Articles
Advice of the Day (Forum)
Books (Forum)
Druidic Ramblings (Forum)
Dumb Ideas (Forum)
H-Town (Forum)
Links (Forum)
Movies (Forum)
Music (Forum)
Opinions (Forum)
Photo Albums (Forum)
Prose/Poetry (Forum)
Questions (Forum)
Video Games (Forum)
Member Login

Username

Password

Register Here

Forum
 

Forum posts for The upcoming referendum

Posted by bryan on Sep 28, 2007
shit yeah, duffy

vote mmp!
Posted by jessie on Sep 28, 2007
if you like democracy!

Posted by mike on Sep 28, 2007
I've liked this idea for a whole now... but I don't understand how the ridings will be split up with the new system. Will riding even work with the new system?

answer
Posted by jessie on Sep 28, 2007
ridings remain the same as they are now.

BUT you also get another vote for the party you would like to govern the province as a whole. So this means if you are super into that conservative MP in your riding, but are a liberal at heart, you don't have to choose, you can vote for both!

these extra votes count towards seats that have no ridings, so (i think) there will be 29 MPs with no riding, and these MPs are chosen from a ranked list released by the party prior to the election. so you can check out who each party is choosing before you vote, and if you don't like it, don't vote for them.

i may be confusing but that is because mmp makes me so excited!

VOTE MMP!

hahahaahhaha
Posted by jessie on Sep 28, 2007
i mean MPP

ooopppssss

forgiveness.

Posted by phduffy on Sep 28, 2007
Ridings will NOT be the same in the new system. Instead of the 110 or so we have now, there will be 90, so some ridings will be amalgamated.

Also, I don't think that the parties are required by law to release their lists before the election. They've said that they will, but I don't know that it's a legal requirment. I should probably check that out though.

bleh
Posted by jessie on Sep 28, 2007
i was indeed wrong, there will be fewer ridings, i was obviously sleeping when this fact was spewed at me...

SORRY!

but they will be required by law to release their list prior to the election, that i know.


Posted by phduffy on Sep 28, 2007
Correct about the lists:

‘List Members’ are candidates from any registered political party. Before an election each political party prepares an ordered list of candidates they would like considered as ‘List Members’.

These lists, and the way they are created, would be made public well in advance of any election in a Mixed Member Proportional system.


Go here to learn about the referendum:

http://www.yourbigdecision.ca/en_ca/default.aspx

Posted by phduffy on Sep 28, 2007
I know what I was confused about. the lists will be made public, but the party doesn't have to elect list members, they can just list them. Somehow I confused that with lists not being made public... I'm not sure why.

(ie, the party could have lists made up of senior party members, or it could hold a vote of party members in order to create the lists. That's what I meant).

Posted by phduffy on Sep 28, 2007
Okay, in the interest of fairness, here's an article about voting no.

http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/94622

I have another idea
Posted by pudding on Sep 28, 2007
I would like to preface my comments with the statement that I may not vote if i have to spend more than 15 minutes getting to and from the polling station. The last few years they told me I had to walk a long way so I said screw it. But I am not allowed to complain so I don't.

Political agendas are a lot like CDs - there are a lot of promises, but once you get them home there are only one or two good songs/ideas.

Everyone can probably think of something good that each party has proposed. So instead of having to choose between a few good things, why not let everyone vote either yes or no on the 3 or 4 key issues:
faith-based school reform, etc. I would prefer that to picking a loser MPP who has no incentive to DO anything who is a member of a party that has no incentive to do anything, as people prefer things staying the same.

With my idea we could actually get something done, and you wouldn't have to sacrifice one issue to see another accomplished.

What do you think?


More Coyne Pwnage!
Posted by phduffy on Sep 30, 2007
http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/09/pr-fearmongers-debunked.php

Posted by phduffy on Sep 30, 2007
I would like to preface my comments with the statement that I may not vote if i have to spend more than 15 minutes getting to and from the polling station. The last few years they told me I had to walk a long way so I said screw it. But I am not allowed to complain so I don't.

I love you, but fuck you for not voting. Seriously.

Dude
Posted by phduffy on Sep 30, 2007

The last post may seem unnecessarily harsh. It was meant in jest. (Although I do think you should vote)

Why you should vote
Posted by phduffy on Oct 04, 2007
To continue on previous discussion (this is from a friend):

As far as voting, I think convincing people that voting in this election matters is a lost cause. The campaign is deeply uninspired, the parties not strikingly dissimilar and the voters seem generally satisfied that the province isn't going to hell in a handbasket.

More generally speaking, I don't try to convince people to vote by arguing that it's in their interests to influence government or that other people will speak for them (although those tv ads are pretty good). I see voting as a responsibility of citizenship, not as something you exercise because it has a direct benefit for you. It may be a right, but it's also an obligation, a duty for those living in a free society. I think you vote because you're free and are interested in staying that way. It's an affirmation of every argument in debate and battle in the field that had to be won for us to have the choice whether to vote or not. To non-voters, this makes me sound like a scold. I'm fine with that; they deserve the scolding for never having learned what it means to be a citizen in a free state.


And, here's an article where a guy tries to refute the Coyne article I've already linked:

http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2007/10/02/jonathan-kay-on-why-andrew-coyne-is-wrong-about-proportional-representation.aspx

Posted by phduffy on Oct 04, 2007
More Coyne Goodness:

http://andrewcoyne.com/2007/10/and-another-thing.php

Even Italy and Israel are not as unstable as supposed. Fun fact: which country has had the most national elections since 1945, Israel, Italy or Canada? Answer: Canada.

Andrew Coyne, Defender of Democracy
Posted by phduffy on Oct 04, 2007
http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/10/mmp-would-not-mean-appointed-party.php

Pwned, Pwn3d, and PW#ND!!90111oneone Aga
Posted by phduffy on Oct 09, 2007

Andrew Coyne is laying waste to every anti MMP argument out there. It is beautiful to watch

http://andrewcoyne.com/2007/10/unstable-governments.php

http://andrewcoyne.com/2007/10/breed-like-rabbits_4544.php

http://andrewcoyne.com/2007/10/hordes-of-extremists.php