Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 49 to 69 of 69

Thread: Doug Ford new leader of Ontario PC party

  1. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by oagre View Post
    Latest poll shows a 48% disapproval rate of Douffo - and he hasn't even started to campaign yet. (Because we know, the more he opens his mouth, the more that disapproval rate will climb).
    That Forum poll you're citing said that if the election were held today, the Conservatives would win a majority:

    https://www.thestar.com/news/queensp...oll-finds.html

    Furthermore, it had the Liberals finishing third.

    I think Margaret Wente may have it right in her latest column in the Globe and Mail. Wynne is hugely unpopular (going by some polls, Wynne's popularity is less than half of Donald Trump's). Many people may hold their noses and vote for Doug just to get rid of the Liberals.

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...win-of-course/

  2. #50
    Preferential ballots and equally weighted ridings: How the Ontario PCs choose their leaders

    http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/t...vote-1.4571542

  3. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlemagne View Post
    Preferential ballots and equally weighted ridings: How the Ontario PCs choose their leaders

    http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/t...vote-1.4571542
    Once again the CBC fills the vacuum that's all Our Dear Leaders think we deserve.

    Kinda interesting that late this morning, when I looked on the OPC site for anything on the results or the rules, there was nothing there. The most recent item on their News page was a press release from the since-resigned President dated January 27, although someone had plugged a Dougie pic and paragraph into the Leader page.What size the riding associations are, where the 'bonusing' kicks in, or any details about how the PCs relocated whole towns to other ridings were nowhere to be found, let alone actual vote counts and 'weighting' calculations.

    But b now they've splashed Ford's win across it, dropped the Dykstra PR piece and included the Leadership Chair's statement officially announcing the result. Still nowhere to be seen are actual rules or numbers. But why would there be with no candidate objecting? For all my unsatisfied electoral nerd curiosity, that's right in line with the classic Meeting procedure after an Election, where the Chair invites a motion to destroy the Ballots.

    What progress?

  4. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by oldjones View Post
    Kinda interesting that late this morning, when I looked on the OPC site for anything on the results or the rules, there was nothing there.
    Here you go.

    https://www.ontariopc.ca/leadership_voting_results_1

    https://www.ontariopc.ca/riding_by_riding_results

  5. #53
    Looking at some of the coverage today, I think there's a very real possibility the ballot question will be about the future of "carbon pricing" in Ontario.

    If so, keep a watch on what individual Liberal candidates are saying about it. If some of them start to stray from the party line and start floating the idea of opening the issue up to "consultations" and the like, you'll know where the election is headed.

  6. #54
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    hornyville
    Posts
    2,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Moviefan-2 View Post
    If so, keep a watch on what individual Liberal candidates are saying about it. If some of them start to stray from the party line and start floating the idea of opening the issue up to "consultations" and the like, you'll know where the election is headed.
    Too much damn taxes!

    Only the Liberal Party of Ontario believes the electorate loves being over-taxed, and watch the government run deficits, (which means us over-taxed will be even more over-taxed in the future).

    The worst part is how the self-serving public unions hector us about paying our fair share.

    Now is the time for fiscal vengeance. We've been waiting a long time for this.

    If Ford wins this election, and if he wins the next election, the next election is his chance to cripple the public service unions in Ontario for good.

    Patience. Play the long game.


  7. #55
    NOw Ford claims he might open up pot sales to private business. Hmmmm..... Sort of a clash between the social and economic conservatives coming?

  8. #56
    Thanks for those links. Interesting and predictable, given the hoorah, that the published Voting Results wouldn't be the overall membership vote totals, but only the 'after we've massaged them electoral votes', which shrink 100,000+ urban ridings down to equal the much smaller rural ones.

    What progress?

  9. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by wigglee View Post
    NOw Ford claims he might open up pot sales to private business. Hmmmm..... Sort of a clash between the social and economic conservatives coming?
    Hey, it's a business he knows.

    What progress?

  10. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Bud Plug View Post
    I hereby bestow a "lifetime achievement award" on this argument. Since you've presented this argument to me so many times before (without persuading me), and because I doubt there are any new eyeballs to enlighten, you could probably retire this argument at this point.
    Actually I offer it to all who read it, you may be the only one, and I do appreciate the invitation to expand on it when you reply, but it's not your special present. When you or anyone offers any persuasive counter-arguments I might indeed retire it. Until I hear at least one, I'll continue to believe and advocate that real democracy requires real equality in voting. Other minds may be more open than yours.

    Whatever good intentions may attach to distortions such as disproportionately under-populated rural districts, and over-populated urban ones, the results are clearly unfair and unbalanced if each gets equal representation. The more rules and tinkering we add to hide the imbalances, the further we get from seeing justice done, and the emptier are the claims for archaic holdovers from the days of aristocratic privilege like the American system.

    What's wrong with one person, one vote and equal representation?

    What progress?

  11. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by oldjones View Post
    Actually I offer it to all who read it, you may be the only one, and I do appreciate the invitation to expand on it when you reply, but it's not your special present. When you or anyone offers any persuasive counter-arguments I might indeed retire it. Until I hear at least one, I'll continue to believe and advocate that real democracy requires real equality in voting. Other minds may be more open than yours.
    Since you've never answered the counter arguments presented, other than to repeat your argument, I would say the debate is over.
    Terb Members on Ignore: Frankfooter

  12. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Bud Plug View Post
    Since you've never answered the counter arguments presented, other than to repeat your argument, I would say the debate is over.
    As I've said: What counter-arguments? There hasn't been anyone who cared to actually debate electoral topics since fuji,. Like yours, the other responses have amounted to, "give it a rest", not debate.

    So I keep pointing out the illegitimacy of rigged votes and the superiority of universal suffrage. If you don't care to think about such stuff that's your option, but telling me certainly won't decrease my commitment to the concept.

    What progress?

  13. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by oldjones View Post
    As I've said: What counter-arguments? There hasn't been anyone who cared to actually debate electoral topics since fuji,. Like yours, the other responses have amounted to, "give it a rest", not debate.

    So I keep pointing out the illegitimacy of rigged votes and the superiority of universal suffrage. If you don't care to think about such stuff that's your option, but telling me certainly won't decrease my commitment to the concept.
    That's incorrect, and you know it.

    To remind you of one such counterargument, it's been put to you that whatever the strategic and other consequences of the electoral college system, it is the system that convinced smaller population states to join the Republic, because it offered some degree of comfort to such states (which may have been punching above their weight economically, or had a unique vision of how their society fit within this Republic) that changing population distributions would not completely erode their influence. If that was the basis for coming together, you'd need a very strong argument to convince such states to water down the original deal. I don't think that there has ever been an election that resulted in a president who was so unrepresentative that it would convince such (generally flyover) states to cede their small measure of political security in favor of a presidency determined by popularity in California and New York.

    Politically, it would seem far wiser to live with the deal in these circumstances, and simply expect candidates to be smart enough to understand how to campaign under the rules that exist.
    Terb Members on Ignore: Frankfooter

  14. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Bud Plug View Post
    That's incorrect, and you know it.

    To remind you of one such counterargument, it's been put to you that whatever the strategic and other consequences of the electoral college system, it is the system that convinced smaller population states to join the Republic, because it offered some degree of comfort to such states (which may have been punching above their weight economically, or had a unique vision of how their society fit within this Republic) that changing population distributions would not completely erode their influence. If that was the basis for coming together, you'd need a very strong argument to convince such states to water down the original deal. I don't think that there has ever been an election that resulted in a president who was so unrepresentative that it would convince such (generally flyover) states to cede their small measure of political security in favor of a presidency determined by popularity in California and New York.

    Politically, it would seem far wiser to live with the deal in these circumstances, and simply expect candidates to be smart enough to understand how to campaign under the rules that exist.
    A historical account of a political accommodation two centuries ago is no argument that the electoral system of today is good, fair or just. Nor does it have the slightest relevance to a provincial party election in another country with an entirely different history. Whatever issue you thought you were addressing, it is not mine.

    Like I said: What counter-arguments?

    What progress?

  15. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by oldjones View Post
    A historical account of a political bribe two centuries ago is no argument that the system of today is good, fair or just. Nor does it have the slightest relevance to a provincial party election in another country with an entirely different history.

    Like I said: What counter-arguments?
    I thought you were making this point in connection with the US? I think we both know that there is no electoral college in Canada (although it's worth noting that the Canadian Senate does not reflect representation by population, small provinces having wildly disproportionate representation in this regard).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_Canada

    I see that it's about your definition of a counter argument.

    Let me try to influence your definition. Countries are political constructs. The politics which form them are their very basis for existence. Abstract and malleable notions of "goodness, fairness, and justness" aren't founding political principles unless so defined by the founding parties. Rather, the principles they DO adopt become the definition of what is good, fair and just in the eyes of those parties. There is a process for amending the constitution of the United States. It's a difficult process BY DESIGN. Accordingly, it takes a better argument than "I don't like it when a President is elected who is fractionally less popular than his/her opponent" to move that difficult machinery into action.

    States were very different societies prior to the US constitution. They have become more alike, but they are still far from identical. States were very distrustful of the power of a central federal authority (for understandable historical reasons) and that is reflected in the constitution.

    Is it your argument that the outlook of the states, particularly the smaller population states, has changed so much that they would support a constitutional amendment? Or are you really proposing a brand new union based on a new constitution that offers none of the current protections that small states enjoy? Do you think small population states would join such a union? My prediction is no.

    It's one thing to have an ideal, but it's another to reconcile it with other interests such that the ideal would be politically acceptable.

    I've addressed this in the US context, because that is primarily where you have made this argument. I'd be happy to discuss the Canadian model if you like, but I perceive your issue there to be the "first past the post" concept, rather than any nullification of the principle of "one person, one vote". If I misunderstand your Canadian misgivings, please elaborate.
    Terb Members on Ignore: Frankfooter

  16. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Bud Plug View Post
    I thought you were making this point in connection with the US? I think we both know that there is no electoral college in Canada (although it's worth noting that the Canadian Senate does not reflect representation by population, small provinces having wildly disproportionate representation in this regard).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_Canada

    I see that it's about your definition of a counter argument.

    Let me try to influence your definition. Countries are political constructs. The politics which form them are their very basis for existence. Abstract and malleable notions of "goodness, fairness, and justness" aren't founding political principles unless so defined by the founding parties. Rather, the principles they DO adopt become the definition of what is good, fair and just in the eyes of those parties. There is a process for amending the constitution of the United States. It's a difficult process BY DESIGN. Accordingly, it takes a better argument than "I don't like it when a President is elected who is fractionally less popular than his/her opponent" to move that difficult machinery into action.

    States were very different societies prior to the US constitution. They have become more alike, but they are still far from identical. States were very distrustful of the power of a central federal authority (for understandable historical reasons) and that is reflected in the constitution.

    Is it your argument that the outlook of the states, particularly the smaller population states, has changed so much that they would support a constitutional amendment? Or are you really proposing a brand new union based on a new constitution that offers none of the current protections that small states enjoy? Do you think small population states would join such a union? My prediction is no.

    It's one thing to have an ideal, but it's another to reconcile it with other interests such that the ideal would be politically acceptable.

    I've addressed this in the US context, because that is primarily where you have made this argument. I'd be happy to discuss the Canadian model if you like, but I perceive your issue there to be the "first past the post" concept, rather than any nullification of the principle of "one person, one vote". If I misunderstand your Canadian misgivings, please elaborate.
    Discussion of the US Electoral College is of little use here in Canada, well after it was adjourned. I only mention it or the popular vote in the US when replying to simple minded statements such as 'she lost the election' or he was the people's choice'. Stupidities that persist to this day.

    Here in a OPC Leadership Election thread, that American distortion of democracy is relevant only because the PC's weight their election to make ridings the real voters, just as States are the real deciders in the US. At least the PCs try to reflect the membership's choice by making each riding's electoral votes proportional to the membership votes (an amendment to do the same in the US still lacks sufficient state ratifications) but the structure still over en-franchises some members and under-values others, just as the Electoral College grossly devalues citizenship for anyone living where most Americans choose to live. The result for the PCs as in the US, appears to be that the candidate most voters favoured was beaten by the system.

    Democracy is about the people governing, and whenever some people are given greater voice and power than others — no matter the good intention — it becomes misshapen and twisted. To me that requires one equal person, one equal vote, one equal part in representation within the body politic and in its decisions. Counter-arguments would have to establlsh the overarching value and importance of the particular 'good intentions' that put that principle aside.

    Some time, if you want a thread about the American electoral system under the Constitution, I'll happily join in, but I think I've explained what limited relevance it has here AFAIC.

    What progress?

  17. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
    Too much damn taxes!
    Lorrie Goldstein has an interesting column in the Sun. He points out that Wynne "spilled the beans" in a tweet and confirmed that cap and trade is really about raising more money for government, rather than saving the planet.

    http://torontosun.com/opinion/column...carbon-pricing

    Wynne is already hugely unpopular, to a large extent because of rising energy costs and her government's total bungling of the energy file. The whole "carbon pricing" issue may be a killer for her government.

  18. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Moviefan-2 View Post
    Lorrie Goldstein has an interesting column in the Sun. He points out that Wynne "spilled the beans" in a tweet and confirmed that cap and trade is really about raising more money for government, rather than saving the planet.

    http://torontosun.com/opinion/column...carbon-pricing

    Wynne is already hugely unpopular, to a large extent because of rising energy costs and her government's total bungling of the energy file. The whole "carbon pricing" issue may be a killer for her government.
    well maybe Ford will privatize Hydro, like Harris tried to do. Let the market decide!

  19. #67
    Ipsos has a new poll (conducted after Doug's leadership win) that shows the Tories could win a majority government:

    https://globalnews.ca/news/4084377/o...rd-ipsos-poll/

  20. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Moviefan-2 View Post
    Ipsos has a new poll (conducted after Doug's leadership win) that shows the Tories could win a majority government:

    https://globalnews.ca/news/4084377/o...rd-ipsos-poll/
    the "Anybody but Ford" crowd may decide to stick with Wynne and even NDPers will vote Liberal to save us from Ford. We don't need no stinking vote splitting Bernie Sanders here... even some Cons may feel Ford is too bizarrely inappropriate.

  21. #69
    Official Cyclops Wrangler
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Hanging out with the One-Eyed Monster.
    Posts
    19,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Moviefan-2 View Post
    Ipsos has a new poll (conducted after Doug's leadership win) that shows the Tories could win a majority government:

    https://globalnews.ca/news/4084377/o...rd-ipsos-poll/
    You have to notice that sudden 3% jump in Liberal support though - just since Ford was made leader. Libs only 7% behind now and NDP losing support....
    After 30 years hobbying and 15 years on TERB, maybe I should write my memoirs. I'd call them..... "If these Balls could talk".

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •