Well, I'm leaning slightly toward MMP. However, if it's adopted, it will be fascinating to see the disillusionment build among the people who vote for it based on the overheated codswallop that is all too common on sites such as http://www.voteformmp.ca/ .
I'm gonna vote for it too. Then again, I've heard of a lot of potential problems about it, too - mainly about how our system of government isn't well suited for MMP: ie. more minority govn'ts, some MPPs who are not held accountable to a riding, etc. Still, I'm not at all happy with the way our current system works out and would like to see a little more Green party in there, just to keep the Libs and Conservative honest.
"Over-heated codswallop" - on Vote for MMP's site?
I'd say Vote for MMP is making a cse for change that is FAR MORE evidence based than those defending the status quo. Their website is a collection of lies, half-truths and outright fabrications, which no based is observable reality.
"Over-heated codswallop" - on Vote for MMP's site?
There's been lots of sludge on both sides. I picked on MMP because that's what the post was pushing.
A few quick examples of what I mean:
...an old system, fiercely protected by an old guard.
Overheated for sure. It's about the quietest example of fierceness I've seen.
Experts believe the first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system originated aroundthe 11th century.
Who cares? Damning by age .... if it's that old, it must be bad.
Most voters in Ontario elections (two million plus) cast votes that elect no one. In many cases, the winning candidate does not even receive a majority of votes cast in the riding.
Today, 107 ridings work this way. With MMP, 90 ridings would continue to use the same antiquated and evil system.
The 39 list MP's are certainly a change (with both good and bad points), but let's not damn the obsolete FPTP too much; under MMP, we'd continue to use exactly that to elect 70% of the MPP's.
Ontario is generally ruled by phony majority governments
Nonsense. They won a majority under the rules. Calling them "phony" is simply a smear tactic.
Once any party controls a majority of seats, nothing can stop a premier from enacting unpopular laws that are not supported by a majority of voters.
... except the reality of being thrown out in the next election.
Results in low percentages of women and visible minority MPPs
And we don't know if that would change under MMP. The charmingly naive notion is that under MMP, the "list" will be crammed with women and minorities. The reality is that the parties will construct their lists very carefully according to their views of what the elctorate is looking for and what will attract them to cast their party vote accordingly.
If there's an strong and broad public demand for more female/minority MPP's, then the lists will reflect that, as will the constituency nominees.
However, if such a demand existed today, I suggest that we'd have more female/minority MPP's than we do.
As I said, I'm leaning toward voting for MMP. However, I'm distinctly unimpressed with the web site in question.
True, they are lawfully elected majority gov'ts that don't actually represent a majority of the hearts and minds of the voters. It is just the system that makes us vote that way - don't blame me; I voted for Kodos and all that.
I think the MMP is worth a shot. We get a little more say with our votes (at least our votes will actually count for something if we choose the losing team) but we also get elected representatives for our own ridings.
One thing I wish people arguing on both sides would remember is that this is Canadian politics: -If you think the current system is wonderful and efficient, where the hell have you been all your life? -If you thing MMP is going to result in some utopian gov't with everyone sharing ideas equally and hand-holding and singing songs, you're freaking delusional. Now I doubt many people on either side actually hold these views, but the way they're arguing it it seems like they do.
Hell, $10 says that if MMP wins, we won't even be able to notice the difference.
Are they talking up or down to their intended audience?
If single interest advocacy groups get 33% of the vote but elect no constituency members, will they get all of the list members? Are there 33% of the voters who might consider a single interest party (ethnic, religions, economic, ...) worth parking their second vote? With one third of the MPPs from know nothing special interest groups, how do you run the business of government?
Are they talking up or down to their intended audience?
A little bit of both. In a democracy you have to address all possible audiences. This includes those who will argue for the status quo just because they don't like change.
If single interest advocacy groups get 33% of the vote but elect no constituency members, will they get all of the list members?
Yes, or at least a good many of them. That's the beauty of MMP.
Are there 33% of the voters who might consider a single interest party (ethnic, religions, economic, ...) worth parking their second vote?
Probably not. But that won't stop those who oppose MMP from making up outrageous scenarios to scare people. There are lots of scary scenarios in the first-past-the-post system as well but those scenarios never actually happened in several hundred years of trying.
With one third of the MPPs from know nothing special interest groups, how do you run the business of government?
With great difficulty. Democracy's a bitch, eh?
It's actually very common to have one third of our MPPs know nothing about how to run a government—even under the current system. We've even had governments run by parties where most of the MPPs are idiots. At least that happens in Ontario, I don't know about other provinces. Have there ever been stupid,know nothing, MPPs elected in British Columbia, for example?
Belgium has 33 parties and no government.
Bully for them. America has two parties and no government. Do you have a point?
Silly skits demean the process.
No, they serve a very useful purpose. They negate the argument that change is bad. That's a very important argument that has to be dealt with whenever you're proposing something new.
8 comments :
The "end of civilization as we know it" and the general tone seems to have been inspired by the old British series "Yes, Minister".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TODN9kO35ag
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=yes%2C+minister&search=Search
Well, I'm leaning slightly toward MMP. However, if it's adopted, it will be fascinating to see the disillusionment build among the people who vote for it based on the overheated codswallop that is all too common on sites such as http://www.voteformmp.ca/ .
I'm gonna vote for it too. Then again, I've heard of a lot of potential problems about it, too - mainly about how our system of government isn't well suited for MMP: ie. more minority govn'ts, some MPPs who are not held accountable to a riding, etc. Still, I'm not at all happy with the way our current system works out and would like to see a little more Green party in there, just to keep the Libs and Conservative honest.
"Over-heated codswallop" - on Vote for MMP's site?
I'd say Vote for MMP is making a cse for change that is FAR MORE evidence based than those defending the status quo. Their website is a collection of lies, half-truths and outright fabrications, which no based is observable reality.
"Over-heated codswallop" - on Vote for MMP's site?
There's been lots of sludge on both sides. I picked on MMP because that's what the post was pushing.
A few quick examples of what I mean:
...an old system, fiercely protected by an old guard.
Overheated for sure. It's about the quietest example of fierceness I've seen.
Experts believe the first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system originated aroundthe 11th century.
Who cares? Damning by age .... if it's that old, it must be bad.
Most voters in Ontario elections (two million
plus) cast votes that elect no one. In many cases, the winning candidate does
not even receive a majority of votes cast in the riding.
Today, 107 ridings work this way. With MMP, 90 ridings would continue to use the same antiquated and evil system.
The 39 list MP's are certainly a change (with both good and bad points), but let's not damn the obsolete FPTP too much; under MMP, we'd continue to use exactly that to elect 70% of the MPP's.
Ontario is generally ruled by phony majority
governments
Nonsense. They won a majority under the rules. Calling them "phony" is simply a smear tactic.
Once any party controls a majority of seats,
nothing can stop a premier from enacting unpopular laws that are not supported by a majority of voters.
... except the reality of being thrown out in the next election.
Results in low percentages of women and visible minority MPPs
And we don't know if that would change under MMP. The charmingly naive notion is that under MMP, the "list" will be crammed with women and minorities. The reality is that the parties will construct their lists very carefully according to their views of what the elctorate is looking for and what will attract them to cast their party vote accordingly.
If there's an strong and broad public demand for more female/minority MPP's, then the lists will reflect that, as will the constituency nominees.
However, if such a demand existed today, I suggest that we'd have more female/minority MPP's than we do.
As I said, I'm leaning toward voting for MMP. However, I'm distinctly unimpressed with the web site in question.
True, they are lawfully elected majority gov'ts that don't actually represent a majority of the hearts and minds of the voters. It is just the system that makes us vote that way - don't blame me; I voted for Kodos and all that.
I think the MMP is worth a shot. We get a little more say with our votes (at least our votes will actually count for something if we choose the losing team) but we also get elected representatives for our own ridings.
One thing I wish people arguing on both sides would remember is that this is Canadian politics:
-If you think the current system is wonderful and efficient, where the hell have you been all your life?
-If you thing MMP is going to result in some utopian gov't with everyone sharing ideas equally and hand-holding and singing songs, you're freaking delusional.
Now I doubt many people on either side actually hold these views, but the way they're arguing it it seems like they do.
Hell, $10 says that if MMP wins, we won't even be able to notice the difference.
Are they talking up or down to their intended audience?
If single interest advocacy groups get 33% of the vote but elect no constituency members, will they get all of the list members? Are there 33% of the voters who might consider a single interest party (ethnic, religions, economic, ...) worth parking their second vote? With one third of the MPPs from know nothing special interest groups, how do you run the business of government?
Belgium has 33 parties and no government.
Silly skits demean the process.
Brent asks,
Are they talking up or down to their intended audience?
A little bit of both. In a democracy you have to address all possible audiences. This includes those who will argue for the status quo just because they don't like change.
If single interest advocacy groups get 33% of the vote but elect no constituency members, will they get all of the list members?
Yes, or at least a good many of them. That's the beauty of MMP.
Are there 33% of the voters who might consider a single interest party (ethnic, religions, economic, ...) worth parking their second vote?
Probably not. But that won't stop those who oppose MMP from making up outrageous scenarios to scare people. There are lots of scary scenarios in the first-past-the-post system as well but those scenarios never actually happened in several hundred years of trying.
With one third of the MPPs from know nothing special interest groups, how do you run the business of government?
With great difficulty. Democracy's a bitch, eh?
It's actually very common to have one third of our MPPs know nothing about how to run a government—even under the current system. We've even had governments run by parties where most of the MPPs are idiots. At least that happens in Ontario, I don't know about other provinces. Have there ever been stupid,know nothing, MPPs elected in British Columbia, for example?
Belgium has 33 parties and no government.
Bully for them. America has two parties and no government. Do you have a point?
Silly skits demean the process.
No, they serve a very useful purpose. They negate the argument that change is bad. That's a very important argument that has to be dealt with whenever you're proposing something new.
Post a Comment