Seduction Spa
Toronto Escorts

Doug Ford new leader of Ontario PC party

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
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.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
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?
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
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.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
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.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
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/columnists/h-wynne-spills-the-beans-on-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.
 

wigglee

Well-known member
Oct 13, 2010
9,819
1,603
113
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/columnists/h-wynne-spills-the-beans-on-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!
 

wigglee

Well-known member
Oct 13, 2010
9,819
1,603
113

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,898
68,402
113
Toronto Escorts