I actually think Trudeau has been going pretty hard after Alberta, harder than any of the previous Liberal candidates have, and I say that as someone who probably won't vote Liberal.
Totally agree. If there are two candidates that are equally qualified for the position and one happens to be a minority, I would prefer the minority get the position, but having a set quota is not a good idea.
You are then slighting someone because of their skin colour. That's a discriminatory and racist policy.
The Following User Says Thank You to Dagger For This Useful Post:
You are then slighting someone because of their skin colour. That's a discriminatory and racist policy.
Sure if you want to look at it from a formal equality perspective, but I believe in equality of results. If one group of people has historically and are still benefiting from systemic inequality, then simply saying "Well now everyone is equal" still leaves other groups at a disadvantage. Think of it as if you and I were running a race, except that at the start of the race you had one leg tied to the other and I had both legs free. Simply untying your legs after I've already gained a huge lead in the race isn't going to make things fair or equal.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Before they introduce first past the post I think they need to fix the huge disparity in the value of a vote. The largest riding has 170,000 people while the smallest has only 26,000.
A vote in Labrador is worth 6.5 votes in Brampton.
Unfortunately, this type of thing is written in the constitution (or some other document)
Quebec will always have 75, PEI will always have 4.
you could even them out by adding more MPs everywhere else but that would suck (also i think Quebec has something about maintaining a certain percentage or something)
Second of all, and this drives me crazy, most voting stations are within walking distance of your probable home, or within a 5 minute drive. Stating that the reason why people don't vote because they have to leave their house to vote is such a poor reason.
Yeah, I don't get the point of it either. It's not exactly difficult or time consuming as it is. And if someone is too lazy to get to the local elementary school, they probably just don't care.
I guess maybe for the "shut ins"* or people living in remote places, but for the average person, we don't need to spend money making it any easier.
*totally unrelated and utterly pointless, but for a brief time in the 80's there was "Friday Night Hockey" on CTV. All I really remember was fight-filled games between the Leafs other teams in the mighty Norris Division, and Dan Kelly giving a weekly shout-out to the 'shut ins' who were tuning in. Those people need the vote too!, I'm sure Dan would say if he was still with us.
Not a fan of preferential ballots, that's how you elect the Stelmach's and Dion's of the world, the candidate everyone hates least.
Not a fan of proportional representation, I want to vote directly for a candidate to represent me, not vote for a party and then have a representative from a pool of candidates. As redforever described, these sorts of systems create messy governments where fringe parties control the balance of power. I prefer stable governments that can get important things accomplished.
Quotas, don't even get me started.
Online voting? not a chance.
In our current system we have party reps at the polling stations making sure there aren't any shenanigans going on. Online voting would have no such oversight, we would have to rely on a database and a web browser script. There would be no way to do recounts, it would be a HUGE target for hackers and virus designers. Remember the controversy with voting machines in the States, can you even imagine online voting. There would surely also be a market created to buy voting rights. Not going to vote? go here and sell you access code for $20 in bitcoins or a gift card or whatever. If people are too lazy to get off their ass and vote then too bad, seniors don't seem to have a problem, no excuse for young people.
I'm not saying things aren't getting better, but there is always progress to be made. As I said, I don't think quotas are the solution. I also think that the focus should probably start to shift more heavily to ethnic minorities and aboriginals as opposed to gender, though women of colour often face much more obstacles than white women.
Even something like what the NFL has with the "Rooney Rule" where a minority candidate must be interviewed for coach openings would help
like others have said sometimes the problem is just getting in the door for the interview
The Following User Says Thank You to d_phaneuf For This Useful Post:
Not a fan of preferential ballots, that's how you elect the Stelmach's and Dion's of the world, the candidate everyone hates least.
Not a fan of proportional representation, I want to vote directly for a candidate to represent me, not vote for a party and then have a representative from a pool of candidates. As redforever described, these sorts of systems create messy governments where fringe parties control the balance of power. I prefer stable governments that can get important things accomplished.
Plus the problem of fringe parties with little support essentially controlling government that needs them in a coalition environment.
For me, the ideal solution is a hybrid of FPTP and rep by pop.
If we have 338 MPs, then elect 238 as single member constituencies, much as exists now. Elect the other 100 as at-large MPs using rep by pop. Probably subdividing by region so you can get around the problem of the unconstitutionality of reducing Quebec below 75 seats or Ontario below 95, etc.
Sure if you want to look at it from a formal equality perspective, but I believe in equality of results. If one group of people has historically and are still benefiting from systemic inequality, then simply saying "Well now everyone is equal" still leaves other groups at a disadvantage. Think of it as if you and I were running a race, except that at the start of the race you had one leg tied to the other and I had both legs free. Simply untying your legs after I've already gained a huge lead in the race isn't going to make things fair or equal.
That's not what's happening at all. They are able to attend the same schools, training, and form a social life just like you and I. There is no us vs them.
I believe in equality during the process, not in the results. The best candidate should get the job period. If it's 100% black females, 100% white males, or any mix in between, it should be up to the business to determine it's best interest.
That's not what's happening at all. They are able to attend the same schools, training, and form a social life just like you and I. There is no us vs them.
Yeah, this just simply isn't true. If you can't see the discrepancies in growing up white vs. growing up as a person of colour at this point in your life, there's nothing that I'm going to say to convince you. Growing up white provides you with a whole host of hidden and not so hidden advantages/privileges that PoCs don't generally receive.
That's not what's happening at all. They are able to attend the same schools, training, and form a social life just like you and I. There is no us vs them.
I believe in equality during the process, not in the results. The best candidate should get the job period. If it's 100% black females, 100% white males, or any mix in between, it should be up to the business to determine it's best interest.
Ok, now you're forcing me to play Devil's Advocate: The "business" in this case would be the government. What if this business determines that its best interest is to hand jobs to minority candidates?
I like the idea of guaranteeing parliament representation for minorities in principle, but honestly, there are so many minorities in Canada that you would have to draw the line somewhere and that will always be controversial I think. Some small countries, have officially recognized minorities that are guaranteed to have a select number of representatives, but in those cases, the minorities usually have their own parties and there are only one or two significant minorities.
From a democratic stand point, I like demographic representation more than regional representation (or perhaps a combination of both), but would probably be way too complicated and expensive to implement.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
I like the idea of guaranteeing parliament representation for minorities in principle, but honestly, there are so many minorities in Canada that you would have to draw the line somewhere and that will always be controversial I think. Some small countries, have officially recognized minorities that are guaranteed to have a select number of representatives, but in those cases, the minorities usually have their own parties and there are only one or two significant minorities.
Generally the line is drawn at "not white," though I can see your point. I think the point is to reduce the government from "overwhelmingly white" to something a little less.
The thing that I personally have realised in the last year though is that it's hard for people in the majority to really recognize the position of the people in the minority. For example, I can admit that when Prentice made his "math is hard" comment at the provincial debate I didn't take it as sexist or mysoginist at all. My wife and I talked and she had a completely different view though,and I wouldn't describe her as some kind of "raging feminist".
I just think that as a white male we have these advantages that we don't even consider and probably don't even realise. We have no idea that they exist and as a result we tend to think that they don't, but to the minority (be that in terms of gender or race) they are definitely there. Some women I know were so inspired Notley for example because she is a progressive woman who appears capable and intelligent and was fighting against Prentice, and they wished they could do that. I know my thought (in my head!) is well "why don't you go and do that?" but therein lies the rub. As people in that group they don't do it because they just don't think that they can.
Anyway, I'm rambling now...its just a really difficult issue I think.
I really like these videos by CGPGrey. Easy information to digest, but I think we can all agree that FPTP is not ideal for a democracy. There are many better platforms for electing governments. It's probably a shot in the dark by Trudeau, but ultimately, better representation in governments is better for the country.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to worth For This Useful Post:
I really like these videos by CGPGrey. Easy information to digest, but I think we can all agree that FPTP is not ideal for a democracy. There are many better platforms for electing governments. It's probably a shot in the dark by Trudeau, but ultimately, better representation in governments is better for the country.
While the mathematical argument is decent, I still think there are some flaws to his argument. It isn't just about math. The trend to 2 parties doesn't seem to be happening in Canada, mostly (I think) because a smaller party getting trounced does not necessarily lead to it's demise. It might fail, it might not, but I think most likely would be replaced by another smaller party. Also, I think the strategic voting that he contemplates doesn't necessarily happen either. If it does, I think it would also apply to the alternative vote. Finally, I don't think he places enough emphasis on the problems of the alternative vote as a method that improves the lot of the centrist position. Finally, the Stelmach result isn't something that should be applauded as somehow a superior, democratic result.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
Last edited by Fighting Banana Slug; 06-18-2015 at 04:16 PM.
