Previous  1 ... 6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Actually, i'm good thanks, but you're free to project away!



Now...doesn't this kinda fly in the face of your first misstep? I've posted numerous times on the inherent problems with both systems and i'm not about to repeat them to some n00b that thinks i can't think for myself.

   

Seems we both have a n00b problem to deal with.

   

that guy was a noob?



Derby was owned by a noob!!!

ROFTL

   

Yet Fur-Rat shit thinks his being owned is comparable to Mustang schooling the uninitiated.

   

Actually, I said 'just about everybody'. If you want to count yourself in, feel free.

And I'm not asking you to repeat what you feel are the inherent problems with PR and FPTP. I am asking for your opinion on the idea I presented. If you don't want to participate then don't.

   

No, the voting process is the same. But because the way STV is counted will yield a result similar to PR. And there is a much stronger possibility of fringe parties coming up the middle and winning seats.

Vote counting in the system I presented is simpler, easier for the voter to understand, and less chaotic. It doesn't require a change in the ridings.

   

You're still wrong and you're still insulting



Nah...believe me, i'm not about to put too much stock in your unsubstantiated prattle.



You mean a variant of PV (close to the Condorcet method)? Different problems apply and i've already addressed them. 'Your' idea isn't original and isn't a solution for making our system any better than it already is. Sorry, FPTP has been working just fine in this country for over a century and i've (and Ontario as well) yet to see any persuasive reasons as to why it should be abandoned.



I'll do what i please - i don't take marching orders from you

   

The system of stv will never work for one very good reason, political people will simply mark one name on the ballot and leave the rest blank
The same system is used in municipal voting we have 8 votes with 32 people
running. I will only vote for 3 and deprive others from my vote.
The stv system or something like it was the system in BC in the late forties and the Socreds got rid of it.
I much prefer first past the post, and if it leads to a minority that is ok, it
also provides good government.

   

But you already did...



Actually it's variant on FPTP. Yes there are different methods and ideas out there, including STV and Condorcet, that use ranking... but that was the only thing about those methods that I liked. So I took that and applied it to our system.

How is it NOT a solution for making our system better?

Ontario voted against MMPR, and I don't blame them. They did NOT vote against electoral reform in general.



I'm really not trying to tell you what to do buddy... relax!

   

Don't flatter yourself - i'll let you know when your opinion matters.


Actually, it's not, PV is part of the single method electoral system. FPTP isn't the same and it's actually a plurality system. Yes, they all chose one person, but doesn't mean they're the same



Argumentative fallacy aside, the onus is on you, not me to make the case. The current system works just fine - i noticed you haven't offered much to the contrary - so it's up to you to make a case for why it should be altered.



Well...they voted against that electoral reform. So what? That doesn't mean all other electoral reforms are warranted by default.



Actually, you did, hence my response. Oh...and when you tell me to "relax", you come across like a insincere hypocrite (didn't you just say, you're "not trying to tell me what to do"?), so sorry, your comments ring a little hollow

   

And yet, I still don't care for that style of "debate." It always devolves into nothing but namecalling and insults. I don't care who has all of the facts if they can't be respectful in presenting them.

   

You're entitled to your opinion. But most people who knew what was being proposed, by whom, and why, supported the proposal.



Parties are unwilling to compromise and work together because our winner-take-all system punishes cooperation, and because they all want to be the party with the 40% of the votes, 60% of the seats, and 100% of the power. With proportional voting, there are no phony majorities, and parties have no choice but to work together to achieve the things they agree on.

Minority governments have worked well in Canada, but the norm under proportional representation is to have coalition governments—true majority governments that have the support of a majority of the voters. When New Zealand switched to MMP, they immediately started to form coalition governments.

First-past-the-post has not worked well for Canada. Canadians are angry and frustrated with politics and politicians because we do not get the government we voted for.

FPTP distorts election results. Forty percent of the votes gets you a "majority" government that can bring in unpopular policies and can't be got rid of even when they fall to 16% in the polls. Ten per cent of the votes gets you diddly. Regional representation is distorted. The current system pits the east against the west and the city against the country. Women and minorities are under-represented. Sometimes the party with the most votes loses the election!

When one party has a phony-majority monopoly, government is not accountable to Parliament. When we don't get the representatives we voted for, parties and politicians are not accountable to the voters. Most of us are "represented" by people we voted against. Most MPs "represent" mostly people who voted against them.

The current system is not competitive. Most of us live in safe ridings. We know who will be elected in our riding before the votes are cast, whether we vote for them, or vote for somebody else, or don't bother to vote at all. Voters have few real choices, or none at all.

FPTP is a joke and a disgrace, and another majoritarian system won't help.

We need a modern, fair, proportional voting system, and we need it now!

   

I feel it is my time to put my 2 cents into this conversation.

This is the right way to get a true representation of our parliment.
However, I do not think it will happen nationaly because of the stanglehold the Conservatives and Liberals have on government as a whole.

There should be representatives from the Green Party as well as more NDP representatives.

If real reform is to take place with national politics, than get rid of a lot of the civil servants who work behind the scenes. They only work for the government who are in power ( Conservatives or Liberals), and would never do anything to prop up the representatives of policies of other parties.

   

Wouldn't PR just put us in an endless string of minority governments? If Harpers lasted 2 and a half years, and it was the longest one, it's reasonable to assume we would have an election every 2 to 3 years. No thanks.

   

... and you likewise. I simply said that most in this thread can't think for themselves. Since you decided to take that as a personal attack against you, then you must see yourself as one of those people. Or maybe it's just an act...



The problems with our current FPTP have been explained many times throughout this thread, in fact you yourself said there was problems with it and apparently have laid them out many times. I don't have to repeat them. Does my opinion suddenly matter now? I never said that my idea was THE solution. It's an idea. You're the one who said it was not. I simply asked you to explain why and you avoided the question. If you're just here to play head games don't bother... sorry if you feel I'm trying to boss you around.



Doesn't mean that they're not warranted either. Doesn't mean that Ontario doesn't want electoral reform. That vote only proved that they didn't want MMPR.



If you're gonna take everything I say personally then maybe you need to relax. Just a suggestion. But really it's probably just part of your game. I don't care.

   

Previous  1 ... 6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next