New posts

Electoral Reform

Dec. 2, 2016, 10:08 a.m.
Posts: 16380
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

What the fuq, Justin? Just get on with it.

It's the most important promise you made and you damn well better keep it. Voters will not band together to boot Harper out next election, the left and center-left will split again, and next thing you know, we'll be looking at Prime Minister Leitch.

the horror … the horror

When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity.

When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion.

Dec. 2, 2016, 10:39 a.m.
Posts: 2906
Joined: June 15, 2006

The less things change, the more they stay the same.

This trip to Kelowna was definately an undertaking - Liam and I had been planning this project for 24 hours. We worked really hard to pull out all the stops in this video. We had slo-mo goggle shots; time lapses; pedal flips; outrageous product shots; unloading and loading the bike; walking through the field with your hand in wheat. At the end of the day this trip was all about just getting out and riding with all my friends.

www.letsridebikes.ca

Dec. 2, 2016, 11:12 a.m.
Posts: 429
Joined: Feb. 28, 2005

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trudeau-electoral-reform-1.3811862

"But people like us. Why would we need to change it now?"

Dec. 2, 2016, 11:50 a.m.
Posts: 354
Joined: June 11, 2013

Any Electoral Reform must be put to a referendum. Changing our electoral system without doing so is setting a very dangerous precedent.

Say the Liberals do change how we elect our representatives without a referendum . . .. next time the Conservatives are in power there is nothing stopping them from changing the system again. Then the Liberals changing it again.

Once you change how we elect MP's without support of a referendum, basically the new government can change the rules any time they wish.

Dec. 2, 2016, 1:39 p.m.
Posts: 2582
Joined: May 23, 2006

Now I can't find it Globe said in survey 60% Cdns though reform good idea but only 37% felt urgency.

New Democrats say their report is the result of more than 40 town hall meetings, as well as telephone and online surveys and mailouts. Including a petition for proportional representation that received 15,000 signatures, the NDP says it heard from 37,000 Canadians.

According to the NDP, 84.3 per cent of respondents supported the notion that "a party's seats in Parliament should reflect the percentage of votes they received," while 81.7 per cent agreed that "having a local representative is important to me."

Canadians also want parties to work together to choose a new system: 79.1 per cent agree that "working collaboratively and having cross-party support for a new system is vital."

The NDP has traditionally supported the idea of moving to a mixed-member proportional system for electing MPs, but the submission from the NDP caucus does not endorse any particular model.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-electoral-reform-1.3801615

“The best propaganda is that which, as it were, works invisibly, penetrates the whole of life without the public having any knowledge of the propagandistic initiative.”

Joseph Goebbels

Dec. 2, 2016, 1:58 p.m.
Posts: 8
Joined: Jan. 12, 2006

I actually kind of sympathise with the government on this one. They tasked a multi-party committee with presenting options for electoral reform. Said committee came back with, 'come up with an alternative based on Guthrie Index, and put it to a referendum."

No single government should be responsible for designing an electoral system, and you have to present an alternative for it to go to referendum. Simply asking, 'Do you want reform?' isn't good enough. You need to ask, 'We propose changing to system x. Yes or no?'

If the government presents the public with system x, there is too much room for others to come back later and say that system x favours the incumbents at the time. That is why it is important that system x has cross-party buy-in. The multi-party committee was supposed to present a proposal for system x, and failed to do so, instead passing the hot potato back to the government.

Dec. 2, 2016, 1:58 p.m.
Posts: 33475
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002

Any Electoral Reform must be put to a referendum. Changing our electoral system without doing so is setting a very dangerous precedent.

Say the Liberals do change how we elect our representatives without a referendum . . .. next time the Conservatives are in power there is nothing stopping them from changing the system again. Then the Liberals changing it again.

Once you change how we elect MP's without support of a referendum, basically the new government can change the rules any time they wish.

If there is a change, there should be a constitutional change; something that requires all provinces to be on board.

As for what to change to, nothing has been put forth by the committee looking into it. So what change is the government going to push through?

Also, a referendum will cost half a billion dollars.

It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.
- Josiah Stamp

Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.
- H.G. Wells

Dec. 2, 2016, 1:59 p.m.
Posts: 10925
Joined: June 29, 2006

It sucks, but the cost to the Liberals politically if they don't follow through is probably minimal. Harper promised senate reform before being elected and it never seemed to backfire on him when he never mentioned it once in office.

First thing first, legalize the weed!

Nanu Nanu

Dec. 2, 2016, 2:23 p.m.
Posts: 16380
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

Any Electoral Reform must be put to a referendum. Changing our electoral system without doing so is setting a very dangerous precedent.

Say the Liberals do change how we elect our representatives without a referendum . . .. next time the Conservatives are in power there is nothing stopping them from changing the system again. Then the Liberals changing it again.

Once you change how we elect MP's without support of a referendum, basically the new government can change the rules any time they wish.

We had a referendum. It was called the General Election. Four parties (Liberal, NDP, Bloc, Green) all had electoral reform as a leading part of their platform. Every vote for any of those parties implicitly accepts reform.

A referendum is just a way to sow ignorance and allow the parties that benefit from the status quo to continue doing so.

By your logic, every single bill that comes before the House needs to be put to a referendum.

When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity.

When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion.

Dec. 2, 2016, 2:50 p.m.
Posts: 354
Joined: June 11, 2013

We had a referendum. It was called the General Election. Four parties (Liberal, NDP, Bloc, Green) all had electoral reform as a leading part of their platform. Every vote for any of those parties implicitly accepts reform.

A referendum is just a way to so ignorance and allow the parties that benefit from the status quo to continue doing so.

By your logic, every single bill that comes before the House needs to be put to a referendum.

Nobody would claim that our general election was a referendum on our electoral system. Every party has a platform, nobody agrees with everything nor does winning an election provide the winning party the right to fundamentally change our electoral system based on a minor election promise. Heck, the Liberals promised $10 B deficits, so much for that one.

A referendum would allow for broad based public support of the new system. In the event that a significant proportion of the electorate disagrees with selected new system, or views it to be bias towards the incumbent party, then many Canadians will not deem the outcome to be 'legitimate'. What happens if Quebec voters deem the new system to work against them ? Watch seperation take on a life of it's own.

No, ever single bill does not need to be put to a referendum, that is a poor logical leep on your side. Something that fundamentally changes the foundation of our democracy, a democracy that relies upon the trust our citizens put in it, has to be widely accepted as legitimate. Only way to do that is with a referendum.

Dec. 2, 2016, 2:53 p.m.
Posts: 354
Joined: June 11, 2013

If there is a change, there should be a constitutional change; something that requires all provinces to be on board.

As for what to change to, nothing has been put forth by the committee looking into it. So what change is the government going to push through?

Also, a referendum will cost half a billion dollars.

Did not think about the issue of requiring all provinces to be on board. I don't actually think that is the case, is it not some formula like .. . . at least 7 provinces in total comprising over 60% of Canada's population ?

Half a billion is a rounding error to Trudeau, spending money like a drunken sailor.

Seriously though, if that is actually true, half a billion is a silly amount of money, but, changing our democracy without broad based support will cost us a lot more when Canada fractures because Quebec, Alberta or Vancouver Island thinks they were screwed.

Dec. 2, 2016, 3:50 p.m.
Posts: 5329
Joined: Feb. 3, 2006

Typical Conservatives.

Pass multiple omnibus budgets with little or no debate and no public consultation while in office. Run up HUGE deficits year by year.

Now they're in opposition, bitch about deficits and enacting electoral reform which was a cornerstone policy of the Liberal's platform, debated during the campaigns and has typically had broad public support.

F*cking hypocrites abound.

Dec. 2, 2016, 10:07 p.m.
Posts: 33475
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002

Did not think about the issue of requiring all provinces to be on board. I don't actually think that is the case, is it not some formula like .. . . at least 7 provinces in total comprising over 60% of Canada's population ?

Half a billion is a rounding error to Trudeau, spending money like a drunken sailor.

Seriously though, if that is actually true, half a billion is a silly amount of money, but, changing our democracy without broad based support will cost us a lot more when Canada fractures because Quebec, Alberta or Vancouver Island thinks they were screwed.

Half a billion was suggested by a reporter from CBC.

Electoral reform is currently low on the list of priorities for Canadians. If the federal government tries to push it through right now, the resource consumption will be big, causing a public outrage. And then there's the reaction from the opposition parties, which of course will be very negative regardless of what is put forward.

It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.
- Josiah Stamp

Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.
- H.G. Wells

Dec. 2, 2016, 10:31 p.m.
Posts: 26382
Joined: Aug. 14, 2005

What the fuq, Justin? Just get on with it.

It's the most important promise you made and you damn well better keep it. Voters will not band together to boot Harper out next election, the left and center-left will split again, and next thing you know, we'll be looking at Prime Minister Leitch.

the horror … the horror

www.thisiswhy.co.uk

www.teamnfi.blogspot.com/

Dec. 3, 2016, 2:54 a.m.
Posts: 2582
Joined: May 23, 2006

Canada's "hope 'n change". :lol:

First thing first, legalize the weed!

And make stewpid the new normal.

And then there's the reaction from the opposition parties, which of course will be very negative regardless of what is put forward.

Nonsense. PR will have NDP and Greens onboard. Fuck the Frenchies, they want everthing their own way anyways.

“The best propaganda is that which, as it were, works invisibly, penetrates the whole of life without the public having any knowledge of the propagandistic initiative.”

Joseph Goebbels

Forum jump: