Canadian election and other political stuff

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
Trump took a call from Carney after a Liberal win seemed probable. I suspect he did not want to provide more support for Carney by silly criticisms, and to soften Carney's resistance when it comes time to negotiate. Premier Smith contributed much to damaging Pollievre.

Ranked ballots are actually worse than first past the post. For example, imagine a riding where only three candidates are left with the NDP leading followed by the Liberals and then the Conservative. When the ballots for the Conservative are counted, who is likely to win?

I listened to a CBC program about 10 years ago. Multi member ridings are fairer than first past the post or ranked ballots. Trudeau wanted ranked ballots because they would probably win majorities in most elections. Multi member ridings with a single, non transferrable ballot would have more members elected from minor parties. The Greens would probably have gotten a second seat in the recent provincial election under a multi member system. A dense urban riding with four members would often have representatives from three parties.
 
jimkenney12 said:
No one here cares if you are bugged by the. system. You let us know you are bugged. Complaining repeatedly will not change things.
Click to expand...
I have no complaints about Carney calling a snap election.

If he goes down as the shortest-serving PM in Canada's history I will be very satisfied.
 
WhyCzar said:
I have no complaints about Carney calling a snap election.

If he goes down as the shortest-serving PM in Canada's history I will be very satisfied.
Click to expand...

Trump believes the same ... everything should go down except he as the primary subject in his opinion!
 
jimkenney12 said:
I listened to a CBC program about 10 years ago. Multi member ridings are fairer than first past the post or ranked ballots. Trudeau wanted ranked ballots because they would probably win majorities in most elections. Multi member ridings with a single, non transferrable ballot would have more members elected from minor parties. The Greens would probably have gotten a second seat in the recent provincial election under a multi member system. A dense urban riding with four members would often have representatives from three parties.
Click to expand...
Seems unwieldy, though. So they all have riding offices? People needing to talk to their rep shop around until they find one who will listen to them? Do they all get the allowances MPs get for offices and such? Will definitely up the cost.
 
Keep the same number of MPs. Merge existing ridings. I believe it would be helpful to be able to pick the MP that would be most helpful. No increase in costs. I believe the largest urban centers like Toronto and Montreal and Calgary should have ridings with four members. This will greatly increase the number of members from the NDP and Green Party. I would expect the Green party to run only one candidate in each riding. My problem with proportional representation is that it reinforces partisanship.
 
jimkenney12 said:
Keep the same number of MPs. Merge existing ridings. I believe it would be helpful to be able to pick the MP that would be most helpful. No increase in costs. I believe the largest urban centers like Toronto and Montreal and Calgary should have ridings with four members. This will greatly increase the number of members from the NDP and Green Party. I would expect the Green party to run only one candidate in each riding. My problem with proportional representation is that it reinforces partisanship.
Click to expand...
Merge ridings works fine in metro Toronto or Calgary. Does not work nearly as well in the large sparsely populated parts of the country where ridings are already geographically large
 
And what about the principle of rep by pop? If you merge some ridings and not others, you are explicitly tossing that out the window. Merging isn't enough. You need to completely redraw the riding map, IMHO.

jimkenney12 said:
I believe it would be helpful to be able to pick the MP that would be most helpful.
Click to expand...
So basically the office staff at the non-government MPs in a riding with a government MP sit around twiddling their thumbs because you just know people will assume the guy sitting in the government caucus has the most "pull".
 
jimkenney12 said:
My problem with proportional representation is that it reinforces partisanship.
Click to expand...
Any system with parties reinforces partisanship. My ideal parliament would have no parties. First session after an election, people wanting the PMO have put themselves forward and then you have a ranked ballot vote of MPs. That forces them to put together alliances. Once you have a PM, they appoint a cabinet. However, with no party lines, that cabinet could cut across ideologies more easily. You'd have alliances forming around specific votes and issues. So Joe Blow who is anti-abortion but in favour of social welfare programs might be voting with other anti-abortion MPs on abortion rights but with more NDP-esque MPs on a new social program. He is not having to nerf one side or the other because a party whip will punish him if he doesn't vote the party line.

However, I suspect that you would eventually see permanent alliances that more or less resemble parties forming. Humans like being part of a group that reinforces their own beliefs. Organized religious groups are a manifestation of that. So are political parties.
 
"suspect that you would eventually see permanent alliances that more or less resemble parties forming"

Thus the growing fertilization of cultivars! In such case can you see wealth in the forest essence as items of entity grow as nibbles under the canopy?

The manifestation of metaphor in this instance is more than an instantaneous pass NG! Angular momentum ... like a spin on the eighth ball ... beyond that Pluto (which some say is an non existence dog in the wheel)!
 
@Mendalla I believe a variation of what you are describing is how they do it in the NWT. Many Indigenous communities form council then elect a chief from that council as well.
 
Northwind said:
@Mendalla I believe a variation of what you are describing is how they do it in the NWT. Many Indigenous communities form council then elect a chief from that council as well.
Click to expand...
NWT or Nunavut? I thought it was Nunavut that I was thinking of when I had that idea.

City Councils officially operate that way as well, though I know in some larger cities, there have been attempts at "caucuses". That's a bit of a different situation though in that there is a separately elected chief executive (the Mayor) and nothing really corresponding to a cabinet. All the senior admin positions (e.g. Chief Administrative Officer, Chief Librarian, etc.) are hired, not elected, and Council acts more like a corporate board than a hands-on government like a federal or provincial cabinet.
 
In a digital age with better air travel than a hundred years ago, a riding the size of North Peace and the riding that includes Fort McMurray would be nore difficult to represent than the North Peace riding fifty years ago. It would be easier to equal
 
Equalize ridings in terms of rep by pop than the current system. There were a few rural ridings with more voters than some urban ridings in Alberta when I was a candidate. I believe this was true for the St. Paul Wainwright constituency.
 
The Lakeland and Fort McMurray,-Cold Lake ridings would fit well together as would Peace River-Westlock and Grande Prairie ridings.
 
Jaebius said:
Why?
Click to expand...
I would’ve preferred that the liberals, who found themselves behind the polls would have called an election instead of denying the Democratic right of Canadians for months to hold a minority government to account.

If Carney takes the fall for Trudeau it's all good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top