Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Sure they do. What don't you get about a plurality? Please read up on this.



Here's the great thing - your opinion means squat! I don't care whether i've persuaded you or not (i noticed you conveniently left the salient points alone) - i don't need your approval for an objective fact to be true. Thanks anyway.



Oh...i don't know, let's try over a hundred years of POGG. And in that century, Canada's risen to be one of the best nations on earth. I dare you to deny that.

   

Mustang this was my original post, this is how I got into the thread. Did I say anything about proportional representation in there? No I clearly said run offs. Get it through your thick head that I never was talking about PR, you asked me questions based on PR, therefore they are not answerable because its not the same system. You seem to be doing more question dodging than me. Can you come up with some valid points why run off elections are not adequate? Or are you going to dodge it again?

Sorry i did make the mistake of saying Europe not France. Although a lot of Europe has changed their electoral system from Fist Past The Post. However when I said I like run offs it should have been clear to anyone who knows about the French government that I would like to style our government after France.

   

It's not a misrepresentation at all. In my first post in this thread I defined what I meant by PR. Hurley gave a definition of the only formal proposal by a political party and that happens to be the party I support. It's not like my political alliances are some deep, dark secret.

Don't hide behind pedantry, you're better than that.

Also, what you've rejected in the provincial system in Ontario does not mean that it should be rejected federally. It doesn't even mean that the issue is dead in Ontario.

   

Since it bothers you, are you willing to explore ideas to try to fix the problem, or have you lost hope?



You seem to think that everyone else needs to hear our opinion and have your approval. You've only questioned others ideas/thoughts of others. You haven't stated your case at all.



I agree... I love Canada... YEAH. But could it be even better?

   

Actually I also attacked your statement that FPTP is "completely stupid". And while we're at it, run-off voting isn't used that frequently in Europe (France uses it, but who cares?) and possess a slew of problems as well. Firstly, it can lead to voter decay, secondly it can be longer process, thirdly, it tends to produce majorities (and if you're in for that, why not simply support FPTP?), fourthly, it can be prone to strategic nominations, and lastly, it flies in the face of PR as, legislature-wise, it actually pushes out parties. So, evidently either you just argued the merits of PR - even though it runs counter to run-off voting - OR you simply don't know what you're talking about. Sorry, Mr. Historian, but you need to take a break. (you may want to read Dickerson for more)



Just came up with some points above, my disingenuous chump. Are you going to announce you're a political scientist now, too, Buckaroo Banzai? Go play Age of Empires and leave the big thinking to others.



Yeah, you did because YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE PRATTLING ON ABOUT! You also claimed Britain had PR and you've pissed the bed about your false academic qualifications. In short, you're a liar, an ignoramus, a dodger and a hypocrite.



So what? How is that an argument? Jeez. And who cares what France does? This is one of the dumbest points puked out here - if France does it, so should we. How about I counter your dipwad logic with, "Canada, the U.S. and Britain use FPTP, so i rest my case". Damn.

   

Firstly, it can lead to voter decay.
France has a higher precentage voters than we do, I believe in the high to mid seventies.
secondly it can be longer process.
Of course it is a longer process, what is wrong with that? If more peopel can get their voice in I am willing to take a longer process.
thirdly, it tends to produce majorities (and if you're in for that, why not simply support FPTP?).
I don't support FPTP because it may produce majorities but atleast more people are heard when the majority is selected. Instead of 40 percent getting the majority the 60% would get the majority. (Using This election in Canada as reference for those percentages).
fourthly, it can be prone to strategic nominations.
Care to explain in more detail? That system is just as prone to that as this one is.
lastly, it flies in the face of PR as, legislature-wise, it actually pushes out parties. So, evidently either you just argued the merits of PR - even though it runs counter to run-off voting - OR you simply don't know what you're talking about. Sorry, Mr. Historian, but you need to take a break. (you may want to read Dickerson for more)
Again I never said I supported PR, I would rather it than FPTP, but I would rather run off elections. I know it does run counter to PR, that's what I have been saying all along. That's why I said your early questions were not answerable to me because run offs are not PR.

Also in accordance to "if France does it, so should we." I never made that argument, I just said I thought it was a better system. Why can we not learn from other countries instead of rejecting what they have to offer. Or we can just cut ourselves off from the world and knowledge, since you seem to be so comfortable with the status quo.

EDIT: Also most of your points include slandering your opponent, it makes you seem very immature. The only way you know to argue is by trying to make the other person look bad through slander, making his/her points less valid. It is a very immature way to approach a discussion. I have been guilty of it here too, but mainly because I was tired of saying the same thing over and over again. I would suggest you try to work on getting rid of how much you slander if you want to look respectable. When you write a paper you do not slander another academic; you would get a 0 on that paper.

   

That's the beauty of our system, because all the power doesn't rest with one man. There certainly is a lot, but that's why we have the current checks and balances and the Governor-General.



The same could be said for the US President if he has a majority. What's your point?



That's like me saying that I still care about how San Diego is run, just because I may end up returning there some day. Or a better example would be all those would-be "Canadians" who lived in Lebanon, but still had Canadian Citizenship, and could therefore decide how thigns should happen in Canada, despite not living here for years...



Then we'd be like Israel where there are so many parties that every government is a coalition.

   

I again will be the first to admit the US is far far from perfect. Once I get my American citizenship I will be making my voice heard. I hate a 2 party system as I feel it stifles debate and limits choice. So many American elections are who is the lesser of 2 evils. You should be able to pick the person who best supports you. For that reason I self-identify as a Libertarian.

In the United States you cannot win a seat in the House or Senate with a plurality I think. Even our primary system includes run-offs to ensure the candidate that gets chosen has to have a majority.

In presidential elections the popular vote is a non-entity, so ignore it. In the electoral college a candidate must get a majority of the vote or the election for president goes to House of Representatives where each state's delegation gets one vote, which in recent elections would tend to help the Republicans because they control more state delegations. Similarly the Vice President vote is sent to the Senate.

When I said the party or coalition with a plurality should be able to form the government is because I actually prefer minority governments. I'd much rather have nothing done then having the wrong thing done. I'd say have fixed election dates every 3 or 4 years and make the parties sit down and work together to get stuff done or go back to their consituents at the next election and explain why they couldn't compromise.

Also, a President with a majority can get a lot of what he wants done, but at least in the states, if he really bungles it up, we have a chance to reelect all of the house and one third of the senate every 2 years. Here a majority has 5 years of rule.

   

Again, what's the problem with the existing system? Where is it detrimental to a majority of Canadians?





Wrong. I'm not offering an opinion, i'm presenting an argument - BIG difference. My points are all here and i've noticed you've done little to call them into question.

You're free to ignore my posts as i've said previously, my point's legitimacy doesn't rest on your endorsement.

In fact, you're right - i have questioned other's ideas/thoughts and i've seen very little in the way of knowledge or application of said ideas. I've defended my points with tangible proof - that can't be said for others.

   

So? Maybe it would be in the high 80s or 90s without a run-off. And guess what? Our trends roughly match France's over the last 1/2 century and other FPTP nations like Britain.




That means its costly and who wants longer processes? The second sentence is immaterial as your opinion doesn't matter.





BUT Run-offs PRODUCE MORE MAJORITIES!! That's the nature of the political beast! How can you claim you don't support FPTP because it may produce majorities and then advocate a process that does the very thing your railing against? Damn, great logic, historian.




Nope. It's not my role to educate you. You picked the process, shouldn't you know about its pitfalls? Another case of your ignorance in action.


Oh, do explain.



You missed the point - run-offs push parties out. PR is envisioned as a method of letting parties in - that's its proponents main tenet - but run-offs push parties out in a similar manner to FPTP. Either way, run-offs place smaller parties on the sidelines (and if you don't care, why not just support FPTP?)



Brilliant - just because there's different system, we should consider it? This is intellect discourse? Did ever occur to you that there isn't a demonstrably justifiable reason (and you're more than welcome to offer some from History, Herodotus) for changing ours. Just because it works for the French (who have a different political culture/history than us) doesn't mean it translates successfully to the Canadian system.

And you really shouldn't be lecturing to anyone here about "knowledge" as you've been exposed as an ignoramus on this subject and you resort to bogus appeals to authority when pressed for actual evidence.




Thanks hypocrite, but I think you meant "libel" so not only are you disingenuous you're also a raging ignoramus (and since I have evidence of the latter, it's not "libel")




Nah...you got schooled, Historian, go cry somewhere else. You've got caught making mistakes, making up academic titles, dodging, issuing hypocritical comments, resorting to banal argumentative fallacies and now you're retreating to Karma bombs. Sorry...my arguments destroyed your points - the insults were merely window dressing.



More insults? Go create another fake title.



Then fix your own problems first - your dipwad sanctimonious drivel doesn't wash here, liar.





Rationalizing your hypocrisy? How mature.




Nah, i'm good. But thanks for thinking your opinion carried weight. That was cute.




Oh good, 3rd year undergrad paper advice. Tell ya' what, I don't need your advice nor would i solicit it. You're an intellectual coward that preaches discourse, but argues from a point of ignorance, runs from salient points, makes simple errors, creates professional academic persona and suffers from a bad case of hypocrisy. Practice what you preach and go back to arguing with your bus driver.

   

Our trends may match, but you specifically said run offs lead to less people voting, when clearly it doesn't. Nice try to counter my argument with a useless fact though.

I agree with you that it is more costly, however it is more fair. The people who's party did not get elected get to make a second choice of who they want to lead their nation. So not only do they get to vote for their party of their choice in order to support them, but they get to vote again for their next elected official.

I never said I didn't like majorities, another case of you putting words in my mouth to try to prove your feeble points. I do like majorities they get things done, and run offs are a more accurate way of electing the majority.

For your third point, so much for accepting different ideals then. I guess according to your opinion we should lock ourselves in our rooms and just become brain dead. The only way to learn is by not having tunnel vision (which you seem to have to much of). We need to look outside our own perspectives and look at other people's perspectives of the world and politics. It is completely ignorant to think we are perfect. We are far from perfect.

   

I said it could lead to voter decay - you didn't disprove that. In fact, you countered with some idiot comment that claimed France " has a higher percentage voters than we do". It doesn't and your argument wasn't one and your facts were wrong. Again. I'm sensing a trend with you - fabricated crap propping up pure ignorance.




It is more costly. That was point. Moving on.



You specifically wrote, "I don't support FPTP because it may produce majorities". How else should one interpret your mashed mush? Seriously, and you're giving paper advice, 3rd year Historian?



How delightfully shallow and insipid - my point still stands and unlike people like you, i don't subscribe to intellectual relativism. That's in 4th year and i've still haven't seen any persuasive reason to adopt France's system. I'd ask you, but you have no clue.


I know a heck a lot more about these things than you, shut in. Unlike you, i've gone beyond 3rd year, actually understand the topic and i don't have to resort to tired argumentative fallacies to salvage my crumbling case.



Learn about the topic first next time and be prepared to have your crap shoved back in your face when you fling it about. Save the rest of that banality for a Hallmark card.

   

It could but all examples of it show that it hasn't. Sorry that was my spelling error, meant to say leads to unfair majorities. I completely understand how came to that conclusion now. Why we should consider it though is because it gives a more fair vote in the end. Where the majority of the population is not silenced because the opposing party to their ideals has a majority. Also I am sorry to oppose your all encompassing knowledge, get over yourself.

   

Best boxing announcer voice,"It looks pretty bad here after 5 rounds of boxing folks. Mustang has pretty much had his way with Libralesso peppering him with jabs and crosses. Opening up a big gash under his left eye and leaving his opponents face a bruised and bloody mess. If Lib doesn't offer up something soon the ref is going to have to stop this brutal beating. It's already looking like Libs only chance is for a miracle uppercut to test Mustangs chin but I don't really see that happening. This has already surpassed Holmes-Cobb as one of the worst one sided beatings I have seen in all my years covering the sweet science."



Back to our regularly scheduled bitch-slapping.

   

That the government elected doesn't truthfully reflect the will of the people. That an unpopular party can impose their will on our country for 4+ years despite receiving 50% of the vote. Is this not an issue?

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next