Bloc 10%-50 seats, Greens 7%-0 seats, huh?

[Meister]

What kind of goof ball came up with that strategy? The Bloc gets 10% of the votes with 50 seats and the greens get 0 seats with 7% of the votes. There are several problems with this in my opinion, such as the Bloc getting way too much voting power in parliament and the voice of the greens is completely silenced (at a ratio of 50 to 0).

I bet you some not so bright Ryerson PoliSci guy came up with that BS.

btw, don't explain the electoral process to me, I know how it works. It's just nutty.

 

[LancsLad]

I blame Wolfe's men.


Just like gulf1, they didn't finish the job.



.

 

[danmand]

There is a simple solution that most democracies use: Proportional representation.

 

[johnhenrygalt]

I bet you some not so bright Ryerson PoliSci guy came up with that BS.

No it has nothing to do with Ryerson. It is a centuries-old aspect of British Parliamentary democracy. Jesus Christ, don't they teach history and civics in the schools anymore?

 

[fuji]

There is a simple solution that most democracies use: Proportional representation.

Proportional representation results in government by bad compromise. I'd much rather have a consistent Liberal, or a consistent Conservative, or even consistent NDP government than an inconsistent mismash of ill thought through compromises. It's much more important to have a coherent strategy than to pander to everyone but achieve nothing.

This is why continental Europe is governed by a bunch of nancies.

What makes democracy work is that the people can hold the government accountable and toss them out of they get uppity. In a PR system you can never toss them out either--maybe reduce their margins at best. So it fails as a democracy too since it has no accountability.

The winner is accountability combined with strong government which is why Canada is so much better than Denmark.

 

[danmand]

Proportional representation results in government by bad compromise. I'd much rather have a consistent Liberal, or a consistent Conservative, or even consistent NDP government than an inconsistent mismash of ill thought through compromises. It's much more important to have a coherent strategy than to pander to everyone but achieve nothing.

This is why continental Europe is governed by a bunch of nancies.

I dcisagree, you get a government that more closely reflects the will of the people, for good or bad, but that is what is called democracy. In Canada we have a government elected by 23% of weligible voters. While 2/3 of the population votes center or left of center, we get a right of center government, that 1/3 of the population wants.

 

[fuji]

I dcisagree, you get a government that more closely reflects the will of the people, for good or bad, but that is what is called democracy.

See my edit add-on above.

I don't care whether we get government that "more closely reflects the will of the people" and I absolutely reject that that is what democracy is about. Democracy is about being able to turf the government if they get uppity. End of story.

This crap about "more closely reflects the will of the people" is a horrible corruption of democracy that has ruined Europe and I'd rather it not ruin Canada.

 

[danmand]

I don't care whether we get government that "more closely reflects the will of the people" and I absolutely reject that that is what democracy is about. Democracy is about being able to turf the government if they get uppity. End of story.

This crap about "more closely reflects the will of the people" is a horrible corruption of democracy that has ruined Europe and I'd rather it not ruin Canada.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement here that makes further discussion unfruitfull.

The winner is accountability combined with strong government which is why Canada is so much better than Denmark.

PS: I would be interested in your opinion on how specifically Canada is better than Denmark.

 

[fuji]

We aren't governed by a bunch of sissy's who try and make everyone happy. We have a government capable of forming a coherent strategy and following through on it, even if it pisses a few people off.

That allows us to adapt more quickly to change, make better plans, and execute our plans more sucecssfully.

Your sissy government spends all its time trying to hammer out impossible compromises between people who will never agree, never hits on a coherent strategy, never executes what it hits on, and winds up wasting everyone's time and money.

 

[danmand]

We aren't governed by a bunch of sissy's who try and make everyone happy. We have a government capable of forming a coherent strategy and following through on it, even if it pisses a few people off.

That allows us to adapt more quickly to change, make better plans, and execute our plans more sucecssfully.

Your sissy government spends all its time trying to hammer out impossible compromises between people who will never agree, never hits on a coherent strategy, never executes what it hits on, and winds up wasting everyone's time and money.

I was asking for specifics, not banalities. Please show with objective measurments facts, where Canada is better than Denmark.

 

[fuji]

I was asking for specifics, not banalities. Please show with objective measurments facts, where Canada is better than Denmark.

48% of GDP in Denmark goes into taxes to pay for the fact that your compromised-based government winds up doling out pork to absolutely everyone. Only Sweden is worse.

This is a direct result of your failed electoral system.

 

[fuji]

Back to the original point, here is what will eventually happen under our electoral system:

The Greens and the Liberals will eventually get tired of losing elections because of vote splitting. They will sit down for talks. They will hammer out some sort of deal. They will either merge into one party, or they will form a coalition and not run against each other in any given riding.

This is exactly what happened to Reform and PC, they eventually saw the light and sat down and hammered it out.

The resulting Green/Liberal party will be a stronger, better party with a better platform than either of the present ones do, unified under a single leader, with one coherent strategy rather than a last-minute coalition government compromise.

It's unfortunate that it will take a few election cycles for reality to dawn on them, but reality will eventually dawn.

The result will be a better political party and a better Canada, just as happened with the Reform and PC's, it will happen to Green/Liberal.

 

[danmand]

48% of GDP in Denmark goes into taxes to pay for the fact that your compromised-based government winds up doling out pork to absolutely everyone. Only Sweden is worse.

This is a direct result of your failed electoral system.

Denmark will be debt free by january, has the last 5 years reduced its
fossil energy consumption by 19% while the GDP has increased by 39%.
Denmark leads the world in foreign aid, leads the world in most of the
measurements of good governance, no coprruption, health care with
timeliness guarantee, free education at all levels, etc etc.

Pork, as in the north american definition, is unknown in Denmark.

 

[fuji]

GDP per capita in Denmark is still lower than in Canada, and growing a full percentage point slower than in Canada, so give it a rest.

 

[danmand]

GDP per capita in Denmark is still lower than in Canada, and growing a full percentage point slower than in Canada, so give it a rest.

Denmark slides in affluence ranking

OECD figures show Denmark’s GDP has been overtaken by other countries Denmark fell to 11th place in May 2008 from 7th place in 1996 in terms of gross domestic product per capita, adjusted for purchasing power, according to figures from...

Although Denmark has had a strong economy, falling unemployment and rising private consumption, its GDP per capita was overtaken by Canada, Australia, Ireland and the Netherlands in the period from 1996 to 2008.

 

[fuji]

GDP per capita in Denmark grew by 1.9% annually since 1970 versus an average of 3.3% for Canada. Recently you've closed the gap to only 1% slower.

In my opinion this is because too much of your economy is run by your inefficient government. Your government controls roughly HALF of the GDP, whereas Canada's controls only around 35%. Private sector spending is simply more efficient than public sector spending except on a few things like healthcare.

Your lame proportional representation system has resulted in a sissy government that tries to do everything for everyone and as a result spends like crazy and therefore has to raise taxes.

Your list is wrong as you are using nominal numbers. At purchasing power parity Canada's GDP per capita is $38614 versus Denmark's $37265. The PPP number represents what you can actually buy with the money versus your nominal figure which is much more subject to random currency valuation fluctuations.

 

[Meister]

No it has nothing to do with Ryerson. It is a centuries-old aspect of British Parliamentary democracy. Jesus Christ, don't they teach history and civics in the schools anymore?

Some people just don't enjoy the comedic value in my posts. Oh well.

 

[fuji]

What I find upsetting is the conservatives got 25% of the popular vote in Toronto and ZERO seats while the NDP got 17% and 2 seats....

That's not distressing at all to me. That's quite healthy. Our system is geared to deliver a big governing advantage to the party with a slight electoral advantage.

That has two beneficial effects:

1. The government is able to apply coherent policy

2. If the population turns against the government, a relatively small negative shift can deliver a landslide victory to the official opposition.

In my opinion this ensures that we get (a) good government, with a coherent strategy and (b) they are REALLY held to account.

Again I _much_ prefer a coherent Conservative strategy, or a coherent NDP strategy, over some poor incoherent mishmash of the two.

I also prefer a system where we can throw the bums out, and right out. Under a PR system a slide in power from 35% to 25% represents only a slap on the wrists, whereas under our system is is the difference of being in power or being in opposition.

 

[Meister]

We aren't governed by a bunch of sissy's who try and make everyone happy. We have a government capable of forming a coherent strategy and following through on it, even if it pisses a few people off.

That allows us to adapt more quickly to change, make better plans, and execute our plans more sucecssfully.

Sounds like China. As a matter of I fact I truly believe that democracy would never work in China, it would be way to chaotic and they would never have industrialized as much as they have.

Coming back to Canada. I do think the Greens should have some say like they do in European governments just to keep the balance. Love it or hate it, but Green is on people's minds and needs to be dealt with.
Instead we need to listen to some french whiners with 50 seats being coddled to because they threaten to separate.

 

[danmand]

In my opinion this is because too much of your economy is run by your inefficient government. Your government controls roughly HALF of the GDP, whereas Canada's controls only around 35%. Private sector spending is simply more efficient than public sector spending except on a few things like healthcare.

Your lame proportional representation system has resulted in a sissy government that tries to do everything for everyone and as a result spends like crazy and therefore has to raise taxes.

If you sincerely believe that Canada has better government than Denmark, then
you must be drinking water that is seriously polluted.