Canada Votes, 2019

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
revjohn said:
In a four-horse race with four voters all voting for each horse all horses get an equal share. If that pot was $4 then everybody gets $1
Click to expand...
Lastpointe said:
Or actually run yourself.
Click to expand...
Would that make me the Fifth horse-jockey of the apocalypse ?
The first horse-jockey rides a white horse, to symbolize supremacy.
The second horse-jockey rides a red horse to symbolize war and bloodshed.
The third horse-jockey rides a black horse to symbolize famine.
The fourth horse-jockey rides a pale horse to symbolize pestilence and death.
The fifth horse-jockey rides a spotted horse to symbolize letting go of the political power to reign horses in the first place.
apaloosa.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ritafee said:
The first horse-jockey rides a white horse, to symbolize supremacy.
The second horse-jockey rides a red horse to symbolize war and bloodshed.
The third horse-jockey rides a black horse to symbolize famine.
The fourth horse-jockey rides a pale horse to symbolize pestilence and death.
Click to expand...

Neil Gaiman modernized them a bit in Good Omens.

1567967310461.png
 
revjohn said:
Suppose for a moment in a four horse race no voter votes for any horse they still get an equal share but it drops from $1 to $0.
Click to expand...
Generally the amount of money bet (voted) on a horse is proportionate between the Win, Place, and Show pools.

The payout is less for Place and Show wagers (votes) with the payout being divided by two horses for Place and three horses for Show.

Best 'returns' from a Place or Show wager (vote) generally happen when the favorite(s) does not finish “In The Money” (The Top Three Spots).

Unless of course you always bet on the favorite, which is another story!

There is a lot of gambling superstition around whether or not it’s even wise to make Place and Show bets, as opposed to just Win bets.

Continuing on the sound premise that voting is a ritualistic practice of the legalized gaming industry called 'elections ...

I prefer the crime and punishment analogies.

In game theory, there is something called the prisoners’ dilemma.

The basic setup is two criminals who’ve been arrested and are presented with several choices.

One is to snitch on each other and get 2 years in prison each.

The other is that if one snitches on the other and the other doesn’t, then one will be set free and the other jailed for three years.

The third is that if none snitches, they will both get 1 year in prison.

Hence, to maximize the benefit and minimize the sentence, no snitching at all.
 
Waterfall said:
Is that a reflection of who WE are?
Click to expand...

Yes ... a world of chaos like never seen before ... living under the motto: "the common people shouldn't know" ... thus naivete blossoms like love ... a dangerous spirit to worship! Thus thought and knowledge fades ... like leprechauns in the forest!

Is limiting the potential to destroy ourselves against industry standards?
 
Last edited:
revjohn said:
Abstaining is a possibility. It really sends no message when a plurality of votes cast gets you the win.

Refusing your ballot takes more effort but sends a better message.

Political funding in Canada is tied to the percentage of the vote a party wins.

In a four-horse race with four voters all voting for each horse all horses get an equal share. If that pot was $4 then everybody gets $1

Suppose for a moment in a four horse race no voter votes for any horse they still get an equal share but it drops from $1 to $0.

Take the time to actually exercise your voice. Show up at the polling station and refuse your ballot. Yes it is inconvenient. Staying home and doing nothing is the easy way and as we have seen election cycle after election cycle no party cares for those who cannot be bothered to show up at the polling station.
Click to expand...

I used to like to show up an intentionally ruin my ballot due to poor choices!

Some technology is making ruination a dream ... thus I am disposed ... deposed?
 
Imagine a 5th horse called pinned toes as the hoof was nailed down! To a lucky horse shoe as the odds are quantm that there would be reasonable sense applied rather than $ in some Ayes ... it't be a row'n horse as in the legend of the red Haired Stranger!

A heated concern like chaotic emotions ... roiling caldrons ...
 
Does Canada have a right of recall - the right of voters to change their minds about their previous decisions on leaders?
Then if the voters elected bad leaders they could not simply shirk this responsibility on those who didn’t vote.
revjohn said:
Abstaining is a possibility.
Click to expand...
And cannot be counted as consent when it is by it's very absence not.
revjohn said:
Take the time to actually exercise your voice. Show up at the polling station and refuse your ballot. Yes it is inconvenient. Staying home and doing nothing is the easy way and as we have seen election cycle after election cycle no party cares for those who cannot be bothered to show up at the polling station.
Click to expand...
My 1 singular hour of inconveniently showing up on 1 singular day at the polling station to refuse my ballot - makes 'the party' care for me?

Would that be the same party as ...

"The party that told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears as their final, most essential command."

Her 'heart sank as she thought of the enormous power arrayed against her' ... the power of the herd to mandate 'voluntary' consent.
 
Ritafee said:
Does Canada have a right of recall - the right of voters to change their minds about their previous decisions on leaders?
Then if the voters elected bad leaders they could not simply shirk this responsibility on those who didn’t vote.

And cannot be counted as consent when it is by it's very absence not.

My 1 singular hour of inconveniently showing up on 1 singular day at the polling station to refuse my ballot - makes 'the party' care for me?

Would that be the same party as ...

"The party that told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears as their final, most essential command."

Her 'heart sank as she thought of the enormous power arrayed against her' ... the power of the herd to mandate 'voluntary' consent.
Click to expand...

Populosity as in Pop Aye? And the blind crowd said yes we follow ...

Then one has to ask in unity if recall is like a beef jerk?
 
Ritafee said:
Does Canada have a right of recall - the right of voters to change their minds about their previous decisions on leaders?
Click to expand...

Not federally. I think some provinces allow constituents to recall their representatives. IIRC, it usually involves getting a certain number of supporters on a petition, which then forces a by-election. Don't have a specific example, though.
 
Not casting a vote could mean a victory for the Conservatives. And that, given our circumstances, would be a disaster that could be a terminal one. The Liberals are not as bad - but close. And the NDP and Greens are too timid, so timid that even a win for them would be of limited help.
I've been depressed for quite a while over this election.
 
The big money is highly organized for this election. Canada has been losing ground as a democracy for a good 40 years now. The U.S., too. We are close to going back to 1900 or so.
 
Maybe the plan is the comedown will take down the tyrants too ... so the fall can be universal! Maybe a set back of a 1000 years so we can relearn certain skills ...
 
Two leaders in town here in London this evening. Singh and (sigh) Bernier. Not going to either, but I know which one I would go to if I could and (hint) it's not the hate-spewing alt-right fanboi.
 
I'm thankful Bernie does not seem to be getting any traction in this race. I'd be curious to see how people respond to him in that type of setting. I truly hope he is not seen as a viable option anywhere.
 
Oh God, I just realized who's running for People's in my riding. He's London's one-man Rebel Media, Salim Mansour. I guess it kind of refutes the idea of them being racist, since he's a conservative Muslim of Indian origin but, yeah, definitely not getting my vote.
 
Mendalla said:
Oh God, I just realized who's running for People's in my riding. He's London's one-man Rebel Media, Salim Mansour. I guess it kind of refutes the idea of them being racist, since he's a conservative Muslim of Indian origin but, yeah, definitely not getting my vote.
Click to expand...
They can still be working in the interest of racists. Remember the gay conservatives who used to oppose same sex marriage? People can work for their worst enemy without recognizing it, or to get their favour. And they can also be used for cover. And sometimes they don’t even recognize because they’re just going along with all they know (I think Hitler had a couple of Jews in his employ). Family of disabled can be ableist (disabled people can be ableist...being disabled doesn’t rule that out, we can even be ableist against ourselves), out lgbt folks can be homophobic. The whole gamut. It’s like saying Trump can’t be racist because he hired Amarosa. Or Ben Carson. Or dating someone non white automatically makes someone non racist. Or, “I can’t be racist because my friend is black.” It’s just not true. It doesn’t have to be explicit racism to be racism.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top