and less expensive to conform that government to your will.

I could likely dig up more from our conversations in June, but I'm lazy.

I certainly recognize that this involves work and rather than say that it appears too hard I am hard at work. It doesn't involve the constitution at all. Though it would be nice to rework that document because then we could realistically start looking at PR systems with a strong elected Head of State who would themself be balanced by brake referendum.

You will not see any meaningful changes until the constitution is ripped open. There is no point in aiming for half measures. Think about it. The Senate (constitutional change if you want it to stick); the H of C (same deal...there is no provision for MPs without seats); the GG/Queen (that can't be touched without cracking the constitution). We'd also need to address the powers of provinces and municipalities if you wanted to bring the premiers to the table (have to if you want to change the constitution); and you won't go near that puppy without the First Nations demanding (rightfully so, I think) a place somewhere between the provinces and the Feds.

 

[scott malcolm]

You're ignoring the fact I want wide-spread reforms, including to the Senate. Go ahead, ask me.

Well we all want widespread reforms and to get those reforms we need an opening for the people to initiate those reforms.

The "status quo" never opens the door to reform.

That door must be pried open.

P.S. I see my quotes listing many problems of parties but I don't see me suggesting we do away with parties altogether rather than creating balances to their behaviors to achieve the goals of democracy over partocracy.

You have stumbled into another logical fallacy.

If A is a behavioral aspect of B and you disagree with A then you are resolved to destroy B.

Kind of destroys the opportunity to offer any criticism without being accused of wanting to destroy that which you criticize.

Though this logical fallacy is superceded by the general "Straw Man" argument. You are asserting I am advocating we eliminate parties while I am not.

 

[Reverend Blair]

You have argued against the party system consistently, Scott. You have lamented that Canada did not ban parties the way they have in Nunavut. You have said that PR damages your ability to run as an independent.

It is not a logical fallacy at all to say that you favour getting rid of the party system.

The door to reforms will not be pried open by instituting direct democracy, at least not anytime soon. You admit that in your own model the will of the people is not binding on the representative. You and Huron have both admitted that DD moves incredibly slowly.

Although nothing is guaranteed, PR is more likely to bring us more sweeping reforms more quickly. First of all two parties are interested in it...the BQ and the NDP...and a third party...the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives...used to be interested before their leader fooled himself into believing he was actually electable.

If we can get PR instituted, and now is the time because there's a minority government, then we can move forward on changes to the senate etc. because there will be a way of prying the door open and because everybody wants change except for the Liberals.