GT: Federal Election

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Yeah, #### proportional representation.

I can see why conservatives would hate it.

There would likely never be another conservative government again in Canada with proportional representation. Every election would result in a minority and Canada would have to use coalitions just to get things done. In all likelihood, that would mean Liberals, NDPs and Greens constantly forming coalitions. You might get the odd Liberal/Conservative coalition, but either way, you are getting liberal pressure in parliament.

Plus, there will probably be smaller extremist parties popping up have a chance of winning seats. And half the seats in Alberta would go to non-conservative parties.

[peter12]

Mixed systems end up with pretty complicated results. FPTP allows us to completely remove parties who have overstayed their welcome. In some glorious cases, it allows the electorate to completely destroy them. This, in turn, drives innovation and turnover within the parties. Old elites are swept out, disgraced, and forced to take middling roles as boardroom shills or lobbyists. All PR does is further cement the party (and not the community) as the centrepiece to a democracy. Look at the horrifically entrenched parties that through the guarantee of perpetual election through PR, and their absolute controls of the candidate lists can stay on indefinitely.

DOWN WITH PR!

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by MattyC

How can we not get up into the 80% for voter turnout? Is it really that much of an inconvenience for people? It took me all of 20 minutes, and that included going to the wrong polling station 1st.

Have you ever had a to deal with the general public? Or [shudder] had to go door-to-door and get a glimpse into how the full range of people live? I'd guess 20 per cent of Canadians are completely disengaged from the rest of humanity, and simply don't give a toss. About the government, or much of anything besides their immediate solitary interests.

Then there's the 5 per cent or so of people who are incapacitated, due to age or illness.

So there's a ceiling of maybe 75 per cent of the adult population. The most promising cohort to increase voting is probably the young adults who are too cool for school. But given the very low rates of newspaper readership and news watching among that demographic (and no, Jon Stewart doesn't count), you'd have your work cut out for you.

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think the way Harper ran his campaigns was really short-sighted and may end up hampering the Conservatives for the next little while. He did a really good job of setting them up with a high floor, but their ceiling is limited and their potential for growth has been completely stunted because they did absolutely nothing to appeal to young voters, especially those with a university degree. So any new leader is going to have an uphill climb, as you basically have a whole generation of voters who've been ignored by the Conservatives.

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

One thing I don't understand, why the Conservatives feel they need to pander to the social Conservatives at all? It's not likely those people would jump ship to the Liberals or NDP.

They won't jump ship, but they may very well stay home at election time if they feel alienated from mainstream politics. Also, all parties need a core of very earnest and passionate supporters to keep the fires burning between elections. Those people tend to be ideologues (of all stripes). Yes, parties need the centrist swing voters to win elections. But they also need their partisan core supporters to raise funds and work the phones.

I do wonder, though, what changed in the last 25 years to drive the Red Tories out of the Conservative Party. Surely grumpy old social conservatives have always been force in Canadian politics. How did they manage to drive out the moderates?

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I thought that there was an RCMP release that showed that the majority of the woman were killed by people that were familiar to them or in their immediate family

Yup. But the answer wasn't one that they wanted to hear. So we will continue to inquire until we get the answer that we agree with.

Just like environmental assessments. Keystone XL, Gateway and Energy East all have passed multiple environmental evaluations, and also complied with every condition placed on them. Thus these projects pass the environmental review, but "people" don't want to hear that, so we need to revamp the review process until we finally get to the one answer people want to hear.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Yup. But the answer wasn't one that they wanted to hear. So we will continue to inquire until we get the answer that we agree with.

Just like environmental assessments. Keystone XL, Gateway and Energy East all have passed multiple environmental evaluations, and also complied with every condition placed on them. Thus these projects pass the environmental review, but "people" don't want to hear that, so we need to revamp the review process until we finally get to the one answer people want to hear.

Exactly. The evidence is overwhelming that violence against aboriginal women is endemic to their wretched socio-economic conditions (the real problem), and very little to do with racist murderers in the night.

TMEP submitted the largest EA in CANADIAN HISTORY. I know, I was on the team that produced it.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Zarley

First past the post has yielded generally good governance for the entirety of Canada's existence. I don't understand the enthusiasm for moving away from it.

It creates voter apathy, it magnifies election effects into a two-party system, it results in minority rule where the majority of the country actually disagree with the ruling party.

Let's get with the 21st century. Canada is a changing, progressive country. Just because something worked for the 19th and 20th centuries where this was a much more homogeneous culture, doesn't mean that it works for the diverse country that we are living in today and in the future.

I don't think PR is the solution

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

It creates voter apathy, it magnifies election effects into a two-party system, it results in minority rule where the majority of the country actually disagree with the ruling party.

Let's get with the 21st century. Canada is a changing, progressive country. Just because something worked for the 19th and 20th centuries where this was a much more homogeneous culture, doesn't mean that it works for the diverse country that we are living in today and in the future.

I don't think PR is the solution

FPTP creates voter apathy? Proof. Going to have to ask for proof.

[GGG]

I can't believe that anyone who went through stelmech and Redford would ever be in favour of the preferential ballot immediate run off. You get the least offensive candidate. Give me a leader I disagree with then someone who wanted not to be worst

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by peter12

FPTP creates voter apathy? Proof. Going to have to ask for proof.

Ill jump in here. It's been more than 20 years but the first year texts written by then U of C profs in Poli 201 and 221 each had a discussion where they suggested that in a FPTP system those who support parties that often lose also are much more likely not to vote at all. As I recall its a well documented phenomenon, but I'm not here to do some research to satisfy your query, you are more than able to find it on your own.

And I prefer FPTP in any event, based on the pros and cons those very texts explained way back then.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by peter12

Exactly. The evidence is overwhelming that violence against aboriginal women is endemic to their wretched socio-economic conditions (the real problem), and very little to do with racist murderers in the night.

TMEP submitted the largest EA in CANADIAN HISTORY. I know, I was on the team that produced it.

Thank goodness that Harper made addressing First Nations poverty such a priority during his tenure as Prime Minister.

[Johnny199r]

Improve the social conditions of aboriginals across the country. That's what an inquiry would recommend to help stop violence against aboriginal women.

Unless the gov't is willing to repeal the Indian act, and most likely piss off most mainstream voters by pouring endless money and resources (making current spending look like a trickle in comparison), to make aboriginal poverty their main mandate, nothing will change.

I've been a criminal lawyer all over Northern Canada working on primarily aboriginal reserves. I have no doubt that no government will ever fix the issue of aboriginal poverty, it requires too much political will and resources.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Yeah, #### proportional representation.

Representation should be determined through feats of strength!

"Come on Justin, fight your father!!"

I cant wait until the debate airing of grievances.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Thank goodness that Harper made addressing First Nations poverty such a priority during his tenure as Prime Minister.

And thank goodness the LPC are going to continue to study a problem we already know the answer to instead of trying to do something about it?
This is a problem there will likely never be a proper government response to, partisan politics aside

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

Improve the social conditions of aboriginals across the country. That's what an inquiry would recommend to help stop violence against aboriginal women.

Unless the gov't is willing to repeal the Indian act, and most likely piss off most mainstream voters by pouring endless money and resources (making current spending look like a trickle in comparison), to make aboriginal poverty their main mandate, nothing will change.

I've been a criminal lawyer all over Northern Canada working on primarily aboriginal reserves. I have no doubt that no government will ever fix the issue of aboriginal poverty, it requires too much political will and resources.

Would the Kelowna Accord have helped? Wonder if their is interest in all sides to re-visit that. From what I remember, it was basically a done deal until Harper torpedoed it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Would the Kelowna Accord have helped? Wonder if their is interest in all sides to re-visit that. From what I remember, it was basically a done deal until Harper torpedoed it.

The best thing Harper did for aboriginals was force the bands to disclose salaries of their leadership.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Thank goodness that Harper made addressing First Nations poverty such a priority during his tenure as Prime Minister.

If you're going to play that game, you might as well list every prime minister this country has had over the last 3 generations.

Harper increased spending on aboriginal affairs by 2 billion from 2014 to 2015 to nearly 9 billion dollars.

The problem is that there isn't a system in place to make sure that its not just throwing money at the problem.

Spending by the government per first nations persons has increased fairly significantly since Harper took over.

Its not that they're not spending the money or increasing the budget. Its that the system is completely broken and the strategy of keep throwing money at it is a bad strategy.

[peter12]

It's not just the system or social conditions, but probably 3-4 generations of genetic damage. Most of the population left on reserves has been wracked by FAS for multiple generations. It isn't as simple as waving a policy wand, and POOF no boil water advisories, but a deep, dark, horrible problem that has multiple causes that don't all stem from the same source.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by peter12

The best thing Harper did for aboriginals was force the bands to disclose salaries of their leadership.

I wish people would at least acknowledge that the majority of aboriginal problems are internal. There are leaders that try to drive everyone outside their family off the reserve to enrich themselves further.

[Johnny199r]

isolated aboriginal reserves = breeding grounds of poverty
Prior forced assimilation = residential schools
Residential schools = aboriginals will never trust gov't again, and won't be forced to cities

No possible way for the gov't to ever fix the issue. Can't force these people off their treaty land. Some eventually leave, but carry huge issues by the time they do.

Endless cycle of gov't reliance written into law by treaties and the Indian act.

[CofR]

Originally Posted by Locke

Representation should be determined through feats of strength!

"Come on Justin, fight your father!!"

I cant wait until the debate airing of grievances.

This campaign is not over until you pin me!