Have the federal Tories been corrupted by power?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

And that's exactly why Rerun doesn't want to change things.

He's very comfortable with the Status quo, the default position of most 'conservatives'.

You are correct.

Proportional Representation would immediately lead to a coalition government of the Liberals and NDP.... which I entirely reject. The last thing in the world I would wish on Canada is to have the NDP holding the reigns of power.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The best political system would be a partyless system where districts were represented by people who just acted in the best interest of their constituents. But yeah like has been said first past the post allows for legislation that as many as 60% of people could be against. Not exactly representative democracy.

[Rerun]

PR allows extremist parties and single issue parties to gain a foothold in national life, which our current system of first past the post doesn't.

The coalition governments that PR tends to produce are often weak and indecisive.

Compromise is not always ideal. Sometimes necessary reforms would never be carried through without a strong governing majority.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Rerun, you consider the Liberals and NDP untrustworthy and extremist respectively. Likewise, many also consider the Conservatives extremist, regardless of whether you agree (we know you don't). As always, in the eye of the beholder. The problem with first past the post as evidence from now, is the party decides the agenda and not the members themselves. Harper runs things tight and everyone falls in line because thats how party politics work. So people aren't actually electing the people who will do best for them, but the people who will best toe the party line. That's a pretty awful sounding system to me.

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Rerun, you consider the Liberals and NDP untrustworthy and extremist respectively. Likewise, many also consider the Conservatives extremist, regardless of whether you agree (we know you don't). As always, in the eye of the beholder. The problem with first past the post as evidence from now, is the party decides the agenda and not the members themselves. Harper runs things tight and everyone falls in line because thats how party politics work. So people aren't actually electing the people who will do best for them, but the people who will best toe the party line. That's a pretty awful sounding system to me.

And to be fair, every party in power I can remember gets their members to toe party lines; that is what the Party Whip is for. Nature of our current political system.

[Jacks]

If we had PR in this country it is doubtful that the books ever would have been balanced in the 90's. When the Liberals won in 1993 with about 41% they would have had 48% combined with the NDP and the Bloc would have probably held the balance of power. Neither the Bloc or the NDP would have ever allowed the kind of cuts that the Liberals made. The only party that would have supported those cuts is the Reform and there is about a 0% chance of a Lib/Ref coalition ever happening.

In 1997 the Libs had 38.5% (yes that's right, less than Harper). Again the combined Lib/NDP vote would have been 49.5% so the Bloc would have been a key ally and the cuts would never have happened. Spending probably would have increased.

Only majority governments can make the unpopular decisions that are best for everyone and PR pretty much guarantees you won't have a majority. If a family of 5 had PR they would be eating ice cream for dinner every night.

[Devils'Advocate]

(1) I love how you feel that 3 out of 5 Canadians are children, unable to make an informed responsible decision.
(2) And that it is the role of a responsible dictatorship to make the choices on behalf of those children.

[Jacks]

Read whatever you want into it, you ignored 80% of my post anyway.

[Flash Walken]

Sound reasoning.

"Only an dictatorship can make the decisions the citizenry opposes vehemently.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Sound reasoning.

"Only an dictatorship can make the decisions the citizenry opposes vehemently.

Sometimes yes. Difference being that the dictators here still have to stay reasonable in their decisions to keep their party in line and they can be turfed on their butts after 4 years (or less). Look at the mess in Europe right now, facing bankruptcy they still can't live within their means.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Proportional Representation would immediately lead to a coalition government of the Liberals and NDP.... which I entirely reject. The last thing in the world I would wish on Canada is to have the NDP holding the reigns of power.

I'm guessing you're ruling out a Conservative-Liberal coalition because you take your cues from the Conservative leadership.

The truth is that it would be the Liberals who would be kingmakers, as both the Conservatives and the NDP would be viable coalition partners for them. That is unless the Conservatives opt not to play ball, in which case they would have only themselves to blame, much like Tim Hudak in Ontario.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by SebC

The truth is that it would be the Liberals who would be kingmakers, as both the Conservatives and the NDP would be viable coalition partners for them.

So you want a system where the 3rd place finisher has all the power? No thanks.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Fire

So you want a system where the 3rd place finisher has all the power? No thanks.

I want a system where the centre vote is represented by the government. This directly implied from "majority rules", because you can't make a congrous majority without the centre.

[SebC]

I wonder how many of you Conservatives will flip flop on electoral reform when you lose your plurality? Or do you believe you'll stay in government forever?

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by SebC

I wonder how many of you Conservatives will flip flop on electoral reform when you lose your plurality?

Not me, I just want a good stable government that won't screw things up too much.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by SebC

I wonder how many of you Conservatives will flip flop on electoral reform when you lose your plurality? Or do you believe you'll stay in government forever?

As I said before... I think the "First past the post" is the best.
I'd rather see a Liberal majority than a coalition government where fringe or extremist parties hold the balance of power. Nothing good usually comes of that as history tells us.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Rerun

As I said before... I think the "First past the post" is the best.

I'd rather see a Liberal majority than a coalition government where fringe or extremist parties hold the balance of power. Nothing good usually comes of that as history tells us.

The Conservatives could be the Liberals' coalition partner. I will concede that they are fringe and extremist (), so why are you okay with a system that gives them not only the balance of power but all the power?

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by SebC

I wonder how many of you Conservatives will flip flop on electoral reform when you lose your plurality? Or do you believe you'll stay in government forever?

Show me a conservative that is ok with it now and I will show you a Liberal that just started to hate it

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

(1) I love how you feel that 3 out of 5 Canadians are children, unable to make an informed responsible decision.
(2) And that it is the role of a responsible dictatorship to make the choices on behalf of those children.

I'm convinced that most Canadians choose who to vote for based on the quality and wittiness of the attack ads, as well as the publicity stunts.

[Devils'Advocate]

Suggesting that PR gives too much power to the third party have to understand that that is only true if the majority party and second party allow it.

Here in Ontario we have a minority Liberal government.
The Conservatives have said they have no interest whatsoever in working with the McGinty government.

The Liberals negotiated, negotiated and negotiated with the NDP until they had a workable budget that the NDP said that they would not oppose. They didn't get anywhere near what they wanted and for that reason, they all abstained from voting for the budget.

McGinty says that he has had such a hard time working with the NDP he hopes that Hudak will be willing to co-operate in the future because "some days you want to tack left, other days you want to tack right".

The Liberals had several choices in the process. First they could work with neither party and have the budget fail, leading to an election. They could have passed a budget that the Conservatives would have loved. They could have passed a budget the NDP would have loved. Or they could work with either party to co-operate, negotiate, share ideas and come up with something both parties could live with.

He didn't give "too much power" to the third party. The NDP most certainly didn't get anywhere near what they wanted for a budget. And it was Hudak who screwed himself from day one when he said he would not be voting for the McGinty budget no matter what. It was that stance that gave the NDP most of their positioning power.