Those extremist Scandinavians, French, Italians and Germans are indeed undemocratic plagues upon the earth.
Not to pile overstatement on overstatement.
Last edited:
Liberal majority
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
Not to pile overstatement on overstatement.
YEP,...you pretty much nailed footer,...!!!
But his mothers basement will have do for now.
FAST
Last edited:
In any case FPTP produces centrist government that is nearest the views of the most people, while PR coalitions build towards the extremes. Literally, you list as a plus the inclusion of extremist fringe parties in government, tr expense of more moderates. Crazy.
Agree. While not always the case, the extremist rump tends to hold the balance of power in coalition governments.
Can you imagine the Bloc holding the balance of power in Parliament? That is why the last attempt at coalition failed.
Haven't we just come through almost a decade where an extremist Rump, operating behind the scenes in the shelter of internal party secrecy manipulated and radicalized what was still pretending to be a centre-right party into an autocratic and reactionary government? In spite of all the elections they put us through, they were never "…nearest the views of most people", who were consistently 2 to 1 against.
I'd rather have that sort of inevitable manoeuvering for influence and power as much out in the open as we can make it, with the players all easily identified by their party colours.
You'll have to show me how "…extremist fringe parties [get included] in government, tr expense of more moderates", and I wouldn't mind you also pointing out where you say I listed that as a plus.
In a minority Parliament, the balance of power is always held by a smaller party. All that coalitions do is formalize that inescapable reality.
The coalition you are referring to never got a chance to fail. Harper seized on the disastrous inclusion of Duceppe at the announcement, called another of those snap elections he'd promised us were a thing of the past, and made sure the coalition never got as far as a single vote in the House.
Since trying to be a wise voter is a constant struggle to see the reality behind the appearances, it's important to remember the Bloc was never in the coalition; all Duceppe promised was the necessary support from outside, for measures that were not against Quebec's interests. Support which he'd previously given Harper from time to time in the past.
I believe the Ontario Liberals have had two extremist Rumps in the past decade...
Bad electoral systems know no favourites. The only certain result is all FPTP ballots are unequal. They'll disfavour and favour every party in turn, and ill-serve every voter.
But just as an off-topic sidebar, Harper's Reform Rump (I think it was called CRAP at the time) that swallowed the old Progressive Conservatives was a historical fact and impossible to ignore within CPoC. I have no memory of the Liberal Party having either an identifiable extremist faction within or an ill-digested merger partner from outside. Just what do you mean?
The prior government's policies were nearer the views of the average Canadian than you admit.
Extremists get into power because coalitions don't often form across the center, but towards the extremes. The addition of these unpopular fringe parties to a governing coalition pulls policy away from the center towards the extreme.
For example, a center right government is more likely to form a coalition with the extreme right than with the center left. Similarly, the center left is more likely to cobble together a coalition with the extreme left than the center right.
2 points....
First , I heard on 680news business that the stock market always does better when liberals r in power. Statistically speaking and going back to the 1950's.
Also, on main policies Justin is identical to Harper. We're still gonna get tpp even though no one knows what's in it and were still gonna push for the oil pipeline keystone. So I think all in all justin is every bit as much owned and controlled by the big business interest as Harper was. He just puts a little more sugar on the poison to make us swallow.
First , I heard on 680news business that the stock market always does better when liberals r in power. Statistically speaking and going back to the 1950's.
Also, on main policies Justin is identical to Harper. We're still gonna get tpp even though no one knows what's in it and were still gonna push for the oil pipeline keystone. So I think all in all justin is every bit as much owned and controlled by the big business interest as Harper was. He just puts a little more sugar on the poison to make us swallow.
We'll also have to watch him on C51, internet freedom the TPP.
But so far he's made good announcements, backing civil servants, promising electoral reform, investigation into missing native women and a few others.
Already he's light years better then hair in the fridge.
There speaks a closed mind from first to last: Start with labelling, supply the 'other side' so you don't have to hear it from them, and declare you will never be persuaded before they've even spoken. Then claim it's that other side that won't "…have an intelligent discussion about policy" and wrap yourself in paranoid fantasies of being hated for being right, when all you have been is regrettably closed-minded.
Thanks K, for posting such a clear example of how so many twist and distort the conservative values we need to keep our society on track. I'd hate to think you were right to call them the values of the Conservative Party, but that would certainly account for their decade of failure to grow their trees into more than 30-40% of our forest.
I guess when you're a tree that sees only a small grove of your own species, the concept of a vast forest of different and equally valuable species is scarily hard to accept. But monoculture is never a good thing.
That's exactly what happened within CPoC, a 'coalition' the moved the centre towards the extremist positions of the CRAP/Reform rump. The average Canadian's views were always closer to the centre than the 30-40% of the political spectrum on the right that was all CPoC ever earned and represented.
How extremists and moderates cooperate to achieve power and further their ends is pretty much the same within a party's closed and hidden circle or within a more open parliamentary process with a press gallery and all the statutory machinery of democracy. It's what people do when they politick. No system will ever be free of it, nor would we want such an artificial and unrealistic thing. There will always be secrets and there will always be alliances, just as the 'centre' will always be the largest group, and will always have to look left or right for alliances. That stuff is essentially immaterial.
The point is to conduct that sort of interaction in an honest, open way so that the people it's meant to serve, represent and advance can be aware of what's going on. I think that visibility factor is far harder for a FPTP system to deliver, and a PR system has a more difficult time keeping secrets. However, much more to the real point of democracy, the people need to see the game isn't rigged from the get-go, so that they can have some faith that what they got — and the politicking that follows — is what they chose.
That is almost never the case with FPTP, but before I go there, you might have something you want to add to the 'coalition' discussion.
Sorry OJ, but you are talking nonsense. CPoC remains close to the views of the average Canadian, far closer than the NDP. The Liberals are clearly even closer but the L's and C's are fighting over many of the same voters and overall have fairly similar policies. The L's obviously having gotten closer, and in large part voters say they were tired of Harper more than of the party so if anything policy wise CPoC s even closer to the views of Canadians than the election result suggested, but for the leader himself.
Nothing like, say, extremists left wing parties like the greens or a resurgent communist party getting policies enacted happened under CPoC.
It may be that YOU are distant from the views of the average Canadian if you think their policies were unpopular.
Nothing like, say, extremists left wing parties like the greens or a resurgent communist party getting policies enacted happened under CPoC.
It may be that YOU are distant from the views of the average Canadian if you think their policies were unpopular.
I meassure popularity by vote-count, and by that measure CPoC never managed much better than the other day. If by "average voter" you mean some other measure, do clarify, so we can get semantics out of the way. As for the relative popularity of of L's, C's, G's and N's that's for Monday-morning quarterbacking isn't it?
But there's an extremist group not mentioned yet, that's camouflaged within the C's and that's the R's. The radical right that took the reform out of Manning's Reformers and seduced the survivors of the old centre-right Conservatives into bed with them. They promised respect in the morning but instead took over the name and paraded under it as if they were still that conservative sweetie we knew. It made ordinary Canadians give them a chance the CRAP never got, but that still didn't make them average. And that was the centre-right co-opted by its extremist rump, even though you say that doesn't happen with FPTP parties.
In fact, it always happens in all groups trying to figure out what to do; from a few kids in a sandbox right up to a national democracy. The differences lie in how open and obvious or or how secretive and selective.
Had CRAP and the PCs of old actually done their dance without the disguise, in an open coalition as many urged them do do way back then, what became the Harper years might have been different. Or not, who can say? But at least we could have seen who the players were without needing insider's secret programs.
And if we'd had a PR system, then every vote that put them within trying distance would have counted equally. Which is a topic we will have to address.
As for what I think of any party's policies, how on earth is that relevant to FPTP vs PR or any other aspect of electoral reform? And why would I ever care how distant my views were from any average anyway?
