And they're off...the election thread

[Mendalla]

In my perfect world - the Greens would just be an environmental think tank. Where they move beyond their issue of being green is where I tend to disagree with them.

Have you actually read their detailed platform (as I did this morning)? It's a pretty solid one, really, on all fronts from the economy to security to energy to health care.

 

[BetteTheRed]

It's very comprehensive, and as the preamble says, in many ways neither right nor left. I'd be hard-pressed to find anything in it with which one could argue, if one likes children, well-run government, the environment, peace, fairness. That's what they're promising, and by George, she exhibits it better than her wannabe-PM peers.

 

[Jaebius]

Have you actually read their detailed Last It's a pretty solid one, really, on all fronts from the economy to security to energy to health care.

I haven't read it yet this year. I did read it last election.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

It's very comprehensive, and as the preamble says, in many ways neither right nor left. I'd be hard-pressed to find anything in it with which one could argue, if one likes children, well-run government, the environment, peace, fairness. That's what they're promising, and by George, she exhibits it better than her wannabe-PM peers.

It's true. But we really need a new government I feel, and I am still of the position that that, at this juncture, is more important than voting for her because I like her and her party - unfortunately. In a perfect world, though, or just in a less stressful political climate, I would vote for her. Like, if the Libs or NDP were already in, I'd vote for her next time.

 

[BetteTheRed]

OR, if we had some sort of proportional representation, where you could vote for a combo of a representative and a party...which BOTH the Greens and the NDP have promised.

 

[Jaebius]

OR, if we had some sort of proportional representation, where you could vote for a combo of a representative and a party...which BOTH the Greens and the NDP have promised.

Some of us prefer not to directly vote for a party. I can't support prop rep if it's mandatory to directly vote for a party.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Never mandatory to vote at all, Jae. That's part of what gets us in the pickles we get in. If all the Non-Voters in the last election had voted according to some sort of internal measurement, I doubt we'd have the government we have. There's all sorts of good ways to achieve proportional representation. Have a look at Germany and New Zealand for examples.

It opens all sorts of nuanced decisions not allowed by the simple "first past the post" system, which is not really very democratic.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Last time I voted not for the party whose leader I wanted elected, only because the candidate had no experience at all, and the one I voted for has a decent longstanding reputation for community improvement/ local issues. But, I'm feeling differently about it this time.

 

[Mendalla]

It opens all sorts of nuanced decisions not allowed by the simple "first past the post" system, which is not really very democratic.

Actually, "first past the post" is perfectly democratic if you don't have parties or have very loose party affiliations (something the Greens have in their platform is to eliminate whipped votes completely) making individual members more important. It was likely created in such an environment. However, when parties become more important than individual representatives as in our present system, then some form of proportional representation makes more sense.

 

[Lastpointe]

Well it has been voted down in at least two provinces so the majority disagree. You are not representative on ontarians with that opinion

 

[BetteTheRed]

Disagree with what, exactly? Disagree with the particular alternative? Disagree with the way it was presented? I'm not sure that there's too many people who think our current system is representative of the thought and heartache that went into each vote.

 

[Lastpointe]

Proportional representation was put to a vote in ontario and defeated

I certainly dont like having people get seats who werent voted for, which was the option we had. Some sort of appointed seat system for the extra people.

I didnt like Cretienne getting all his elections without a majority but i lived with it. It is always going to happen with more than two parties.

So i guess, with the different options i have seen discussed i am ok with this one. It has worked for all this time. It has good and bad points but everyone has th same chance to get elected


I would vote against any sort of appointment system. We have enough trouble with an appointed senate. Why expand the trouble

 

[Mendalla]

Well it has been voted down in at least two provinces so the majority disagree. You are not representative on ontarians with that opinion

In a democracy, not being representative does not mean you are wrong, just that you don't agree with the majority. I can disagree with the majority and I can advocate for my position even after it has been defeated. Twenty years ago, most Canadians opposed same sex marriage. That didn't mean we had to stop advocating for it.

And the problem with that vote is that it wasn't a vote on proportional representation in principle, but on a specific system of it. I was not crazy about that implementation in some ways either. We should have first voted on the principle, then offered some specific implementations of the chosen principle to choose from.

 

[ChemGal]

It's very comprehensive, and as the preamble says, in many ways neither right nor left. I'd be hard-pressed to find anything in it with which one could argue, if one likes children, well-run government, the environment, peace, fairness. That's what they're promising, and by George, she exhibits it better than her wannabe-PM peers.

I haven't read it all, but there are things I disagree with.
Reducing the number of specialists? Waits are long as it is. There is one doctor here who's capable of treating HAE and he covers a huge area.

Drugs showing a greater harmful than beneficial effect will not be part of a national Pharmacare program.

On an overall basis? That may not be what's best for individuals.

 

[BetteTheRed]

But a national Pharmacare program is way more than we have now.

 

[ChemGal]

But a national Pharmacare program is way more than we have now.

Some things are still covered though - I would assume the pharmacare program would replace the current model, no?

 

[BetteTheRed]

Yes, it's a bit of a confusing statement - you're right. I'd be assuming that a national pharmacare program would replace what we in Ontario call the Trillium plan - free pharmacare from hospitals - chemo, etc., and also free pharmacare minus a deductible for seniors, welfare and disability programs.

 

[Jaebius]

Some things are still covered though - I would assume the pharmacare program would replace the current model, no?

The current model ChemGal? Which is what - the drug companies make the drugs and then we pay for them?

Now, if we're going to have a national pharmacare system, I'd prefer to see everything pharmacies carry paid for by the government.

 

[Jaebius]

Yes, it's a bit of a confusing statement - you're right. I'd be assuming that a national pharmacare program would replace what we in Ontario call the Trillium plan - free pharmacare from hospitals - chemo, etc., and also free pharmacare minus a deductible for seniors, welfare and disability programs.

How does one get the Trillium plan Bette? My family could sure benefit from something like that.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Be 65, be on OW, qualify for ODSP. We all qualify for free drugs while we're hospitalized.