Go vote.
Also, I'm not endorsing her candidacy at all, but would like to point out that Rona is kind of a hottie. That is all.
http://www.garth.ca/weblog/wp-content/rona55.jpg
Printable View
Go vote.
Also, I'm not endorsing her candidacy at all, but would like to point out that Rona is kind of a hottie. That is all.
http://www.garth.ca/weblog/wp-content/rona55.jpg
i was walking around toronto and someone gave me a piece of paper that said something like 'canada used to be a leader, now its a follower because of the harper conservatives'
so there ya go people
WTF! no hello? I'm changing my fuckin username on iPoker and Partypoker and Everest poker and any other I may have used.Quote:
Originally Posted by gabe
Shouldn't this be called the Canadian Erection Thread given the first post? :h:
this election is being covered heavily in the US news market
Really? Since when does anyone give a shit about canada? Slow news day?Quote:
Originally Posted by flomo
Even most Canadians are paying closer attention to the US elections than they are their own :lol:
Good point. But Parliament green is a wood killer. Maybe if she was wearing traditional mukluks things would be different. Meow.Quote:
Originally Posted by d0zer
At 3:16pm ET, I'm calling a Conservative Minority.
I was calling this the day the election was announced.Quote:
Originally Posted by BennyLaRue
Voting is for queers ldo.
Yeah, but I hear you're a bot.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
that has absolutely nothing to do with this OPQuote:
Originally Posted by BennyLaRue
Obviously not or the Green party would win.Quote:
Originally Posted by wesrman
I was kidding. I love to hear people go crazy when i say ive never voted.Quote:
Originally Posted by BennyLaRue
I think its pretty much a waste of time, and i dont take the time (or care) to listen to the issues. So its prolly better that i dont vote.
lol irlQuote:
Originally Posted by flomo
I know you were kidding. I was calling the Green Party a bunch of queers.Quote:
Originally Posted by wesrman
(Vote Green!)
((Not that there's anything wrong with that!))
I vote so that I can have an opinion on our government in the future. I hate hearing complaints from people that don't vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by wesrman
warpe get my vote
Dont worry, i dont bitch about it cuz i dont really care.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by drmcboy
ha honestly i did not know you were a canadian, sorry manQuote:
Originally Posted by jyms
next time im up there ill post it here so we can have a toronto get together with whoever else
Yah looks like conservative minority.
Mannn I voted green party in my riding, just cause I thought they did the best in the debates etc... and my riding has been liberal for as long as I can remember (Thornhill riding) but Peter Kent rode in on his news anchor wagon this year and took over for the conservatives!
I guess I should have done the good old "vote for liberals to block PC" move afterall.
Worked for me. My liberal candidate squeaked back in against a strong conservative challenger, so I guess my vote counted. Keep the conservatives to a minority, thank you, and bye bye Dion.Quote:
Originally Posted by griffey24
I don't think it is necessarily a 'vote liberal to block conservatives' situation here. Just vote whoever other than conservative that has the best chance of winning in that particular riding. Especially with the latest liberal party being so unpopular, a conservative minority was basically the best we could hope for, so vote green if there is a strong green candidate, vote NDP if there is a strong NDP candidate, and independent if there is a strong independent candidate. anything to block the conservatives from taking precious seats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warpe
Or, you could live in a riding that is so strongly NDP that there is no hope of anyone else taking the seat. My guy won in a landslide, taking 52% of the votes.
Just saw, that there was a communist party AND a marxist-leninist party on the ballot, and they each got a little over 100 votes. those guys should really pool their resources and then they would be a force to be reckoned with.
*cough*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_Member_Proportional
Yes the system is broken :x
is this the same thing they were pushing for in BC a few years back. If it is, then no thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by d0zer
Why do you hate fairness?Quote:
Originally Posted by pgil
Bloc gets 10% of the vote, yet has 16% of seats, while green gets 7% of the vote and has no representation?
Seems to me that by evening this out, you would have a government that more accurately reflects the public will. You would also eliminate 'strategic voting', and ultimately bring us even further away from a 2-party system, and closer to real democracy.
Proportional representation would give us a less stable system than we have now. It's bad enough that we have minority governments that only last a couple of years (at most), but if you wanna be like Italy...
How so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warpe
You just fear change cause you're old and wrinkled and such :x
This post needs some love.Quote:
Originally Posted by d0zer
This proportional representation system is the one where you rank candidates, correct.
I believe warpe is claiming that we would have nothing but minority governments from here on out, and flimsy minorities that would be unable to accomplish much of anything or last very long, which is true if you look at the percentages from the last few elections.
Because our first past the post system ensures that every Tom, Dick and Harry that wants to start a political party doesn't get a seat in the House of Commons just for showing up. It keeps fringe parties on the fringe until they can establish a meaningful electoral base that represents a truly significant segment of voter will. Otherwise nobody wins a majority government, ever, and we have a series of coalition governments and other hodge podge government arrangements. No thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by d0zer
Who won???
If you look at how it would actually change the seat distribution, it wouldn't be all that much more 'hodge podge' than we currently have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warpe
I think minority governments are good for the country. They ensure that a viewpoint held by only 1/3 of the country don't wind up getting put in place for the other 2/3. They ensure that an idea has to be good enough to transcend party lines. The current system emboldens partisanship and group think.
Maybe "not getting anything done" is better than it sounds. Maybe the only things that should get done are those that extend beyond the ideology of a majority government that only got 40% of the vote.
They are, and would be more frequent under the system that you promote. Like Warpe mentioned though, the idea of party coalitions is what drives me away from proportional governments.Quote:
Originally Posted by d0zer
Unrelated but good quote from Churchill:
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
We already HAVE party coalitions whenever there's a minority government.
Besides, a party in itself is just a coalition of somewhat similar, but still heterogeneous individuals. I don't see a fundamental difference between a coalition of individuals within a party and a coalition of individuals crossing party lines.
the system they were pushing for in BC had voters rank candidates from 1 to whatever, then counted first place votes, with the winner taking the first seat, then second place votes were tabulated, and the winner of those won the second seat, repeat if there are more seats. (I am unsure if this is the exact procedure, it was a while ago)Quote:
Originally Posted by d0zer
Couple of problems with this. First, it means that people, in essence, get to vote for two or more candidates. This fundamentally changes our electoral system, now instead of 1 person 1 vote, it is 1 person, as many votes as their are seats. It also requires you to choose from the lesser 2 of 5 evils, when choosing the lesser 1 of 5 evils is hard enough.
It also means that electoral districts will be larger, which means that smaller segments of the population may have their votes overshadowed by the majority. For example, if you combined three electoral districts that are close by geographically, but one tends to vote very differently than the other two, the people that used to get at least one member elected to parliament that stood for them and their views will now get zero, each and every time. They will have no chance of having their voices heard, because they will be drowned out by the other group.
Add in the confusion factor that always comes along with more complex voting systems, and you essentially disenfranchise many many people, which should be the opposite goal of any electoral reform.
I can see your point.
I do like the idea of not having that "throwing away your vote by voting for Green" feeling too. Although, this would probably result in radical extremist parties like Family Coalition Party, which is an anti-gay party that will gain seats in our parliament.
doesnt a party need to have a certain percentage of the popular vote in order to get funding and party status. I could be wrong on this, but if this is the case, then you arent throwing away your vote by voting green in any sense.
Also, just because your candidate didnt win does not mean that your vote didnt count, or was thrown away.
I could not agree more.Quote:
Originally Posted by pgil
I was referring to the fact that this election had the poorest turn out in a very long time. It may be due to in part by this feeling of wasting a vote. Polls were very one sided heading up to this election.
I heard that money is given to each party for every single vote. Not many people know this and thus may have just thought it was a waste of time.
Yeah that's a possibility, but uber-fringe parties don't have enough votes for even a single seat, and even if they got an MP or two in parliment, it's not like they can accomplish anything radical being so outnumbered by (presumably) more rational minds.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
pgil: What was proposed in BC is not MMP. MMP basically adjusts the number of MPs per party in parliament so that it more accurately reflects the popular vote. You get 20% of the vote? You have 20% of the MPs in parliament.
this is why i asked if it was the same thing, and got no comment either way, except you saying that I don't like fairness, so assumed they were similar enough to be compared.
How are the 'extra' candidates chosen in this MMP system? say you get 20% of the vote, but only carry 15% of the ridings, how are the extra 5% of candidates chosen? does the party decide who gets to sit, is there another election of sorts, do people draw straws? none of these seem like good choices.
Alternatively, if you carry 20% of the ridings but only get 15% of the popular votes, do you lose your seat to make up the difference, are extra seats added to parliament? I would imagine more seats are added to parliament, which is not an option that I like. It seems like too big of a change for not enough of a gain. I don't think it is any more of a 'real democracy' or 'fair' either, whatever that may mean.
Besides, that system will even further marginalize the few independents that we have in our system. There will be greater pressure towards joining with a party as there will be more to gain by adding independents to your party. Independents are not a bad thing, and some could argue that they add a fair bit to a 'real democracy'. Anything that further concentrates power in the major parties seems like a bad thing. You would also probably a greater push towards parties combining to form larger parties (ie. the green joining the NDP to consolidate their % of the popular vote), which leads us more towards a 2 party system and away from our current multi-party system.
I believe there's a pool of extra seats that get distributed around. MPs that don't represent any riding, but are just party reps in parliament. I believe these extra MPs would be decided on by voting within the party, just like the leader is typically chosen, which seems reasonable to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by pgil
Proponents of MMP like myself argue that just the opposite would happen. It would give smaller parties more of a voice because they would actually have parliamentary representation with their x% of the vote, and people would feel like their vote wasn't "wasted" so there would be less strategic voting, something that further encourages a 2-party system.Quote:
Originally Posted by pgil
The current system more than anything encourages parties to amalgamate because vote splitting kills the party's chance of having representation in the 'winner take all' (per riding) system. We saw this with reform + PC = conservatives. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the left did something similar given how many ridings the conservatives would have lost this election if the NDP/Liberal vote was joined.
I couldn't agree more, which is why I support MMP. It gives the little guy a fighting chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by pgil
you guys vote up there?
wow, how are your meds not more expensive, then?