• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Politics in 2016

Status
Not open for further replies.
Occasionally I feel like I'm visiting from a parallel universe. The very open gaffes and blunders during his introduction to politics and as an MP should have disqualified him immediately from any serious consideration as party leader, much less Prime Minister, yet there he is.....

It is annoying that people are acting like this is a surprise now.
 
I came up:

Pragmatists

My democracy is balanced and straight-forward

Pragmatists generally want governments to strike a balance between decisive action and compromise. They tend to prefer a clear line of accountability to voters, but not at the expense of collaboration between parties.

Pragmatists are split about whether special measures are needed to help increase the diversity of representation in Parliament.

Pragmatists typically prefer that election ballots are easy to use and to understand.

Pragmatists generally view voting as a democratic duty rather than a personal choice and are slightly more inclined to support mandatory voting. They are among the least likely archetypes to support online voting.
 
Challengers - My democracy is should be responsive and transparent

Challengers typically believe that, above all, democracy should be responsive [*added and accountable...really accountable...not just they say they are...] to citizens. They tend to be more skeptical of government and thus open to ideas that could enhance accountability of governments and give voters more control. They generally prefer governments that are decisive and are less likely to prioritize compromise with other parties. They usually expect parties to take responsibility for their decisions and for voters to have more ways to influence politics.

To that end, Challengers are generally interested in voters having more options or additional ways to express their choices on the ballot during an election.

Challengers are less likely than most to believe that special measures are needed to increase diversity in Parliament and are more likely to see voting as a personal choice than a duty of citizenship. They are split on the question of whether Canadians should have the option to vote online.
 
I'm a Co-operator - although my spot on the continuum is closer to Pragmatist than Co-operator.

Interesting questions - am I the only one seeing this setting people up for loads o' coalitions?  Or is that just my read as a "co-operator"?  ;D

#ProportionalRepresentationStillLivesForTeamRed
 
FJAG said:
Anyone else taken the Liberals' somewhat weird survey on electoral reform?
I think it's sweet that one can keep doing it over and over and over.  No chance of stacking the deck with a survey designed like that.    :facepalm:

Anyone taking wagers that the results line up with what the Liberals have been proposing?



Not that I'm attributing to malice what can readily occur through incompetence.
 
milnews.ca said:
Interesting questions - am I the only one seeing this setting people up for loads o' coalitions?  Or is that just my read as a "co-operator"?  ;D

I got that gut feeling as well.


Cheers
Larry
 
Journeyman said:
I think it's sweet that one can keep doing it over and over and over.  No chance of stacking the deck with a survey designed like that.    :facepalm:

Anyone taking wagers that the results line up with what the Liberals have been proposing?



Not that I'm attributing to malice what can readily occur through incompetence.

That seems like it would be a real waste of time....
 
Guardian, apparently  :subbies:

But honestly, what does it mean in terms of voting system?

If this is supposed to get the government to decide what voting system Canadians want, be it to remain as is or a new system, how does this survey help. I am willing to bet most Canadians don't know what answer leads to which system, and since they are not asked directly, won't know if they are being sold a bridge if the government suddenly comes out with: "overwhelmingly, people want a full proportional system" or  "Canadians by and large want no change".

In fact that whole survey is totally useless and other than being amusing like the one they developed for the CBC for the elections, cannot provide any proper factual information to support any policy. The two most glaring missing matters: It does not ask whether people are dissatisfied with the current system (they would find that by and large, people are satisfied with the current system - which is why in proper surveys on issues of interest to people, it usually rates only a few percentage point way down the list of issues of import); Secondly, it does not ask people to rate voting systems directly, after explaining how each one would specifically work.

It is really  a "touchy-feely" survey that one can make come out whichever way you want, just like the old surveys the school counsellors used to make us take to help determine what we wanted to do in life. Just to enrage them, I used to tell them in advance what I was going to make the survey say about my "choices' before even taking the test - and it always came out the way I said, regardless of my actual interests. In the present case, I turned out to be aGuardian, as I am willing to bet anything that it corresponds (in their book) with FPTP.
 
Just got my "postcard" in the mail about this survey.

Very interesting. Here is the totality of the text:

"Have your say about our democracy.

The Government of Canada invites you to explore how your opinions about our democracy compare to those of other Canadians. Visit [website] or call [phone #] before December 30, 2016 and take part in the national conversation on electoral reform."

So this is just a "conversation", not  survey on various types of voting system. Moreover its purpose is apparently to "explore how [my opinions] compare to those of other Canadians". Well that's a bloody waste of time. Having used the site, I would like to know how it lets me effect this comparison: I don't see anybody else's "opinion" on the site to compare mine with. How do I see how many other "guardians" there are? etc. etc.

On top of that, while the Government invites me to do this "exploration", nowhere does it say that this will lead to any change of policy or that it is even related to implementing any type of change.

What a waste of taxpayer's money. 
 
Everyone other than the Guardians get full disclosure from the Government. 

Guardians have their houses and cell phones "not added" to CSE's watch list...


[/joking]



[...or am I]
 
Well, well, well....I am a Guardian.

Who are Guardians?

MEDIAN AGE
56

MALE
66%

FEMALE
34%

OTHER
*

RURAL
21%

SUBURBAN
33%

URBAN
46%

Seems they have figured out "OTHER" yet.


 
George Wallace said:
I sure do not think that that "rocket surgeon" has the pulse of the CAF.  That or the amount of "arrogance" in that clique is reaching well beyond the outer stratosphere.

Meh, I would donate money for the one that he used to kick Brazeau's butt.

lol
 
Ummmmm?  Can anyone explain this statement for me?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/programs/metromorning/trudeau-metro-morning-leitch-trump-1.3880437
More people should engage in politics so 'no party gets to run against Muslim Canadians'  - Justin Trudeau says
 
  None of the questions explain context.  The questions lead to either a pure majority or some form of coalition government.  Didn't finish as I didn't want to have selected the wrong choice inadvertently because they will use it.  Emphasis on will
 
I would like the government to continue sending millions and millions of dollars away to foreign countries and find new ways and things to tax Canadians on in order to pay for it.
 
Jarnhamar said:
I would like the government to continue sending millions and millions of dollars away to foreign countries and find new ways and things to tax Canadians on in order to pay for it.

You have Aladdin's Lamp and rubbed it didn't you.  You got your wish. 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top