Election Reform in Canada - Proportional Representation
Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13 Next
romanP @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:07 am
dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:
Imagine the last two years of Parliment, now make that a perminant thing.
The last two years of Parliament have been that way because the Conservatives wanted it that way. They wrote the book on how to disrupt Parliament, and are solely responsible for its dysfunctionality.
Germany has had MMPR for 140 years and, excluding Hitler, has produced stable, sane governments for most of that time.
Dayseed @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:41 am
romanP romanP:
The last two years of Parliament have been that way because the Conservatives wanted it that way.
Really? The Conservatives are the only ones in Parliament that tied up things, hummed and hawed and threatened to bring down the government?
$1:
They wrote the book on how to disrupt Parliament, and are solely responsible for its dysfunctionality.
See above. Besides, it's your next quote that exposes you as some giant idiot douche.
Here we go!
$1:
Germany has had MMPR for 140 years and, excluding Hitler, has produced stable, sane governments for most of that time.
Alrighty. Knocking off 140 years from today's date makes 1868. Bismarck isn't going to make the Northern German Federation until 3 years from then. I'll spot you a glossing error.
BUT, Bismarck carried on quite happily with the three-party voting system. HOW THE FUCK IS THAT MIXED-MEMBER PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION? How the hell does the richest class deciding the overwhelming super-majority of the elected houses constitute anything resembling MMPR?
Next, you simply gloss over Hitler. Sorry, but if you're vouching for the system, which WASN'T PART OF THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC AS IT USED STRAIGHT PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION you're left with quite a conundrum. You've claimed 140 years of use of the system, but here you are in 1945 and you haven't even seen the system enacted yet. Your history is for shit.
So, let's look at West Germany, since the East's votes didn't count much at all for anything. Did West Germany use MMPR? Sure they did.
Now, here's the crux of why you're an idiot and why I'm going to prove it.
If you stand behind your point that the Germans have had better government than Canada since, roughly 1950 when the Germans adopted MMPR, I want you to go through each of West Germany's successive governments and highlight what was better about that government than the contemporary Canadian one (which we'll use as a model for PR) and specifically HOW MMPR contributed or caused that qualitative increase.
Can you do it? I bet you can't, because you're stupid and your point is horribly flawed.
You just got called out Bucky, bring your A game or go home.
Mustang1 @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:44 am
Dayseed Dayseed:
romanP romanP:
The last two years of Parliament have been that way because the Conservatives wanted it that way.
Really? The Conservatives are the only ones in Parliament that tied up things, hummed and hawed and threatened to bring down the government?
$1:
They wrote the book on how to disrupt Parliament, and are solely responsible for its dysfunctionality.
See above. Besides, it's your next quote that exposes you as some giant idiot douche.
Here we go!
$1:
Germany has had MMPR for 140 years and, excluding Hitler, has produced stable, sane governments for most of that time.
Alrighty. Knocking off 140 years from today's date makes 1868. Bismarck isn't going to make the Northern German Federation until 3 years from then. I'll spot you a glossing error.
BUT, Bismarck carried on quite happily with the three-party voting system. HOW THE FUCK IS THAT MIXED-MEMBER PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION? How the hell does the richest class deciding the overwhelming super-majority of the elected houses constitute anything resembling MMPR?
Next, you simply gloss over Hitler. Sorry, but if you're vouching for the system, which WASN'T PART OF THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC AS IT USED STRAIGHT PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION you're left with quite a conundrum. You've claimed 140 years of use of the system, but here you are in 1945 and you haven't even seen the system enacted yet. Your history is for shit.
So, let's look at West Germany, since the East's votes didn't count much at all for anything. Did West Germany use MMPR? Sure they did.
Now, here's the crux of why you're an idiot and why I'm going to prove it.
If you stand behind your point that the Germans have had better government than Canada since, roughly 1950 when the Germans adopted MMPR, I want you to go through each of West Germany's successive governments and highlight what was better about that government than the contemporary Canadian one (which we'll use as a model for PR) and specifically HOW MMPR contributed or caused that qualitative increase.
Can you do it? I bet you can't, because you're stupid and your point is horribly flawed.
You just got called out Bucky, bring your A game or go home.
![[popcorn]](./images/smilies/popcorn.gif "Eating Popcorn")
romanP @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:16 am
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Yep, i live in Ontario, and yep, i get MMPR. In fact, I think a lot of people got MMPR and that's why it was soundly defeated. Unlike you, I don't subscribe to some insulting and dismissive nonsense that implies the only reason the electorate turfed it was because "they didn't get it". I got it. I rejected it DESPITE the fact that the Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform did a piss poor job outlining the obvious drawbacks associated with proportional representation.
Your opinion of the system is tainting the truth here. What you are saying is misleading. Simply because you voted against it after having understood all of the facts doesn't mean most other people did. Most people were not armed with facts when they went to the polls for that election.
romanP @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:17 am
Dayseed Dayseed:
You just got called out Bucky, bring your A game or go home.
I've got better things to do than argue with people who use insults and name-calling as talking points.
Mustang1 @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:16 am
romanP romanP:
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Yep, i live in Ontario, and yep, i get MMPR. In fact, I think a lot of people got MMPR and that's why it was soundly defeated. Unlike you, I don't subscribe to some insulting and dismissive nonsense that implies the only reason the electorate turfed it was because "they didn't get it". I got it. I rejected it DESPITE the fact that the Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform did a piss poor job outlining the obvious drawbacks associated with proportional representation.
Your opinion of the system is tainting the truth here. What you are saying is misleading. Simply because you voted against it after having understood all of the facts doesn't mean most other people did. Most people were not armed with facts when they went to the polls for that election.
Actually, i think many got it and still rejected it - despite the rather one-sided tactic of championing only its benefits. Democracy, in this instance, has spoken loud and clear to the tune of over 60% saying, "nope". Sorry.
Mustang1 @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:17 am
romanP romanP:
Dayseed Dayseed:
You just got called out Bucky, bring your A game or go home.
I've got better things to do than argue with people who use insults and name-calling as talking points.
And yet, his arguments still appear sound. Hmmm...
Dayseed @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:19 am
romanP romanP:
Dayseed Dayseed:
You just got called out Bucky, bring your A game or go home.
I've got better things to do than argue with people who use insults and name-calling as talking points.
No you don't! You're poor, stupid and have no arguments to make. Consequently, your failure to make counter-argument simply lets my arguments stand.
So, to everybody here, ROMANP CANNOT DEFEND MIXED-MEMBER PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. HE USES INVENTED HISTORY, INVENTED CONCLUSIONS AND A HEALTHY DOSE OF PURE EGO TO PROP HIMSELF UP.
You saw it here first folks!
CommanderSock @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:08 am
The last three years haven't been too bad to be honest. Harper's hands have been shackled to some extent. The libs abstainted from issues which weren't even issues. Harper was planning some major reforms this year, but alas, it was not to be, he will settle for less.
If the libs have balls they'll force Harper to keep all the bills streamlined, or they will force government to fall, even if it means doing so four times annually. Canada's right wing party will be kept in check for the most part under our current system, which has worked very well in Canada, USA, and the UK since it's inception. If it ain't broken....you get it...
Proportional representation in Ontario was scary. Too much appointments for my liking.
Wayne Smith @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:55 am
OK, I posted this a few pages ago, but it seems I need to do it again:
Why Ontarians said No to MMP:
http://www.wayneon.ca/democracy/Ontario ... oToMMP.doc
What Ontarians didn't know:
http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/en/default.asp
And in case you're too lazy to click the links, here's a few quotes from the academic study:
"Many Ontarians were in the dark about the proposal. Just before voting day, two-thirds were aware that a referendum was taking place and the same proportion said they knew something about MMP. But useful knowledge about the proposal was rare. Less than one-third knew MMP makes multiparty governments more likely. Less than half were aware that MMP makes votes and seats proportional, that it would give seats to more parties, and that it involves two votes."
"The media paid little attention to the assembly and often described it as "set up by the government" - a half-truth that did nothing to dispel voters' assumption that the proposal was coming from the usual political suspects. At the start of the campaign, half said they knew nothing about the assembly and, amazingly, there was no gain in awareness over the campaign."
"We can simulate the outcome if all citizens had known: (1) that MMP would give voters two votes, elect some members whose names never appear on a ballot, produce proportional outcomes with more parties and infrequent majorities; and (2) that assembly members "were ordinary Ontarians," "had an equal chance of being chosen," "represented all parts of Ontario," "became experts on electoral systems," and that "most members wanted what's best for all Ontarians" (rather than themselves). Under these conditions, our data indicate the result would have been 63 per cent for MMP and 37 per cent for the existing system - exactly the mirror image of the actual outcome."
Mustang1 @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:12 am
Wayne Smith Wayne Smith:
OK, I posted this a few pages ago, but it seems I need to do it again:
Why Ontarians said No to MMP:
http://www.wayneon.ca/democracy/Ontario ... oToMMP.doc
What Ontarians didn't know:
http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/en/default.asp
And in case you're too lazy to click the links, here's a few quotes from the academic study:
"Many Ontarians were in the dark about the proposal. Just before voting day, two-thirds were aware that a referendum was taking place and the same proportion said they knew something about MMP. But useful knowledge about the proposal was rare. Less than one-third knew MMP makes multiparty governments more likely. Less than half were aware that MMP makes votes and seats proportional, that it would give seats to more parties, and that it involves two votes."
"The media paid little attention to the assembly and often described it as "set up by the government" - a half-truth that did nothing to dispel voters' assumption that the proposal was coming from the usual political suspects. At the start of the campaign, half said they knew nothing about the assembly and, amazingly, there was no gain in awareness over the campaign."
"We can simulate the outcome if all citizens had known: (1) that MMP would give voters two votes, elect some members whose names never appear on a ballot, produce proportional outcomes with more parties and infrequent majorities; and (2) that assembly members "were ordinary Ontarians," "had an equal chance of being chosen," "represented all parts of Ontario," "became experts on electoral systems," and that "most members wanted what's best for all Ontarians" (rather than themselves). Under these conditions, our data indicate the result would have been 63 per cent for MMP and 37 per cent for the existing system - exactly the mirror image of the actual outcome."
Why Ontarians said No to MMP:
http://www.wayneon.ca/democracy/Ontario ... oToMMP.doc
What Ontarians didn't know:
http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/en/default.asp
And in case you're too lazy to click the links, here's a few quotes from the academic study:
"Many Ontarians were in the dark about the proposal. Just before voting day, two-thirds were aware that a referendum was taking place and the same proportion said they knew something about MMP. But useful knowledge about the proposal was rare. Less than one-third knew MMP makes multiparty governments more likely. Less than half were aware that MMP makes votes and seats proportional, that it would give seats to more parties, and that it involves two votes."
"The media paid little attention to the assembly and often described it as "set up by the government" - a half-truth that did nothing to dispel voters' assumption that the proposal was coming from the usual political suspects. At the start of the campaign, half said they knew nothing about the assembly and, amazingly, there was no gain in awareness over the campaign."
"We can simulate the outcome if all citizens had known: (1) that MMP would give voters two votes, elect some members whose names never appear on a ballot, produce proportional outcomes with more parties and infrequent majorities; and (2) that assembly members "were ordinary Ontarians," "had an equal chance of being chosen," "represented all parts of Ontario," "became experts on electoral systems," and that "most members wanted what's best for all Ontarians" (rather than themselves). Under these conditions, our data indicate the result would have been 63 per cent for MMP and 37 per cent for the existing system - exactly the mirror image of the actual outcome."
One study does not a conclusion make. Did the data include outlining the obvious problems and flaws inherent withing MMPR? I doubt it. The Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform certainly didn't come forward with a serious evaluation of the pros and cons regarding the system - I noticed you didn't either, Wayne - and whether debate was legitimate or not, the electorate spoke (and let me guess, when its in favour of your pet project, then its democratic, right?) here in Ontario and in B.C.
But, then, i guess, we're all misguided and misinformed, huh? Whatever - i got it, i rejected it and i can certainly articulate my reasoning.
stemmer @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:14 am
I would be vehemently opposed to any rules changes that would give more seats and power to an international, global party like the Greens.... I would never approve of a party who wishes to sell our sovereignty to the UN....
I would favour more a system where I can cast 2 separate votes. One for the PM and one for my MP...
saturn_656 @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:20 am
MMP would give voters two votes, elect some members whose names never appear on a ballot
There is my main problem with MMP right there. MP's, sitting in the legislature, whose names never appeared on a ballot.
Mustang1 @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:23 am
Here's what PR proponents will not acknowledge - there are numerous issues with PR and its other variants. I'm not advocating the perfection of FPTP - it's problematic in many ways - but why replace it with something that creates new potential miscarriages of democracy? Democracy isn't about granting citizens some super, government-forming, overriding, special vote - it's about majorities, pluralities, checks and balances, national parties and more than anything, it's about Good Government. The later has been the norm in Canada since 1867 and none of these political insecure individuals have presented anything even remotely persuasive to the contrary.
Mustang1 @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:25 am
saturn_656 saturn_656:
MMP would give voters two votes, elect some members whose names never appear on a ballot
There is my main problem with MMP right there. MP's, sitting in the legislature, whose names never appeared on a ballot.
There is my main problem with MMP right there. MP's, sitting in the legislature, whose names never appeared on a ballot.
No...no...according to MMPR advocates, you don't get it.
They have the gall to reject your reservations based on the fact that it challenges their sacred cow. How dare you introduce an obvious flaw with their system. That's undemocratic!
Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13 Next