Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
I already tried engaging but then some old guys who complain about people dogpiling decided they would do the exact same thing and pretend it was different.
That said, I’m not sure I understand your question. You want me to explain why they should review something without talking about the benefits of making the change they would be reviewing? lol.
I guess the easiest answer is that, far beyond this issue, the people we elect to government should always be reviewing things and looking at ways to improve and protect our lives and our democracy. They don’t need justification for doing so, that should literally be the expectation. I’m not electing someone because I want them to be the best at sending emails, nor do I want them to wait until a problem is out of control before they do anything. Politicians should be proactively looking at ways to improve life for everyone. You disagree and think they need more justification for reviewing or exploring something that some other countries/cities/whatever do better? Cool, then we agree to disagree.
On a municipal level especially, there’s really justification for leaving it the way it is outside of “that’s the way it is,” and the justification for at least exploring it is that these people live here like the rest of us and should have representation, too. I don’t believe there’s any value in putting these people in a lower class. They’d be helping elect a city councillor in the city they live and pay property taxes in, not the Prime Minister. We have a councillor who plays golf all day and another that assaulted a girl, and we’re pretending there’s anything special and Canadian about the people that voted them in? lol.
|
I’m still not hearing the root problem that needs to be studied. PRs can’t vote is a fact, but is it an important problem that needs to be addressed?
Let’s assume for a moment that it is an important issue that needs studying and debate. How would you frame that debate? How do you judge if it is a good thing or not? A majority of councillors voted to debate it based on it being a good thing, just like you’re framing it as a positive thing for democracy. What process could lead them or you to a different conclusion? You complain about people objecting to this, disingenuously describing their positions as ‘cause it’s always been that way’ yet your mind is clearly made up. If I’m incorrect, what are the pros, cons and considerations you are mulling?