[Abyss]

What's the acronym for the system where candidates hit each other with swords?

[Maark Abbott]

Abyss, on 23 October 2019 - 03:54 AM, said:

What's the acronym for the system where candidates hit each other with swords?

HEOWSUOFDAID.

[rant]

Abyss, on 22 October 2019 - 07:26 PM, said:

D, on 22 October 2019 - 05:07 PM, said:

Abyss, on 22 October 2019 - 03:32 PM, said:

Much is being made of the Greens one gain out East. I think it came down to a local and charismatic candidate capitalising on a history of disregard for that part of Canada, but hey, good for her. It's a good story if nothing else.

They did also increase their share of the popular vote by quite a bit (over double the last election??) even if it didn't lead to a big difference in number of actual MPs.

True. A lot of the post election commentary raises how this election was about the environment but the issue kept being lost. The Greens took in a portion of voters who kept that in mind but even so not enough to shift them to more seats.

As an NB'er my read of the Fredericton seat (and Greens seeing their share of the vote here increase by like 20%) going to Jennica Atwin is mostly a virtue of the fact we've never really toyed with 3rd parties before. The NDP never got off the ground at the federal level, and only ever saw 1 MLA elected at the provincial level. Contrast that with the past election, in which the Peoples Alliance (our homebrewed alt-right) and the Greens each gained 3 seats (leading to a very confusing parliament).... NB is looking for something new. Really all of the Maritimes tbh...you saw the green share of the vote increase drastically in all 3 provinces.

A couple years ago, provincially we elected the Green Leader David Coon (in Fredericton btw), and he has proven to be a very competent MLA, party leader, and campaigner. The good will he earned, Jennica's own capacity, and NB'ers general frustration with the two party system here in NB is probably what got her the win.

The main story coming out of NB in my opinion is the fact that the Saint John-Rothesay riding didn't revert back to blue. It along with the rest of the fundy coast were traditional conservative strongholds that all got flipped in 2015 due to trudeau-mania. The former conservative MPs of the other ridings managed to get their seats back this time round....but not in SJ. That, combined with the share of the vote that went to Liberals, Greens, and NDPs in Saint John-Rothesay makes me think this riding may have fundamentally changed.

Also interesting is the fact that in the other coastal ridings, 2nd place after the cons was often the greens and not the liberals. A smart move for the greens imo would be to convince David Coon to make the jump to the federal party as either leader or deputy leader, and take 5 or 6 seats here.

[Abyss]

Maark Abbott, on 23 October 2019 - 01:04 PM, said:

Abyss, on 23 October 2019 - 03:54 AM, said:

What's the acronym for the system where candidates hit each other with swords?

HEOWSUOFDAID.

Damn you Maark now i need to decipher that...

[Silencer]

As a Kiwi, all I can say is: MMP is far from perfect. It still has a massive issue with non-proportional representation, it has just kind of moved the crunch point. We still effectively have a two-party system (no party other than Labour (liberals) or National (conservatives) have been the "government", minority or otherwise, since MMP entered the scene, and the minor parties generally have very little actual power except where their policies align with whoever they are in a coalition with).

STV is a big part of what is used in Australia, and it has exactly the same problem. The Liberal National Party (conservatives) and Labour (liberals) are still the only two parties who end up as governments, the Liberal National Party is actually effectively a semi-permanent coalition of six different right-wing parties. That being said part of that is because a lot of people don't use the system properly (allowing their first choice party to dictate their second-and-onwards choices, rather than selecting themselves) and there is still a massive issue with certain areas dominating the national election result. You also run a not insignificant chance of having "kingmaker" single-person parties effectively giving 1% of the population final say on all policies, because a governing party needs their vote to govern.

I don't think that FPTP is better than either of these systems, but honestly I'd hope that Canada would look at the implementation in NZ and Australia and do better. Of course, that's not in the interest of any party that might have the ability to pursue the change, so....

[QuickTidal]

Silencer, on 23 October 2019 - 02:21 PM, said:

As a Kiwi, all I can say is: MMP is far from perfect.

Here's the thing. As far as what the electorate in Canada will accept after YEARS of FPTP....MMP is what can be sold to the voters. Full Stop.

Anything north of that which MIGHT be better....including MMR and STV are only going to confuse/annoy people because it requires too much change. I expect this is why MMP gets thrown up so often as a solution. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than FPTP? You bet your ass it is.

Also, this thread is a card-carrying example of the reason why electoral reform is so tough...becuase even those small amount of us here can't agree...imagine convincing a whole electorate courtly of voters what's "best"....

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 23 October 2019 - 02:26 PM

[D'rek]

Silencer, on 23 October 2019 - 02:21 PM, said:

As a Kiwi, all I can say is: MMP is far from perfect. It still has a massive issue with non-proportional representation, it has just kind of moved the crunch point. We still effectively have a two-party system (no party other than Labour (liberals) or National (conservatives) have been the "government", minority or otherwise, since MMP entered the scene, and the minor parties generally have very little actual power except where their policies align with whoever they are in a coalition with).

STV is a big part of what is used in Australia, and it has exactly the same problem. The Liberal National Party (conservatives) and Labour (liberals) are still the only two parties who end up as governments, the Liberal National Party is actually effectively a semi-permanent coalition of six different right-wing parties. That being said part of that is because a lot of people don't use the system properly (allowing their first choice party to dictate their second-and-onwards choices, rather than selecting themselves) and there is still a massive issue with certain areas dominating the national election result. You also run a not insignificant chance of having "kingmaker" single-person parties effectively giving 1% of the population final say on all policies, because a governing party needs their vote to govern.

I don't think that FPTP is better than either of these systems, but honestly I'd hope that Canada would look at the implementation in NZ and Australia and do better. Of course, that's not in the interest of any party that might have the ability to pursue the change, so....

Oh, it'll definitely be the same in Canada. We currently have two parties that are far bigger than the others, and if we switch to MMP or to STV they'll both still functionally be the only two parties big enough to form government for decades to come. But MMP or STV or other good alternates will at least keep the other, smaller parties alive, present, and even a little big bigger. Whereas continuing on with FPTP will kill them entirely until we have an American-style two-party system.

QuickTidal, on 23 October 2019 - 02:25 PM, said:

Here's the thing. As far as what the electorate in Canada will accept after YEARS of FPTP....MMP is what can be sold to the voters. Full Stop.

Bull. Shit.




Cue QT referencing his far-right relatives in 3...2...

[Abyss]

D, on 23 October 2019 - 02:54 PM, said:

... Canada. We currently have two parties that are far bigger than the others, and if we switch to MMP or to STV they'll both still functionally be the only two parties big enough to form government for decades to come. But MMP or STV or other good alternates will at least keep the other, smaller parties alive, present, and even a little big bigger. Whereas continuing on with FPTP will kill them entirely until we have an American-style two-party system.

Counterpoint - while the government has been formed by either the Libs or various flavors of Cons since pretty much ever, the Bloc were Opposition 93-97, and the NDP 2011-15. There are reasons why neither of those parties have ever formed a gov, and in the BQ's case never will, but it shows there are valid third-parties in the mix.

Quote

QuickTidal, on 23 October 2019 - 02:25 PM, said:

Here's the thing. As far as what the electorate in Canada will accept after YEARS of FPTP....MMP is what can be sold to the voters. Full Stop.

Bull. Shit.

I say you're both wrong.
The attempt is not going to happen, and if it did, the majority of Canadians would not support it.

D, on 23 October 2019 - 02:54 PM, said:

Cue QT referencing his far-right relatives in 3...2...

Be fair... it was all their fault.

[QuickTidal]

D, on 23 October 2019 - 02:54 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 23 October 2019 - 02:25 PM, said:

Here's the thing. As far as what the electorate in Canada will accept after YEARS of FPTP....MMP is what can be sold to the voters. Full Stop.

Bull. Shit.




Cue QT referencing his far-right relatives in 3...2...

Boy, I'm glad you explained your side instead of just telling me it's bullshit.

And I'm not sure what the second sentence is meant to signify honestly. My far-right relatives want electoral reform too. Shrug.

But tell me D'rek... do you really think you live in a country that easily takes to change? Hoo boy....


EDIT: Again, LOOK AT THIS THREAD...we small number of Canadians can't even fucking agree without hyperbolic explanations of "bullshit" when I note that people are fickle and don't like change and will accept the path of least resistance when forced into it...but apparently that notion is bullshit.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 23 October 2019 - 05:18 PM

[D'rek]

Yes, I do think that.

We didn't agree in this thread on the best way to legalize marijuana either (nor did the country as a whole), and yet it happened. I don't see the nation up in arms over it or "not supporting it" today. Same thing would happen to, as an example, implementation of STV. Government would say they're doing it, there'd be a date set a year or two later for when the legislation goes into effect, it'd be big news cycle for that year with the government gradually clarifying the details of the system, it would go into effect, there'd be more news and a bit of confusion about the new system at first, and then we'd all get used to it.

[QuickTidal]

D, on 23 October 2019 - 06:13 PM, said:

Yes, I do think that.

We didn't agree in this thread on the best way to legalize marijuana either (nor did the country as a whole), and yet it happened. I don't see the nation up in arms over it or "not supporting it" today. Same thing would happen to, as an example, implementation of STV. Government would say they're doing it, there'd be a date set a year or two later for when the legislation goes into effect, it'd be big news cycle for that year with the government gradually clarifying the details of the system, it would go into effect, there'd be more news and a bit of confusion about the new system at first, and then we'd all get used to it.

Except that Weed and Electoral reform are not the same thing. What even...?

It's also not how electoral reform works. They can't just "do it".

Electoral reform is not easily sold amongst the populace and Canadians have rejected it in the past before often, and even recently to stick with what they know, in this case FPTP.

So I'm glad you think it's easy to do, no matter the format...but evidence at least suggests otherwise.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 23 October 2019 - 06:42 PM

[Abyss]

It would be much easier if the proposed system(s) were simpler, ie: the candidates hit each other with sticks.
Or a dance-off.

[Tiste Simeon]

Dance off. Most politicians are crusty old white dudes. You really want to see that?

[LinearPhilosopher]

Abyss, on 23 October 2019 - 03:54 AM, said:

What's the acronym for the system where candidates hit each other with swords?

Elbowgate 2.0

But seriously QT do you have anything against FTPT aside from "oh its a different system people don't want change". Change is good if advertised properly.

@ Silencer, I get you being a Kiwi you're not too happy with MMP either but i would honestly love being in a system where my vote for an alternative party ends up having an impact and is more then just a "feel good" statistic. I'd like to empower parties with lesser voice to bring about policy change because with an effectively two party system, all you get is a status quo that is very resistant to significant reform even when it is direly needed.

[Mentalist]

Abyss, on 23 October 2019 - 08:17 PM, said:

It would be much easier if the proposed system(s) were simpler, ie: the candidates hit each other with sticks.
Or a dance-off.

make it pole-dancing while you're at it.

LinearPhilosopher, on 24 October 2019 - 02:16 AM, said:

Abyss, on 23 October 2019 - 03:54 AM, said:

What's the acronym for the system where candidates hit each other with swords?

Elbowgate 2.0

But seriously QT do you have anything against FTPT aside from "oh its a different system people don't want change". Change is good if advertised properly.

@ Silencer, I get you being a Kiwi you're not too happy with MMP either but i would honestly love being in a system where my vote for an alternative party ends up having an impact and is more then just a "feel good" statistic. I'd like to empower parties with lesser voice to bring about policy change because with an effectively two party system, all you get is a status quo that is very resistant to significant reform even when it is direly needed.

QT wants a PR vote, if I understood him correctly, as "the simplest system to change to"

To be perfectly honest, I feel that when we are dealing with issues of national importance, it's more important that the party/person I vote for best aligns with my beliefs, rather than they have a specific tie to my place of residence. Ideology over personality should be more important in more global matters. On lower levels, personal representation should matter more. But that's just my opinion.

This post has been edited by Mentalist: 24 October 2019 - 02:26 AM

[Maark Abbott]

Abyss, on 23 October 2019 - 01:54 PM, said:

Maark Abbott, on 23 October 2019 - 01:04 PM, said:

Abyss, on 23 October 2019 - 03:54 AM, said:

What's the acronym for the system where candidates hit each other with swords?

HEOWSUOFDAID.

Damn you Maark now i need to decipher that...

Hit each other with swords until one falls down and is dead

[Maark Abbott]

Tiste Simeon, on 23 October 2019 - 09:04 PM, said:

Dance off. Most politicians are crusty old white dudes. You really want to see that?

In the UK we call the psychological horror of dancing politicians 'Tere-TSD'

[Silencer]

LinearPhilosopher, on 24 October 2019 - 02:16 AM, said:

Abyss, on 23 October 2019 - 03:54 AM, said:

What's the acronym for the system where candidates hit each other with swords?

Elbowgate 2.0

But seriously QT do you have anything against FTPT aside from "oh its a different system people don't want change". Change is good if advertised properly.

@ Silencer, I get you being a Kiwi you're not too happy with MMP either but i would honestly love being in a system where my vote for an alternative party ends up having an impact and is more then just a "feel good" statistic. I'd like to empower parties with lesser voice to bring about policy change because with an effectively two party system, all you get is a status quo that is very resistant to significant reform even when it is direly needed.

As I said, it's better than FPTP regardless, however what I'm saying is that you will still have a two party system and your vote for am alternative party likely will still not matter (unless they happen to be a kingmaker vote due to close elections, in which case most minor parties are disenfranchised except for that one, leading to a possibly radical minority dictating policy).

I hope otherwise, but both Australia and NZ politics are dominated by 2 parties despite systems to offer more proportional representation, largely because: people still are too afraid to vote for smaller parties because they think their vote will be "wasted", have age old prejudices against them that don't really apply any more, or disagree with one of their policies, etc. Any of that sound familiar? It's the exact same situation we had with FPTP but with MMP.

I don't share QTs belief that changing the system is hard. Or that picking a better system is somehow harder to sell than MMP. But I do believe it's very hard to get people to change their voting behaviour.
Which is why I recommend skipping MMP and building something better, so that the effort of changing is not more or less wasted (at least until the generations more used to the new system have the voting majority, which will be decades away from the date of change).
Build a system that accounts for people wanting to play it safe, vote for two of the major parties even though the new system doesn't waste your votes, build one that isn't subject to as much confusion or misinformation....because going with MMP or STV won't actually make much of a difference when the population at large still treats it like FPTP. (And no, education is not the answer...there has been sooooo much of that in these countries, it still doesn't work. The issue is more ingrained behaviour, so you need a systemic fix instead of external advisories to free people to vote for smaller parties, and ideally the actual governmental structure would be changed to make this something other than a case of swapping two parties for one party and a coalition bloc that might as well be one party because they have basically the same policies or have insufficient votes to exert influence on the bigger party in the bloc to get their actually different policies through.....

[Brujah]

You Canadians, Aussies, and Kiwis are the last hope. If you guys falter, there will be nowhere else we can dream of living one day instead of here. Hold it together.

[Tsundoku]

Completely out of context crosspost from another thread, but posted because this needs to go into the Canadian National Anthem, or on the coat of arms:

"Quite frankly I don't have to be careful about anything man.

I'm Canadian." - QT

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 19 December 2019 - 03:48 PM