New posts

Myk's posts

351 posts found

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

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, 2:50 p.m.
Posts: 354
Joined: June 11, 2013
Electoral Reform

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, 11:56 a.m.
Posts: 354
Joined: June 11, 2013
RIP: Fidel Castro

Think it's pretty simple . . . look at immigration patterns.

Why are people trying to move to Canada, the US, the UK, Germany, Australia, etc….

Why are there no hoards of people heading for Cuba, North Korea, China (except from North Korea), Russia, Zimbabwe, etc…

Immigrants know where freedom, opportunity and a good life are, and Cuba is not on the list.

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

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.

May 20, 2016, 8:39 a.m.
Posts: 354
Joined: June 11, 2013
OneUp Job Ad - Living Wage

So great to see that it is possible to work for a relatively successful bike parts mfg in Squampton and earn a Living Wage!

People will be flocking all over the opportunity to bust a move in the OneUp warehouse for a really fantastic $30,000 a year!

Well, ask yourself what is better for a someone with no real skillset . . .
- a $30k per year job that exposes you to the workforce and give you experience
- a $0 per year no-job that, well, does nothing for you

Nothing wrong with a $30k per year job that requires no real skill set. Besides OneUp is not exactly Shimano, I suspect that $30k per year is pretty material to their finances.

May 20, 2016, 8:29 a.m.
Posts: 354
Joined: June 11, 2013
Helmets are overrated?

I'm actually surprised some of you commenting here have not yet hit your head. Even my wife who never crashes cracked a helmet the first season I got her off road. Also know a couple of people personally who have long term issues from concussions.

That's the crazy part…. myself everyone I ride with have at some point written off a helmet, and been thankful that it was not our head. A buddy went down hard in the Chilcotins a couple years back, his helmeted head took a glancing blow on a small tree stump on the way down. Really run his bell, got him checked out in Whistler on the way home, ended up he had a concussion. Without the helmet he would have had a really serious injury in an area a long way from medical help. That scared the heck out of me.

If you don't want to wear a helmet for yourself, fine. Wear it for your friends and family.

May 19, 2016, 3:42 p.m.
Posts: 354
Joined: June 11, 2013
Helmets are overrated?

Funny thing is . . . .I hear from fewer and fewer people that 'helmets are not necessary'. I guess they aren't around to say so anymore.

May 13, 2016, 12:27 p.m.
Posts: 354
Joined: June 11, 2013
Democratic reform

Perhaps you weren't paying enough attention, but it was a major part of their platform. There was plenty of back and forth between Harper and Trudeau regarding electoral reform and several questions at the debates as well. It's just plain ignorant if you think that there wasn't debate on electoral reform, in fact, one of the MAJOR talking points for the Liberals was 'this will be Canada's last FPTP election', I heard it repeated so much it made me want to barf.

Saying that this will be the 'last election with FPTP' is not a debate. A debate would discuss why we no longer need FPTP, what the new system should be and ask Canadians to vote for a party based on their beliefs.

In reality the Liberals had this in their platform to prevent the NDP from being the party of 'change'. Electoral reform was not a major issue to Canadians, per the article below only 2% of Canadians said that democratic reform was 'important'. Without dispute it was not a major issue of concern for Canadians in the last election. There was no mandate from Canadians granted for electoral reform.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vote-compass-canada-election-2015-issues-canadians-1.3222945

The last election was a referendum on Harper, not an endorsement of the Liberals 150+ election promises. If a promise was a bad promise, it should be broken and explained why. The Liberlas had no problem doing that with "10,000 Syrian refugees by Christmas" and "$10 billion deficit", yet they are holding onto their election platform as justification here.

May 13, 2016, 12:19 p.m.
Posts: 354
Joined: June 11, 2013
Democratic reform

I think a change to some other functionally proven democratic system is worth an attempt… just maybe, it'll be better too. And if it's a train-wreck, it's not unreasonable for us to expect to change back.

Actually, I do not think it can be taken that casually. Saying we can 'change back' assumes that we are able to. What happens if the system is gamed by the Conservatives, they win, then then keep the system they have gamed? Or even worse, they change the system to something that favours them even more.

There are two issues at play here
1 - precedent. If the Liberals change the voting system without a referendum or all party support, they have set a precedent in Canada. Effectively there will be no argument that will prevent a future government from changing the system, we could have a new system every 4 years in fact. Nothing is saying that this is a 'one off', we could be on a slippery slope of future 'tweaks' to the system to benefit the party in power.

2 - Legitimacy. I still think that a new system needs either all party support or a referendum to be considered legitimate. Without mass agreement as to the process that got us the new system, and the new system itself, we risk losing the perception of legitimacy in our system.

May 13, 2016, 11:09 a.m.
Posts: 354
Joined: June 11, 2013
Obscure North Shore Hiking Trails

We did the Fool's Gold Route once. 9 days, Squamish to Port Coquitlam, no trail. Brutal.

That's hard core. I have always 'wanted' to do that route, then I do some research and decide otherwise.

Not North Shore, but, there is a great trail from Princess Louisa Inlet over Sun Peak and down to the Sims Valley, north west of Squamish.

One way to discover random places is to look for pictures in Google Earth that are random or seem misplaced. You can see someone's route from Seymour Dam to Vicar Lakes that way. There are also a few pictures in the Capilano watershed that show some routes.

May 13, 2016, 10:57 a.m.
Posts: 354
Joined: June 11, 2013
Democratic reform

I don't think I'd agree that Harper became more centrist.

And a sitting government with an elected majority can't "be turfed", a general election would need to be called. What you are describing is more likely to happen with a minority governement/coallition via a non-confidence vote. This scenario is more likely to occur in a proportional representation system.

Maybe, maybe not. He likely operated less 'conservative' than he would have liked. He did run massive deficits, killed any abortion debate and not a lot of "firewall" talk during his tenure as PM.

I was thinking 'turfed' in the next election, not immediately.

I think the comment as to increased chances of non-confidence in a PR system is a strike against it. Having elections every 2 years or the Gov Gen asking another party to 'attempt' to form a government would be very unstable and not welcomed by the electorate.

It really is the instability of the PR system that worries me. We could end up like Italy, they have had something like 64 governments since WW2.

May 13, 2016, 10:39 a.m.
Posts: 354
Joined: June 11, 2013
Democratic reform

The Libs were pretty clear that they were going to do electoral reform during the election, so were the NDP, it was a huge part of their platform and one of the major issues in the election. The Conservatives were against electoral reform, because the existing system benefits their party greatly.

There already was a referendum, the Cons lost and are now trying to sandbag the process.

I don't know if I buy that. It was part of their platform, but it was not a 'major' part. It was never focused on, never any real thought given to it, no proposal as to what it would be. The last Canadian election run on a single issue was likely NAFTA when Mulroney won, something as important to Canada as electoral reform really needed to be debated during the election to be considered 'major'.

I just worry that we're imposing a new system on Canadians that many will not see as legitimate. Once our system loses it's legitimacy, we're in trouble as a country.

What happens if the "Ontario-Quebec" party forms and controls parliament permanently? How would that impact the west ? A new voting system could risk the existence of Canada.

May 13, 2016, 10:35 a.m.
Posts: 354
Joined: June 11, 2013
Democratic reform

I really like the stability of the FPTP system. Yes, we get majority governments with under 40% of the vote, but, the government knows it can be turfed and tends to become more centrist when in power.

Although proportional representation is more representative 'in theory', I am unsure if that is true in reality. You end up with fringe one issue parties with, say, 5% of the seats holding the balance of power in parliament.

Let's say the Liberals win with 45% of the vote, the Greens get 7%. The Liberals require Green support to pass legislation, they are effectively held hostage by the Greens. 7% of the electorate that voted Green is massively over represented in legislation.

My worry with pure proportional representation is that we will end up with the current parties for a while, then they will start to split. We will have
- 2 conservative parties from the current one
- NDP will split between old school union NDP'ers and new school Naomi Klein style social issue NDP'ers
- emergence of ethnic parties in certain regions of Canada. No reason why the 'Pan-Asian' party could not win in parts of Vancouver

Without a good national discussion and thing about the outcomes, we risk putting Canadian politics down the road of ruin.

May 13, 2016, 8:53 a.m.
Posts: 354
Joined: June 11, 2013
Democratic reform

Did we get a referendum when the conservatards tabled and passed their unfair elections act, restricting citizens' right to vote and limiting the powers of Elections Canada to investigate electoral fraud?

And now those same conservatards are upset that there's no referendum?

Wow, that's insightful. Besides, if the conservatives were 'so good' at suppression and this act helped them undermine democracy, why did they lose so badly ?

Honestly though, put your hate of Harper aside for a second. . . are you not at the least worried that a new voting system may be imposed upon you without your agreement? What if you don't like the system, are you expected to just suck it up ?

How can one party claim that how we vote is not fully democratic, then consider their victory in that 'undemocratic system' to give them a mandate to change it ?

The government is proposing to change how we have elected parliament for 150 years, something we have been doing well and has resulted in stable and largely honest government. Canada is the country it is in part due to the first past the post system, and now the Liberals want to change it without broad agreement ? What are the consequences ? Are we favouring one party ? Will the new system encourage more corruption ? Will it favour one region of the country ?

This is a big deal with doesn't seem many really care about. Just curious why not.

May 13, 2016, 8:35 a.m.
Posts: 354
Joined: June 11, 2013
Democratic reform

Just curious if anyone cares . . .

Harper prorogued parliament and people screamed bloody murder and that it was an affront to democracy.

Trudeau is proposing to change how we vote. To me this seems like a pretty big deal. The party in power will change how we select our parliament with 'consultations' of Canadians. No referendum. I know this was part of their platform, but so was a $10 B deficit and 10,000 refugees by Christmas. We know 'promises' are flexible when need be.
Without a referendum, or at the minimum all party support in parliament, it seems to be that it would be difficult to legitimize a new system. People simply may not believe it to be fair, or believe that it was gamed to benefit the Liberals.

Should something as fundamental as how we vote not be put to a national referendum ? Why does it seem that there is low concern about this ? I'm pretty sure if Harper proposed to change the voting system there would have been massive protests on Parliament Hill.

Does anyone care ?

351 posts found

Forum jump: